1 North Calle Cesar Chavez, Suite 102, Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.raftelis.com
MEMO
To: Kevin Woodhouse, City of Pacifica, City Manager
Yulia Carter, Assistant City Manager
From: Nancy Hetrick, Raftelis, Project Director
Sam Lieberman, Project Manager
Polly Englot, Consultant
Date: June 3, 2024
Re: City of Pacifica Staffing Comparison
This memorandum summarizes citywide and departmental staffing comparisons between the City of Pacifica (City) and eight peer cities in Northern California. The peers were selected using objective criteria, with a focus on identifying cities with comparable features and services. After Pacifica approved the list of peers, our team gathered all publicly available staffing data for each city and aligned the full time equivalent (FTE) allocations with Pacifica’s departmental structures. Comparing total FTEs between peer cities provides a general understanding of how Pacifica stands relative to its peers. However, because of nuanced differences among these cities, this high-level evaluation has its limitations. More meaningful insights can be gained by examining staffing at the departmental level. We then normalized the data to ensure meaningful comparisons across jurisdictions by adjusting for differences in scale and population size. The results of our research and analysis are presented below. Key takeaways include:
• Pacifica’s staffing levels trend lower than its peers in terms of raw counts, averages, and normalized values. Pacifica’s total FTE per 1,000 residents is 17% lower than the peer average. • Pacifica has the fewest Administrative Services FTE per 100 employees among the peer group, largely due to having fewer finance staff.
• Pacifica has the fewest total Police and sworn Police FTE per 1,000 residents among the peer group. • Pacifica has the fewest Planning FTE per 1,000 residents among the peer group. • When the uniquely large childcare programs in Pacifica and Menlo Park are excluded from the comparison, Pacifica ranks in the bottom third for Parks, Beaches, and Recreation FTE per 10,000 residents.
While this analysis provides a comprehensive overview of staffing levels between the City of Pacifica and its peer cities, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations inherent in the high-level nature of this comparison. Variations in municipal services, departmental structures, and operational practices across different jurisdictions can introduce discrepancies that may affect the direct comparability of staffing data.
Additionally, differences in the scope and scale of services provided, local priorities, and financial constraints can impact staffing needs and allocations uniquely. As such, while the normalized ratios and averages offer valuable insights, they may not fully capture the nuanced operational realities and specific service demands of 2 each city. Further, in-depth analysis at the departmental level may be necessary to draw more precise conclusions and inform specific staffing decisions.
Examining Pacifica’s Staffing Relative to Its Peers
The City of Pacifica is facing rising labor and benefit costs in conjunction with increasing service demands. In this context, Raftelis sought to compare Pacifica’s staffing levels with those in comparable municipal agencies, building upon prior comparative work performed by City staff, to support the City in proactively planning and preparing for the future. Pacifica's staffing levels and budget allocations are directly linked to the city's capacity to deliver services effectively. Adequate staffing ensures that departments can meet community needs and maintain high standards of service provision. Conversely, budget constraints can limit staffing capabilities, leading to potential reductions in service levels and efficiency. Therefore, aligning the city's financial resources with its staffing requirements is crucial for sustaining quality services and meeting the expectations of Pacifica's residents.
Previously, Pacifica analyzed comparisons using fiscal year FY 2018–2019 FTE counts from nine peer cities.
At a high level, Pacifica’s staff counts were lower than the peers’ average, except for in the area of Parks and Recreation. This project confirmed that, as of FY 2023–2024, many of the overall trends were similar. Our research and analysis built on the work completed by the City and provides additional equivalency to the staffing comparisons by aligning peer departments to match Pacifica, identifying key differences in each peer city’s budget, and normalizing the data across the varying city characteristics. As such, this project is not a direct comparison to the FY 2018–2019 analysis.
When comparing normalized staffing ratios—such as employees per customer—between Pacifica and its peers, Pacifica generally remained below the peer average as shown in Table 1. The most significant staffing discrepancies were observed in the Planning, Administrative Services, and Human Resources Departments.
More modest gaps appeared in other departments such as Police, Finance, and General Government. In contrast, staffing levels for Public Works per 1,000 residents matched the peer average, and Pacifica slightly exceeded the average in IT and Parks and Recreation per 100 FTEs and per 10,000 residents, respectively.
