Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pension will be recognized as pension expense as follows:
70 5.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
B. Miscellaneous Plan (Continued)
Year Ended Annual
June 30 Amortization
2023 ($2,311,372)
2024 (2,244,395)
2025 (2,310,666)
2026 (2,668,805)
($9,535,238)
Contributions, Actuarial assumptions and information regarding the discount rate are discussed in Note 7E below.
C. Safety Plan
GASB 68, paragraph 68 states that the long-term expected rate of return should be determined net of pension plan investment expense, but without reduction for pension plan administrative expense. The discount rate of 7.15% used for the June 30, 2021 measurement date is without reduction of pension plan administrative expense.
Benefits Provided – CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full-time employment. Members with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits. All members are eligible for non-duty disability benefits after 10 years of service. The death benefit is one of the following: the Basic Death Benefit, the 1957 Survivor Benefit, or the Optional Settlement 2W Death Benefit. The cost-of-living adjustments for each plan are applied as specified by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law.
The Plans’ provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2022, are summarized as follows:
71 5.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
C. Safety Plan (Continued)
Safety-Police
Hire date
Prior to
January 1, 2013
On or after
January 1, 2013
Benefit formula 3% @ 50 2.7% @ 57
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life
Retirement age 50 50
Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible compensation 3% 2-2.7% Required employee contribution rates 8.99% 13.00%
Required employer contribution rates 23.71% 13.13%
Safety-Fire
Hire date
Prior to
January 1, 2013
On or after
January 1, 2013
Benefit formula 3% @ 55 2.7% @ 57
Benefit vesting schedule 5 years service 5 years service Benefit payments monthly for life monthly for life
Retirement age 50 50
Monthly benefits, as a % of eligible compensation 2.4-3% 2-2.7% Required employee contribution rates 8.99% 13.00%
Required employer contribution rates 21.79% 13.13%
Contributions, actuarial assumptions and information regarding the discount rate are discussed in Note 7E below.
As of June 30, 2022, the City reported net pension liabilities for its proportionate shares of the net pension liability of the Safety Plan as $24,515,482.
Sensitivity of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the net pension liability of the City for the Safety Plan, calculated using the discount rate, as well as what the City’s net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current rate:
Safety
1% Decrease 6.15%
Net Pension Liability $42,721,032
Current Discount Rate 7.15%
Net Pension Liability $24,515,482
1% Increase 8.15%
Net Pension Liability $9,561,871
72 5.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
C. Safety Plan (Continued)
Pension Liabilities, Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions – For purposes of measuring the net pension liability and deferred outflows/inflows or resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Plans and additions to/deductions from the Plans’ fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by the CalPERS Financial Office. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when currently due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
The City’s net pension liability for the Plan is measured as the proportionate share of the net pension liability. The net pension liability of the Plan is measured as of June 30, 2021, using an annual actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2020 rolled forward to June 30, 2021 using standard update procedures. The City’s proportion of the net pension liability was based on a projection of the City’s long-term share of contributions to the pension plan relative to the projected contributions of all participating employers, actuarially determined. The City’s proportionate share of the net pension liability for the Plan as of June 30, 2021 and 2020 was as follows:
Proportion - June 30, 2020 0.571%
Proportion - June 30, 2021 0.699%
Change - Increase (Decrease) 0.128%
For the year ended June 30, 2022, the City recognized pension expense of $4,644,769. At June 30, 2022, the City reported deferred outflows of resources related to pensions for the Plan from the following sources:
Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows
of Resources of Resources
Pension contributions subsequent to measurement date $3,932,902 Differences between actual and expected experience 4,188,449 Changes in assumptions
Net differences between projected and actual earnings on plan investments ($14,591,425)
Differences between actual
contributions and proportionate share of contributions (3,188,044) Change in proportion 984,941
Total $9,106,292 ($17,779,469)
Safety
73 5.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
C. Safety Plan (Continued)
The contributions made after the measurement date of the net pension liability but before the end of the City’s reporting period will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the subsequent fiscal year rather than in the current fiscal year. Therefore, $3,932,902 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended June 30, 2023.
Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pension will be recognized as pension expense as follows:
Year Ended Annual
June 30 Amortization
2023 ($2,551,882)
2024 (2,831,439)
2025 (3,207,400)
2026 (4,015,358)
($12,606,079)
D. PARS Plan
Plan Description – The City’s Agent Multiple-Employer PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan (REP) was implemented July 1, 2003 and closed to new participants hired after January 1, 2012. Eligibility to participate in REP is for the following positions: City Attorney, Administrative Services Director, non-safety Department Director or non-safety management employee of the City on or after July 1, 2003. Participants receiving the benefits are non-safety Management Group Employees. This plan is separate from CalPERS and is established as a 401(a) Defined Benefit Plan. The REP is administered by PARS.
The REP provides a benefit equal to 0.5% of final average compensation for City management service earned after plan inception (July 1, 2003). In addition, any City employee in a covered management position as of the date of plan inception will receive up to an additional 10 years of service for any City service (management or non-management) prior to July 1, 2003.
Eligibility for an immediate benefit is defined as reaching age 55, completing five years of fulltime City management service, and retiring concurrently from both the City and CalPERS after leaving City employment.
Employees Covered – At June 30, 2022, the following employees covered by the benefit terms of the plan.
REP
Inactive employees or beneficiaries
currently receiving benefits 18
Inactive employees entitled to but not yet
receiving benefits 0
Active employees 7
Total 25
74 5.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
D. PARS Plan (Continued)
Changes in the Net Pension Liability – The net pension liability of the REP is measured as of June 30, 2020, using an annual actuarial valuation as of June 30:
Increase (Decrease)
Total Pension
Liability
Plan Fiduciary
Net Position
Net Pension
Liability/(Asset)
Balance at June 30, 2021 Measurement Date $4,056,631 $2,609,863 $1,446,768 Changes in the year:
Service cost 20,726 20,726
Interest on the total pension liability 267,267 267,267 Contribution - employer 97,904 (97,904)
Net investment income (337,585) 337,585
Effect of plan changes
Effect of economic/demographic gains or losses 24,928 24,928 Effect of assumptions changes or inputs
Administrative expenses (9,848) 9,848
Benefit payments, including refunds of employee
contributions (239,609) (239,609)
Net changes 73,312 (489,138) 562,450
Balance at June 30, 2022 Measurement Date $4,129,943 $2,120,725 $2,009,218 Sensitivity of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the net pension liability of the City for the PARS Plan, calculated using the discount rate, as well as what the City’s net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower or 1 percentage point higher than the current rate:
REP
1% Decrease 5.75%
Net Pension Liability $2,462,516
Current Discount Rate 6.75%
Net Pension Liability $2,009,218
1% Increase 7.75%
Net Pension Liability $1,626,558
75 5.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
D. PARS Plan (Continued)
Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions – For the year ended June 30, 2022, the City recognized pension expense of $206,640. At June 30, 2022, the City reported deferred outflows of resources related to pensions for the Plan from the following sources:
REP
Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows
of Resources of Resources
Net differences between projected and actual earnings on plan investments $237,330
Total $237,330
The REP Measurement Date is the same as the fiscal year end date, therefore, the fiscal year 2022 contribution of $97,904 was recognized as part of the pension expense during the current year. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pension will be recognized as pension expense as follows:
Year Ended Annual
June 30 Amortization
2023 $52,719
2024 50,085
2025 32,783
2026 101,743
$237,330
Contributions, Actuarial assumptions and information regarding the discount rate are discussed in Note 7E below.
E. Information Common to the Miscellaneous, Safety and PARS Plans Beginning in fiscal year 2016, CalPERS collects employer contributions for the cost-sharing plan as a percentage of payroll for the normal cost portion as noted in the rates above and as a dollar amount for contributions toward the unfunded liability and side fund. The dollar amounts are billed on a monthly basis. The City’s required contribution for the unfunded liability in the Miscellaneous and Safety Plans were $1,699,271 and $2,750,897 respectively.
Contributions – The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability for each Plan was
7.15%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate for each Plan assumed that contributions from all plan members in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) will be made at the current member contribution rates and the contributions from employers will be made at statutorily required rates, actuarially determined. Based on those assumptions, each Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members for all plans in the PERF. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on plan investments was applied to all period of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability for each Plan.
76 5.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
E. Information Common to the Miscellaneous, Safety and PARS Plans (Continued) PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan (REP) – The City makes all contributions necessary to fund the benefits available under the REP. Employees are not permitted to make any contributions.
Subsequent Event – Reduction of CalPERS Discount Rate – On July 12, 2021, CalPERS reported a preliminary 21.3% net return on investments for fiscal year 2020-21. Based on the thresholds specified in CalPERS Funding Risk Mitigation policy approved by the CalPERS Board in 2015, the excess return of 14.3% prescribes a reduction in investment volatility that corresponds to a reduction in the discount rate used for funding purposes of 0.20%, from 7.00% to 6.80%. Since CalPERS was in the final stages of the four-year Asset Liability Management (ALM) cycle, the CalPERS Board elected to defer any changes to the asset allocation until the ALM process concluded.
On November 17, 2021, the board adopted a new strategic asset allocation. The new asset allocation along with the new capital market assumptions, economic assumptions and administrative expense assumption support a discount rate of 6.90% (net of investment expense, but without a reduction for administrative expense) for financial reporting purposes.
This includes a reduction in the price inflation assumption from 2.50% to 2.30% as recommended in the November 2021 CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions. This study also recommended modifications to retirement rates, termination rates, mortality rates and rates of salary increases that were adopted by the CalPERS Board.
These new assumptions will be reflected in the CalPERS GASB 68 accounting valuation reports for the June 30, 2022, measurement date.
77 5.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
F. Information Common to the Miscellaneous, Safety and PARS Plans (Continued) Actuarial Assumptions – For the measurement period ended June 30, 2021, the total pension liabilities were determined by rolling forward the June 30, 2020 total pension liability. The June 30, 2021 total pension liabilities were based on the following actuarial methods and assumptions:
CalPERS PARS REP
Valuation Date June 30, 2020 June 30, 2020
Measurement Date June 30, 2021 June 30, 2021
Actuarial Cost Method
Actuarial Assumptions:
Discount Rate 7.15% 6.75%
Inflation 2.50% 2.50%
Payroll Growth 2.88% 2.75%
Projected Salary Increase Varied by Entry Age and Service Consistent with the rates used to value
the Miscellaneous Agency CalPERS
Pension Plans (Entry Age 30).
Investment Rate of Return 7.25% (1) 6.75%
Mortality
Derived using CalPERS' Membership
Data for all Funds (2)
Pre-retirement: Consistent with the NonIndustrial rates used to value Miscellaneous Agency CalPERS Pension
Plans after June 30, 2017. Postretirement: Consistent with the NonIndustrial rates used to value Miscellaneous Agency CalPERS Pension
Plans after June 30, 2017.
Post Retirement Benefit Increase
The lesser of contract COLA or 2.50%
until Purchasing Power Protection
Allowance floor on purchasing power
applies, 2.50% thereafter
Retirement rates of 30% per year starting
at age 50 with required years of service.
100% retirement is assumed as age 70.
(1) Net of pension plan investment expenses, including inflation Entry-Age Normal in accordance with the requirements of GASB 68 (2) The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS’ specific data.
The probabilities of mortality are based on the 2017 CalPERS Experience Study for the period from 1997 to 2015. Pre-retirement and post-retirement mortality rates include 15 years of projected mortality improvement using 90% of Scale MP2016 published by the Society of Actuaries. For more details on this table, please refer to the CalPERS Experience Study and Review of Actuarial Assumptions report from December 2017 that can be found on the CalPERS website.
California Public Employees Retirement System Plans (CalPERS) The underlying mortality assumptions and all other actuarial assumptions used in the June 30, 2020 valuation were based on the results of a January 2014 actuarial experience study for the period 1997 to 2011. Further details of the Experience Study can be found on the CalPERS website.
78 5.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
E. Information Common to the Miscellaneous, Safety and PARS Plans (Continued) Discount Rate – The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability for each Plan was
7.15%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate for each Plan assumed that contributions from all plan members in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) will be made at the current member contribution rates and that contributions from employers will be made at statutorily required rates, actuarially determined. Based on those assumptions, each Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected future benefit payments of current plan members for all plans in the PERF. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total pension liability for each Plan.
The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building-block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.
In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows.
Using forecasted information for all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound (geometric) returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years) and the long-term (11+ years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-term and longterm, the present value of benefits was calculated for each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and long-term returns. The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single equivalent rate calculated above and adjusted to account for assumed administrative expenses.
The table below reflects the long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation. These rates of return are net of administrative expenses.
Asset Class (a)
Assumed
Asset
Allocation
Real Return
Years 1 - 10(b)
Real Return
Years 11+(c)
Public Equity 50.0% 4.80% 5.98%
Global Fixed Income 28.0% 1.00% 2.62%
Inflation Sensitive 0.0% 0.77% 1.81%
Private Equity 8.0% 6.30% 7.23%
Real Estate 13.0% 3.75% 4.93%
Liquidity 1.0% 0.00% -0.92%
Total 100%
(a) In the CalPERS Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, Fixed Income is included in Global Debt Securities; Liquidity is included in Short-Term Investments; Inflation Assets are included in both Global Equity Securities and Global Debt Securities. (b) An expected inflation of 2.0% used for this period. (c) An expected inflation of 2.92% used for this period. 79 5.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 7 – Pension Plans (Continued):
E. Information Common to the Miscellaneous, Safety and PARS Plans (Continued) Pension Liability – In December 2016, CalPERS’ Board of Directors voted to lower the discount rate from 7.5% to 7.0% over the next three fiscal years, beginning in fiscal year 2019.
The change in the discount rate will affect the contribution rates beginning in fiscal year 2019 and result in increases to the normal costs and unfunded actuarial liabilities.
PARS Retirement Enhancement Plan (REP)
The REP’s range for the long-term expected rate of return is determined by adding expected inflation to expected long-term real returns and reflecting expected volatility and correlation as follows:
Asset Class
Target
Allocation
Long-term
Expected
Arithmetic Real
Rate of Return
Cash 5.61% -0.21%
Core Fixed Income 45.14% 1.95%
Broad US Equities 39.29% 5.70%
Developed Foreign Equities 4.92% 6.99%
Emerging Market Equities 3.22% 9.44%
US REITs 1.82% 6.27%
Total 100%
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Detailed information about the pension plan’s fiduciary net position with CalPERS and PARS are available in the separately issued CalPERS financial report with CalPERS and City of Pacifica, respectively.
NOTE 8 – Risk Management:
A. Workers’ Compensation
The City is a member of the Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California, which pools risks under the terms of a joint-powers agreement with 31 other cities and governmental agencies.
The City has no workers’ compensation deductible for claims and the Authority covers claims up to $500,000. The Authority purchases excess insurance from $500,000 to the statutory limit.
The City paid premiums of $959,229 during fiscal year end June 30, 2022 for workers’ compensation and excess workers’ compensation coverage.
The Authority is governed by a Board consisting of representatives from member municipalities.
The Board controls the operations of the Authority, including selection of management and approval of operating budgets, independent of any influence by member municipalities beyond their representation on the Board.
80 5.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 8 – Risk Management (Continued):
A. Workers’ Compensation (Continued)
The City’s deposits with the Authority are in accordance with formulas established by the Authority. Actual surpluses or losses are shared according to a formula developed from overall loss costs and spread to member entities on a percentage basis after a retrospective rating.
Audited financial statements can be obtained from Municipal Pooling Authority, 1911 San Miguel Drive #100, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
B. General Liability
On July 1, 1986, the City became a member of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN). PLAN is a not-for-profit organization established to provide certain levels of liability insurance coverage, claims and risk management services, and legal defense to thirty- one San Francisco Bay Area cities. PLAN is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of officials appointed by each participating member and is administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Complete financial statements for ABAG PLAN may be obtained from their offices at the following address: ABAG PLAN Corporation, Finance Department, 375 Beale Street, Ste 700, San Francisco, CA 94105- 2066.
The City paid premiums of $1,445,676 during fiscal year end June 30, 2022 for general liability and property coverage in excess of the City’s self-insured retention. Members may receive rebates when declared by ABAG or, in the event excess liability claims against ABAG exceed available resources, may be required to make additional contributions.
The City is self-insured for the first $50,000 of general and property liability for each occurrence, and the excess (up to $10,000,000 for each occurrence and annual aggregate) is covered through the City’s participation in the ABAG PLAN.
C. Dental
On July 1, 1988, the City established a program of self-insurance with respect to Employee's Dental Insurance, in accordance with the provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and all full-time employees. This program is administered by Preferred Benefit Insurance Administrators and provides claims review and processing. The maximum benefit per employee per plan year varies between $1,500 and $2,000; the maximum benefit per dependent per plan year is also between $1,500 and $2,000.
The City maintains an internal service fund to account for these insurance programs. Claims expenses and liabilities are reported when it is probable that a loss has occurred and the amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. These losses include an estimate of claims that have been incurred but not reported.
81 5.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 8 – Risk Management (Continued):
C. Dental (Continued)
Changes in the total reported liability resulted from the following:
Fiscal Year ended in June 30,
2021 2022
July 1 Liability $216,408 $305,345
Claims & change in estimate 429,800 375,560
Payments for claims (340,863) (376,701)
June 30 Liability $305,345 $304,204
NOTE 9 – Interfund Transactions:
Activities between funds that are representative of lending/borrowing arrangements outstanding at the end of the fiscal year are referred to as interfund receivables/interfund payables (i.e., the current portion of interfund loans) or advances to/from other funds (the noncurrent portion of interfund loans). All other outstanding balances between funds are reported as interfund receivables or interfund payables. Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and the business-type activities are reported in the government-wide financial statements as internal balances.
A. Transfers
Resources may be transferred from one City/District fund to another. The purpose of the majority of transfers is to move resources from one fund to another. Less often, a transfer may be made to open or close a fund.
B. Internal Balances
Internal balances are presented in the entity-wide financial statements only. They represent the net interfund receivables and payables after the elimination of all such balances within governmental and business-type activities.
82 5.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 9 – Interfund Transactions (Continued):
B. Internal Balances (Continued)
The following is a summary of transfers for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022:
Transfers In Transfers Out
Major Governmental Funds:
General Fund $1,130,919 (A) $5,133,739 (C)
3,820,000 (C)
2,541,941 (B)
Major Enterprise Funds:
(A) 499,600
Nonmajor Governmental Funds:
1,222,574 (A)
(C) 132,081 20,000 (A)
(C) 1,153,662 750,000 (A)
Davies Trust Special Revenue Fund 325,000 (A)
Pacifica Library Capital Projects Fund (C) 30,000
(A) 132,000
Fire Equipment Replacement Fund (A) 41,796
Total $8,466,656 $8,466,656
(A) For general government operation purposes
(B) For debt services payments
(C) For various city projects
Sewer Utility Fund
Internal Service Funds:
Self Insurance Fund
Funds
General Capital Improvement Fund
NPDES Stormwater Special Revenue Fund
Debt Service Fund
Gas Tax Fund
Street Construction Special Revenue Fund
C. Advances
At June 30, 2022, the funds below had made advances that are not expected to be repaid within the next year. These long-term interfund advances are expected to be repaid out of future fees.
Advances from Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund to General Fund $649,938 as of June 30, 2022:
• Per the repayment plan approved by the Pacifica City Council on June 23, 2014, and revised on June 24, 2019, repayment of this advance began in 2017-18 and conclude in 2023-24.
Advances from General Fund to NPDES Special Revenue Fund was fully repaid as of June 30, 2022.
Advances from Street Construction Special Revenue Fund to General Capital Improvement Capital Projects Fund was fully repaid as of June 30, 2022. 83 5.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 10 – Loan Receivable from Successor Agency Private-purpose Trust Fund:
Prior to the dissolution of the former redevelopment agency, the General Fund had loaned money to the former Redevelopment Agency Rockaway Beach Fund to carry out redevelopment activities. As a result of the dissolution, the loan receivable is now recorded as a loan receivable from the Successor Agency Private-purpose Trust Fund. Interest accrues on the original advance at the current Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rate and effective September 22, 2015, calculated at a simple interest rate of 3%. At June 30, 2022, outstanding loans totaled $1,900,000 in principal and $1,794,796 in accrued interest.
NOTE 11 – Net Position and Fund Balances:
A. Net Position
GASB Statement No. 63 adds the concept of net position, which is measured on the full accrual basis, to the concept of Fund Balance, which is measured on the modified accrual basis.
Net position is divided into three captions under GASB Statement No. 34 and 63. These captions apply only to net position as determined at the government-wide level, and are described below:
Net Investment in Capital Assets describes the portion of net position, which is represented by the current net book value of the City’s capital assets, less the outstanding balance of any debt issued to finance these assets.
Restricted describes the portion of net position which is restricted as to use by the terms and conditions of agreements with outside parties, governmental regulations, laws, or other restrictions which the City cannot unilaterally alter. These principally include capital projects, revolving loan programs, and other various grant programs.
Unrestricted describes the portion of net position which is not restricted as to use.
When both restricted and unrestricted net position is available, restricted resources are depleted first before the unrestricted resources are used.
B. Fund Balances
Fund balance is divided into five classifications based primarily on the extent to which the City is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources in the governmental funds.
The classifications are as follows:
Nonspendable – The nonspendable fund balance category includes amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in spendable form, or legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. The “not in spendable form” criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash. It also includes the long-term amount of interfund loans.
Restricted – Fund balance is reported as restricted when constraints placed on the use of resources are either externally imposed by creditors (such as through debt covenants), grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or is imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation (City ordinances). 84 5.a
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 11 – Net Position and Fund Balances (Continued):
B. Fund Balances (Continued)
Enabling legislation authorizes the City to assess, levy, charge, or otherwise mandate payment of resources (from external resource providers) and includes a legally enforceable requirement that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation. Legal enforceability means that the City can be compelled by an external party-such as citizens, public interest groups, or the judiciary to use resources created by enabling legislation only for the purposes specified by the legislation.
Committed – The committed fund balance classification includes amounts that can be used only for the specific purposes imposed by formal action (ordinance) of City Council. Those committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless City Council removes or changes the specified use by taking the same type of action (ordinance) it employed to previously commit those amounts. In contrast to fund balance that is restricted by enabling legislation, committed fund balance classification may be redeployed for other purposes with appropriate due process. Constraints imposed on the use of committed amounts are imposed by City Council, separate from the authorization to raise the underlying revenue; therefore, compliance with these constraints is not considered to be legally enforceable. Committed fund balance also incorporates contractual obligations to the extent that existing resources in the fund have been specifically committed for use in satisfying those contractual requirements.
Assigned – Amounts in the assigned fund balance classification are intended to be used by the City for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed.
In the General Fund, assigned amounts represent intended uses established by City Council or a City official delegated that authority by City ordinance (City Manager).
Unassigned – Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the General Fund and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the other classifications. In other governmental funds, the unassigned classification is used only to report a deficit balance resulting from overspending for specific purposes for which amounts had been restricted, committed, or assigned.
The City applies restricted resources first when expenditures are incurred for purposes for which either restricted or unrestricted (committed, assigned, and unassigned) amounts are available.
Similarly, within unrestricted fund balance, committed amounts are reduced first followed by assigned, and then unassigned amounts when expenditures are incurred for purposes for which amounts in any of the unrestricted fund balance classifications could be used. 85 5.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 11 – Net Position and Fund Balances (Continued):
B. Fund Balances (Continued)
The constraints placed on fund balance for the major governmental funds and all other governmental funds at June 30, 2022 are as follows:
General
Disaster Capital Debt Non-Major Total
Accounting Improvement Service Governmental Governmental General Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds
Nonspendable:
Prepaid items $126,958 $126,958
Loan receivable 3,641,599 3,641,599
Advances
Subtotal 3,768,557 3,768,557
Restricted for:
PARS Pension Trust 342,510 342,510
Supplemental
law enforcement $225,763 225,763
Trust Activities 2,757,814 2,757,814
Catastrophic events $6,088,414 6,088,414
Streets and roads 2,446,822 2,446,822
Housing 606,331 606,331
Parking 2,237,102 2,237,102
Debt services $5,317,384 5,317,384
Stormwater operations 324,165 324,165
Capital projects $6,722,964 2,697,426 9,420,390
Subtotal 342,510 6,088,414 6,722,964 5,317,384 11,295,423 29,766,695 Assigned for:
Fund Balance Reserve 3,810,040 3,810,040
Facility Main & Replace Reserve 205,000 205,000
Compensated Absences Reserve 200,000 200,000
Child Care Reserve 488,591 488,591
Legal Reserve 100,000 100,000
Subtotal 4,803,631 4,803,631
Unassigned 7,377,526 (619,786) 6,757,740
Total $16,292,224 $6,088,414 $6,722,964 $5,317,384 $10,675,637 $45,096,623 C. Net Investment in Capital Assets
The Net Investment in Capital Assets are calculated as below:
Governmental Business-Type
Activities Activities Total
Capital Asset, net of accumulated depreciation $88,559,682 $62,561,864 $151,121,546 Less: Capital debt (19,067,133) (36,463,566) (55,530,699) Plus: Unspent bond proceeds - - -
Net Investment in Capital Asset $69,492,549 $26,098,298 $95,590,847 D. Restatement of beginning fund balances and net position During the fiscal year 2022, the City performed a reconciliation of various funds and accounts, and as a result, the beginning fund balances for General Fund, the Housing Successor special revenue funds, and the beginning net position for the Sewer Utility enterprise fund and the Successor Agency Private Purpose Trust Fund were restated by ($655,344), $362,317, $1,095,458 and ($803,744) respectively. As a result, the Beginning net positions at July 1, 2021 for the Governmental Activities and Business Activities were restated by ($293,027) and $1,095,458 respectively.
86 5.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 12 – Contingencies:
Amounts received or receivable from grantor agencies are subject to audit and adjustment by grantor agencies, principally the Federal Government. Any disallowed claims, including amounts already collected, may constitute a liability of the applicable funds. The amount, if any, of expenditures which may be disallowed by the grantor cannot be determined at this time, although the City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.
NOTE 13 – Successor Agency to Former Redevelopment Agency Activities:
On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court upheld Assembly Bill 1X 26 (“the Bill”) that provides for the dissolution of all redevelopment agencies in the State of California. This action impacted the reporting entity of the City of Pacifica that previously had reported a redevelopment agency within the reporting entity of the City as a blended component unit. On January 23, 2012, the City Council elected to become the Successor Agency for the former redevelopment agency in accordance with the Bill as part of the City resolution number 01- 2012.
Long Range Property Management Plan – On December 10, 2015, the Successor Agency received confirmation from the California Department of Finance that it had reviewed and approved the Successor Agency’s Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP).
