Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-14 Policy and Services Committee Agenda PacketPOLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 14, 2026 Council Chambers & Hybrid 6:00 PM   Policy and Services Committee meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/94618744621) Meeting ID: 946 1874 4621 Phone: 1(669)900-6833   PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted in person for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. General public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to city.council@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Multiple individuals who wish to speak on the same item may designate a spokesperson. Spokespersons must be representing five or more verified individuals who are present either in person or via zoom. Spokespeople will be allowed up to 10 minutes, at the discretion of the presiding officer. Speaking time may be reduced if the presiding officer reduces the speaking time for individual speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to city.clerk@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other types of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.  1 April 14, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. CALL TO ORDER   PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak in-person ONLY to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda.   ACTION ITEMS   1.Update, Discussion, and Potential Feedback on Bill Positions Regarding State and Federal Legislation, Executive Orders and Other Regulatory and Funding Activity. CEQA Status: Not a Project. 2.Office of the City Auditor Presentation of the City of Palo Alto Utility Reserves Advisory Report. CEQA Status: Not a Project. 3.Update on Citywide Development Impact Fee Nexus and Housing Feasibility Study. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. Late Packet Report Added FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)   ADJOURNMENT      2 April 14, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@PaloAlto.gov. 2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. 3.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the Meeting ID below. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 4.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 946-1874-4621 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.  3 April 14, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A “participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a “party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the campaign contribution before making your comments.  4 April 14, 2026 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. Policy & Services Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: April 14, 2026 Report #:2512-5784 TITLE Update, Discussion, and Potential Feedback on Bill Positions Regarding State and Federal Legislation, Executive Orders and Other Regulatory and Funding Activity. CEQA Status: Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee receive an update on the City’s advocacy efforts, provide feedback on pending state and federal legislation, specifically AB 1821, SB 1159, AB 1557, AB 2346, AB 2517, SB 1167, and SB 922. BACKGROUND As part of the City’s Federal and State legislative advocacy program, staff and Townsend Public Affairs (TPA), the City’s legislative advocates, work to identify and analyze potentially impactful legislation and communicate the City’s interests to legislators. The Policy and Services Committee receives regular updates from Townsend Public Affairs (TPA), the City’s legislative advocates. This item is an opportunity for the Committee to learn about prominent topics and proposed legislation and provide feedback on legislative actions. The City’s advocacy program is guided by the Advocacy Process Manual1 and a set of City Council- approved Legislative Guidelines2. The guidelines provide direction to staff and Townsend Public Affairs on issues important to the City Council and other emerging legislative issues. In consultation with the Mayor and the Policy and Services Committee Chair, staff use the guidelines to respond to legislative affairs throughout the year. The guidelines allow for flexible and prompt responses to emerging issues in the fast-paced legislative environment without returning to the 1 Advocacy Process Manual: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/intergovernmental- affairs/advocacy-process-manual-2025.pdf 2 2026 Federal and State Legislative Guidelines: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/city- manager/legislation/2026-legislative-guidelines.pdf Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 5 of 84  City Council each time an issue arises. Legislative items with formal City action are posted on the Intergovernmental Affairs5 page. ANALYSIS Federal Items Issue Summary City Position Status 5 Intergovernmental Affairs: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/City-Manager/City-Policy- Initiatives/Intergovernmental-Affairs Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 6 of 84  Grass Athletic Field Pilot Program ($2.2M), Cubberley Community Center Acquisition ($2M) appropriations process progresses. State Items The table below shows bills that the City has taken a position on and bills on which staff is requesting Committee feedback. Upon receiving Committee input, staff will coordinate with relevant City departments and Townsend on position letters. Attachment B includes all bills that the City is monitoring through TPA. Issue Summary City Position Status AB 1708: Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention program AB 1708 creates a new opportunity for all cities to access the state’s flagship homelessness grant program, the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) Grant program. Support In committee: hearing postponed by committee SB 762: Transactions and Use Tax SB 762 would authorize Palo Alto, among other jurisdictions, to exceed the statewide sales and use tax rate cap subject to voter approval. If approved by voters, the tax would help fund land purchase and renovations at Cubberley Community Center and general government operations. Support Passed Senate Committees and ordered to the Assembly. AB 2576: Transit-oriented development AB 2567 would delay implementation of all SB 79 operative dates by one year. One piece of particular interest is modifications for historic exemptions. This bill would define “historic resource” to mean a historic resource listed on a local, state, or national historic register, and would remove the limitation on the exclusion of sites with a historic resource to 10% of the eligible area of a transit- oriented development zone. Support letter in progress le Re-referred to Committee on Housing and Community Development AB 1821: California Public Records Act: fees and agency response time AB 1821 would require requesters (except journalists and education or noncommercial scientific institutions) submitting a Public Records Act request exceeding 2 hours of search time or multiple requests totaling of 10 hours of Pending Committee and staff feedback. Recommend support. Re-referred to Committee on Judiciary. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 7 of 84  search time per month to pay reasonable fees to compensate for the administrative time. It also changes the required response time from 10 calendar days to 10 business days. SB 1159: Artificial Intelligence: transparency and governance This bill excludes artificial intelligence systems, autonomous agents, and bots from the definition of those who may engage with government agencies under acts like the Brown Act, Political Reform Act, and Public Records Act. Pending Committee and staff feedback. Recommend support. Set for hearing on April 6. AB 1557: Vehicles: electric bicycles This bill redefines the classification of electric bicycles and prohibits manufacturers and retailers from labeling products that don’t meet the new classifications as electric bikes and imposes fines for violators. Pending Committee and staff feedback. Recommend support Re-referred to Committee on Transportation. AB 2346: Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits This bill requires electric bikes be manufactured and sold with a speedometer and lights, requires retailers to provide disclosures at the point of sale, and imposes fines for violators. Pending Committee and staff feedback. Recommend support. Re-referred to Committee on Transportation, read second time and amended. SB 1167: Vehicles: electric bicycles This bill prohibits certain types of vehicles, like motor-driven cycles and mopeds, from being advertised and sold as electric bikes It makes violation of this provision a misleading a crime and would impose a state-mandated local program. Pending Committee and staff feedback. Recommend support. Re-referred to Committee on Transportation. AB 2517: Fire Safety: fire hazard severity zones This bill would require the State Fire Marshall to release preliminary maps of fire hazard severity zones and provide a public comment period and regional public workshops. Pending Committee and staff feedback. Recommend support. Referred to Committees on Natural Resources and Emergency Management Sb 922: Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways This bill allows local agencies to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair associated with providing public services. Pending Committee and staff feedback. Ordered to third reading. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 8 of 84  Regional Items Issue Summary City Position Status Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative This citizens’ initiative proposed for the November 3, 2026 ballot would, if approved by the voters, enact a regional sales tax to fund public transit. Support Organizers are gathering the required signatures to qualify for the ballot before the June 6, 2026 deadline. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. The City Council budgets annually for the legislative advocacy services and these efforts are led by staff in the City Clerk’s Office in close collaboration with the City Manager’s Office with stakeholder support across other City departments on key issues. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Staff from multiple departments are involved in the legislative process by helping to review the impacts of bills and discussing grant opportunities linked to state and federal programs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City’s legislative advocacy activities are not a project under section 15378(b)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: TPA State and Federal Updates Memo Attachment B: Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 9 of 84  CALIFORNIA ADVOCACY • FEDERAL ADVOCACY • GRANT WRITING Sacramento • Washington, D.C. Northern California • Central California • Southern California MEMORANDUM To: Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee CC: Ed Shikada, City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager Christine Prior, Assistant City Clerk From: Townsend Public Affairs Niccolo De Luca, Vice President Carlin Shelby, Deputy Director Joseph Melo, Federal Advocacy Manager Date: March 30, 2026 Subject: State and Federal Legislative Updates Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this report for the City of Palo Alto to provide a summary of State, Federal, and funding efforts and highlight the current status of the legislative process. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATES State Updates The Legislature has entered a critical early phase of the 2026 legislative session, with policy committees hearing a high volume of bills for the first time and beginning to shape which proposals will advance. This stage is particularly important, as bills must successfully move through their respective policy committees to remain viable. Measures with fiscal implications are required to pass policy committees and advance to fiscal committees by April 24, while non-fiscal bills must clear policy committees by May 1 to proceed to their respective house floors. Across these hearings, several key policy themes are emerging that are likely to define the direction of the session. These include efforts to strengthen e-bike safety through updated definitions, equipment standards, and youth safety requirements; proposals addressing the role of artificial intelligence in public meetings, including questions around what constitutes a “person” for purposes of participation and compliance with open meeting laws; and legislation aimed at addressing increasingly burdensome Public Records Act requests, particularly those that strain local government resources. In addition, the Legislature continues to prioritize housing market reforms focused on streamlining development, clarifying state housing law, and expanding housing production in targeted areas. Wildfire preparedness and prevention also remain a central focus, with proposals addressing mitigation, resilience, and emergency response. Energy policy discussions are expanding to include diversification of the State’s energy portfolio, including renewed consideration of nuclear energy alongside other clean energy sources. Item 1 Attachment A - TPA State and Federal Updates Memo        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 10 of 84  Page 2 A detailed summary of active legislation and recommended City positions across these issue areas is provided in the attached bill matrix. In parallel with policy committee activity, budget subcommittees in both houses continued reviewing departmental proposals tied to the Governor’s budget and the Legislature’s priorities, with discussions focused on program funding levels, effectiveness, and implementation strategies. Informational and oversight hearings have also remained part of the broader legislative workload, providing additional context on priority policy areas and emerging issues. As of March 30, the Legislature has adjourned for its spring recess, temporarily pausing committee and floor activity. Lawmakers are scheduled to reconvene on April 6, at which point legislative activity is expected to accelerate quickly as key policy and fiscal deadlines approach. State Budget Update The California Department of Finance March 2026 Finance Bulletin reflects a modest but meaningful improvement in the State’s fiscal outlook. Year-to-date General Fund revenues are tracking approximately $7 billion (5.1%) above projections, with February receipts also exceeding expectations. These gains are primarily driven by stronger-than-anticipated personal income and corporate tax revenues, signaling continued resilience in California’s core revenue streams despite broader economic moderation. At the same time, underlying economic indicators present a mixed but stable picture. Growth is slowing but remains positive, inflation continues to ease, and the labor market is showing slight softening. Housing activity remains uneven across regions, reflecting ongoing affordability challenges and higher interest rates. Collectively, these conditions suggest the State is navigating a transition from a more volatile post-pandemic revenue environment toward a steadier, though still uncertain, fiscal footing. Looking ahead, the next key milestone in the budget process is the Governor’s May Revision, which will incorporate updated revenue data and revised expenditure assumptions. This will set the framework for final negotiations leading to the constitutionally required June budget adoption deadline. Following adoption, the State will continue to refine policy and funding allocations through budget trailer bills, which are expected to move throughout the summer months and into August. Importantly, this phase of the budget process often presents strategic opportunities for local governments. As the Administration and Legislature reconcile priorities and allocate available resources, there is typically an increased emphasis on identifying projects that can be deployed quickly and deliver measurable outcomes. As such, jurisdictions should be prepared to advance well-defined, implementation-ready proposals, as earmark-style funding opportunities and targeted augmentations are most likely to emerge during the May Revision and subsequent trailer bill negotiations. SB 79 (Wiener, Statutes of 2025) Implementation and Cleanup Update Senate Bill 79 (2025) represents one of the most significant recent changes to California housing and land use law, establishing a statewide framework to promote transit-oriented housing development. The law requires that qualifying housing projects located within proximity to major transit stops be treated as an allowed use and establishes minimum standards for residential density, building height, and floor area ratio. In effect, SB 79 preempts certain locally adopted Item 1 Attachment A - TPA State and Federal Updates Memo        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 11 of 84  Page 3 zoning standards in transit-rich areas and creates state-defined development baselines intended to increase housing production in transit-accessible, high-resource communities. In Palo Alto, SB 79 applies to areas within approximately one-half mile of the University Avenue, California Avenue, and San Antonio Caltrain stations, encompassing a substantial portion of the City and extending well beyond the boundaries of existing planning efforts such as the Downtown Housing Plan. The law introduces a new set of development standards that must be evaluated in the context of existing land use patterns, parcel configurations, infrastructure capacity, and historic resources. Since the enactment of SB 79, the State has begun to address implementation questions through a combination of targeted legislation and administrative guidance. The primary legislative vehicle is AB 2576 (Harabedian), which proposes a series of technical refinements to the SB 79 framework. The bill would delay key implementation