#
$
$
!
$
%
&
'
(
)((
$(
!
$
*(*
!
$
(
! +
!
,
-*
!.
.
./.
*
!
(
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 @55> +
5
>
"
8FF
0
4F
& =
B
)((
$
;
9
4 9
+
)
'
#
'*$
*
$
*
*
7
*$
7
*$
9
(%"9
-7 $
7
9
- *
&
'
$ '
*$
$
3
*
3
7*
>
*
' *
$
(
E$
*
'
$7
* '
'
'
7>
'
3
7
(E$
$ *
$
7
$
'
7
,
*3 7
(
$
;
;
3
*'
3
(
$
$ "
$
$
(
'
5
''
%
((
&
;
*
$
'
N
$
9
7
'
A
(
$
$
$
$
(
;
G
7
*
37
;
T
N
$
7
*
37
)
$
;
$
$
*
3
%
&
$ '
K
*
3
:
#
$
K
' -1
-
<
+
+
:
"
'
J
3
#
' *$
*
$
*
*
7
*$
7
*$
9
(%"9
-7 $
7
9
- *
&
#
'
7
3
'
-
(
$
*
'
3
L E
3 *
$
'
7
7
3
L
*
$
3
L
3
'
L
3
L
'
'
L
$
3
7'
$3
'
(
J
3
(
>
'
*
!'
$7''
' *
$
$
9
'
' '
'7
9
7 $
7
7$
7
("$
$
$
'
'
'
$
3
(
$
;
;
3
*'
3
(
$
$ "
$
$
(
'
5
''
%
((
&
;
*
$
'
N
$
9
7
'
A
(
$
$
$
$
(
;
G
7
*
37
;
T
N
$
7
*
37
)
$
;
$
$
*
3
%
&
$ '
K
*
3
:
#
$
$
K
<
+
;+
7
$
'
' -
-
=>
!
$
%
&
'
(
)((
$(
!
$
*(*
!
$
(
! +
!
,
-*
!.
.
./.
*
!
(
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
+
-(
:
C'+
!
(;
$
'
'*
'
A
%>
*
$
$
&K
<
+
S
*
' $
$
'
'*
3
'
A
K %!
(!9
.(&
-(
.(S
$
'
'
'
$'
>
*
$
$
$ K
<
+
.(S
*
'
>
$
$
'
'
'K
--
1(S
*
' $
$
'
A
=
$
2$
K %!
(!9
.(&
,
(S
$
'
A
'
$
$
$ %.& K
<
+
(S
*
'
$
$
'
A
$
$ %.& K
(S
$
'
A
* '
$
$
$ %.&
K
<
+
/(5
'
*
$
$
$ %.& 7$
$
'
A
'
$
*
' %
$
&K
J
'
7
'
2
5 2
'
"$
'
A
$
$
+2 "$
'
A
$
'
*
$
$
$ %.& (
4(5
'
*
$
$
$ %.& 7$
'
A
'
D
K
<
+
' -
-
,(;
$
*
7$
'
A
'
'
A
>
$
'
$
*
$
'
K
<
+
-(S
$
'
A
'
*
'
7
7
'
K
<
+
--(#
$
'
A
$
*
'
$
$ *
'
$
$
%& K
<
+
--(!9
*
%
$
$
*$
7
*
7
>
'
&(%+
*
&
"$
$
' '
$
($
$
*
9
*
*
$
'
A
O
$
(
-(S
*
$
%& $
$
'
A
2
'
'%&K
"$
'
A
$
'
$
-.
'
1
'
/R
'
- . (
$
% &
'
$
' %
$
&
"$
'
A
$
'
$
5
5
"
'
$
-.(;O
$
O * $
79
(%+
*
&
-1(#
'
3 9
'
$'
*K
<
+
-(;
'
A
' 3
>
'
K
<
+
-(
$
$
K% +
*
&
"$
5
<2 2/
)
' J
'
7*
$
6-
(
*
*
9
6-(-
("$
'
*
-/7(C
$
J
'
'
(
(
!
!
' -/
-
!
!
(
!
!
$
$
!
$(
",
!
1
?
$
:
<2
?
!
2 ?
2 ?$
2
?
,
-@
:(
-(
,<-",:(, ,<-A"'=A'-
B'(
&
!
B0>
!@
0
+
B
$
'
$
(;
$
$
7
3
$
5
'
(
' -4
-
!
$
%
&
'
(
)((
$(
!
$
*(*
!
$
! +
!
,
-*
!.
.
./.
*
!
(
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 +
@
G
5( '
+
@
!
3( !
+
, ;
C( G
?@
6
?
"
UV
WU
(
9
8
'
'(<
$
*
$
UV
WU
(!9
U
U
(
#57E
%(
7(
9&7!9%(99&7 !:2 :7 +:(
U
U
(
9
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 +
, ;
;
!
!
+9
$
!
$
!
+
( !
$!
!
!
,
!
!
+
$
,
!
#
( !
$
!
!
!
+9
$
D
!
-
-
D
( !
!
+9
$
!$
!
!
+
(
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ' -,
-
E
E
",
E
'
B
'
E
5( -@
E
:
<
7E' J
6.7-4( 6( 6.7-4(
7E' J
6( 64-71( 64-71(
FC4-G5H(66 FH5-;33(66 F55I-6;6(66
5(
%
:
<
C
6( 6-7( 6-7(
C
67( 6( 67(
FG-43G(66 F53-466(66 F5J-63G(66
5($ :
<
5
'
' 6( 6-7,4( 6-7,4(
'
G
6.7/4( 6( 6.7/4(
FC-4IH(66 F5-JH6(66 F4-44H(66
F;4-I33(66 FJ4-J63(66 F5;5-G3;(66
9$
E
'
B
'
E
'
* D
617/( 617/(
F;4-I33(66 F;4-I33(66
B
'
$C
$ 6,7,( 6,7,(
;I
C
$ 6( 6(
)
$5
'
6( 6(
FJ4-J63(66 FJ4-J63(66
9$
F;4-I33(66 FJ4-J63(66 F5;5-G3;(66
E
$ $
(
'
-
E
B
$
5( -@
E
:
<
7*'7
$
'
%
$
$&
$
$
$
'
$
'
("$
7E' J
$
75"!
>
*
37$
7*'
7 $
*
$
$
>
(5"!
$
=
$
>
(
$
$
$
* 9 '
$
C' <
:
'(
-@
E
5"!
(
7J
(
7J
(
7 7J
-@
E
5"!
(
7J
(
7J
(
7 7J
5(
%
:
<
T C
'
'7
7
$
7
$
7
$ *$
(
* 9 '
$
C' <
:
'(
%
'
6/7
'
67
'
'
6.7
%
J
3
5($ :
<
' 2
$
>
(
7
7
'7
'
7
7
7
7
7
>
3
'(
?
@*$
$
$
(
* 9 '
$
C' <
:
'(
7
9
'
$
E 4
$
'
'
*
6. $
' -
-
Item #8
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 17, 2025
Library and Recreation
TITLE: ADOPT A RESOLUTION UPDATING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE SECTION
V(B) POLICE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL PERMITS AND SECTION VIII
RECREATION
SUMMARY
Staff recommends updating the Master Fee Schedule (MFS) to assign program fees to reflect the actual cost of service and the community benefit of that service for special events, programs, classes, services, and facility rentals. The proposed changes to the MFS introduce new service categories, establish clear General Fund subsidy thresholds, and provide a framework to support long-term fiscal sustainability.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution updating the Master Fee Schedule (MFS) Section V. Police Department Subsection B. Special Permits and Section VIII. Recreation.
BACKGROUND
Section V. Police Department Subsection B. Special Permits In February 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-004, which included a new special event fee designed to recover costs for special events by including departmental costs to review, approve, and support events. This fee includes fully burdened hourly rates for the staff time from multiple departments involved with each unique event and any special equipment or discreet service associated with supporting the event (Attachment 1). This fee was set as the maximum the City could charge for the service.
Section VIII. Recreation
In June 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-1316 to update the MFS Section VIII. Recreation. This update authorized staff to set fees for programs, classes, services, and facility rentals based on the actual costs of delivering programs and services, with cost recovery guidelines.
The current MFS Section VIII. Recreation is based on a cost recovery model that includes 13 recreation categories (Attachment 1). Each category falls into a specific cost recovery tier, determined by the level of community benefit provided. Generally, the greater the community benefit, the lower the expected cost recovery, and, consequently, the higher the subsidy from the General Fund (GF).
Over the past three years, staff has undertaken a strategic, department-wide analysis and applications of the cost-recovery model. All recreation offerings were reviewed and categorized according to their public versus individual benefit level. Fees have been adjusted incrementally to progress toward target recovery levels while remaining mindful of regional market conditions and community accessibility. Program design, staffing structures, and scheduling practices
have been refined to improve operational efficiency and reduce costs where possible.
In Fall 2024, Library and Recreation staff reviewed the existing cost recovery targets alongside actual results from Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 to assess whether the existing cost recovery goals were being met. Staff found that most programs were within their cost recovery target overall. In cases where a program or class did not meet cost recovery goals, staff reviewed the offerings to identify opportunities for cost savings or revenue growth. Staff will re-evaluate these programs at the conclusion of FY 2024/25. In some instances, staff concluded that cost recovery was not feasible and discontinued the program (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
Section V. Police Department Subsection B Special Permits To codify and honor the positive impact many special events have on the community, staff is proposing a percentage discount (or GF subsidy) on the special event fee for certain types of organizations, as described below.
Category/Description % Discount to Actual Cost/General Fund Subsidy
PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups
40%
Non-Profit Organizations 30%
Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) 20%
Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses
0%
Section VIII. Recreation
Cost Recovery Model Update
Given the City’s current financial challenges, it is essential that the Recreation Division of the Library and Recreation Department adjust its cost recovery targets. These adjustments will help ensure the continued delivery of high-quality programs and services despite limited resources. By updating the recreation categories and more carefully balancing service fees with GF subsidies, the department can continue to serve the community in a responsible and equitable manner.
As part of ongoing efforts to ensure fiscal sustainability and high-quality service delivery, staff re-evaluated the existing cost recovery model to account for new operational realities.
Changes to program-related costs, including electricity usage and facility maintenance, along with a growing need to identify new revenue streams to help keep programs available to the community, necessitate updates to the MFS. The proposed MFS updates balance GF subsidies for programs and services with significant community impact, with higher fees for programs that bring more benefit to the individual participant rather than the community.
The proposed updates to the MFS (Attachment 3) maintain the foundational principles of equity and community benefit while incorporating greater flexibility and clarity around how services are funded and supported. This updated framework will continue to serve as a key
tool for program planning, budgeting, and resource allocation, helping ensure that the department remains responsive to community expectations and is fiscally resilient.
Recreational Program Fees
As the first step in updating the cost recovery model, staff established a new set of service categories to better classify the full range of recreation offerings (Attachment 4). These categories group programs based solely on their purpose rather than participant demographics or delivery method. For example, the creation of a “Beginner/Recreational Program” category allows all programs designed for introductory-level participation to share a common max subsidy percentage, regardless of the participants' age or individual values.
This purpose-driven approach eliminates arbitrary or inconsistent goal-setting, such as determining subsidy levels based on participant age, gender, or other non-programmatic factors. It also helps guard against subjective decision-making influenced by special interests or perceived social value, promoting a more equitable and objective fee-setting process.
General Notes on Rental Fees
In the proposed model, rentals with greater public benefit are eligible for higher subsidy levels, while those with limited community impact are given lower to no subsidies. This is accomplished through user categories, with co-sponsored user groups and the Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) receiving the highest GF subsidy, followed by non-profits, residents, and then non-residents and businesses. Over time, staff recommends aligning all GF subsidies for rentals, with co-sponsored user groups and PUSD receiving a 40 percent GF subsidy, non-profits receiving a 30 percent GF subsidy, residents receiving a 20 percent subsidy, and non-residents and businesses covering all expenses. As subsidies have been highest for field rentals and gym rentals over the years, those subsidies will have to be reduced slowly over time to align with other rentals.
Additionally, previous fees established a differential between Pleasanton-based non-profits (>75 percent residents) and other non-profits. Staff recommends eliminating this distinction in the updated MFS, as it is often difficult or impossible to determine this residency percentage.
Field Rental Fees
Field rentals have been assessed using the same cost recovery methodology applied across all programs and services. Historically, co-sponsored sports groups were not charged for field use, resulting in a fully subsidized service. As such, subsidy levels for co-sponsored groups in this category are much higher than in any other category.
On February 4, 2025, the City Council approved a new hourly rate for natural and synthetic turf fields for co-sponsored groups. While still highly subsidized, this rate represents an initial step toward cost recovery. The intent is to introduce the cost gradually without placing financial strain on the user groups. Please note that, per a previously commissioned consultant fee study, the rates for synthetic field use will actually decrease slightly for non-co-sponsored groups.
It is important to note that co-sponsored groups renting gymnasium and pool facilities have historically not received the same level of subsidy as field sports.
Gym Rental Fees
Co-sponsored gym rentals have been evaluated using the same cost recovery methodology as all other programs and services. Unlike co-sponsored field users, co-sponsored gym user groups have historically paid an hourly rate for gym use. As service delivery costs have increased over time, the hourly rate for gym rentals has also been adjusted accordingly, resulting in a lower overall subsidy than field rentals, but still higher than other rental categories.
While the rate remains subsidized to reflect the community benefit provided by these groups, it more closely aligns with the maximum subsidy of other co-sponsored rental categories. Staff will continue to monitor service costs and consider future adjustments to ensure continued alignment with the updated model and the City’s fiscal sustainability objectives.
Field Light Rates
To improve cost recovery and reflect the true cost of service delivery, a new table outlining maximum subsidies for field lighting based on the actual costs of each field has been added to the MFS (Attachment 3). Over the past decade, the City has increased field light fees by only $3 per hour, despite substantial increases in electricity rates. As a result, the current fee structure no longer aligns with actual utility costs. The proposed structure would result in a significant hourly rate adjustment to align with true costs. While considerable, the proposed increase is necessary to ensure that fees better reflect the true cost of providing this service and help offset the rising expenses associated with electricity. Fees would reflect the standard maximum GF subsidy by rental category and would be updated each July 1 to reflect actual utility costs from the previous FY.
Facility/Picnic Rental Fees
In this proposed model, facility and picnic fees were assessed using the same framework applied in the updated cost recovery model. Rentals with greater public benefit are eligible for higher subsidy levels, while those with limited community impact are given lower to no subsidies.
Rental Fee Comparisons
Attachment 5 is included to show a comparison of existing rental fees versus projected rental fees using the updated MFS user categories and maximum GF subsidies.
Refunds
Current practice stipulates that requests for refunds submitted at least ten days prior to the start of the class or program will be issued a full refund, and those submitted at least five business days before the start of a program will be subject to a $5 administrative fee. No refunds are issued for requests received less than five days prior to the start of the program.
The recommended policy removes the full refund offered ten days before the start of the program. Many people register for multiple programs and then cancel all but one. This limits access to registration for other community members, and it is labor-intensive for staff to issue refunds. In the proposal, all refund requests submitted at least seven calendar days before the program or class start date will be charged a $10 fee. The change to seven calendar days versus five business days is intended to honor the concept of one week, while reducing confusion for the customer. No refunds will be issued less than seven days prior to the start of the program.
Facility Use Fee
A facility use fee allows for the purchase of replacement items associated with the use of facilities over time, such as sound systems, projectors, tables, and chairs. The facility use fee is only charged for programs offered in City facilities. The fee is minimal, at 2 percent of the program fee. For example, a $50 registration fee would incur a $1 facility use fee.
Non-Resident Fee
Staff also recommends increasing the non-resident fee for recreation programs, from 10 percent to 25 percent. This adjustment aligns with practices in many other cities. For reference, the City of Dublin charges a 20percent non-resident rate, San Ramon 25 percent, and Danville 20 percent. (LARPD charges 10 percent).
The City of Pleasanton subsidizes many of its recreation programs through the GF, which is supported primarily by property taxes paid by Pleasanton residents. Since non-residents do not contribute to the City’s GF through property taxes, the increased fee helps ensure they pay an equitable share of the costs associated with the programs and services they use. This change will help the City maintain the financial sustainability of its recreational offerings while prioritizing access for residents.
Penalty Fee Section
This section lists charges for late fees, facility rental overtime and cancellations, picnic rental cancellations, and infraction fees.
Cost Recovery Implementation and Evaluation
To implement the updated cost recovery model, staff will utilize a phased and data-informed approach to integrate the new service categories and corresponding subsidy thresholds into day-to-day operations.
Staff will thoroughly analyze each program's current subsidy level and revenue performance to determine its alignment with the newly defined subsidy targets. Where discrepancies exist, adjustments will be made by refining the program structure, increasing operational efficiencies, or adjusting fees to meet the intended subsidy level.
Staff will also develop a routine evaluation system and set of metrics for all program revenues and expenditures to support decision-making and provide clarity.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Updating the categories within the MFS Section V. Police Department Subsection B. Special Permits and Section VIII. Recreation to balance fees paid for service against GF investment allows staff to continue providing high-quality programs and services equitably and in a fiscally responsible manner.
OUTREACH
The recreation portion of this item was heard at the May 8, 2025, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, and the agenda report for that item was shared with all co-sponsored user groups. This report is also being shared with the co-sponsored user groups.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This recommendation aligns with the ONE Pleasanton Strategic Plan Goal, Funding Our Future to support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, increased revenue, and cost containment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff expects the changes to the MFS to result in higher revenues and reduced GF subsidies for special events and recreation programs.
Prepared and Submitted by: Approved by:
Heidi Murphy, Director of
Library and Recreation
Tracy Avelar, Police Chief
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Current Master Fee Schedule Sction V.B. Police Department Special Permits and Section VIII. Recreation
2. Recreation Program Assessment
3. Resolution Updating Master Fee Schedule
4. Updated Service Category Descriptions
5. Current Recreation Fees Compared to Proposed Fees with New MFS
CITY OF PLEASANTON
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
B. Special Permits
Each Employee Permit Fee
No Charge No Charge
Other vendors $10 $25
Solicitors & Certain Businesses $10 $25
ABC Letter $25
Taxicab Owner's Permit Application $600
Driver's Permit Application $150
Taxicab Reinspection Fee $25
Flag Drop $3.50
Mileage $3.50
Standby $30
Bingo Permit Fee $100
Firearm Sales Permit Application $350
Ord 6.64 Renewal $200
Fingerprint Processing Fee (for each set to be processed) set by DOJ & FBI; add equipment processing cost
Concealed Weapons Permit Standard Permit
(2 year)
Judicial Permit
(3 year)
Reserve Officer
Permit
(4 year)
Initial Fee
Paid upon submission of
application
Issuance Fee
Paid upon submission of
permit
Renewal Fee
Paid upon submission of
application
Modification/Duplicate Fee
Paid upon submission of
application
State Mandated Fee varies
Local Processing Fee (maximum fee allowed by PC 12054) $3 $25
Pawnbroker Permit Initial Permit $300
remit to DOJ Renewal (required by state every 2 years) $300 Firearm Storage, per firearm held $65
For-profit vendors/organizations $250
Nonprofit vendors/organizations $75
City-sponsored events No Charge
Sidewalk Vendor Fee $50
$100 $100 $100
$25 $25 $25
$200 $200
$200 $200 $200
Roving/walking vending in public
right-of-way along parade routes
Nonprofit/charitable/community service
organization
Special Event Application Fee
Taxicab Rates
$200
V. Police: 18 of 55
Attachment 1
CITY OF PLEASANTON
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
VIII. Recreation Eff 06.21.2022
A.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
Community / Special Events
Volunteer Programs
Facility & Field Rentals: PUSD /Cosponsor Groups
Public Art
B.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
Facility & Field Rentals: Pleasanton Based Non-Profits (>75% residents) Gallery Exhibits
Senior Programs
C.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
City Staff Facilitated Classes, Programs, Clinics, Camps, Leagues, and Workshops D.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
Facility & Field Rentals: Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) and All Other Non-Profits (<75% residents) Theater Shows
Contract Instructor Facilitated: Classes, Programs, Clinics, Camps, Leagues, and Workshops Preschool
E.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
Facility & Field Rentals: Non-Residents (Private Use) and Businesses A seperate fee schedule for recreation programs is adopted annually by the City Council. The City Council authorizes staff to adjust and provide current and new programs for a fee based on the established cost recover guidelines established below:
Programs/Classes/Services which provide mostly community benefit will recover 0-25% of all related costs.
Programs/Classes/Services which provide considerable community benefit will recover 26-50% of all related costs.
Programs/Classes/Services which provide balanced individual and community benefit will recover 51-75% of all related costs.
Programs/Classes/Services which provide mostly considerable individual benefit will recover 76-100% of all related costs.
Programs/Classes/Services which provide mostly individual benefit will recover at least 101% of all related costs.
VIII. Recreation: 29 of 55
Program Name
FY24 Cost
Recovery
Current Cost
Recovery Tier Status
Adobe School Field Trips 15% 51-75% Re-evaluating
Adult Basketball 32% 51-75% Recommended for Discontinuation in FY 2025/26 Adult Bocce 61% 76-100% Paused, Recommended for Discontinuation in FY 2025/26 Adult Softball 35% 51-75% Recommended for Discontinuation in FY 2025/26 Kids Night Out 30% 51-75% Paused, Re-evaluating
Lap Swim 47% 51-75% Re-evaluating
Gallery Exhibits 27% 51-75% Re-evaluating
Open Gym Basketball 10% 51-75% Discountinued
Open Gym Volleyball 8% 51-75% Discountinued
Firehouse Arts Center Presenting
Series 26% 76-100% Re-evaluating
Recreation for Adults with
Developmental Disabilities (RADD) 15% 51-75% Re-evaluating Recreational Swim 29% 51-75% Re-evaluating
Water Exercise 31% 51-75% Re-evaluating
*Re-evaluating—Program structure, staffing, fees, and/or expenses have been changed, and programs will be re-evaluated at the end of FY25.
Recreation Program Assessment - Programs Falling Below Cost Recovery Guidelines Attachment 2
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE SECTION VIII.
RECREATION AND SECTION V. POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUBSECTION B. SPECIAL
PERMITS
WHEREAS, the Master Fee Schedule compiles City -Council-approved fees for specific City services provided to residents, non -residents, non- profits, businesses, and other entities within the community; and
WHEREAS, limited tax revenues support these services given the unique benefit to members of the public; and
WHEREAS, agencies are allowed to set fees at rates providing fair and reasonable recovery of costs incurred in providing the services, minimizing or eliminating the use of general tax revenues.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
The Master Fee Schedule is amended as set forth in Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on June 17, 2025.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of June 2025, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Attachment 3
Resolution No.
CITY OF PLEASANTON
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
V. POLICE DEPARTMENT
B. Special Permits
Each
Employee
Permit
Fee
Massage Establishments PMC 6.24 No Charge $100
Roving/walking vending in
public right-of-way along parade routes
Nonprofit/charitable/community
service
organization
No Charge No Charge
Other vendors $10 $25
Solicitors & Certain Businesses $10 $25
ABC Letter $25
Taxicab Owner's Permit Application $600
Driver's Permit Application $150
Taxicab Reinspection Fee $25
Taxicab Rates Flag Drop $3.50
Mileage $3.50
Standby $30
Bingo Permit Fee $100
Firearm Sales Permit
Ord 6.64
Application $350
Renewal $200
Fingerprint Processing Fee (for each set to be
processed)
set by DOJ &
FBI; add
equipment
processing
cost
Concealed Weapons
Permit
State Mandated Fee varies
Local Processing Fee (maximum fee allowed by
PC 12054)
$3
$25
Pawnbroker Permit
remit to DOJ
Initial Permit $300
Renewal (required by state every 2 years) $300
Firearm Storage, per firearm held $65
Special Event and Support Service
Permit Fee
For-profit vendors/organizations $250
Nonprofit vendors/organizations $75
City-Sponsored events No Charge
Direct City Support/Special Events
Category/Description
% Discount to
Actual Cost/ General
Fund Subsidy
Actual Cost
Basis (actual
costs,
including
direct costs).
PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups 40%
Non-Profit Organizations 30%
Pleasanton Residents
(Private Use) 20%
Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses 0%
Attachment 3
CITY OF PLEASANTON
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
VIII. Recreation
A. Recreational Program Fees
The City Council authorizes staff to establish fees for new programs and adjust fees for existing programs based on the actual cost to provide the program.
Fees will be set to limit the General Fund subsidies for these programs and services, dependent upon the overall benefit of the program within the community.
Service Category Maximum General
Fund Subsidy
1. City-Sponsored Community Events 100%
2. Drop-In Programs/City-Sponsored Seasonal
Events 75%
3. Beginner/Recreational Programs 50%
4. Art Gallery Exhibits 40%
5. Specialized and Contractor-Led Classes &
Programs/Theater Presenting Series Shows 25%
6. Advanced/Competitive Programs 0%
B. Field Rental Fees
The City Council authorizes staff to establish fees for field use based on the actual cost to provide use of the fields. Fees will be set to limit the General Fund subsidies, dependent upon the category of user group.
Natural Grass Fields
Renter Group Category
Maximum General
Fund Subsidy
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups 92.5%
II. Non-Profit Organizations 30%
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) 20%
IV.
Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses 0%
Attachment 3
Synthetic Turf Fields
Renter Group Category
Maximum General
Fund Subsidy
0. Co-Sponsored Groups
(included in Bernal MOU exp. 11/1/2026) 100%
I.
PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups
(not included in Bernal MOU)
40%
II. Non-Profit Organizations 30%
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) 20%
IV.
Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses 0%
Fees for staff will be charged at the fully burdened rate and determined based on the needs of each specific rental. General Fund subsidies will not be applied to field attendant fees or cleaning/damage deposits.
C. Gym Rental Fees
The City Council authorizes staff to establish fees for gym use based on the actual cost to provide use of the gyms. Fees will be set to limit the General Fund subsidies, dependent upon the category of user group.
Renter Group Category
Maximum General
Fund Subsidy
I. Co-Sponsored Groups 65%
II. Non-Profit Organizations 30%
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) 20%
IV.
Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses 0%
Staff hourly rates are included in the hourly gym rental fee at the fully burdened rate. The General Fund subsidy does not apply to cleaning/damage deposits.
Attachment 3
D. Field Light Fees
The City Council authorizes staff to establish fees for field lights use based on the actual cost to provide use of the lights for each field. Fees will be set to limit the General Fund subsidies, dependent upon the category of user group.
Renter Group Category
Maximum General
Fund Subsidy
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups 40%
II. Non-Profit Organizations 30%
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) 20%
IV.
Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses 0%
E. Facility and Picnic Rental Fees
Facility and picnic rental fees will be set at market rate. The discounts below will apply to those rates, based upon user group category:
Renter Group Category
Maximum General
Fund Subsidy
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups 40%
II. Non-Profit Organizations 30%
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) 20%
IV.
Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses 0%
Fees for staff and equipment will be charged at the fully burdened rate, determined based on the needs of each specific rental. The discount does not apply to staff and equipment costs.
Attachment 3
F. Miscellaneous Recreation Fees
Refund Service Charge
Refund Processing Fee General (7 days prior to
program start)
• Refunds are not granted if requested less than
7 calendar days prior to the program or class
start date.
• Full refunds will be given for any classes
canceled by the department.
• Aquatic refunds are limited to
special circumstances only.
$10.00
Refund Processing Fee Gingerbread
Preschool (7 days prior to program start)
• Refunds are not granted if requested less than
7 calendar days prior to the first class
meeting.
$50.00
Facility Use Fee
The 2% fee is applied to select programs and rentals
that utilize City facilities and/or equipment.
2%
Non-Resident Fee
Classes and Camps 25%
Attachment 3
Penalty Fees
Gingerbread Late Pickup Fee
Late Pick Up per minute $1.00
Late Payment Fee (Payment Plans)
Payments not received by the due date will be
assessed a late fee. $25.00
Facility Rental Overtime Fees
Rental time exceeded Twice the Hourly Rate
Rental time exceeded past midnight $150 for every 15
minutes past midnight
Facility Rental Cancellation Fees
Cancellation 10 to 30 days prior to the scheduled
date 50% of the rental fee
Cancellation less than 10 days prior to the scheduled
date 100% of the rental fee
Picnic Rental Cancellation Fees
Cancellation up to 10 days prior to the scheduled
date 50% of the rental fee
Cancellation less than 10 days prior to the scheduled
date 100% of the rental fee
Field & Gym Rental Adjustment/Cancellation Fee
Any cancellations or adjustments made after the final
field/gym permit has been issued will incur a
processing fee per transaction
$25.00
Softball Complex Penalty Fees
Additional penalty fees that may be assessed:
• The user fails to submit game/event
schedules, supplemental information, and
all other applicable documents
• The user fails to enforce and address
conduct issues (i.e. smoking (including e-
cigarettes), consumption of alcoholic
beverages, use of constant profanity, etc.)
• The user fails to disclose vendors hosted
at the event
• The user fails to disclose vehicles
• The user exceeds their allotted rental time
• The user fails to disclose the operation of
gate admission fees or soliciting donations
• The user doesn’t have a Person in Charge
$250 per infraction
Attachment 4
Library and Recreation Service Categories
City-Sponsored Community Events
Events designed to appeal to a broad and diverse community regardless of age, ability, family composition, etc. Examples include: Hometown Holiday Celebration, Earth Day, and Cultural Celebration Series.
City-Sponsored Seasonal Events
Events designed to appeal to a target market or market niche. Examples include:
aquatic, senior and Alviso Adobe seasonal events.
Drop-in Programs
Access to activity areas at recreation facilities that do not require registration but require staff supervision and activity is self-directed by the user. Examples include: recreational swim, lap swim, and drop-in senior programs.
Beginner/Recreational Programs
Classes, programs and camps designed to learn new skills and provide core recreational or social opportunities in a casual environment. Examples include:
Pleasanton Youth Basketball (PYB), Summer Youth Basketball (SYB), summer day camps, Ridge Runners camps, swim lessons levels 1-3, lifeguard classes, Recreation for Adults with Developmental Disabilities (RADD), drama camps, senior enrichment programs, and Pleasanton Youth Theater Company (PYTC).
Art Exhibits
Displays of artwork or curated exhibits open to the public. Examples include: Harrington Gallery, Firehouse Art Center Lobby, and Pleasanton Art League’s Nancy Thompson Memorial Wall.
Specialized & Contractor-Led Programs
Classes, programs and camps designed for participants with specific interests that fall outside the scope of core recreational or intermediate/advanced/competitive offerings.
These programs often appeal to a smaller, highly targeted audience and may require unique expertise, equipment or materials. Examples include: all contractor-led classes/programs, school year preschool classes, CPR/First aid, community garden, diving classes, and swim lessons level 4-6.
Presenting Series Shows
Performances or productions in city-owned theater spaces. Examples include Presenting Series.
Advanced/Competitive Programs
Classes, programs, leagues and camps that are designed to advance or master a skill or provide competition between participants. Examples include: adult sports leagues and tournaments.
Attachment 5
Current Fees Versus Proposed, Using Maximum General Fund Subsidies
Natural Grass Field Fee Comparison
Current
Renter Group Category Current Fee
I. Co-Sponsored Groups $3.75/hr.
II. Pleasanton-Based Non-Profit Groups $20/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use)
All Other Non-Profit Groups $25/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $31/hr.
Proposed
Renter Group Category Proposed Fee
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $3.75/hr.
II. Non-Profit Organizations $35/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) $40/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $50/hr.
Attachment 5
Synthetic Turf Field Fee Comparison
Current
Renter Group Category Current Fee
Co-Sponsored Groups
(included in Bernal MOU exp. 11/1/2026) $0/hr.
I. Co-Sponsored Groups
(not included in Bernal MOU) $55/hr.
II. Pleasanton-Based Non-Profit Groups $65/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use)
All Other Non-Profit Groups $75/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $85/hr.
Proposed
Renter Group Category Proposed Fee
Co-Sponsored Groups
(included in Bernal MOU exp. 11/1/2026) $0/hr.
I.
PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups
(not included in Bernal MOU)
$48/hr.
II. Non-Profit Organizations $56/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) $64/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $80/hr.
Attachment 5
Gym Rental Fee Comparison
Current
Renter Group Category Hart
1 Court
HP/PMS
1 Court
HP/PMS
2 Courts
I. Co-Sponsored Groups $41/hr. $30/hr. $60/hr.
II. Pleasanton-Based Non-Profit Groups $101/hr. $79/hr. $158/hr.
III. Pleasanton Resident (Private Use)
All Other Non-Profit Groups $164/hr. $129/hr. $258/hr.
IV. Non-Resident (Private Use)
Businesses $184/hr. $131/hr. $262/hr.
Proposed
Renter Group Category Hart
1 Court
HP/PMS
1 Court
HP/PMS
2 Courts
I. Co-Sponsored Groups $66/hr. $55/hr. $110/hr.
II. Non-Profit Organizations $129/hr. $107/hr. $214/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) $165/hr. $129/hr. $258/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $184/hr. $131/hr. $262/hr.
Attachment 5
Field Light Fee Comparison
Current
Renter Group Category Current Fee
I. Co-Sponsored Groups $18/hr.
II. Pleasanton-Based Non-Profit Groups $18/hr.
III. Pleasanton Resident (Private Use)
All Other Non-Profit Groups $18/hr.
IV. Non-Resident (Private Use)
Businesses $18/hr.
Proposed
Renter Group Category Stadium
CTS
&
4Leaf
Bernal
Baseball
(small)
Bernal
Baseball
(large)
Upper
Bernal
Adult
Softball
Complex
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $35/hr. $23/hr. $17/hr. $22/hr. $25/hr. $28/hr.
II. Non-Profit Organizations $41/hr. $27/hr. $20/hr. $26/hr. $29/hr. $33/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) $46/hr. $31/hr. $22/hr. $30/hr. $37/hr. $38/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $58/hr. $39/hr. $28/hr. $37/hr. $42/hr. $47/hr.
Attachment 5
Firehouse Arts Center Rental Fee Comparison
Current
Renter Group Category Theater Lobby/Gallery Classroom
A or B
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $140/hr. $90/hr. $65/hr.
II. Pleasanton-Based Non-Profit Groups $175/hr. $105/hr. $80/hr.
III. Pleasanton Resident (Private Use)
All Other Non-Profit Groups $205/hr. $120/hr. $95/hr.
IV. Non-Resident (Private Use)
Businesses $235/hr. $135/hr. $110/hr.
Proposed
Renter Group Category Theater Lobby/Gallery Classroom
A or B
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $174/hr. $90/hr. $72/hr.
II. Non-Profit Organizations $203/hr. $105/hr. $84/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) $232/hr. $120/hr. $96/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $290/hr. $150/hr. $120/hr.
Attachment 5
Facility Rental Fee Comparison
Current
Renter Group Category
Amador
Recreation
Center
Veterans
Memorial
Building
Main Hall
Senior
Center
Main Hall
Cultural
Arts
Building
Senior Center
Classroom/
Meeting Room
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $70/hr. $140/hr. $230/hr. $40/hr. $80/hr.
II. Pleasanton-Based Non-Profit Groups $80/hr. $160/hr. $250/hr. $50/hr. $90/hr.
III. Pleasanton Resident (Private Use)
All Other Non-Profit Groups $90/hr. $190/hr. $300/hr. $60/hr. $100/hr.
IV. Non-Resident (Private Use)
Businesses $110/hr. $250/hr. $380/hr. $80/hr. $120/hr.
Proposed
Renter Group Category
Amador
Recreation
Center
Veterans
Memorial
Building
Main Hall
Senior
Center
Main Hall
Cultural
Arts
Building
Senior Center
Classroom/
Meeting Room
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $72/hr. $162/hr. $240/hr. $48/hr. $78/hr.
II. Non-Profit Organizations $84/hr. $189/hr. $280/hr. $56/hr. $91/hr.
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) $96/hr. $216/hr. $320/hr. $64/hr. $101/hr.
IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $120/hr. $270/hr. $400/hr. $80/hr. $130/hr.
Attachment 5
Picnic Rental Fee Comparison
Current
Renter Group Category Small Medium Large
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $50/day $80/day $110/day
II. Pleasanton-Based Non-Profit Groups $60/day $90/day $130/day III. Pleasanton Resident (Private Use)
All Other Non-Profit Groups $70/day $130/day $180/day
IV. Non-Resident (Private Use)
Businesses $100/day $180/day $250/day
Proposed
Renter Group Category Small Medium Large
I. PUSD
Co-Sponsored Groups $66/day $120/day $180/day
II. Non-Profit Organizations $77/day $140/day $210/day
III. Pleasanton Residents (Private Use) $88/day $160/day $240/day IV. Non-Residents (Private Use)
Businesses $110/day $200/day $280/day
Item #9
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 17, 2025
Library and Recreation
TITLE: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13.20 TO TITLE 13 OF
THE PLEASANTON MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC ART
CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPT A
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO ADD A
PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION IN-LIEU FEE
SUMMARY
The City of Pleasanton recognizes the important role of public art in fostering civic pride and encouraging a sense of place. In August 2024 the City Council affirmed its interest in establishing a public art contribution and alternative in-lieu fee to provide a sustainable source of funds to acquire and maintain public art and encourage the provision of public art in new private development projects. Unique or significant public art pieces can become landmarks associated with a community. With the support of generous benefactors, the City’s public art collection has expanded over many years. However, these donations are specifically allocated for the purchase of art and do not cover installation or maintenance of the artwork. By implementing a public art contribution with an in-lieu fee alternative, the City can bolster its public art collection by creating a continuous source of new art and an alternative funding source for installing and maintaining public art, alongside the existing donor-advised funds, which are projected to grow over time. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 13.16 and establishing a public art contribution with an in-lieu fee alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance adding a new Chapter 13.20 to Title 13 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code establishing a public art contribution requirement for development (Attachment 1) and adopt a resolution amending the City’s Master Fee Schedule to add a public art contribution in- lieu fee (Attachment 2).
BACKGROUND
Public art amplifies the cultural landscape of a community, offering residents and visitors access to artistic expressions that reflect local values, history, and identity. It contributes to the visual appeal of a city, transforming ordinary spaces into visually engaging, shared spaces where people can interact. Public art can also boost local businesses by drawing tourists and encouraging people to spend more time in the area. It can serve as an educational tool, offering opportunities for learning about different artistic styles, cultures, and social issues.
Engaging with art can positively impact mental well-being, providing inspiration, relaxation, and a sense of connection to something greater.
The purpose of Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 13.16 - Art in Public Places is “to promote the acquisition, construction, and installment of works of public art in Pleasanton that will foster creativity, engender civic pride, encourage a sense of community, and enrich the
lives of our citizens.”
Through its current programs and partnerships, the City has established or acquired 45 permanent public art pieces, 19 utility box paintings, and three temporary public art pieces.
These works are located in City parks and facilities, as well as on public streets and sidewalks, including areas around the Firehouse Arts Center, Alviso Adobe Community Park, Pioneer Cemetery, and along Main Street. One public art piece is at Kaiser Permanente Medical Facility on Stoneridge Drive.
Historically, the City's public art has been funded by three main sources: the General Fund, an Internal Service Fund, and a donor-advised fund (“Another H.A.P.P.Y.”) as follows:
• General Fund: $40,000 has been allocated annually for conservation and maintenance (provided as part of the Library and Recreation Department budget)
• Public Art Acquisition and Maintenance Fund: $20,000 has been allocated annually, including $10,000 for art installations, which includes lighting, concrete bases, and plaques, and $10,000 for art acquisition (provided as part of the Public Works Department budget); and
• Donor-Advised Fund: Another H.A.P.P.Y. (Another Harrington Art Partnership Piece for You) is a donor-advised fund established by George Gary Harrington and Nancy R.
Harrington and held by the City. The Pleasanton Cultural Arts Council has been assigned the Harringtons’ limited control over the fund. As of April 2025, the balance of the H.A.P.P.Y. fund was $121,865.09. These funds can only be used for public art acquisition, not maintenance.
Two existing, though dated, City plans identify public art priorities: the 2014 Cultural Plan and the 2007 Downtown Public Art Master Plan. Of the many goals outlined in these plans, evolving the City’s “public art program to better serve the needs of the entire community, match the aesthetic standard of the City, and enhance its artistic reach and scope” remains relevant today.
Based on an interest in improving and expanding the City's existing public art program, on August 20, 2024, the City Council provided direction to further explore a public art contribution and related in-lieu fee program for the City of Pleasanton.
Following this direction, staff conducted additional research on neighboring cities' programs, and developed an outline of the key components of a public art program for Pleasanton. On March 3, 2025, the Civic Arts Commission provided feedback on the proposed program, with the Commission's feedback included in the draft ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Review of Comparison Cities/Structure of In-Lieu Fee
Based on interest from the Civic Arts Commission and the City Council, staff researched comparable “percent for art” programs in Dublin, Livermore, and San Ramon. Key elements of each program are summarized in Table 1. In conversations with those cities' staff, all spoke positively about their programs. Although each City structures and runs its program slightly
differently, common elements include the collection of an in-lieu fee for public art based on a percentage of construction valuation; the option to provide on-site public art, subject to specified criteria, to meet the program's requirements; and exemptions for certain types of projects.
While any public art contribution will ideally be structured in a manner that is financially feasible for development projects, per guidance from the City's consultant, Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), there is no nexus study requirement for a public art contribution or related in-lieu fee. The contribution can be adopted by ordinance, with in-lieu fees adopted by City Council Resolution, to be included in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. As shown in Table 1, neighboring cities have established this fee at between 0.45 percent and 1.0 percent of the project's construction (permit) valuation.
Public art projects and programs are complex efforts that involve many stakeholders and staff to create a program that works for the community. It is essential to develope clear expectations, ordinances, and guidelines around the program's scope and purpose, guidance for program administration, criteria for what qualifies as a bona fide public art installation on private property, and allowable use/purpose of funds collected.
Table 1: Comparison of Cities' Percent for Public Art Programs Dublin Livermore San Ramon
Fee
Equivalent • 0.5 percent of
the construction
value for non-
residential
buildings over
50,000 sq feet
and residential
projects of
more than 20
units.
• 0.45 percent for
non-residential
buildings less
than 50,000 sq
feet.
• Not less than the
program
allocation
amount for the
acquisition and
installation of
public art in the
private
development
project. The
amount is
determined by
the Building
Official.
• 1 percent of the
construction valuation,
as determined by the
Building Official, for new
residential and
commercial
development.
• 0.5 percent of the
construction valuation,
as determined by the
Building Official for new
residential and
commercial development
additions/alterations to
existing residential and
commercial
development.
Exemptions
• Low-income
housing
facilities and
community-
serving non-
• Remodeling,
repairing, or
reconstructing
structures
damaged by fire,
• Residential development
of less than 10 units.
• Additions/alterations of
an existing commercial
development less than
profits.
• Residential
projects of less
than 20 units.
flood, etc.
• Below-market-
rate housing
units.
one million dollars in
building code valuation.
Summary of Proposed Draft Ordinance and Resolution
Based on the background research and considerations outlined above, staff has developed a draft ordinance (Attachment 1) that would establish a public art contribution requirement for development. The ordinance would generally require larger residential and commercial projects to install public art, with an allowance for payment of a fee in lieu of providing the art. A separate resolution (Exhibit B) would adopt the accompanying in-lieu fee as part of the Master Fee Schedule.
Development Projects Subject to Public Art Contribution:(13.20.030.A) The following classes of projects would be subject to the Public Art Contribution requirement:
• All new non-residential development, including expansions, equal to or greater than 5,000 sq. ft
• All new residential development projects in excess of 20 residential units, exclusive of accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units • Non-residential building alterations equal to or greater than 5,000 sq. ft. • A project, other than a single-family home, or otherwise exempted project, involving the alteration of an existing structure or structures where the value of the construction would exceed $1,000,000.
Development Projects Not Subject to Public Art Contribution (13.20.030.B) The following classes of projects would be exempt from the Public Art Contribution requirement, generally small projects, and community-serving projects for which the additional burden of a public art requirement is less appropriate:
• Single-family residences
• Projects with 20 or fewer residential units
• Tenant improvement projects
• Affordable housing projects
• Child Care Facilities as defined in PMC 17.38.020
• Buildings and facilities used exclusively by nonprofit agencies and institutions exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide social services to the general public
• Buildings and facilities used exclusively for religious purposes as defined in the California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 207
• Underground public works projects
• Street or sidewalk repairs
• Tree planting or median landscaping
• Remodeling, repair, or reconstruction of a structure damaged by fire, flooding, wind,
earthquake, or other calamity.
*Note: The Civic Arts Commission recommended adding public school districts to the list of exemptions. However, public school properties are not subject to City Zoning requirements. They are subject to the Division of the State Architect, and thus not generally subject to City codes and ordinances.
For each project subject to the requirement, the developer is required to acquire and install a public art project (generally located on the development site). The value of the public art project (inclusive of design, manufacture, and installation) is required to equal or exceed one-half percent (0.5 percent) of the development project’s permit valuation amount (exclusive of land). Since these public art pieces will be on private property, the owner will be responsible for ongoing maintenance, and if permission is given to install on public property, an endowment for maintenance will be required.
Criteria for Public Art (13.20.050)
The ordinance establishes minimum criteria for public art, specifically excluding from consideration items that would not be allowed to satisfy the requirements. These include mass- produced or reproduction artworks, and functional or design elements that should be considered part of the project (e.g., building detailing, landscaping). All public art would be required to be structurally sound and weather-resistant, and to be located in a "public place" - meaning a place visible to or accessible to the public, even when located on private property.
Approval of Public Art (13.20.060)
In most cases, the Civic Arts Commission would review and approve any public art proposed as part of a development. The exception is residential projects subject to the Housing Accountability Act, which, due to its stricter timelines and requirements for review and approval, would have the public art subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development or his/her designee.
In-Lieu Fee
As an alternative to the contribution requirement, a developer may pay an in-lieu fee, which the City Council will establish and adopt by resolution. Attachment B includes the resolution to adopt the fee, which would be added to the Master Fee Schedule.
Specifically, the fee is proposed to be established as follows, added as Subsection F of Master Fee Section II:
• Non-Residential Developments equal to or greater than 50,000 square feet: 0.5 percent of the project's permit valuation
• Residential Developments with more than 20 units: 0.5 percent of the project's permit valuation
• Non-residential developments more than 5,000 square feet but less than 50,000 square feet: 0.45 percent of the project's permit valuation
The in-lieu fee will be paid at building permit issuance. The cost will be determined using the permit valuation number calculated or verified by the Chief Building Official.
Use of Public Art Contribution In-Lieu Fee
Allowable uses of the Public Art In-Lieu Fees would include the following, as defined by PMC Chapter 13.16:
• Acquisition
• Installation
• Maintenance and restoration
• Administration of the Public Art program, with no more than 10 percent of the fees allowed to be used for this purpose.
Having a broad range of uses for the public art funding will complement the Another H.A.P.P.Y. fund, which is currently dedicated to acquiring art. While extremely beneficial in increasing the amount of public art in Pleasanton, one of the most significant challenges to using the Another H.A.P.P.Y. fund has been identifying funding sources for installation and the long-term maintenance of the new art pieces acquired.
Based upon feedback from the City Council on August 20, 2024, the original staff recommendation included education and programming as an allowable use of the public art contribution in lieu of a fee. At the March 3, 2025, Civic Arts Commission meeting, commissioners expressed concern and voted to remove education and programming from the recommendation to the City Council. Concerns included that education and programming were overly vague categories, allowing the funding to be redirected from physical public art pieces and installations, the program's primary focus.
Additionally, the Civic Arts Commission requested a fund balance update for the Public Art Contribution In-Lieu Fee to be provided to the commission during both the mid-year and mid-term budget cycles.
Next Steps
While adopting the Public Art Contribution requirement and establishing the in-lieu fee are essential steps, other actions will help to support the successful implementation of the program over the long term, including:
• Developing and implementing a public art plan, with the assistance of the Civic Arts Commission or a Subcommittee, to guide the expansion and management of public art throughout the City
• Updating PMC 13.16 to clarify and improve how the City implements and administers its broader public art program.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
This item is exempt from CEQA because: (i) it is not a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, section 21065 because it has no potential to alter the physical environment; (ii) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption, for this same reason.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The public art contribution and in lieu fee provide additional opportunities for everyone in the community to enjoy public art.