Loan Payable to the City – Please see Note 10.
Long-term Debt – Long-term debt of the Successor Agency as of June 30, 2022, consisted of the following:
Balance Balance Due in
July 01, 2021 Additions Retirements June 30, 2022 One Year $3,694,796 $57,000 ($110,197) $3,641,599 $125,335
1,015,000 ($70,000) 945,000 75,000
Total $4,709,796 $57,000 ($180,197) $4,586,599 $200,335 2004 Tax allocation bonds
Loan payable to City
2004 Tax Allocation Bonds: In August 2004, the former Redevelopment Agency (Agency) issued $1,725,000 in Rockaway Beach Redevelopment Project 2004 Tax Allocation Bonds at interest rates ranging from 2.9% to 5.75%. The net proceeds of the bonds were issued to refinance redevelopment activities by repaying a portion of the loan made by the City to the Agency and to establish a reserve fund. Interest on the bonds will be payable semiannually on January 1 and July 1 each year, commencing January 1, 2005. The bonds mature on July 1, 2031. The bonds are payable exclusively from pledged tax revenues to be derived from the project area and from the amounts on deposits in certain funds and accounts, including the reserve account and the revenue account.
The Bonds are general obligations of the Agency payable by the Agency. The bond covenants contain events of default that require the revenue of the Agency to be applied by the Trustee as specified in the terms of the agreement if any of the following conditions occur: default on debt service payments; the failure of the Agency to observe or perform the conditions, covenants, or agreement terms of the debt; bankruptcy filing by the Agency; or if any court or competent jurisdiction shall assume custody or control of the Agency. No such events occurred during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.
87 5.a
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
NOTE 13 – Successor Agency to Former Redevelopment Agency Activities (Continued):
Annual debt service requirements, to maturity, for the 2004 Tax Allocation Bonds are as follows:
Fiscal year ended Principal Interest Total
2023 $75,000 $52,084 $127,084
2024 75,000 47,809 122,809
2025 80,000 43,392 123,392
2026 85,000 38,669 123,669
2027 90,000 33,638 123,638
2028 - 2032 540,000 81,363 621,363
Total $945,000 $296,955 $1,241,955
88 5.a
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
5.a
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
Miscellaneous Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Last 10 Years*
Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios Miscellaneous
6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017
Total Pension Liability
Service Cost $1,445,205 $1,427,162 $1,495,380 $1,631,204 Interest 5,862,583 6,123,624 6,346,516 6,501,283
Differences between expected and actual experience (328,078) (755,420) (1,136,322) Changes in assumptions (1,478,509) 5,308,829
Changes in benefits
Benefit payments, including refunds of employee
contributions (3,440,758) (3,784,383) (4,047,332) (4,185,238) Net change in total pension liability 1,959,816 3,867,030 3,039,144 8,119,756 Total pension liability - beginning 79,165,549 83,032,579 84,992,395 88,031,539 Total pension liability - ending (a) $83,032,579 $84,992,395 $88,031,539 $96,151,295 Plan fiduciary net position
Contributions - employer $993,077 $1,081,227 $1,256,738 $1,459,527 Contributions - employee 622,734 622,660 685,119 711,067 Net investment income 11,283,773 1,641,405 382,638 7,967,324 Administrative expense (83,654) (45,303) (107,140)
Benefit payments, including refunds of employee
contributions (3,440,758) (3,784,383) (4,047,332) (4,185,238) Net Plan to Plan Resource Movement
Other Miscellaneous Income/(Expense)
Net change in plan fiduciary net position 9,458,826 (522,745) (1,768,140) 5,845,540 Plan fiduciary net position - beginning 65,398,696 74,857,522 74,334,777 72,566,637 Plan fiduciary net position - ending (b) $74,857,522 $74,334,777 $72,566,637 $78,412,177 Net pension liability - ending (a)-(b) $8,175,057 $10,657,618 $15,464,902 $17,739,118 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 90.15% 87.46% 82.43% 81.55%
Covered payroll $7,982,929 $8,049,221 $8,463,442 $9,007,097 Net pension liability as percentage of covered payroll 102.41% 132.41% 182.73% 196.95% Notes to Schedule:
* Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation.
Benefit changes - The figures above do not include any liability impact that may have resulted from plan changes which occurred after the June 30. This applies for voluntary benefit changes as well as any offers of Two Years Additional Service Credit (a.k.a.
Golden Handshakes).
Changes in assumptions - In 2017, the accounting discount rate reduced from 7.65 percent to 7.15 percent. In 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, there were no changes. In 2015, amounts reported reflect an adjustment of the discount rate from 7.5 percent (net of administrative expense) to 7.65 percent (without a reduction for pension plan administrative expense.) In 2014, amounts reported were based on the 7.5 percent discount rate. 90 5.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
Miscellaneous
6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021
$1,716,353 $1,756,360 $1,869,810 $1,748,773
6,687,032 7,042,527 7,404,044 7,659,792
(407,869) 1,371,619 1,330,180 (230,958)
(739,131)
(4,675,098) (4,971,021) (5,288,206) (5,522,755)
2,581,287 5,199,485 5,315,828 3,654,852
96,151,295 98,732,582 103,932,067 109,247,895
$98,732,582 $103,932,067 $109,247,895 $112,902,747
$1,571,937 $1,896,427 $2,217,115 $2,515,162
749,462 733,521 769,486 782,756
6,524,986 5,347,965 4,206,783 19,473,439
(122,188) (58,680) (120,079) (86,870)
(4,675,098) (4,971,021) (5,288,206) (5,522,755)
(191)
(232,037) 191
3,816,871 2,948,403 1,785,099 17,161,732
78,412,177 82,229,048 85,177,451 86,962,550
$82,229,048 $85,177,451 $86,962,550 $104,124,282
$16,503,534 $18,754,616 $22,285,345 $8,778,465
83.28% 81.95% 79.60% 92.22%
$9,138,180 $9,754,931 $11,058,613 $10,084,809
180.60% 192.26% 201.52% 87.05%
91 5.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actuarially determined contribution $1,081,226 $1,256,739 $1,454,468 $1,571,900 $1,896,427 Contributions in relation to the
actuarially determined contributions (1,081,226) (1,256,739) (1,454,468) (1,571,900) (1,896,427) Contribution deficiency (excess) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Covered payroll $8,049,221 $8,463,442 $9,007,097 $9,138,180 $9,754,931 Contributions as a % of covered 13.43% 14.85% 16.15% 17.20% 19.44% Notes to Schedule
Valuation date: 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2020 2021 2022
Actuarially determined contribution $2,217,115 $2,515,162 $2,691,698 Contributions in relation to the
actuarially determined contributions (2,217,115) (2,515,162) (2,691,698) Contribution deficiency (excess) $0 $0 $0
Covered payroll $11,058,613 $10,084,809 $10,091,313
Contributions as a % of covered 20.05% 24.94% 26.67%
Notes to Schedule
Valuation date: 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020
Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates:
Actuarial cost method Entry age normal
Amortization method Level percentage of payroll
Asset valuation method Market Value of Assets
Inflation 2.75% for 2015 to 2019, 2.625% for 2020, 2.50% for 2021, and 2.375% for 2022.
Salary increases Varies by entry age and service
Payroll Growth 2.75%
Retirement age
Mortality
* Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation.
Schedule of Contributions
Last 10 Years*
Miscellaneous Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan The probabilities of retirement are based on the CalPERS Experience Study.
The probabilities of mortality are based on the CalPERS Experience Study. Pre-retirement and Post-retirement mortality rates include 20 years of projected mortality improvement using Scale AA published by the Society of Actuaries for 2015 to 2018. For 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, pre-retirement and post-retirement mortality rates include 15 years of projected mortality improvement using 90% of Scale MP2016 published by the Society of Actuaries.
Investment rate of return 7.50% for 2015 to 2018, 7.375% for 2019, 7.25% for 2020, 7.125% for 2021, and 7.000% for 2022, net of pension plan investment expense and administrative expenses, includes inflation
Miscellaneous
92 5.a
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
Measurement Date 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 Plan's proportion of the Net Pension
Liability (Asset) 0.50100% 0.57100% 0.00000% 0.52919% 0.54700% Plan's proportion share of the Net Pension
Liability (Asset) $18,808,357 $20,914,148 $27,461,120 $31,620,401 $32,079,854 Plan's Covered Payroll $6,019,600 $5,843,663 $5,928,087 $6,058,030 $5,988,447 Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net
Pension Liability/(Asset) as a Percentage
of its Covered Payroll 312.45% 357.89% 463.24% 521.96% 521.96% Plan’s Fiduciary Net Position as a
Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 79.82% 78.40% 74.06% 73.31% 75.26% Measurement Date 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021
Plan's proportion of the Net Pension
Liability (Asset) 0.55658% 0.57053% 0.69850%
Plan's proportion share of the Net Pension
Liability (Asset) $34,744,594 $38,010,670 $24,515,482
Plan's Covered Payroll $6,575,368 $4,398,589 $7,147,760 Plan's Proportionate Share of the Net
Pension Liability/(Asset) as a Percentage
of its Covered Payroll 535.70% 528.41% 864.16%
Plan’s Fiduciary Net Position as a
Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 75.26% 75.10% 81.87% * Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation.
Safety Plan
AND RELATED RATIOS AS OF THE MEASUREMENT DATE
SCHEDULE OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NET PENSION LIABILITY Last 10 Years*
Safety Cost Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan 93 5.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actuarially determined contributions $1,437,730 $1,364,845 $2,158,037 $2,398,015 $2,830,926 Contributions in relation to the actuarially
determined contributions (1,437,730) (1,364,845) (2,158,037) (2,398,015) (2,830,926) Contribution deficiency (excess) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Covered payroll $5,843,663 $5,928,087 $6,058,030 $5,988,447 $6,575,368 Contributions as a percentage of covered
payroll 24.60% 23.02% 35.62% 40.04% 43.05%
Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2020 2021 2022
Actuarially determined contributions $2,002,059 $3,724,131 $3,932,902 Contributions in relation to the actuarially
determined contributions (2,002,059) (3,724,131) (3,932,902) Contribution deficiency (excess) $0 $0 $0
Covered payroll $4,398,589 $7,147,760 $7,319,572
Contributions as a percentage of covered
payroll 45.52% 52.10% 53.73%
Cost Sharing Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Last 10 Fiscal Years*
SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS
* Fiscal year 2015 was the first year of implementation.
Safety Plan
94 5.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
PARS REP Agent Multiple-Employer Defined Benefit Pension Plan Last 10 Years*
Schedule of Changes in Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios PARS
6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018
Total Pension Liability
Service Cost $97,626 $55,073 $56,725 $47,461
Interest 218,058 228,048 238,515 244,298
Differences between expected and actual experience
Effect of economic/demographic gains or losses (136,732) (78,177) Effect of assumptions changes or inputs 143,356 196,706 Benefit payments, including refunds of employee
contributions (126,197) (144,782) (149,371) (157,202)
Net change in total pension liability 144,963 189,487 342,575 56,380 Total pension liability - beginning 3,161,548 2,972,061 3,306,511 3,649,086 Total pension liability - ending (a) $3,161,548 $3,306,511 $3,649,086 $3,705,466 Plan fiduciary net position
Contributions - employer $159,573 $127,848 $123,391 $121,576 Net investment income 44,261 7,840 172,456 133,898
Investment expense (8,227)
Benefit payments, including refunds of employee
contributions (126,197) (144,782) (149,371) (157,202)
Administrative expenses (8,448) (9,150) (8,664) (9,009) Net change in plan fiduciary net position 60,962 (18,244) 137,812 89,263 Plan fiduciary net position - beginning 1,994,520 2,055,482 2,037,238 2,175,050 Plan fiduciary net position - ending (b) $2,055,482 $2,037,238 $2,175,050 $2,264,313 Net pension liability - ending (a)-(b) $1,106,066 $1,269,273 $1,474,036 $1,441,153 Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability 65.02% 61.61% 59.61% 61.11%
Covered payroll $1,485,442 $1,530,005 $1,303,994 $1,351,614 Net pension liability as percentage of covered payroll 74.46% 82.96% 113.04% 106.62% Notes to Schedule:
* Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation.
Benefit changes - The figures above do not include any liability impact that may have resulted from plan changes which occurred after the actuarial valuation date. This applies for voluntary benefit changes as well as any offers of Two Years Additional Service Credit (a.k.a. Golden Handshakes).
Changes in assumptions - In 2017, the accounting discount rate reduced from 7.65% to 7.15%. In 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, there were no changes. In 2015, amounts reported reflect an adjustment of the discount rate from 7.5% (net of administrative expense) to 7.65% (without a reduction for pension plan administrative expense). In 2014, amounts reported were based on the 7.5% discount rate.
96 5.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
PARS
6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022
$48,885 $35,933 $36,921 $20,726
253,625 247,550 263,809 267,267
12,653
24,928 57,961
8,541
(176,795) (210,707) (227,211) (239,609)
119,640 158,006 73,519 73,312
3,705,466 3,825,106 3,983,112 4,056,631
$3,825,106 $3,983,112 $4,056,631 $4,129,943
$98,849 $96,419 $97,888 $97,904
136,800 65,576 492,499 (337,585)
(176,795) (210,707) (227,211) (239,609)
(9,066) (9,143) (9,559) (9,848)
49,788 (57,855) 353,617 (489,138)
2,264,313 2,314,101 2,256,246 2,609,863
$2,314,101 $2,256,246 $2,609,863 $2,120,725
$1,511,005 $1,726,866 $1,446,768 $2,009,218
60.50% 56.65% 64.34% 51.35%
$988,068 $1,015,240 $630,037 $647,363
152.93% 170.09% 229.63% 310.37%
97 5.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actuarially determined contribution $220,169 $127,848 $127,848 $121,576 $98,849 Contributions in relation to the
actuarially determined contributions (220,169) (127,848) (127,848) (121,576) (98,849) Contribution deficiency (excess) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Covered payroll $1,485,442 $1,530,005 $1,303,994 $1,351,614 $988,068 Net Pension Liability as a
percentage of covered payroll 14.82% 8.36% 9.80% 8.99% 10.00% Notes to Schedule
Valuation date: 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2017 Fiscal Year Ended June 30 2020 2021 2022
Actuarially determined contribution $96,419 $97,888 $97,904 Contributions in relation to the (96,419) (97,888) (97,904) Contribution deficiency (excess) $0 $0
Covered payroll $1,015,240 $630,037 $647,363
Net Pension Liability as a 9.50% 15.54% 15.12%
Notes to Schedule
Valuation date: 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020
Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates:
Actuarial cost method Entry age normal
Amortization method Level dollar of payroll, closed
Remaining amortization period 15 years as of June 30, 2017 Asset valuation method None
Inflation 2.50%
Salary increases
Investment rate of return 6.75%
Retirement
Mortality
* Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation.
PARS
Consistent with the Non-Industrial rates used to value the Miscellaneous CalPERS Pension Plans.
Retirement rates of 30% per year starting at age 55 with required years of service.
Consistent with the rates used to value the Miscellaneous Agency CalPERS Pension Plans (Entry Age 30) PARS Retirement Enhance Plan (REP) Defined Benefit Pension Agent Multiple-Employer Plan Last 10 Years*
Schedule of Contributions
98 5.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
LAST 10 YEARS
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE TOTAL OPEB LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS Single Employer Other Post-Employment Benefits Plan (OPEB) Last 10 fiscal years*
Measurement Date 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 Total OPEB Liability (1)
Service Cost $303,274 $328,277 $368,174 $524,816
Interest 233,437 234,697 239,312 195,445
Changes of benefit terms
Differences between expected and actual experience (527,075) 254,368 Changes of assumptions (320,279) 345,836 1,192,492 72,300 Benefit payments (173,450) (167,371) (184,166) (225,411) Net change in total OPEB liability (484,093) 741,439 1,870,180 567,150 Total OPEB liability - beginning 6,304,041 5,819,948 6,561,387 8,431,567 Total OPEB liability - ending (a) $5,819,948 $6,561,387 $8,431,567 $8,998,717 Covered-employee payroll $18,617,151 $16,078,058 $16,614,061 $17,232,569 Total OPEB liability as a percentage of covered-employee payroll 31.3% 40.8% 50.7% 52.2% Notes to Schedule:
(1) No assets are accumulated in a trust that meets the criteria in paragraph 4 of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 75. * Fiscal year 2018 was the first year of implementation. 99 5.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Variance with
Budgeted Amounts Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes:
Property $14,317,669 $14,317,669 $14,456,630 $138,961
Sales 1,657,184 1,657,184 1,754,500 97,316
Franchise 2,860,153 3,017,753 3,136,433 118,680
Other 4,911,391 4,706,041 4,936,881 230,840
Licenses and permits 884,088 919,388 1,026,381 106,993
Fines and forfeitures 267,000 180,000 167,612 (12,388)
209,888 230,416 222,511 (7,905)
8,861,151 10,881,551 10,875,321 (6,230)
Charges for current services 3,587,329 4,005,429 3,649,015 (356,414) Recreation programs 558,702 444,602 456,080 11,478
Other 1,605,591 1,617,291 1,840,182 222,891
Total revenues 39,720,146 41,977,324 42,521,546 544,222 Expenditures:
Current
General Government:
City Council 188,754 188,754 206,589 (17,835)
City Manager 1,863,480 2,054,024 1,569,294 484,730
Human Resources 955,613 961,085 925,742 35,343
City Attorney 984,471 1,204,471 1,421,676 (217,205)
Finance 2,163,175 2,171,019 2,012,181 158,838
Non-departmental 159,898 159,898 1,107,377 (947,479)
6,315,391 6,739,251 7,242,859 (503,608)
Public Safety:
Police 10,520,945 10,792,926 10,739,864 53,062
Fire 6,916,714 7,527,446 7,843,125 (315,679)
Total Public Safety 17,437,659 18,320,372 18,582,989 (262,617) Community development:
Planning 3,878,106 4,045,778 3,056,701 989,077
Code enforcement
Total Community Development 3,878,106 4,045,778 3,056,701 989,077 Public Works:
Engineering Services 1,269,153 1,434,970 1,246,001 188,969 Street and traffic maintenance 1,607,847 1,612,869 1,518,672 94,197 Building maintenance and improvement 604,912 604,912 538,845 66,067 Fishing pier/rest stop maintenance 309,761 309,761 302,571 7,190 City parks and playfields 853,552 853,552 765,454 88,098 Total Public Works 4,645,225 4,816,064 4,371,543 444,521 (Continued)
CITY OF PACIFICA
Use of money and property
Intergovernmental
Total General Government
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
GENERAL FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
100
5.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Variance with
Budgeted Amounts Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)
CITY OF PACIFICA
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
GENERAL FUND
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Expenditures
Current:
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation:
Parks, beaches, and recreation $317,280 $268,412 $334,416 ($66,004) Community center programs 204,954 204,954 166,213 38,741 Cultural arts 5,202 5,202 (511) 5,713
Elementary age recreation 183,238 163,238 96,457 66,781 Teens and j-teens recreation 62,574 62,574 47,825 14,749 Adult sports 100 100 59 41
Senior 242,950 242,950 181,720 61,230
Instructional class 85,391 85,391 62,380 23,011
Recreation swimming 348,276 348,276 340,405 7,871
Swim Team 79,509 79,509 109,316 (29,807)
Special community recreation 93,292 93,292 68,712 24,580 Special projects 3,242,792 3,514,247 3,378,691 135,556
Total Parks, Beaches and Recreation 4,865,558 5,068,145 4,785,683 282,462 Capital Outlay 182,000 53,932 60,620 (6,688)
Total Expenditures 37,323,939 39,043,542 38,100,395 943,147 Excess (Deficit) of Revenues over Expenditures 2,396,207 2,933,782 4,421,151 1,487,369 Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in 1,130,919 1,130,919 1,130,919
Transfers (out) (5,099,670) (5,099,670) (5,105,875) (6,205) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (3,968,751) (3,968,751) (3,974,956) (6,205) Net Change in Fund Balance ($1,572,544) ($1,034,969) 446,195 $1,481,164 Fund Balance at Beginning of Year 15,846,029
Fund Balance at End of Year $16,292,224
101
5.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Variance
Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $1,990,993 $1,990,993
Use of money and property
Other 147,106 147,106
Total revenues 2,138,099 2,138,099
Expenditures:
Current
Public Safety 10,831 (10,831)
Capital outlay $506,673 552,783 (46,110)
Total expenditures 506,673 563,614 (56,941)
($506,673) 1,574,485 $2,195,040
Fund balance (deficit) at beginning of year 4,513,929
Fund balance (deficit) at end of year $6,088,414
DISASTER ACCOUNTING SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
CITY OF PACIFICA
Net change in fund balance
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
102
5.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NOTES TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
1. BUDGETARY BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
The City prepares a budget for each fiscal year on or before June 30. Budgeted expenditures are enacted into law through the passage of an Appropriation Resolution. This resolution mandates the maximum authorized expenditures for the fiscal year and cannot be exceeded except by subsequent amendments to the budget by the City Council.
From the effective date of the budget, which is adopted and controlled at the department level, the amounts stated therein as proposed expenditures become appropriations to the various City departments. The legal level of control is the department. The City Council may amend the budget by resolution during the fiscal year.
Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the fiscal year for the General fund and Special Revenue and Capital Project Funds. The General Fund budget and Special Revenue and Capital Project Fund budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (USGAAP) and are consistent with the basis used for financial reporting. Accordingly, actual revenues and expenditures can be compared with related budget amounts without any reconciliation.
103
5.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
5.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
DEBT SERVICE FUND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Variance with
Final Budget
Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative)
Revenues:
Use of money and property $7,000 $111 ($6,889)
Other 1,091,137 1,091,137
Total Revenues 7,000 1,091,248 1,084,248
Expenditures:
Debt Service:
1,691,069 1,596,632 94,437
1,211,786 946,574 265,212
Total expenditures 2,902,855 2,543,206 359,649
(2,895,855) (1,451,958) 1,443,897
Proceeds from lease financing 4,000,000 4,000,000
Transfers in 2,684,908 2,541,941 (142,967)
2,684,908 6,541,941 3,857,033
($210,947) 5,089,983 $5,300,930
Fund balance at beginning of year 227,401
Fund balance at end of year $5,317,384
Net change in fund balance
Principal
Interest and fiscal charges
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues over Expenditures
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)
P
106
5.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Variance with
Final Budget
Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Licenses and permits 25,000 52,995 $27,995
Use of money and property 6,355,000 320,000 (6,035,000) Total revenues 7,880,000 1,872,995 (6,007,005)
Expenditures:
Current:
Community development 507 (507)
Capital Outlay 13,247,000 2,269,998 10,977,002
Total expenditures 13,247,000 2,270,505 10,976,495
(5,367,000) (397,510) 4,969,490
Other Financing sources (Uses)
Transfers in 3,820,000 3,820,000
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 3,820,000 3,820,000 ($1,547,000) 3,422,490 $4,969,490
Fund balance (deficit) at beginning of year 3,300,474
Fund balance (deficit) at end of year $6,722,964
Net Change in Fund Balance
CITY OF PACIFICA
BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE
GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues over Expenditures
107
5.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NON-MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Special Revenue Funds are created in accordance with Federal, State, or City regulations which require that monies apportioned from these specific funds be spent only for certain designated purposes. Funds included in this fund category are:
GAS TAX SPECIAL REVENUE FUND – This fund was established to receive and expend the City’s allocation of the State Gasoline Taxes. Each City is allocated funds on a population basis in accordance with Section 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107 and 2107.5 of the California Street and Highway Code. Population is determined by the latest Federal Census or survey requested and certified by the Cities and conducted by the State Department of Finance.
Expenditures may be made for construction or purchasing of right-of-way on minor streets.
Expenditures of money apportioned under Section 2107 may be made for any street purpose.
Under Section 2107.5 a flat allocation of $6,000 per year is granted the City for street engineering.
DAVIES TRUST SPECIAL REVENUE FUND – This fund was established to account for a donation by a private individual which is restricted for specific purposes. The funds are to be used to help acquire, build, remodel, improve, support, and maintain the equipment, buildings, grounds, yard, gardens, and landscaped areas of the various parks, beaches, and recreational area located in Pacifica, to conduct related educational and recreational programs for the benefit of the general public.
SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND – This fund was created to account for revenues and expenditures associated with money allocated by the legislature to all cities and counties throughout the state to supplement front line law enforcement services.
NPDES STORMWATER FUND – The NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) Stormwater Fund was established in fiscal year 1994-95 to account for revenues and expenditures associated with Federal and State mandated stormwater operations.
HOUSING IN-LIEU FUND – This fund was established to account for receipts from fees imposed on developers to provide for improvements.
PARKING IN-LIEU FUND – This fund was established to account for receipts and expenditures from fees imposed on developers to provide for parking facilities improvements.
STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND – This fund was established to account for Measure A and the transportation related local funding and other grant funding for streets and roads.
EXCESS ERAF FUND – This fund was established to account for excess education augmentation revenue that the City receives from the County.
PARKS, BEACHES AND RECREATION FUND – This fund was established to account for various donations specifically designated for Park, Beaches and Recreation activities.
HOUSING SUCCESSOR FUND – This fund accounts for the assets and activities to the dissolved low and moderate income housing fund.
109
5.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NON-MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Capital Projects Funds are established to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of major capital facilities of the City. Appropriations are made from the funds annually.
HIGHWAY 1 IMPROVEMENT FUND – This fund is financed by traffic impact mitigation fees as outlined in the Pacifica Municipal Code (Section 8-15.01 to Section 8-15.06).
MANOR DRIVE IMPROVEMENT FUND – This fund was established to account for the Manor Drive/Palmetto Avenue/Oceana Boulevard intersection construction and is financed by traffic impact mitigation fees as outlined in the Pacifica Municipal Code (Section 8-18.01 to Section 8-18.06).
AIRCRAFT NOISE PROJECT FUND – This fund was established to record the financial transactions of an Aircraft Noise Abatement Project funded with Federal and San Francisco Airport grants.
PARKS AND PLAYFIELD FUND – This fund was financed by Parkland Dedication Fees as outlined in the Pacifica Municipal Code (Section 8-19.01 to Section 8-19.03).
PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FUND – Revenues are derived from fees levied on new construction in local districts. Funds can be utilized only for the drainage system in those particular districts.
PACIFICA LIBRARY FUND – This fund was established to account for grants and other sources for the construction of Pacifica’s library.