While these figures help to quantify staffing levels, it’s crucial to recognize potential differences in service levels, especially in Public Works and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, which may exist despite efforts to align department functions with those of peer cities.
Table 1: Peer Average Staffing Comparisons
Comparison Pacifica
Peer
Average Difference
Parks, Beaches, and Recreation FTE per 10,000 Residents 9.0 8.8 0.2 Information Technology FTE per 100 Citywide FTE 2.1 2.0 0.1 Public Works FTE per 1,000 Residents 1.5 1.5 0.0
Police FTE per 1,000 Residents 1.1 1.7 -0.6
General Government FTE per 10,000 Residents 1.8 2.5 -0.7 Finance FTE per 100 Citywide FTE 3.2 5.4 -0.7
Total FTE per 1,000 Residents 5.0 6.0 -1.0
Human Resources FTE per 100 Citywide FTE 1.6 2.1 -2.5
Administrative Services FTE per 100 Citywide FTE 6.9 9.4 -2.5 Planning FTE per 10,000 Residents 2.9 5.5 -2.6
3 Data Collection and Peer Selection
Raftelis began by establishing objective criteria to guide peer selection. This included city population, median household income, general fund budget, and total FTE staff. In addition, Raftelis ensured that potential peer organizations had similar service provision profiles, meaning they each provided a range of services directly to their communities, as opposed to contracting for services. A notable exception was Fire services, which in Pacifica are provided through a local joint powers authority agreement and were excluded from the analysis.
Raftelis gathered census data on 16 potential peer cities to determine comparability. Population size reflects the number of residents served by the city. Median household income is an important factor to understand the community’s ability to pay for services and the types of services a community may demand. The 16 cities included agencies used in the city’s salary surveys as well as those included in Pacifica’s 2019 staffing comparison and were chosen for their comparability to Pacifica across these factors. In our search for peer agencies, we reviewed several coastal communities to reflect Pacifica's unique coastal characteristics; however, none of these coastal communities matched Pacifica's population size closely enough to be considered suitable peers for this analysis.
The demographic and economic characteristics of the 16 cities were then cross-referenced with data from their most recently available adopted budgets, including General Fund resources, employee counts, and service types. Given variation across municipalities, such as for water and wastewater management, Raftelis looked for comparison opportunities at both citywide and department-specific levels. To illustrate, evaluating Pacifica’s public works staffing levels relative to peer cities required a more specific lens due to differing utility provision arrangements. At the same time, including public works FTE in the citywide staff count is important when evaluating administrative services levels because functions such as human resources, information technology, and finance support are needed across the entire organization.
The selection criteria and 16 potential peers were shared with the City, and with feedback, the final eight cities were selected. Table 2, shown in order of total FTE, lists the characteristic data gathered for the eight peer cities and Pacifica.
Table 2: Key Features of Pacifica and the Eight Peer Cities Jurisdiction
2023
Population1
Median Household
Income (2021)2 General Fund Budget Total FTE
Menlo Park 32,478 $179,913 $76,147,993 285.5
San Bruno 42,054 $117,747 $66,443,527 276.0
Rohnert Park 43,693 $82,808 $54,508,924 241.0
Burlingame 30,136 $150,182 $74,518,635 228.7
Campbell 42,713 $130,171 $69,110,503 210.5
Morgan Hill 45,892 $139,161 $54,586,429 200.2
Foster City 32,703 $173,721 $58,671,232 188.9
Pacifica 37,082 $138,548 $48,607,256 187.3
Martinez 36,543 $114,390 $41,572,174 151.0
1 Population as of January 1, 2023. Data from the California Department of Finance 2 Source: United States Census
Pacifica’s population and median household income rank near the middle, but the City’s General Fund budget—which represents the agency’s primary operating fund and reflects capacity to allocate resources to various services—is the second smallest. A variety of factors could drive the budget difference, but the 4 important consideration for this analysis is that service provision opportunities and staffing levels often mirror financial resources.
Comparative Analysis
Examining the total budget and FTE count offers some insight into how Pacifica compares to the peer cities but calculating the staffing per 1,000 residents normalizes the comparison across population sizes. Figure 1 details this comparison. Pacifica has 5.0 FTE per 1,000 residents, which is less than the peer average of 6.0.