OUTREACH
On August 21, 2023, the Civic Arts Commission held a special meeting to approve a letter requesting the City Council adopt a public art contribution program. A Special Workshop of the City Council was held on August 20, 2024. This item was presented in a public hearing to the Civic Arts Commission on March 3, 2025.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
The proposed amendments to the PMC and the updates to the City’s Master Fee Schedule advance the ONE Pleasanton Goals:
• Goal A: Funding our Future to support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, and cost containment • Goal C: Investing in Our Environment – Strategy 7 to continue to invest in parks, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and public art to improve traffic safety, promote climate resilience, and increase access to cultural and recreational opportunities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The financial impact will depend upon the level of development within the City and the number of developments that opt to install public art versus paying the alternative in-lieu fee. The overall impact is expected to be positive, since the proposed Ordinance will increase available funding for the installation and maintenance of public art, and for the administration of the public art program.
Submitted by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Heidi Murphy, Director of
Library and Recreation
Ellen Clark, Director of Community
Development
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Ordinance to add Chapter 13.20
2. Resolution to adopt Public Art In-Lieu Fee
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 13.20 TO TITLE 13, PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION TO THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
WHEREAS, public art amplifies the cultural landscape of a community, offering City residents and visitors access to artistic expressions that reflect City values, history, and identity; and WHEREAS, there is a community interest in expanding and supporting the existing and future body of public art in the City of Pleasanton, including providing funding for maintenance and other supporting activities to sustain the inventory of public art; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the City Council of the City of Pleasanton provided direction to City staff to further explore a public art contribution requirement for the City of Pleasanton; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2025, the Civil Arts Commission of the City of Pleasanton received information on similar art contribution programs and provided feedback to City of Pleasanton’s proposed art contribution program; and
WHEREAS, an addition to the Pleasanton Municipal Code is necessary to require a public art contribution requirement for projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 13.20 to Title 13 of the City of Pleasanton’s Municipal Code is hereby added as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA because: (i) it is not a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code, section 21065 because it has no potential to alter the physical environment; (ii) and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the so-called “common sense” exemption, for this same reason.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in “The Valley Times,” a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Pleasanton, and the complete ordinance shall be posted for fifteen (15) days in the City Clerk’s office within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption.
The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton on June 17, 2025 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
______________________________
Jack Balch, Mayor
Ordinance No.
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Ordinance No.
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 13.20: PUBLIC ART CONTRIBUTION
§13.20.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to improve and expand the inventory of public art within the City of Pleasanton. It is the intention of this chapter to establish an art contribution or fee alternative requirement for the purposes of promoting public art in private and public developments to foster creativity, engender civic pride, encourage a sense of community, and enrich cultural identity in the lives of City residents.
§13.20.020 Definitions.
A. “Alteration” means the rehabilitation, addition, or expansion of 5,000 square feet or more of an existing building involving significant exterior modifications including changes to rooflines, trim, and materials.
B. “Artist” means a person who has an established reputation of artistic excellence in the visual, performance, literary and/or media arts, as judged by peers, through a record of exhibitions, public commissions, sale of artworks, and/or educational attainment.
C. “Artwork” means all forms of art created by an artist and conceived in any discipline or medium, including visual, performance, literary, media and temporary works.
D. “City of Pleasanton public art collection” or “city collection” means all artworks owned by the City of Pleasanton or installed on city-owned property.
E. “Commission” means the Civic Arts Commission or the Civic Arts Subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
F. “Development project” means any development which requires the issuance of a building permit by the City of Pleasanton.
G. “Deaccession” means the procedure for the removal of artwork.
H. “Director” means the Director of Community Development or his or her designee.
I. “Housing Accountability Act project” means a project subject to the requirements of Government Code, section 65589.5.
J. "Maintenance" means actions taken to retard or prevent damage to artwork by control of the environment and/or treatment of the artwork on a routine and long-term basis.
K. “Permit valuation” means the valuation as assigned to the project, as determined by the Chief Building Official, for the purposes of assessing permit fees, and in accordance with section 20.04.310.A of the Pleasanton Municipal Code.
Ordinance No.
L. "Public art" means original visual works of art as defined in section 13.16.030 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code
M. "Public place" means any exterior area on public or private property that is easily accessible and clearly visible to the general public. If located on private property, the area will be clearly visible from adjacent city-owned property, such as a street, sidewalk, park or plaza.
N. “Value of artwork” means the total cost of design, manufacture, and installation.
In the case of an artwork installed on city-owned property, the cost of artwork will include an endowment for the long-term maintenance of the artwork. The cost of artwork does not include the artist’s attendance at committee meetings and transportation of the art. §13.20.030 Contribution Requirement.
A. Public art shall be installed as a condition of approval for projects involving any of the following:
1. Non-residential development inclusive of new construction, alterations, or expansions equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet.
2. All new residential development projects in excess of 20 residential units, exclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
3. Any development project, other than a single-family home or those classes of projects specifically excluded from the requirement per Subsection 13.20.030.B, involving the alteration of an existing structure or structures where the value of the construction would exceed $1,000,000.
B. The public art contribution requirement shall not apply to the following development projects or activities:
1. Single-family residences.
2. Residential projects including 20 or fewer units, exclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
3. Tenant improvement projects not involving expansion or alteration as defined in this Chapter.
3. Housing projects consisting entirely of deed restricted affordable units.
4. Childcare facilities as defined in 17.38.020 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code.
5. Buildings and facilities used exclusively by nonprofit agencies and institutions exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide social services to the general public.
Ordinance No.
6. Buildings and facilities used exclusively for religious purposes as defined in the California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 207.
7. Condominium conversion projects.
8. Underground public works projects.
9. Street or sidewalk repairs.
10. Tree planting or median landscaping.
11. Remodeling, repair or reconstruction of a structure damaged by fire, flooding, wind, earthquake, or other calamity.
C. The value of the artwork will be an amount not less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the development project’s permit valuation (exclusive of land). §13.20.040 In-lieu Fee.
As an alternative to the contribution requirement contained in section 13.20.030, a developer may pay an in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee shall be established and adopted by the city council from time to time by resolution.
§13.20.050 Criteria.
A. Public art shall be subject to the following criteria:
1. No unpermitted obstruction or encroachment in the public right of way shall be permitted.
2. The materials used for the public art shall be structurally sound and weather resistant.
3. The public art shall be located in a public place, as defined by this chapter.
B. The following may not be used to satisfy the contribution requirement contained in section 13.20.030:
1. Art objects which are mass-produced from a standard design;
2. Reproductions of original artworks;
3. Decorative, ornamental, or functional elements including details and fenestration of a building which are designed by the project architect as opposed to an artist commissioned for the purpose of creating the artwork; or
4. Landscape architecture and landscape.
Ordinance No.
C. Unless given prior approval from the Director of Community Development installation of public art shall be on or within the project site. §13.20.060 Approval Process.
A. Application. An applicant seeking approval of a project subject to the requirements of this chapter shall submit a public art application, as established by the city council, to the planning department, generally at the same time as the application for planning approval, or in instances where no planning approval is required, at the time of building permit.
The application will include the preliminary construction and alteration cost of the project, a description of the proposed public art, budget for design, fabrication, transportation, and installation, resume of the artist, and a maintenance program and budget.
B. Review.
1. Public art applications associated with Applications for Housing Accountability Act projects shall be reviewed by the Director for conformance with the criteria set forth in section 13.20.050 of the Pleasanton Municipal Code. Approval of the public art proposal by the Director may be reflected as a Condition of Approval of the residential project, and, to the extent the approved public art proposal would modify physical elements of the underlying project, such revisions shall be processed as an administrative amendment and not require additional discretionary project review and approval, with the Director’s decision considered final.
2. All other applications shall be reviewed by the Commission. In reviewing applications, the Commission shall consider the following criteria:
a. Quality. The foremost consideration will be the quality of the proposed artwork as assessed by the critical review of the Commission. The reputation and/or promise of the artist may also be key considerations. b. Relationship to the collection and to the community. The proposed artwork will be analyzed for its potential relationship to the city’s present collection and the requirements of this chapter.
c. Compatibility. Conceptual compatibility and appropriateness of the proposed artwork to the surrounding built and/or natural environment will be factors for consideration, and will include scale, form, content, and design. d. Materials, fabrication and installation. The Commission shall evaluate the existing artwork’s material or the artist’s proposed materials and their appropriateness as regards to structural and surface integrity, protection against theft, vandalism, public safety, weathering, and an analysis of long-term maintenance needs. The Commission will also evaluate the proposed method of installation and an evaluation of safety and structural factors involved in the installation.
Ordinance No.
C. Agreement. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city to either install the approved public art or pay the in-lieu fee.
Applicants are required to either pay the in-lieu fee or install the public art project prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
D. Deaccession. The alteration or removal of public art or public art that was installed as a requirement of this chapter will be subject to the provisions of 13.20.070 (Deaccession).
§13.20.070 Deaccession.
A. Public art on private property. Public art that was installed as a requirement of this chapter will not be removed or altered unless the replacement or alteration is approved by the Commission or Subcommittee pursuant to this chapter.
B. Public art in the City collection. In accepting an artwork into its collection, the city will not be bound by any agreement with a project applicant or donor of artwork that restricts the city’s ability to act in the city’s best interests. Nothing in the acceptance of an artwork will prevent the city from approving subsequent disposal (removal, relocation, and/or appropriate sale) of such artwork if it serves the city’s best interest to do so. When disposal is proposed, the committee will review the proposal and make a recommendation to the city council for final action. The city will deaccession and sell or otherwise dispose of artworks in its collection in accordance with the limitations of the California Preservation Act (Civil Code 987) and the Visual Rights Act of 1990 (17 USC 106A and 113(d)). §13.20.080 Public art fund.
A. In-lieu fees for public art and maintenance endowments for public art will be placed in a public art fund as defined by Pleasanton Municipal Code 13.16.030. Use of such funds shall be used as described in Pleasanton Municipal Code 13.16.040.
B. No more than 10% of public art funds collected from in-lieu fees shall be used for the administration of the public art program.
C. The Commission or Subcommittee will recommend to the city council how the Public Art Fund should be expended.
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE
PUBLIC ART IN-LIEU FEE
WHEREAS, in 2025, the Pleasanton Municipal Code was amended to add Chapter
13.20, which established a public art contribution requirement and an in -lieu fee alternative for new developments;
WHEREAS, the existing Master Fee Schedule does not include a n in -lieu fee alternative to the City’s public art contribution requirement; and
WHEREAS, such amendment to the Master Fee Schedule is necessary to provide developers an in-lieu fee alternative as described in Pleasanton Municipal Code 13.20.
NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. The Master Fee Schedule is amended as follows:
The following section is added to “II. PLANNING DIVISION” as follows:
F. ART CONTRIBUTION IN-LIEU FEE
Non-residential developments
equal to or more than 50,000
square feet
0.5% of development project’s permit
valuation
Residential developments with
more than 20 units
0.5% of development project’s permit
valuation
Non-residential developments
more than 5,000 square feet but
less than 50,000 square feet
0.45% of development project’s permit
valuation
SECTION 2. City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
Resolution No.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on June 17, 2025.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on June 17, 2025 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
__________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
Item #10
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 17, 2025
Police
TITLE: APPROVE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BONITA HOUSE, INC. TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT BY $896,500 AND EXTEND THE TERM FOR TWO YEARS, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2027, TO PROVIDE CLINICIAN SERVICES FOR THE ALTERNATE RESPONSE UNIT FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $2,020,416 OVER THE
FIVE-YEAR TERM
SUMMARY
In July 2022, following a Request for Proposals process, the City entered into a professional services agreement with Bonita House, Inc. to provide clinician services for the Alternate Response Unit. The Alternate Response Unit program has been successful since its inception, and staff is recommending a two-year extension of the agreement with Bonita House, Inc. to continue providing clinician services to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the fourth amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Bonita House, Inc. to increase the amount by $896,500 and extend the term for two years, through June 30, 2027, to continue to provide clinician services for the Alternate Response Unit for a total not-to- exceed amount of $2,020,416 over the five-year term and authorize the City Manager to execute the fourth amendment.
BACKGROUND
In mid-2020, the City Council hosted a series of listening sessions and special City Council meetings focused on policing in Pleasanton. Through these meetings, the City Council directed staff to present a proposal for an Alternate Mental Health Response Program. At its meeting on November 16, 2021, the City Council approved a recommendation to create the Alternate Response Unit (ARU) program. This program pairs a non-uniformed officer with a mental health clinician to respond to calls for service involving individuals suffering from a mental health crisis as well as the unhoused population in Pleasanton.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) process was conducted, through which Bonita House, Inc. (BHI) was selected to provide clinician services to partner with the Police Department in implementing the Alternate Response Unit. Following the initial two-year professional services agreement, the agreement was extended for a one-year term, through June 2025.
DISCUSSION
The initial term of the professional services agreement with BHI was for two years, from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024. The third amendment included a one-year extension, from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025. Staff recommends a fourth amendment to this professional services agreement to increase the agreement by $896,500 and extend the term by two years.
The total not-to-exceed compensation and reimbursement for costs shall not exceed
$2,020,416 during the five-year term.
This amendment will continue the City's positive partnership with BHI, with the majority of services remaining unchanged. However, the budget will be updated to reflect the deletion of hourly administrative support compensation and the addition of a 15 percent administrative expense of the total cost, which mirrors BHI's agreement with Alameda County. Throughout the length of the existing agreement, BHI has complied with and followed through with all requirements and has been an excellent partner with the City. BHI has also provided data to support the ARU and its work in Pleasanton as well as ensured that program goals are met.
In 2024, the ARU continued developing community partnerships, including reinforcing relationships with the Pleasanton Unified School District, public service agencies, non-profit service providers, and other civic groups. In 2024, ARU diverted 457 calls from patrol officers and co-responded with a patrol on 303 calls, demonstrating a 150% increase since 2023.
In addition to responding to mental health crises, ARU has dedicated significant effort to providing resources to the unhoused community. This has resulted in ARU making 508 proactive community contacts, nine encampment cleanups, and six unhoused individuals being placed in stable housing.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
As a full-service municipality, the City provides a wide range of services and programs to meet the needs of all community members. The ARU program enhances the City's ability to provide wrap-around services for the unhoused population as well as those experiencing mental health crises, aligning with the City’s commitment to providing essential services to all residents.
OUTREACH
No outreach was conducted, as this item is a routine matter of City business.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goal of Safeguarding Our City and prioritizing community safety.
FISCAL IMPACT
The funds for this agreement are in the General Fund budget of the Police Department's Special Operation Unit (00122501-430101) in FY2025/26 and FY2026/27. During the five-year agreement, the total compensation and reimbursement for costs shall not exceed $2,020,416.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Heather DeQuincy,
Management Analyst
Tracy Avelar, Police Chief
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Amendment 4 - Bonita House
2. Original Contract 2023218 - Bonita House
Fourth Amendment Page 1
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
This Fourth Amendment to Agreement ("Fourth Amendment") is entered into this 1st day of July 2025 by the City of Pleasanton ("City") and Bonita House, Inc. ("Consultant”)
Whereas, on July 1, 2022, the City and Consultant entered into a Professional Services Agreement for Consultant to provide mental health clinicians services in the field when the City’s Police Department receives certain crisis calls, as amended by the First Amendment dated February 1, 2023, the Second Amendment dated September 1, 2023, and the Third Amendment dated July 1, 2024 (collectively the “Agreement”); and
Whereas, the parties desire to extend the Agreement to a fourth and fifth year; and
Whereas, the parties desire to update Exhibit A of the Agreement, the Total Yearly Costs; and
Whereas, the parties desire to update Exhibit B of the Agreement, the Scope of Services.
Now, therefore, in exchange for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 3 of the Agreement, “Term,” is amended to read: The Term of this Agreement is hereby extended with this Fourth Amendment and shall expire on June 30, 2027.
2. Section 4 of the Agreement, “Compensation,” is amended to read: Total compensation for services and reimbursement for costs shall not exceed $2,020,416.
3. Exhibit A of the Agreement is amended to include FY 25/26 and FY 26/27 Total Yearly Cost.
4. Exhibit B of the Agreement is amended to include the updated Scope of Services.
5. This amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.
6. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
In witness whereof, authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Third Amendment to the Agreement as of the date first above written.
Attachment 1
Fourth Amendment Page 2
CITY OF PLEASANTON CONSULTANT
_____________________________ By: __________________________ Gerry Beaudin, City Manager Signature
__________________________
Print name
Title: __________________________
[If Contractor or Consultant is a corporation,
signatures must comply with California
Corporations Code §313]
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: __________________________
_____________________________ Signature
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
__________________________
Print name
Title: __________________________
Rev. 3/23
Attachment 1
Fourth Amendment Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Compensation
See Exhibit B “Scope of Services” for a complete breakdown of the information in the table/summary below.
Fiscal Year Annual Cost
FY 22/23 $ 400,972
FY 23/24 $ 374,972
FY 24/25 $ 347,972
FY 25/26 $ 440,500
FY 26/27 $ 456,000
$ 2,020,416
Attachment 1
Fourth Amendment Page 4
EXHIBIT B
We are delighted to propose a model for the ARMH Unit that is designed to meet the needs of ALL community members in the city of Pleasanton. We have a team of experienced crisis clinicians who currently operate the Community Assessment and Transport Team (CATT) and believe we have the experience to be successful in serving the community of Pleasanton. Our team of behavioral health clinicians will be 100% field-based and fully equipped with several advanced technologies with the ability to transport individuals to alternative disposition sites to meet their current needs. In our experience this will reduce the need for a 5150/5585 for individuals who are in crisis solely due to having a lack of immediate care and referral options. It is our goal to provide calming patient-centered sensory-management behavioral health and comfort interventions while enroute. We believe that this multimodal and holistic approach to assisting individuals in crisis will result in a higher degree of client satisfaction with emergency psychiatric care. Further, it will greatly increase their chances of accessing the least restrictive environment needed to recover from their crisis.
Our team will use Professional Assault Crisis Training (Pro-ACT) as a guide for crisis intervention. All clinicians will be trained by certified Pro-ACT trainers for common issues contributing to psychiatric emergencies and how to manage crises in a variety of settings. Our clinicians will all be 5150/5585 certified in Alameda County and go through extensive training in crisis response through our current CATT program including but not limited to cultural humility, vicarious trauma, working with adolescent and minors, working in school-based settings, motivational interviewing, brief assessment and intervention, crisis de- escalation and documentation. The CATT program trainings will be available to the City of Pleasanton officers.
Clinicians hired for this project will be selected for their professional ability and experience in managing crises that occur across the lifespan. Staff will be certified in Pro-ACT Crisis de-escalation, assessment process, trauma-informed care, working with minors in school-based settings, motivational interviewing, community resources and linkage processes, and other topics identified above. All staff are trained through our CATT Crisis Academy as well. We will also coordinate training activities with the County's training department and collaborate with ARMH’s officers to identify areas of interest and need for ongoing training.
Documentation will be completed during any available downtime within a service and immediately afterward at the destination site in most cases, with any remaining documentation and follow-up reserved for the end of the shift. It is our experience that documentation completed immediately after a service is highly efficient, accurate and easily accessible for future reference. Our Clinicians will document in our agency’s Electronic Health Records system, to maintain up-to-date records that meet service and billing standards. Clinicians will also have access to the Alameda County Community Health Record (CHR), an application with curated information from different organizations involved in consumer care, to improve care coordination.
Bonita House has a thorough knowledge of Medi-Cal documentation requirements. We have a Clinical Quality Review Team (CQRT) for each program that meets weekly. Every staff member receives initial and ongoing training in the documentation. We also have a current data analyst who has experience with collecting and quantifying data around crisis work in our current CATT team.
We also believe that dynamic clinical teams, particularly those operating primarily in the field, require effective and consistent supervision. To achieve this, we will schedule a 1-hour block once per week (i.e., 7a-8a). This will enable a weekly all-staff 1-hour structured team meeting. Team meetings will follow a predetermined agenda (e.g., safety issues, collaboration with community partners, planned service improvements, etc.), with longer discussions tabled until the end of the meeting to enable all to stay on track and adhere to time constraints. Clinicians will meet once weekly with the clinical supervisor to discuss clinical concerns and facilitate professional development. This is considered best practice and will ensure community members continually receive high quality mental health services.
Attachment 1
Fourth Amendment Page 5
Our team will partner with City of Pleasanton to develop an outreach plan to collaborate with local schools, mental health providers and community stakeholders. This could range from providing presentations at local schools, to posting at the local fair to promote the program. We could also implement strategies to engage consumers in gathering feedback to understand the effectiveness of the program and its structure.
Additional monthly reporting to be sent by the 10th of each month will include:
1. Bonita House will provide a report for any CATT responses to Pleasanton and the disposition of those calls.
2. Bonita House will also provide a monthly report of the demographics of the 5150/5585 WI's AHRM respond to.
Behavioral Health Clinician: This position can be filled equally successfully by an Associate or Licensed master's or doctorly prepared AMFT, ACSW, APCC, LMFT, LCSW, LPCC, PsyD, PhD. in Clinical Psychology, candidates with 2 years of progressively responsible experience providing clinical services, including crisis management. Experience working with children, adults with substance use and in assessment, diagnosis, formulating treatment plans, performing verbal crisis intervention and de-escalation, and linkage to services. While Licensed Clinicians are preferred, we have great success with Associate clinicians given the robust training and support the organization provides. (2.0 FTE 40 hours/ week including PTO and Holidays.)
Crisis Services Clinical Manager/s: This position will assist with the training of new staff at the New Hire Academy and in the field. This position with assist with outreach. The supervisor will be available by phone for consultation if needed. The Manager will provide clinical supervision for Associate Clinicians to support their path to licensure. This position will manage the logistics of managing the day-to-day program, hiring staff, and systems to support follow-up, outreach and data collection. (0.30 FTE Averaging 12 hours/ week including travel time)
Solutions Architect/Systems Administrator & Data Coordinator: Solutions Architect/Systems Administrator will be responsible for managing the EHR and other systems for client records and data collection. This individual will manage systems to support data tracking needs and will assist with analysis and reporting.
Data Coordinator will provide general administrative and clerical support to clinical staff and supervisors to coordinate data collection and maintain work unit’s reports and records for compliance with applicable regulations. If Medi-Cal billing opportunities becomes an option in the future, this individual will assist with billing to Alameda County Smartcare system and Medicare, including maintaining an eligibility tracking system for Medi-Cal and Medicare billing. (0.15 FTE Averaging 6 hours/ week.)
Quality Improvement (QI) Director/QI Manager*: These individuals will provide oversite for the agency’s quality of care requirements for maintaining standards of care. They will ensure policies are updated according to new standards and program management are able to implement necessary changes. They will ensure our policies and procedures support overall compliance and quality of care. Actual effort needed will vary depending upon evolving regulations. (0.05 FTE Averaging 2 hours/week combined.)
Executive Director/Program Director*: These individuals will provide oversite for the agency’s contractual obligations and will ensure overall compliance and quality of care. (0.03 FTE Averaging 5.2 hours/month combined.)
Attachment 1
Fourth Amendment Page 6
Costs
The proposed two-year budget starts on July 1, 2025, for the ARMH (Alternate Response to Mental Health) program.