FRONTIERLAND REMEDIATION FUND – This fund was established to account for remediation fees and remediation costs related to the closed landfill site at the Frontierland Park location. Recology of the Coast, the City’s recyclable/organic materials and solid waster collection franchisee pays the City a remediation fee of $6,250 per month ($75,000 annually). 110
5.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NON-MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
JUNE 30, 2022
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Supplemental
Law
Gas Davies Enforcement NPDES Housing
Tax Trust Services Stormwater In-Lieu
Assets:
Cash and investments $238,756 $179,793 $244,014
Restricted cash and investments $3,001,260
Receivable:
Accounts $142,667 152,375
Advance to other funds
$142,667 $3,001,260 $238,756 $332,168 $244,014
Liabilities and Fund Balances:
Accounts payable $88,589 $50 $12,993 $8,003
Due to other funds 203,674 243,396
Advance from other funds
292,263 243,446 12,993 8,003
Restricted 2,757,814 225,763 324,165 $244,014
Unassigned (149,596)
(149,596) 2,757,814 225,763 324,165 244,014
$142,667 $3,001,260 $238,756 $332,168 $244,014
Total Fund Balances (Deficits)
Total Liabilities and Fund
Balances
Total Assets
Total Liabilities
Liabilities:
Fund Balances:
112
5.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Parks,
Beaches Manor Aircraft
Parking Street and Housing Highway 1 Drive Noise
In-Lieu Construction Recreation Successor Improvement Improvement Project $116,142 $2,484,281 $2,124,916 $362,317 $619,032 $957,036 $411 $116,142 $2,484,281 $2,124,916 $362,317 $619,032 $957,036 $411 $37,459 $3,956 $782 $81,145
37,459 3,956 782 81,145
$116,142 2,446,822 2,120,960 $362,317 618,250 $875,891 $411 116,142 2,446,822 2,120,960 362,317 618,250 875,891 411 $116,142 $2,484,281 $2,124,916 $362,317 $619,032 $957,036 $411 (Continued)
113
5.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NON-MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
COMBINING BALANCE SHEET
JUNE 30, 2022
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Parks Planned
and Local Pacifica Frontierland
Playfield Drainage Library Remediation Total
Assets:
Cash and investments $681,869 $136,595 $400,905 $8,546,067 Restricted cash and investments 3,001,260
Receivable:
Accounts 295,042
Advance to other funds
$681,869 $136,595 $400,905 $11,842,369
Liabilities and Fund Balances:
Accounts payable $1,042 $15,453 $249,472
Due to other funds $470,190 917,260
Advance from other funds
1,042 470,190 15,453 1,166,732
Restricted 680,827 121,142 $400,905 11,295,423
Unassigned (470,190) (619,786)
680,827 (470,190) 121,142 400,905 10,675,637
$681,869 $136,595 $400,905 $11,842,369 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances Total Assets
Liabilities:
Total Liabilities
Fund Balances:
Total Fund Balances (Deficits)
114
5.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NON-MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Supplemental
Law
Gas Davies Enforcement NPDES Housing
Tax Trust Services Stormwater In-Lieu
Revenues:
Taxes:
Other taxes $1,666,585 $187,355
Charges for services 11,955
Use of money and property $892
Intergovernmental 150,636 $157,556
Other 25 8,265 $791
Total Revenues 1,817,246 892 157,556 207,575 791
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 208
Public Safety 75,607
Community development
Public works 547,389 98,993
Recreation
8,224 39,441 92,582
Total Expenditures 555,613 39,649 168,189 98,993
Excess (Deficit) of revenues
over expenditures 1,261,633 (38,757) (10,633) 108,582 791 Other financing sources (Uses)
Transfers in 20,000
Transfers (out) (1,222,574) (325,000) (132,081)
(1,222,574) (325,000) (112,081)
39,059 (363,757) (10,633) (3,499) 791
Fund Balances at beginning of year,
restated (188,655) 3,121,571 236,396 327,664 243,223
Fund Balances at end of year ($149,596) $2,757,814 $225,763 $324,165 $244,014 Net change in fund balances
Capital outlay
Total Other Financing Sources
(Uses)
116
5.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Parks,
Beaches Manor Aircraft
Parking Street and Housing Highway 1 Drive Noise
In-Lieu Construction Recreation Successor Improvement Improvement Project $1,768,958
$39,296
$422
39,046
10,799 $4,670
1,779,757 422 78,342 4,670
2,440,956 28,102
25,379
42,534 81,145
2,440,956 25,379 70,636 81,145
(661,199) (24,957) 7,706 (76,475)
750,000
(1,153,662)
(403,662)
(1,064,861) (24,957) 7,706 (76,475)
$116,142 3,511,683 2,145,917 $362,317 610,544 952,366 $411 $116,142 $2,446,822 $2,120,960 $362,317 $618,250 $875,891 $411 (Continued)
117
5.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
NON-MAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Parks Planned
and Local Pacifica Frontierland
Playfields Drainage Library Remediation Total
Revenues:
Taxes:
Other taxes $3,622,898
Charges for services 51,251
Use of money and property 1,314
Intergovernmental 347,238
Other $147,617 $6,250 178,417
Total Revenues 147,617 6,250 4,201,118
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 208
Public Safety 75,607
Community development 15,899 15,899
Public works $645,236 3,760,676
Recreation 25,379
$15,642 279,568
Total Expenditures 15,899 645,236 15,642 4,157,337
Excess (Deficit) of revenues
over expenditures 131,718 (645,236) (15,642) 6,250 43,781 Other financing sources (Uses)
Transfers in 30,000 800,000
Transfers (out) (2,833,317)
30,000 (2,033,317)
131,718 (645,236) 14,358 6,250 (1,989,536)
Fund Balances at beginning of year, restated 549,109 175,046 106,784 394,655 12,665,173 Fund Balances at end of year $680,827 ($470,190) $121,142 $400,905 $10,675,637 Capital outlay
Total Other Financing Sources
(Uses)
Net change in fund balances
118
5.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Variance Variance
Final Positive Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes
Other taxes $1,649,657 $1,666,585 $16,928
Charges for services
Use of money and property $892 $892
Intergovernmental 150,636 150,636
Other 25 25
Total Revenues 1,649,657 1,817,246 167,589 892 892
Expenditures:
Current:
General government 208 (208)
Public Safety
Community development
Public works 505,446 547,389 (41,943)
Recreation
Capital outlay 20,000 8,224 11,776 $709,400 39,441 669,959 Total Expenditures 525,446 555,613 (30,167) 709,400 39,649 669,751 1,124,211 1,261,633 137,422 (709,400) (38,757) 670,643
Other financing sources (Uses):
Transfers in
Transfers (out) (1,222,574) (1,222,574) (325,000) (325,000) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (1,222,574) (1,222,574) (325,000) (325,000) Net change in fund balance ($98,363) 39,059 $137,422 ($1,034,400) (363,757) $670,643 Fund Balances at beginning of year, restated (188,655) 3,121,571 Fund Balance at end of year ($149,596) $2,757,814
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues over
Expenditures
Gas
Tax
Davies
Trust
120
5.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Variance Variance Variance
Final Positive Final Positive Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative) $178,000 $187,355 $9,355
11,955 11,955
$100,000 $157,556 $57,556
8,265 8,265 $791 $791
100,000 157,556 57,556 178,000 207,575 29,575 791 791
68,800 75,607 (6,807) 93,775 98,993 (5,218)
58,200 92,582 (34,382)
127,000 168,189 (41,189) 93,775 98,993 (5,218)
(27,000) (10,633) 16,367 84,225 108,582 24,357 791 791
20,000 20,000
(132,081) (132,081)
(112,081) (112,081)
($27,000) (10,633) $16,367 ($27,856) (3,499) $24,357 791 $791 236,396 327,664 243,223
$225,763 $324,165 $244,014
(Continued)
Enforcement Services NPDES Stormwater
Supplemental Law
Housing In-Lieu
121
5.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
Variance Variance
Final Positive Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes
Other taxes $1,455,600 $1,768,958 $313,358
Charges for services
Use of money and property $422 $422
Intergovernmental
Other 10,799 10,799
Total Revenues 1,455,600 1,779,757 324,157 422 422
Expenditures:
Current:
General government
Public Safety
Community development
Public works 3,945,534 2,440,956 3,945,534
Recreation 25,379 (25,379)
Capital outlay 5,000 5,000
Total Expenditures 3,950,534 2,440,956 3,950,534 25,379 (25,379) (2,494,934) (661,199) 1,833,735 (24,957) (24,957)
Other financing sources (Uses)
Transfers in 750,000 750,000
Transfers (out) (1,153,662) (1,153,662)
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (403,662) (403,662) Net change in fund balance ($2,898,596) (1,064,861) $1,833,735 (24,957) ($24,957) Fund Balances at beginning of year, restated 3,511,683 2,145,917 Fund Balance at End of Year $2,446,822 $2,120,960
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues over
Expenditures
Parks, Beaches
Street Construction and Recreation
122
5.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Variance Variance Variance
Final Positive Final Positive Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative) $39,296
$25,000 39,046 $14,046
$4,670 $4,670 $91,200 $147,617 $56,417
25,000 78,342 14,046 4,670 4,670 91,200 147,617 56,417
200,000 15,899 184,101
4,000 28,102 (24,102)
25,000 42,534 (17,534) $840,000 81,145 758,855
29,000 70,636 (41,636) 840,000 81,145 758,855 200,000 15,899 184,101 (4,000) 7,706 11,706 (840,000) (76,475) 763,525 (108,800) 131,718 240,518 ($4,000) 7,706 $11,706 ($840,000) (76,475) $763,525 ($108,800) 131,718 $240,518 610,544 952,366 549,109
$618,250 $875,891 $680,827
(Continued)
Highway 1 Improvement Manor Drive Improvement Parks and Playfields 123
5.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COMBINING SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
BUDGET AND ACTUAL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
Variance Variance
Final Positive Final Positive
Budget Actual (Negative) Budget Actual (Negative)
Revenues:
Taxes
Other taxes
Charges for services
Use of money and property $2,560 ($2,560)
Intergovernmental
Other $6,250 $6,250
Total Revenues 2,560 (2,560) 6,250 6,250
Expenditures:
Current:
General government
Public Safety
Community development
Public works 667,705 $645,236 22,469
Capital outlay
Total Expenditures 667,705 645,236 22,469
(665,145) (645,236) 19,909 6,250 6,250
Other financing sources (Uses):
Transfers in
Transfers (out)
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Net change in fund balance ($665,145) (645,236) $19,909 6,250 $6,250 Fund Balances at beginning of year, restated 175,046 394,655 Fund Balance at end of year ($470,190) $400,905
Excess (Deficit) of Revenues over
Expenditures
Planned Local Drainage Frontierland Remediation
124
5.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Internal Service Funds are used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies of the government and to other government units, on a cost reimbursement basis.
MOTOR POOL FUND – City of Pacifica operates a central garage, which provides services to various City departments on a cost reimbursement basis. Revenues for the fund are derived from rentals to the departments for usage of the equipment. The fund can be used only for the operation and replacement of the equipment.
SELF INSURANCE FUND – City of Pacifica established Self Insurance Funds to cover Employee Dental Insurance, Workers' Compensation, General Liability, Property, and Automobile Liability Insurance. Expenses are restricted to payments of claims, the premium for umbrella insurance, administration costs, and expenditures relating to the Safety Committee.
FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND – City of Pacifica established this fund to fund and replace fire equipment for the Fire Department.
125
5.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET POSITION
JUNE 30, 2022
Motor Self Fire Equipment
Pool Insurance Replacement Total
Assets
Current Assets:
Cash and investments $814,310 $1,842,745 $13,932 $2,670,987 Receivable:
Accounts 1,523 1,523
18,715 18,715
Total Current Assets 834,548 1,842,745 13,932 2,691,225 Non-current assets:
Capital assets, not being depreciated 258,774 258,774
Capital assets, being depreciated,
net of accumulated depreciation 1,546,619 1,546,619
Total Noncurrent Assets 1,805,393 1,805,393
Total Assets 2,639,941 1,842,745 13,932 4,496,618
Liabilities
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable 218,039 57,210 275,249
Accrued interest payable 330 330
Claims payable 304,204 304,204
Compensated absences 43,796 43,796
Bonds payable 13,488 13,488
Total Current Liabilities 275,653 361,414 637,067
Noncurrent Liabilities:
Bonds payable 120,707 120,707
Total Noncurrent Liabilities 120,707 120,707
Total Liabilities 396,360 361,414 757,774
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets 1,805,393 1,805,393
Unrestricted 438,188 1,481,331 13,932 1,933,451
Total Net Position $2,243,581 $1,481,331 $13,932 $3,738,844 Inventories
126
5.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Motor Self Fire Equipment
Pool Insurance Replacement Total
Operating revenues:
Charges for services $1,203,911 $229,497 $1,433,408
Other operating income 1,064,699 1,064,699
Total operating revenues 1,203,911 1,294,196 2,498,107
Operating expenses:
Personnel services 592,253 592,253
Administration
Supplies and materials 518,590 1,251 519,841
Insurance expense 959,229 959,229
Outside contractors 342,213 342,213
Maintenance 91,380 91,380
Insurance claims 375,560 375,560
Depreciation 743,427 743,427
Total operating expenses 1,945,650 1,678,253 3,623,903
Operating Income (Loss) (741,739) (384,057) (1,125,796) Non-operating revenues (expenses):
Investment earnings
Interest and fiscal charges (3,939) (3,939)
Gain on sale of capital assets 24,491 24,491
Total non-operating revenues (expenses) 20,552 20,552
Income (Loss) Before Transfers (721,187) (384,057) (1,105,244) Transfers:
Transfers in 132,000 13,932 145,932
Change in net position (721,187) (252,057) 13,932 (959,312) Net position at beginning of year 2,964,768 1,733,388 4,698,156 Net position at end of year $2,243,581 $1,481,331 $13,932 $3,738,844
CITY OF PACIFICA
COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND
CHANGES IN FUND NET POSITION
127
5.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Fire
Motor Self Equipment
Pool Insurance Replacement Total
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
$1,206,111 $1,306,241 $2,512,352
(411,628) (1,245,890) (1,657,518)
(376,701) (376,701)
(574,539) (574,539)
219,944 (316,350) (96,406)
132,000 $13,932 145,932
Financing Activities 132,000 13,932 145,932
24,491 24,491
Purchase of capital assets (313,434) (313,434)
Principal paid on long term debt (12,578) (12,578)
(3,939) (3,939)
Net Cash Used by Capital and Related Financing
Activities (305,460) (305,460)
Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities
(85,516) (184,350) 13,932 (255,934)
899,826 2,027,095 2,926,921
$814,310 $1,842,745 $13,932 $2,670,987
(Continued)
Receipts from customers
Payments to suppliers and users
Payments for claims
Payments to employees
Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities
Cash Flows from Noncapital and Related Financing Activities Transfers in
Net Cash Provided by Noncapital and Related
Cash Flows from Capital and Related Financing Activities:
Proceeds from sale of capital assets
Interest paid
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Interest received
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the Beginning of Fiscal Year Cash and Cash Equivalents ate End of Fiscal Year
128
5.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Motor Self Self
Pool Insurance Insurance Total
Reconciliation of Operating Income (Loss) to Net Cash
Operating income (loss) ($741,739) ($384,057) ($1,125,796) Adjustments to Reconcile Operating Income (Loss)
to Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities:
Depreciation 743,427 743,427
Accounts receivable 2,200 12,045 14,245
Inventories
Accounts payable 198,360 56,803 255,163
Accrued liabilities (18) (18)
Claims payable (1,141) (1,141)
Compensated absences 17,714 17,714
$219,944 ($316,350) Net Cash Provided (Used) by Operating Activities ($96,406) Increase (Decrease) in Operating Liabilities:
Provided (Used) by Operating Activities:
(Increase) Decrease in Operating Assets:
129
5.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
STATISTICAL SECTION
5.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
STATISTICAL SECTION
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
This part of the City's Annual Comprehensive Financial Report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures, and required supplementary information says about the City's overall financial health.
Financial Trends
These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the City's financial performance and well-being have changed over time.
Debt Capacity
These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the City's current level of outstanding debt and the ability to issue additional debt in the future.
Revenue Capacity
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City's most significant local revenue sources.
Demographic and Economic Information
These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the City's financial activities take place.
Operating Information
These schedules contain service data to help the reader understand how the information in the City's financial report relates to the services the City's provides and the activities it performs.
Property Tax Information
These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the City's property tax sources and changes.
Note: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports for the relevant years. 133
5.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
Net Position by Component
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual Basis of Accounting)
2013 2014 2015 2016
Governmental activities
Net investment in capital assets 56,461,478 $ 56,995,945 $ 56,431,400 $ 56,878,228 $ Restricted 7,944,025 9,049,015 11,517,455 13,808,573
Unrestricted (13,421,330) (14,105,441) (46,030,272) (39,126,535) Total governmental activities net position $ 51,939,519 50,984,173 $ 21,918,583 $ 31,560,266 $ Business-type activities
Net investments in capital assets 15,963,759 $ 17,679,506 $ 15,266,626 $ 15,985,969 $ Restricted
Unrestricted 5,238,849 5,663,853 9,163,991 9,672,252
Total business-type activities net position $ 23,343,359 21,202,608 $ 24,430,617 $ 25,658,221 $ Primary government
Net investment in capital assets 72,425,237 $ 74,675,451 $ 71,698,026 $ 72,864,197 $ Restricted 7,944,025 9,049,015 11,517,455 13,808,573
Unrestricted (8,182,481) (8,441,588) (36,866,281) (29,454,283) Total primary government net position $ 75,282,878 72,186,781 $ 46,349,200 $ 57,218,487 $ 134
5.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$ 56,601,988 $ 59,589,114 $ 67,691,252 $ 85,689,643 $ 71,472,901 $ 69,492,549 17,256,904 16,314,865 12,119,087 16,166,941 17,244,941 23,043,731 (37,204,436) (40,387,356) (33,917,809) (52,525,473) (42,880,812) (39,248,843) $ 36,654,456 $ 35,516,623 $ 45,892,530 $ 49,331,111 $ 45,837,030 $ 53,287,437 $ 15,985,969 $ 15,985,969 $ 15,985,969 $ 13,000,844 $ 25,086,051 $ 26,098,298 0 9,812,211 8,612,543 9,935,338 11,042,102 2,469,140 4,984,562 $ 25,798,180 $ 24,598,512 $ 25,921,307 $ 24,042,946 $ 27,555,191 $ 31,082,860 $ 72,587,957 $ 75,575,083 $ 83,677,221 $ 98,690,487 $ 96,558,952 $ 95,590,847 17,256,904 16,314,865 12,119,087 16,166,941 17,244,941 23,043,731 (27,392,225) (31,774,813) (23,982,471) (41,483,371) (40,411,672) (34,264,281) $ 62,452,636 $ 60,115,135 $ 71,813,837 $ 73,374,057 $ 73,392,221 $ 84,370,297 135
5.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Expenses
Governmental activities:
General government $ 4,294,792 $ 4,473,909 $ 4,324,645 $ 4,604,299 $ 5,196,272 Public safety 13,935,234 13,572,060 13,997,209 15,859,890 14,310,434 Community Development 1,378,014 1,250,419 1,089,881 1,629,555 1,964,355 Public Works 4,088,408 4,138,762 5,757,332 4,714,402 5,698,841 Parks, Beaches & Recreation 3,880,586 3,921,499 3,894,017 4,329,044 4,938,859 Interest on Long-term Debt 2,037,476 1,945,156 2,072,272 1,667,485 2,442,966 Total Governmental Activities Expenses $ 29,251,336 $ 29,664,979 $ 31,135,356 $ 32,804,675 $ 34,551,727 Business-type activities:
Sewer $ 10,853,371 10,231,084 $ 11,897,495 $ 10,816,732 $ 11,893,663 $ Beach Parking 532,102 515,915 502,373
Total Business-Type Activities Expenses $ 10,231,084 $ 10,853,371 $ 11,897,495 $ 10,816,732 $ 12,396,036 Total Primary Government Expenses $ 39,482,420 $ 40,518,350 $ 43,032,851 $ 43,621,407 $ 46,947,763 Program Revenues
Governmental activities:
Charges for services:
General Government 15,902 $ 18,796 $ 29,769 $ 126,156 $ 74,899 $ Public Safety 999,209 836,279 938,379 1,043,155 987,163 Community Development 688,975 989,356 1,922,976 3,638,027 2,333,796 Public Works 701,012 791,041 743,700 786,000 743,700
Parks, Beaches & Recreation 2,067,301 2,248,642 2,107,720 2,220,263 2,231,797 Operating Grants and Contributions 1,817,278 2,153,345 4,321,012 3,923,126 4,124,499 Capital Grants and Contributions 2,311,468 6,364,781 4,709,960 4,912,145 2,458,959 Total Governmental Activities Program Revenues $ 8,438,215 $ 13,565,170 $ 14,773,516 $ 16,648,872 $ 12,954,813 Business-Type Activities:
Charges for services:
Sewer $ 12,500,814 $ 13,331,596 $ 13,721,346 $ 12,959,708 $ 12,715,024 Beach Parking 537,192 533,952 493,850
Total Business-Type Activities Program Revenues 13,331,596 12,500,814 13,721,346 12,959,708 13,208,874 Total Primary Government Program Revenues $ 20,939,029 $ 26,896,766 $ 28,494,862 $ 29,608,580 $ 26,163,687 Net Revenues (Expenses)
Governmental activities $ (20,813,121) $ (16,099,809) $ (16,361,840) $ (16,155,803) $ (21,596,914) Business-type activities 2,269,730 2,478,225 1,845,128 2,144,826 812,838 Total Net Revenues (Expenses) $ (18,543,391) $ (13,621,584) $ (14,516,712) $ (14,010,977) $ (20,784,076) General Revenues and Other Changes in Net Position
Governmental Activities:
Taxes:
Property taxes $ 10,701,810 $ 11,275,518 $ 12,200,335 $ 12,445,509 $ 12,679,059 Sales Taxes 1,588,277 1,686,593 1,754,568 1,983,930 2,374,505 Franchise Tax 1,617,727 1,668,382 1,697,972 1,736,620 1,748,266 Other Taxes 3,152,723 3,329,647 3,529,485 3,710,615 3,749,159 Motor vehicle in lieu - unrestricted 2,923,573 3,164,873 3,320,316 3,543,953 3,731,337 Investment earnings 164,114 184,700 29,979 (44,457) 743,630 Miscellaneous 357,630 537,867 259,197 1,481,757 846,648 Transfers 410,000 15,715 (150) 939,559 818,500
Total Governmental Activities $ 20,915,854 $ 21,863,295 $ 22,791,702 $ 25,797,486 $ 26,691,104 Business-type activities:
Investment Earnings $ 21,468 $ 19,808 $ 16,123 $ 22,337 $ 145,621 Miscellaneous 42,047
Transfers (410,000) 150 (939,559) (818,500)
Total Business-Type Activities $ (346,485) $ 19,808 $ 16,273 $ (917,222) $ (672,879) Total Primary Government $ 20,569,369 $ 21,883,103 $ 22,807,975 $ 24,880,264 $ 26,018,225 Changes in Net Position before Extraordinary Item:
Governmental Activities $ 102,733 $ 5,763,486 $ 6,429,862 $ 9,641,683 $ 5,094,190 Business-type Activities 1,923,245 2,498,033 1,861,401 1,227,604 139,959 Total Primary Government before Extraordinary Item: $ 2,025,978 $ 8,261,519 $ 8,291,263 $ 10,869,287 $ 5,234,149 Gain on transfer of assets and liabilities to successor agency $ - 5,557,942 $ $ - $ - $ - Changes in Net Assets After Extraordinary Item:
Governmental Activities 5,520,619 $ 5,763,486 $ 6,429,862 $ 9,641,683 $ 5,094,190 $ Business-Type Activities 1,672,776 1,923,245 2,498,033 1,861,401 1,227,604 Total Primary Government $ 7,193,395 $ 7,686,731 $ 8,927,895 $ 11,503,084 $ 6,321,794 Extraordinary Item
CITY OF PACIFICA
Changes in Net Position
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Accrual Basis of Accounting)
136
5.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$ 7,156,065 $ 5,709,625 $ 6,334,939 $ 7,118,502 $ 7,481,370 17,194,894 18,784,090 18,649,308 21,096,292 18,632,393
2,329,479 2,731,034 2,984,755 2,972,473 3,243,238
7,409,411 2,534,274 6,980,889 7,713,891 9,326,203
4,963,552 5,392,377 5,586,758 5,441,842 4,928,418
1,896,665 706,918 1,364,573 961,257 969,550
$ 40,950,066 $ 35,858,318 $ 41,901,222 $ 45,304,257 $ 44,581,172 $ 12,922,459 $ 14,927,925 $ 18,794,726 $ 12,884,968 $ 16,258,603 562,426 536,423 468,537 715,783 620,511
$ 13,484,885 $ 15,464,348 $ 19,263,263 $ 13,600,751 $ 16,879,114 $ 54,434,951 $ 51,322,666 $ 61,164,485 $ 58,905,008 $ 61,460,286 $ 109,145 $ 77,871 $ 108,746 $ 86,009 $ 135,929
1,141,995 852,591 788,489 844,530 773,713
2,216,407 2,318,892 2,100,634 2,673,577 2,520,754
743,700 804,110 795,505 892,456 1,059,275
2,486,816 2,588,014 1,902,841 831,914 1,859,921
3,541,903 3,853,971 2,892,136 3,491,531 8,598,184
3,759,417 4,606,092 5,683,998 2,305,188 2,374,222
$ 13,999,383 $ 15,101,541 $ 14,272,349 $ 11,125,205 $ 17,321,998 $ 13,761,816 $ 14,802,705 $ 16,591,415 $ 15,760,525 $ 18,965,244 543,919 675,689 485,883 822,510 559,195
14,305,735 15,478,394 17,077,298 16,583,035 19,524,439
$ 28,305,118 $ 30,579,935 $ 31,349,647 $ 27,708,240 $ 36,846,437 $ (26,950,683) $ (20,756,777) $ (27,628,873) $ (34,179,052) $ (27,259,174) 14,046 820,850
(2,185,965) 2,982,284 2,645,325
$ (26,129,833) $ (20,742,731) $ (29,814,838) $ (31,196,768) $ (24,613,849) $ 13,780,294 $ 14,731,311 $ 13,030,713 $ 15,087,028 $ 14,445,541 2,350,478 2,611,801 2,570,334 2,848,681 3,136,433
1,722,343 1,661,717 1,647,467 1,706,107 1,754,500
4,904,111 5,340,307 8,572,837 9,026,832 10,385,735
3,973,622 4,199,391 4,253,924 2,643,981 4,355,327
151,887 254,481 341,064 9,364 100,562
505,076 2,384,463 571,114 204,939 324,910
98,343 272,500 80,000
(250,000) 499,600
$ 31,455,971 27,486,154 $ 31,067,453 $ $ 31,276,932 $ 35,002,608 $ 442,917 $ 415,825 $ 387,604 $ 296,784 $ 286,486
204,9390000
(98,343)(272,500)(80,000) 250,000(499,600)
$ 143,325 549,513 $ $ 307,604 $ 546,784 $ (213,114)
$ 28,035,667 $ 31,599,296 $ 31,375,057 $ 31,823,716 $ 34,789,494 $ 535,471 $ 10,699,194 $ 3,438,580 $ (2,902,120) $ 7,743,434 1,370,363 157,371
(1,878,361) 3,529,068 2,432,211
$ 1,905,834 $ 10,856,565 $ 1,560,219 $ 626,948 $ 10,175,645 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 535,471 $ 10,699,194 $ 3,438,580 $
(2,902,120) $ 7,743,434
139,959 157,371
(1,878,361) 3,529,068 2,432,211
$ 675,430 $ 10,856,565 $ 1,560,219 $ 626,948 $ 10,175,645 137
5.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Fiscal year June 30,
2013 2014 2015
General Fund
Reserved
Unreserved
Non Spendable $ 2,522,197 $ 2,540,590 $ 3,996,158
Committed 899,051 907,519 -
Assigned 117,873 168,197 904,240
Unassigned 127,980 1,341,251 1,893,507
Total General Fund $ 3,667,101 $ 4,957,557 $ 6,793,905
Interest receivable
All Other Governmental Funds
Reserved $ - $ -
Unreserved - -
Unreserved, reported in:
Special revenue fund
Capital projects fund
Debt service funds
Restricted $ 8,230,761 $ 10,155,601 $ 11,503,439
Committed - - -
Assigned - - 14,016
Unassigned (818,354) (1,656,694) (1,312,645)
Total All Other Governmental Funds $ 7,412,407 $ 8,498,907 $ 10,204,810 Total Governmental Funds $ 11,079,508 $ 13,456,464 $ 16,998,715
CITY OF PACIFICA
Fund Balances of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
138
5.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Fiscal year June 30,
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
General Fund
Non Spendable $ 4,021,024 3,947,951 $ 4,003,847 $ $3,911,023 3,783,486 $ 3,864,704 $ 3,768,557 $ Restricted - - - - - 200,755 342,510
Assigned 904,240 904,240 1,407,541 3,499,121 4,693,187 4,441,015 4,803,631 Unassigned 4,960,039 5,404,857 7,142,843 7,548,938 8,026,175 7,994,899 7,377,526 Total General Fund $ 9,812,230 $ 10,330,121 $ 12,554,231 $ 14,959,082 $ 16,502,848 $ 16,501,373 $ 16,292,224 All Other Governmental Funds:
Restricted $ 13,808,573 $ 17,256,904 $ 18,219,942 $ 11,784,231 $ 19,732,457 $ 20,533,315 $ 29,424,185 Committed - - - - - - -
Assigned - - - 4,803,631 - - -
Unassigned (2,410,718) (3,518,187) (6,077,744) 1,943,978 - (188,655) (619,786) Total All Other Governmental Funds $ 11,397,855 $ 13,738,717 $ 12,142,198 $ 18,531,840 $ 19,732,457 $ 20,344,660 $ 28,804,399 Total Governmental Funds $ 21,210,085 $ 24,068,838 $ 24,696,429 $ 33,490,922 $ 36,235,305 $ 36,846,033 $ 45,096,623 139
5.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
Changes in Fund Balance of Governmental Funds
Last Ten Fiscal Years
(Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting)
(in thousands)
2013 2014 2015 2016
Revenues
Taxes $ 17,238 $ 18,138 $ 21,216 $ 22,294
389 515 683 827
Fines and forfeitures 179 301 153 150
Use of money and property 155 178 459 1,663
Intergovernmental revenues 7,233 10,614 8,567 7,439
Charges for Services 1,679 1,996 2,219 2,829
Recreation Programs 820 813 897 898
Other Revenues 1,531 2,285 4,163 3,690
Total Revenues: 29,224 34,840 38,357 39,790
Expenditures
Current:
3,677 3,866 3,899 4,332
12,452 12,940 14,199 14,555
1,331 1,250 1,318 1,814
3,356 3,347 4,259 3,707
3,552 3,585 3,988 4,333
Non-departmental
Capital outlay 2,659 3,529 3,077 3,393
Debt service:
1,661 1,791 1,918 2,046
1,912 1,878 1,777 1,686
Bond issuance cost
Total Expenditures 30,600 32,186 34,435 35,866
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures (1,376) 2,654 3,922 3,924
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in 3,619 3,766 1,924 2,614
Transfers out (4,017) (4,146) (2,304) (2,327)
Refunded to debt escrow agent
Proceeds of long-term debt 1,169
Total other financing sources (uses) 771 (380) (380) 287 Net change in fund balances $ (605) $ 2,274 $ 3,542 $ 4,211 Debt service as a percentage of
noncapital expenditures 12.8% 12.8% 11.5% 11.4%
Public Works
Parks, Beaches & Recreation
Principal retirement
Interest and Other Chares
Licenses and permits
General government
Community Development
Public safety
140
5.a
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
$ 22,411 $ 23,768 $ 25,847 $ 27,399 $ 30,227 $ 31,398
812 1,036 838 969 1,197 1,079
161 190 193 182 174 168
980 311 386 338 103 224
6,605 7,637 6,672 8,312 5,102 11,223
2,722 2,778 2,899 2,358 3,588 3,700
845 989 904 495 373 456
4,283 4,662 8,510 5,411 1,880 3,577
38,819 41,371 46,249 45,464 42,644 51,825
4,538 4,444 5,160 5,628 6,094 7,243
15,452 16,192 16,621 16,352 17,165 18,658
1,907 2,110 2,442 2,579 2,432 3,073
4,597 4,041 4,622 5,917 6,841 8,143
4,419 4,158 4,792 4,886 4,433 4,811
1,952 6,701 5,603 1,585 2,535 3,163
1,667 971 1,017 111 611 1,597
1,957 1,335 1,339 1,272 941 947
293 212
36,782 39,952 41,596 38,542 41,052 47,635
2,037 1,419 4,653 6,922 1,592 4,190
6,191 2,412 13,059 3,451 3,821 8,292
(5,665) (3,203) (13,721) (3,341) (4,211) (7,938)
(16,794) 8,436
17,092 (7,920) 4,000
824 (791) (662) 626 (390) 4,354
$ 2,861 $ 628 $ 3,991 $ 7,548 $ 1,202 $ 8,544
11.1% 6.50% 7.4% 3.9% 4.2% 5.8%
141
5.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Annual Years
Categories 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021* Food Stores 22,115 $ 22,826$ 23,722$ 23,543$ 24,727$ 27,139$ 27,696$ 28,115$ 30,462$ 27,471 $ Eating & Drinking Places 34,147 40,164 45,750 49,770 50,616 53,219 56,013 60,071 45,853 63,241 Building Materials 3,523 3,360 3,795 3,933 3,839 4,173 3,900 4,210 5,955 5,544 Auto Dealers & Supplies 4,433 4,757 4,646 4,482 4,532 4,804 4,778 5,134 4,728 4,758 Service Stations 52,533 54,312 52,412 44,660 38,899 42,139 46,839 44,942 29,641 39,074 Other Retail Stores 38,856 39,992 38,653 39,861 42,987 43,499 44,111 45,830 52,880 56,624 All Other Outlets 33,172 36,608 40,072 40,297 48,841 50,643 55,023 61,978 75,620 77,040 Total 188,779 $ 202,019 $ 209,050$ 206,546$ 214,441$ 225,616$ 238,360$ 250,280$ 245,139 $ 273,752 $ Notes:Due to confidentiality issues, the names of the ten largest revenue payers are not available.The categories presented are intended to provide alternative information regarding the sources of the City's revenue.Source: State Board of Equalization, California Department of Taxes and Fees Administration, State Controller's Office and the HdL Companies * Information presented is most current at the time of preparation.