timelines by one year, providing jurisdictions with additional time to complete required analysis, adopt local ordinances, or prepare alternative plans. It also clarifies the treatment of historic resources by expanding definitions and removing constraints that currently limit the extent to which historic sites may be excluded from development capacity calculations, and adjusts applicability thresholds to better align with jurisdictional scale. In parallel, SB 1361 (Durazo) introduces a narrower policy adjustment by creating an exemption pathway for jurisdictions or agencies that have adopted policies to deliver at least 10,000 housing units, with at least half designated as income-restricted, by 2032. While this provision is unlikely to directly apply to Palo Alto, it reflects a broader legislative intent to introduce flexibility within the SB 79 framework for jurisdictions advancing large-scale housing production. Separately, the California Department of Housing and Community Development has now released initial implementation guidance in the form of a March 20, 2026 advisory to Metropolitan Planning Organizations. This guidance focuses on clarifying key statutory definitions that are central to SB 79 implementation, including what constitutes a transit-oriented development stop, how distances are measured from “pedestrian access points,” and how transit service classifications such as “high-frequency commuter rail” and qualifying bus service should be interpreted. The guidance is intended to support consistent statewide mapping of transit-oriented development zones, which will ultimately determine where SB 79 development standards apply. While this advisory does not resolve all implementation questions, it represents an important first step in providing technical clarity needed for local and regional implementation. Earlier in the legislative session, there was an expectation that broader cleanup legislation would be advanced through Senator Wiener’s SB 908 and SB 677, including provisions to clarify statutory ambiguities and address implementation timelines. Those vehicles are no longer moving forward as comprehensive fixes. Instead, the State appears to be narrowing its approach to a smaller set of targeted legislative changes, supplemented by HCD-issued guidance to address interpretive issues. Taken together, this reflects a shift in strategy from more expansive statutory changes to a combination of limited legislative refinements and administrative clarification. As of March 30, 2026, AB 2576 represents the primary legislative vehicle addressing SB 79 implementation, supplemented by SB 1361 and the recently released HCD guidance. However, given the evolving nature of the legislative process, additional changes or new proposals may still emerge as the session progresses. Item 1 Attachment A - TPA State and Federal Updates Memo        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 12 of 84  Page 4 For the City of Palo Alto, near-term implementation will be shaped by both the outcome of pending legislation and ongoing state guidance, particularly as MPO-led mapping efforts advance. FEDERAL UPDATES Congressionally Directed Spending Submittals Townsend Public Affairs worked closely with City of Palo Alto staff to develop and submit three Community Project Funding (CPF) requests to Representative Sam Liccardo’s office as part of the Fiscal Year 2027 appropriations process. The Congressman’s team is currently reviewing submitted projects and is expected to begin identifying priority requests in the near term. This marks the first step in the CPF process, after which selected projects will be advanced by the Member to the relevant House Appropriations subcommittees for further consideration. The City’s FY 2027 CPF requests include: • The Track Watch Rail Safety Program, requesting $2,000,000, would fund a one-year safety initiative placing trained monitors at Caltrain grade crossings throughout Palo Alto. The program is designed to provide a visible presence, identify potential risks, and coordinate with emergency responders, with the goal of reducing rail-related fatalities and improving safety for residents, students, and commuters along the rail corridor. • The Natural Grass Athletic Field Pilot Program, requesting $2,200,000, would support the construction of a high-performance, sand-based natural grass athletic field. The project is intended to improve durability, drainage, and playability under intensive use while allowing the City to evaluate natural turf as a potentially more sustainable alternative to synthetic fields. • The Cubberley Community Center Acquisition project, requesting $2,000,000, would support the acquisition of an additional seven acres at the Cubberley Community Center campus. This effort would consolidate public ownership of the site and enable long-term redevelopment, modernization of aging facilities, and expansion of arts, recreation, education, and community programming at a major civic and cultural hub. Townsend Public Affairs will continue to monitor developments, engage with Representative Liccardo’s office, and provide updates as project prioritization decisions are made and submissions advance to the committee stage. Federal Policy Update – FCC Wireless Siting Rulemaking and Related Legislation The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently advancing a rulemaking titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” (WT Docket No. 25-276), which is intended to evaluate and potentially revise federal standards governing wireless infrastructure siting and deployment. The proceeding has generated significant national engagement, with more than 3,000 public comments submitted during the formal comment period, which closed in mid-January 2026. A substantial number of these filings were submitted by cities, counties, and local government organizations, many of which raised concerns regarding potential federal preemption of local zoning and land use authority. Key issues identified in these comments include proposed changes Item 1 Attachment A - TPA State and Federal Updates Memo        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 13 of 84  Page 5 to shot clock timelines, expansion of “deemed granted” provisions, and limitations on local fees and permitting conditions, all of which could affect how local governments review and approve wireless infrastructure projects. At the same time, industry stakeholders and wireless deployment advocates have expressed support for the FCC’s effort, emphasizing the need for more consistent national standards to facilitate network expansion, improve connectivity, and support economic competitiveness. The FCC is currently reviewing comments, and additional clarity on the scope and timeline of potential rule changes is expected in the coming months. In parallel, there has been increased attention to federal legislation related to wireless and broadband deployment, including H.R. 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025. The bill was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in December 2025 and would establish a comprehensive federal framework governing broadband and wireless permitting across federal, state, and local levels. As currently drafted, H.R. 2289 would make several structural changes to the permitting process for telecommunications infrastructure. These include establishing federal timelines (“shot clocks”) for application review, allowing certain projects to be deemed approved if jurisdictions do not act within prescribed timeframes, and limiting the scope of environmental and historic preservation review for certain wireless facility modifications. The bill also addresses local fee structures and permitting requirements, with the stated objective of accelerating broadband deployment and reducing regulatory barriers. The legislation is part of a broader federal effort to streamline infrastructure deployment and is aligned with ongoing FCC proceedings examining similar issues related to local permitting processes and federal preemption. At this time, however, H.R. 2289 is not actively advancing toward floor consideration, and no immediate action is expected. Earlier communications circulating among local governments appear to have conflated the FCC rulemaking with this legislation, contributing to some confusion regarding the status and potential impacts of each. At present, the FCC proceeding represents the primary federal action underway, while H.R. 2289 remains a separate legislative proposal that has not progressed further in Congress. Townsend Public Affairs has submitted comments into the FCC proceeding reflecting local government perspectives and will continue to monitor both regulatory and legislative developments, providing updates as additional information becomes available. Federal Update – Department of Homeland Security Funding Status Negotiations to resolve the partial funding lapse affecting agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) remain ongoing, with limited progress following a period of heightened legislative activity. The current funding lapse began on February 14, 2026, following a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over immigration enforcement policy, particularly related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. Since that time, DHS has been partially unfunded, while most other federal agencies remain funded through the fiscal year. Item 1 Attachment A - TPA State and Federal Updates Memo        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 14 of 84  Page 6 In recent days, the Senate advanced an amended version of H.R. 7147 that would provide full- year funding through September 30, 2026, for non-immigration enforcement components of DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and certain Coast Guard civilian personnel. The proposal excluded ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Border Patrol, which previously received supplemental funding and have continued operations during the lapse. Senate Republicans indicated a willingness to support this approach, with the expectation that immigration enforcement funding would be addressed separately through a future reconciliation package. However, the Senate-passed framework has not advanced in the House. On March 27, House leadership declined to take up the Senate proposal and instead moved forward with a short-term continuing resolution that would fund all DHS components, including immigration enforcement. This divergence between the House and Senate has reinforced the central issue driving the impasse. Congressional negotiations remain focused on whether DHS funding should proceed as a unified package that includes immigration enforcement activities, or as a partial measure that excludes those components pending further policy agreement. The two chambers remain far apart on this question, and recent discussions have not resulted in a compromise framework. As of March 30, negotiations are effectively at a standstill. While there was notable legislative activity last week, no agreement has been reached, and both chambers are now in recess. Lawmakers are not expected to reconvene until mid-April, delaying further consideration of a funding resolution. Operational impacts continue across affected DHS agencies. The partial shutdown has resulted in unpaid federal workers, including TSA personnel, and has contributed to service disruptions, particularly at airports due to staffing shortages. In response, the Administration has taken interim actions, including issuing an order directing continued pay for TSA officers, though broader funding gaps remain in place for other DHS functions. Recent reporting also indicates that negotiations between congressional leaders and the Administration have occurred intermittently, but without a clear path forward. Discussions have included both legislative and administrative approaches to maintaining operations while broader policy disagreements persist. The situation remains fluid, and additional developments are expected once Congress returns from recess and negotiations resume. Item 1 Attachment A - TPA State and Federal Updates Memo        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 15 of 84  MATRIX To: Palo Alto Policy and Services Committee From: Townsend Public Affairs Date: March 30, 2026 Subject: City of Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix Energy, Utilities, and Communications AB 2619 (Papan, D) Water resources: data centers. Status: 03/09/2026 - Referred to Coms. on W., P., & W. and L. GOV. Summary: Existing law authorizes the legislative body of an incorporated city and the county board of supervisors to license businesses carried on within their respective jurisdictions and to set license fees, as specified. This bill would require a person who owns or operates a data center, prior to applying to a city or a county for an initial business license, equivalent instrument, or permit, to provide its water supplier, under penalty of perjury, an estimate of the expected water use, the anticipated source of water, and the data center’s projected water use volume for the maximum day, maximum month, and average year. When applying to a city or county for an initial business license, the bill would require a person who owns or operates a data center to report, under penalty of perjury, on the application, an estimate of the expected water use, the anticipated source of water, and the data center’s projected water use volume for the maximum day, maximum month, and average year. When applying to a city or county for a renewal of a business license, equivalent instrument, or permit, the bill would require a person who owns or operates a data center to report, under penalty of perjury, on the application, the data center’s annual water use for the preceding calendar year, including total water use, direct water use, and indirect water use, as prescribed. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would define terms for purposes of these provisions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 02/20/2026 text) AB 2647 (Calderon, D) Energy: nuclear facilities: advanced nuclear reactors. Status: 03/16/2026 - Referred to Coms. on NAT. RES. and U. & E. Summary: Existing law prohibits the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) from certifying a nuclear fission thermal powerplant, except for specified powerplants, and provides that a nuclear fission thermal powerplant, except those specified powerplants, is not a permitted land use in California unless certain conditions are met regarding the existence of technology for the construction and operation of nuclear fuel rod processing plants and of demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste, as specified. This bill would exempt advanced nuclear reactors, as defined, from that prohibition. (Based on 02/20/2026 text) Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 16 of 84  SB 222 (Wiener, D) Residential heat pump systems: water heaters and HVAC: installations. Status: 01/26/2026 - Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 8.) Ordered to the Assembly. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. Summary: Existing law establishes the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and prescribes the authorities, duties, and responsibilities of the commission pertaining to energy matters. Existing law requires the commission, on or before January 1, 2019, in consultation with the Contractors State License Board, local building officials, and other stakeholders, to approve a plan that promotes compliance with specified regulations relating to building energy efficiency standards in the installation of central air-conditioning and heat pumps, as specified. Existing law authorizes the commission to adopt regulations to increase compliance with permitting and inspection requirements for central air-conditioning and heat pumps, and associated sales and installations, consistent with the above-described plan. The bill would require a city, county, or city and county, beginning July 1, 2027, to adopt and offer asynchronous inspections for installations of residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC systems, as defined, that do not require a licensed contractor and building inspector to be simultaneously present during the inspection. The bill would authorize a building inspector to contact the licensed contractor who performed the installation by telephone call or real-time video conferencing during their inspection, and, if the building inspector determines during an asynchronous inspection that there is an issue with an installation of the heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system and that the licensed contractor who performed the installation must be present to perform tests or cure the installation, to require the licensed contractor who performed the installation to schedule an additional inspection in which the building inspector and the licensed contractor who performed the installation are required to be simultaneously present during the additional inspection. The bill would specify that these provisions do not require a local entity described above to discontinue offering inspections for the installation of a residential heat pump water heater or heat pump HVAC system where in a building inspector and licensed contractor who performed the installation are simultaneously present. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 01/15/2026 text) SB 1168 (McNerney, D) Data centers: natural gas and electricity: surcharges. Status: 02/26/2026 - Referred to Coms. on E., U & C. and REV. & TAX. Summary: Existing law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory authority over public utilities, including gas corporations and electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities are under the direction of their governing boards. Existing law establishes a surcharge on all natural gas consumed in the state to fund certain low-income assistance programs, cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation activities, and public interest research and development. Under existing law, the surcharge is in addition to any other charges for natural gas sold or transported for consumption, as defined, in this state. Existing law exempts from the surcharge gas customers within the service territories of municipalities, districts, or public agencies that offer specified services or programs, as specified. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act, or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC, is a crime. The Energy Resources Surcharge Law imposes a surcharge on consumers for the consumption of electricity purchased from an electric utility, which includes an electrical corporation and local publicly owned electric utility, at a rate annually fixed by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission), not to exceed a surcharge rate cap of $0.0003 per kilowatthour. Existing law requires electric utilities to collect the surcharge from consumers, and requires electric utilities, and any consumers who have not had the surcharge collected by an electric utility, to file a return with specified information. Under existing law, a violation of the Energy Resources Surcharge Law is a crime. This bill would impose surcharges, on and after January 1, 2027, on natural gas consumed by a data center, as defined, or a person that consumes natural gas to produce electricity primarily for a data center, at an unspecified rate, and on electricity consumed by a data center that is purchased from an electric utility, which includes an electrical corporation and local publicly owned electric utility, at an unspecified rate. The bill would specify that the Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 17 of 84  above-described surcharges apply to persons that meet specified criteria, including, among other things, that during any single month beginning January 1, 2027, the person purchased natural gas from a gas corporation, or electricity from an electric utility, that was wholly or partially consumed by a data center. The bill would require a gas corporation and electric utility to collect the applicable surcharge from each data center, except as provided. The bill would authorize a person to apply to a gas corporation or electric utility, as applicable, for an exemption from a surcharge, as specified. (Based on 02/18/2026 text) SB 1313 (McNerney, D) Public water systems: grants and loans: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Status: 03/16/2026 - Set for hearing April 22. Summary: The California Safe Drinking Water Act provides for the operation of public water systems and imposes on the State Water Resources Control Board various duties and responsibilities for the regulation and control of drinking water in the state. This bill would authorize the state board to fund projects, upon the appropriation of funds by the Legislature, through grants or loans to public water systems to address perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water or source water. The bill would prescribe sources from which those funds may originate and permissible activities for those projects. The bill would authorize the state board to implement the bill through a policy handbook or workplan exempt from the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill contains other existing laws. (Based on 02/20/2026 text) Governance and Transparency AB 1821 (Pacheco, D) California Public Records Act: fees and agency response time. Status: 03/17/2026 - Re-referred to Com. on JUD. Summary: Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law. This bill would require, if a single request exceeds 2 hours of search time, or if the total requests by a requestor exceed 10 hours of search time in one month, the requestor to also submit to the agency a payment of fees in an amount determined by the agency as reasonable to compensate the agency for the administrative time of completing the requests. The bill would exempt from that requirement a journalist, a newspaper, and an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, as specified. The bill would define “search” for purposes of that requirement to mean to review, either manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose of locating those records that are responsive to a request. (Based on 03/16/2026 text) Position: Recommend Support AB 2134 (Addis, D) City council members: absences without permission. Status: 03/17/2026 - Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. Summary: Existing law provides that if a city council member is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for a specified number of days from the last regular meeting they attended, their office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy. This bill would prohibit a city from refusing permission for a council member to take absences for parental leave and would exclude parental Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 18 of 84  leave from counting toward the number of allowed absences allotted to each council member. The bill would prohibit a city from requiring a council member to request approval for their parental leave at a public hearing. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 03/16/2026 text) SB 1159 (Cabaldon, D) Artificial intelligence: transparency and governance. Status: 03/27/2026 - Set for hearing April 6. Summary: The California Constitution provides that people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business. Various provisions of existing law, including the California Public Records Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and the Ralph M. Brown Act, provide, with some exceptions, for public access to government records and meetings of government bodies. Among those acts, the California Public Records Act defines “person” to include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association. Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, imposes various requirements and limitations with respect to the conduct of public officials, campaign expenditures and disclosures, political advertisements, lobbying, the ballot pamphlet, and other aspects of political reform. The act defines “person” to mean an individual, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company, corporation, limited liability company, association, committee, and any other organization or group of persons acting in concert. Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, governs, among other things, the procedures for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulations by state agencies and for the review of those regulatory actions by the Office of Administrative Law. This bill would specify that, for purposes of the California Public Records Act, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974, the Administrative Procedure Act, and CEQA, “person,” “interested person,” “participant,” “member of the public,” as applicable, and any other similar terms under each act referring to those who may engage with governmental agencies, do not include artificial intelligence, as defined, systems, autonomous agents, robots, or other nonhuman entities, whether physical or digital. The bill would make findings and declarations related to these provisions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 03/25/2026 text) Position: Recommend Support Homelessness AB 1708 (Solache, D) Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention program: round 7. Status: 03/16/2026 - In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. Summary: Existing law establishes the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) program for the purpose of providing jurisdictions with grant funds to support regional coordination and expand or develop local capacity to address their immediate homelessness challenges, as specified. Existing law provides for the allocation of funding under the program among continuums of care, cities, counties, and tribes in 6 rounds, with rounds 1 to 5, inclusive, administered by the Interagency Council on Homelessness and round 6 administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development, as provided. Existing law establishes round 7 of the program and states the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation that specifies the parameters, as specified. Existing law, effective July 1, 2026, appropriates $500,000,000, as specified, provided that these funds be disbursed in accordance with specified requirements, including that funds from this appropriation be disbursed to a city, county, tribe, or continuum of care for round 7 of the program after a declaration by the director of the department, in consultation with the Director of Finance, that the department has substantially completed its initial disbursement of round 6 funds to the city, county, tribe, or continuum of care and that the city, county, tribe, or continuum of care has obligated at least 50% of its total round 6 award. Existing law requires the department, during the 2025–26 fiscal year, to prepare to administer round 7 of the program with the goal that initial round 7 disbursements will be available to grantees meeting the statutory provisions for Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 19 of 84  disbursement beginning September 1, 2026, as specified. This bill would require a continuum of care receiving funding pursuant to round 7, as described above, to allocate funds to a smaller jurisdiction, defined as a city with a population under 300,000. The bill would require a smaller jurisdiction, in order to be eligible for funding, to, among other things, adopt a resolution, as specified, have a compliant housing element, and have adopted a local encampment policy, as described. The bill would require a continuum of care to accept applications for funding in accordance with specified procedures. (Based on 02/04/2026 text) Position: Support Housing and Land Use AB 1738 (Carrillo, D) State Housing Law: remote inspections. Status: 03/26/2026 - Read second time and amended. Summary: Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the State Building Standards Code, and other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes an officer, employee, or agent of an enforcement agency to enter and inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of the State Housing Law, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the State Housing Law. Existing law provides certain immunities to a public entity or employee immunity relative to an inspection or license, as provided. This bill would require a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county to offer a homeowner or contractor the option of requesting remote inspections for all or a subset of an inspection required by a building permit for specified works in one- or 2-family dwelling units, by July 1, 2027, as provided. The bill would apply the above-described immunities to remote inspections. The bill would authorize these local agencies, at their discretion, to set up a process to perform onsite audits to confirm that a homeowner or contractor accurately represented the work subject to the remote inspection and to temporarily ban the homeowner or contractor from using the remote inspection if the homeowner is found to have willfully misrepresented the work, as provided. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 03/26/2026 text) AB 1751 (Quirk-Silva, D) Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act. Status: 02/23/2026 - Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV. Summary: Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, contains various provisions requiring a local government that receives an application for certain types of qualified housing developments to review the application under a streamlined, ministerial approval process depending on the type of housing development, as specified. Existing law, the Subdivision Map Act, vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification thereof. The act generally requires a subdivider to file a tentative map or vesting tentative map with the local agency, as specified, and the local agency, in turn, to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map within a specified time period. Existing law, known as the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021, among other things, requires a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets certain requirements, including that the housing development project on the lot proposed to be subdivided will contain 10 or fewer residential Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 20 of 84  units, except as provided. This bill, the Missing Middle Townhome Ownership Act, would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a townhome housing development project that is subject to a prescribed ministerial approval process if the development complies with certain procedural requirements and satisfies specified objective planning standards. The bill would also require a local agency to ministerially consider, without discretionary review or a hearing, a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a townhome development project that meets all of specified requirements, including that the proposed subdivision will result in parcels and residential units that will meet prescribed densities and that the newly created parcels are no smaller than 600 square feet. The act would define “townhome” for these purposes to mean a single-family dwelling unit that is less than or equal to 3 stories of occupiable square footage and shares a common wall, as specified, or is separated from one or more neighboring units by an air gap, and would define “townhome development project” to mean a housing development project consisting entirely of residential dwelling units that satisfy this definition of townhome. The bill would authorize a local agency to disapprove a townhome housing development project, or deny the issuance of a parcel map, a tentative map, or a final map for a townhome development project, allowed under the bill’s provisions if it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed townhome housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as provided in specified law, upon public health and safety and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. The bill would authorize a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement its provisions and would provide that the adoption of such an ordinance is not a project under CEQA. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 02/09/2026 text) AB 1997 (Lee, D) Land use: housing development approvals: timelines and processes. Status: 03/09/2026 - Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and H. & C.D. Summary: Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act (act), among other things, when a housing development project, as defined, that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove that development, or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specified conditions exist. That act, however, sets forth certain limitations with respect to its requirements, including providing that the act does not prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. The act provides for enforcement of its provisions by an enforcement action brought by the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development, or a housing organization, as provided. This bill would, under the act, prohibit a plan, entitlement, or permit that has been approved by a previous local utility or agency from being overturned or revised by a subsequent utility or agency, unless the development proponent makes a material change to the project, as described. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 02/17/2026 text) AB 2139 (Garcia, D) Surplus lands: economic opportunities. Status: 03/09/2026 - Referred to Com. on L. GOV. Summary: Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency, including sending a written notice of the availability of the property before disposal of that property or participating in negotiations to dispose of that property with a prospective transferee, as specified. Existing law specifies that certain disposals of land are not subject to these provisions, including, disposal of land by a city with a population exceeding 2,500,000 for certain purposes, as specified. Existing law Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 21 of 84  authorizes a city, county, or city and county, with the approval of its legislative body by resolution after a public hearing, to acquire, sell, or lease property in furtherance of the creation of an economic opportunity, as defined. This bill would exempt from the requirements for the disposal of surplus property the disposal of real property acquired by a local agency on or after, January 1, 2029, for the purpose of creating an economic opportunity, when the local agency adopts a specified resolution that includes plans for anticipated improvement and future use of the property and disposes of the property to a public or private entity consistent with the planned used identified in the resolution. (Based on 02/18/2026 text) AB 2576 (Harabedian, D) Transit-oriented development. Status: 03/23/2026 - Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D. Summary: Existing law provides that a housing development project shall be an allowed use as a transit- oriented housing development if specified conditions and requirements are met, including certain requirements pertaining to cities with a population of at least 35,000. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes. Existing law provides that these provisions do not apply to a local agency until January 1, 2026, unless the local agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan, as defined, deemed compliant by the Department of Housing and Community Development before July 1, 2027. Existing law specifies that, beginning on January 1, 2027, a local government that denies a housing development project meeting the requirements referenced above that is located in a high-resource area is presumed to be in violation of specified law and immediately liable for specified penalties. This bill would delay each of those dates, and certain related dates, by one year. The bill would also increase the population threshold for certain requirements to apply to cities, as described above, from 35,000 to 40,000. (Based on 03/19/2026 text) Position: Support SB 417 (Cabaldon, D) The Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. Status: 01/27/2026 - Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 30. Noes 9.) Ordered to the Assembly. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. Summary: Under existing law, there are programs providing assistance for, among other things, emergency housing, multifamily housing, farmworker housing, home ownership for very low and low- income households, and downpayment assistance for first-time home buyers. Existing law also authorizes the issuance of bonds in specified amounts pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law and requires that proceeds from the sale of these bonds be used to finance various existing housing programs, capital outlay related to infill development, brownfield cleanup that promotes infill development, and housing-related parks. This bill would enact the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which, if adopted, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. Proceeds from the sale of these bonds would be used to finance programs to fund affordable rental housing and home ownership programs, including, among others, the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program. This bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election, in accordance with specified law. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. (Based on 01/22/2026 text) Position: Support if Amended Labor Relations AB 1383 (McKinnor, D) Public employees’ retirement benefits: safety members. Status: 01/29/2026 - Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 70. Noes 2.) In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 22 of 84  Summary: The Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL) establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to provide a defined benefit to members of the system based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. Existing law creates the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund, which is continuously appropriated for purposes of PERS, including depositing employer and employee contributions. Under the California Constitution, assets of a public pension or retirement system are trust funds. The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) establishes a variety of requirements and restrictions on public employers offering defined benefit pension plans. In this regard, PEPRA restricts the amount of compensation that may be applied for purposes of calculating a defined pension benefit for a new member, as defined, by restricting it to specified percentages of the contribution and benefit base under a specified federal law with respect to old age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits. Existing law, the Teachers’ Retirement Law, establishes the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS) and creates the Defined Benefit Program of the State Teachers’ Retirement Plan, which provides a defined benefit to members of the program, based on final compensation, creditable service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. This bill, on and after January 1, 2027, would require a retirement system subject to PEPRA to adjust pensionable compensation limits to be consistent with specified percentages of the contribution and benefit base under the specified federal law with respect to old age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits. The bill would require a new member of STRS to be subject to specified limits of the Teachers’ Retirement Law. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 01/22/2026 text) Public Safety AB 1557 (Papan, D) Vehicles: electric bicycles. Status: 03/17/2026 - Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. Summary: Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power. Existing law classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions. Existing law defines a “class 1 electric bicycle” as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Existing defines a “class 2 electric bicycle” as a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Existing law defines a “class 3 electric bicycle” as a bicycle equipped with a speedometer and a motor that, in pertinent part, provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would instead define a class 1 electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, that is not capable of exclusively propelling the bicycle, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 16 miles per hour. The bill would define a class 2 electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 16 miles per hour. The bill would provide that, notwithstanding these definitions, an electric bicycle manufactured prior to January 1, 2027, that was equipped with a motor that is not capable of exceeding 750 watts of peak power and otherwise met the legal requirements for the relevant class at the time of manufacture shall retain its classification. The bill would prohibit a manufacturer from equipping, and a retailer from offering for sale or advertising, any device labeled as an electric bicycle with a motor that is capable of exceeding 750 watts of peak power. The bill would also prohibit a manufacturer from equipping, and a retailer from offering for sale or advertising, any device labeled as a class 1 or class 2 electric bicycle with a motor that is capable of exceeding 250 watts of continuous power or that is capable of providing assistance to reach speeds greater than 16 miles per hour. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $15,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $50,000 for each subsequent Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 23 of 84  violation, upon an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would specify that a violation of this provision is not a criminal offense. (Based on 03/16/2026 text) Position: Recommend Support AB 1614 (Dixon, R) Vehicles: bicycles. Status: 02/02/2026 - Referred to Com. on TRANS. Summary: Existing law, the California Bicycle Transportation Act, establishes 4 classifications of facilities, referred to as bikeways, that provide primarily for, and promote, bicycle travel. Existing law requires a person operating a bicycle, which includes an electric bicycle, upon a highway to ride the bicycle upon or astride a permanent and regular seat unless the bicycle was designed by the manufacturer to be ridden without a seat. Existing law requires a person riding as a passenger on a bicycle upon a highway to be upon or astride a seat attached to the bicycle, as specified. A violation of these provisions in punishable as an infraction. This bill would make those provisions applicable to the operation of a bicycle upon a Class I bikeway. By expanding an existing infraction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 01/21/2026 text) AB 2284 (Dixon, R) Vehicles: electric bicycles. Status: 03/17/2026 - Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. Summary: Under existing law, the Department of the California Highway Patrol is responsible for enforcement of all laws regulating the operation of vehicles and use of the highways, as specified. Existing law requires the department to develop, on or before September 1, 2023, statewide safety and training programs based on evidence-based practices for users of electric bicycles, as defined, including, but not limited to, general electric bicycle riding safety, emergency maneuver skills, rules of the road, and laws pertaining to electric bicycles. This bill would require, on or before June 1, 2027, the department, in partnership with biking nonprofit groups, to compile a list of electric two-wheeled devices that do not comply with the definition of any single class of electric bicycles and that are labeled, advertised, or commonly perceived by riders or peace officers as electric bicycles or electric bicycle products. The bill would require the department to make the list available on its internet website and to update the list and internet website, when necessary. (Based on 03/16/2026 text) AB 2346 (Wilson, D) Vehicles: electric bicycles and speed limits. Status: 03/26/2026 - From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. Summary: Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts, and classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions for various purposes. This bill would require all class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029, to be equipped with a speedometer. The bill would also require all electric bicycles manufactured, sold, or offered for sale on or after January 1, 2029, to be equipped with an integrated front lamp and a rear lamp, as specified. The bill would also require manufacturers and distributors of electric bicycles to include a written description of California’s electric bicycle laws with the bicycle’s packaging to be provided to the consumer. The bill would also require sellers and distributors of electric bicycles to provide specified disclosures at or before the point of sale. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a civil penalty not to exceed $15,000 for a first violation and not to exceed $50,000 for each subsequent violation, upon an action Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 24 of 84  brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney. The bill would specify that a violation of these provisions is not a criminal offense. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 03/26/2026 text) Position: Recommend Support AB 2517 (Calderon, D) Fire safety: fire hazard severity zones. Status: 03/09/2026 - Referred to Coms. on NAT. RES. and E.M. Summary: Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state that are not state responsibility areas, commonly known as local responsibility areas, as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal to periodically review and make recommendations relative to very high fire hazard severity zones within local responsibility areas. Under existing law, this review is required to coincide with review of state responsibility area lands every 5 years and, when possible, fall within the timeframes for each county’s general plan update. Existing law requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction within 120 days of receiving the recommendations from the State Fire Marshal. Existing law authorizes a local agency to, at its discretion, include areas within its jurisdiction not identified as very high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal as very high fire hazard severity zones and areas not identified as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones by the State Fire Marshal as moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. Under existing law, a local agency is required to transmit a copy of an adopted ordinance to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption. Existing law provides that changes made by a local agency to the recommendations made by the State Fire Marshal are final. This bill would require the State Fire Marshal to, no fewer than 180 days before finalizing the designation of local responsibility areas as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones, post specified information on its public internet website, conduct regional public workshops to receive oral public comments and consider those comments, host a 30-day public comment period to receive written comments from interested stakeholders and respond to all written comments by local agencies within 30 days of the end of the public comment period, and coordinate with other state agencies to help educate the public during the public workshops, as specified. The bill would also require, on or before January 1, 2030, and every 5 years thereafter, the State Fire Marshal to review the local responsibility area lands designated as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones and to recommend changes. The bill would no longer require this review to, when possible, fall within the timeframes for each county’s general plan update. (Based on 02/20/2026 text) Position: Recommend Support SB 1167 (Blakespear, D) Vehicles: electric bicycles. Status: 03/26/2026 - From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re- referred to Com. on TRANS. Summary: Existing law defines an electric bicycle as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts of power. Existing law classifies electric bicycles into 3 classes with different restrictions for various purposes, and requires, among other things, a class 3 electric bicycle to be equipped with a speedometer. Existing law prohibits certain vehicles that do not meet the definition of an electric bicycle from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as an electric bicycle, as specified. A violation of the Vehicle Code is a crime. This bill would amend the type of vehicles that are prohibited from being advertised, sold, offered for sale, or labeled as electric bicycles, including, among others, motor-driven cycles and mopeds. The bill would additionally make a violation of this provision a misleading statement for purposes of unfair competition and false advertising provisions of the Business and Professions Code. By creating new crimes related to the advertisement, sale, offer, and labeling of electric bicycles, and by expanding the application of an existing crime, this bill would Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 25 of 84  impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 03/26/2026 text) Position: Recommend Support SB 1218 (Arreguín, D) Refusal of registration: illegal dumping violation penalties. Status: 03/26/2026 - Set for hearing April 14. Summary: Existing law requires, except as specified, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle upon various grounds, including if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of a delinquent parking violation relating to standing or parking, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid parking penalties, and the owner or lessee has not paid the parking penalties. Existing law makes it unlawful and punishable as an infraction for a person to dump or caused to be dumped waste matter upon a public or private highway or road, upon private property without the consent of the owner, or in or upon a public park or other public property, as specified. Existing law also makes it unlawful and punishable as a misdemeanor for a person to place, deposit, or dump, or cause to be placed, deposited, or dumped, waste matter in commercial quantities, as specified. This bill would similarly require the DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent illegal dumping violation. (Based on 02/19/2026 text) SB 1292 (Richardson, D) Enhanced curb management system. Status: 03/26/2026 - Set for hearing April 14. Summary: Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2030, a local agency, as defined, to install automated forward facing parking control devices on city-owned or district-owned parking enforcement vehicles for the purpose of taking photographs of parking violations occurring in bicycle lanes. Existing law requires a designated employee of a city, county, city and county, or a contracted law enforcement agency for a special transit district, who is qualified by the city and county or the district to issue parking citations, to review photographs for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation occurred in a bicycle lane and to issue a notice of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle within 15 calendar days, as specified. Existing law requires these photographic records to be confidential and makes these records available only to public agencies to enforce parking violations. Existing law requires any local agency that implements this pilot program to report to specified committees of the Legislature on the system’s effectiveness and impact on traffic outcomes, among other things, by December 31, 2028. This bill would authorize a local agency, as defined, to establish an enhanced curb management system (system) that records images of vehicles for the purpose of enforcing parking violations or automating parking payments if certain requirements are met. The bill would require the governing body of the local agency to adopt a public ordinance or resolution that would authorize the use of a system in specified locations, including, among others, passenger loading zones and commercial loading zones. The bill would require a local agency that automates parking payments by charging vehicles a fee for access to outline the fee, and any adjusted rates, in an ordinance or resolution. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 02/20/2026 text) SB 1314 (Menjivar, D) Smoke shops: locations, hours of operation, and sale of nitrous oxide. Status: 03/25/2026 - Set for hearing April 8. Summary: The Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act requires the State Department of Public Health to establish and develop a program to reduce the availability of tobacco products to persons under 21 years of age through specified enforcement activities. In addition to the primary Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 26 of 84  enforcement responsibility assumed by the department, existing law authorizes other state and local governmental agencies to conduct inspections and assess penalties for violations of the act, as specified, and encourages state and local enforcement agencies to share the results of inspections and coordinate with the department when enforcing the act. In this regard, existing law authorizes an enforcing agency to assess specified civil penalties against any person, firm, or corporation that sells, gives, or in any way furnishes to another person who is under 21 years of age any tobacco, cigarettes, or cigarette papers. Existing law, upon the assessment of a civil penalty for the 3rd, 4th, or 5th violation, requires the department to notify the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), and requires the CDTFA to assess civil penalties and suspend or revoke a license issued under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Licensing Act of 2003. This bill, effective January 1, 2028, would prohibit the retail location for a smoke shop, as defined, from being located within a 600-foot radius of a school or a day care center in existence at the time the retail license is issued, unless the local jurisdiction specifies a different radius. The bill would prohibit a smoke shop from engaging in the retail sale of tobacco products directly to the public between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health or the CDTFA to establish regulations relating to the operation of smoke shops, including the creation of a separate license category with administrative processes and separate fee rates. The bill would also prohibit a smoke shop from possessing, storing, owning, or selling nitrous oxide or paraphernalia relating to the consumption of nitrous oxide. The bill would authorize an enforcement agency to assess civil penalties for a violation of those provisions. The bill would authorize the CDTFA to then assess a civil penalty and suspend or revoke a license for a violation of those provisions. The bill would define various terms relating to the bill’s provisions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. (Based on 02/20/2026 text) Revenue and Taxation AB 2180 (Ward, D) Local government: Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act: proportional cost of service. Status: 03/26/2026 - Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Summary: The California Constitution specifies various requirements with respect to the levying of assessments and property-related fees and charges by a local agency. As part of those requirements, the California Constitution mandates that such fees or charges that are extended, imposed, or increased satisfy certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the amount of the fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. Existing law, known as the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (act), prescribes specific procedures and parameters for local jurisdictions to comply with these requirements and, among other things, authorizes an agency providing water, wastewater, sewer, or refuse collection services to adopt a schedule of fees or charges authorizing automatic adjustments that pass through increases in wholesale charges for water, sewage treatment, or wastewater treatment or adjustments for inflation under certain circumstances. This bill would authorize a local government to demonstrate the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel by any method that reasonably allocates the ascertainable cost of providing service to all parcels, if substantiated as provided. The bill would, however, provide that for water or sewer service fee or charge impositions, a local government is not required to provide an exact measure of the cost of the service at each parcel and may instead impose uniform or tiered rates to parcel or customer classes that are defined based on common characteristics indicative of likely water or sewer use. The bill would provide that the proportional cost of service within each tier of water service may be substantiated by using any reasonable basis for allocating costs attributed to the tier, as described, and would provide a local government discretion to determine the costs allocated to each tier as long as the rate for each tier does not exceed the proportional cost of service reasonably allocated to parcels subject to (Based on 03/11/2026 text) SB 762 (Arreguín, D) Transactions and use tax: City of Hercules. Status: 01/27/2026 - Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 10.) Ordered to the Assembly. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 27 of 84  Summary: Existing law authorizes cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law, including a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the jurisdiction not exceed 2%. This bill would authorize the City of Hercules to impose a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, at a rate of no more than 1%, that, in combination with other transactions and use taxes, would exceed the above-described combined rate limit of 2%, if certain requirements are met. The bill would provide that a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to the bill will not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit described above. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Hercules. (Based on 01/05/2026 text) Position: Pending Support for City’s inclusion SB 922 (Laird, D) Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways. Status: 03/19/2026 - Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Summary: Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the privilege of using its streets or highways, other than a permit fee for an extralegal load unless the local agency had imposed the fee prior to June 1, 1989. This bill would expressly limit this prohibition to charges based on weight. The bill would also explicitly state that a fee, charge, or surcharge imposed by or for a local agency to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair and other costs associated with the use of its streets, roads, or highways to provide public services or public works is not a tax, permit fee, or other charge that is prohibited by the provision above. The bill would provide that nothing in the Vehicle Code prohibits a local agency from imposing or collecting this fee, charge, or surcharge. The bill would delete obsolete references and make other technical changes. (Based on 03/11/2026 text) Position: Recommend Support Item 1 Attachment B - Palo Alto Priority Bill Matrix        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 28 of 84  8 1 5 9 Policy & Services Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Auditor Meeting Date: April 14, 2026 Report #:2509-5177 TITLE Office of the City Auditor Presentation of the City of Palo Alto Utility Reserves Advisory Report. CEQA Status: Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION The Office of the City Auditor recommends the Policy & Services Committee accept the results of the City of Palo Alto Utility Reserves Advisory Report. BACKGROUND Baker Tilly Advisory, in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor (OCA), performed a citywide risk assessment that evaluated a wide range of risk areas, including strategic, financial, operational, compliance, technological, and reputational risks. The purpose of the assessment was to identify and prioritize risks to develop the annual audit plan. The annual audit plan includes both traditional audits and advisory projects to provide information for the City to improve processes and outcomes. During the FY 2025 risk assessment, the OCA identified Utility reserves as a potential area of risk and was asked to include this as a non-audit advisory project in FY 2026 Audit Plan. ANALYSIS The objective of the Utility Reserves Advisory Project was to assess and benchmark the City’s current utilities reserves and identify best practices related to reserve policies, structures, and levels. The City’s utility reserve funds play a critical role in maintaining financial stability, supporting emergency response, and funding long-term capital needs. Our assessment noted that some reserve policies – particularly for the Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, and Stormwater utilities – are outdated and not fully aligned with more recently updated policies across other utilities. In addition, we noted that the current structure includes multiple reserve funds with varying guideline levels which can be administratively complex, requiring staff to track multiple reserve funds against minimum, target, and maximum levels. In a few cases, such as the Electric Special Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 29 of 84  8 1 5 9 Projects Reserve, additional clarification on the purpose of the reserve could further improve understanding, consistency and minimize the potential for overlap. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 30 of 84  8 1 5 9 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 2 Item 2 Staff Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 31 of 84  City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor City of Palo Alto Utility Reserves Advisory Report March 27, 2026 Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 32 of 84  Contents network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................ 1 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS ............................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................................... 7 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................... 7 SCOPE AND PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................... 7 DETAILED ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 8 Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 33 of 84  Executive Summary Purpose of the Assessment Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP (Baker Tilly), in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) for the City of Palo Alto (the City or Palo Alto), conducted a City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Advisory Project based on approved Task Order 4.38 as part of the City’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Audit Plan. The purpose of this project was to assess CPAU's Reserve policies and benchmark them against peer agencies. Report Highlights Overview of Current Reserves: (Page 9) Consistency w/ Regulatory Reserve Margin Requirements: (Page 16) Utility reserve funds provide a safety net for municipal utilities and can help agencies stabilize rates, respond to emergencies and plan for capital improvements, while ensuring the utility remains credit worthy and financially healthy. • Current reserve policies contain multiple prescribed transfer rules that require the tracking of reserve funds to minimum, target, and maximum levels resulting in significant administrative burden. • Reserve funds and policies for the Wastewater Treatment Utility, Refuse Utility, and Stormwater Utility date back to the early 1990s and are no longer aligned with other utilities reserve policies which were updated in June 16, 2025. The Electric Special Projects Reserve appears to serve similar purposes with the CIP Reserves. As such, additional clarity on the intended use of these funds may be necessary. Consistency with Regulatory Reserve Margin Requirements Policies The City’s bond covenants contain specific reserve requirements for the outstanding Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A (2009 Bonds) and the Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2011 Series A (2011 Bonds)(collectively, Utility Bonds). Relevant cash reserve credit rating targets from S&P and Moody’s are also discussed in this section of the report. • Both the Rate Covenant and Available Reserves Covenants are monitored and tracked by the Administrative Services Department. Current utility reserve policies do not specifically address the Rate Covenants or Available Reserve Covenants made by the City in the official statements and legal documents for the outstanding 2009 and 2011 bonds. According to the latest Ratings Affirmation from S&P on the outstanding 2011 and 2009 bonds, Palo Alto is in compliance with the Rate and Available Reserves Covenants. The City could consider referencing these documents in its reserve policies. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 34 of 84  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Operational / Industry Best Practices: (Page 20) • When determining credit ratings, rating agencies ultimately rate a utility based on a holistic financial profile. Rating agencies outline cash reserve targets as a guideline and is one of the many differing levels of creditworthiness. While the current reserve policies do not include cash reserve targets that correspond to the amounts laid out in credit agency rating guidelines, an important factor to consider is maintaining sufficient cash reserves to maintain credit ratings for the City’s utilities. • The outstanding 2009 and 2011 Bonds contain an overly burdensome reserve requirement covenant that is not a market standard, particularly for high-grade utility credits. The reserve requirement for the 2009 and 2011 Bonds require that the Electric Fund, the Gas Fund, and the Water Fund be combined for an Available Reserves Test. With future issuances, City Utilities can remove this Available Reserves Test form its covenants. The 2011 Bonds mature in June 2026. Refunding the 2009 Bonds is being evaluated by the City. Once both Utility Bonds are defeased, City Utilities will no longer have to consider compliance to the Available Reserves Test separate from its reserve policies. Operational / Industry Best Practices This section of the report includes information on common best practices for operational reserves and capital improvement reserves from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and best practices that Baker Tilly employs when working with Utility clients. • Current operations reserve fund policies are in alignment with the GFOA’s recommendations for operating reserves, however, the Wastewater Treatment Utility, Refuse Utility and Stormwater Utility do not currently have operations reserve funds. Wastewater Treatment Utility is currently working with a consultant to review their reserves. • Current reserve policies for the City’s CIP reserve funds specify a maximum reserve guideline level that is equivalent to one-year of average capital improvements. In Baker Tilly’s experience, one-year of average capital improvements is the amount most frequently used as a target level of reserves in a CIP reserve fund. We consider this a best practice as setting aside one-year worth of capital improvement expenditures allows for the ongoing replacement of necessary infrastructure. It should be noted that when determining the one-year average capital improvement amount, Baker Tilly recommends that reappropriations and commitments (and the funds set aside for them) should not be considered. • While Baker Tilly considers one-year of average capital improvements a best practice CIP reserve level, GFOA recommends that capital reserve level development should be designed to best serve the particular needs Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 35 of 84  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Benchmarked Comparables: (Page 22) recommendation could be considered. Alternatively, another approach to determining a CIP reserve fund guideline level could be to maintain one- year or a percentage of one-year of depreciation expense in reserve balances. • The current CIP reserve fund policy does not make a distinction between budgeted CIP expenses to be funded by cash or CIP expenses to be funded by Bonds or other funding sources. The best practice for this reserve policy would be to separate those two types of CIP expenses, and craft reserve guideline levels based on CIP expenses to be funded by cash. This ensures that reserve fund amounts in a given year are not artificially inflated due to large projects that will be funded through other funding sources. Local Economy Specific Reserves Through Benchmarking Comparables This assessment benchmarked reserve policies from the Roseville, Santa Clara, Healdsburg and Pasadena cities, as well as, San Jose Energy CCA (collectively, the “benchmarked communities”) and compares their policies to CPAU’s reserve policies. • Rate stabilization reserve funds for the City’s Electric, Water, and Wastewater Collection Utilities do not contain formally established guideline reserve levels while most benchmarked communities specify varying target levels. • Operation and maintenance reserve funds for the City’s Electric, Water, and Wastewater Collection Utilities have more prescriptive guidelines reserve levels through the establishment of minimum, target, and maximum guideline levels compared to the benchmarked communities. The benchmark communities, with just one exception used only minimum guideline levels for the operation and maintenance reserve funds. The minimum guideline levels were most typically based on a specified amount of days operating expenses. • Note that when analyzing operating reserves vs. rate stabilization reserves, Baker Tilly specifically compared Palo Alto’s rate stabilization reserve fund policies to only rate stabilization reserve fund policies for the Benchmark Communities, and Palo Alto’s operation reserve fund policies to operation reserve fund policies for the Benchmark Communities. • The Benchmark Communities typically have some or all of the three commonly established reserve funds that Palo Alto Utilities with updated reserve policies have, which are the rate stabilization reserve, the operations and maintenance reserve, and the CIP reserve. • The City’s Electric, Water, and Wastewater Collection Utilities have set minimum and maximum guideline levels for the capital replacement and improvement reserve funds, while all other benchmark communities with Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 36 of 84  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reserve Tracking: (Page 35) capital replacement and improvement reserve funds only had target guideline levels. • In general, the reserve policies for CPAU are more detailed and cumbersome than the policies of the benchmarked communities. CPAU has more funds established to hold cash reserves and its policies are more detailed in terms of guideline levels and sources and uses of those reserve funds when compared to others. Reserve Tracking – Key Observations This section of the report examines the current requirements and processes for tracking reserves. • Utility Management tracks reserves on an annual basis in conjunction with the development of each individual Utility’s Financial Plan. A reserve tracking policy with guidance included to report instances when reserve fund balances do not meet guideline levels to Council may provide more assurance that reserve targets are being met throughout the year and equip the Council with better information to make financial decisions than the current reporting process. Key Recommendations 1. Update Dated Policies - the Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, and Stormwater Utilities’ operations, rate stabilization, and CIP reserve funds policies should be updated to align with similar reserve policy guidelines in other CPAU utilities. When updating, management should consider the need for the existing reserve funds in these Utilities that are not common across other CPAU utilities, including the Emergency Plant Replacement Reserve Fund, the Notes and Loans Reserve Fund for the Wastewater Treatment Utility, and the Landfill Corrective Action and Geng Road Reserve funds for the Refuse Utility. If no longer necessary, these funds should be closed out and the money transferred to other funds in place. 