The following assumptions are built into the cost projections:
Licensed or Associate Behavioral Health Clinicians (2.0 FTE total) Crisis Clinical Manager/s (0.30 FTE total)
Solutions Architect/Systems Administrator/Data Coordinator (0.15 FTE total) Quality Improvement (QI) Director/QI Manager & (0.05 FTE total) Executive Director/Program Director (0.03 FTE total)
Attachment 1
Bonita House, Inc
Proposed Budget - City of Pleasanton Police Department
Contract Period 7/1/25-6/30/27
Year 1 Year 2
Total Personnel Expense 351,459$ 364,425$
Includes Wages, payroll taxes, benefits (Medical
Dental, EAP, Vision, 403b, workers comp),
annual increase for retention of 3-5%, staff
relations, and recruitment fees if turnover is
experienced
Operating Expenses - Office 7,174$ 7,304$
Includes phones, hot spots, replacements for
laptops over 4 years old, business license, and
professional and general liability insurance
Operating Expenses - Program 15,865$ 15,960$
Includes supplies (business cards, IT
accessories not provided by PD), mileage for
managers to meet with PD/staff, travel and
annual training, outreach expense for public
events, social service memberships, IT support,
EHR, and other software needed for HIPPA
compliance and operations
Administrative Expenses 66,002$ 68,311$
Set at 15% of total cost, matching Alameda
County admin rate (covers functions such as
accounting, HR, and grants management). (Actual
administrative calculation uses 17.625% of the direct
expense to get to 15% of total cost)
Total Operating Expense 440,500$ 456,000$
Attachment 1
Estimated Wages Only Year 1 Year 2 Notes
Licensed or Associate Clinician ** 211,700$ 220,170$
2.0 full-time staff salary includes paid time off ;
includes additional pay needed once Associate
clinician receives Licensure
Crisis Program Manager/ Clinician
Supervisor
43,200$ 45,140$
0.3 FTE to provide supervision, clinical support,
coordinate training and development
Executive Director/ Program Director 6,200$ 6,480$ .03 FTE for oversight of Clinical services and
contract relations
QI Director/ QI Manager 5,300$ 5,300$
.05 FTE combined to provide Clinical Quality
Control to ensure high quality services in
compliance with Healthcare standards
Systems Administrator/ Solutions
Architect/
Data Coordinator
10,200$ 10,660$
.15 FTE to provide administrative and data
coordination support for data collection and
reporting
276,600$ 287,750$
** Budget note: The annual salary range for Clinicians varies based on licensure and qualifications. The Associate Clinician range is currently $84k-$94k and Licensed Clinician is $90k- $110k, depending on qualifications. Cost is projected based on current staffing with an estimated 3-5% per year increase depending upon agencywide factors.
We continually recruit for a strong pool of diverse candidates, including those who are bilingual. Given the limited qualified licensed clinicians available, we strive to expand this needed community service resource by supporting Associates to advance towards full licensure. We will continue to evaluate the market and compensation agency wide to attract and retain qualified staff.
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Scope of Services
We are delighted to propose a model for the ARMH Unit that is designed to meet the needs of ALL community members in the city of Pleasanton. We have a team of experienced crisis clinicians who currently operate the Community Assessment and Transport Team (CATT) and believe we have the experience to be successful in serving the community of Pleasanton. Our team of behavioral health clinicians will be 100% field-based and fully equipped with several advanced technologies with the ability to transport individuals to alternative disposition sites to meet their current needs. In our experience this will reduce the need for a 5150/5585 for individuals who are in crisis solely due to having a lack of immediate care and referral options. It is our goal to provide calming patient-centered sensory-management behavioral health and comfort interventions while enroute. We believe that this multimodal and holistic approach to assisting individuals in crisis will result in a higher degree of client satisfaction with emergency psychiatric care. Further, it will greatly increase their chances of accessing the least restrictive environment needed to recover from their crisis.
Our team will use Professional Assault Crisis Training (Pro-ACT) as a guide for crisis intervention. All clinicians will be trained by certified Pro-ACT trainers for common issues contributing to psychiatric emergencies and how to manage crises in a variety of settings. Our clinicians will all be 5150/5585 certified in Alameda County and go through extensive training in crisis response through our current CATT program including but not limited to cultural humility, vicarious trauma, working with adolescent and minors, working in school-based settings, motivational interviewing, brief assessment and intervention, crisis de-escalation and documentation. The CATT program trainings will be available to the City of Pleasanton officers.
Clinicians hired for this project will be selected for their professional ability and experience in managing crises that occur across the lifespan. On hiring, and on an annual basis, staff will participate in a formal training program in Pro-ACT crisis model and assessment process, trauma-informed care, working with minors in school-based settings, community resources and linkage processes, and other topics identified above. We will also coordinate training activities with the County's training department and collaborate with ARMH’s officers to identify areas of interest and need for ongoing training.
Documentation will be completed during any available downtime within a service and immediately afterward at the destination site in most cases, with any remaining documentation and follow-up reserved for the end of the shift. It is our experience that documentation completed immediately after a service is highly efficient, accurate and easily accessible for future reference. Our Clinicians will document in Welligent, a well-established Electronic Health Records system, to maintain up-to-date records that meet Medi-Cal billing standards. Clinicians will also have access to the Alameda County Community Health Record (CHR), an application with curated information from different organizations involved in consumer care, to improve care coordination.
Bonita House has a thorough knowledge of Medi-Cal documentation requirements. We have a Clinical Quality Review Team (CQRT) for each program that meets weekly. Every staff member receives initial and ongoing training in the documentation. We also have a current data analyst who has experience with collecting and quantifying data around crisis work in our current CATT team.
We also believe that dynamic clinical teams, particularly those operating primarily in the field, require effective and consistent supervision. To achieve this, we will schedule a 1-hour block once per week (i.e., 7a-8a). This will enable a weekly all-staff 1-hour structured team meeting. Team meetings will follow a predetermined agenda (e.g., safety issues, collaboration with community partners, planned service improvements, etc.), with longer discussions tabled until the end of the meeting to enable all to stay on track and adhere to time constraints. Clinicians will meet once weekly with the clinical supervisor to Exhibit B
Attachment 2
discuss clinical concerns and facilitate professional development. This is considered best practice and will ensure community members continually receive high quality mental health services.
Our team will partner with City of Pleasanton to develop an outreach plan to collaborate with local schools, mental health providers and community stakeholders. This could range from providing presentations at local schools, to posting at the local fair to promote the program. We could also implement strategies to engage consumers in gathering feedback to understand the effectiveness of the program and its structure.
We will be able to implement and support the program with the following staffing structure. Each of these positions will provide a role in meeting the specifications of the RFP.
Behavioral Health Clinician: This is a position for licensed master's or doctorly prepared LMFT, LCSW, LPCC, PsyD, PhD. in Clinical Psychology, candidates with 2 years of progressively responsible experience providing clinical services, including crisis management. Experience working with children, adults with substance use and in assessment, diagnosis, formulating treatment plans, and performing verbal crisis intervention and de-escalation, linkage to services, and bilingual 2.0 FTE 40hrs/week.
Data Analyst: This role will be filled by existing staff in the Crisis Services department. This individual will be responsible for assisting with data collection and analysis along with creation of systems to support data tracking needs. 0.10 FTE 4hrs/week
Data Coordinator: Conducting Search. Data Coordinator provides general administrative and clerical support to clinical staff. The Data Coordinator will assist with billing to Alameda County INSYST system and Medicare, including maintaining an eligibility tracking system for Medi-Cal and Medicare billing, and maintaining work unit’s reports and records suitable for county, state, and federal auditing. 0.30 FTE 12hrs/week
Crisis Services Clinical Supervisor: This role will be filled by existing staff in the Crisis Services department. This position will assist with the training of new staff at the New Hire Academy and in the field. This position with assist with outreach. The supervisor will be available by phone for consultation if needed. This position will provide on-call coverage if needed. 0.10 FTE 4hrs/week
Director of Crisis Services: This role will be filled by existing staff in the Crisis Services department.
This position will manage the logistics of creating the program, hiring staff, and implementation of systems to support follow up, outreach and data collection. This position will provide on-call coverage if needed. 0.10 FTE 4hrs/week
Attachment 2
Costs
The proposed two-year budget quantifies elements of implementation that have a budget impact. The budget is presented as two full years (i.e., 24 months) with Year 1 starting on July 1, 2022, which the RFP (Request for Proposals) states as the Contract Start Date for the ARMH (Alternate Response to Mental Health) program.
The following assumptions are built into the cost projections for Year 1:
Hiring of 2.0 FTE Licensed Clinicians with language differential Data Analyst (10%)
Data Coordinator (30%)
Director of Crisis Services (10%)
Crisis Clinical Supervisor (10%)
YEARLY PERSONNEL COSTS
Position Yearly Salary
Payroll
Taxes Benefits
Indirect
Cost Total
7.65% 24% 14%
Licensed Bi-Lingual Clinician $99,197.00 $7,588.57 $23,807.28 $13,887.58 $144,480.43 Licensed Bi-Lingual Clinician $99,197.00 $7,588.57 $23,807.28 $13,887.58 $144,480.43 Data Analyst - 10% time $8,174.80 $625.39 $1,962.00 $1,144.50 $11,906.89 Data Coordinator - 30% time $17,004.00 $1,300.81 $4,080.96 $2,380.56 $24,766.33 Director of Crisis Services - 10%
Time $13,200.00
$1,009.80 $3,168.00 $1,848.00 $19,225.80
Clinical Supervisor - 10% Time $11,500.00 $879.75 $2,760.00 $1,610.00 $16,749.75 $361,609.62
Bilingual Behavioral Health Clinician: See "Scope of Services" section for descriptions of different position levels; the $99,197 annual salary is the projected average annual salary across 2.0 FTE. We are seeking a strong pool of diverse candidates, including those who are bilingual.
Data Analyst: 0.10 FTE @ $81,748 = $8,174.80
Data Coordinator: 0.30 FTE @ $56,680 = $17,004.00
Crisis Services Clinical Supervisor: 0.10 FTE @ $115,000 = $11,500
Director of Crisis Services: 0.10 FTE @ $132,000 = $13,200
Benefits: Staff benefits are budgeted at the current Bonita House rate of 24% as follows:
Social security/Medicare = 7.65%; Medical & Dental = 10.42%; Worker's compensation insurance =
1.72%; Retirement = 3.30%; Life Insurance & Long-Term Disability = 0.46%; Unemployment = 0.45%.
Yearly Operating Costs: $13,362
The costs reflect a predominantly field-based program staff. As in our other Bonita House field-based programs, staff go directly into the field from their homes. The operating costs listed below are annual figures.
Attachment 2
IT Costs: Total $6,066. Annual licensing fees including mobile device management @ $75.75/month x 12 x 2 staff = $1,818; User support services, cloud server hosting fees @ $177/month x 12 x 2 = $4,248.
Communications: Cell phones with unlimited data @ $60/month x 12 x 2 staff = $1,440. Interpretive Services with Interpreters Unlimited: $3,900. 1 hour/week x $1.25 minute x 52 = $3,900.
Transportation: $1,356. Non-commute mileage: 100 miles/month x 12 x 2 staff @ .565/mile (IRS rate) = $1,356.
Training: $600. $300 x 2 staff = $600.
Startup Cost: Year one only = $26,000
Laptops/Cellphones: $3,500 x 2 staff = $7,000.
Recruitment costs: LinkedIn membership, job postings: $15,000. Sign on bonuses for FTE clinicians: $2,000 x 2 = $4,000.
Total year one program costs: $400,971.62
(Personnel Costs + Operating Costs + Startup Costs)
Total projected year two program costs: $374,971.62
(Personnel Costs + Operating Costs)
Projected total pilot program costs: $775,943.24
Revenue: Medi-Cal Billing
Clearly, there is the potential for Medi-Cal billing in this pilot program. However, we are uncertain of exactly how much Medi-Cal revenue can be generated by clinicians in this pilot program. Over the two- year term of this pilot project, we will implement and begin billing to collect accurate financial data. It is possible Medi-Cal revenue could cover the majority of the costs associated with the Behavioral Health Clinician Services component of ARMH.
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A304B85-FEC2-464C-990D-A290711C1FAF DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FA2C60-8B59-47E4-98BF-D6F9900D6E6A Attachment 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A304B85-FEC2-464C-990D-A290711C1FAF DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FA2C60-8B59-47E4-98BF-D6F9900D6E6A Attachment 2
Exhibit B
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A304B85-FEC2-464C-990D-A290711C1FAF DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FA2C60-8B59-47E4-98BF-D6F9900D6E6A Attachment 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A304B85-FEC2-464C-990D-A290711C1FAF DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FA2C60-8B59-47E4-98BF-D6F9900D6E6A Attachment 2
Docusign Envelope ID: C1D11C1D-1C45-48CB-9C18-012F00F74AB9 Attachment 2
Docusign Envelope ID: C1D11C1D-1C45-48CB-9C18-012F00F74AB9 Attachment 2
Docusign Envelope ID: C1D11C1D-1C45-48CB-9C18-012F00F74AB9 Attachment 2
Item #11
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 17, 2025
Police
TITLE: APPROVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A FINAL TERM OF TWO YEARS, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2027, AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $1,641,339 OVER TWO YEARS FOR THE SCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER PROGRAM
SUMMARY
In 2021, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Pleasanton Unified School District to formalize the relationship, articulate the roles and responsibilities of both parties, and outline the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. The MOU was subsequently amended in June 2024 to extend the term for one additional year through June 30, 2025.
Based on the continued positive outcomes of the program and following City Council direction at the April 2025 budget meetings to pursue cost-sharing arrangements, staff recommends that the City Council approve a second and final amendment to the MOU. This amendment extends the term for two additional years through June 30, 2027, with the intent to negotiate a new agreement that incorporates cost-sharing provisions as directed by the City Council. The estimated annual cost of the SRO program, when fully staffed with two full-time equivalent (FTE) officers, including supervision, is $808,541 in Year 1 and $832,798 in Year 2, or an estimated $1,641,339 over two years.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the second amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Pleasanton Unified School District for a final term of two years, through June 30, 2027, at an estimated cost of $1,641,339 over two years for the School Resource Officer Program.
BACKGROUND
In mid-2020, the City Council hosted several special meetings to listen to and engage with the community around policing in Pleasanton. The result of these discussions was to draft a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Pleasanton Unified School District (DIstrict) for the use of School Resource Officers, which was formally adopted in November 2021 with a three-year term.
In June 2024, the City Council approved the First Amendment to extend the MOU for one additional year through June 30, 2025. At that time, the City Council directed staff to explore cost-sharing models with the District for services including SROs and crossing guards.
Throughout 2024 and early 2025, City staff engaged in discussions with District representatives regarding potential cost-sharing arrangements. With both entities facing significant budget constraints, no cost-sharing agreement for SROs has been reached at this
time.
At the April 8, 2025, Special City Council Meeting, during preliminary budget discussions, the City Council expressed interest in pursuing a cost-sharing element for the SRO Program as an alternative to other potential budget reductions. This direction was reaffirmed at the April 10, 2025, meeting. While the City Council ultimately approved funding for both SRO positions in the next two-year budget, the City Council directed staff to continue pursuing cost-sharing arrangements for future years.
Given this direction, this Second Amendment is a two-year extension through June 30, 2027, with no further renewals of the current MOU. Following this final extension period, staff intend to work with PUSD representatives to negotiate a new agreement that incorporates potential cost-sharing provisions as directed by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The SRO program has continued to meet its primary goals over the extended four-year term:
1. Providing support and partnership between the City and the District to promote a safe atmosphere for students and staff
2. Developing a greater understanding and building relationships between police and students
3. Balancing enforcement needs while creating support and confidence
4. Reducing the number of mental health detentions under Sections 5150 or 5585 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Key program achievements include:
• Continued reduction in custodial arrests of juveniles • Decreased mental health, involuntary commitments
• Successful transition of mental health crisis response to the City's Alternate Response Unit (ARU)
• Complete removal of police officers from school discipline issues.
This Second Amendment establishes June 30, 2027, as the end date for the current MOU.
This approach provides a clear pathway for negotiating a new agreement to include cost- sharing provisions as directed by the City Council, while allowing time for the District to plan for potential financial participation in future years. Staff will begin working with PUSD leadership in Fiscal Year 2025/26 to develop this new framework.
The proposed amendment also updates the District's administrative address to reflect its current location at 5758 W. Las Positas Blvd., ensuring proper communication between the parties.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
The SRO program continues to support the City's commitment to providing equitable services to all community members. The program particularly benefits youth safety and well-being, contributing to positive educational environments. The two-year extension allows time to
explore more financially sustainable models while maintaining this essential service.
OUTREACH
Continued community support for the SRO program has been demonstrated through:
• District surveys showing overwhelming support from parents, faculty/staff, and students • Regular updates at City/District Liaison Committee meetings.
Both the City and District leadership have been engaged in ongoing discussions about the program's future, including exploration of grant opportunities and alternative funding sources.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
This action advances the ONE Pleasanton strategic goals of Safeguarding Our City and Funding Our Future, by prioritizing community safety in a fiscsally responsible manner.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to the City for providing 2.0 FTE police officers to the District with a 0.5 FTE sergeant for supervision is included in the Fiscal Years 2025/26 - 2026/27 General Fund budget at an estimated total cost of $808,541 in Year 1 and $832,798 in Year 2, or an estimated $1,641,339 over two years. The City will continue to fund 100 percent of the program costs for this extension period.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Aarón Zavala, Assistant to
the City Manager
Kurt Schlehuber, Police
Captain
Tracy Avelar, Police Chief
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft SRO MOU Amendment 2025
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLEASANTON
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF PLEASANTON
This Second Amendment to the Agreement (collectively the “Agreement) is entered into this ___ day of ___________2025 by and between the Pleasanton Unified School District, Pleasanton, California (hereinafter referred to as “DISTRICT”) and the City of Pleasanton, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”).
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2021, the CITY and DISTRICT entered into an agreement to allocate a total of two officer positions to the School Resource Officer Program;
WHEREAS, the original agreement was for a term beginning on July 1, 2021, and ending on June 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2024, the CITY and DISTRICT agreed to an amendment, adding an additional year and extending the through June 30, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, 2023, the DISTRICT’s address to receive written communications was relocated to 5758 W. Las Positas Blvd, Pleasanton, CA 94588; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and DISTRICT wish to extend the term of the Agreement to June 30, 2027, and update the address to which the DISTRICT receives written communications.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement do mutually agree as follows:
1. Section D of the Agreement, “TERM,” is amended to read:
The term of this Agreement is six years, beginning July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2027 (fiscal year for both parties). Police services at the above schools will be provided during the school year, including summer school sessions.
This Agreement shall expire on June 30, 2027. Any continuation of the School Resource Officer Program after June 30, 2027, shall require a new agreement between the parties.
This Agreement may be terminated with thirty (30) days' notice, in writing, by either the CITY or the DISTRICT.
2. Section B of the Agreement, "AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATOR," is amended to update the DISTRICT's address as follows:
Written communication to the DISTRICT shall be sent to:
Office of the Superintendent or Designee
5758 W. Las Positas Blvd.
Attachment 1
Pleasanton, CA 94588
3. This amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with U.S. federal E-Sign Act of 2000 (15 U.S. Code §7001 et seq.), California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Cal. Civil Code §1633.1 et seq.), or other applicable law) or other transmission method, and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.
4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and DISTRICT have caused the Agreement to be signed on their behalf by duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below.
By: _________________________________ _______________________ City Manager Date
By: _________________________________ _______________________ Chief of Police Date
Approved as to form:
By: _________________________________ _______________________ City Attorney Date
By: _________________________________ _______________________ City Clerk Date
By: _________________________________ _______________________ Superintendent Date
Item #12
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 17, 2025
Public Works - Engineering Division
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S REPORTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1984-1 (PONDEROSA-DEL PRADO), 1993-1 (WINDSOR), 1993-2 (BONDE RANCH), 1994-1 (OAK TREE FARM), AND 1995-1 (MOLLER RANCH), DECLARING THE CITY’S INTENTION TO ASSESS
THE PROPERTIES FOR THE COST TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE DISTRICTS; AND SETTING JULY 15, 2025, AT 7:00 P.M. AS THE DATE AND
TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY
Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs) in the Ponderosa-Del Prado, Windsor, Bonde Ranch, Oak Tree Farm, and Moller Ranch subdivisions were established to maintain the common landscaped and lighted areas of each development in accordance with City-approved development plans. Over time, the level of maintenance provided in these LMDs has been reduced in order to keep assessment rates flat. As a result, current revenues are insufficient to maintain the improvements at their intended standard or address necessary maintenance and infrastructure replacement needs. Fund reserves have also been depleted due to rising maintenance and water costs while assessment revenues have remained unchanged since they were last reduced in 2000.
The Engineer’s Reports determine the annual assessments to be levied on property owners within each district to cover costs associated with administration, electricity, water, landscape maintenance, irrigation, and infrastructure replacement. The annual Engineer’s Reports for the LMDs in the Ponderosa-Del Prado, Windsor, Bonde Ranch, Oak Tree Farm, and Moller Ranch subdivisions have been completed for Fiscal Year 2025/26.
Under Proposition 218 (“The Right to Vote on Taxes Act”), any increase in assessments above the originally approved maximum requires voter approval. Following consultation with a Proposition 218-specialized attorney and assessment consultant, staff recommends a two-step approach:
1. Restore Assessment Levels: As a first step, staff recommends restoring assessments to their original levels following the passage of Proposition 218. This means returning assessments to the 1997–98 levels for Bonde Ranch, Oak Tree Farm, and Moller Ranch; and to the 1988 level for the Ponderosa LMD, which is the earliest recorded assessment available. The Windsor LMD assessment will remain unchanged, as it has not been modified since its formation.
2. Comprehensive Assessment Review: In the second step, staff recommends engaging outside consultants to conduct a comprehensive analysis, consistent with Proposition 218 requirements, during FY 2025/26 and work with the residents to determine the assessment levels necessary to restore and sustain maintenance standards as outlined
in each district's approved development plans.
Staff recommends that the City Council:
• Approve the FY 2025/26 Engineer’s Reports for each LMD • Declare the intention to levy and collect the proposed assessments • Schedule a public hearing for 7:00 p.m. on July 15, 2025, to receive public testimony from property owners subject to the assessments
• Direct the City Clerk to publish a Notice of Annual Hearing at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolutions approving the Engineer’s Reports for Landscape Maintenance Districts 1984- 1 (Ponderosa-Del Prado), 1993-1 (Windsor), 1993-2 (Bonde Ranch), 1994-1 (Oak Tree Farm), and 1995-1 (Moller Ranch), declaring the City’s intention to assess the properties for the cost to operate and maintain the districts; and setting July 15, 2025, at 7 p.m. as the date and time for the public hearing, and authorize the City Clerk to advertise a Notice of Annual Hearing (Cal. Streets & Highways Code §22626(a)) 10 days prior to the hearing.
BACKGROUND
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes local agencies to impose an annual assessment on real property benefiting from project-specific improvements to pay for the construction and maintenance of landscaping and lighting special improvements that benefit those parcels. The assessments are collected by the Alameda County Assessor’s Office and applied to each owner’s property tax bill.
For each LMD, City staff follows a statutorily imposed process for yearly administration. Staff performs regular field inspections to ensure satisfactory performance by a City-hired maintenance contractor, completes reviews, addresses complaints or concerns from property owners, and processes progress payments to the contractor. City administration generally includes the following steps:
1. Solicit competitive bids from contractors to perform the required maintenance work
2. Review bids and recommend acceptance of the lowest responsive bid
3. Review maintenance costs, estimate annual costs (water, electricity, etc.) and prepare a budget to be included in the annual Engineer's Report and City budget
4. Prepare the Engineer’s Report for each district disclosing the annual assessment amounts
5. Present the Engineer’s Reports to the City Council during a public hearing
6. Adopt the annual assessments and coordinate with the City’s Finance Department and City Clerk to authorize collection of assessments with the Alameda County Assessor’s Office and receipt of the assessments as special revenue.
Effects of Proposition 218
Proposition 218, commonly referred to as the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," was passed by California voters in November 1996. The Proposition amended the State's Constitution by
adding Articles XIII(C) and XIII(D) to do the following:
• Limit the authority of local governments (including cities, counties, special districts and school districts) to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges • Establish procedures for the initial implementation of special assessments and for an increase of a previously approved annual maximum assessment. These procedures apply to maintenance assessments for landscaping and lighting maintenance districts.
The procedures include a requirement that the City develop an Engineer's Report which identifies the special benefits that will accrue to each property as a result of the assessment. Subject to certain exceptions, the procedures also require that a weighted majority of property owners in the district vote in favor of any new assessment and any increase in a maximum assessment, beyond the amount approved when the district was formed.
To date, Proposition 218 procedures have not been necessary in Pleasanton as assessments have not been increased since district formation and, in fact, were lowered in 2000. However, the City cannot continue to manage the districts to the standard of care associated with the development approval, and rate increases will be required to adjust the assessments to a sustainable level.