CITY OF PACIFICA
TAXABLE SALES BY CATEGORY
LAST TEN YEARS (IN $000's)
142
5.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) City San Mateo City/County
State Direct County Public District
Annual Year Rate Rate Rate Safety Rate Total
2013 6.00% 0.75% 1.750% 0.50% 0.00% 9.000%
2014 6.00% 0.75% 1.750% 0.50% 0.00% 9.000%
2015 6.00% 0.75% 1.750% 0.50% 0.00% 9.000%
2016 6.00% 0.75% 1.750% 0.50% 0.00% 9.000%
2017 5.75% 0.75% 1.750% 0.50% 0.00% 8.750%
2018 5.75% 0.75% 1.750% 0.50% 0.00% 8.750%
2019 6.00% 0.75% 2.000% 0.50% 0.00% 9.250%
2020 6.00% 0.75% 2.000% 0.50% 0.00% 9.250%
2021 6.00% 0.75% 2.125% 0.50% 0.00% 9.375%
2022 6.00% 0.75% 2.125% 0.50% 0.00% 9.375%
Notes:
Proposition 172 approved by the voters in 1993 provides 1/2 cent sales tax for Public Safety Augmentation.
San Mateo County Transportation Authority District is provided a 1/2 cent sales tax approved by the voters in 1989.
San Mateo County Transit District is provided a 1/2 cent sales tax approved by the voters in 1982.
Voters approved a San Mateo County Transactions and Use Tax of a 1/2 cent effective in 2013.
Source: State Board of Equalization & HdL Companies
CITY OF PACIFICA
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING SALES TAX RATES
LAST TEN YEARS
Voters approved a San Mateo County Transit District Transactions and Use Tax of a 1/2 cent effective in 2019 for traffic congestion and transportation purposes.
Voters approved Measure RR which authorized an additional sales tax of 0.125 percent in San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties for the next 30 years.
143
5.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Fiscal Licenses Use of Money Inter- Current Fines & Other Year Taxes & Permits & Property Governmental Service Chgs. Forfeitures Revenues TOTAL 2012-2013 17,238,036 389,107 $ 154,513 $ 7,233,370 $ 1,679,210 $ 178,727 $ 2,351,178 $ 29,224,141 $ 2013-2014 18,137,639 514,854 177,610 10,614,499 1,996,318 300,611 3,099,290 34,840,8212014-2015 21,215,649 683,517 458,823 8,567,028 2,219,356 153,031 5,059,783 38,357,1872015-2016 22,294,417 827,154 1,663,159 7,439,425 2,828,678 149,573 4,588,311 39,790,7172016-2017 22,411,007 811,803 980,024 6,604,617 2,722,206 161,023 5,037,010 38,727,6902017-2018 23,767,659 1,035,782 311,425 7,636,773 2,778,648 190,202 5,650,674 41,371,1632018-2019 25,847,343 837,785 386,289 6,671,627 2,899,101 193,046 9,414,628 46,249,8192019-2020 27,398,902 968,574 337,889 8,311,834 2,338,945 181,883 5,906,254 45,444,2812020-2021 30,226,812 1,197,277 103,437 5,101,845 3,587,646 174,048 2,253,219 42,644,2842021-2022 31,398,335 1,079,376 223,936 11,222,559 3,700,266 167,612 4,032,922 51,825,006 % Change
2013-2022 82.15% 177.40% 44.93% 55.15% 120.36% -6.22% 71.53% 77.34% Notes:Above amounts include General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Fund, Capital Projects Funds, and Other Governmental Funds.Above amounts exclude other financing sources.Source: Annual Financial Statements, City of Pacifica and City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
CITY OF PACIFICA
TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE (GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS)
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
(IN $000's)
144
5.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
LOCALLY ASSESSED TOTALS
Secured Unsecured Total Before Exemptions
Fiscal Land Personal Land Personal Land Personal Grand (1) Total Net Subject Year Value Improvements Property Value Improvements Property Value Improvements Property Total H.O.P.T.R. Other Exemptions To Tax 2012-2013 2,074,034 2,426,543 2,423 4,933 19,077 37,361 2,078,967 2,445,620 39,784 4,564,371 57,436 57,796 115,232 4,449,1392013-2014 2,174,610 2,534,526 2,615 4,906 19,263 19,445 2,179,516 2,553,789 22,060 4,755,365 56,906 58,966 115,872 4,639,4932014-2015 2,294,249 2,647,779 2,352 5,041 21,781 22,507 2,299,290 2,669,560 24,859 4,993,709 56,151 61,142 117,293 4,876,4162015-2016 2,460,040 2,815,658 2,172 4,108 22,270 31,051 2,464,148 2,837,928 33,223 5,335,299 55,523 65,832 121,355 5,213,9442016-2017 2,622,536 2,952,932 2,132 4,041 18,948 21,509 2,626,577 2,971,880 23,641 5,622,098 54,992 52,206 107,198 5,514,9002017-2018 2,836,115 3,100,809 2,089 4,385 14,214 21,638 2,840,500 3,115,023 23,727 5,979,250 54,419 56,353 110,772 5,868,4782018-2019 3,056,112 3,236,212 3,449 4,302 13,229 22,588 3,060,414 3,249,441 26,037 6,335,892 54,076 78,225 132,301 6,203,5912019-2020 3,274,914 3,403,678 2,674 3,932 12,192 23,895 3,278,846 3,415,870 26,569 6,721,285 53,476 86,187 139,663 6,581,6222020-2021 3,483,408 3,545,422 2,535 3,316 5,892 21,984 3,486,724 3,551,314 24,519 7,062,557 52,896 87,151 140,047 6,922,5102021-2022 3,648,251 3,683,261 2,820 2,867 4,852 20,784 3,651,118 3,688,113 23,604 7,362,835 52,787 90,023 142,810 7,220,025% Change 2013-2022 75.90% 51.79% 16.38% -41.88% -74.57% -44.37% 75.62% 50.80% -40.67% 61.31% -8.09% 55.76% 23.93% 62.28% (1) Homeowner's Property Tax ReliefNotes:* California property tax assessments are "acquisition" based, rather than cyclical based. In California, the property tax system is acquisition based, meaningthat a real property is assessed upon acquisition or when newly constructed, and assessed at a ratio of 100% of fair market value as of the event date. Afterthe acquisition or new construction basis is determined, year to year increases in assessed value are limited to no more than 2%. In the event of an economicdownturn, real property is assessed at the lower of its acquisition basis, increased by the maximum of 2% per year or the fair market value as of January 2,whichever is lower.Source: San Mateo Count Assessor 2021/22 Combined Tax Rolls.
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Exemptions/Net Totals
CITY OF PACIFICA
ASSESSED VALUATION, TAX RATE, AND TAX LEVIES
(IN $000's)
145
5.a
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Jefferson San Mateo
San Mateo Pacifica High School Junior Total Direct Total County School & Elementary College & Overlapping Direct Annual Year as Distributor District School Districts & High School Tax Rates Rate 2013 1.0000% 0.0432% 0.0746% 0.0194% 1.1372% 0.1991%2014 1.0000% 0.0403% 0.1287% 0.0194% 1.1884% 0.1941%2015 1.0000% 0.0392% 0.1192% 0.0190% 1.1774% 0.1934%2016 1.0000% 0.0250% 0.1257% 0.0250% 1.1757% 0.1934%2017 1.0000% 0.0311% 0.1480% 0.0247% 1.2038% 0.1934%2018 1.0000% 0.0281% 0.1479% 0.0235% 1.1995% 0.1935%2019 1.0000% 0.0517% 0.1302% 0.0175% 1.1994% 0.1935%2020 1.0000% 0.0505% 0.1478% 0.0266% 1.2249% 0.1936%2021 1.0000% 0.0415% 0.1609% 0.0213% 1.2237% 0.1936%2022 1.0000% 0.0288% 0.1253% 0.0227% 1.1768% 0.1937% Notes:Under constitutional Amendment (Proposition 13) passed by voters in the State of California in June 1978, the tax rate (excluding bonded debt) is frozen at1% of the full market value of property. This tax is collected by the County Tax Collector and distributed on a formula determined by the State Legislature. Local agencies levy the tax rate only for general obligation bonds, or in excess of 1% if two-thirds of the voters in the area authorize such a rate increase.All tax levies include Homeowner's Property Tax Relief and Business Inventory Property Tax Relief.Source: HdL Companies School District
CITY OF PACIFICA
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING PROPERTY TAX RATES
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
146
5.a
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Percentage of Percentage of
Taxable Total City Taxable Total City
Assessed Taxable Assessed Assessed Taxable Assessed
Taxpayer Value Rank Value Value Rank Value
FPA WD Lands End LLC 91,954 $ 1 1.26%
GRI Fairmont LLC 39,657 2 0.54%AIMCO Esplanade Avenue Apartments LLC 38,912 3 0.53% 49,472 $ 1 1.10%Linda Mar Shopping Center, LLP 38,844 4 0.53%Pacifica Villages LP 32,563 5 0.45% CRP/PSE Seaside Pacifica Owner 26,773 6 0.37%Pacifica Horizons West LP 18,704 7 0.26%2400 Skyline Blvd LLC 18,373 8 0.25%NVI Rani Inc 16,439 9 0.23%Bay Apartment Communities, Inc. 15,973 10 0.22% 13,787 8 0.31%FPA BAF Lands End Associates LP 46,808 2 1.04%Lindamar SC LP 32,261 3 0.72%PK III Fairmont Shoppping Center 28,009 4 0.62%Marymount Summit ,LLC 18,768 5 0.42%Kiewit Infrastructure West Company 14,996 6 0.33%Harry B. Lewis, et al 14,543 7 0.32%LBN Properties LP 13,140 9 0.29%Comcast of California IX Inc. 13,022 10 0.29% Total 338,192 $ 4.64% 244,806 $ 5.44%
Notes:This schedule serves a dual purpose of providing basic information about our jurisdiction's most significant revenue payers and highlighting the degree to which a government is dependent on a small number of payers. Source: HdL Companies 2022 2013
CITY OF PACIFICA
PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
CURRENT YEAR AND TEN YEARS AGO
(in $000's)
147
5.a
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Fiscal Year Taxes Levied Collections
Ending for the Percentage of in subsequent Percentage
June 30 Fiscal Year Amount Levy Years Amount of Levy
2013 8,848 $ 8,848 $ 100.00% 0 8,848 $ 100.00%
2014 9,088 9,088 100.00% 0 9,088 100.00%
2015 9,516 9,516 100.00% 0 9,516 100.00%
2016 10,090 10,090 100.00% 0 10,090 100.00%2017 10,728 10,728 100.00% 0 10,728 100.00%2018 12,097 12,097 100.00% 0 12,097 100.00%2019 12,782 12,782 100.00% 0 12,782 100.00%2020 13,442 13,442 100.00% 0 13,442 100.00%2021 13,993 13,993 100.00% 0 13,993 100.00%2022 14,567 14,567 100.00% 0 14,567 100.00% % Change 2011-2022 0.6642 0.6642 0.6642
Notes:This Statement shows the period for which the tax is levied.Includes Homeowner's Tax Relief (HOPTR).Under constitutional Amendment (Proposition 13) passed by voters in the State of California in June 1978, the tax rate (excluding bonded debt) is frozen at 1% of the full market value of property. This tax is collected by the County Tax Collector and distributed on a formula determined by the State Legislature. Local agencies levy the tax rate only for general obligation bonds, or in excess of 1% if two-thirds of the voters in the areaauthorize such a rate increase. All tax levies include Homeowner's Property Tax Relief and Business Inventory Property Tax Relief. * Information presented is most current at the time of preparation.Sources: City Financial Reports and Office of the Controller, County of San Mateo
CITY OF PACIFICA
PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (IN $000's)
Fiscal Year of the Levy
Collected within the
Total Collections to Date
148
5.a
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Total
Fiscal Pension Capital Certificates Governmental
Year Obligation Lease Notes of Activities
Ending Bond Payable Payable Participation Debt
2013 15,059,702 $ $ 1,120,756 $ 875,378 $ 16,754,619 $ 33,810,455 2014 13,857,073 1,021,637 875,378 17,295,000 33,049,088 2015 12,712,826 918,514 875,378 16,740,000 31,246,718
2016 11,303,736 811,224 - 16,210,000 28,324,960
2017 9,748,420 699,600 - 16,977,583 27,425,603
2018 8,893,219 583,466 - 16,862,704 26,339,389
2019 7,936,101 462,641 - 16,747,825 25,146,567
2020 8,583,041 336,934 - 16,632,946 25,552,921
2021 8,583,041 206,149 - 16,038,067 24,827,257
2022 7,847,478 4,070,080 15,198,188 - 27,115,746
Notes:
Details regarding the city's debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.
The City issued a total of $13,630,000 of new certificates of participation in 1999, 2000 and 2003.
The City issued $19,815,000 of new COP's in 2008, refunding the 1999, 2000 and 2003 COP's.
The City issued $20,500,000 in Pension Obligation Bonds in 2010.
The City issued $14,680,000 (par value) of new COP's in 2016, refunding the 2008 COP's.
The City issued $9,685,0000 of new Pension Obligation Bonds in 2019, refunding the 2010 POB.
The City issued $4,000,000 of Center Project Capital Lease in 2022.
Sources: City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports 2013-2022.
CITY OF PACIFICA
OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Governmental Activities
149
5.a
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Total Total Estimated Debt Per Capita Debt as a
Fiscal Year Sewer Notes Business-Type Primary Median Personal Per Personal Percentage of Ending Bonds Payable Government Government Income Population Capita Income Personal Income 2013 11,275,298 $ 23,043,678 $ 34,318,976 $ 68,129,431 $ n/a 37,948 1,795 $ 41,909 $ 0.062% 2014 11,172,927 21,406,345 32,579,272 65,628,360 n/a 38,292 1,714 42,099 0.064% 2015 9,736,334 20,375,644 30,111,978 61,358,696 n/a 38,315 1,601 43,390 0.071% 2016 9,436,801 18,070,515 27,507,316 55,832,276 n/a 37,806 1,477 45,452 0.081% 2017 35,297,847 15,756,776 51,054,623 78,480,226 n/a 38,124 2,059 45,591 0.058% 2018 34,886,481 13,434,113 48,320,594 74,659,983 n/a 38,418 1,943 46,553 0.062% 2019 34,481,802 11,102,206 45,584,008 70,730,575 n/a 38,674 1,829 48,476 0.069% 2020 34,283,067 8,760,726 43,043,793 68,596,714 n/a 38,331 1,790 51,799 0.076%2021 34,001,269 6,409,326 40,410,595 65,237,852 n/a 37,890 1,722 54,637 0.084%2022 32,725,035 4,047,649 36,772,684 63,888,430 n/a 37,533 1,702 55,679 0.087% Notes:This schedule displays the Enterprise Fund debt of the Wastewater Treatment Plant.Details regarding the city's debt can be found in the notes to the financial statements.Sources:The City's Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports 2013-2022 Business-Type Activities
CITY OF PACIFICA
RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
150
5.a
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) FY2021-22 Assessed Valuation: $7,282,869,520
Debt
Outstanding
Estimated
Percentage
Applicable (1)
City's
Estimated
Share of
Overlapping
Debt
Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt:
San Mateo Community College District $ 733,897,184 2.734% 20,064,749 $ Jefferson Union High School District 250,808,014 28.606% 71,746,140 Jefferson School District 116,340,000 1.263% 1,469,374
Pacifica Elementary School District (Laguna Salada) 43,996,987 99.877% 43,942,871 Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt $ 137,223,134 Direct and Overlappig General Fund Debt:
San Mateo County General Fund Obligations $ 612,605,687 2.734% 16,748,639 $ San Mateo County Board of Education Certificates of Participation 6,490,000 2.734% 177,437 San Mateo County Flood Control and Sea LRR District General Fund Oblig 14,675,000 0.603% 88,490 Jefferson Union High School District Certificates of Participation 47,490,000 28.606% 13,584,989 City of Pacifica Certificates of Participation 17,475,000 100.000% 17,475,000 City of Pacifica Pension Obligation Bonds 7,015,000 100.000% 7,015,000 San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District General Fund Oblig 3,825,000 2.734% 104,576 Total Direct and Overlapping General Fund Debt $ 55,194,131 Overlapping Tax Increment Debt (Successor Agency): $ 945,000 100.000% 945,000 $ Total Direct Debt $ 24,490,000
Total Overlapping Debt $ 168,872,265
Combined Total Direct and Overlapping Debt $ 193,362,265 (2) (1) Percentage of overrlapping debt applicable to the city is estimated using taxable assessed property value. Applicable percentages were estimated by detrmining the prortion of the overlapping district's assessed value that is within the boundaries of the city divided by the district's total taxable assessed value. (2) Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgate revenue and non-bonded capital lease obligations.
Ratios to 2021-22 Assessed Valuation:
Total Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt …………………..1.88% Total Direct Debt ($24,490,000) …………………………………..0.34%
Combined Total Debt ……………………………………………… 2.66%
Ratio to Redevelopment Successor Agency Incremental Valuation ($55,723,268):
Total Overlapping Tax Increment Debt ……………………………1.70%
Source: Avenu Insights & Analytics and California Municipal Statistics, Inc.
CITY OF PACIFICA
DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT
AS OF JUNE 30, 2022
151
5.a
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Assessed Valuation 4,506,576 $ 4,696,398 $ 4,932,568 $ 5,269,468 $ 5,569,870 $ 5,934,385 $ 6,271,558 $ 6,646,497 $ 6,986,484 $ 7,282,869 $ Debt Limit 168,997 176,115 184,971 197,605 208,870 222,539 235,183 249,244 261,993 273,108 Total Net DebtApplicable to Limit 32,936 33,049 31,247 28,325 27,426 26,339 25,147 25,553 24,829 27,116 Legal Debt Margin 136,061 $ 143,066 $ 153,724 $ 169,280 $ 181,444 $ 196,200 $ 210,036 $ 223,691 $ 237,164 $ 245,992 $ Total Net Debtapplicable to the limitas a percentage of debt limit 19.49% 18.77% 16.89% 14.33% 13.13% 11.84% 10.69% 10.25% 9.48% 9.93%Notes:Debt Limit is 3.75% of Assessed Value.Source: City of Pacifica, HdL, and San Mateo County Assessor's records
CITY OF PACIFICA
LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (IN $000's)
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30
152
5.a
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) (1) (2) (3) (4)
Less Pledged
Operating Operating Net Bonded Debt Other Parity Total Parity Fiscal Year Revenues Expenses Revenue Service Debt Service Debt Service Coverage 2013 12,501$ 6,704 $ 5,797 $ 473 $ 2,405 $ 2,878 $ 2.01 2014 13,332 7,281 6,051 473 2,549 3,022 2.002015 13,721 7,663 6,058 359 2,514 2,873 2.112016 12,960 7,851 5,109 337 2,514 2,851 1.792017 12,715 8,444 4,271 1,163 2,514 3,677 1.16 2018 13,762 8,660 5,102 1,399 2,513 3,912 1.30
2019 14,803 10,233 4,570 1,399 2,513 3,912 1.172020 16,591 10,219 6,372 1,399 2,513 3,912 1.632021 15,761 10,377 5,384 1,399 2,513 3,912 1.382022 18,618 10,535 8,083 1,399 2,513 3,912 2.07 Fiscal Year Principal Interest
2013 0 02014 0 02015 0 02016 0 02017 0 02018 0 02019 0 02020 0 02021 0 02022 0 0 Notes:
(1) Operating Expenses excludes depreciation, capital expenditures and debt service(2) Include the Series 2014 and the Series 2017 Wastewater Revenue Refunding Bonds(3) Includes the SRF Loan, CSCDA 2001 Loan and the 2012 Loan.(4) The bond indentures and the 2012 Loan Agreement require minimum annual debt service coverage of 1.25x. The 2001 CSCDA loan requires a minimum annual DS coverage of 1.10x.