2. Do not eliminate any of the current reserve funds in place – With the exception of the utilities with dated policies mentioned above, all City Utilities have in common three reserve funds: operations, rate stabilization, and CIP reserve funds. Baker Tilly views maintaining each of these reserve funds as a best practice. Additionally, as shown in the Benchmarking Comparables section of the report, many of the Benchmark Communities share these same common reserve funds in their utilities. Specifically, the City of Roseville Water and wastewater utilities, the City of Santa Clara electric utility, and the San Jose clean energy electric utility all have both rate stabilization and operation Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 37 of 84  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY wastewater utilities have operation and maintenance, rate stabilization, and capital improvement reserve funds. What’s more, all Benchmark communities utilities that were reviewed had at least one of the three of these reserve funds. Palo Alto Utilities reserve funds separate from the three commonly shared reserve funds are in place for specifically defined and valid purposes and should remain in place until those purposes are accomplished or are no longer applicable. 3. Clarify CIP Reserve Fund Language – the Electric Special Project Reserve within the Electric Utility is distinct from the CIP Reserve Fund. While both of these funds are purposed for capital projects clarity on intended use of funds is recommended. 4. Consider adjustment to CIP Reserve Fund Guideline Levels – Consider adjustment to CIP Reserve guideline levels to align with Baker Tilly’s recommendation to maintain in the CIP reserve fund 20% of 60 months of budgeted CIP expenses or alternatively, one-year of depreciation expense in the CIP reserve fund. CIP expenses should only include those intended to be funded by Utility cash and not those projects intended to be funded by bonds or other outside sources of funding. 5. Adjust Rate Stabilization Reserve Policy to align with Bond Covenants and Benchmark Communities – Consider establishing: • Minimum guideline levels in the Rate Stabilization Reserve Funds for the Electric, Gas, and Water Utilities to ensure reserve balances meet or exceed the current Available Reserves Bond Covenants. Note: Staff is evaluating refunding of the 2009 Bonds and a normal payoff of the 2011 Bonds in June 2026, which would eliminate the need to make a change to these minimum guideline levels due to this Bond Covenant. • Target guideline levels for these funds for the Electric, Gas and Water Utilities should be at the higher of the minimum guideline level required by the Available Reserve Bond Covenants or a specified percentage of the total operating revenues or operating expenses in the current fiscal year so that the Rate Stabilization Reserve could hold funds in excess of the amount dictated by bond covenants to be used for its defined purposes. • The rate stabilization fund for Utilities without the Available Reserve Bond Covenants in place (Wastewater Collection, Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, and Stormwater) should have a target guideline level based on a specified percentage of total operating revenues or operating expenses in Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 38 of 84  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • varied between 10 to 65% of either revenues or expenses. The larger the percentage selected, the more reserve funds would be available to stabilize future rate increases. The percentage of operating revenues or expenses to be used as a target guideline level should be determined by Utility Management based on the amount desired to be held in the fund to help stabilize future rate increases. • Revising wording in the policy from “If there are funds in the Rate Stabilization Reserve at the end of any fiscal year, any subsequent Utility Financial Plan must result in withdrawal of all funds from this Reserve by the end of the Financial Planning Period.” to “If a Utility Financial Plan proposes a rate increase, the funds in the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund in excess of the target amounts must be drawn down to offset the proposed rate increase.” 6. Formalize Reserve Tracking – Develop a reserve tracking policy with reporting requirements to City Council on a regular basis. The policy could include a schedule prepared for each Utility showing the current reserve fund balances compared to the amount that should be held in those funds based on established guideline levels, as well as an explanation of how those guideline levels are calculated and the reserve funds are used based on the Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 39 of 84  Introduction The purpose of this assessment was to assess and benchmark the City’s current Utilities Reserves Policies. Overview and Reserve Policies, Compliance with Regulatory Reserve Margin Requirements, Operational/Industry Best Practices, Local Economy Specific Reserves Through Benchmarking Comparables, and Reserve Tracking. These sections include the information obtained through our research and outline our thought process in developing the proposed recommendations for adjustments to the City's current Utility Reserve Policies. Scope and Procedures The OCA performed the following procedures: • Gathered all relevant information on the Utility Reserve Policies currently in place; • Interviewed Utility personnel to gain a comprehensive understanding of these policies; • Researched applicable information on Utility reserve policies, operational & industry best practices; • Researched reserve policies for comparable communities to provide benchmarking information regarding the reserve funds; • Analyzed and outlined observations regarding the current Utility Reserve Policies against best practices, and • Developed recommendations for decision makers to consider for updating the current Utility Reserve Policies. The OCA greatly appreciates the support of the CPAU and Administrative Services Department in conducting this assessment. Thank you! Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 40 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Detailed Analysis Overview of Current Reserve Funds and Reserve Policies Utility reserve funds provide a safety net for municipal utilities and can help an agency stabilize rates, respond to emergencies and plan for capital improvements, while ensuring the utility remains credit worthy and financially healthy. This section of the report to provides a detailed overview of the current reserve funds and reserve policies for each of the City’s Utilities. Below is a chart that provides a listing of all the reserve funds in place and whether those reserve funds are in place in the individual utility listed at the top of each column. Utilities not listed in this chart were not analyzed as a part of this engagement. The remainder of this section provides the details of these reserve funds and their associated policies categorized by the reserve funds that are common across all utilities and the reserve funds that are unique to specific utilities. Current Reserve Funds in Place for the Utility? Electric Gas Water Stormwater Operations No No No Rate Stabilization CIP Reserves No No No Electric Special Projects No No No No No No Underground Loan No No No No No No Hydroelectric Stabilization No No No No No No Electrification Reserve No No No No No No Public Benefits No No No No No No Low Carbon Fuel Standard No No No No No No Cap and Trade Program No No No No No Emergency Plant Replacement No No No No No No Landfill Corrective Action Reserve No No No No No No Geng Road Reserve No No No No No No Notes and Loans No No No No No No Reserve Funds included in all Utilities Unless otherwise noted, guideline levels for reserve funds are based on the reserves management practices document for each utility. Rate Stabilization The purpose of the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund is to manage the trajectory of future year rate increases. Withdrawal of funds from Rate Stabilization Reserves requires action by the City Council. If there are funds at the end of any fiscal year, any subsequent Financial Plan must result in the withdrawal of all funds from the Reserves by the end of the Financial Planning Period. The Council may approve exceptions to this requirement, when proposed by staff to provide greater rate stabilization to customers. City of Palo Alto ACFR FYE June 30, 2025 (Page 112) Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 41 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Rate Stabilization Reserves for Wastewater Treatment and Refuse have set Minimum, Target, and Maximum Levels, which are defined as a % of sales revenue. There is only a Target Level for Stormwater. Guideline Levels Wastewater Treatment (1) Refuse (1) Stormwater (2) Rate Stabilization Reserves for Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection and Water do not have set Minimum, Target and Maximum Levels. Reserve Funds unique to specific utilities Operations The purpose of the Operations Reserve Fund is to manage normal variations in costs and as a reserve for contingencies. The Operations Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility, Gas Utility, Wastewater Collection Utility, and Water Utility. The Minimum, Target, and Maximum level of reserves for the Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection, and Water Utilities are defined by the number of days of expenses that should be covered. Based on the current reserve policies, these guideline levels are as follows: Guideline Levels Electric Supply (1) Electric Distribution (2) Gas (3) Wastewater Collection (4) Water (5) Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices, Gas Utility Reserves Management Practices, Wastewater Collection Utility Reserves Management Practices, Water Utility Reserves Management Practices, City Council CMR:320:0, City Council CMR:263:3 Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 42 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Based upon policy, it should be noted that if, at the end of any fiscal year, the funds remaining in the Operations Reserves are lower than the minimum level set forth above, staff shall present a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered within six months of the end of the fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum, result in the reserve reaching its minimum level by the end of the following fiscal year. In addition, staff may present an alternative plan that takes longer than one year to replenish the reserve. The policy also states that if, at the end of any fiscal year, either Operations Reserve is higher or lower than the target level, any Financial Plan for a Utility shall be designed to return Operations Reserves to their target levels by the end of the forecast period considered in the Financial Plan. Also, based upon policy, if at any time the Operations Reserve reaches its maximum level, no funds may be added to this Reserve. Any further increase in that fund's Fund Balance shall be automatically included in the Unassigned Reserves. CIP Reserves The purpose of the CIP Reserve Fund is to manage cash flow for capital projects and to act as a reserve for capital contingencies such as overage amounts for a project. The CIP Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility, Gas Utility, Wastewater Collection Utility, and Water Utility. The Minimum and Maximum Level guidelines are the same for Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection, and Water for the CIP Reserves Fund. Guideline Levels These guideline levels are calculated for each fiscal year of the Financial Planning Period and approved by Council resolution. Based upon policy, it should be noted that if, at the end of any fiscal year, the minimum guideline is not met, staff shall present a plan to the City Council to replenish the reserve. The plan shall be delivered by the end of the following fiscal year, and shall, at a minimum result in the reserve reaching its minimum level by the end of the next fiscal year. Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices, Gas Utility Reserves Management Practices, Wastewater Collection Utility Reserves Management Practices, Water Utility Reserves Management Practices, City Council CMR:320:0, City Council CMR:263:3 Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 43 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Also, based upon policy, it should be noted that if, at any time, the CIP Reserve reaches its maximum level, no funds may be added to this reserve. If there are funds in this reserve in excess of the maximum level staff must propose to transfer these funds to another reserve or return them to ratepayers in the next Financial Plan. Staff may also seek Council approval to hold funds in this reserve in excess of the maximum level, if they are held for a specific future purpose related to the CIP. Electric Special Projects The purpose of the Electric Special Projects (ESP) Reserve Fund is to fund projects that benefit electric rate payers. The Electric Special Projects Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility. The Electric Special Projects Reserve Fund will be managed in accordance with the policies set forth in Resolution 9206 (Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Renaming the Calaveras Reserve to the Electric Special Project Reserve and Adoption of Electric Special Project Reserve Guidelines) which was passed in 2011. Below are the Electric Special Projects (ESP) Reserve Fund guidelines set forth in Resolution 9206: • The purpose of the ESP Reserve is to fund projects that benefit electric ratepayers. • The ESP Reserve Funds must be used for projects of significant impact. • Projects proposed for funding must demonstrate a need and value to electric ratepayers. The projects must have verifiable value and must not be speculative, or high-risk in nature. • Projects proposed for funding must be substantial in size, requiring funding of at least $1 million. • Set a goal to commit funds by the end of FY 2025. • Any uncommitted funds remaining at the end of FY 2030 will be transferred to the Electric Supply Operations Reserve and the ESP Reserve will be closed. Underground Loan The purpose of the Underground Loan Reserve Fund is to fund a reserve for principal payments of outstanding Underground Loan(s). The Underground Loan Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility. Based upon policy, it should be noted that, at the end of each fiscal year, the Underground Loan Reserve will be adjusted by the principal payments made against outstanding underground loans. There are no set Minimum, Target and Maximum Levels. Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 44 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve The purpose of the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve Fund is to manage the supply cost impacts with variations in generation from hydroelectric resources. The Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility. Based upon policy, it should be noted that, near the end of each fiscal year, staff will determine the actual and expected hydro output for that fiscal year, compare that to the long-term average annual output level, and multiply the difference by the average of the monthly round-the-clock forward market prices for each month of the current fiscal year for the projected hydro output. Staff is authorized to transfer the amount calculated for the projected hydro output (described above) from the Operations Reserve to the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve for hydro output deviations above long-term average levels, or transfer this amount from the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve to the Operations Reserve for hydro output deviations below long-term average levels. The level of the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve after the transfers described above shall be the basis for staff's determination, with Council approval, of whether to implement the Hydro Rate Adjuster (Electric Rate E-HRA) for the following fiscal year. For the Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve Fund there are set Minimum, Target and Maximum Levels. Guideline Levels Electrification Reserve The purpose of the Electrification Reserve Fund is to track funding of City buildings, appliance and vehicle electrification projects and programs, including development and implementation costs and associated financial incentives, loans and rebates for participating customers. The Electrification Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility. Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 45 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Based upon policy, the Electrification Reserve may be funded by any lawful source of funds available for such programs, including new or ongoing utility revenues derived from customer participation. The Electrification Reserve balance shall be annually adjusted based on the net of revenues and expenses associated with the City's building appliance and vehicle electrification projects and programs using this reserve. Public Benefits The purpose of the Public Benefits Reserve Fund is to track unspent Public Benefits Revenues. The Public Benefits Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility. Based upon policy, the Public Benefits Reserve Fund will be increased by the amount of unspent Public Benefits Revenues remaining at the end of each fiscal year. Expenditure of these funds requires actions by the City Council. Low Carbon Fuel Standard The purpose of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Reserve Fund is to track the revenues earned via the sale of Low Carbon Fuel Credits allocated by the California Air Resources Board to the City, as well as expenses incurred, in accordance with California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility. Based upon policy, at the end of each fiscal year, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Reserve will be adjusted by the net of revenues and expenses associated with California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard program Cap and Trade Program The purpose of the Cap-and-Trade Program Reserve Fund is to track unspent or unallocated revenues from the sale of carbon allowances freely allocated by the California Air Resources Board to the Electric Utility and Gas Utility, under the State's Cap and Trade Program. The Cap-and-Trade Program Reserve Fund is found within the Electric Utility and Gas Utility. Based upon policy, funds in this reserve are managed in accordance with the City's Policy on the Use of Freely Allocated Allowances under the State's Cap and Trade Program, adopted by Council Resolution 9487 in January 2015. At the end of each fiscal year, the Cap-and-Trade Program Reserve will be adjusted by the net of revenues and expenses associated with the Cap-and-Trade program. Electric Utility Reserves Management Practices, Gas Utility Reserves Management Practices Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 46 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Emergency Plant Replacement The purpose of the Emergency Plant Replacement Reserve Fund is to manage cash flow for replacement or emergency repairs of damaged equipment. Reserves in this fund are to be used on the most expensive pieces of equipment which, if lost, would interrupt Wastewater Treatment activity. The Emergency Plant Replacement Reserve Fund is found within the Wastewater Treatment Utility. Based upon policy, uses of funds in this reserve require special appropriation by the Council. For the Emergency Plant Replacement Reserve Fund there are set Minimum and Maximum Levels. Guideline Levels (1) Notes and Loans The purpose of the Notes and Loans Reserve Fund is to manage cash flow reserves for any outstanding Notes and Loans. The Notes and Loans Reserve Fund is found within the Wastewater Treatment Utility. There are no set Minimum, Target, and Maximum Levels explicitly stated in the policies as required amounts are established in the respective loan agreements. Landfill Corrective Action Reserve The purpose of the Landfill Corrective Action Reserve Fund is to manage cash flow reserves for any costs of closure/post closure maintenance and corrective action for the respective facilities to protect the environment. The Landfill Corrective Action Reserve is found within the Refuse Utility. There are no set Minimum, Target, and Maximum Levels. Geng Road Reserve The purpose of the Geng Road Reserve is to manage cash flow reserves for any costs associated with Geng Road. The Geng Road Reserve is found within the Refuse Utility. There are no set Minimum, Target, and Maximum Levels. City Council CMR:320:0, City Council CMR:263:3 Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 47 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Overview of Current Reserve Funds and Reserve Policies Observations Observation #1 Based on the information discussed within the Reserve Funds included in all Utilities category, and the Reserve Funds that are unique to specific Utilities category, current reserve policies result in significant administrative burden through multiple prescribed transfer rules and the necessary tracking of reserve funds to minimum, target, and maximum levels. The policies for many reserve funds dictate that reserve funds money must be transferred into the fund if below the minimum level or out of the fund if above the maximum level. For example, this is a requirement for the Operations and Maintenance Reserve, CIP Reserve, and Hydroelectric Stabilization Reserve for the Electric Utility. This requirement necessitates tracking reserve funds to the specific minimum and maximum amounts and transferring funds accordingly. Observation #2 The current reserve funds and policies for the Wastewater Treatment Utility, Refuse Utility, and Stormwater Utility are from May 24, 1990 and May 6, 1993 and are not up to date compared to the other Utilities. Reserve policies for the other utilities were updated June 16, 2025. Observation #3 The purpose of the Electric Special Projects Reserve appears to be similar to the CIP Reserves, and the combination of the two reserves into just one, could assist in relieving the administrative burden of having two reserve funds within the Electric Utility that are for similar purposes. Consistency With Regulatory Reserve Margin Requirements Outstanding Bond Requirements There are two series of publicly-sold utility bonds outstanding: • $35,015,000 City of Palo Alto Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A (Taxable Direct Payment Build America Bonds), which mature on June 1, 2035 • $17,225,000 City of Palo Alto Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds 2011 Series A, which mature on June 1, 2026 The 2009 Bonds are payable only from Net Revenues of the Water System. Proceeds of the 2009 Bonds funded a debt service reserve fund for the 2009 Bonds in the amount of $2,567,280. The City is required to maintain the debt service reserve fund while the 2009 Bonds remain outstanding. Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A, OS, Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2011 Series A, OS Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 48 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS The 2011 Bonds were separated into sub-series, with 45% ($7,751,250) allocated to the Water System and 55% ($9,473,750) allocated to the Gas System. The Water System’s 2011 sub-series is payable only from Net Revenues of the Water System on a parity basis with the 2009 Bonds. The Gas System 2011 sub-series is payable only from Net Revenues of the Gas System. Proceeds of the 2011 Bonds funded a debt service reserve fund for the 2009 Bonds in the amount of $1,462,600. The City is required to maintain the debt service reserve fund the 2011 Bonds remain outstanding. Rate Covenant 2009 Bonds. In the Indenture for the 2009 Bonds, the City covenanted to fix, prescribe, revise and collect Charges for the Water System during each Fiscal Year which (together with other funds transferred from stabilization reserve funds for the Water System, and which are lawfully available to the City for payment of any of the following amounts during such Fiscal Year) are at least sufficient, after making allowances for contingencies and error in the estimates, to pay the following amounts in the following order: • All Maintenance and Operation Costs of the Water System estimated by the City to become due and payable in such Fiscal Year; • the Debt Service; • All other payments required for compliance with the Indenture and the instruments pursuant to which any Parity Bonds relating to the Water System shall have been issued; and • All payments required to meet any other obligations of the City which are charges, liens, encumbrances upon or payable from the Gross Revenues of the Water System or the Net Revenues of the Water System. In addition, the City covenanted to fix, prescribe, revise and collect Charges for the Water System during each Fiscal Year which, when added to the balance then on hand in Available Reserves for the Water System, are sufficient to yield Net Revenues of the Water System at least equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the amounts payable under the preceding clause (a)(2) in such Fiscal Year for Bonds which have a lien on such Net Revenues. 2011 Bonds. In the Indenture for the 2011 Bonds, the City covenanted, separately for each of the Water System and the Gas System, to fix, prescribe, revise, and collect Charges for each System during each Fiscal Year which (together with other funds transferred from stabilization reserve funds for such System, and which are lawfully available to the City for payment of any of the following amounts during such Fiscal Year) are at least sufficient, after making allowances for contingencies and error in the estimates, to pay the following amounts in the following order: • All Maintenance and Operation Costs of Such System estimated by the City to become due and payable in such Fiscal Year; • The Debt Service on the Sub-Series of the 2011 Bonds issued for such System; Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A, OS, Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2011 Series A, OS Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 49 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS • All other payments required for compliance with this Indenture and the instruments pursuant to which any Parity Bonds relating to such System shall have been issued; and • All payments required to meet any other obligations of the City which are charges, liens, encumbrances upon or payable from the Gross Revenues of such System or the Net Revenues of such System. In addition, the City covenanted for each of the Water System and the Gas System to fix, prescribe, revise, and collect Charges for such System during each Fiscal Year which, when added to the balance then on hand in Available Reserves for such System, are sufficient to yield Net Revenues of such System at least equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of Debt Service that is payable from Net Revenues of the such System. Available Reserves 2009 Bonds. In the Indenture for the 2009 Bonds, the City covenanted to maintain the funds on hand in Available Reserves in an aggregate amount at least equal to five (5.0) times maximum annual debt service on all outstanding bonded indebtedness secured by Net Revenues of the Water, Gas or Electric Systems. In addition, the City covenanted to transfer from Available Reserves, to the Water Revenue Fund, as needed, amounts sufficient to enable the City to pay all maintenance and operation costs of the Water System, and all debt service on the Bonds, when and as the same become due and payable. The 2009 Indenture defines “Available Reserves” to mean funds held in the City’s: (i) Rate Stabilization Reserve for the Water System, (ii) Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve for the Electric System, (iii) Distribution Rate Stabilization Reserve for the Gas System, (iv) Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve for the Electric System, (v) Supply Rate Stabilization Reserve for the Gas System, and (vi) the Electric System’s Calaveras-Stranded Costs Reserve. 2011 Bonds. In the Indenture for the 2011 Bonds, the City covenanted to maintain the funds on hand in Available Reserves (as defined above) in an aggregate amount at least equal to five (5.0) times maximum annual debt service on all outstanding bonded indebtedness secured by Net Revenues of the Water System and the Gas System. Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A, OS, Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2011 Series A, OS Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 50 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS In addition, the City covenanted to transfer from Available Reserves, to the Revenue Fund, as needed, amounts sufficient to enable the City to pay all Maintenance and Operation Costs of the applicable Water System or Gas System, and all Debt Service, when and as the same become due and payable. The City covenanted in the 2011 Indenture that any depletion of the Available Reserves which causes the balance therein to fall below the required level shall be restored from Net Revenues of the System which caused such depletion to take place. Application of the Available Reserves Requirement As described above, the City covenanted in the Indentures for the 2009 Bonds and the 2011 Bonds to maintain in the Available Reserves an aggregate amount at least equal to five (5.0) times maximum annual debt service on all outstanding bonded indebtedness secured by Net Revenues of the Water, Gas or Electric Systems. The Maximum Annual Debt Service on the 2009 and 2011 Bonds is $4,025,221.26. There is no outstanding bonded indebtedness payable from the Electric System. Five times the Maximum Annual Debt Service is $20,126,106.30. Consequently, the City is obligated to maintain $20,126,106.30 in the Available Reserves as long as the 2009 Bonds and the 2011 Bonds are outstanding. The 2011 Bonds mature in 2026. The City intends to refinance the 2009 Bonds, if market conditions permit. Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A, OS, Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2011 Series A, OS Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 51 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Credit Rating Reserve Targets Standard & Poor's Standard & Poor’s (S&P) has a methodology known as “S&P Criteria for U.S. Municipal Water Sewer, and Solid Waste Utilities” that S&P applies for rating any water, sewer or solid waste utility nationally. S&P also has a methodology known as “S&P Criteria for U.S. Municipal Retail Electric and Gas Utilities” that S&P applies for rating any electric or gas utility nationally. More information about the S&P methodologies are provided below. Standard & Poor's (S&P) issued a Global Ratings Affirmation for the outstanding Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2011 Series A and Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A, and affirmed its 'AAA' rating on the outstanding bonds and determined that the outlook is stable. The outstanding bonds fall under the S&P Criteria for U.S. Municipal Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Utilities, since they are backed by multiple Utility revenues. For the S&P Criteria for U.S. Municipal Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Utilities, Liquidity and Reserves have a 40% weighting when it comes to a rating. Due to the significant weight of liquidity and the reserves on the overall rating criteria, An important factor in maintaining the City’s 'AAA' Rating is ensuring that their Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Liquidity and Reserves meet the reserve balance category of Extremely Strong. Below is a table that lists the Liquidity and Reserves S&P criteria for U.S. Municipal Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Utilities. Days' Cash Available Reserves Water Revenue Bonds, 2009 Series A, OS, Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2011 Series A, OS, S&P Ratings Report from April 7, 2025, S&P Criteria | Governments | U.S. Public Finance: U.S. Municipal Water, Sewer, And Solid Waste Utilities: Methodology And Assumptions Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 52 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS For the S&P Criteria for U.S. Municipal Retail Electric and Gas Utilities, Liquidity and Reserves have a 25% weighting when it comes to a rating. The City does not currently have outstanding debt that is rated using this criteria. Below is a table that lists the Liquidity and Reserves S&P Criteria for U.S. Municipal Retail Electric and Gas Utilities. The following table measures liquidity through a Days' Liquidity metric, which measures how many days the Utility can continue to operate and pay for its expenses using only its currently available cash on hand. If the City intends to issue rated electric or gas utility debt in the future, the available reserves for those utilities would be considered against the amounts listed in the table below to help determine the liquidity and reserves scoring component for a bond rating. Total Days' Extremely Strong =>270 =>$250 Very Strong 150-270 $100-$250 Strong 90-150 $50-$100 Adequate 45-90 $10-$50 Vulnerable 15-45 $2-$10 Highly Vulnerable <=15 <=$2 Moody's Moody's issued a credit opinion on December 16, 2024 for the City of Palo Alto, the water system, and water and gas as a combined utility. The City's rating of 'Aaa' was determined to be stable, the water system's rating of 'Aa1' was determined to be stable, and the water and gas combined utility's rating of 'Aa2' was determined to stable. The criteria Moody's utilizes for their ratings from the credit opinion is their rating methodology over US Municipal Utility Revenue Debt. For Moody's US Municipal Utility Revenue Debt, Financial Strength has a 40% weighting when it comes to a rating. Of the 40% weighting, Annual Debt Service Coverage is 15%, Days Cash on Hand is 15%, and Debt to Operating Revenues is 10%. Below is a