Figure 1: Total FTE per 1,000 Residents
Comparing total FTE between peer cities contributes to a high-level understanding of Pacifica in relation to its peers. However, due to nuanced differences between the peers, it is important to remember that this level of evaluation is somewhat limited. More useful comparisons are possible when looking at the department level.
The first step of conducting the department level staffing comparison between Pacifica and the peer agencies was to delineate the organizational structure and functional responsibilities of each department. Using Pacifica as the benchmark, we examined the budgets of each peer agency to identify similarities and differences across service areas.
Next, we compiled FTE counts for each department and division in Pacifica, seeking alignment with available information from peer cities. This framework served as a reference for charting FTE counts across the peer agencies. Adjustments were made to align peer staff distributions with Pacifica’s departmental structure as needed.
Table 3 contains raw staff counts for the nine cities, organized by function to reflect Pacifica’s department structure. We verified the counts, including details on how staff were re-allocated for comparability (as shown in the table notes), with the peer cities.
7.6 4.9
5.8 4.1
8.8 4.4
5.5 6.6
5.0 Peer Average
6.0 0.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
5 Table 3: Peer Agency Department Staffing
Jurisdiction
General
Government1
Administrative
Services2 Police Planning5
Public
Works6
Parks, Beaches
and Recreation8
Burlingame 9 16.73 60 18 68 34
Campbell 9 17 74.1 17.6 53.97 38.8
Foster City 9.8 18 55.5 17 48 40.7
Martinez 4 18 53 14 56 6
Menlo Park 14 27.8 69.5 35 72.3 52.8
Morgan Hill 12.3 17.5 72 26.1 57.8 14.7
Rohnert Park 9 28 944 22 49 11
San Bruno 8 22 70 14 52.7 28.6
Pacifica 6.5 13 39.5 10.8 57 33.5
Peer Average 9.4 20.6 68.5 20.5 57.2 28.3
1 Includes City Manager's Office, City Clerk, City Attorney, Economic Development. Some cities include Councilmembers in FTE counts but, because each has five, they are not included here.
2 Includes HR, Finance, and IT functions. To align with the structure in Pacifica, the staffing of these functions has been reallocated to the category of Administrative Services where needed.
3 Burlingame is the only city that fully contracts out IT services. 4Rohnert Park groups Police and Fire in a single FTE count. Two discernible Fire FTE were removed from this total, but others may remain. 5 Includes Building and Planning functions. Some cities call this department Community Development, Development Services, or something else similar. 6 For utilities, Pacifica directly manages wastewater, but other cities manage varying combinations of water, sewer, waste, etc. Non-comparable FTE were removed, when possible (Morgan Hill, Rohnert Park, San Bruno), but remain in totals when differentiation was not clear (Burlingame, Foster City, Martinez, Menlo Park).
7 Campbell administers utilities through JPA agreements. 8 Includes community spaces and programming for youth through seniors, with some variations. Designated Library FTE are removed for comparability (Burlingame, Menlo Park, San Bruno).
The FTE counts in Table 3 may not sum to equal totals relative to Table 2 because staff performing noncomparable services—such as Fire or Library, which Pacifica fulfills through regional agreements—were removed from department counts whenever possible. Similarly, certain functional or departmental totals will appear different in the associated cities’ budget documents; for example, all nine cities have five city Councilmembers, but they are not reflected in the table even if a particular city includes them in their general government FTE count. Menlo Park is somewhat of an outlier in staffing among this group of peers for most functions except Police. For Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, Martinez is a clear outlier.
While FTE counts were re-allocated or removed to align to Pacifica, a number of key differences impacting comparability remain:
• Pacifica, along with five other cities, contracts for City Attorney services. • Burlingame, Campbell, and Morgan Hill have in-house City Attorney staff. • Burlingame, Foster City, and Martinez include economic development functions within their planning departments.
• A specific FTE for economic development was not identifiable for Martinez, so only the FTE from Burlingame and Foster City are included in their general government totals. • Menlo Park contracts for economic development services, and thus, their general government total of 14 FTE does not include this function.
• Public Works service provision varies significantly across peer cities: a prior third-party study found that Pacifica’s department has more functions than its peers, but for utilities the City manages only 6 wastewater, while other cities deliver varying combinations of water, wastewater, sewer, and stormwater services.
• Public Works and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation departments across the peer organizations operate with varying topography and environmental features, which can further differentiate infrastructure needs and services.