Source: City Financial Reports
Enterprise Fund Bonds
Debt Service (000's)
Special Assessment Bonds
CITY OF PACIFICA
WASTEWATER OBLIGATIONS PLEDGED REVENUE COVERAGE
LAST TEN YEARS (IN $000's)
153
5.a
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Per
Calendar Median Capita
Year Personal Personal Unemployment
Ending Population Income Income Rate %
2013 37,948 n/a 41,909 $ 5.8
2014 38,292 n/a 42,099 4.9
2015 38,315 n/a 43,390 3.9
2016 37,806 n/a 45,452 3.1
2017 38,124 n/a 45,591 2.8
2018 38,418 n/a 46,553 2.0
2019 38,674 n/a 48,476 2.3
2020 38,331 n/a 51,799 2.1
2021 37,890 n/a 54,637 7.3
2022 37,533 n/a 55,679 5.1
Notes and Data Sources:
The City of Pacifica is not a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Population: California State Department of Finance
Unemployment Data: California Employment Development Department 2000-2009 Income: ESRI - Demographic Estimates are based on the last available census.
Projections are developed by incorporating all of the prior census data released to date.
Demographic Data is totaled from Census Block Groups that overlap the City's boundaries. 2010 and later - Income - US Census Bureau, most recent American Community Survey.
Source: HdL Companies via U.S. Census Bureau, California State Department of Finance California Employment Development Department
CITY OF PACIFICA
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS
LAST TEN CALENDAR YEARS
154
5.a
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Percentage of Percentage of
# of Total City # of Total City
Employer Employees Rank Employment Employees Rank Employment Jefferson High School 489 1 N/A 90 4 N/APacifica School District 375 2 N/A 301 1 N/ASafeway (3) 264 3 N/A 210 3 N/A City of Pacifica 224 4 N/A 225 2 N/AOceana Market 60 5 N/A Recology of the Coast 37 6 N/A 49 6 N/ARoss Dress for Less 32 7 N/A 40 7 N/A Ace Hardware 20 8 N/A
North Coast County Water District 20 8 N/A 22 9 N/A
Rite Aid 17 10 N/A 40 7 N/A
Lucky (Save Mart Supermarkets) 90 4 N/ANotes:The City does not track this information. Our business license tax is based on gross receipts.The City of Pacifica is not a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) so this information is not readily available.Source: City of Pacifica Research * Information presented is most current at the time of preparation.
CITY OF PACIFICA
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS
CURRENT YEAR AND TEN YEARS AGO
2022 2013
155
5.a
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Function/Program 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 General Government Administration 6667778766 Finance 6 6 6 6.5 7.5 6.5 7.5 8 8 9 Parks 58 53 54 65.5 53 51 56 55 55 56 Planning & Building 8877777878 Public Works 18 20 21 19 22 23 23 22 22 24 Engineering 5555664445Police Officers 33 33 34 29 33 37 33 34 35 33.5 Civilians 4543444444Fire Firefighters 23 25 25 25 25 23 25 25 26 25 Civilians 1111111111Wastewater Division 24 24 26 24 26 27 27 25 25 25Total 186 186 189 192 191.5 192.5 195.5 193 193 196.5Authorized Full-Time Positions 159 161 161 166.5 170 172 172Notes:A full-time employee is scheduled to work 2,080 hours per year (including vacation and sick leave).Full-time equivalent employment is calculated by dividing total labor hours by 2080.Total includes both Full time and Part-Time (converted to full-time equivalent) Positions excluding City Council.Source: City Financial Reports
CITY OF PACIFICA
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
156
5.a
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Function/Program 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 General Government Building Permits Issued 1,514 1,501 1,587 1,682 1,921 1,811 1,413 1,447 1,538 1,620 Building Inspections Conducted 2,710 2,818 3,018 4,093 4,610 4,630 5,143 5,145 3,966 4,455Police Physical Arrests 812 812 923 864 702 816 890 747 693 680 Parking Violations 3,652 3,652 5,085 4,700 5,099 6,257 4,942 4,065 5,169 4,080 Traffic Violations 2,966 2,966 2,193 1,763 2,090 2,718 3,435 2,243 1,723 2,415Fire Emergency Responses 1,873 3,117 3,147 3,215 2,977 3,142 3,167 2,882 2,943 3,225 Fires Extinguished 101 96 106 88 77 66 59 43 46 31 Inspections 1,056 895 951 955 730 783 862 513 308 929Other Public Works Street Re-surfacing (miles) 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.51 1.55 0.48 0.50 11.00 Potholes Repaired 379 379 351 1,125 1,200 1,200 500 1,000 500 700Parks, Beaches & Recreation estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated Community Center Admissions 98,000 91,000 95,730 89,654 98,480 92,000 100,563 126,024 2,100 50,650Enterprise Fund WWTP Residential Sewer Accounts 11,340 11,440 11,455 11,480 11,470 11,479 11,913 11,916 11,923 11,920 Commercial Sewer Accounts 318 316 340 345 342 343 350 349 349 353 Total Accounts 11,658 11,756 11,795 11,825 11,812 11,822 12,263 12,265 12,272 12,273 New Connections 7 1 4 10 17 10 7 2 8 1 Avg Daily Sewage Treatment (Gallons) 2,350,000 2,240,000 2,240,000 2,463,000 3,230,000 2,463,000 2,463,000 2,463,000 2,463,000 2,485,000Source: Various City Departments FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30
CITY OF PACIFICA
OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
157
5.a
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
Function/Program 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Police Stations 1111111111 Patrol Units 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12Fire Stations 2222222222Public Works Streets (miles) 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 Highways (miles) 0000000000 Streetlights 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 2,051 Traffic Signals 5555555555Parks, Beaches & Recreation Acreage 148.13 148.13 148.13 148.13 148.13 148.13 148.13 148.13 148.13 148.13 Playgrounds 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Baseball Diamonds 5555555555 Soccer/Football Fields 2222222222 Community Centers 1111111111Wastewater Sanitary Sewers (miles) 165 165 165 165 104 104 104 104 104 104 Storm Sewers (miles) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Treatment Capacity (gallons) 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000Notes:No capital asset indicators are available for the general government function.Source: Various City Departments
CITY OF PACIFICA
CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION/PROGRAM
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
158
5.a
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) Fiscal Minimum Rate per
Year Ended Annual 100
June 30 Charge Cubic Feet
2013 567.18 11.81632
2014 567.18 11.81632
2015 583.26 12.15128
2016 600.42 12.50867
2017 626.14 13.04476
2018 676.24 14.08834
2019 730.34 15.21541
2020 788.77 16.43264
2021 843.98 17.58293
2022 903.06 18.81373
Notes:
Sewer rates are based on water usage. The North Coast County Water District invoices customers directly for water usage.
Source: City Records
CITY OF PACIFICA
SEWER RATES
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
159
5.a
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Intentionally Left Blank
5.a
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Pacifica 2022 ACFR FY 2022 [Revision 1] (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) City of Pacifica
Measure A Special Revenue Fund
Report on Compliance with the
Agreement for Distribution of San Mateo County
Measure A Funds for Local Transportation Purposes
For the Year Ended June 30, 2022
5.b
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Pacifica Measure A FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Left Intentionally Blank
5.b
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Pacifica Measure A FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
ON MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION
Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council of the
City of Pacifica, California
We have examined management of the City of Pacifica’s assertion, included in Management’s Report on Compliance with the Agreement For Distribution of San Mateo County Measure A Funds For Local Transportation Purposes (the Agreement) between the City of Pacifica (City) and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority effective January 1, 2009, that the City complied with the requirements of the Agreement, during the year ended June 30, 2022. Management is responsible for that assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the City’s compliance based upon our examination.
Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether management’s assertion that the City complied with the requirements of the Agreement is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about management’s assertion. The nature, timing and extent of procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of management’s assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
We are required to be independent and to meet our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to the engagement.
In our opinion, management’s assertion that the City complied with the requirements of the Agreement for the year ended June 30, 2022 is fairly stated, in all material respects.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and the City Council and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties; however, this restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.
Pleasant Hill, California
December 20, 2022
5.b
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Pacifica Measure A FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
MEASURE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
REVENUES
Transaction and use tax - Measure A 1,215,531 $
Total Revenues 1,215,531
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Streets and Traffic Maintenance 826,367
Total Expenditures 826,367
Net change in fund balance 389,164
Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 7,345,729
Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 7,734,893 $
5.b
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Pacifica Measure A FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044-3422
www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Tygarjas Bigstyck
MAYOR PRO
TEM
Sue Vaterlaus
COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Christine Boles
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
December 20, 2022
San Mateo County Transportation Authority
120 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, California 94070
Management’s Report on Compliance with the Agreement for Distribution of San Mateo County Measure A Funds For Local Transportation Purposes
The City of Pacifica is responsible for complying with the Agreement For Distribution Of San Mateo County Measure A Funds For Local Transportation Purposes (the Agreement) between the City and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority effective January 1, 2009. The Agreement states that in return for receiving an annual allocation of a specified portion of the retail transactions and use tax approved by Measure A – San Mateo County Transportation Expenditure Plan, the City, agrees that funds, “shall not be used to replace funds previously provided by property tax or other local revenues for public transportation purposes, and that City will limit the use of Funds Provided Pursuant to this Agreement to the improvement and maintenance of local transportation, including streets and road improvements.” With respect to compliance with the Agreement, management attests to the following for the year ended June 30, 2022:
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective internal control structure with respect to compliance with the Agreement;
Management is responsible for complying with the Agreement; Management has evaluated the City’s compliance with the requirements of the Agreement; All transactions, as summarized in the attached Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures for the Year Ended June 30, 2022, are in compliance with the Agreement. ________________________
City Manager
Kevin Woodhouse
__________________________
Assistant City Manager
Yulia Carter
5.b
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Pacifica Measure A FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Left Intentionally Blank
5.b
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Pacifica Measure A FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) City of Pacifica
Measure W Special Revenue Fund
Report on Compliance with the
Agreement for Distribution of San Mateo County
Measure W Funds for Local Transportation Purposes
in Accordance with the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan For the Year Ended June 30, 2022
5.c
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Pacifica Measure W FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Left Intentionally Blank
5.c
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Pacifica Measure W FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council of the
City of Pacifica, California
We have examined management of the City of Pacifica’s assertion, included in accompanying Management’s Report on Compliance with the Agreement for Distribution of San Mateo County Measure W Funds for Local Transportation Purposes in Accordance with the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan (the Agreement) between the City of Pacifica and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority dated October 17, 2019, that the City complied with the requirements of the Agreement during the year ended June 30, 2022. Management is responsible for that assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the City’s compliance based upon our examination.
Our examination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether management’s assertion that the City complied with the requirements of the Agreement is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about management’s assertion. The nature, timing and extent of procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of management’s assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
We are required to be independent and to meet our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to the engagement.
In our opinion, management’s assertion that the City complied with the requirements of the Agreement for the year ended June 30, 2022 is fairly stated, in all material respects.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and the City Council and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties; however, this restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record.
Pleasant Hill, California
December 20, 2022
5.c
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Pacifica Measure W FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
MEASURE W SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
SCHEDULE OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
REVENUES
Transaction and use tax - Measure W $ 553,427
Total Revenues 553,427
EXPENDITURES
Current:
Streets and Traffic Maintenance 228,195
Total Expenditures 228,195
Net change in fund balance 325,232
Fund Balance, July 1, 2021 325,803
Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 $ 651,035
5.c
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Pacifica Measure W FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
540 Crespi Drive • Pacifica, California 94044-3422
www.cityofpacifica.org
MAYOR
Tygarjas Bigstyck
MAYOR PRO
TEM
Sue Vaterlaus
COUNCIL
Sue Beckmeyer
Mary Bier
Christine Boles
Scenic Pacifica
Incorporated Nov. 22, 1957
December 20, 2022
San Mateo County Transportation Authority
120 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, California 94070
Management’s Report on Compliance with the Agreement for Distribution of San Mateo County Measure W Funds for Local Transportation Purposes in accordance with the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan
The City of Pacifica is responsible for complying with the Agreement for Distribution of San Mateo County Measure W Funds for Local Transportation Purposes in Accordance with the San Mateo County Congestion Relief Plan (the Agreement) between the City and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority entered into on October 17, 2019. The Agreement states that in return for receiving an annual allocation of a specified portion of the retail transactions and use tax approved by Measure W – San Mateo County Transportation Expenditure Plan (the Measure), the City agrees that funds shall not be used to replace funds previously provided for public transportation investments, and that City will limit the use of funds provided pursuant to this Agreement to invest in major arterial and local roadway improvements in key congested areas throughout the County, focusing on improving safety, reducing congestion, and supporting all modes of travel on the County's roadway system.
With respect to compliance with the Agreement, management attests to the following for the year ended June 30, 2022:
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective internal control structure with respect to compliance with the Agreement;
Management is responsible for complying with the Agreement; Management has evaluated the City’s compliance with the requirements of the Agreement; All Transactions, as summarized in the preceding Balance Sheet and Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 2022, are in compliance with the Agreement.
________________________
________________________
City Manager Assistant City Manager
Kevin Woodhouse Yulia Carter
5.c
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Pacifica Measure W FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22) This Page Left Intentionally Blank
5.c
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Attachment 3 - Pacifica Measure W FY22 FINAL (5254 : ACFR - FY 2021-22)
CITY OF PACIFICA
COUNCIL AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
1/23/2023
1 SUBJECT:
Updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics as recommended by the Councilappointed two Councilmember Ad Hoc Subcommittee, the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kevin Woodhouse, City Manager
650-738-7409
[email protected]
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
City Council Policy Update Process
As part of the City’s ongoing goal for continuous improvement in its policies and procedures for its conduct of business, it is a best practice to periodically review and consider updates to important policies and procedures. Dating back to Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City Council had identified this practice as a City Council Priority, which stated “Miscellaneous administrative policy updates: Continue to prioritize and update Council and administrative policies.” Numerous various policies and procedures have been gradually updated, such as the Streetlight Banners Policy, the Flag Policy, the Lands Acknowledgment Statement Policy, and the City Five Year Capital Improvement Program Policy, to name a few. On January 10, 2022, the City Council appointed a two-Councilmember ad hoc subcommittee, to consist of Mayor pro Tem Bigstyck and then Councilmember O’Neill, to work with the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk, in the review of the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics, and to develop recommendations for updating this important policy document.
Previous City Council Consideration
This item was partially discussed by the City Council at the September 12, 2022, City Council meeting, and was then continued to a date to be determined for Council to complete its discussion. Attachment A is a Tracked Changes version of the Draft Council Rules and Code of Ethics that includes comments and tracked changes reflecting the Council’s discussion and direction from the September 12, 2022 City Council meeting, combined with the tracked changes that show the recommended edits from the ad hoc subcommittee. Council’s review and discussion on September 12, 2022, left off at Section 7-12 in the document. The Minutes on this item from the September meeting are provided as Attachment B.
Summary of City Council Rules and Code of Ethics
The City Council Rules and Code of Ethics is an important policy that has not been reviewed and updated since 2014. As summarized in its Introduction, this policy is important to 6 Packet Pg. 456
Pacifica City Council 2
January 23, 2023
establishing the standards for the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the governing board and staff in the operation of the organization, promoting communication, understanding, and trust in these roles, responsibilities and expectations, and helping to make City Council meetings as productive as possible.
The City Council Rules and Code of Ethics covers a broad range of topics, including:
• Operation of City Council Meetings
• Order of the Agenda
• Council Communications
• Councilmember and Public Decorum
• City Council Relationship with City Staff
Following the January 2022 appointment of the Council ad hoc subcommittee, the subcommittee and staff in 2022 reviewed the old policy and met twice to refine and finalize recommendations for updating the policy. A summary of the recommended updates follows:
• Formatting and Clarification Updates: Minor miscellaneous changes throughout the policy are recommended to improve organization and readability of the policy, and to clarify wording as necessary. A Table of Contents will be added once the document is finalized;
• Clarification re: Current Council Meeting Practices: In some instances, minor details about meetings vary between current practices that have evolved since 2014 and what is written in the policy. For example, “Special Presentations” have been heard before the Consent Calendar, not after. The section on “Public Hearings - Appeals” has been revised to reflect the typical procedure in current use with respect to time allotted to applicants and appellants for presentations and rebuttals. These types of differences between current practice and what the policy states are noted, with a corresponding recommendation for Council consideration;
• Consistency with State Law: Some laws about public meetings have changed since 2014. While the City has complied with such changes, such as how the agendas and staff reports are printed and made available for public review, there are some details in the policy that need to be updated consistent with state law, or removed from the policy to not be duplicative of state law;
In Section 11, Administrative Matters, the ad hoc committee and staff recommended an important update to comport with current practice to paragraph #3 about how items become agendized for City Council consideration. Currently, with only seven days’ notice prior to a City Council meeting, a Councilmember can request the City Manager agendize an item. Since Council agendas/packets are typically posted 5 days prior to a Council meeting, the seven-day timeline does not allow sufficient time for staff research and report preparation. In addition, the policy does not specify rules related to how a majority of City Council should be required to direct significant staff resources to the preparation of agenda reports. In response to these concerns, the ad hoc committee and staff recommended an update to the policy, which is also consistent with how the City Manager and Councilmembers have managed late-breaking but important Council agenda items in recent years. This practice creates flexibility in the timeline, and specifies that agenda items that are potentially controversial amongst Councilmembers, or would require more than one hour of research and preparation by staff, must initially be agendized to receive support from a majority of Council before staff resources are spent on analyzing the issue and preparing the staff report for Council consideration.
This recommendation was discussed in September, and was the focus of numerous public comments, after which the City Manager clarified some of the misunderstandings about this recommendation. To facilitate the Council’s deliberation on January 23 concerning this 6 Packet Pg. 457
Pacifica City Council 3
January 23, 2023
recommendation, the City Manager offers the following additional clarifications:
• This recommendation does not change the ability of a single Councilmember to place an item on the Council’s agenda, except to change the 7-day timeline to a 10-day timeline for practical reasons;
• This recommendation comports with current practice and the hallmark of the CouncilManager form of government and local government democracy, which is that issues that come up that would redirect City Council previously directed work priorities or budget require a majority approval of the Council to change. Therefore, if a Councilmember wants to place an issue on the agenda that would require significant City staff resources to prepare, that work must be directed by a majority of the Council first. To achieve this, a quick report is placed on the agenda to receive Council direction on next steps. More specifically, if an issue is raised by a Councilmember that would redirect work priorities or budget already directed by the Council, then the City Manager would prepare a quick report (thus the “one-hour” rule concept), to receive majority Council direction on whether the issue is priority enough to expend budget on or displace other current Council-directed priorities. Without this practice, progress on implementing the Council directed priorities and successfully managing the City’s budget could become an impossible task and a detriment to the Pacifica community. • The recommended language from 2022 could potentially be improved by removing the reference to “potentially controversial items,” and instead just refer to “items that may require more than one hour of staff time to sufficiently analyze and prepare a staff report.” The City Manager’s responsibility and concern is the expenditure of staff resources, not whether an issue is controversial or not (although issues that are controversial also usually mean they are complex and would require significant staff resources to analyze in the report to the City Council). • As the preamble to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics states, it is important for the policy to be transparent about the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of the governing board and staff. The recommended revisions to Section 11.3 are intended to clarify and be transparent about how this process works.
Presentation/Process for January 23, 2023
At the September meeting, there was some confusion and concern about the presentation and deliberation process for the recommended changes. At the January 23, 2023, Council meeting on this item, the City Manager will present an overview of the Council direction received in September up to Section 7-12, followed by an overview of the recommended changes in the remainder of the document still requiring Council deliberation. By first presenting these overviews, then receiving Council clarifying questions and public comment, followed by Council deliberation about the remaining recommended changes and confirming previous changes, it is hoped the process will be clearer to everyone.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council could decide to not undertake this update work at this time.
RELATION TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND WORK PLAN:
Reviewing and updating the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics supports achievement of all of the Council Goals.
6 Packet Pg. 458
Pacifica City Council 4
January 23, 2023
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation ORIGINATED BY:
City Manager's Office
ATTACHMENT LIST:
Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (PDF)
Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 459
CITY COUNCIL RULES
AND CODE OF ETHICS
Revised 2014
Proposed Revision 2022
6.a
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 2 WHEREAS, it is important to the successful operation of any public organization that standards be established to define the roles, responsibilities and expectations of the governing board and staff in the operation of the organization; and WHEREAS, the establishment of standards by the City Council will promote communication, understanding and trust among members of the City Council and staff concerning their roles, responsibilities and expectations for the operation of the City; and WHEREAS, the establishment and periodic review of these City Council rules will assist all City Councilmembers to better understand their role and responsibilities and will help to make City Council meetings as productive as possible; and WHEREAS, established standards by an adopted City Council Rules and Code of Ethics provides an understanding for the members of the community for expectations of the roles and responsibilities of members of the City Council and standards for conducting City Council meetings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacifica that the following City Council Rules and Code of Ethics are adopted and that all City Councilmembers will comply therewith.
CITY COUNCIL RULES OF OPERATION
Section 1. GENERAL RULES:
The rules will be equally applicable to regular and special meetings of the City Council. Any act that the Mayor is authorized to perform may be performed by the Mayor pro Tem in the Mayor’s absence.
Section 2. OPERATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
1. Regular City Council meetings will be held on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. The meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. Meetings will conclude by 11:00 P.M unless a majority of Councilmembers present vote to extend the time of the meeting. The Council, beginning at 910:00 p.m. and thereafter if the majority requests it, will determine which issues will be completed at that meeting and which items will be Commented [CS1]: Add language about holding a special
meeting date placeholder.
6.a
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 3 continued to the next regular or special Council meeting. The meeting may proceed past 11:00 p.m. only if a majority of the Councilmembers in attendance vote to extend the meeting to a time certain because it is necessary or in the public interest to do so. All City Councilmembers will use their best efforts to see that the agenda proceeds as promptly and efficiently as possible so that all scheduled items can be heard in the time allotted. The Mayor may call a recess every two hours. Additional recesses may be called as needed.
2. In order to einsure that all members of the public have an opportunity to speak and that the Council is able to complete the public’s business, there will be a threeminute limitation on comments by the public unless otherwise approved by a majority of the Council. In order to effectively enforce this rule, the Mayor will monitor the time for each speaker and inform the Council when the three-minute limitation has been reached.
The Mayor will strictly enforce the three-minute time limit. Persons representing organizations or groups of persons may be granted additional time upon consent of a majority of the Council. Individual speakers may not use the three-minute allocation of other persons. Individual speakers may not speak twice on the same item.
3. Public CommentsOral Communications on Items Not on Non-Agendized Itemsthe Posted Agenda.
A. There will be an opportunity for Public CommentsOral Communications on non-agendized itemsItems Not on the Posted Agenda on each regular City Council agenda following Council Communications.
B. Any person wishing to address the Council shall be recognized by the Mayor during Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments, provided, however, that during the Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments on Items Not on the Posted portion of the agenda, only items not on the agenda for that meeting may be addressed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof. Councilmembers shall not enter into debate with speakers under Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments.
C. The Mayor will state at the beginning of each meeting the Council’s policy regarding three-minute limitation on comments by the public. The Mayor, or staff assigned to time-keeping, will announce when the three minutes have expired. The Mayor may adjust the time allotted per speaker based on the estimated number of speakers requesting to comment during Oral Communications.
D. Management of Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments cards: The cards requesting to speak during Public Comments will be taken in the order received by the Mayor. There may also be an option for members of the public to comment via phone or call-queue . The order in which speakers are called upon will be determined by the Mayor in his or her sole’s discretion.
E. Citizens who anticipate their public comment may concerns exceeding three minutes are encouraged to submit comments in writing in advance to the City Clerk for prior distribution to the Council. Whenever possible, the material should be Commented [CS2]: Replaced Oral Communications with
Public Comments per Council direction at 9/12/22 mtg.
Commented [CS3]: Change all Oral Comm to Public
Comments on the Posted Agenda
6.a
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 4 submitted by noon on the Wednesday before the next Mondaydate of the City Council meeting or by theany submission deadline otherwise specified in the meeting Agenda.
Written comments received by the specified deadline will be distributed to the Council and posted on the City’s website prior to the meeting. All written comments that are submitted after the specified deadline, will be made part of the public record for that particular agenda item.
F. Concerns should be limited to items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council only. Submission of comments in writing is encouraged in lieu of lengthy oral presentations.
G. If there are a number of people requesting to speak on a particular subject under Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments, the Mayor may request that the speakers assist the Council in having the Council meeting proceed efficiently. To that end, the Mayor may request that a spokesperson be designated to represent an organization or group and may request that other speakers in the group limit their comments to indicating their agreement with the spokesperson. A show of hands may also be requested.
H. In order to comply with the Brown Act, Nno action can be taken on items raised under Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda. Upon conclusion of Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments on Items Not on the Posted Agenda, City Councilmembers may briefly respond to statements or questions made. The City Manager may summarize the issues and questions raised. In addition, in response to questions posed by the public, Councilmembers may ask a question for clarification, refer the matter to staff, to a City board or commission, or to other resources for factual information, or request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting. The City Council may also direct staff to place the matter on a future agenda.
I. Councilmembers should not get into a discussion or debate with a member of the public during Oral Communications. Upon conclusion of the public input portion of Oral Communications, the Mayor will provide Councilmembers ’with the opportunity to respond to comments or statements made by a member of the public if a Councilmember wishes to do so.
