Pacifica study session lays out $3M'$6.6M annual shortfall, council asks staff to poll on public-safety parcel tax and infrastructure options
Loading...
Summary
Staff told the council Pacifica faces an immediate operating deficit of roughly $3.1M (rising to $6.6M) and $371M in deferred capital needs. Council asked staff to begin feasibility work and polling on voter measures, prioritizing a public-safety parcel tax and infrastructure interventions while requesting clear timelines and outreach plans.
Pacifica staff told the City Council on Nov. 10 that the city faces a structural fiscal gap and large deferred capital needs, and asked the council to prioritize which voter measures should move to a feasibility and polling phase.
City Manager Kevin Woodhouse framed the study session as a request for direction on which voter-approved measures staff should analyze and, if pursued, run polling on before a potential Nov. 2026 ballot. "The really specific direction that I'm seeking from the council before the end of the night is about which voter approved revenue measures need to advance to the further feasibility assessment stage," Woodhouse said.
Staff and consultants presented a layered picture: a near-term operating deficit of about $3.1 million in FY 26'27 that could grow to about $6.6 million in subsequent years; an estimate that Pacifica needs roughly $15.4 million more in recurring operating revenue to reach a fully funded services/staffing model; and $371 million in unfunded capital improvement project (CIP) needs, including about $95 million tied to street improvements. Finance staff noted the adopted FY25'26 budget depended on one-time measures and that the state reduced a vehicle license fee backfill, costing Pacifica about $771,000.
Staff also highlighted the city's staffing and compensation gaps: a peer-city staffing comparison showed Pacifica about 13.3% below the peer average (roughly 25 FTEs short), and a compensation gap estimated at 10'10% below market that could require $4'$5 million to close. Staff estimated that fulfilling the city's RHNA allocations (1,892 units) could add about $4M in property tax annually over time and that targeted opportunity sites could add an estimated $3.4M; the Beach Boulevard site was singled out as potentially adding about $1.2M/year if developed as proposed.
The consultant presented three near-term ballot options: modernize the business-license tax (majority vote; estimated $0.6M+), expand the utility-user tax (majority vote; estimated $2'$3M), or place a parcel tax (two-thirds vote) potentially in the $3M'$6M range depending on the structure. Staff emphasized that a parcel tax is the only single measure likely to approach the full $6M need for maintaining current service levels, but it requires a two-thirds voter approval. The presentation also described infrastructure tools: general obligation bonds for capital, EIFDs (tax-increment style districts) and community facilities districts (CFDs/Mello-Roos) to attach costs to new development, and certificates of participation/direct bank placements for medium-sized projects.
Council members expressed concern about equity and affordability and debated which measures the community might support. Several members favored a focused measure the public can understand—public safety and road/streets projects were repeatedly mentioned as priorities likely to resonate with voters. Council requested staff return with clearer one-page comparisons (pros/cons/revenue estimates/timelines), polling scenarios, and a timeline for feasibility work if the council wants a measure in Nov. 2026. City staff said immediate polling and feasibility work must begin now to meet election timelines for a 2026 ballot.
No final ballot decision was made; the council gave staff direction to begin feasibility and polling work focused on a public-safety parcel-tax option and infrastructure options, and asked staff to return with a timeline and outreach plan. Staff also noted more detailed development-impact fee and cost-allocation studies are in progress.