• Pacifica’s Parks, Beaches, and Recreation department’s FTE total was above the peer average, which is likely influenced by two factors: it is one of two cities examined that have a robust grant-funded childcare program, with over 20 FTE in each, and it is the only city with coast and beach areas.
Department by Department Comparisons
The following charts show the staffing comparisons by department. We have normalized the data where appropriate using per capita, often shown as per 10,000 population, for departments that provide services to residents. For departments that serve internal city functions, like Human Resources and Information Technology, we normalized the data using per 100 FTE to reflect the ratio of services to internal city customers. Pacifica’s staffing levels trend lower than its peers in terms of raw counts, averages, and normalized values. The variance is more significant for the raw numbers and averages, but the fact that Pacifica also trends lower on the normalized comparisons underscores the City’s particular resources-toservices ratio.
General Government
General Government includes staffing associated with the City Manager’s office, City Clerk, City Attorney, and Economic Development functions. The staffing comparison has been aligned to the structure utilized in Pacifica.
Figure 2 shows the staffing comparison for General Government, which in Pacifica includes the City Manager’s Office, City Clerk, and Economic Development. It should be noted that Pacifica, Foster City, Martinez, Menlo Park, Rohnert Park, and San Bruno all contract out for City Attorney services while Burlingame, Campbell, and Morgan Hill have this function staffed in-house. For this exercise we have included City Attorney staffing of the peer agencies in the General Government total. The peer average of General Government department staff per 10,000 residents is 2.5 FTE while Pacifica’s ratio is 1.8 FTE, which is 0.7 FTE lower than the average. While this fractional difference might seem minor, it is important to note that many cities employ part-time or cross-departmental roles in General Government functions. Given the increasing complexity of service administration with each additional 10,000 residents, Pacifica could significantly benefit from an equivalent of 28 more hours per week (70% of 1.0 FTE) of direct leadership or support each week.
7 Figure 2: General Government FTE per 10,000 Residents An additional consideration is the capacity of each City Manager’s second-in-command. Pacifica and the peer cities all have an Assistant City Manager, and Menlo Park also has a Deputy City Manager. For the purposes of our analysis these positions were reflected as a part of General Government. The roles commonly include interdepartmental oversight duties, but the staffing and sizes of the reporting departments can vary, which is discussed further below. As such, another comparative approach is to examine the Assistant City Manager (ACM) functions. In Pacifica, the ACM is budgeted across six cost centers, which include citywide support/oversight, supervising Economic Development, and acting as the Administrative Services Director.
The functional responsibilities of ACMs across cities clearly vary. As far as public documents indicate, though, Pacifica is the only city where the ACM has both citywide oversight and a direct departmental leadership role.
Administrative Services
Administrative Services includes the Human Resources (HR), Finance, and Information Technology (IT) functions. In Pacifica, these functions report to the Assistant City Manager. Figure 3 shows Administrative Services FTE per 100 citywide FTE using the total citywide staffing numbers because the department’s services are provided internally to all city staff. Accordingly, the number of staff relative to the total of city employees is a particularly meaningful ratio.
3.0 2.1
3.0 1.1
4.3 2.7
2.1 1.9 1.8
Peer Average
2.5 0.0
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
5.0 Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo ParkMorgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
8 Figure 3: Administrative Services FTE per 100 Citywide FTE Pacifica has 6.9 Administrative Services FTE per 100 citywide employees. This is lower than the peer average of 9.4 Administrative Services FTE for the same number of employees and the fewest among all peer agencies. Burlingame has the next lowest ratio after Pacifica, but it is also the only city among the peers that contracts for IT support services. Following Pacifica’s budget alignment, all ACM roles are included in the General Government staff calculations. Even with that adjustment Pacifica also fell below the normalized average for Administrative Services.
Figures 4 through 6 show the staffing by function for the Administrative Services departments. These values are normalized per 100 FTE for each city. Figure 4 highlights that Pacifica’s 2.1 IT FTE per 100 citywide FTE is slightly above the peer average. The city has the same number (not-normalized) of staff as the peerwide median of 4, while Menlo Park is an outlier with 10 IT staff. More detailed information about specific IT services and capabilities would be needed to understand this discrepancy. It is interesting that despite varying populations, budgets, and employee counts, five of the seven cities with direct IT service provision have 4 IT FTE. Burlingame contracts for IT support and is therefore excluded from the graph. Aside from Burlingame and Morgan Hill, which has an IT Director leading the function, Pacifica and the other six peer cities all have an IT Manager.