4. Addressing the Council on Regular Agenda Items
A. Time limits for individuals. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested to give their name for the record and, unless further time is granted by the City Council, their remarks shall not exceed three minutes or the limit imposed at the Mayor’s discretion. In the case of a hearing required by law, applicants or their agents and appellants should generally be given ten minutes for their opening presentation and three minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. In a hearing required by law, upon advice of the City Attorney, the City Council may grant sufficient additional time to allow an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant. [NOTE: Deleted text from this section has been reflected as edited in Section 2-5: Public Hearings – Appeals.] Commented [CS4]: Add “..in order to comply with the
Brown Act” to explain reason for not responding to
comments.
6.a
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 5 B. Spokesperson for a group of persons. When any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the Mayor to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council.
C. Addressing the Council after the time for public input has closed.
Following the time for public input and once the matter is returned to the Council After the Mayor has closed the public comment period or public hearing and Council has commenced deliberation on an itemfor deliberation, no person shall address the Council without first securing the permission of the majority of the Council of the Mayor to do so, subject to approval of the City Attorney with respect to any hearing required by law.
During Council deliberation, Councilmembers may ask questions of speakers to clarify points made during the public input portion of the hearing after securing the permission of the Mayor to do so.
5. Special Presentations.
Ceremonial items such as commendations, proclamations and special presentations will be handled after consideration of Consent Calendar items. [NOTE:
This section has been reorganized and included in Section 6 “Regular Agenda Items”.] [NOTE: New Section 2-5 below reflects the text moved from Section 4-A above and is shown with revisions to that language formatted as a tracked change.]
65. Public Hearings – Appeals
A. In the case of a hearing required by law, applicants or their agents and appellants should generally be given up to ten minutes for their opening presentation and three minutes for rebuttal with the option to reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. In a hearing required by law, upon advice of the City Attorney, the City Council may grant sufficient additional time to allow an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant.
Section 3 6. Public DecorumPUBLIC DECORUM.
A. Councilmembers will address the public and staff in a courteous manner.
B. It is the policy of the Council that all members of the public have the right to address the Council and that right includesincluding the right to make remarks that members of the City Council may find critical, unpleasant or even offensive. However, it is also important that a proper standard of behavior be maintained during meetings and that the City Council is able to complete the public’s business in a timely manner.
Therefore, the public should respect the order, procedures and decorum of City Council meetings. Persons addressing the City Council shall adhere to time limits and not , should shall not make slanderous or obscene remarks, shall not disrupt the conduct of the meeting, and shall not make threats against any person or the public order. The Mayor shall enforce Commented [CS5]: **Changed back to original language
to allow ten minutes for opening presentation AND three additional minutes for rebuttal (per Council consensus
9/12/22)
6.a
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 6 this rule of decorum by ordering the speakers to maintain decorum and may take steps necessary to restore order to the meeting including but not limited to, recessing the meeting or terminating the speaker’s right to hold the floor.
C. The Mayor, or their designee
, may remove or cause the removal of an
individual for disrupting the meeting, after providing the necessary warning pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.95. Prior to any removal, the Mayor or their designee, shall confirm with the City Attorney that removal of an individual is appropriate.
Section 4. CITY COUNCIL DECORUM
A. Respect for each individual Councilmember’s interpersonal style will be a standard of operation. Courtesy and respect for individual points of view will be a standard of operation. All City Councilmembers will respect each other’s right to disagree. All City Councilmembers will expect a high degree of decorum and courtesy during City Council meetings both among Councilmembers and towards the public and staff in interactions between and among Councilmembers, from Councilmembers towards the public and staff, and from the public towards Councilmembers and staff.
B. The Mayor will use his or her discretion to enforce encourage Councilmembers and public to abide by these rules. Councilmembers and staff will be polite, even under tense situations, and will refrain from impolite or disrespectful remarks and body language at public meetings either towards a City Councilmember, staff or the public.
C. Councilmembers should not get into a hostile or adversarial debate with a member of the public or staff at a Council meeting, since these types of debates seldom resolve concerns and many times inflame feelings. If a speaker from the public personally attacks or “pushes buttons” of the Council, the Mayor may ask the staff for input; if appropriate; although the Mayor may ask staff for input, the Council will not engage in debate with the speaker. If a speaker from the public makes such inflammatory or erroneous statements, after the conclusion of public input, the Mayor will may then provide the Council or staff with the opportunity to correct such statements if any City Councilmember wishes.
D. Councilmembers will strive to keep open minds on all issues prior to a vote. Individual Councilmembers will maintain as near neutral a position as possible to assure the openness that is required to carry out the Council’s community responsibility.
E. There will be no “grandstanding” on any issue. “Grandstanding” refers to the misuse of the grandstand, or Council dais. It is the use of an individual
6.a
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 7 Council seat on the Council dais in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner to state a point of view in a negative manner. Negative manner includes: personally attacking another Councilmember, staff or member of the public, walking off the Council dais or leaving any meeting in anger or disgust; emphasizing a political point of view solely for the purpose of playing to the audience unrelated to the issue before the Council; using the dais for a strictly personal purpose; addressing the media for political purposes rather than addressing the Council as a body, or; purposely misstating the facts of an issue for political purposes; or monopolizing discussion time in a manner that does not facilitate or further deliberation, general understanding or bring the issue to a conclusive decision.
F. If a Councilmember requires more information on a specific agenda item, Councilmembers are encouraged to direct specific questions to staff through the City Manager prior to the meeting. Staff, as directed by the City Manager, will make all reasonable efforts to research questions posed prior to the meeting and provide clarifying information to Councilmembers.
FG. The City Council respects that the decision of the City Council is made by the majority and not by any individual City Councilmember. Members who are in the minority on an issue will respect the authority of the majority. Members who are in the majority will respect the right of the minority to express their disagreement with the majority decision. Once the agenda item has been voted upon, the City Council minority after making his/her position known for the record, must respect the decision of the majority.
Section 35. Order of the AgendaORDER OF THE AGENDA
Matters will be heard in the order printed on the City Council agenda. However, with majority Council approval, the City Council may hear agenda items out of their prescribed order on the printed agenda, if a large number of the public are present to speak on that specific agenda item, or if the City Council otherwise determines that it is in the public interest to change the order of the agenda.
[NOTE: Section 4. “Consent Calendar” and Section 5. “Council Communications” have been reorganized and included in Section 6 “Regular Agenda Items”.] Section 4. Consent Calendar
Items may be placed upon the Consent Calendar by the City Manager whenever, in his or her judgment, such items are expected to be routinely approved without requiring substantial discussion or debate. The Consent Calendar shall be voted upon as one item. Any Councilmember may ask brief questions to clarify an issue prior to voting on the Consent Calendar and there may be brief Council discussion of an item. If further discussion or debate is desired, any Councilmember may request that an individual item be removed from the Consent Calendar in which case the item shall be considered on the regular agenda immediately after the Consent Calendar unless otherwise determined by Commented [CS6]: Intended to address “filibustering”
6.a
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 8 the Council. Any Councilmember may request that such member’s vote be recorded as other than yes on any individual item without having to remove the same from the Consent Calendar.
All items on the Consent Calendar will have staff reports sufficient to adequately inform the public of the nature of the items on the Consent Calendar of which reports shall be posted and available in the Council Chambers.
Section 5. Council Communications
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.
City Councilmembers should generally adhere to a three-minute time limit for Council Communications unless additional time is granted by a majority of the City Council.
Section 6. Regular Agenda ItemsREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
[NOTE: Section 6 “Regular Agenda Items” has been edited to include text as reorganized from other sections of the 2014 version of the document; the changes from the original language from other sections has been formatted to show changes as tracked.]
1. Special Presentations
Ceremonial items such as commendations, proclamations and special presentations, if any, will be handled after prior to consideration of Consent Calendar items pursuant to the City of Pacifica Administrative Policy No. 1 as stated in the Council Agenda Format – Order of Business.
There should be an attempt to limit all commendations, proclamations and special presentations to no more than 20 minutes.
2. Consent Calendar
Items may be placed upon the Consent Calendar by the City Manager whenever, in his or her judgment, such items are expected to be routinely approved without requiring substantial discussion or debate. The Consent Calendar shall be voted upon as one item. Any Councilmember may ask brief questions to clarify an issue prior to voting on the Consent Calendar and there may be brief Council discussion of an item without the need to remove any items off of consent. If further discussion or debate is desired, any Councilmember may request that an individual item be removed from the Consent Calendar in which case the item shall be considered on the regular agenda immediately after the Consent Calendar unless otherwise determined by the Council. Any Councilmember may request that such member’s vote be recorded as
6.a
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 9 other than yes on any individual item without having to remove the same from the Consent Calendar.
All items on the Consent Calendar will have staff reports sufficient to adequately inform the public of the nature of the items on the Consent Calendar of which reports shall be posted and available in the Council Chambers. The full Agenda Packet is made available in print format at City Hall and at Council Chambers during the meeting.
3. Public Comments on Non-Agendized Items Oral Communications The purpose of Public Comments on Non-Agendized Items Oral Communications is for any member of the public to address the City Council on any issue that is not on the Agenda. See Section 2-3 for management of Oral CommunicationsPublic Comments on NonAgendized Items.
4. Council Communications
The purpose of Council Communications is for Councilmembers to inform each other of items of potential interest to other Councilmembers, such as interagency meetings.
City Councilmembers should generally adhere to a three-minute time limit for Council Communications unless additional time is granted by a majority of the City Council.
5l. Council Considerations
Routine items for Council consideration which are not likely to require extensive discussion shall be agendized before Public Hearings.
The remainder of items for Council consideration shall be heard after Public Hearings.
[NOTE: The below section “City Council Decorum” has been edited and reorganized to Section 4 earlier in the document.]
2. City Council Decorum.
A. Respect for each individual Councilmember’s interpersonal style will be a standard of operation. Courtesy and respect for individual points of view will be a standard of operation. All City Councilmembers will respect each other’s right to disagree. All City Councilmembers will expect a high degree of decorum and courtesy Commented [CS7]: Add new section discussing where the
full physical agenda packet is made available – City Hall and Council Chambers.
Commented [CS8]: Change term to “Public Comments”
6.a
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 10 during City Council meetings both among Councilmembers and towards the public and staff.
B. The Mayor will use his or her discretion to enforce these rules.
Councilmembers and staff will be polite, even under tense situations, and will refrain from impolite or disrespectful remarks and body language at public meetings either towards a City Councilmember, staff or the public.
C. Councilmembers should not get into a hostile or adversarial debate with a member of the public or staff at a Council meeting, since these types of debates seldom resolve concerns and many times inflame feelings. If a speaker from the public personally attacks or “pushes the buttons” of the Council, the Mayor may ask the staff for input; if appropriate; although the Mayor may ask staff for input, the Council will not engage in debate with the speaker. If a speaker from the public makes such inflammatory or erroneous statements, after the conclusion of public input, the Mayor will then provide the Council with the opportunity to correct such statements if any City Councilmember wishes.
D. Councilmembers will strive to keep open minds on all issues prior to a vote. Individual Councilmembers will maintain as near neutral a position as possible to assure the openness that is required to carry out the Council’s community responsibility.
E. There will be no “grandstanding” on any issue. “Grandstanding” refers to the misuse of the grandstand, or Council dais. It is the use of an individual Council seat on the Council dais in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner to state a point of view in a negative manner. Negative manner includes: personally attacking another Councilmember, staff or member of the public, walking off the Council dais or leaving any meeting in anger or disgust; emphasizing a political point of view solely for the purpose of playing to the audience unrelated to the issue before the Council; using the dais for a strictly personal purpose; addressing the media for political purposes rather than addressing the Council as a body, or purposely misstating the facts of an issue for political purposes.
F. The City Council respects that the decision of the City Council is made by the majority and not by any individual City Councilmember. Members who are in the minority on an issue will respect the authority of the majority. Members who are in the majority will respect the right of the minority to express their disagreement with the majority decision. Once the agenda item has been voted upon, the City Council minority after making his/her position known for the record, must respect the decision of the majority.
Section 7. Deliberation and VotingDELIBERATION AND VOTING.
1. Order of Deliberation. The Mayor will call upon individual Councilmembers and give them the floor in the order the deliberation lights are turned on.
In the event the Mayor cannot determine the order of the lights the Mayor will grant the
6.a
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 11 floor from the left side of the dais to the right. The Mayor pro Tem will monitor the lights and assist the Mayor in setting the order of deliberation and making sure the speaker cards are in proper order.
2. It is not necessary for all Councilmembers to speak or give their viewpoints on every issue or item on the agenda, especially if their concerns have already been addressed by other Councilmembers. On critical or significant issues, all members of Council will undoubtedly want to indicate individual opinions on the issue but City Councilmembers should avoid repetition and should strive to move the deliberation along promptly.
3. When an agenda item is called, the Mayor will call for a staff report. After the staff report, the City Councilmembers may ask staff brief questions to clarify facts, but should not engage in discussion or debate of the issue prior to public input.
4. At the conclusion of public input and during City Council discussion deliberations, the Mayor may request preliminary straw votes if it will assist the City Council in framing motions.
5. The Council shall debate and discuss issues audibly into the microphone and avoid “off-mike” and individual conversations during public input and debate.
6. The Mayor may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to these rules. The Mayor shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Councilmember. The Mayor customarily will take the floor after other Councilmembers who wish to speak have spoken. The Mayor may move, second and discuss from the chair, subject only to these rules.
7. Division of a motion. If a motion contains two or more divisible parts, each of which is capable of standing as a complete motion, the Mayor may, and upon request of a member shall, divide the same.
8. Withdrawal of motion. A motion may not be withdrawn by the maker without the consent of the Councilmember seconding it.
9. Correction of vote. Councilmembers may correct an erroneously cast or recorded vote before the next item on the agenda is called.
10. Voting. On the passage of every motion, the vote shall be taken by voice or electronic voting device and entered in full upon the record.
11. Silence constitutes affirmative vote. Councilmembers who are silent during a voice vote shall have their vote recorded as an affirmative vote, except when individual Councilmembers have stated in advance they will not be voting.
6.a
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 12 12. Abstention from vote. An abstention for reasons of legal disqualification to vote shall not be counted for any purpose. Non-legal abstentions for personal reasons (such as friendship or appearance) shall be stated with the reason for the abstention and shall not count for any purpose other than a quorum.
13. Not participating. A Councilmember who has disqualified himself or herself pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 because of any financial interest shall disclose the nature of the conflict and may not participate in the discussion or the vote, unless required by the Rule of Necessity.
14. Tie votes. Tie votes generally mean that no action has been taken on a matter. In the case of an appeal or a land use decision, a tie vote generally signifies that the underlying action stands. Tie votes may be reconsidered on a motion by any member of the Council before the next item on the agenda. In the event of a tie vote, any member of the Council may make a motion to continue the matter to another date. Any continuance shall suspend the running of any time in which action of the City Council is required by law. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Councilmember from agendizing a matter which resulted in a tie vote for a subsequent meeting unless the matter involves an appeal or a land use decision or the City Attorney opines is not legally allowed.
15. Motion to reconsider.
A. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Council may be made only during the meeting when the action was takenA motion to reconsider requires a second, is debatable and is not amendable. Such motion must be made by a Councilmember who was on the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any Councilmember. A motion to reconsider may be made at any time during the meetingbefore the posting of the next regular meeting agenda and shall have precedence over all other motions. The purpose of reconsideration is to bring back the matter for review at the next meeting. If a motion to reconsider fails, it may not itself be reconsidered.
Reconsideration may not be moved more than once on the same motion.
B. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Councilmember from making a motion to reconsider such action at a subsequent meeting of the Council where the matter has been agendized for that purpose. Such motion to reconsider may not be made where the City Attorney advises that it is not permissible under the particular circumstances.
16. Appeal from the decision of Mayor. The Mayor shall decide all questions of debate and voting procedure. Any procedural decision or ruling of the Mayor may be appealed by any Councilmember to the whole Council and a final decision on the ruling by the Mayor will be determined by majority vote of the Council. If the councilmember appeal fails or results in a tie vote, the Mayor’s ruling shall stand. If said vote passes, the decision or ruling of the Mayor is reversed.
, subject to appeal by a Councilmember to the whole Council. In additionWhen in doubt, prior to making an initial ruling on any procedural matter, the Mayor may submit the Commented [CS9]: Stopped review here at 9/12/22 mtg.
6.a
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 13 question to the Council in the first instance, in which case a majority vote shall prevail.
Any procedural decision or ruling of the Mayor may be appealed by request of any member.
The Mayor shall call for a roll call or electronic voting device vote to determine if the Mayor’s ruling shall be upheld. If said vote passes or results in a tie vote, the Mayor’s ruling shall stand. If said vote fails, the decision or ruling of the Mayor is reversed.
17. Getting the floor. Every Councilmember desiring to speak shall push the debate button and, upon recognition by the Mayor, every Councilmember shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding disrespectful remarks or body language.
18. Interruptions. Except for being called to order, a Councilmember once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking, except as otherwise provided for in these rules. A Councilmember called to order while speaking shall cease speaking until the question or order is determined, and if in order, said Councilmember shall be permitted to proceed.
19. There shall be no voting by secret ballot.
Section 8. MotionsMOTIONS.
1. The Mayor shall ensure that all motions are clearly stated before allowing debate to begin and also immediately before a vote is taken. The Mayor may request a City Councilmember to restate a motion for clarification, may restate the motion or direct staff to restate the motion.
2. Motions defined. The following motions may be made by the City Council. a. The main motion. A main motion is a motion on the issue before the Council. It needs a second, is amendable and is debatable. b. Fix the time to which to adjourn the meeting to another date. A motion to fix the time to which to adjourn requires a second, is amendable and is debatable only at the time to which the meeting is adjourned. The purpose is to set a time for continuation of the meeting to another date.
c. Motion to adjourn the present meeting. This motion requires a second and is not debatable. A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (1) when repeated without intervening business or discussion; (2) when made as an interruption of a member while speaking; (3) when the question has been called; and (4) while a vote is being taken.
d. Motion to take a recess. A motion to take a recess requires a second, is amendable but is not debatable. The purpose is to interrupt the meeting for a brief recess.
6.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 14 ce. Motion to raise a question of personal privilege. The right of a Councilmember to address the council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which the Councilmember’s integrity, character or motives are directly questioned by another Councilmember during debate. The maker of the motion may interrupt another speaker if the Mayor recognizes the “privilege”. The motion does not require a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. f. Motion to call for the order of the agenda. A motion to call for the order of the agenda does not require a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. The purpose is to require adherence to the order of the agenda. dg. Motion to lay on the table. The purpose is to interrupt discussion of the item at hand for more urgent business or to end consideration of an item without action.
A motion to lay on the table requires a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. It shall preclude all amendments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the motion prevails, and the subject is tabled, the matter may be taken from the table at any time prior to the end of the meeting. Any councilmember can agendize the subject of a tabled matter for a later city council meeting.
eh. Motion to call the question. The purpose of this motion is to close debate on the pending motion. A motion to call the question requires a second, is not debatable and is not amendable. It applies to all previous motions on the subject unless otherwise specified by the maker of the motion. If the motion fails, debate is reopened; if the motion passes, then the City Council votes on the pending motion. A motion to call the question requires a majority vote of those Councilmembers present and voting. fi. Motion to continue to a certain time. A motion to continue to a certain time is amendable and is debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set.
Purpose is to continue the matter to another specified time. gj. Motion to refer to a City Commission, Committee, officer or City Council ad-hoc subcommittee agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer. A motion to refer requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only as to the propriety of referring. Purpose of the motion is to send subject to another city agency, body, committee, board, commission or officer for further study and report back to council, at which time subject is fully debated.
hk. Motion to amend or substitute. A motion to amend a motion or to substitute one motion for another requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only if the motion to which it applies is debatable. A motion to amend an amendment is also in order. An amendment can modify a motion but should not raise an entirely different or independent question. An amendment must be relevant to the main motion.
Amendments take precedence over the main motion. Amendments to amendments are voted first, then the amendment. If approved, the main motion is amended.
6.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 15 l. Motion to take from the table. Subject to any applicable agenda posting requirement, a motion to take from the table may be made at any time prior to the end of the next meeting at which the item was tabled. The purpose is to consider business previously laid aside in favor of more urgent business. A motion to take from the table requires a second, is not debatable and is not amendable.
Section 9. Closed SessionsCLOSED SESSIONS:.
1. Purpose. It is the policy of the City Council to conduct its business in public to the greatest extent possible. However, the City Council recognizes that, in certain limited circumstances, public discussion jeopardizes the public interest, compromises the City’s position, and could cost the taxpayers of Pacifica a significant amount of money.
Therefore, these rules provide for strict confidentiality of City Council discussion in certain circumstances allowed by law.
2. Rule of Confidentiality. The City Council recognizes that breaches in confidentiality can severely prejudice the City’s position in litigation, labor relations and real estate negotiations. Further, breaches of confidentiality can create a climate of distrust among Councilmembers and can harm the Council’s ability to communicate openly in closed sessions, thereby impairing the Council’s ability to perform its official duties.
The City Council further recognizes that confidentiality of discussions and documents are at the core of a closed session. Confidentiality is essential if the closed session is to serve its purpose. Therefore, the City Council will adhere to a strict policy of confidentiality of closed sessions.
3. Breach of Rule of Confidentiality.
No person who attends a closed session may disclose any statements, discussions, documents or votes made in a closed session except where specifically authorized by these rules. Any authorized disclosure will be in strict compliance with these rules and the Ralph M. Brown Act. Violation of this rule shall be considered a breach of this rule of confidentiality and subject to penalties as described in Item 119 below.
4. Where required by In accordance with the Brown Act, the City Council agenda will contain a brief general description of the items to be discussed at the closed session. City Councilmembers will keep all written materials and verbal information provided to them in closed session in complete confidence to ensure that the City’s position is not compromised. No mention of information in these materials will be made to anyone other than Councilmembers, the City Attorney or City Manager, except where authorized by a majority of the City Council or otherwise required by law.
5. Permissible Topics. All closed sessions will be held in strict compliance with the Brown Act. Upon the advice of the City Attorney, closed sessions may be held to discuss:
6.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 16 A. personnel matters;
B. employer-employee relations;
C. litigation;
D. real estate negotiations;
E. other matters only where specifically allowed by the Brown Act.
6. Scheduling Closed Sessions. Subject to the advice of the City Attorney, a closed session may be called by the Mayor, by a majority of the City Council, by the City Attorney or by the City Manager.
7. Persons Permitted to Attend. The City Council, City Manager and City Attorney, or their designees, may attend closed sessions unless it is necessary to excuse them for conflict of interest. Only such additional staff or attorneys shall attend as are necessary. The department head whose department is most directly affected by the topic of the closed session may also attend.
8. Rules of Decorum.
A. The same high standard of respect and decorum as applied to regular meetings shall apply to closed sessions. There shall be courtesy, respect and tolerance for all viewpoints and for the right of Councilmembers to disagree. Councilmembers shall strive to make each other feel comfortable that it is safe to express their points of view. All Councilmembers have the right to insist upon strict adherence to this rule.
B. Councilmembers may make whatever written notes they deem helpful and appropriate. All such documents are subject to these rules of confidentiality and shall be kept strictly confidential.
C. Prior to a vote, the Mayor shall insure that the motion is clearly stated and clearly understood by all Councilmembers.
D. The Mayor shall keep the debate discussion moving forward so that debate discussion and a vote can occur in the time allotted for the closed session. The Mayor will determine the order of debate in a fair manner.
9. Operating Procedures.
A. Call to order. The Mayor will call the closed session to order promptly at its scheduled time.
6.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 17 B. Statement of Permissible Topics for Closed Session. The City Attorney or his/her designee will set the legal parameters of the closed session. The City Attorney will state the topic or topics which can be legally discussed at the closed session.
No other topic will be discussed. The City Attorney will advise the Council whether discussion falls within legally permissible topics.
C. Focus. The Mayor, the City Attorney, the City Manager or their designee will keep discussion focused on the permissible topics.
D. Visual Aids. The use of handouts and visual aids such as charts is encouraged to focus debate and promote understanding of the topic. All such materials are strictly confidential and will normally be collected back at the end of the session.
E. If the City Council in closed session has provided direction to City staff on proposed terms and conditions for any type of negotiations, whether it be related to property acquisition or disposal, a proposed or pending claim or litigation, or employee negotiations, all contact with the other party will be through the designated City person(s) representing the City in the handling of the matter. A Councilmember will not under any circumstances have any contact or discussion with the other party or its representative concerning the matter which was discussed in the closed session and will not communicate any discussions conducted in closed session to such party.
10. Public Disclosure by the City Council as a Body after a City Council Action Becomes Final. shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Brown Act.
A. The Brown Act requires that, as a body, the City Council make certain public disclosure of closed session decisions when those actions have become final.
Accordingly, the City Council as a body shall publicly report the action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every Councilmember present at a publicly noticed meeting as required by the Brown Act.
B. The report may be oral or written. The report will state only the action taken and the vote. Unless authorized by the majority of the City Council, the report will not state the debate or discussion that occurred, nor disclose statements made individual statements made by individual Councilmembers during the discussion. Except for the action taken and the vote, all closed session discussions will remain confidential except as otherwise determined by a majority of the City Council.
C. Taping. Except where required by the Brown Act, closed session shall not be tape recorded.
119. Penalties.
6.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 18 In addition to any penalties applicable under the Brown Act, violation of these confidentiality rules may be punishable by resolution of the Council censoring the person or persons responsible for the disclosure.
Section 10. CITY COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP WITH CITY STAFFCity Council Relationship with City Staff.
1. City staff acknowledge that the Councilmembers are the City’s policy makers and the City Council acknowledges that staff administers the Council’s policies.
The Council is the overall policy body and holds the City Manager responsible for the administration of the City departments. The overall internal administration by the City Manager is necessary in order to assure efficient and economic operations of the various departments pursuant to the Council’s direction. The practices of each department are subject to review and approval by the City Manager.
2. The Council will direct staff only through the City Manager. If a written report or research from staff is requested, Council should go through the City Manager.
3. Staff The City Manager shall inform all Councilmembers when written informational material has been requested by a Councilmember. Copies are not necessary unless requested by a Councilmember. City Councilmembers should contact the City Manager or staff as early as possible if they desire to have any additional written material prior to a City Council meeting. If Councilmembers have questions, need clarification, or need additional material, Councilmembers will advise staff the City Manager as early as possible before a City Council meeting so that staff can meet their needs.
4. Council will not attempt to coerce or direct staff in the performance of their duties.
5. Staff reports should be provided to the City Council as early as possible before a meeting but no later than Friday before the next City Council meeting. Staff reports will give professional input on the issue, including areas of potential controversy and concern, will try to present all sides of an issue, and will recommend areas for discussion and decision by the City Council.