DISCUSSION
The City currently operates five LMDs that are assessed annually. The assessments include an added 1.7 percent to the base assessment as an administration fee imposed by the county for collecting the assessment through property tax bills. The assessments on the City-owned parcels located within the Ponderosa-Del Prado, Bonde Ranch, Oak Tree Farm, and Moller Ranch districts do not include the 1.7 percent county administration fee as the Finance Department transfers the money from the General Fund into the specific district fund without involving the county.
Table 1 below lists the assessments to be collected within each district this fiscal year as well as the total expected special revenue and the total available reserves:
Table 1.
The engineer’s budget for each district includes a reserve fund to provide for replacement and capital improvements such as planting, irrigation, decorative entry walls, signage, light fixtures, etc. Currently, the reserve funds are insufficient to cover these costs. Irrigation systems have been turned off at Bonde Ranch and Oak Tree Farms and portions of Moller Ranch and Ponderosa due to numerous necessary repairs. Turning off the irrigation systems has led to a decline in the landscape that will have long-term detrimental impacts, limiting the ability for future landscape renovations.
Assembly Bill 1572, the nonfunctional turf bill, will also require the removal of the nonfunctional turf at Moller Ranch and Windsor, thus adding further maintenance costs by 2028. The Windsor at Laguna Oaks HOA is now performing the landscape maintenance and paying for the irrigation water to address the depletion of reserves at the Windsor LMD, but that alone will not provide the necessary changes for fiscal sustainability for the district.
This coming fiscal year, the City is proposing to restore the assessment amounts to the 1997/98 post-Proposition 218 amounts, with the exception of Ponderosa LMD, which is being restored back to the amount indicated in Resolution 88-375, the first assessment the city has on record. Staff is also consulting with an attorney and an engineering firm, both of whom specialize in assessment districts, to implement a more sustainable assessment amount in compliance with Proposition 218. The fees for the consultants will be added to the costs for each district. The Proposition 218-compliance process is necessary for both fiscal sustainability and to maintain the standard of care for the properties when the developments were approved, which would reduce liabilities associated with the current reduced level of maintenance.
Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1, Ponderosa-Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1, established in 1984, provides for the maintenance of public landscaping along Paseo Santa Cruz, between Corte Santa Maria and Corte Pacifica, within the Ponderosa Homes Subdivision. The scope of services includes maintenance of masonry walls, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and irrigation systems.
The current annual assessment of $16.62 per parcel is no longer sufficient to cover necessary maintenance, emergency repairs, or long-term capital improvements. While the overall assessment revenue currently supports basic maintenance and operational costs—including water, electricity, and administrative fees—it is inadequate for more extensive needs such as system upgrades, plant replacements, and emergency repairs.
The district faces an immediate annual funding shortfall of approximately $3,200 for minimum maintenance operations. Additionally, the Proposition 218 process to pursue a rate increase will cost approximately $36,000, bringing the total projected reserve draw to approximately $32,400 for the current fiscal year.
The capital repair and replacement reserve fund balance is approximately $81,000 but estimated capital needs over the next ten years total approximately $600,000. These needs include full replacement of the irrigation system, plant and tree replacements, pruning, masonry wall repairs, and consultant services.
To address this funding gap, staff recommends restoring the assessment to the level of $60.08 per parcel (or $61.10 per parcel including the 1.7% county fee), as authorized by the City Council and adopted by Resolution 88-375. This adjustment can be implemented without a Proposition 218 property owner vote and would provide critical near-term relief.
Following the restoration of the assessment to 1988 levels, staff further recommends initiating a Proposition 218-compliant process to seek property owner approval for:
• An increase to approximately $150 per parcel annually, and • An annual inflation escalator to ensure the district remains financially sustainable over time.
If the Proposition 218 property owner vote does not pass, staff will be forced to implement cost-reduction measures, including the permanent shutoff of portions of the irrigation system.
This will lead to accelerated landscape deterioration, increased long-term repair costs, and higher liability exposure for the City.
Staff believes the recommended actions represent a responsible and necessary approach to maintaining service levels, protecting community assets, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of District 1984-1.
Landscape Maintenance District 1993-1, Windsor
Landscaping Maintenance District 1993-1, established in 1993, provides for the maintenance of public landscaping within the Windsor Subdivision. The scope of maintenance includes masonry walls, trees, shrubbery, groundcover, irrigation systems, entry features, and common area drainage ditches. The district also funds all water and electricity associated with irrigation. These improvements are located within Lot A (northeast side of Tapestry Way and Minton Court, and the northwest corner of the subdivision) and Lot C (southwest corner of the subdivision).
The current annual assessment of $265.11 per parcel is no longer sufficient to fund the
maintenance of district areas to the level provided in previous years. Despite reductions in service levels, increased costs for water, maintenance, and repairs—combined with an aging irrigation system and maturing landscape—have depleted the district’s cash reserve. Over the past few years, multiple irrigation system failures have caused significant water loss, unusually high water bills, and costly emergency repairs. In addition, tree and limb failures have required extensive pruning and removal work. Despite efforts to limit maintenance, the district fund deficit is approximately $14,000 due to emergency irrigation repairs and necessary tree work.
The majority of last year’s budget was used to address these high-priority issues.
In early 2022, City staff initiated the process of increasing assessments in accordance with Proposition 218. At that time, Windsor homeowners expressed a preference for the Homeowners Association (HOA) to assume responsibility for routine plant maintenance and irrigation water costs. As of February 2024, the HOA had entered into an agreement with the City to do so, which reduces the district’s expenses by approximately $17,000 annually.
While the HOA’s assumption of these responsibilities represents a significant cost-saving measure, the City remains responsible for maintaining other elements of the district, including:
• Sound wall repairs
• Irrigation infrastructure
• Tree pruning and removal
• Drainage maintenance, paving, furnishings, and other non-plant-related services
Although the HOA agreement is a step toward restoring financial balance, long-term sustainability will still require an increase in the annual assessment. The current assessment amount of $265.11 per parcel (or $269.62 per parcel including the 1.7% county fee) remains unchanged, and no increase is proposed at this time; however, staff estimates that the assessment would need to increase to approximately $400 annually per parcel, with the implementation of an annual inflation escalator to support the district’s needs in the future. If the HOA relinquishes the payment for basic maintenance services and water, the assessment would need to rise to approximately $800 annually.
Additionally, a Proposition 218-compliant process will be required to approve any increase beyond the current rate. The estimated cost of this process is $36,000. Assembly Bill 1572 also mandates the removal of non-functional turf. As a result, a portion of the district’s existing lawn areas will need to be replaced with low water-use plantings prior to January 1, 2027. The cost of this turf conversion is estimated at $175,000. Combined with other necessary long- term capital improvements and major maintenance costs, total projected expenses for the next ten years are estimated at approximately $700,000.
Staff believes that although immediate assessment changes are not proposed, the financial outlook requires action. A future Proposition 218 process will be necessary to:
• Increase annual assessments to a sustainable level
• Add an inflation adjustment mechanism
• Address upcoming state-mandated landscaping requirements • Rebuild depleted reserves to fund eventual system replacement and capital repairs
Without these steps, the district will be out of compliance with State mandates and risks further deterioration of its assets and the potential for greater long-term costs and community impact.
Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2, Bonde Ranch
Landscape Maintenance District 1993-2, established in 1993, provides for the maintenance of entry features, open space areas, firebreaks, trees, shrubbery, groundcover, and irrigation systems for the Bonde Ranch subdivision, encompassing Tracts 6483 and 6518.
The current annual assessment of $252.91 per parcel is no longer sufficient to maintain the district areas to the same standard as in previous years. While the current revenue allows for reduced maintenance, payment of county assessment fees, and City administration fees, it does not fund capital repair or replacement costs necessary to preserve and restore key infrastructure. The capital repair and replacement reserve fund currently holds approximately $28,000, an amount insufficient to address significant near-term capital needs. These include:
• irrigation system replacement
• tree and shrub replacement
• mulch replenishment
• fence repair and painting
• basic landscape rehabilitation.
In recent years, water to the district has been shut off due to persistent irrigation system leaks, resulting in widespread decline of the landscape. Many trees and shrubs have died or are in poor condition due to lack of irrigation. To restore even minimal landscape quality, a functioning irrigation system will be required to support plant replacement and ongoing care.
In 2022, staff initiated discussions regarding a Proposition 218-compliant property owner vote to increase assessments. However, strong opposition from property owners at a neighborhood outreach meeting resulted in the City pausing the process.
Ongoing increases in capital improvements, electricity, water, and maintenance costs— including weed management, which now consumes approximately 40 percent of the annual district budget—continue to strain the district’s financial capacity. Current-year costs for basic maintenance, water, and electricity are projected to total approximately $24,200, while the Proposition 218 process is estimated at $36,000, resulting in a projected $22,000 draw on reserves to meet immediate needs.
To move toward fiscal stability, staff and consultants are recommending a restoration of the assessment to the 1997 post-Proposition 218 level of $389.56 per parcel (or $396.18 per parcel including the 1.7% county fee). This restoration may be implemented without a Proposition 218 property owner vote and would provide temporary relief.
However, based on projected needs, long-term sustainability will require a significant increase.
Staff estimates the assessment must rise to approximately $800 per parcel annually with an annual inflation escalator to ensure ongoing solvency. A Proposition 218-compliant property owner vote will be required to implement this increase. Staff will use the current fiscal year to
evaluate long-term funding needs and prepare an updated assessment proposal that reflects the district’s capital and maintenance obligations. Total estimated improvements and capital needs over the next decade are approximately $800,000. These include irrigation system replacement, landscape restoration, major fence repairs, and state-mandated fire mitigation improvements.
Restoring the assessment to historic levels will be the first step toward achieving fiscal sustainability for District 1993-2. A successful Proposition 218 property owner vote will be necessary to implement a comprehensive funding solution and prevent further degradation of the district's landscape and infrastructure.
Landscape Maintenance District 1994-1, Oak Tree Farm
Landscape Maintenance District 1994-1, established in 1994, provides for the maintenance of open space areas, entry features, decorative lighting, firebreaks, trees, shrubbery, groundcover, and irrigation systems within the Oak Tree Farm subdivision.
The current annual assessment of $465.75 per parcel is sufficient to fund reduced maintenance services, including county assessment fees, City administration fees, and minor improvements. However, it is not sufficient to fund critical capital repairs, irrigation system restoration, major oak tree pruning, or emergency repair services.
To address ongoing water leaks, the irrigation system has been shut off, which has negatively impacted plant health. City staff continues to work with the maintenance contractor to maximize efficiency under these constraints. Despite these efforts, an increase in the annual assessment will be necessary to restore previous service levels and maintain the long-term sustainability of the district. The current capital repair and replacement reserve fund balance is $71,000, which is insufficient to address necessary near-term improvements. These include:
• Irrigation system replacement
• Plant replacement
• Decorative fence repair
• Lighting replacement
• Extensive tree pruning
This fiscal year, maintenance, water, and electricity costs are projected at $40,700, with an additional $9,000 required for the Proposition 218 process, resulting in an estimated reserve fund use of $25,500.
City staff and consultants recommend restoring the assessment to the 1998 post-Proposition 218 level of $617.41 per parcel (or $627.91 per parcel including the 1.7% county fee) as an initial step toward fiscal stability. Staff plans to implement additional increases to reach the originally approved assessment amount of $1,000 per parcel, with an annual inflation escalator based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI). Increases will be phased in over time to reduce the burden on property owners. Total estimated capital needs over the next decade are approximately $400,000. Due to the existing authority granted at formation and the inclusion of the inflation escalator, a Proposition 218-compliant property owner vote will not be required to implement these adjustments.
Landscape Maintenance District 1995-1, Moller Ranch
Landscape Maintenance District 1995-1, established in 1995, provides for the maintenance of open space areas, entry features, lighting, firebreaks, trees, shrubbery, groundcover, and irrigation systems within the Moller Ranch subdivision.
The current annual assessment of $560.53 per parcel is sufficient to fund the reduced maintenance level of the district, including water and electricity costs, county assessment fees, City administration fees, and general operations. However, this amount is not adequate to grow the capital repair and replacement reserve required to address aging infrastructure and long-term improvement needs. The district’s capital reserve fund balance is approximately $258,000, but this is not sufficient to cover the cost of several near-term improvements. These include:
• Extensive irrigation system replacement
• Plant and tree replacement
• Decorative fence repairs
• Lighting and other feature replacements
Due to numerous breaks in the irrigation system, a portion of the system has been shut off, impacting the health of established landscaping.
In prior years, City staff met with the Moller Ranch HOA to discuss the need for increased assessments. While initial support for a rate increase was limited, the HOA expressed interest in understanding the long-term cost-benefit. Discussions resumed in summer 2024 to evaluate a Proposition 218-compliant property owner vote to support the district's capital and maintenance needs. The Proposition 218 process is expected to cost approximately $9,000, contributing to a total projected reserve fund use of $24,000 in the current fiscal year.
City staff and their consultants recommend restoring the assessment to the 1998 post- Proposition 218 level of $675.63 per parcel (or $687.12 per parcel including the 1.7% county fee). This restoration is intended as a first step toward fiscal sustainability. Staff further plans to implement phased increases up to the original formation-approved maximum assessment of $1,000 per parcel, along with an annual inflation escalator based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) to maintain long-term financial health.
Maintenance, water, and electricity costs are projected to total $80,200 this fiscal year, driven by major irrigation repairs, turf conversion, and tree pruning. An additional $9,000 will be required for the Proposition 218 process, resulting in a reserve draw of approximately $24,000. Over the next decade, the total cost of necessary improvements is estimated at $1,000,000. These include irrigation and landscape restoration, fence replacement, and other capital needs. Because the original formation documents authorize the $1,000 assessment level and include an inflation adjustment provision, a Proposition 218-compliant property owner vote will not be required to implement the phased increases.
Increases to Assessments
In 2022, City staff, in coordination with SCI Consulting Group, initiated a Proposition 218- compliant process to increase assessments for the two most underfunded LMDs: Windsor (District 1993-1) and Bonde Ranch (District 1993-2). These efforts were paused following
strong opposition from property owners. However, the Windsor HOA subsequently entered into an agreement with the City to assume responsibility for routine plant maintenance and irrigation water costs, resulting in notable savings for the district.
Based on updated analysis completed over the past year, staff has determined that assessments can be restored to the amounts originally approved at the time of formation for all LMDs. As a result, staff now plans to resume Proposition 218-compliant processes for all LMDs during the upcoming fiscal year, with property owner votes anticipated for the Ponderosa, Bonde Ranch, and Windsor districts.
For the Moller Ranch (District 1995-1) and Oak Tree Farm (District 1994-1) districts, the originally authorized assessment amounts are sufficient to address current and projected maintenance and capital needs. These will be implemented in phases over time, including the addition of an annual inflation escalator based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI), in accordance with the original formation documents.
The information provided in this report regarding staff’s intention to pursue increased assessments is informational only and intended to support the proposed public hearing scheduled for July 15, 2025. No specific action is required of the City Council at this time. A formal recommendation and request for Council action will be brought forward at a future date.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff provides general information to residents within the Landscape Maintenance Districts as a part of the public notice for confirmation of the Engineer's Report. This annual notice provides the name and phone number of a staff contact person should questions arise. If questions are received and answered prior to the public hearing on July 15, 2025, staff will provide the City Council with those questions and staff’s answers at or before the public hearing.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
There is no environmental impact from a change to the assessment or due to maintenance and repair work. Maintenance work within each LMD is categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15302, “Replacement or Reconstruction.” Moreover, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) it is not a “project” as it is a government funding mechanism that does not involve a commitment to a specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
EQUITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Not applicable, as this item is a routine matter of City business.
OUTREACH
Notices will be sent to owners of real property within each LMD identifying any public meetings to be held regarding the assessment rate changes and informing them about the date and time of the public hearing for the City Council to receive any protests concerning the proposed assessments.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
Approval of this action advances the Citywide ONE Pleasanton strategic plan goal of Funding
our Future to support financial health and sound fiscal policies through long-term planning, cost recovery, increased revenue, and cost containment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The LMDs are special assessment districts managed by the City. Each LMD fund can only be spent within the individual LMD where the assessments were collected (i.e., no commingling).
As required by law, the City will continue to incur a fiscal impact for those assessments that provide a “general benefit” and those parcels that are City-owned. To that end, the City will pay for LMD parcels as follows:
With the application of the increased assessment amounts and consistent with the prior year's assessments, staff recommends the total of $12,121.31 be appropriated from the General Fund to the LMDs. The proposed FY 2025/26 budget includes this expense from the General Fund. The cost of the Proposition 218-compliant property owner vote is approximately $36,000 per district for the districts going to a Proposition 218 vote and $9,000 per district for those not requiring a vote. The funds will be taken from the reserve funds for each district rather than the General Fund.
Prepared by: Submitted by: Approved by:
Adam Nelkie, Assistant Dir.
of Public Works -
Engineering
Siew-Chin Yeong, Director of Public
Works
Gerry Beaudin, City
Manager
Attachments:
1. Summary Table of Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts
2. Resolution to Approve Engineer’s Report & Assessments (Ponderosa - Del Prado)
3. Resolution to Approve Engineer’s Report & Assessments (Windsor)
4. Resolution to Approve Engineer’s Report & Assessments (Bonde Ranch)
5. Resolution to Approve Engineer’s Report & Assessments (Oak Tree Farm)
6. Resolution to Approve Engineer’s Report & Assessments (Moller Ranch)
Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD's)
Properties Assessment General Benefit Projected Approx. Reserve Amount to/(from) Anticipated fund District Name in District per Property Annual Revenue Area Revenue Total Revenue Annual Expenditures Balance Reserve Balance Equity in Pooled Cash Interest Receivable Fund Balance 1984-1 Ponderosa (Del Prado) 344 61.10$ 21,017.38$ 9,703.00$ 30,720.38$ * 62,309.86$ 81,000.00$ (31,589.48)$ 49,410.52$ $81,322.86 $30.09 $81,352.95 1993-1 Windsor 90 269.62$ 24,265.80$ -$ 24,265.80$ * 50,480.90$ (14,000.00)$ (26,215.10)$ (40,215.10)$ -$16,371.59 -$1.43 -$16,373.02 1993-2 Bonde Ranch 103 396.18$ 40,799.92$ -$ 40,799.92$ * 62,715.24$ 28,000.00$ (21,915.32)$ 6,084.68$ $28,399.87 $12.74 $28,412.61 1994-1 Oak Tree Farm 42 627.91$ 26,361.72$ -$ 26,361.72$ ** 51,930.91$ 71,000.00$ (25,569.19)$ 45,430.81$ $70,709.85 $27.90 $70,737.75 1995-1 Moller Ranch 101 687.12$ 69,376.14$ -$ 69,376.14$ ** 93,137.51$ 258,000.00$ (23,761.37)$ 234,238.63$ $257,966.33 $104.67 $258,071.00 * projected annual expenditures are higher than the total revenue to address the Proposition 218-compliant vote and both routine maintenance and potential non-routine maintenance such as pruning, tree removal, and irrigation repairs ** projected annual expenditures are higher than the total revenue to address both routine maintenance and potential non-routine maintenance such as pruning and tree removal
SUMMARY TABLE
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1984 -1 PONDEROSA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26; DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE LEVY AND COLLECTION ASSESSMENTS; AND SETTING THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARING
WHEREAS, as required by Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council of the City of Pleasanton has described proposed improvements to be included for the determination of annual assessments levied for Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1 Ponderosa, created under the Lighting & Landscape Act of 1972, and ordered the preparation of an Engineer’s Report to determine the annual levy of assessments for such District; and
WHEREAS, as required by Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Engineer has filed with the City Clerk a Preliminary Engineer’s Report for the Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1 Ponderosa for Fiscal Year 2025/26.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. The City Engineer is designated by this Council as the Engineer of Work for Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa, during fiscal year 2025/26. The area of land to be assessed is located in the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County.
SECTION 2. The City Council intends to continue to levy and collect assessments within Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa, during fiscal year 2025/26.
SECTION 3. The improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as follows:
Maintenance of a landscaped strip north of Corte de Flores on the west side of Paseo Santa Cruz and north of Corte Pacifica on the east side of Paseo Santa Cruz and the landscaped area on the east side of the Arroyo de la Laguna trail between the Pleasanton Canal and Arroyo del Valle.
SECTION 4. In accordance with this resolution directing the filing of an annual report, the City Engineer has filed with the City Clerk the report required by the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972. All interested persons are referred to that report for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the assessment district.
SECTION 5. On Tuesday, the 15th day of July 2025, at the hour of 7 p.m., the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the question of the levy of the proposed annual assessment. The Council meeting will be held in accordance with Government Code Section 54954(e). To improve access to public information, residents may access meetings remotely through the City’s website.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give the notice of hearing required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 7. City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on June 17, 2025.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of June 2025 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Daniel Sodergren, City Attorney
i
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa
Engineer’s Report
Fiscal Year 2025-26
June 2025
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, government code and article XIIID of the California Constitution
EXHIBIT A
ii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26
(This page intentionally left blank)
i
City of Pleasanton
Mayor and City Council
Jack Balch, Mayor
Jeff Nibert, Vice Mayor
Craig Eicher, Councilmember
Matt Gaidos, Councilmember
Julie Testa, Councilmember
City Manager
Gerry Beaudin
City Engineer
Adam Nelkie
ii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Table of Contents
PAGE NO.
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa ................................................................. 2 Engineer’s Report and Proposed Assessments ................................................................................ 3 Legal Requirements ........................................................................................................................... 4
Plans & Specifications ........................................................................................................................ 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Ponderosa Description of Improvements ........................................................................................... 6 Recommended Capital Improvements ............................................................................................... 7
Estimate of Cost and Budget – Fiscal Year 2025-26 ........................................................................ 8 Notes to Estimate ............................................................................................................................... 8
Method of Assessment Apportionment .......................................................................................... 10 Method of Apportionment ................................................................................................................. 10 Discussion of Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 10 General vs. Special Benefits ............................................................................................................ 12 Calculating General Benefit and Special Benefit Paid from Other Funds ....................................... 13 Zones of Benefit................................................................................................................................ 17 Method of Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 18 Residential Properties ...................................................................................................................... 19 Other Properties ............................................................................................................................... 19 The Assessment Rate does not Increase Annually ......................................................................... 19 Appeal of Assessments Levied to Property ..................................................................................... 19 Assessment Funds Must be Expended Within the Maintenance District Area ................................ 20
Assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Certificates Page ................................................................................................................................ 23
Assessment Diagram ........................................................................................................................ 24
Assessment Roll FY 2025-26 - Ponderosa LMD No. 1984-1 .......................................................... 25
iii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Estimate of Costs and Revenues ..................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 – Summary Cost Estimate – Ponderosa LMD No. 1984-1 .............................................. 20
Figure 3 – Assessment Roll FY 2025-26 – Ponderosa LMD No. 1984-1 ....................................... 24
Figure 4 – FY 2024-25 Actual Costs and Revenues – Ponderosa LMD No. 1984-1 .................... 32
1 Introduction
Executive Summary
The Ponderosa Landscape Maintenance District, 1984-1, was created in 1984 as a means to fund the maintenance of the landscape and common areas for the Ponderosa subdivision, a 344-parcel development. The district was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” which requires property owner approval to impose or increase assessments.
At the time of formation, no inflation escalator was built into the assessment and the district assessment has remained at $16.62 since FY 2000-01 when it was further reduced from the approved amount. The reduced assessment has led to a severe decline in the level of maintenance, a lack of sufficient funding for capital improvement projects, and forced the city to shut down a portion of the irrigation system. The lack of irrigation has led to an even further decline of the landscape to the point that the district is out of compliance with the level of maintenance required as part of the development approval, which exposes the district and the property owners to increased liability.
In 2024, staff spent time conducting further research regarding the formation of the district and determined that the first assessment on record, approved by Resolution 88- 375, was $60.08. Staff is recommending that the assessment be restored to the 1988 level. The restoration of the approved assessment amount is only a first step though, as maintenance costs are estimated to be closer to $150 annually to properly maintain the district and complete the necessary improvements, such as tree pruning and irrigation restoration. A Proposition 218-compliant analysis and vote will be required to address the maintenance needs of the district. The budget for this fiscal year will require drawing down the reserve by about $32,000 due to the consultant costs, estimated at approximately $36,000, for the Proposition 218 vote, which is a one-time cost. However, should the vote not pass, the vote will need to be repeated until it does pass; creating a significant financial burden to property owners each time.