7.3 8.1
9.5 11.9
9.7 8.7
11.6 8.0
6.9 Peer Average
9.4 0.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0
14.0 Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
9 Figure 4: Information Technology FTE per 100 Citywide FTE Figure 5 illustrates the total number of Human Resources FTE per citywide FTE in each city. As of the FY 2023–2024 budget year, Pacifica had 1.6 Human Resources FTE per 100 city employees, which is below the peer average of 2.1. Pacifica and three of the other peers—Campbell, Martinez, and Menlo Park—have Managers as their most senior HR professional, while Burlingame, Foster City, Morgan Hill, Rohnert Park, and San Bruno have a director leading the function.
Figure 5: Human Resources FTE per 100 Citywide FTE
1.9 2.1
1.3 3.5
2.0 1.7 1.8
2.1 Peer Average
2.0 -
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
1.7 1.4
2.6 2.6
1.8 1.5
3.3 1.6 1.6
Peer Average
2.1 -
1.0 2.0
3.0 4.0
Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan HillRohnert ParkSan Bruno Pacifica 10 For the ratio of Finance FTE per 100 citywide FTE in each city, the chart below shows that Pacifica again has fewer FTE than the peer average, with 3.2 relative to the peer average of 5.4. A consideration for Burlingame is that the Finance staff manage the city’s IT hardware and software, and act as a liaison with the external IT support, however, city leadership confirmed that their roles are primarily serving Finance functions. Pacifica uniquely has a Deputy Director of Finance as the senior finance-specific role, reporting to the ACM. For the peer cities, Menlo Park has a Finance and Budget Manager, while the other seven cities all use a Finance Director.
Figure 6: Finance FTE per 100 Citywide FTE
Police
As shown Figure 7, Pacifica has 1.1 Police FTE for every 1,000 residents, which is lower than the peer average of 1.8 FTE per 1,000 residents. Further research into district areas and crime rates would be helpful in understanding the context of service needs relative to staffing, but the normalization removes variation due to population size. An additional metric that is helpful for understanding the staffing environment is a comparison of sworn Police FTE; Figures 8 and 9 show that Pacifica’s raw count and normalized sworn FTE per 1,000 residents both fall below the peer averages. Rohnert Park is excluded because they group together their Police and Fire staff in a Public Safety Department and separating the FTE using publicly available data was not feasible.
5.6 4.8 4.8
7.3 4.5
5.2 6.6
4.5 3.2
Peer Average
5.4 -
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo ParkMorgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
11 Figure 7: Police FTE per 1,000 Residents
Figure 8: Sworn and Non-Sworn Police FTE
2.0 1.7 1.7
1.5 2.1
1.6 1.7
1.1 Peer Average
1.7 0.0
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill San Bruno Pacifica 40 48.0
43.0 42.0
47.0 43.0
51.0 33.0
20 24.0
12.0 13.0
22.5 29.0
19.0 6.5
Sworn
Peer Average
44.9 Non-Sworn
Peer Average
19.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill San Bruno Pacifica Sworn
Non-Sworn
12 Figure 9: Sworn Police FTE per 1,000 Residents
Planning
The Planning departments across the cities often had different titles, such as Community Development or Development Services, but the functions were very similar throughout. For Pacifica, the department comprises the building, planning, and code enforcement functions. Each of the other cities’ equivalent departments performed the same roles, however, Campbell, Menlo Park, Morgan Hill, and Rohnert Park also provide housing assistance functions in this functional area. Only Menlo Park distinguishes which Planning FTE work on housing, and this level of detail was not listed by other peers, so that function is not removed here. Similarly, specific comparisons among the common Planning functions—building, planning, code enforcement—were not supported by the publicly available information. Figure 10 depicts the ratio of Planning department FTE per 10,000 residents. Pacifica has 2.9 FTE per 10,000 residents, which is below the peer average of 5.5 FTE and the fewest among all peer agencies.