6. Once a decision is made by Council, it will be fully supported, accepted and implemented by staff.
7. Any concerns by a Councilmember over the performance of a City employee should be discussed privately with the City Manager. City Councilmembers should not engage in personal attacks on staff in public.
Section 11. Administrative MattersADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
6.a
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 19 1. The City Council will agendize and prioritize those significant items to be scheduled as future Council agenda items or study session topics. Study sessions and closed sessions will be scheduled before City Council meetings as needed. Whenever feasible, the City Council will receive seven (7) days ’notice of the scheduling of a study session or closed session.
2. Attendance at Meetings.
City Councilmembers acknowledge that attendance at lawful meetings of the City Council is part of their official duties. Councilmembers shall attend all such meetings unless unable to do so.
3. An individual Councilmember may agendize an item for a City Council meeting by contacting the City Manager. Potentially controversial items and items that may require more than one hour of staff time to sufficiently analyze and prepare a staff report for Council consideration will be first agendized to ask the City Council if staff time should be spent on preparing a report on the proposed item. Requests from Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda shall be made to the City Manager a minimum of ten (10) days before the next City Council meeting. Depending on the urgency of the proposed item, such as can occur for action deadlines that apply to proposed state legislation, the City Manager shall consult with the Mayor about when a proposed item should be agendized for Council consideration. All agenda items requiring a detailed staff report may be placed on the Agenda only if the request is made to the City Manager seven (7) days before the next City Council meeting. A City Councilmember request to agendize an item for reconsideration of a prior City Council decision shall require the majority approval of the City Council.
4. If a member of the City Council represents the City before another governmental agency, or organization, the Councilmember will first indicate the majority position of the Council. The Councilmember must fairly and objectively represent the majority views of the City Council position even if his/her personal opinion differs. When appearing in a personal capacity, a Councilmember may express his/her personal opinions and comments only if the Councilmember clarifies that these statements do not represent the position of the City Council. Councilmembers shall notify the Mayor of planned attendance at meetings where possible City issues could be discussed even if attending .
This is required even though the Councilmember is attending as a private citizen in order , not representing the City. This policy is necessary to avoid the inadvertent attendance of a majority of the Council in violation of the Brown Act, or to allow the proper notice of such meeting to comply with the Act.
5. Any written correspondence or other materials received by the City Manager for the City Council will be stamped with the date of receipt by the City Clerk and distributed to the City Council. Incoming requests to City Council as a whole generally are responded to by the Mayor or Councilmember. If Councilmembers get a letter addressed to them individually and they feel the letter is of general interest to the Council, a Councilmember should ask the City Manager to distribute it to other Councilmembers.
6.a
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council 20 Councilmembers may ask the Mayor or City Manager to respond to such a letter. If Councilmembers receive an email addressed to them individually and they feel the email is of general interest to the Council, the Councilmember may forward the email to “[email protected]” to be considered with the written record of public comments for a City Council meeting or forward to the City Manager and ask the City Manager to respond to the email.
6. The Mayor will be the ceremonial spokesperson on behalf of the Council in all matters except if directed to a specific individual.
7. The Mayor will represent the Council’s position/policy even if his or her personal opinion is different or if the issue did not have a unanimous vote.
8. The Council will rely on the Mayor to act in a manner that is courteous and welcoming to the public at all times, even under pressure or during controversial issues.
9. If the Mayor is not available to represent the Council at a community event or meeting, the Mayor Pro Tem or another Councilmember will be available as back-up or to help lighten the Mayor’s schedule.
10. Any Councilmember who is unable to attend a committee meeting for which they are the designated Council liaison must notify the alternate to that committee prior to the meeting.
11. These rules may be amended by a majority vote of the City Council.
6.a
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment A: City Council Rules and Code of Ethics - Recommended Updates Shown in Tracked Changes (5152 : City Council
CITY OF PACIFICA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Zoom Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84059733437
Dial-in: 1-669-900-6833 I WebinarlD: 840 5973 3437
Alt 1: https://www.cityofpacifica.org/LiveStream
Alt 2: Comcast Channel 26
Mayor Mary Bier
Mayor Pro Tern Tygarjas Bigstyck
Councilmember Mike O'Neill
Councilmember Sue Vaterlaus
Councilmember Sue Beckmeyer
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
September 12, 2022 (MONDAY)
www.cityofpacifica.org
Mayor Mary Bier called the meeting to order on September 12, 2022 at 6:00 PM 6:00 PM - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bier called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., stating that all councilmembers were present and announced that the Council would meet in Closed Session. 00a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION-Existing Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: North Coast County Water District v. City of Pacifica, Superior Court of State of California - County of San Mateo, Case. No. 22-CIV-03493
Mayor Bier announced the business to be discussed and opened up public comments.
City Clerk Coffey stated that there were no hands raised for public comment.
Mayor Bier closed public comments and they went into closed session. 7:00 PM OPEN SESSION
Call to Order
Mayor Bier reconvened the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mary Bier Mayor Present
Tygarjas Bigstyck Mayor Pro Tern Present
Mike O'Neill Council member Present
Sue Vaterlaus Council member Present
Sue Beckmeyer Councilmember Present
City Clerk Coffey took a verbal roll call.
City Council Regular Meeting September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics
CONSIDERATION
13. Updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt updates to the City Council Rules and Code of Ethics as recommended by the Council-appointed two Councilmember Ad Hoc Subcommittee, the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk.
City Manager Woodhouse stated how they will proceed with the process of going through this item chapter by chapter, and then presented the staff report. He then stated that he was available for questions as well as the City Attorney and City Clerk were also involved in the process and are also available for questions and participation in the discussion.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck wanted clarification on how they go through this, as the City Manager mentioned going through it page by page. He asked if they intend on doing that after public comment.
Mayor Bier stated it will be after public comment.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated he received a public comment about part of this, referring to packet page 339, page 19 of the document, under No. 3, regarding Councilmembers requesting to put something on the agenda, and he stated that the first sentence of that item states that an individual councilmember can agendize an item by contacting the City Manager. He then referred and read the revision portion of the item. He wanted to ask if it takes more than one councilmember to agendize something, and his understanding is that it retains the ability for any councilmember to put anything on the agenda and, if a substantiative issue that requires more than an hour of staff time, it is agendized in a fashion that they can talk about whether they have majority buy-in and they can send the issue to be flushed out deeper with the adjustment of 7 - 10 days comes as a result of having fairly limited staff resources and making sure that, if it is important enough to a Councilmember, they can agendize it and staff has the ability to add it on the agenda with enough time to get the work done. He asked if his understanding is in alignment with what the City Manager recalls or does he have further feedback on that section.
City Manager Woodhouse concluded that it was a question for him not Councilmember O'Neill.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck agreed, adding that, if other staff has insight he would welcome that insight.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he summarized that provision very well, He explained that there are two aspects to it, one relates to the timing of introducing an item as Council is aware that they have the practice of releasing the agenda packets five days in advance of a Council meeting whereas the Brown Act only requires three days in advance. He stated that, with a 7- day in advance request to place an item on the agenda, that only allows two days for staff to research and wright a report and those two days happen at a time when he and staff are very busy with all the agenda reports and finalizing the packet. He stated that the at least ten days just formalizes that rule to allow a little bit more band width there for the preparation of that staff report. He stated that, in practice, Council has always been very good about being cognizant of City Council Regular Meeting 13 September 12, 2022
Note: Pages 2 - 12 of Minutes Omitted. Excerpt below reflects Minutes related to Agenda Item #13 from the 9/12/2022 City Council meeting:
6.b
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics the time required and the urgency issue, i.e., if they would like to suggest an item but it can wait for a month or a few meetings from now, and he provides the feedback about staff availability and resources in that process. He stated that the other part of it is the key issue that, for any city business item that takes a lot of staff resources and public money to work on, that is always directed by a majority of Council as they set the budget, conduct goal setting annually to drive their priorities and where staff resources are going to be spent. When individually requested agenda items come up, if it is a controversial item that will take a lot of staff research and time and require a lot of work to write the report, then appropriately, it needs to be directed by a majority of Council and the concept would be that they can tee-up a very brief and quick staff report for the Council to discuss whether that is a priority for Council majority for staff to work on. He emphasized that one important key aspect of this provision is that it is the city manager's responsibility to bring forward to Council complete staff reports that provide as much information as they can bring together about issues so Council can deliberate with all of the appropriate facts on the issue. He stated that they are not doing anyone, i.e., Council or the public, a favor if there is incomplete information brought forward to Council, and that is part of the driver. He hopes he validates the way he was thinking about it.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck agreed that it did, and he asked if there is nothing in the rule to preclude that a single councilmember who agendizes this item from speaking robustly to fellow councilmembers on why they have agendized the item and why it is important to the councilmember that they have city staff directed to take a further look on whatever that item happens to be.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that is what mostly happens as often the report will say that a specific councilmember has raised this item and, as part of the presentation, the council member can give part of the presentation or state why they felt it important for Council to consider.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck referred to a goal setting in which they only added one new item onto the work plan because of how they were aware of how valuable staff time is right now. He stated that in other places some municipalities where they need two councilmembers to put something on the agenda, but as they looked at best practices, it was common in other cities that it is an hour or two hour rule and if it takes longer than that to create a staff report, they need greater Council buy-in, and they verified this against other city best practices before coming to the conclusion that this would help them streamline time without taking away the ability for one councilmember to agendize an item.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has a question for the City Attorney in regard to the updating of policies such as these. She understands from the staff report that this was last updated in 2014 and she asked, in the attorney's experience, if this was something that is done every year, every two years, ten years, how frequently do Councils go over these rules.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is not done frequently. She stated that she has regularly seen it happen every ten years but it has been shorter because these rules and policies are exactly as they say, i.e., they are City Council rules and policies and very often it is up to Council in place to determine if they want to follow those rules and protocols. If there is a new Council in place and feel they want to change the protocol, they may want to do it, thus, it can happen sooner than ten years, but the norm is anywhere between 5 and 10 years.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she has no frame of reference. She knows they talked about this and did need to get it pushed a little bit in light of other priorities and that is why she City Council Regular Meeting 14 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics was trying to re-acquaint herself with the timing framework.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was just a semantic issue, but asked if they can change oral communications to public comment. She says that they say it all the time as public comment, and she likes it better.
Mayor Bier stated that she was also going to bring that question up.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is totally up to the five Councilmembers to decide. She stated that, when they have deliberation, they can discuss that. She stated that there is no legal reason to call it public comment or oral communications, just as the pleasure of Council.
Mayor Bier opened the public hearing.
Mgmt. Analyst Brooks introduced the speakers.
Jeromy Carpenter, Pacifica, stated he had two comments on this proposal, comparing it to a filibuster, and didn't think it was good for a democratic debate on matters of importance to the community or Council, and the other comment was regarding Councilmembers expressing their views in a negative manner, expressing his specific concerns.
Dan Stegink, Pacifica, referred to an incident by someone seven years ago, and he didn't think they need to streamline meetings. He expressed his concerns about having no minorities on Council thus the need for district voting and gave various past situations and he suggested that they leave things as they are and treat any incoming member as an equal.
Erin Macias, Pacifica, asked if this was in goal setting and she agreed with Mr. Carpenter's comments in silencing dissent as well as Mr. Stegink's comments, and expressed her concerns, concluding that these amendments should be tabled and Council rethink the long-term ramifications of such a change.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, stated that, as she listened to Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck, she believed many of the things that a councilmember may bring forward is based on community concerns, and shared her concerns on talking about having a voice for the community which she thought should be honored.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, stated she was opposed to the changes in Section 11.3 in creating a new restriction on what is currently an unfettered right of a councilmember, and she expressed her concerns on the changes proposed which she feels undermines the intent of district elections and community engagement.
Remi Tan, Pacifica, stated that he agreed with the previous speakers, and feels there is a lot of vague language that needs to be vetted by the City Attorney. He shared his specific questions and concerns on several issues.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated that she agreed with all the previous speakers that some of these changes undermine our democratic process and ability to bring important items for discussion, and expressed some specific concerns she had regarding the data received and the process.
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, expressed his concerns on the issues in this item, and how he sees City Council Regular Meeting 15 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics things playing out if the changes are made and thus is against the changes proposed.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, stated that she is adding her voice to all the previous speakers regarding this item and district elections to increase input from marginalized areas of the city, and this is a weirdly timed change to require a majority of Council regarding agendizing of an item that is controversial, and shared her other concerns on the logic of proposed changes.
Rick Nahass, Pacifica, stated his concerns about the proposed reasons for making these changes, which he thinks may be counterproductive in allowing the community to have a voice, and asked clarification on the scope of these changes.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, appreciated the questions raised by Councilmembers earlier regarding the process and she expressed her concerns regarding lack of additional public outreach and the timeframe, and suggested that it be tabled until after the election in November and requested a robust review of the appeal process and also agreed with other speakers that it should be tabled until one of the first meetings in 2023.
Mayor Bier closed public comments.
City Manager Woodhouse referred to a consistent theme in the public comments, as well as Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck's question prior to public comment, and in trying to clarify what that agendizing rule does or doesn't change, he felt there was a lot of misunderstanding from the comments about what the rule does. He wondered if she would like him and the City Attorney to continue to explain that more or if, during deliberation, they express their views on it without him and the city attorney explaining it.
Mayor Bier thanked him. She was concerned that there is not enough understanding and, when she decided to do the full chapter by chapter discussion, she didn't realize that it was going to limit the amount of information that was given to the public before they had a public comment. She thought it was going to be a more thorough review of the document so everyone could review it and the community could hear them do the full review and then they can send it back with direction. She thought it might be good to have a much more thorough explanation or if he had a power point that could be brought up so they can see the information. She asked for Council input.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he didn't have a Powerpoint prepared on the document.
He stated that 95% of the changes recommended are language clarification and he believed there were only a few substantive issues that he thought Council would dig into and discuss, including the start time of Council meetings which relates to the late hour issue that have come up in comments, potentially the appeal hearing timing and the provision regarding agendizing meetings and possibly one or two others that come up. He asked her to let him know when they would like him to step up and explain more thoroughly the agendizing of items question.
Mayor Bier asked if he could do that now, and they can do it again when they discuss it.
City Manager Woodhouse started that, with the fact that every City Council decision is made by a majority vote of Council and how our local government democracy works and, in deciding and approving the budget, goals and priorities for the fiscal year and every single item Council considers on an agenda is decided by a majority of Council. He stated that each year Council approves what city staff's work plan is and throughout the year, periodically, there are important priority issues that come up from the community or from councilmembers that can be agendized City Council Regular Meeting 16 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics to be discussed. He stated that there is nothing in the rule that prevents that from happening.
He stated that what changes, because council members are mindful of how much staff time is an item going to take and should it be an item kicked to goal setting to be prioritized among all of the other priorities that the city is working on. He stated that, when a major issue comes up, and one of the best practices that most cities have, such as one commenter who read an excerpt from Half Moon Bay's practice and is not inconsistent at all with what is being recommended in these rules. He stated that it is virtually the same, i.e., if there is a timeconsuming item, a very quick staff report can be prepared and brought to Council for them to decide how and when and if they handle that item. He stated that is how it currently works, and this rule is just making it more specific and changing the 7-day timeline to a 10-day timeline before a Council meeting for requesting that item. He asked City Attorney Kenyon if she has any additional clarification that he didn't articulate more thoroughly regarding that rule. He stated that the theme he is getting to is that the comments from members of the community said that this change would interfere with civic discourse and debate and it doesn't do that.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that she didn't have anything new to add, but she can emphasize what the City Manager has already said, i.e., this 11.3 with regard to the agendizing of items from councilmembers, in no way limits any one councilmember from placing an item on the agenda and that is clear. One councilmember may go to the city manager ten days before the agenda posting and may request that an item be put on the agenda and it will be put on the agenda. If that request requires a significant amount of time which is a very common term as almost every city has Council protocols and rules, the issue that comes up is how you define a significant amount of time. She stated that, in most cities where she has seen their protocol, it varies from half an hour to an hour to two hours at the most. That is based on what Council decides is significant. In terms of whether it should be half an hour, an hour or two hours, that is something that should and can deliberate on, but in terms of whether or not it should be a definition for what is a significant amount of time, she recommends in all cities where she is a city attorney that the significant amount of time be defined because, as they heard at this meeting, it creates confusion and hard for staff to make that determination individually. She stated that section 11.3 related to agendizing in no way eliminates the democratic vote and the way our democracy is intended to work. They work by majority vote. She stated that, in this instance, they are allowing any councilmember, without another councilmember to support that request. She stated that, in a lot of communities, it does require two councilmembers to agree to place an item on the agenda and that has to be agendized. That is not what they have in these rules as the ad hoc committee has determined that they do want individual councilmembers to be able to place an item on the agenda which was important to the subcommittee and Council. She thanked the City Manager for clarifying that as she felt it was an important issue to make sure Council understands.
Mayor Bier asked if there were any comments before they start looking at the document. She didn't see any response so she went to the beginning of the document, packet page 322, page 2 of the document.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that as Council goes through, if there are any editorial comments in explaining the rationale behind certain revisions, he was happy to jump in as is the City Attorney or City Clerk.
Mayor Bier stated that she is very concerned about the comments and the perception by the community that they don't listen to them. She stated that she tries to listen to everyone and address everything that is brought up. She stated that Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck is good at that and she believes they do that as often as they can. She wants to make sure they address City Council Regular Meeting 17 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics everything before they make any decisions.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if they make the comments when they get to that section.
Mayor Bier stated that was fine. She thanked staff for doing that. She pointed out the first change on page 2 and asked if any councilmembers had any comments on this one. She stated that they can feel free to unmute and speak. Seeing no one, she moved on to the next item.
Councilmember O'Neill referred to the Council meeting starting at 7 pm City Manager stated that one revision is that it has been Council's practice at the 10 pm timeline to take the vote, not 9 pm and making it consistent with current Council practice.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that they usually take the vote at 11 pm.
Mayor Bier stated that it actually says, as mentioned by a commenter, that there was another ordinance that stated that Council meetings need to end by 11 pm and ours does say that, but it adds that we can make a vote to extend the meeting.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that, as part of the committee, he and Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck discussed starting meetings at 6 pm.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck asked if it was 6 pm or 6:30 pm, as he recalled it being 6:30.
City Manager thought it was 6:30 pm that was discussed.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if the majority wants to start at 6:30 or keep it at 7 pm.
Mayor Bier asked what other cities are doing.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, since Covid, a lot of cities are moving their meeting start times earlier for different reasons, and that has been her experience that moving meetings to begin earlier than 7:30 or 7 pm is what she is noticing, for the reasons they have heard from public commenters. There is a feeling throughout the state that trying to get business done during normal business hours for Council meetings is something that a lot of cities are trying to grapple with.
Councilmember O'Neill would propose they start at 6 pm, because by the time they do roll call, pledge of allegiance, land acknowledgment, they are probably pretty close to 6:30 to when they can start the consent calendar. When members of the public want to come after the get off work and can make it.
Councilmember Vaterlaus didn't mind starting at 6:00 but, if they have closed session an hour before, they sometimes have two items and they have to do two hours before, and she was not sure everyone is capable of doing that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, with closed session and study session, they often will have an hour-long study session before a regular start time.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if, in those cases, they have the closed session start at 6 pm and City Council Regular Meeting 18 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics the agenda stay at 7 pm for the public part.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that you can't change that time on a whim, and it has to be consistent.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated that, prior to being on Council, he worked 11 :00 to 8:00 shifts and he specifically would have to request Mondays off to be able to be at the meeting on time, and subsequent to joining Council, he has limited his hours of availability to 5 pm. He still takes Mondays off but he is sensitive to the 9-5 sensibility and he didn't want to go any earlier than 6:30 for the reasons mentioned and he thought that could be a happy medium so they get in a little earlier and get out a little earlier.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if there was a consensus of 6:30.
Mayor Bier didn't think it was necessary, as people are used to a 7 pm start time and it might be confusing for them and they will miss things and she thought it would be a weird adjustment.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that you have to take into consideration what happens at 1 am because there are a lot of times when they go to 1 am, and they would only be there until 12:30 if they start a half hour earlier.
Mayor Bier didn't know if they have a consensus or not.
Councilmember O'Neill didn't hear a majority for any time.
Councilmember Beckmeyer has been thinking about it, as the world of work has changed so much since the pandemic but in the past, the idea that people would be trying to commute to get home to get to an in-person meeting at Council Chambers, and numerous boards and committees that she has participated in the community have their meetings starting at 7 pm because of people's commute hours.
Mayor Bier stated that she finds it hard to get to the 6 pm off time meetings and she usually late.
She stated that they stay at 7pm
Councilmember Beckmeyer thinks the question is whether there is some way to tighten up either the agenda setting process or the timing of the meetings that would help make them not so late. She gets the idea of starting earlier to make the meeting end earlier, but she didn't think starting earlier is very practical. She asked what else they can do to keep from 1 am meetings.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that the other option they discussed is the Planning Commission used to have the first and third Monday and the fourth Wednesday of the month was always their scheduled study session day. He didn't know if they still do that, but when he was on the Commission, that is what they did. He asked if they want to consider second and fourth Monday and then say the second Wednesday of every month would be their third meeting of the month if they need to have one because of issues. He asked the city attorney if that is legal, some months having it on a second Wednesday and some months they don't have it on a second Wednesday.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is legal, and they can do that and have done it, even without City Council Regular Meeting 19 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics a change in the protocols. They can always schedule special meetings and that is what it would be since it isn't a regular meeting.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if, they always say second Wednesday, but he is open to whatever day they want, would that always be a special meeting.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively, as they would only have two regular meetings a month unless they want to change to have three regular meetings a month. That would mean that you have to have three regular meetings a month unless Council was to cancel the third regular meeting. She stated that most cities have two regular meetings a month and, if Council at that time feels that, given what they are facing in the next year, given their goal setting and goal priority, they are going to have a lot to do in the next year and they agree that we will keep every third Monday available for special meetings. Then city manager and staff always know that, if they need a special meeting, this is the Monday when councilmembers keep their calendars open and it will be easy to schedule.
Councilmember O'Neill stated he finds it much easier if he has a set date to schedule meetings.
He stated he is just saying second Wednesday, but he would keep that second Wednesday free for Council meetings.
Mayor Bier agreed that having a placeholder would help her schedule, as well as anyone else's, even new councilmembers coming in that they know to have that.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that, if they want, they can have the third Wednesday because there won't be two in one week.
Mayor Bier stated that it depends on committee and commission meetings.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated that is emergency preparedness.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that he doesn't have the big calendar in front of him. He would favor that. He stated that, if they start at 7 pm, and if they need a third meeting in a month, they have a set date when they do it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked what Councilmember Vaterlaus thinks about that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought that was fine but she was looking at the calendar and it gets confusing because of all the various committees. She didn't know when they would place that commitment as Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck has something on the second Wednesday.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated it is the third Wednesday. He stated the second Wednesday looks clear to him.
City Clerk Coffey stated, regarding the second Wednesday, the Library Advisory Committee's regular meeting schedule is for the second Wednesday of the month although they have not met since the beginning of the pandemic and have been canceled each month, but that is the regular scheduled meeting date.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated that they weren't meeting since before the pandemic which is why he doesn't have it on his calendar. He asked if City Clerk Coffey could help them find a date in time that would work, given the robust meeting schedule they have to navigate and City Council Regular Meeting 20 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics come back to them at a later time.
City Manager Woodhouse stated he was going to jump in about the second Wednesday and the Library Advisory Committee since it hasn't met for a long time and there might be the possibility of looking for a new day and time for the LAC and allotting that time to Council.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought that makes sense to her.
Mayor Bier agreed as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought it was fair to say they will be having a busy year coming up with Housing Element, follow up from the General Plan, phases of the Beach Boulevard Infrastructure Resiliency and things that tend to create those special meetings. She thought the idea of creating a placeholder and setting it on their calendar makes sense.
Councilmember O'Neill would prefer Wednesdays because staff is usually open until 7:30 on Wednesday nights and staff is not available on Wednesdays.
Councilmember Vaterlaus would prefer it on a week when they didn't already have the Council meeting. She stated that, this week, she has a meeting every night of the week and she would like one night that's free.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that it would be the first Wednesday of the month and asked if there was a conflict. He asked the City Clerk if she had the calendar.
Mayor Bier thought there was so much more they have to discuss in this document.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, to that point, they could parking lot this issue of the special regular meeting date and bring that back as a separate stand-alone item for Council approval and amendment to this policy. He stated that they do handle special meetings on an ad hoc basis now and it might take a little bit more work to find the time and go through all the different meetings and prioritization of them to locate a standardized special meeting night.
City Clerk Coffey referred to the question of the first Wednesday of each month, they have regular meetings for the Beautification Advisory Committee.
Councilmember O'Neill concluded that they are all scheduled on Wednesdays because staff is working until 7:30. He votes that they just parking lot this item, remain at 7 pm and they continue present practice.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that one thing on there is the notification that at 11 pm they decide they are going to vote on extending the meeting time period. She said it said 9:00 and then changed to 10:00 but they might as well change it to 11 pm.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he mis-spoke earlier that the 11 pm time isn't further and says meetings will conclude by 11 pm unless a majority of councilmembers present vote to extend and then what used to be 9 pm and is now 10 pm time refers to.
Councilmember O'Neill stated amending the agenda.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed that it was regarding amending the agenda. He stated that City Council Regular Meeting 21 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics he has to plug his computer in.
Mayor Bier stated she is struggling going over this at all. She stated that, regarding comments made by the community, the timing of this conversation is eating at her.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understands that. She completely agrees.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if they are going to adjourn the meeting and not talk about this anymore.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought they needed to break it into different sections or table the item for a future meeting. She wasn't sure what everyone would like to do, but Mayor Bier is staying that the approach she had envisioned, which made sense to her in light of what they have done recently with their other large project, and the difference is that they haven't had a lot of time with this document nor the community and it feels that they have received strong feedback this evening.
Mayor Bier agreed, adding that is what her gut feeling is, i.e., they should table this to a different meeting as she didn't think they were ready to talk about this.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they should have waited on the General Plan too, until they have a new body. If they keep waiting on things, then she didn't think it is useful as a Council as they have September through December, four months, and they have to get things done and can't put off everything because there might be a new Council.
City Manager Woodhouse will add to the conversation that they can take it up whenever, as Council had originally directed the goal of updating this policy before the end of the fiscal year.