Overview
The City of Pleasanton (“City”) is located in Alameda County, and covers an area of
24.3 square miles, with over 24,500 assessor parcels, and approximately 80,000 residents. The City currently has five Landscape Maintenance Districts (“Districts”) that provide services to a combined total of 680 parcels:
• 1984-1 Ponderosa (Del Prado) – 344 parcels
• 1993-1 Windsor – 90 parcels
• 1993-2 Bonde Ranch – 103 parcels
• 1994-1 Oak Tree Farm – 42 parcels
• 1995-1 Moller Ranch – 101 parcels
2 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26
The five District’s benefit assessments were established prior to the approval of Proposition 218 in 1996. The purpose of these Districts is to provide funding for the installation, maintenance and servicing of local landscaping and lighting improvements (“Improvements”) within each District’s service area.
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa
Assessment Background
The Ponderosa Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1 (“District 1984-1” or “Maintenance District”) was formed in 1984 as a Condition of Approval for the Ponderosa development, to fund certain landscape improvements within the Ponderosa subdivision.
The Ponderosa single-family residential project was approved in two phases, October 1983 and January 1985. The Ponderosa Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1 has a total of 344 parcels, 343 are single family residences, and 1 parcel is owned by the City, which is the location of Del Prado Park.
The Ponderosa Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1 purpose is to fund the maintenance of the existing Ponderosa subdivision landscaping, trees, shrubbery, groundcover, irrigation systems and soundwalls in the area north of Corte Flores on the west side of Paseo Santa Cruz, and north of Corte Pacifica on the east side of Paseo Santa Cruz.
District 1984-1 is funded by the benefit assessment approved in 1984 (“Assessment”) and does not receive any direct revenues from property taxes or any other funding sources. Based on research of historical documents and in consultation with their consultant, SCI Consulting Group, and an attorney that specializes in assessment law, JarvisFay, the fiscal year 2025-26 assessments for District 1984-1 will be restored to the amount that was approved by Resolution 88-375, which was the first assessment on record, and was for $60.08 per parcel per year. Under Proposition 218, a property owner vote is only required when these assessments are increased, and an assessment is not increased if it is set at an amount that is no more than the maximum amount initially authorized when the assessment district was created. (Cal. Const. Art.
XIII D, § 5(b); Gov. Code § 53750(h)(2)(B).) With a total of 344 parcels in the District, the fiscal year 2025-26 total assessment will be $21,017.38.
Over the years, operational costs and utility costs have increased, however the assessment revenues were lowered to $16.62 in 2000 and have remained the same since then. The fiscal year 2025-26 total assessment revenue will not be sufficient to fund the maintenance of all common areas, including water costs, county assessment fees, city administration fees, replacement of plantings, irrigation systems, and other district improvements. The equivalent of $16.62 in today’s dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index for California, is $33.73. The Engineer’s Report projects a shortage that will require the City to reduce landscape maintenance and water use so that maintenance costs remain below assessments.
3 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26
An increase in the annual assessment will be necessary to meet the maintenance standards of the District into the future. The city can no longer subsidize staff administration time or the consultant fees for a Proposition 218-compliant vote. The consultant fees for the Proposition 218-compliant vote will cost approximately $36,000 plus staff time and will need to come out of the reserve fund. Water costs, which require a significant portion of the LMD budget, increased thirty percent in calendar year 2024, another twelve percent in 2025, and are projected to continue to increase in future years to pay for necessary infrastructure and treatment costs.
Even with the restoration of the approved increased assessment amount, the city will be forced to reduce maintenance and postpone facilities upgrades and tree pruning, resulting in a continuing deterioration of the grounds and facilities, which may place the district at risk to potential fines or litigation. To limit liability for the district, it will be necessary for the city to continue to pursue a proposition 218-compliant vote, incurring significant consultant costs each time, until a sustainable assessment has been agreed to by property owners.
For 2024-25 costs/revenues, see Figure 4 – FY 2024-25 Actual Costs and Revenues.
Engineer’s Report and Proposed Assessments
Each year for which the assessments will be approved, the City Council must direct the preparation of an Engineer's Report, budgets, and proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. After the Engineer's Report is completed, the City Council may preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report and proposed assessments and establish the date for a public hearing on the continuation of the assessments. This Report was prepared pursuant to the direction of the City Council.
This Engineer’s Report ("Report") was prepared to establish the budget for the continued maintenance, improvements, and services (“Improvements”) that would be funded by the proposed fiscal year 2025-26 assessments, determine the benefits received by property from the Improvements, and the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels within the Maintenance District. This Report and the proposed assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code ("Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (“Article”).
If the City Council approves this Engineer's Report and the proposed assessments by resolution, a notice of public hearing must be published in a local paper at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and establishing the date for a public hearing is used for this notice.
Following the minimum 10-day period after publishing the notice, a public hearing is held for the purpose of allowing public testimony about the proposed assessments. This hearing is currently scheduled for July 15, 2025. At this hearing, the City Council would
4 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 consider approval of a resolution confirming the continuation of the assessments for fiscal year 2025-26. If so confirmed and approved, the assessments would be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
Legal Requirements
Proposition 218
The City of Pleasanton’s five Landscape Maintenance Districts were formed prior to the passage of Proposition 218, “The Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996 and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. (Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which specially benefits the assessed property). Although these assessments are consistent with Proposition 218, the California judiciary has generally referred to pre-Proposition 218 assessments as “grandfathered assessments” and held them to a lower standard than post Proposition 218 assessments.
The existing Assessment Districts will be re-assessed consistent with the procedures and requirements imposed by Proposition 218, which provide several important requirements, including property-owner balloting and approval for the imposition of new or increased assessments if greater than the formation level assessments. No vote is required this year because the proposed increase to the assessments is less than the maximum assessment amounts approved at formation of the LMD and no change to the assessment calculation is proposed.
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution because the Improvements to be funded are clearly defined, the Improvements are directly available to and directly benefit property in the Maintenance District, and the Improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the Maintenance District that would not be received in absence of the assessments.
5 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Plans & Specifications
Introduction
The work and Improvements to be undertaken by the City of Pleasanton within the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa, and the costs thereof paid from the levy of the annual assessments, provide special benefit to Assessor Parcels within the Maintenance District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein.
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets & Highways Code § 22525 et seq.), (the “Act”), defines improvement, maintenance, servicing, and incidental expenses as follows:
“Improvement” means one or any combination of the following:
The installation or planting of landscaping.
The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities.
installation or construction of public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to, traffic signals.
installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
The installation of park or recreational improvements, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks, and drainage.
Lights, playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms.
The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing, and of any improvement authorized by subdivision (i).
The acquisition of land for park, recreational, or open-space purposes.
The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.
The acquisition or construction of any community center, municipal auditorium or hall, or similar public facility for the indoor presentation of performances, shows, stage productions, fairs, conventions, exhibitions, pageants, meetings, parties, or other group events, activities, or functions, whether those events, activities, or functions are public or private.
“Maintain” or “maintenance” means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury.
6 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste.
The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.
“Service” or “servicing” means the furnishing of:
Electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.
Water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
“Incidental expenses” include all of the following:
The costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment.
The costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices.
Compensation payable to the county for collection of assessments.
Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part.
Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements.
Any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5.
Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.
The City of Pleasanton’s work and Improvements (“Improvements”) for the property within the Maintenance District that is owned or maintained by the City of Pleasanton, are consistent with these definitions. Plans and specifications for these Improvements are filed with the City of Pleasanton Landscape Architect and are incorporated herein by reference.
Ponderosa Description of Improvements
The improvements which are the subject of this Report are briefly described as follows:
Landscaping, including trees, shrubs and irrigation system all as delineated on the landscape and irrigation plans for Tract 5256 (Phase III Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1) and Tract 4986 (Arroyo de la Laguna Improvements).
Said improvements are within the following areas:
North of Corte de Flores on the west side of Paseo Santa Cruz approximately 160 feet long by 6 feet wide, and north of Corte Pacifica on the east side of Paseo Santa Cruz approximately 1,370 feet long by 6 feet wide.
Plans and specifications for the improvements to this Landscape Maintenance District are those prepared by The Environmental Center, dated October 30, 1984, and January
7 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 13, 1986. These plans and specifications have been filed separately with the City Clerk of the legislative body and are incorporated in this Report by reference.
Recommended Capital Improvements
Improvements in Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa, are overdue for much needed upgrades and repairs. However, the Maintenance District reserve fund balance is insufficient to make these improvements.
The City drafted a schedule of recommended capital improvement projects that need to be addressed, such as the replacement of the irrigation system and planting improvements, and their respective estimated cost, as well as a planned replacement/renovation schedule. To fund the necessary capital improvements, fund the approved and projected water rate increases, and maintain the District to a similar level to when the District was created staff estimates that the annual assessments would need to be increased from $16.62 to around $150-160 depending on level of maintenance and the special benefit received by the individual properties. Anticipated capital improvement costs over the next decade are around $600,000. The City is taking a first step and increasing last year’s amount of $16.62 to the amount approved by Resolution 88-375, $60.08, and intends to begin efforts with the property owners and consultant to develop the level of maintenance and recommended capital improvements in 2025-26 to create a comprehensive maintenance and improvement plan and associated costs in preparation of a Proposition 218-compliant vote next fiscal year.
8 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Estimate of Cost and Budget – Fiscal Year 2025-26
The following budget shows the estimate of cost of the Improvements to be funded by the Maintenance District in Fiscal Year 2025-26.
Figure 1 – Estimate of Costs and Revenues
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa
2025-26 Estimate of Costs
Budget
Installation, Maintenance, and Servicing Costs
Landscaping (maintenance)
Basic maintenance $4,320.00
Other maintenancei $8,640.00
Extra workii $7,000.00
Water – All planting $4,000.00
Power – One controller $200.00
Total for Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $24,160.00 Incidental and Administration Costsiii
City of Pleasanton Assessment Administration $1,800.00
County Fees for Collection of Assessment
Proposition 218-compliant voting process
$349.86
$36,000.00
Total Incidental and Administrative Costs $38,149.86
Amount to/(from) Reserve Fundiv
Reserve/Long-term Replacement Fund for scheduled long-term replacement of various district improvements ($31,589.48) General Fund Contribution for General Benefitsv ($9,703.00) Total Costs $21,017.38
Budget Allocation to Property
Single Family
Number of Equivalent Assessment Total
Parcels/Units Units (SFE)vi Rate Assessmentvii
344 344 $61.10 $21,017.38
Explanation of Annual Assessment Rate per Unit:
343 units @ $61.10 assessment per year (= $60.08 + $1.02 County Collection Fee) 1 unit @ $60.08 assessment per year (City parcel, savings of the $0.28 County Collection Fee) Notes to Estimate
i. Cost for the routine maintenance of the general benefit area paid for by the City of Pleasanton
9 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 ii. Contingency to address maintenance that is not routine in nature, such as repair or replacement of broken irrigation valves and lines or pruning/removing failed trees or tree limbs. iii. Incidental and administration cost estimates include City staff hours dedicated to the administration of the assessment (including staff time to bid work, monitor contracts and contractors, respond to residents’ inquiries, etc.), county charges for inclusion of assessments on property tax bills, and other incidental costs. iv. At the time of this report a fund balance of approximately $81,000 remains for Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1. The projected 2025-26 expenses, if current maintenance levels and water use were maintained, are higher than the projected annual revenues. Therefore, and since the fund balance will not be sufficient to cover this gap, the City will need to reduce maintenance and water use to begin to return the account to a balanced budget. Reserve/replacement funds are held in an interest-bearing account until needed for repairs to the irrigation system, landscaping or other District features. v. The City will make a contribution of $9,703 from the General Fund for the cost of maintenance of the “general benefit” area along Arroyo, that was at one time included in this district. vi. The rate shown here is for a single-family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term Single Family Equivalent (SFE) and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment” and the sections following it in this report.
vii. The Act requires that proceeds from the assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the Maintenance District. Moreover, funds raised by the assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carried over to the next Fiscal Year. The District may also establish a reserve fund for contingencies and special projects as well as a capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would either be placed in the reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' assessments. The Landscape Maintenance District 1984-1 reserve/replacement funds are held in an interest-bearing account until needed for repairs to the irrigation system, landscaping or other District features.
10 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Method of Assessment Apportionment
Method of Apportionment
This section of the Engineer's Report includes an explanation of the benefits to be derived from the installation, maintenance and servicing of Improvements and landscaping for the Maintenance District and the methodology used to apportion the total assessment to the properties within the Maintenance District.
The method used for apportioning the assessment is based upon the relative special benefits to be derived by the properties in the Maintenance District over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large. The assessment is apportioned to lots and parcels in proportion to the relative cost of the special benefits from the Improvements. Special benefit is calculated for each parcel in the Maintenance District using the following process:
i. Identification of all benefit factors derived from the Improvements. ii. Calculation of the proportion of these benefits that are general. iii. Determination of the relative special benefit per property type. iv. Calculation of the specific assessment for each individual parcel based upon special vs. general benefit, location, property type, property characteristics, improvements on property and other supporting attributes.
The parcels within the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa, consist of all Assessor Parcels within the boundaries as defined by the Assessment Diagram included within this Report and the Assessor Parcel Numbers listed within the included Assessment Roll. The method used for apportioning the assessments is based upon the proportional special benefits to be derived by the properties in the Maintenance District, over and above general benefits conferred on real property or to the public at large.
The apportionment of special benefit is a two-step process: the first step is to identify the types of special benefit arising from the Improvements, and the second step is to allocate the assessments to property based on the estimated relative special benefit for each type of property.
Discussion of Benefits
The assessments can only be levied based on the special benefit to property. This benefit is received by property over and above any general benefits. With reference to the requirements for assessments, Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the Improvements."
11 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Proposition 218, as codified in Article XIIID of the California Constitution, has confirmed that assessments must be based on the special benefit to property:
"No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel."
In this case, the 2008 Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Inc. vs Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (“SVTA”) decision provides enhanced clarity to the definition of special benefits to properties from similar public improvements in three distinct areas:
i. Proximity
ii. Expanded or improved access
iii. Views
The SVTA decision also clarifies that a special benefit is a service or improvement that provides a direct advantage to a parcel, and that indirect or derivative advantages resulting from the overall public benefits from a service or improvement are general benefits.
Proximity, improved access and views, in addition to the other special benefits listed herein further strengthen the basis of these assessments.
The following benefit categories summarize the types of special benefit to residential and other lots and parcels resulting from installation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping, irrigation, sidewalks, signs, lights, and other improvements to be provided with the assessment proceeds. These categories of special benefits are derived from the statutes passed by the California Legislature and studies which describe the types of special benefit received by property from maintenance and improvements such as those provided by the City of Pleasanton, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa. These types of special benefit are summarized as follows:
i. Improved access to landscaped areas and other permanent public improvements ii. Proximity to improved landscaped areas and other permanent public improvement.
iii. Improved views.
iv. Extension of a property’s outdoor areas and landscaped areas for properties within close proximity to the Improvements.
v. Creation of individual lots for residential use that, in absence of the assessments, would not have been.
The above benefit factors, when applied to property in the Maintenance District, specifically increase the utility and usefulness of the property within the Maintenance District. For example, the assessments will provide funding to improve and maintain the public landscaping next to the parcels within the Maintenance District. Such improved and well-maintained landscaping enhances the overall quality, desirability, utility and safety of the properties.
12 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 General vs. Special Benefits
Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a benefit assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners subject to the benefit assessment are not paying for general benefits. Property may be assessed to fund improvements to the extent of the special benefits conferred by the Improvements; but general benefits are not assessable. Accordingly, a separate estimate of the special and general benefit is given in this section.
Article XIIID never defines the term “general benefit.” The definition of special benefit in Section 2(i) includes the statement that general enhancement of property value does not constitute special benefit. General benefit may be described as “an indirect, derivative advantage” resulting from the improvements. One infers from Article XIIID that all benefit is either general or special.
In other words:
Total
Benefit = General
Benefit + Special
Benefit
There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for quantifying the amount of any general benefit that is identified.
In this Report, the general benefit is first identified, generously estimated, and then budgeted so that it is funded, as required by Proposition 218, by sources other than the Assessment.
A formula to estimate the general benefit is listed below:
General
Benefit =
Benefit to Real
Property Outside the
Assessment District
+
Benefit to Real Property Inside
the Assessment District that is
Indirect and Derivative
+
Benefit to
the Public
at Large
Special benefit, on the other hand, is defined in the California constitution as “a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large”. A special benefit is conferred to a property if the property “receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to setback landscaping).” In the Maintenance District, as noted, properties have close and unique proximity, views of and access to the Improvements, and uniquely improved utility and desirability from the Improvements, and other properties and the public at large do not receive such benefits because they do not have proximity, access to or views of the Improvements. Therefore, the overwhelming proportion of the benefits conferred to property is special, and only minimal general benefit is conferred on property outside the Maintenance District or to the public at large.
13 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26
This Engineer’s Report includes a specific, quantified calculation of general benefits, as described below, that is based in part on the use by people outside of the Maintenance District. Moreover, the proportionality of the Assessments to the special benefits conferred on each parcel, based in large part on proximity, is established as well.
Calculating General Benefit and Special Benefit Paid from Other Funds In this section, the total general benefit, which must be paid from other non-assessment funds, is conservatively estimated, quantified, described, and separated, and then budgeted to absolutely ensure that it is funded by sources other than this assessment.
Benefit to Property Outside the Maintenance District = 1.9% In summary, real property located within the boundaries of the Maintenance District distinctly and directly benefit from closer proximity, access and views of the Improvements funded by the Assessments, the creation of developable parcels, and from the extension of usable land area provided by the assessments. The Improvements are specifically designed to serve local properties in the Maintenance District, not other properties nor the public at large.
The Maintenance District has been narrowly drawn to include those parcels that receive a direct advantage from the Improvements. The public at large and other properties outside the Maintenance District receive only limited benefits from the Improvements because they do not have proximity, good access or views of the Improvements. These are special benefits to property in the Maintenance District in much the same way that sewer and water facilities, sidewalks and paved streets enhance the utility and desirability of specific proximate properties and make them more functional to use, safer and easier to access.
Properties within the proposed Maintenance District receive almost all the special benefits from the Improvements because properties in the Maintenance District enjoy unique and close proximity and access to the Improvements that are enjoyed less by other properties or the public at large. The landscaping Improvements are specifically designed to benefit the properties in the Maintenance District.
Furthermore, there are multiple, proximate open space, landscaped areas, and other improvements outside of the Maintenance District, funded by other sources, that provide most of the open space and landscaping benefits to nearby parcels that are outside of the Maintenance District.
In other words, the landscaping Improvements maintained by the proposed Assessments specially benefit the properties within the Maintenance District, but other nearby improvements primarily benefit other proximate properties.
Nonetheless, there are certain properties that are outside the boundaries of the Maintenance District that may benefit from the landscape improvements. A total of no more than 6 proximate parcels have been identified that receive some special benefit from the improvements including improved views, proximity and/or
14 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 access, but do not receive extension of outdoor areas nor the special benefit of parcel creation. Since these adjacent properties only receive a 3 of the 5 major special benefits, a 60% factor is applied.
Total General Benefit to Properties Outside of the District = 1.9%
Assumptions
11 parcels outside and adjacent to the District
344 parcels in the Maintenance District
Calculation
General Benefit to Property outside the Improvement District = (11 / (11 + 344)) * 60% = 1.9 %
Although it can reasonably be argued that Improvements inside, but near the Maintenance District boundaries are offset by similar landscape improvements provided outside, we use the more generous approach of finding that 1.9% of the Improvements may be of benefit to property outside of the Maintenance District.
Benefit to Property Inside the District that is Indirect and Derivative = 0.0% The “indirect and derivative” benefit to property within the Maintenance District is particularly difficult to calculate. A solid argument can be presented that all benefit within the Maintenance District is special because the Improvements are clearly “over and above” and “particular and distinct” when compared with the unique proximity, access and views of the Improvements enjoyed by benefiting properties in the Maintenance District.
Nevertheless, the SVTA decision indicates that there may be general benefit “conferred on real property located in the district.” A measure of the general benefits to property within the Maintenance District is the percentage of land area within the Maintenance District that is publicly owned, open to the public, and used for regional purposes such as major roads, rail lines, hospitals, and other regional facilities because such properties, while physically within the Maintenance District, are used for regional purposes and could provide indirect benefits to the public at large. In this case, essentially 0% of the land area is used for such regional purposes.
Benefit to the Public at Large = 10%
The general benefit to the public at large can be estimated by the proportionate amount of time that the Maintenance District’s public landscaped areas and facilities are used and enjoyed by individuals who are not residents, employees, customers, or property owners in the Assessment Area. Based on surveys and research in which visitors to similar landscape, open space and parks, at various times of the day, evening, and week, were asked to look at a District map and to identify whether they lived or worked within the City, less than 5% of the use of
15 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 similar landscape, open space, parks or recreation areas is by the public at large.
When people outside the Maintenance District use landscape, open space, parks, or recreation areas, they diminish the availability of such facilities for people within the Maintenance District. Therefore, another 5% of general benefits are allocated for people within the Maintenance District. Combining these two elements of general benefit, we find that 10% of the benefits from the Improvements are general benefits to the public at large.
Total General Benefits to be Financially Contributed from Other Funds =
11.9%
Using a sum of these three measures of general benefit, we find that approximately 11.9% of the benefits conferred by the Improvements may be general in nature and should be funded by sources other than the Assessments.
General Benefit Calculation
1.9% (Outside the Maintenance District)
+ 0.0% (Inside the Maintenance District – indirect and derivative) + 10.0% (Public at Large)
= 11.9% (Total General Benefit)
Source of Financial Contributions from Other Funds to Satisfy the 11.9% Requirement
The general benefit contribution is paid in part from other “in-kind”, non-monetary contributions from the City in the form of infrastructure critical to the continued maintenance of the Maintenance District Improvements, as described below.
Also, general benefit contributions come from the “annuity” value of the improvements that were constructed by the developer.
The City of Pleasanton owns, maintains, rehabilitates, and replaces the curb and gutter along the border of the Maintenance District. This curb and gutter serve to support, contain, retain, manage irrigation flow and growth, and provide a boundary for the Improvements. The contribution from the City of Pleasanton toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the curb and gutter is conservatively estimated to be 10%, based upon the relative cost to construct and maintain this critical local infrastructure. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct and maintain the local curb and gutter, the budget would increase by at least 10%.
The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains a storm drainage system along the border of the Maintenance District. This system serves to prevent flooding and associated damage to the improvements and to manage urban runoff including local pollutants loading from the improvements. The contribution from the City of Pleasanton toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and
16 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 replacement of the local storm drainage system is conservatively estimated to be 10%, based upon the relative cost to construct and maintain this critical local infrastructure. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct and maintain the local storm drainage system, the budget would increase by at least 10%.
The City of Pleasanton owns and maintains local public streets throughout the Maintenance District. These public streets provide access to the Improvements for its enjoyment as well as efficient maintenance. The contribution from the City of Pleasanton toward general benefit from the maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the local public streets is conservatively estimated to be 10%, based upon the relative cost to construct and maintain this critical local infrastructure. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct and maintain the local public streets, the budget would increase by at least 10%.
The value of the initial Improvements constructed by the Developer can be quantified and monetized as an annuity to be amortized. Since the initial Improvements were performed and paid for by non-assessment funds, this “annuity” can be used to offset general benefit costs and is conservatively estimated to contribute 20%. In other words, if the Maintenance District were required to construct all the Improvements, the annual budget would increase by at least 20%.
In other words, there is a 11.9% contribution needed to offset the general benefits conferred by the Improvements, and there is a 50% contribution from City of Pleasanton supporting local infrastructure, along with the amortized value of initial construction. This 50% contribution more than satisfies the general benefit requirements.
The estimates used above for the City of Pleasanton’s “in-kind,” non-monetary contributions for the maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of the curbs and gutters, storm drainage systems, local streets (the “supportive infrastructure”), and the value of the initial Improvements constructed by the Developer, are based on industry standards; typical and standard quantity ratios between this supportive infrastructure (including the City’s relative associated maintenance costs) and similar Improvements; and on the assessment Engineer’s professional experience on planning and working in such projects.