In addition, the Planning department in Pacifica operates within a uniquely complex regulatory environment due to the city's coastal location. As a coastal community, Pacifica must navigate the additional layers of oversight from the Coastal Commission, which imposes more stringent regulations and permitting requirements. This necessitates a more robust planning framework to ensure compliance with both state and local coastal management policies, thereby adding complexity to the department's workload and staffing needs. When conducting further analysis in this area it may behoove the City to research agencies with a similar makeup, such as Pismo Beach, which wasn’t appropriate as a citywide staffing comparison peer because of its size but may provide valuable insights at the departmental level.
1.3 1.1
1.3 1.1
1.4 0.9
1.2 0.9
Peer Average
1.2 0.0
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2
1.4 1.6
Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill San Bruno Pacifica 13 Figure 10: Planning FTE per 10,000 Residents
Public Works
As mentioned earlier, Public Works is a difficult department to compare across peers, primarily because of the variation in utilities provided. Further research could compare this department with peer cities dependent on similar utility services and other relevant demands on the Public Works department; however, to do so would require additional work beyond the scope of this review (i.e., determining jurisdictions with aligned functions and service demands and then surveying those jurisdictions for specific staffing detail).
That being said, using the current peer group, Pacifica has 1.5 Public Works FTE per 1,000 residents, which is equal to the peer average (Figure 11). This comparison should be qualified, however, based on the types of utilities that each city provides. Table 4 below captures the utilities administered by each city’s Public Works department. Although Campbell, Menlo Park, and San Bruno do not administer any utilities, their FTE ratio does not seem to vary as might be expected from Pacifica.
Table 4: Utilities Administered by Public Works in Pacifica and the Eight Peer Cities City Wastewater Water Sewer
Recycled
Water
Solid
Waste None
Burlingame ✓ ✓
Campbell ✓
Foster City1 ✓ ✓
Martinez ✓ ✓
Menlo Park ✓
Morgan Hill ✓ ✓
Rohnert Park ✓ ✓ ✓
San Bruno ✓
Pacifica ✓
1 Foster City also has Public Works FTE administering Levee, Lagoon, and Stormwater, as well as Recycling.
6.0 4.1
5.2 3.8
10.8 5.7 5.0
3.3 2.9
Peer Average
5.5 0.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0
Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
14 A previous third-party study of the Public Works department identified that, as of Fiscal Year 2018-2019, Pacifica had more functions housed in Public Works than its peers. When analyzing Public Works staffing levels, it is essential to quantify the department based on the range of utilities and functions each agency provides. Due to the complexity and variability in services such as street maintenance, park maintenance, water, wastewater, sewer, and stormwater management, and other functions that may be housed in a Public Works department. While not a part of the scope of this project, a more detailed and tailored analysis is necessary to accurately compare Public Works departments across different cities.
Three peer cities that overlap between the prior and current analysis—Burlingame, Foster City, and Morgan Hill—publicly share information that mirrors the format of the prior study sources. Without new in-depth analysis, comparing information from the prior study to FY 2023-2024 reveals that from FY 2019 to FY 2024:
• Burlingame grew their Engineering team 20% by adding an Engineering Technician and a Senior Civil Engineer.
• Foster City’s Engineering team grew 50%, with staff reporting to the Engineering Manager shifting from four Junior-Associate Engineers and one Senior Engineering Technician (five FTE) to three Senior Engineers, three Associate/Assistant Engineers, and two Senior Engineering Technicians (six FTE, with higher qualifications).
• San Bruno grew its Engineering team 45% from 11 to 16 FTE, added one street and two storms maintenance workers, added one administrative resource, and grew their fleet and facilities staffing to a full team within the department.
• Meanwhile, Pacifica’s department staffing only increased 4%, with the Field Services team adding two FTE and the Engineering team decreasing from six to five FTE.
Figure 11 presents the normalized staffing comparison for the department; however, it’s important to acknowledge the considerations outlined above, and while it appears that Public Works staffing in Pacifica is aligned with the peer average, that data is not conclusive without a more detailed analysis.
Figure 11: Public Works FTE per 1,000 Residents
2.3 1.3
1.5 1.5
2.2 1.3
1.1 1.3
1.5 Peer
Average
1.5 0.0
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 Burlingame Campbell Foster City Martinez Menlo Park Morgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
15 Parks, Recreation and Beaches
Parks and Recreation poses another challenging comparison. As noted earlier, Pacifica is the only city among the peers that has beaches within their service portfolio. In addition, 21 of Pacifica’s 33.5 FTE in this department support a grant-funded childcare services division. These differences likely explain why Pacifica has 9.0 FTE per 10,000 residents, which is higher than the peer average of 8.8 FTE per 10,000 (Figure 12).