Because of various work plan priorities and getting the ad hoc committee together and doing the research, it took longer than the end of the fiscal year. He stated that they have busy agendas coming up and the agenda management is always a challenge as they see on this agenda, that this is the only consideration item and it was intentionally a light agenda because they had numerous special presentations that were also time sensitive, and it is an art in trying to balance the agenda. He stated that it is completely the Council's prerogative and they recently polled for picking out a couple of special meeting dates for City Council meeting in October and November. He stated that they will have more meetings to get the business done and they could table this to one of those meetings in the future. He stated that, if the Council didn't want to make a decision about it at this meeting, they could go through more of the deliberations so the public hears the revisions that are being suggested and the rationale for them, and continue the meeting to a future date.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that goes more to what she was saying a few moments ago, that in terms of the opportunity to look over the information, hear it, understand it, discuss, and amend if they think they need to or add, but she thinks the idea of going through and making a decision doesn't feel right as it is 10 pm and according to page 2, they should be having a discussion now which is what they are having, to discuss what they are going to do with tabling and moving forward to another agenda. She thinks they all see the benefit of looking at this in terms of the way they do their work and she thinks they should go through as much as they can, given their ending time of 11 pm and table the rest. She asked what Mayor Bier thinks about that.
Mayor Bier stated that it sounds better to her to be able to continue the meeting so they can City Council Regular Meeting 22 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics continue the items. She thanked her for that discussion. She then stated that they can go back and talk about it all.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that this is on packet page 322, and about Council beginning at 10 pm and thereafter, if the majority requested, will determine what issues will be completed at that meeting and which items will be continued to the next regular or special Council meeting.
She asked if that feels like what just happened and feels comfortable around how they can proceed. She didn't think about that and had no association with the sentence she just read.
She thought this is a good process and unearthing something she felt could be a useful tool in terms of focus, meeting management and checking in.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated especially if they have a designated special meeting day that is consistent.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that they are putting a little asterisk, a pin to come up with some language about that special meeting. She is making a note on her document margin about that, and they aren't going to go through and try to figure out what that meeting is now but just add language about a third meeting.
Mayor Bier agreed. She then stated they are moving forward, and Councilmember Vaterlaus brought up changing oral communications to public comments and she agreed as she gets caught between the two.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has another weird thing, i.e., says that the mayor may call for a break every two hours. She asked if that is how their bodies work.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she means arbitrary.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says additional recesses may be called, but it seems odd to her.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that it doesn't hurt anything and he doesn't want to spend 20 minutes talking about it.
Mayor Bier asked if they want to change oral communications to public comments.
Councilmembers Vaterlaus and Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they were talking about No. 3 on page 3.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded that oral communications get changed to public comments.
Mayor Bier stated that throughout.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she got it.
Mayor Bier stated that the next change is in C.
City Council Regular Meeting 23 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Councilmember O'Neill asked if they could put public comments on items not on tonight's agenda.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it says on Non-Agendized items.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that he knows it says that but he was trying to make it simpler as sometimes people don't understand it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was public comment or communication.
Councilmember O'Neill stated comments.
Councilmember Beckmeyer added on items not on the agenda.
Councilmember O'Neill stated on tonight's agenda.
Mayor Bier stated that it might not be nighttime.
Councilmember O'Neill clarified that it says on this agenda.
City Attorney Kenyon suggested that they put on the posted agenda.
Councilmember O'Neill thought that sounds good.
Councilmember Beckmeyer concluded on the posted agenda.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that change all oral communications to public comments in the entire document.
Mayor Bier agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon mentioned to the City Clerk that they are also asking to change, instead of on Non-Agendized items, to on the posted agenda.
Mayor Bier stated she got that, and then stated that C is where the next change is and she asked if they agree with that. She thought it was fine.
Councilmember Beckmeyer referred to D, management of public comments.
Council member O'Neill stated that E is not their current practice but the day of the meeting.
Mayor Bier stated that they have to do D first and then they will move to E. She asked if everyone was okay with the changes in D.
Councilmember Vaterlaus agreed.
Councilmember O'Neill again stated that E is not their current practice as now is the deadline noon or 4 pm on the day of the meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the deadline is currently noon.
City Council Regular Meeting 24 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Councilmember O'Neill asked if on the day of the meeting.
City Manager Woodhouse responded that it is on the day of the meeting.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that needs to be changed.
City Manager Woodhouse said that it says submitted by noon on the date of the City Council's meeting.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that he was reading the lined-out portion.
Mayor Bier stated that there is red and green and she asked where the green comes from.
City Manager stated that it was during their version editing with different edits from different iterations of the document.
Mayor Bier understood and asked if they are ready to move one. She has some stuff for H and, after looking at it, she thought she would have to come back to that, as she has it circled but she thinks there is something there.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if she was talking on E or a different one.
Mayor Bier stated she was talking about H.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for context, and the City Attorney can add also, but for H and I, with oral communications, the reason for there not being discussion about the items is that they have to comply with the Brown Act where Council would discuss items needs to be agendized specifically and when they have oral communications, they aren't agendized items that are raised and Council can't discuss those items. He stated that clarifying questions is normal or asking staff to follow up is the normal practice unless the City Attorney wants to elaborate on that.
City Attorney Kenyon just wanted to confirm that those changes were primarily made to make sure that there is no confusion that they were complying with the Brown Act.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if they want to put a reference in there, per the requirements of the Brown Act, City Council cannot respond to public comments or something to that effect.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they could if Council desires that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that it clarifies it a little bit.
Mayor Bier knows there are many times where they will ask questions based on public comments, and they address some of the questions made in public comment, but not during that time, but during Council Communications.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it says asking clarifying questions and referring the matter to staff and that is what typically happens.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that they don't need to do the wordsmithing now but ask staff to come back with it when they look at this the next time.
City Council Regular Meeting 25 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics City Attorney Kenyon agreed, and she asked City Clerk Coffey that, instead of word snipping the document, just put it in the comments as she was doing above and that will be a note for staff to double check that item.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if they want to put current Brown Act as they keep changing it.
City Attorney Kenyon knows that they will word snip it and it won't say in order to comply with the Brown Act but it will get the message across.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if they were looking at 4A now.
Mayor Bier agreed, stating she is fine with 4A.
Councilmembers O'Neill and Vaterlaus were okay with that.
Mayor Bier appreciated the changes in C. She would like to make sure there was a consensus anyway as it feels better to do that. She asked if that was why they thought to change that.
She thought it would be nice to hear the logic behind the changes if possible.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that, one thing that is not addressed here is the spokesperson for a group of persons, and he asked if they are going to allow that spokesperson extra time because they are speaking for many people, as that is not addressed. He stated that he hears three people say they will give their time to someone and they want him to get nine minutes. He asked if they want to put that in there or leave it the way it is.
City Attorney Kenyon added that there is always the discretion for the mayor to suggest that, depending upon the request, even if it is not included in the protocols.
Mayor Bier stated that it was just a request for a spokesperson but that is not necessarily what happens.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Council member Beckmeyer asked if the mayor was asking for clarification on paragraph C.
Mayor Bier stated she was, as she thought, as they go through it, it would be helpful to have the logic behind the changes that were made.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that, on C, the practice has been that the mayor is the presiding officer over the procedural aspects of meetings and here the change was made that, at the discretion of the mayor to allow additional public input seemed to be what they do in practice rather than Council voting on that. He stated that it is Council's decision about how formal they want to be about that process.
Councilmember Vaterlaus likes the way it is written.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor Bier agreed also, and then moved on.
City Council Regular Meeting 26 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Councilmember O'Neill likes the idea of the city talked about that they get ten minutes and then three minutes for rebuttal.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if for appeals.
Councilmember O'Neill responded affirmatively, but added about explaining the rebuttal process.
Councilmember Vaterlaus thought it takes three minutes to explain it.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it is hard to predict how many minutes they would want to reserve.
Councilmember O'Neill stated, if they only use seven minutes for their presentation, they still only get three minutes for rebuttal, not banking.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was up to ten minutes and allowing three minutes for rebuttal.
Councilmember O'Neill agreed, but added that, if they do it in eight, they don't get to bank the two minutes.
Mayor Bier agreed that it was a good policy.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck also agreed and asked if that was how they used to do it a decade ago. He thought that was how it was when they first started attending meetings and then it changed and he didn't remember how that happened.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was interesting to note that is how the policy was originally written but ever since he has been here, it has been the ten with reserving three of the ten and either way, as the commenter also spoke, there seems to be more appeals and that adds time to the appeal and it could go either way and, as Councilmember Vaterlaus stated, clarifying the process takes time as well and if they can be as clear as possible, then it is only a three minute difference or six minute difference as they have appellant and the applicant to get the same thing.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that it sounds like they are deciding to restore the words and three minutes for rebuttal and strike the option to reserve up to three minutes for rebuttal.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed.
Councilmember Beckmeyer also heard if they shall give up to ten minutes for their opening presentation.
Councilmember Vaterlaus and in the comments on the side it says and up to three minutes additionally.
Councilmember Beckmeyer is concerned about that because she is afraid it will introduce into people's minds the idea that it might change and they can't count on ten minutes and maybe it will be that they get up to ten minutes and this time they only get eight minutes or six minutes.
She understands what they are saying.
City Council Regular Meeting 27 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Councilmember O'Neill stated a maximum of ten minutes.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated no more than ten minutes.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that she doesn't want to wordsmith it but that is what people could think when they read it and it could be concerning to them. She asked that they put a little asterisk in that comment for staff to word snip that so it's clear.
Mayor Bier stated that they can move forward to D. She thought there was public comment around this.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked if it was in the comments submitted before the meeting.
Mayor Bier stated no.
City Attorney Kenyon thought that statement was with regard to Council behavior as opposed to addressing the public.
Mayor Bier appreciated that input.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated that they softened some of the ambiguous language, such as the slanderous and obscene remarks.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there is a lot of rights mentioned in the second line of B, and she asked if they can strike the words "and that" in the middle, i.e., "the public have the right to address the Council includes the right to make remarks that member of the City Council may find critical, unpleasant ... "
Mayor Bier stated that she dropped off and Councilmember Beckmeyer didn't notice.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought she was in deep thought over what she just said.
Mayor Bier reiterated that she dropped off and came back.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she was suggesting dropping three words out of the sentence and changing "includes" to "including".
Councilmember O'Neill liked that.
Mayor Bier agreed. And stated that they were at C.
Councilmember O'Neill stated he was okay with C.
Mayor Bier stated that they were not in City Council Decorum. She stated she was fine with A.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Councilmember O'Neill stated he was okay with B.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated it was fine.
City Council Regular Meeting 28 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Councilmember O'Neill stated he was fine with C.
Mayor Bier asked if the comments were for this paragraph.
City Attorney Kenyon didn't think so, but that it was further down.
Mayor Bier asked that she let her know when she sees that. She stated she was okay with C and asked if everyone was okay with D.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated C, D and E are good.
Mayor Bier stated that E has some changes that they might want to look at.
City Attorney Kenyon believes it is E.
Mayor Bier referred to the monopolizing discussion time including posing too many questions.
City Attorney Kenyon noted that it is the existing language.
City Manager Woodhouse stated except for the red underlined which is new.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed, adding that she thought the comments were directed at the existing language or she could be wrong.
Mayor Bier thought they were talking about monopolizing discussion time, including posing too many questions. She thought that goes back to making it so they aren't able to deliberate as much. She stated that councilmembers ask questions all the time.
Councilmember O'Neill thinks they have to understand that Roberts Rules of Order allow councilmembers to close debate and call for the question.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed and added for edification that the only penalty for anyone violating any of these protocols is just a potential for a public censure of a councilmember which would require another meeting where that issue would be agendized for Council, and all her years, she has never seen a Council censure a councilmember for violation of protocol. She stated that there is a remedy but it is simply a censure.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that it could be like a filibuster in the Senate where a member gets up and starts reading "Green Eggs and Ham" to delay the vote. He thinks the Council itself has to have the right to call the question at some point.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that they have that right and can vote on it.
Councilmember O'Neill agrees.
Mayor Bier didn't think that statement is necessary. She stated if you want to talk about a filibuster, that is fine, but she didn't think they should keep Council from asking questions, and she thought that was perception.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that he has no problem with councilmembers asking questions as City Council Regular Meeting 29 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics you learn and sometimes it prompts more questions going down a road.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that Councilmember O'Neill and Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck can correct him if he is wrong, but he thought the focus on this revision was the aspect of too many questions that do not facilitate further deliberation, general understanding or bring the issue to closure. He stated that it is really that filibuster concept because questions related to the matter and furthering understanding and deliberations is part of the process. He stated that this is getting at the filibuster situation.
Mayor Bier thought it should just talk about filibustering and not statements.
City Manager Woodhouse was open to any suggestions on language to clarify.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, to that point, she would want to more clearly define filibustering.
She thought that was the attempt by coming up with this definition by the subcommittee, but they can come up with other definitions.
Mayor Bier thought the too many questions and on an issue that doesn't sit right with her.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she was doing fine without her.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it was not too many questions on an issue, but too many questions that don't facilitate further deliberation on an issue. He stated that they could clarify that somehow.
Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested that they take out the "too many", monopolizing discussion time including posing questions on an issue that do not facilitate furthering deliberations is a mouthful.
Councilmember O'Neill asked, just throwing for discussion, if they want to set a time limit, such as every councilmember has five minutes and then it has to go to another councilmember but can go back to the other person, so everyone gets their time for discussion, but they can be repeated.
Mayor Bier thanked him for throwing that out.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck feels that it is the rule of the chair to identify when it might be useful to start redirecting the focus to another councilmember.
Councilmember O'Neill stated he is okay with that.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck knows a part of the reason they were looking at this when they were looking at other boards and what best practices are in other places, and they thought it might be a good idea to address this issue of those who more erroneously start monopolizing the time for the sake of undermining the business at hand rather than trying to further the discussion and that is where this attempt at nomenclature is derived.
Councilmember Beckmeyer has a proposal on the part added at the end where it starts "or monopolizing discussion time". She proposes striking the words "too many", striking the word "facilitate" and changing the word "furthering" to "further".
City Council Regular Meeting 30 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Mayor Bier thinks that's a little better as it is not like you are asking too many questions as they want questions.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if this is almost kind of addressed by the term "grandstanding".
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she has a little problem with that. She feels, the way grandstanding is defined in this, she would personally strike the entire second sentence that states with "it". She would start that sentence with the word "grandstanding" and also strike "on the Council dais". She stated "There will be no grandstanding on any issue. Grandstanding is the use of an individual Council seat in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner to state a point of view ... " She feels that it is a little wordy in what they are trying to say what grandstanding is.
She believes it is important to define it but is defined too many times.
Mayor Bier agreed.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if she wants to put there will be no grandstanding or filibustering on any issue.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that will then have to define filibustering and as the city attorney will probably advise them.
City Attorney Kenyon thanked her.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that, if they say there will be no grandstanding or filibustering, then they will need to insert another sentence after they define grandstanding.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, for the record, she thinks filibustering is being addressed in the last redline sentence or phrase at the end of the paragraph as that was intended to address filibustering and she didn't think there was a need to address it in the first sentence. She added that they could, but they would want to use the same definition that they have in the last phrase, but that would be redundant.
Mayor Bier thought scratching out including posing too many questions, as she didn't think that was a good thing to have there.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that there is a clause that comes after the posing questions on an issue, then it clarifies what is problematic about the way in which they are being posed.
Mayor Bier thought it was the posing of questions because you can be filibustering without asking questions and she didn't think it had anything to do with questions, just the general discussion on an issue that doesn't facilitate further deliberation. She reiterated that it doesn't have anything to do with questions.
Councilmember Beckmeyer hears what she is saying on monopolizing discussion time.
City Attorney Kenyon suggests, "or monopolizing discussion time, including ... she apologized that she is having trouble reading her writing.
Councilmember Beckmeyer suggested, "in ways that do not further deliberation, general understanding or bringing issues. She sees what Mayor Bier is saying which is take the word question out of it completely, not just too many but also the word question.
City Council Regular Meeting 31 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Mayor Bier agreed.
City Attorney Kenyon thanked her and she thinks her writing says "or monopolizing discussion time in a manner which does not facilitate for further deliberation," just get rid of questions and "in a manner which does not. .. "
Mayor Bier agreed as they want to be able to ask as many questions as they can.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed, "discussion time in a manner ... " City Attorney Kenyon added "that does not facilitate or further".
Councilmember Beckmeyer and City Attorney Kenyon were trying to clarify the terminology.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated she loved it.
City Attorney Kenyon agreed.
Mayor Bier asked if everyone else was okay with that.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O'Neill also responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier thought, in F, it was important for an explanation for the community to understand the process they already do as in a city manager system or structure, this is what they are already doing.
City Manager Woodhouse agreed, adding that he can do that. He stated that there was a quote from the Half Moon Bay policy and this is what is very consistent with that. This specifies, which is the practice in most Council manager forms of government, that the importance of the questions coming through the city manager is for efficiency. They could have five different councilmembers asking questions directly of department directors where it is all the same question, and if the questions come through the city manager, they can efficiently consolidate and get the information to the entire Council prior to the meeting and that is why that system exists if that helps with the explanation.
Mayor Bier stated, to be fair, she feels that it works really well and the community understands that, when she poses a question and she sends it to the city manager and he sends it to a staff member and she gets an answer very fast and thorough and she doesn't feel like it gives more power to the city manager but helping Council get the right information from the right person and department.
Councilmember O'Neill added that it is distributed to all five of them.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
Mayor Bier also agreed.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated that, as a member of the public, he would go to Council City Council Regular Meeting 32 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics meetings for years and, over time, he developed personal relationships with city staff as a result, especially during intermissions or before or after the meetings. He would talk to them and had the ability. When he became a councilmember, he learned about the Council management structure which is common through many cities and he had to unlearn going directly to city staff because it messes things up a little. He stated that he often mails the city manager and may copy the department head as it is hard to break himself of that habit. He talked to a government affairs official for PCE and as they were discussing, he reminded him of the way generally in all cities, the Council management structure operates and as a member of the public, he was not aware of how that structure operates and is common in many cities.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated that she has had other city managers and it was exactly the same, such as when Lorie Tinfow was the city manager, they went directly to her.
Mayor Bier stated that she was fine with leaving it as-is. She stated, in Order of the Agenda, there are a lot of things redlined and she thought they might be able to get an explanation for that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the clarifying note there is that all of the redlined items have been moved into a new section called regular agenda items and any track changes on those items are reflected in that later section 4. He stated that, scrolling down past all of the track changes redlined. He then thought the section number is incorrect. Section 4 is consent calendar, Section 5, Council Communications, and Section 6, Regular Agenda Items. He stated that Section 6 shows the track changes to those regular agenda items. He stated that it is a little cluncky in managing the track changes when you're re-ordering the document for readability.
Councilmember Beckmeyer gets it.
City Manager Woodhouse pointed out, under special presentations, the committee added, with the issue of trying to manage the length of times of meetings and the agenda, trying to limit special presentations to more than 20 minutes collectively. He stated that this meeting was a little bit of an exception because they had four time-sensitive special presentations and proclamations that had to go in the month of September, but typically, they would only have one or two and do them in the 20-minute time period.
Mayor Bier stated this is an attempt. She stated that was one and two, and they were good with two. She wondered why the part in Section 2 of the last sentence was being taken out.
Councilmember Vaterlaus asked where they are posted, as she thought there should be a copy at the library.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it is struck out because that says that, at the Council Chambers, there is new law about posting of the agenda or reports which this section is talking about, and there are copies posted at City Hall, copies of the agenda that are sent to the libraries and they always have copies of the reports at the physical Council meetings, and City Clerk Coffey can clarify that.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they have a full agenda packet available at the physical locations, and at the Council Chambers when they are in person, including the staff reports with their attachments. She thought, they were responding to the nature of the meetings being virtual now versus in person and they have full agenda packets at the Civic Center currently without City Council Regular Meeting 33 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics the physical meeting location.
Mayor Bier asked if there can be a reference of that.
Councilmember O'Neill asked if they are sending physical paper copies to the libraries.
City Clerk Coffey stated that they are having the libraries post the agenda outline that they also post at the Civic Center, Community Center and Council Chambers, but not the full agenda packet which, depending on the attachments and number of reports, it could be upwards of anywhere from 400 to 1000 pages.
Mayor Bier stated that there might be community members that the only way they can read it is at the libraries.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that they have the physical copy at City Hall.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the physical copy of the agenda is at City Hall and they are also made available at Council Chambers on the date of the meeting when they have an in-person meeting. She added that the libraries are equipped with computers and she believes they have library staff available to assist with accessing online materials.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that the time was 10:45 pm.
Mayor Bier thanked him but she didn't think they will be extending the meeting as she thought they will end at 11 pm and continue the meeting.
Councilmember O'Neill thought that was a consensus, but he wanted to be sure.
Mayor Bier stated that she was asking.
Councilmember Vaterlaus was in agreement.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated that was her understanding.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated that it was fine by him. He asked if they were asking to make sure there is a copy of the agenda in the libraries.
Councilmember Vaterlaus responded affirmatively.
Mayor Bier stated that it was not the agenda, but the report.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated it was the whole agenda packet.
Mayor Bier stated that they need to have it available in as many places as they can for them as that is one of the concerns with the community that is not acceptable.
City Manager Woodhouse would like to talk about this a little bit as the physical printing and distribution of the entire agenda packet, depending on how big, as City Clerk Coffey stated it could be 1000 pages, and it is quite onerous to do. He stated that they have it available at City Hall and it is rarely accessed at City Hall. It is also at the Council Chambers. He thought the Council could decide if they want multiple copies distributed all around the city, they would do City Council Regular Meeting 34 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics that, but it is a significant undertaking as well as a significant amount of paper with some question about frequently that is actually accessed versus electronically accessed at a library computer if someone needs assistance or at City Hall.
Mayor Bier suggested that they leave that sentence in and leave it at that.
City Manager Woodhouse stated it was fine as they do that, i.e., posted and available at Council Chambers. He stated that the reason they struck it out is because now they are not doing in person meetings at the Council Chambers as the reports aren't there because no one can get into the Council Chambers.
Mayor pro Tern Bigstyck stated the really can say when they are in person meetings.
Mayor Bier stated that sounded good.
Councilmember Beckmeyer thought one additional thing needs to be included which is the statement City Clerk Coffey made and City Manager Woodhouse just reinforced, which is that the full agenda packet is available at City Hall, which right now is at the Community Center and right now there is no physical paper copy available at Council Chambers. She thought the intent of the process is not to write policies for what might prove to be two more months of not having in person meetings and the intent is that eventually, City Hall is going to be re-occupied and is a place with a specific address and location and Council Chambers will be where they conduct their meetings in person. She asked if they should be stating in this paragraph that the agenda packet is available and all staff reports and attachments is available for public review at City Hall.
Councilmember Vaterlaus stated just at City Hall and is consistent wherever City Hall is located is where it will be.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated in this document it only talks about Council Chambers. She stated that, what the mayor said about restoring the last sentence, they never talk about the part that is at City Hall.
City Manager Woodhouse had a suggestion as what is weird about this, asking City Clerk to scroll back up, and for some reason this just falls under the consent calendar discussion, and he would recommend that they come back with a paragraph, unless it is already in there but in a different location, that talks about where the physical agenda packet will be provided.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that it then doesn't just pertain to consent calendar reports but pertains to all of the reports. And they will clarify that it is provided at City Hall, and there will also be a copy at the Council Chambers when they are doing in-person meetings. He thought state law continues to require at City Hall as well.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed that they will include City Hall and they will move the entire reference to all of it somewhere else in the document that is higher up or pertains to everything, not just the consent agenda.
City Clerk Coffey thought, other than striking this phrase, her read on this was the intent of this statement was that, because this is under the consent calendar, her take is that each of the City Council Regular Meeting 35 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics consent calendar items, even though not discussed individually, they are considered as a whole and each item will have a staff report that is sufficient to inform the public of each item on the consent calendar and that those staff reports are available to the public. That is her read on it, and she thought they were striking this portion of this phrase because it was taking away from the emphasis that each consent calendar item will have a staff report that adequately discusses it.
Councilmember O'Neill agreed with her.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that the topic of where the agenda packets are physically provided will be addressed in a different section.
Councilmember Beckmeyer understood.
Mayor Bier referred to Section 7.
City Manager Woodhouse stated, for quick clarification, there was wording choice changes the committee wanted to make regarding deliberation versus discussion and discuss versus debate, etc.
Mayor Bier was okay with the changes on page 11.
Councilmember Beckmeyer asked her what page she referred to.
Mayor Bier stated it was packet page 331, page 11 of the document. She suggested they talk about the abstention, the redline on No. 12.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that City Attorney Kenyon can clarify regarding the legal requirements.
City Attorney Kenyon stated the strikeout was simply to clarify that, when someone abstains for non-political or format issues or actual financial conflict issues, their abstentions only have effect on the quorum, and there still can be a quorum. If there was a political or format conflict, there could not be a quorum but she also thinks this is an attempt to try to address that there is no reason to state why you are abstaining when you abstaining for a non-legal reason, i.e., if you are not abstaining for a political or format issue, which by law you have to state your abstention and the reason for it, then there is no reason to state why you are abstaining from voting.
Mayor Bier stated that made more sense to her.
Councilmember O'Neill stated that it was 10:55 pm.
Mayor Bier saw that, 10:56 pm, and she asked if they should stop there.
Councilmember Beckmeyer stated if she wanted them to stop at the bottom of packet page 331.
Mayor Bier responded affirmatively and stated they could begin on the next page when they continue the meeting.
Councilmember Beckmeyer agreed.
City Council Regular Meeting 36 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics Councilmember Vaterlaus asked if they have to move to continue this to a date.
Mayor Bier stated that they do need a motion.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to continue the item to their next regular meeting.
Mayor Bier thought the city manager will have to look at it.
Councilmember O'Neill stated a date to be determined.
City Manager Woodhouse stated that he would say a date to be determined, and he asked the City Attorney if that is an appropriate motion where they have flexibility in determining when they can fit this into a future agenda.
City Attorney Kenyon responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Vaterlaus moved to continue this item to a date to be determined; seconded by Councilmember O'Neill.
City Clerk Coffey took a vote by verbal roll call.
Vote: 5-0 (to continue this Agenda Item to a date to be determined) RESULT:
MOVER:
SECONDER:
AYES:
ADJOURN
NO VOTE REQUIRED [UNANIMOUS]
Sue Vaterlaus, Councilmember
Mike O'Neill, Councilmember
Bier, Bigstyck, O'Neill, Vaterlaus, Beckmeyer
Mayor Bier adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m.
Transcribed by Barbara Medina, Public Meeting Stenographer.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sarah Coffey, City Clerk
5 - O; 10/10/2022
City Council Regular Meeting 37 September 12, 2022
6.b
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment B: Excerpt from Minutes from September 12, 2022 City Council Meeting (5152 : City Council Rules and Code of Ethics