The City will also make a contribution of $9,703 from the General Fund for the cost of maintenance of the “general benefit” area along Arroyo, that was at one time included in this district.
17 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Source of Contributions from Other Funds to Satisfy 11.9% Requirement
City non-monetary contributions:
10.0% (Curb and gutter)
+ 10.0% (Storm drainage system)
+ 10.0% (Public roads)
+ 20.0% (Amoritized value of initial construction)
= 50.0% (Total General Benefit paid from Other Funds)
City Monetary Contributions
+ $9,703 General Fund contribution for maintenance of area along Arroyo
Zones of Benefit
The boundaries of the Assessment Area are carefully drawn to only include the properties that are proximate to the Improvements and that would materially benefit from the Improvements.
In SVTA, the court noted that even a local agency-wide assessment district is appropriate under the right conditions:
“Thus, if an assessment district is narrowly drawn, the fact that a benefit is conferred throughout the district does not make it general rather than special. In that circumstance, the characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to a park) or receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public benefits of the improvement (e.g., general enhancement of the district's property values).”
The court therefore acknowledged the appropriateness of a District-wide assessment so long as each parcel receives a direct advantage from the assessment-funded improvement or service. As demonstrated in this Report, each parcel in the Maintenance District receives a direct advantage and special benefit from the Improvements.
In the Maintenance District, the advantage that each parcel receives from the Improvements is direct, and the boundaries are narrowly drawn to include only parcels that benefit from the Assessment. Therefore, the even spread of assessment throughout the narrowly drawn district is indeed consistent with the SVTA decision. The benefits from the Improvements within the Maintenance District do not vary further based on proximity of the parcels to the Improvements because the increased benefits of greater proximity to the Improvements are generally offset by a parallel increase in
18 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 negative factors such as higher levels of traffic, noise, etc. that comes with increased proximity.
Consequently, since all parcels in the Maintenance District have good access and proximity to the Improvements and the benefits to relatively closer proximity are offset by other factors, additional proximity is not considered to be a factor in determining benefit within the Maintenance District. Therefore, zones of benefit are not justified or needed within the Maintenance District.
Method of Assessment
As previously discussed, the Assessments provide comprehensive Improvements that clearly confers direct and special benefits to properties in the Maintenance District.
The allocation of special benefits to property is primarily based on the type of property and the size of property. These benefits can also partially be measured by the occupants on property in the Maintenance District because such parcel population density is a measure of the relative benefit a parcel receives from the Improvements. It should be noted that many other types of “traditional” assessments also use parcel population densities to apportion the assessments. For example, the assessments for sewer systems, roads and water systems are typically allocated based on the population density of the parcels assessed. Therefore, the apportionment of benefit is reasonably based on the type of parcel, the size of parcels and the population density of parcels.
A critical step in apportioning assessments is to determine the relative special benefit for each property. This process involves determining the relative benefit received by each property in relation to a single-family home, or, in other words, on the basis of Single-Family Equivalent (SFE) units. This SFE methodology is commonly used to distribute assessments in proportion to estimated special benefit and is generally recognized as providing the basis for a fair and appropriate distribution of assessments.
For the purposes of this Engineer’s Report, all properties are designated an SFE value, which is each property’s relative benefit in relation to a single-family home on one parcel. In this case, the "benchmark" property is the single family detached dwelling which is one Single Family Equivalent unit or one SFE.
Finally, the special benefits to be derived from the Assessments will be conferred on property and are not based on a specific property owner’s use of the Improvements, a specific property owner’s occupancy of property, or the property owner’s demographic status such as age or number of dependents. The benefits derived to property are related to the average number of people who could potentially live on, work at, or otherwise could occupy a property, not how the property is currently used by the present owner. Therefore, the number of people who could, or potentially, live on, work at, or otherwise occupy a property is one indicator of the relative level of benefit received by a property.
19 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 In conclusion, the Assessment Engineer determined that the appropriate method of assessment apportionment should be based on the type of property, the relative size of the property, property location, its relative population, and its proximity to the landscaping and open space facilities. This method is further described below.
Residential Properties
The Ponderosa development is a residential single family development project consisting of a total of 344 parcels, 343 single family home parcels, and 1 City owned parcel that is the location of Del Prado Park. As such, each residential property receives similar benefit from the proposed Improvements.
Therefore, the Engineer has determined that the appropriate method of apportionment of the benefits derived by all parcels is on a dwelling unit or single-family residence basis. All improved properties, or properties proposed for development, are assigned one Single Family Equivalent unit or 1 SFE factor equal to the number of dwelling units developed or planned for the property.
Other Properties
Article XIIID stipulates that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the Assessment.
All properties that are specially benefited are assessed. Other publicly owned property that is used for purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional uses is benefited and assessed at the same rate as such privately owned property.
Miscellaneous, small, and other parcels such as roads, right-of-way parcels, and common areas typically do not generate significant numbers of employees, residents, customers, or guests, who would have access to or use the Improvements. These miscellaneous parcels therefore receive no benefit from the Improvements and are assessed an SFE benefit factor of 0 SFEs.
The Assessment Rate does not Increase Annually
It should be noted that the Maintenance District assessment rates cannot be increased beyond the original amount approved at formation, which in the case of the Ponderosa- Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District was $60.08 annually, as identified in Resolution 88-375. The city is restoring the assessment amount per Resolution 88-375, but increasing the annual assessment rate to 1988 levels is not going to be enough.
The assessment will need to be increased significantly with an annual Consumer Price Index escalator, which will require approval of the property owners via a Proposition 218 assessment ballot proceeding.
Appeal of Assessments Levied to Property
Any property owner who feels that the assessment levied on their property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of
20 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment may file a written appeal with the City of Pleasanton City Engineer or his or her designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current Fiscal Year and applicable law. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the City of Pleasanton City Engineer or his or her designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the City of Pleasanton City Engineer or his or her designee finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the Assessment Roll. If any such changes are approved after the Assessment Roll has been filed with the County for collection, the City Engineer or his or her designee is authorized to refund to the property owner the amount of any approved reduction.
Assessment Funds Must be Expended Within the Maintenance District Area The net available Assessment funds, after incidental, administrative, financing, and other costs, shall be expended exclusively for Improvements within the boundaries of the Maintenance District and appropriate incidental and administrative costs as defined in the Plans and Specifications section.
21 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Assessment
WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton City Council directed the undersigned Engineer of Work to prepare and file a report presenting an estimate of costs, a diagram for the Maintenance District, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the Improvements upon all assessable parcels within the Maintenance District;
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, by virtue of the power vested in me under the Act, Article XIIID of the California Constitution, and the order of the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, hereby makes the following assessment to cover the portion of the estimated cost of the Improvements, and the costs and expenses incidental thereto to be paid by the Maintenance District.
The amount to be paid for said Improvements and the expense incidental thereto, to be paid by the Maintenance District for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 is generally as follows:
Figure 2 – Summary Cost Estimate – Ponderosa LMD No. 1984-1
Budget Item Budgeted
Cost
Installation, Maintenance, and Servicing Costs $24,160.00 Incidental and Administration Costs $38,896.04
Amount to/(from) Reserve Fund $(32,335.72)
General Fund contribution for General Benefits $(9,703.00) Total Budget $21,017.38
As required by the Act, an Assessment Diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the Maintenance District is hereto attached and incorporated herein by reference. The distinctive number of each parcel or lot of land in the Maintenance District is its Assessor Parcel Number appearing on the Assessment Roll.
I do hereby assess and apportion the net amount of the cost and expenses of the Improvements, including the costs and expenses incident thereto, upon the parcels and lots of land within the Maintenance District, in accordance with the special benefits to be received by each parcel or lot, from the Improvements, and more particularly set forth in the Estimate of Cost and Method of Assessment in the Report.
22 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 The Assessment is made upon the parcels or lots of land within the Maintenance District in proportion to the special benefits to be received by the parcels or lots of land, from the Improvements.
The Maintenance District’s assessment rate for fiscal year 2025-26 are restored to the Resolution 88-375 amount of $60.08 per single family equivalent (SFE) benefit unit.
Each parcel or lot of land is described in the Assessment Roll by reference to its parcel number as will be shown on the Assessor's Maps of Alameda County for the Fiscal Year 2025-26. For a more particular description of the property, reference is hereby made to the deeds and maps on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder of the County.
I hereby will place opposite the Assessor Parcel Number for each parcel or lot within the Assessment Roll, the amount of the assessment for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 for each parcel or lot of land within the Maintenance District.
City Engineer/Engineer of Work
By:
Adam M. Nelkie, License No. C78830
23 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Certificates Page
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1984-1, PONDEROSA CITY OF
PLEASANTON, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972)
The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer's Report and does hereby certify that this Engineer's Report and the Assessment have been prepared by me as directed by the City Council.
Adam M. Nelkie, City Engineer, License No. 78830
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on the _________day of______________, 2025.
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California, on the ______________day of____________, 2025.
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a certified copy of the enclosed Engineer's Report, including Assessment Roll and Assessment Diagram was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Alameda, on the ______________day of_______________, 2025.
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
City of Pleasanton, Alameda County, California
By:
24 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Assessment Diagram
The Maintenance District includes all properties within the Ponderosa subdivision, as displayed on the following Assessment Diagram. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the Maintenance District are those lines and dimensions as shown on the maps of the Assessor of Alameda County for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Diagram and this Report.
25 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Assessment Roll FY 2025-26 - Ponderosa LMD No. 1984-1
ASSESSMENT ASSESSOR'S ASSESSMENT COLLECTION
DIAGRAM NO. PARCEL NUMBER AMOUNT
CHARGE
.017 TOTAL
1 946-4556-010 $60.08 $1.02 $61.10
2 946-4556-009 60.08 1.02 61.10
3 946-4556-008 60.08 1.02 61.10
4 946-4556-007 60.08 1.02 61.10
5 946-4556-006 60.08 1.02 61.10
6 946-4556-005 60.08 1.02 61.10
7 946-4556-004 60.08 1.02 61.10
8 946-4556-003 60.08 1.02 61.10
9 946-4556-011 60.08 1.02 61.10
10 946-4556-012 60.08 1.02 61.10
11 946-4556-013 60.08 1.02 61.10
12 946-4556-014 60.08 1.02 61.10
13 946-4556-015 60.08 1.02 61.10
14 946-4556-016 60.08 1.02 61.10
15 946-4556-017 60.08 1.02 61.10
16 946-4556-018 60.08 1.02 61.10
17 946-4556-019 60.08 1.02 61.10
18 946-4556-020 60.08 1.02 61.10
19 946-4556-021 60.08 1.02 61.10
20 946-4556-031 60.08 1.02 61.10
21 946-4556-032 60.08 1.02 61.10
22 946-4556-033 60.08 1.02 61.10
23 946-4556-034 60.08 1.02 61.10
24 946-4556-035 60.08 1.02 61.10
25 946-4556-036 60.08 1.02 61.10
26 946-4556-037 60.08 1.02 61.10
27 946-4556-038 60.08 1.02 61.10
28 946-4556-039 60.08 1.02 61.10
29 946-4556-040 60.08 1.02 61.10
30 946-4556-041 60.08 1.02 61.10
31 946-4556-042 60.08 1.02 61.10
32 946-4556-043 60.08 1.02 61.10
33 946-4556-044 60.08 1.02 61.10
34 946-4556-045 60.08 1.02 61.10
35 946-4556-046 60.08 1.02 61.10
36 946-4556-047 60.08 1.02 61.10
37 946-4556-048 60.08 1.02 61.10
38 946-4556-049 60.08 1.02 61.10
39 946-4556-050 60.08 1.02 61.10
40 946-4556-051 60.08 1.02 61.10
41 946-4556-052 60.08 1.02 61.10
42 946-4556-053 60.08 1.02 61.10
43 946-4556-054 60.08 1.02 61.10
26 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 44 946-4556-055 60.08 1.02 61.10
45 946-4556-056 60.08 1.02 61.10
46 946-4556-057 60.08 1.02 61.10
47 946-4556-058 60.08 1.02 61.10
48 946-4556-059-2 60.08 1.02 61.10
49 946-4556-060-2 60.08 1.02 61.10
50 946-4556-061 60.08 1.02 61.10
51 946-4556-062 60.08 1.02 61.10
52 946-4556-063 60.08 1.02 61.10
53 946-4556-064 60.08 1.02 61.10
54 946-4556-065 60.08 1.02 61.10
55 946-4556-066 60.08 1.02 61.10
56 946-4556-030 60.08 1.02 61.10
57 946-4556-029 60.08 1.02 61.10
58 946-4556-028 60.08 1.02 61.10
59 946-4556-067 60.08 1.02 61.10
60 946-4556-068 60.08 1.02 61.10
61 946-4556-069 60.08 1.02 61.10
62 946-4556-070 60.08 1.02 61.10
63 946-4556-071 60.08 1.02 61.10
64 946-4556-072 60.08 1.02 61.10
65 946-4556-073-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
66 946-4556-074-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
67 946-4556-075 60.08 1.02 61.10
68 946-4556-076 60.08 1.02 61.10
69 946-4556-077 60.08 1.02 61.10
70 946-4556-078 60.08 1.02 61.10
71 946-4556-079 60.08 1.02 61.10
72 946-4556-027 60.08 1.02 61.10
73 946-4556-026 60.08 1.02 61.10
74 946-4556-025 60.08 1.02 61.10
75 946-4556-082 60.08 1.02 61.10
76 946-4556-083 60.08 1.02 61.10
77 946-4556-084 60.08 1.02 61.10
78 946-4556-085 60.08 1.02 61.10
79 946-4556-086 60.08 1.02 61.10
80 946-4556-087-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
81 946-4556-088-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
82 946-4556-089 60.08 1.02 61.10
83 946-4556-090 60.08 1.02 61.10
84 946-4556-091 60.08 1.02 61.10
85 946-4556-092 60.08 1.02 61.10
86 946-4556-093 60.08 1.02 61.10
87 946-4556-024 60.08 1.02 61.10
88 946-4556-023 60.08 1.02 61.10
89 946-4556-022 60.08 1.02 61.10
90 946-4556-094 60.08 1.02 61.10
91 946-4556-097 60.08 1.02 61.10
92 946-4556-098 60.08 1.02 61.10
93 946-4556-099 60.08 1.02 61.10
27 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 94 946-4556-100 60.08 1.02 61.10
95 946-4556-101 60.08 1.02 61.10
96 946-4556-102-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
97 946-4556-104-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
98 946-4556-105 60.08 1.02 61.10
99 946-4556-106 60.08 1.02 61.10
100 946-4556-107 60.08 1.02 61.10
101 946-4556-108 60.08 1.02 61.10
102 946-4562-040-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
103 946-4562-039 60.08 1.02 61.10
104 946-4562-038 60.08 1.02 61.10
105 946-4562-037 60.08 1.02 61.10
106 946-4562-036 60.08 1.02 61.10
107 946-4562-004 60.08 1.02 61.10
108 946-4562-003 60.08 1.02 61.10
109 946-4562-001 60.08 1.02 61.10
110 946-4562-005 60.08 1.02 61.10
111 946-4562-007 60.08 1.02 61.10
112 946-4562-010-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
113 946-4562-011 60.08 1.02 61.10
114 946-4562-013 60.08 1.02 61.10
115 946-4562-014 60.08 1.02 61.10
116 946-4562-015 60.08 1.02 61.10
117 946-4562-016 60.08 1.02 61.10
118 946-4562-045 60.08 1.02 61.10
119 946-4562-044 60.08 1.02 61.10
120 946-4562-043 60.08 1.02 61.10
121 946-4562-042 60.08 1.02 61.10
122 946-4562-041-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
123 946-4562-050-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
124 946-4562-049 60.08 1.02 61.10
125 946-4562-048 60.08 1.02 61.10
126 946-4562-047 60.08 1.02 61.10
127 946-4562-046 60.08 1.02 61.10
128 946-4562-017 60.08 1.02 61.10
129 946-4562-018 60.08 1.02 61.10
130 946-4562-019 60.08 1.02 61.10
131 946-4562-020 60.08 1.02 61.10
132 946-4562-021 60.08 1.02 61.10
133 946-4562-022 60.08 1.02 61.10
134 946-4562-023 60.08 1.02 61.10
135 946-4562-024 60.08 1.02 61.10
136 946-4562-025 60.08 1.02 61.10
137 946-4562-055 60.08 1.02 61.10
138 946-4562-054 60.08 1.02 61.10
139 946-4562-053 60.08 1.02 61.10
140 946-4562-052 60.08 1.02 61.10
141 946-4562-051-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
142 946-4562-060 60.08 1.02 61.10
143 946-4562-059 60.08 1.02 61.10
28 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 144 946-4562-058 60.08 1.02 61.10
145 946-4562-057 60.08 1.02 61.10
146 946-4562-056 60.08 1.02 61.10
147 946-4562-026 60.08 1.02 61.10
148 946-4562-027 60.08 1.02 61.10
149 946-4562-028 60.08 1.02 61.10
150 946-4562-029 60.08 1.02 61.10
151 946-4562-030 60.08 1.02 61.10
152 946-4562-031 60.08 1.02 61.10
153 946-4562-032 60.08 1.02 61.10
154 946-4562-033 60.08 1.02 61.10
155 946-4562-065 60.08 1.02 61.10
156 946-4562-064 60.08 1.02 61.10
157 946-4562-063 60.08 1.02 61.10
158 946-4562-062 60.08 1.02 61.10
159 946-4562-061-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
160 946-4562-066 60.08 1.02 61.10
161 946-4562-067 60.08 1.02 61.10
162 946-4562-068 60.08 1.02 61.10
163 946-4562-069 60.08 1.02 61.10
164 946-4562-070 60.08 1.02 61.10
165 946-4563-001 60.08 1.02 61.10
166 946-4563-002-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
167 946-4563-004-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
168 946-4563-005 60.08 1.02 61.10
169 946-4563-006 60.08 1.02 61.10
170 946-4563-007 60.08 1.02 61.10
171 946-4563-008 60.08 1.02 61.10
172 946-4563-009 60.08 1.02 61.10
173 946-4563-010 60.08 1.02 61.10
174 946-4563-011-2 60.08 1.02 61.10
175 946-4563-012-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
176 946-4563-013 60.08 1.02 61.10
177 946-4563-014 60.08 1.02 61.10
178 946-4563-015 60.08 1.02 61.10
179 946-4563-016 60.08 1.02 61.10
180 946-4563-017-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
181 946-4563-018-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
182 946-4563-019 60.08 1.02 61.10
183 946-4563-020 60.08 1.02 61.10
184 946-4563-021 60.08 1.02 61.10
185 946-4563-022 60.08 1.02 61.10
186 946-4563-023 60.08 1.02 61.10
187 946-4563-024 60.08 1.02 61.10
188 946-4563-025 60.08 1.02 61.10
189 946-4563-026 60.08 1.02 61.10
190 946-4563-027 60.08 1.02 61.10
191 946-4563-028 60.08 1.02 61.10
192 946-4563-029 60.08 1.02 61.10
193 946-4563-030-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
29 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 194 946-4563-031-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
195 946-4563-032 60.08 1.02 61.10
196 946-4563-033 60.08 1.02 61.10
197 946-4563-034 60.08 1.02 61.10
198 946-4563-035 60.08 1.02 61.10
199 946-4563-036 60.08 1.02 61.10
200 946-4563-037 60.08 1.02 61.10
201 946-4563-038-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
202 946-4563-039-3 60.08 1.02 61.10
203 946-4563-040-2 60.08 1.02 61.10
204 946-4563-041 60.08 1.02 61.10
205 946-4563-042 60.08 1.02 61.10
206 946-4563-043 60.08 1.02 61.10
207 946-4563-044 60.08 1.02 61.10
208 946-4563-045 60.08 1.02 61.10
209 946-4563-046 60.08 1.02 61.10
210 946-4563-047 60.08 1.02 61.10
211 946-4563-048 60.08 1.02 61.10
212 946-4563-049 60.08 1.02 61.10
213 946-4563-050 60.08 1.02 61.10
214 946-4563-051 60.08 1.02 61.10
215 946-4563-052 60.08 1.02 61.10
216 946-4563-053 60.08 1.02 61.10
217 946-4563-054 60.08 1.02 61.10
218 946-4563-055 60.08 1.02 61.10
219 946-4563-056 60.08 1.02 61.10
220 946-4563-057 60.08 1.02 61.10
221 946-4563-058-3 60.08 1.02 61.10
222 946-4563-060-2 60.08 1.02 61.10
223 946-4563-061 60.08 1.02 61.10
224 946-4563-062 60.08 1.02 61.10
225 946-4563-063 60.08 1.02 61.10
226 946-4563-064 60.08 1.02 61.10
227 946-4563-065 60.08 1.02 61.10
228 946-4563-066 60.08 1.02 61.10
229 946-4563-067 60.08 1.02 61.10
230 946-4563-068 60.08 1.02 61.10
231 946-4563-069 60.08 1.02 61.10
232 946-4563-070 60.08 1.02 61.10
233 946-4563-071 60.08 1.02 61.10
234 946-4563-072 60.08 1.02 61.10
235 946-4563-073 60.08 1.02 61.10
236 946-4563-074 60.08 1.02 61.10
237 946-4563-075 60.08 1.02 61.10
238 946-4563-076 60.08 1.02 61.10
239 946-4563-077 60.08 1.02 61.10
240 946-4563-078-2 60.08 1.02 61.10
241 946-4563-079-1 60.08 1.02 61.10
242 946-4563-080 60.08 1.02 61.10
243 946-4563-082 60.08 1.02 61.10
30 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 244 946-4563-083 60.08 1.02 61.10
245 946-4563-084 60.08 1.02 61.10
246 946-4563-085 60.08 1.02 61.10
247 946-4563-086 60.08 1.02 61.10
248 946-4563-087 60.08 1.02 61.10
249 946-4563-088 60.08 1.02 61.10
250 946-4563-089 60.08 1.02 61.10
251 946-4563-090 60.08 1.02 61.10
252 946-4563-091 60.08 1.02 61.10
253 946-4563-092 60.08 1.02 61.10
254 946-4563-093 60.08 1.02 61.10
255 946-4563-094 60.08 1.02 61.10
256 946-4563-095 60.08 1.02 61.10
257 946-4563-096 60.08 1.02 61.10
258 946-4563-097 60.08 1.02 61.10
259 946-4563-130 60.08 1.02 61.10
260 946-4563-129 60.08 1.02 61.10
261 946-4563-128 60.08 1.02 61.10
262 946-4563-127 60.08 1.02 61.10
263 946-4563-126 60.08 1.02 61.10
264 946-4563-140 60.08 1.02 61.10
265 946-4563-141 60.08 1.02 61.10
266 946-4563-142 60.08 1.02 61.10
267 946-4563-143 60.08 1.02 61.10
268 946-4563-182 60.08 1.02 61.10
269 946-4563-183 60.08 1.02 61.10
270 946-4563-146 60.08 1.02 61.10
271 946-4563-147 60.08 1.02 61.10
272 946-4563-148 60.08 1.02 61.10
273 946-4563-149 60.08 1.02 61.10
274 946-4563-150 60.08 1.02 61.10
275 946-4563-151 60.08 1.02 61.10
276 946-4563-152 60.08 1.02 61.10
277 946-4563-153 60.08 1.02 61.10
278 946-4563-154 60.08 1.02 61.10
279 946-4563-113 60.08 1.02 61.10
280 946-4563-112 60.08 1.02 61.10
281 946-4563-111 60.08 1.02 61.10
282 946-4563-110 60.08 1.02 61.10
283 946-4563-109 60.08 1.02 61.10
284 946-4563-108 60.08 1.02 61.10
285 946-4563-107 60.08 1.02 61.10
286 946-4563-106 60.08 1.02 61.10
287 946-4563-105 60.08 1.02 61.10
288 946-4563-104 60.08 1.02 61.10
289 946-4563-103 60.08 1.02 61.10
290 946-4563-102 60.08 1.02 61.10
291 946-4563-101 60.08 1.02 61.10
292 946-4563-100 60.08 1.02 61.10
293 946-4563-099 60.08 1.02 61.10
31 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 294 946-4563-098 60.08 1.02 61.10
295 946-4563-120 60.08 1.02 61.10
296 946-4563-121 60.08 1.02 61.10
297 946-4563-122 60.08 1.02 61.10
298 946-4563-123 60.08 1.02 61.10
299 946-4563-134 60.08 1.02 61.10
300 946-4563-133 60.08 1.02 61.10
301 946-4563-132 60.08 1.02 61.10
302 946-4563-131 60.08 1.02 61.10
303 946-4563-139 60.08 1.02 61.10
304 946-4563-138 60.08 1.02 61.10
305 946-4563-137 60.08 1.02 61.10
306 946-4563-136 60.08 1.02 61.10
307 946-4563-135 60.08 1.02 61.10
308 946-4563-114 60.08 1.02 61.10
309 946-4563-115 60.08 1.02 61.10
310 946-4563-116 60.08 1.02 61.10
311 946-4563-117 60.08 1.02 61.10
312 946-4563-118 60.08 1.02 61.10
313 946-4563-119 60.08 1.02 61.10
314 946-4563-155 60.08 1.02 61.10
315 946-4563-156 60.08 1.02 61.10
316 946-4563-157 60.08 1.02 61.10
317 946-4563-158 60.08 1.02 61.10
318 946-4563-159 60.08 1.02 61.10
319 946-4563-160 60.08 1.02 61.10
320 946-4563-161 60.08 1.02 61.10
321 946-4563-162 60.08 1.02 61.10
322 946-4563-163 60.08 1.02 61.10
323 946-4563-164 60.08 1.02 61.10
324 946-4563-165 60.08 1.02 61.10
325 946-4563-166 60.08 1.02 61.10
326 946-4563-167 60.08 1.02 61.10
327 946-4563-168 60.08 1.02 61.10
328 946-4563-169 60.08 1.02 61.10
329 946-4563-170 60.08 1.02 61.10
330 946-4563-171 60.08 1.02 61.10
331 946-4563-172 60.08 1.02 61.10
332 946-4563-173 60.08 1.02 61.10
333 946-4563-174 60.08 1.02 61.10
334 946-4563-175 60.08 1.02 61.10
335 946-4563-176 60.08 1.02 61.10
336 946-4563-177 60.08 1.02 61.10
337 946-4563-178 60.08 1.02 61.10
338 946-4563-179 60.08 1.02 61.10
339 946-4563-180 60.08 1.02 61.10
340 946-4562-071 60.08 1.02 61.10
341 946-4562-072 60.08 1.02 61.10
342 946-4562-073 60.08 1.02 61.10
343 946-4562-074 60.08 1.02 61.10
32 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 CITY 946-4563-125 60.08 n/a 60.08
344 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS: $20,667.52 $349.86 $21,017.38
Figure 4 – FY 2024-25 Actual Costs and Revenues
2024-25 Project Expenditures
134 Ponderosa-Del Prado
Item Budget Expenditures*
Anticipated
Remaining
Expenditures
Anticipated
Year-end
Balance
Installation and Maintenance
Basic Maintenance $2,600.00 $2,255.00 $205.00 $140.00
Other Maintenance (paid by City) $7,332.00 $6,721.00 $611.00 $0.00 Extra Work** $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00
Water $5,000.00 $3,289.00 $1,370.00 $341.00
Power $330.00 $158.24 $31.66 $140.10
Subtotal $20,262.00 $12,423.24 $2,217.66 $5,621.10
Incidental and Administrative
City of Pleasanton Assessment Administration $1,800.00 $1,831.04 $0.00 -$31.04 County Fees for Collection of Assessment $96.04 $96.04 $0.00 $0.00 Proposition 218-compliance process $40,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $38,000.00 Subtotal $41,896.04 $1,927.08 $2,000.00 $37,968.96