The only other peer city with a comparable childcare program is Menlo Park, which has 24.25 FTEs for their pre-school childcare division. Menlo Park has an additional 28.5 FTE for their other recreation functions, while Pacifica has 11. When the childcare programs are removed from FTE counts for these two cities, the peer average falls to 7.5 FTE and Pacifica has 4.1 fewer FTE per 10,000 residents, as shown in Figure 13.
Martinez, which has a very low number of Parks and Recreation staff relative to the peer cities, contracts for the management of their marina, which was not included in this comparison.
Figure 12: Parks, Beaches, and Recreation FTE per 10,000 Residents (all FTE)
11.3 9.1
12.4 16.2
3.2 2.5
6.8 9.0
Peer Average
8.8 0.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0
14.0 16.0
18.0 Burlingame Campbell Foster City Menlo Park Morgan Hill Rohnert Park
San Bruno Pacifica
16 Figure 13: Parks, Beaches, and Recreation FTE per 10,000 Residents (excluding childcare program FTEs)
Conclusion
This analysis delivers a high-level city staffing comparison to Pacifica with sufficient detail to draw meaningful comparisons. After vetting potential peers with City staff, we mapped out peer city department functions to align them with Pacifica’s structure. Next, we used the map to create a comprehensive tracker for the department alignment, which facilitated data verification with peer agencies. While normalizing the peer comparisons based on their customer base helps reduce variances due to differing client bases across the region, certain comparisons—particularly for Public Works and Parks and Recreation—remain challenging due to service-provision variances.
Overall, our research reveals that Pacifica operates with, on average, fewer FTE than peer agencies. While there are pockets of parity, the City has managed to deliver similar public services with less support. On the upside, our analysis found that Pacifica had a nearly equal ratio of 0.1 above the peer average for IT staffing and Pacifica has a ratio 0.2 FTE higher than the normalized peer average of 8.8 for Parks, Beaches, and Recreation. When uniquely large childcare programs in Pacifica and Menlo Park are excluded from this departmental comparison, however, Pacifica had around 4 fewer FTE than the average 7.5 FTE per 10,000 residents among peer cities.
In addition, we found that Pacifica had an equal ratio for Public Works FTE per 1,000 residents; however, the services and functions within a Public Works department, such as utilities and maintenance, vary significantly among cities. Other factors, such as how services are provided (e.g., park maintenance being in Parks or Public Works), the geographical size of the jurisdiction (miles of sewer, streets, sidewalks, trails), infrastructure conditions, and the coastal climate's harsh influence on infrastructure, also impact staffing needs and should be considered for a more accurate comparison.
Pacifica had 0.6 fewer Police FTE per 1,000 residents and 0.7 fewer Finance FTE per 100 citywide FTE, which can be impactful gaps considering how service-delivery complexity grows alongside city population
11.3 9.1
12.4 7.5
3.2 2.5
6.8 3.4
Peer Average
7.5 0.0
2.0 4.0
6.0 8.0
10.0 12.0
14.0 Burlingame Campbell Foster City Menlo Park Morgan Hill Rohnert Park San Bruno Pacifica 17 and organizational size. For other functions, like HR and Planning, Pacifica had around 2.5 FTE fewer, on average, to serve the same size audience as its peers.
To further understand the staffing comparisons for Pacifica, additional research could focus on identifying peers based on specific departments’ alone. For example, identifying small California cities that have overlap with the utilities Pacifica provides, even if the potential peer has vastly different service-levels in other departments. As referenced earlier, each tenth of an FTE can make a difference in service delivery, particularly in a small city. The results of our research and analysis are intended to provide the City of Pacifica with information that provides context necessary to understand, and ultimately address, today’s staffing challenges.
As the next step in this analysis, we recommend conducting more focused deep dives into individual departments to gain a clearer understanding of their specific staffing needs and service levels. This should include a detailed examination of service provision models, workload metrics, and the unique challenges faced by each department. By analyzing these factors, Pacifica can develop more tailored strategies to address staffing disparities and enhance service delivery, ensuring that departmental resources are aligned with the city's goals and community needs.