Annual City Contribution for General Benefit $9,703.00
Annual Assessment $5,813.23
Reserve
Starting Fund Balance (7/1/2024) $84,000.00
Budgeted Year-End Fund Balance $37,358.19
Anticipated Year-End Fund Balance $80,948.25
* Expenditures from July 1, 2024 to April 30, 2025
** Extra work typically includes tree pruning, tree removal, irrigation repairs and replacement, and planting.
33 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1984-1, Ponderosa Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON
DECLARING THE INTENTION TO ORDER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 199 3-1 WINDSOR FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26; DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS; AND SETTING THE DATE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING
WHEREAS, as required by Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council of the City of Pleasanton has described proposed improvements to be included for the determination of annual assessments levied for Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1 Windsor, created under the Lighting & Landscape Act of 1972, and ordered the preparation of an Engineer’s Report to determine the annual levy of assessments for such District; and
WHEREAS, as required by Section 22622 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Engineer has filed with the City Clerk a Preliminary Engineer’s Report for the Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1 Windsor for Fiscal Year 2025/26.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING:
SECTION 1. The City Engineer is designated by this Council as the Engineer of Work for Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor, during fiscal year 2025/26.
The area of land to be assessed is located in the City of Pleasanton, Alameda County.
SECTION 2. The City Council intends to continue to levy and collect assessments within Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1 Windsor, during fiscal year 2025/26.
SECTION 3. The improvements to be made in this assessment district are generally described as follows:
Maintenance of the masonry walls, trees, shrubbery, groundcover, and irrigation systems situated on the northeast side of Tapestry Way and Minton Court, Lot A in the northwest corner of the subdivision and also Lot C in the southwest corner of the subdivision.
SECTION 4. In accordance with this resolution directing the filing of an annual report, the City Engineer has filed with the City Clerk the report required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. All interested persons are referred to that report for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the assessment district.
SECTION 5. On Tuesday, the 15th day of July 2025, at the hour of 7:00 pm, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the question of the levy of the proposed annual assessment. The Council meeting will be held in accordance with Government Code Section 54954(e). To improve access to public information, residents may access meetings remotely through the City’s website.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give the notice of hearing required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
SECTION 7. City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pleasanton at a regular meeting held on June 17, 2025.
I, Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk of the City of Pleasanton, California, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of June, 2025, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
_____________________________
Jocelyn Kwong, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Daniel G. Sodergren, City Attorney
i
CITY OF PLEASANTON
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor
Engineer’s Report
Fiscal Year 2025-26
June 2025
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, government code and article XIIID of the California Constitution
EXHIBIT A
ii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26
(This page intentionally left blank)
i
City of Pleasanton
Mayor and City Council
Jack Balch, Mayor
Jeff Nibert, Vice Mayor
Craig Eicher, Councilmember
Matt Gaidos, Councilmember
Julie Testa, Councilmember
City Manager
Gerry Beaudin
City Engineer
Adam M. Nelkie
ii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Table of Contents
PAGE NO.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1
Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor ................................................................. 2 Engineer’s Report and Continuation of Assessments ................................................................. 4 Legal Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 4
Plans & Specifications ........................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Windsor Description of Improvements .......................................................................................... 7 Recommended Capital Improvements ............................................................................................... 8
Estimate of Cost and Budget – Fiscal Year 2025-26 ............................................................................ 9 Notes to Estimate ................................................................................................................................ 9
Method of Assessment Apportionment ................................................................................................ 11 Method of Apportionment .............................................................................................................. 11 Discussion of Benefits ................................................................................................................... 11 General vs. Special Benefits .......................................................................................................... 13 Calculating General Benefit and Special Benefit Paid from Other Funds ................................ 14 Zones of Benefit .............................................................................................................................. 18 Method of Assessment .................................................................................................................. 19 Residential Properties .................................................................................................................... 20 Other Properties .............................................................................................................................. 20 The Assessment Rate does not Increase Annually .................................................................... 20 Appeal of Assessments Levied to Property ................................................................................ 20 Assessment Funds Must be Expended Within the Maintenance District Area ................................ 21
Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Certificates Page .................................................................................................................................. 24
Assessment Diagram ........................................................................................................................... 25
Assessment Roll FY 2025-26 - Windsor LMD No. 1993-1 .................................................................. 26
iii
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Estimate of Costs and Revenues ......................................................................................... 7
Figure 2 – Summary Cost Estimate – Windsor LMD No. 1993-1 ........................................................ 20
Figure 3 – Assessment Roll FY 2025-26 – Windsor LMD No. 1993-1 ................................................ 24
Figure 4 – FY 2024-25 Actual Costs and Revenues – Windsor LMD No. 1993-1 .............................. 28
1 Introduction
Executive Summary
The Windsor Landscape Maintenance District, 1993-2, was created in 1993 as a means to fund the maintenance of the landscape and common areas for the Windsor subdivision, a 90-parcel development. The district was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 218, the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act” which requires property owner approval to impose or increase assessments.
At the time of formation, no inflation escalator was built into the assessment and the district assessment has remained at $265.11 since formation. The lack of an inflation escalator has led to a decline in the level of maintenance, a lack of sufficient funding for capital improvement projects, and an irrigation system that is badly in need of a major renovation. The level of maintenance required as part of the development approval is no longer manageable, which exposes the district and the property owners to increased liability.
In 2022, staff held outreach meetings with the district property owners and HOA Board to discuss a Proposition 218-compliant voting procedure. Although property owners were not supportive of an increase in assessments, the HOA agreed to take over routine maintenance and pay for the costs of water. The HOA acceptance of partial maintenance responsibilities is only a first step though, as assessment levels are $265.11 per parcel annually while maintenance costs are estimated to be closer to $400 per parcel annually to properly maintain the district even with the HOA paying for water and routine maintenance costs, and likely about double that amount if the HOA no longer supplements services. A Proposition 218-compliant vote will be required to address the maintenance needs of the district. The budget for this fiscal year will require drawing down the reserve, which is already operating at a deficit, by over $26,000 due to the consultant costs, estimated at approximately $36,000, for the Proposition 218 vote, which is a one-time cost. However, should the vote not pass, the vote will need to be repeated until it does pass; creating a significant financial burden to property owners each time.
Overview
The City of Pleasanton (“City”) is located in Alameda County, and covers an area of
24.3 square miles, with over 24,500 assessor parcels, and approximately 80,000 residents. The City currently has five Landscape Maintenance Districts (“Districts”) that provide services to a combined total of 680 parcels:
• 1984-1 Ponderosa (Del Prado) – 344 parcels
• 1993-1 Windsor – 90 parcels
• 1993-2 Bonde Ranch – 103 parcels
2 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 • 1994-1 Oak Tree Farm – 42 parcels
• 1995-1 Moller Ranch – 101 parcels
The five District’s benefit assessments were established prior to the approval of Proposition 218 in 1996. The purpose of these Districts is to provide funding for the installation, maintenance and servicing of local landscaping and lighting improvements (“Improvements”) within each District’s service area.
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor
Assessment Background
The Windsor Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1 (“District 1993-1” or “Maintenance District”) was formed in 1993 as a Condition of Approval for the Windsor development, to fund certain landscape improvements within the Windsor subdivision.
The Maintenance District has a total of 90 single-family residential parcels.
The Windsor Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1 purpose is to fund the maintenance and repair of designated landscaped areas and open space areas, entry features, masonry soundwalls, common area drainage ditches, irrigation systems, trees and plantings in designated landscaped areas, furnishing of water and power for irrigation systems, and streetlights.
District 1993-1 is funded by the benefit assessment approved in 1993 (“Assessment”), and it does not receive any direct revenues from property taxes or any other funding sources. The fiscal year 2025-26 assessments for District 1993-1 will remain at the same assessment rate of $265.11 per parcel per year. With a total of 90 parcels in the Maintenance District, fiscal year 2025-26 total assessment will be $24,265.80.
Over the years, operational costs and utility costs have increased, however the assessment revenues have remained the same. The fiscal year 2025-26 total assessment revenue will not be sufficient to fund the maintenance of all landscaped areas, including water costs, county assessment fees, city administration fees, replacement of plantings, irrigation systems, and other district improvements. The equivalent of $265.11 in today’s dollars, based on the Consumer Price Index for California, is $538.00. The Engineer’s Report projects a shortage that will require the City to reduce landscape maintenance and water use so that maintenance costs remain below assessments.
City staff began the process of potentially increasing the assessments for the Windsor Landscape Maintenance District in 2022 through a Proposition 218 compliant voting procedure. However, the property owners that attended the neighborhood outreach meeting on February 2, 2022, voiced their desire that the City undertake more significant outreach to discuss increasing the assessment prior to taking the decision to vote. Staff set up a meeting with the Windsor neighborhood again on October 18, 2022, to discuss the assessments. A notification was sent via mail to all property owners and the HOA manager notified the residents of the meeting via email. About ten residents attended the meeting to discuss the need for and process for a vote to increase the
3 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 assessment. The residents expressed an interest in having more control on how the money is spent and requested that the City provide additional information to them regarding the formation of the Windsor Landscape Maintenance District.
On November 3, staff sent an email to the Windsor HOA property manager that defined the maintenance responsibilities associated with the development and included the formation documents for the development. After receiving the formation documents, the HOA Board expressed their interest in partially taking over the maintenance responsibilities of the LMD rather than taking the assessment increase to a vote by the homeowners. Staff worked with the HOA Board President to determine what that shared maintenance would look like. On March 29, 2023, the Board submitted a letter stating their commitment to take over the monthly maintenance of the planting and paying the costs of water and on February 6, 2024, the HOA took over the monthly maintenance and water payments. The Windsor LMD retained the other maintenance responsibilities/costs, including but not limited to irrigation repairs, soundwall repair, tree pruning, etc.
Although the HOA accepted the costs for routine plant maintenance and water to help to alleviate the fund balance deficit, it is not a permanent solution. An increase in the annual assessment will be necessary to meet the maintenance standards of the District in the future. The city can no longer subsidize staff administration time or the consultant fees for a Proposition 218-compliant vote. The consultant fees for the Proposition 218- compliant vote will cost approx. $36,000 and will come out of the reserve fund. Water costs are not a factor for the Windsor LMD since the HOA took over payment and that will reduce the proposed assessment increase amount, but significant tree pruning and capital improvement repair and replacement costs are substantial.
Additionally, Assembly Bill 1572, which was passed by the State Assembly on October 13, 2023, and relates to water use on lawns within the district, requires that no irrigation be used on nonfunctional turf areas prior to January 1, 2028. The district has two areas that are considered “nonfunctional turf” by the bill that will need to be removed and replaced, one along Bernal Avenue and the other just on the other side of the entry wall on Tapestry Way. The turf conversion is estimated to cost around $175,000 and will require a loan or increase to assessments in 2027 to cover the costs.
The landscape will continue to decline below the necessary maintenance standards of the district established by Ordinance 2458. This may place the district at risk of fines or litigation. To limit liability for the district, it will be necessary for the city to continue to pursue a proposition 218-compliant vote, incurring significant consultant costs each time, until a sustainable assessment has been agreed to by property owners.
If additional funding from a new or increased assessment is not implemented, the City will be forced to continue to reduce maintenance and postpone facilities upgrades, resulting in a continuing deterioration of the grounds and facilities.
For 2024-25 costs/revenues, see Figure 4 – FY 2024-25 Actual Costs and Revenues.
4 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26
Engineer’s Report and Continuation of Assessments
Each year for which the assessments will be continued, the City Council must direct the preparation of an Engineer's Report, budgets, and proposed assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. After the Engineer's Report is completed, the City Council may preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report and proposed assessments and establish the date for a public hearing on the continuation of the assessments. This Report was prepared pursuant to the direction of the City Council.
This Engineer’s Report ("Report") was prepared to establish the budget for the continued maintenance, improvements, and services (“Improvements”) that would be funded by the proposed fiscal year 2025-26 assessments, determine the benefits received by property from the Improvements, and the method of assessment apportionment to lots and parcels within the Maintenance District. This Report and the proposed assessments have been made pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code ("Act") and Article XIIID of the California Constitution (“Article”).
If the City Council approves this Engineer's Report and the continuation of the assessments by resolution, a notice of public hearing must be published in a local paper at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The resolution preliminarily approving the Engineer's Report and establishing the date for a public hearing is used for this notice.
Following the minimum 10-day period after publishing the notice, a public hearing is held for the purpose of allowing public testimony about the proposed continuation of the assessments. This hearing is currently scheduled for July 15, 2025. At this hearing, the City Council would consider approval of a resolution confirming the continuation of the assessments for fiscal year 2025-26. If so confirmed and approved, the assessments would be submitted to the County Auditor/Controller for inclusion on the property tax rolls for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
Legal Requirements
Proposition 218
The City of Pleasanton’s five Landscape Maintenance Districts were formed prior to the passage of Proposition 218, “The Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996, and is now Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution. (Proposition 218 provides for benefit assessments to be levied to fund the cost of providing services, improvements, as well as maintenance and operation expenses to a public improvement which specially benefits the assessed property). Although these assessments are consistent with Proposition 218, the California judiciary has generally referred to pre-Proposition 218 assessments as “grandfathered assessments” and held them to a lower standard than post Proposition 218 assessments.
5 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 The existing Assessment Districts will be re-assessed consistent with the procedures and requirements imposed by Proposition 218, which describes several important requirements, including property-owner balloting and approval for the imposition of new or increased assessments.
This Engineer’s Report is consistent with the requirements of Article XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution because the Improvements to be funded are clearly defined, the Improvements are directly available to and directly benefit property in the Maintenance District, and the Improvements provide a direct advantage to property in the Maintenance District that would not be received in absence of the assessments.
6 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Plans & Specifications
Introduction
The work and Improvements to be undertaken by the City of Pleasanton within the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor, and the costs thereof paid from the levy of the annual assessments, provide special benefit to Assessor Parcels within the Maintenance District as defined in the Method of Assessment herein.
The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets & Highways Code § 22525 et seq.), (the “Act”), defines improvement, maintenance, servicing, and incidental expenses as follows:
“Improvement” means one or any combination of the following:
The installation or planting of landscaping.
The installation or construction of statuary, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities.
installation or construction of public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to, traffic signals.
installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks, or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities.
The installation of park or recreational improvements, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
preparation, such as grading, leveling, cutting and filling, sod, landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalks, and drainage.
Lights, playground equipment, play courts, and public restrooms.
The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing, and of any improvement authorized by subdivision (i).
The acquisition of land for park, recreational, or open-space purposes.
The acquisition of any existing improvement otherwise authorized pursuant to this section.
The acquisition or construction of any community center, municipal auditorium or hall, or similar public facility for the indoor presentation of performances, shows, stage productions, fairs, conventions, exhibitions, pageants, meetings, parties, or other group events, activities, or functions, whether those events, activities, or functions are public or private.
“Maintain” or “maintenance” means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. for the life, growth, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury.
7 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste.
The cleaning, sandblasting, and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti.
“Service” or “servicing” means the furnishing of:
Electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements.
Water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
“Incidental expenses” include all of the following:
The costs of preparation of the report, including plans, specifications, estimates, diagram, and assessment.
The costs of printing, advertising, and the giving of published, posted, and mailed notices.
Compensation payable to the county for collection of assessments.
Compensation of any engineer or attorney employed to render services in proceedings pursuant to this part.
Any other expenses incidental to the construction, installation, or maintenance and servicing of the improvements.
Any expenses incidental to the issuance of bonds or notes pursuant to Section 22662.5.
Costs associated with any elections held for the approval of a new or increased assessment.
The City of Pleasanton’s work and Improvements (“Improvements”) for the property within the Maintenance District that is owned or maintained by the City of Pleasanton, are consistent with these definitions. Plans and specifications for these Improvements are filed with the City of Pleasanton Landscape Architect and are incorporated herein by reference.
Windsor Description of Improvements
The improvements which are the subject of this Report are briefly described as follows:
The maintenance and repair of designated landscaped areas and open space areas, entry features, masonry soundwalls, common area drainage ditches, irrigation systems, trees and plantings in designated landscaped areas, furnishing of water and power for irrigation systems, and streetlights, together with all appurtenant and incidental expenses within Tract 6320, City of Pleasanton.
Landscape Plans and specifications for the improvements to this Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District are those prepared by Thomas Baak & Associates, dated July 1993, Grading Plans dated March 1990, and Improvement Plans Prepared by DK Associates, dated May 1990. These plans and specifications have been filed separately with the Clerk of the Legislative body and are incorporated in this report by reference.
8 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Recommended Capital Improvements
Some of the Improvements including the irrigation system, trees and other plants, in the Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor, are overdue for some much- needed upgrades and repairs. However, the Maintenance District reserve fund balance is insufficient to make these improvements.
The city drafted a schedule of recommended capital improvement projects that need to be addressed and their respective cost estimate, as well as a planned replacement/renovation schedule, to fund the necessary capital improvements and maintain the district to a similar level to when the LMD was created. Even with the HOA taking over partial maintenance responsibilities, staff estimates that the annual assessments would need to be increased from $ to approximately $400 with the inclusion of an inflation escalator and likely double that if the HOA no longer pays for water and routine maintenance. Improvement costs over the next decade are projected to be around $700,000. This includes the $175,000 in turf conversion costs for the turf areas along Bernal Avenue and Tapestry Way that are required by 2028. The city is working with a consultant and the HOA to develop the level of maintenance and recommended capital improvements during the upcoming year to create a comprehensive maintenance and improvement plan and associated costs.
9 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 Estimate of Cost and Budget – Fiscal Year 2025-26
The following budget shows the estimate of cost of the Improvements to be funded by the Maintenance District in Fiscal Year 2025-26.
Figure 1 – Estimate of Costs and Revenues
City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor
2025-26 Estimate of Costs
Budget
Installation, Maintenance, and Servicing Costs
Landscaping (maintenance)
Basic landscape maintenance $0.00
Extra worki $12,000.00
Water – All plantingii $0.00
Power – Two controllers $275.00
Total for Installation, Maintenance and Servicing $12,275.00 Incidental and Administration Costsiii
City of Pleasanton Assessment Administration $1,800.00
County Fees for Collection of Assessment $405.90
Proposition 218 Compliance $36,000.00
Total Incidental and Administrative Costs $38,205.90
Amount to/(from) Reserve Fundiv
Reserve/Long-term Replacement Fund for scheduled long-term replacement of various district improvements ($26,215.10) Total Costs $24,265.80
Budget Allocation to Property
Single Family
Number of Equivalent Assessment Total
Parcels/Units Units (SFE)v Rate Assessmentvi
90 90 $269.62 $24,265.80
Explanation of Annual Assessment Rate per Unit:
90 units @ $269.62 assessment per year (= $265.11 + $4.51 County Collection Fee)
Notes to Estimate
i. Contingency to address maintenance that is not routine in nature, such as repair or replacement of broken irrigation valves and lines or pruning/removing failed trees or tree limbs. ii. The HOA has accepted responsibility for the water costs.
10 City of Pleasanton
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1993-1, Windsor Engineer’s Report, Fiscal Year 2025-26 iii. Incidental and administration cost estimates include City staff hours dedicated to the administration of the assessment (including staff time to bid work, monitor contracts and contractors, respond to residents’ inquiries, etc.), county charges for inclusion of assessments on property tax bills, and other incidental costs. iv. At the time of this report a fund balance deficit of approximately $(16,000) exists for the Landscape Maintenance District 1993-1. This deficit may increase due to tree failures and irrigation issues. The projected 2025-26 expenses reflect a reduced amount of maintenance to begin to recover the deficit, although it is likely that the irrigation system will continue to fail and cause significant expenses due to loss of water and repair costs. The reserve fund is running as a deficit and no other city funds have been impacted by the deficit. Reserve/replacement funds will go toward paying Windsor’s deficit and are held in an interest-bearing account until needed for repairs to the irrigation system, landscaping or other District features.
v. The rate shown here is for a single-family home or its equivalent. For the definition of the term Single Family Equivalent (SFE) and rates for other types of property, see the section titled, “Method of Assessment” and the sections following it in this report.
vi. The Act requires that proceeds from the assessments must be deposited into a special fund that has been set up for the revenues and expenditures of the Maintenance District. Moreover, funds raised by the assessment shall be used only for the purposes stated within this Report. Any balance remaining at the end of the Fiscal Year, June 30, must be carried over to the next Fiscal Year. The District may also establish a reserve fund for contingencies and special projects as well as a capital improvement fund for accumulating funds for larger capital improvement projects or capital renovation needs. Any remaining balance would either be placed in the reserve fund, the capital improvement fund, or would be used to reduce future years' assessments. The Landscape Maintenance District 1993-1, Windsor, reserve/replacement funds are held in an interest-bearing account until needed for repairs to the irrigation system, landscaping or other District features.