table that lists the Financial Strengths Moody's criteria for US Municipal Utility Revenue Debt. S&P Criteria | Governments | U.S. Public Finance: U.S. Municipal Retail Electric And Gas Utilities: Methodology And Assumptions, Moody's Rating Methodology: US Municipal Utility Revenue Debt Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 53 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Annual Debt Service Coverage Days Cash on Hand Debt to Operating Revenues Aaa >2.00x >250 days <2.00x Aa A Baa 35 > n > 15 7.00x < n < 8.00x Ba 15 > n > 7 8.00x < n < 9.00x B and Below <0.70x <7 days >9.00x Compliance With Regulatory Reserve Margin Requirements Observations Observation #1 Current reserve policies do not specifically address the Rate Covenants or Available Reserve Covenants listed above as Outstanding Bond Requirements. These covenants were made by the City in the official statements and legal documents for the outstanding 2009 and 2011 bonds. The City could consider referencing these documents in its reserve policies. • It is important to note that aaccording to the latest Ratings Affirmation from S&P on the outstanding 2011 and 2009 bonds, Palo Alto is in compliance with the Rate and Available Reserves Covenants Observation #2 Current reserve policies do not specifically address relevant credit rating reserve targets. By formulating reserve policies that specify guideline levels for reserve funds with these credit rating reserve targets in mind, the City can better position itself to maintain its strong bond ratings. Moody's Rating Methodology: US Municipal Utility Revenue Debt Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 54 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Operational/Industry Best Practices Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Operating Reserves GFOA recommends, at a minimum, regardless of a governments size, to maintain operating reserves at no less than two months of regular operating revenues or regular operating expenditures. The choice of revenues or expenditures as a basis of comparison may be dictated by what is more predictable for the government's particular circumstances. GFOA also states that a government's particular situation often may require a level of operating reserves to be significantly in excess of the recommended minimum level of no less than two months of regular operating revenues or regular operating expenditures. An example of a particular situation could be a government that knows it is exposed to certain economical or climate risks with complex potential effects of them in the future. GFOA also recommends that if the reserve balance falls below the government's policy level, there should be a solid plan to replenish it, and governments should seek to replenish the reserve balance within one to three years. Capital Improvement Program Reserves GFOA states that Capital Improvement Program Reserves may be used to proactively manage capital assets, for instance by annually setting aside 20% of a five-year asset's replacement costs so that funding is available when replacement is necessary. Furthermore, the GFOA provides two examples of annual funding allocations/levels for a Capital Improvement Program Reserves, which are listed below. • Maintain an ending balance equal to a dollar amount or a percentage of the five-year average of the entity's annual capital budget. (The actual dollar amount or percentage should be set based on the particular entity's capital needs and financial capabilities.) • Baker Tilly considers maintaining 20%, which is the equivalent of one- year of average capital improvements, of the total capital anticipated to be funded with cash on hand in the five-year capital budget in CIP reserves as a best practice. GFOA Fund Balance Guidelines for the General Fund, GFOA Strategies for Establishing Capital Asset Renewal and Replacement Reserve Policies Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 55 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS • Annually contribute an amount based on a percentage of the annual depreciation of the entity's assets. Funding sources will vary and may includes transfers from the Operations Fund or one-time revenues. An entity may wish to consider initial funding levels for the first one to five years with a plan for increasing funding thereafter until the target funding level is achieved. In addition, organizations should consider the pros and cons of the level of reliance on one-time versus recurring revenues based upon the financial conditions of the jurisdiction and the goals of the reserve. Additional Industry Best Practices Capital Improvement Program Reserves An additional best practice for the Capital Improvement Program Reserves it to have at least one year worth of depreciation expense in a fund for capital improvements. Note that a reserve target for a CIP fund would typically be based on either a percentage of average annual capital spending based on a CIP plan or based on depreciation expense amounts. Operational/Industry Best Practices Observations Observation #1 The City of Palo Alto's current reserve policies for its operations reserve funds are in alignment with the GFOA's recommendations for operating reserves. However, the Wastewater Treatment Utility, Refuse Utility, and Stormwater Utility do not currently have operations reserve funds. Observation #2 The City of Palo Alto's current reserve policy for its CIP reserve funds outlines a maximum reserve guideline level that aligns with Baker Tilly’s recommendation for a target ending balance for a CIP reserve fund (approximately one-year of average capital improvement spending held in reserve). Current reserve policy outlines a minimum reserve guideline level that is 20% of this amount. While Baker Tilly considers one-year of average capital improvements a best practice CIP reserve level, GFOA recommends that capital reserve level development should be designed to best serve the particular needs of a given organization. As such, an amount less than our recommendation could be considered. Alternatively, another approach to determining a CIP reserve fund guideline level could be to maintain one-year or a percentage of one-year of depreciation expense in reserve balances. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 56 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Local Economy Specific Reserves Through Benchmarking Comparables The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the local economy specific reserves by benchmarking the reserve funds and reserve policies of communities comparable to the City of Palo Alto ("benchmark communities"). The benchmark communities that we researched are City of Roseville, City of Santa Clara, City of Healdsburg, City of Pasadena, and San Jose Clean Energy. Within this section, we list the reserve funds and the guideline cash reserve levels for the reserve funds from the benchmark communities and compare them to the City of Palo Alto's Utility reserve funds and reserve policies guidelines. This information is broken down into two sections; Reserve Funds Palo Alto Utilities Have and Reserve Funds Palo Alto Utilities Do Not Have. The chart below indicates for each comparable community what reserve funds they have (indicated by “Yes”) and do not have (indicated by “No”) for each of their utilities. Benchmarking Comparables City of Roseville City of Santa Clara City of Healdsburg City of Pasadena Jose Clean Electric Water Electric Water Electric Water Electric Electric Rate Stabilization Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Operations No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capital Replacement & Improvement No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No Reserve Funds Palo Alto Utilities Do Not Have: Debt Service Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Fixed Cost Coverage Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Contingency Reserve No No No No No No No No No Yes No Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 57 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Reserve Funds Palo Alto Utilities Have Rate Stabilization As noted in the overview of current reserve funds and reserve policies section, the City of Palo Alto has a rate stabilization reserve fund for each of its utilities. The current City reserve policies outline the guideline levels for rate stabilization reserves as follows: Table 1 - Palo Alto Rate Stabilization Fund Minimum 15% 10% N/A Target 22.5% 15% $500,000 Maximum 30% 20% N/A (1) % of sales revenue. Levels found in City Council CMR:263:3 from May 6, 1993 (2) Target Level found in City Council CMR:320:0 from May 24, 1990 Rate Stabilization Reserves for Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection and Water do not have set Minimum, Target and Maximum Levels. Similar to Palo Alto, many of the benchmark communities researched had rate stabilization reserve funds for their utilities. The guideline levels of reserves outlined in the benchmark communities reserve policies for the rate stabilization reserve funds were as follows: City of Roseville Electric Table 2 - Roseville Electric Rate Stabilization Fund Minimum 40% of operating expenses Target 65% of operating expenses Maximum 90% of operating expenses City of Roseville Water and Wastewater Table 3 - Roseville Water and Wastewater Rate Stabilization Fund City of Roseville Financial Policies (Pages 106-108 and 118-120) 50% of operating expenses or roughly 180 Days' Cash Target Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 58 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS City of Santa Clara Electric Based upon research, it is determined that the City of Santa Clara Electric Utility has an Electric Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund with a balance as of May 31, 2025 of $70,000,000; however, we were unable to track down guideline levels for their Electric Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund. When calculating $70,000,000 divided by the City of Santa Clara's Electric Utility Fiscal Year 2024-2025 adopted budget for Electric Utility Operating Expenses of $649,513,582, the reserve balance comes out to approximately 10.78% of budgeted Electric Utility Operating Expenses. City of Healdsburg Water and Wastewater Table 4 - Healdsburg Water and Wastewater Rate Stabilization Fund San Jose Clean Energy Table 5 - San Jose Clean Energy Rate Stabilization Fund Comparison to City of Palo Alto Electric Table 6 - Electric Rate Stabilization Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Palo Alto City of Electric Santa San Jose Clean Energy Minimum N/A N/A N/A Target N/A 65% of expenses operating non-operating revenues Maximum N/A N/A N/A There are no set Minimum, Target and Maximum Levels for City of Palo Alto Electric. City of Santa Clara Financial Status Report as of May 31, 2025 (Pages 23-24), City of Healdsburg Ordinance No. 1240, San Jose Clean Energy Financial Reserves Policy Guideline Level Guideline Level Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 59 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Comparison to City of Palo Alto Water Table 7 - Water Rate Stabilization Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Guideline Levels City of Palo Alto Water City of Roseville Water Minimum N/A N/A N/A Target N/A 50% of operating expenses or roughly 180 Days' Cash $1,000,000 There are no set Minimum, Target and Maximum Levels for City of Palo Alto Water. Comparison to City of Palo Alto Wastewater Table 8 - Wastewater Rate Stabilization Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Palo Alto Wastewater Collection Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment (1) City of Roseville Wastewater City of Healdsburg Wastewater Minimum N/A 15% N/A N/A Target N/A 22.5% 50% of operating expenses or roughly 180 Days' Cash There are no set Minimum, Target and Maximum Levels for City of Palo Alto Wastewater Collection. Also, it should be noted that the Gas, Refuse and Stormwater Systems for the City of Palo Alto all had rate stabilization reserve funds as well, but as none of the benchmark communities had rate stabilization reserve funds for these utilities, no charts are shown for them. Rate Stabilization Observations Observation #1 The City of Palo Alto Electric Utility does not have a set minimum, target, or maximum guideline level. For the benchmark communities, the City of Roseville Electric has a minimum, target, or maximum guideline level found in Table 2, our calculation for City of Santa Clara Electric of 10.78% of operating expenses is assumed to be the target guideline level, and San Jose Clean Energy only has a target guideline level found in Table 5. Table 6 shows these benchmark communities reserve guideline levels compared to the City of Palo Alto's Electric Utility. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 60 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Observation #2 The City of Palo Alto Water Utility does not have a set minimum, target, or maximum guideline level, while the City of Roseville Water and City of Healdsburg Water both have target guideline levels found in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 7 shows these benchmark communities reserve guideline levels compared to the City of Palo Alto's Water Utility. Observation #3 The City of Palo Alto Wastewater Collection Utility does not have a set minimum, target, or maximum guideline level, while the City of Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Utility does as shown in Table 1. The City of Roseville Wastewater and City of Healdsburg Wastewater both have target guideline levels found in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 8 shows these benchmark communities reserve guideline levels compared to the City of Palo Alto's Wastewater Collection Utility. Operations and Maintenance As noted in the overview of current reserve funds and reserve policies section, the City of Palo Alto has an operations reserve fund for its Electric Utility, Gas Utility, Wastewater Collection Utility, and Water Utility. The current City reserve policies outline the guideline levels for operations reserves are found in the below table. Table 9 - Palo Alto Operations and Maintenance Fund Supply (1) Distribution (2) Gas (3) Collection (4) Water Minimum 60 60 60 60 60 Target 90 90 90 105 90 Maximum 120 120 120 150 120 (1) Days of Electric Supply Fund O&M and Commodity Expense (2) Days of Electric Distribution Fund O&M Expense (3) Days of Gas O&M and Commodity Expense (4) Days of Wastewater Collection O&M and Commodity Expense (5) Days of Water O&M and Commodity Expense City of Roseville Water Table 10 - Roseville Water Operations and Maintenance Fund City of Roseville Financial Policies (Pages 118-120) Minimum 90 days' cash worth of operating expenses. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 61 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS City of Roseville Wastewater Table 11 - Roseville Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Fund City of Roseville Solid Waste Table12 - Roseville Solid Waste Operations and Maintenance Fund City of Santa Clara Electric Based upon research, it is determined that the City of Santa Clara Electric Utility has an Operations and Maintenance Reserve Fund with a balance as of May 31, 2025 of $257,000,000; however, we were unable to track down guideline levels for their Electric Operations and Maintenance Reserve Fund. When calculating $257,000,000 divided by the City of Santa Clara's Electric Utility Fiscal Year 2024-2025 adopted budget for Electric Utility Operating Expenses of $649,513,582, the reserve balance comes out to approximately 39.57% of budgeted Electric Utility Operating Expenses, or 145 days of operating expenses. City of Healdsburg Electric Table 13 - Healdsburg Electric Operations and Maintenance Fund City of Healdsburg Water Table 14 - Healdsburg Water Operations and Maintenance Fund City of Healdsburg Wastewater Table 15 - Healdsburg Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Fund City of Roseville Financial Policies (Pages 118-120), City of Santa Clara Financial Status Report as of May 31, 2025 (Pages 23-24), City of Healdsburg Ordinance No. 1240, City of Healdsburg Biennial Budget (Page 70) Minimum 90 days' cash worth of operating expenses. Minimum 90 days' cash worth of operating expenses. 183 days of operating expenses Minimum 92 days of operating expenses Minimu 92 days of operating expenses Minimum Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 62 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS City of Pasadena Electric Table 16 - Pasadena Electric Operations and Maintenance Fund Minimum 60 days of operating expenses Target 90 days of operating expenses San Jose Clean Energy Table 17 - San Jose Clean Energy Operations and Maintenance Fund Comparison to City of Palo Alto Water Table 18 - Water Operations and Maintenance Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Minimum 60 days of operating expenses. of operating expenses. City of Pasadena Code of Ordinances 13.04.175, San Jose Clean Energy Financial Reserves Policy 180 days liquidity on hand Minimum Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 63 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Comparison to City of Palo Alto Wastewater Collection Table 19 - Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Wastewater Collection Wastewater Wastewater Minimum 60 days of operating expenses. of operating expenses. Comparison to City of Palo Alto Electric Table 20 - Electric Operations and Maintenance Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Guideline Levels City of Palo Alto Electric Supply (1) City of Palo Alto Electric Distribution (2) City of Santa Clara Electric City of Healdsburg Electric City of Pasadena Electric San Jose Clean Energy Minimum 60 days of operating expenses 60 days of operating expenses. N/A 183 days of operating expenses 60 days of operating expenses days liquidity on Target operating operating operating N/A operating N/A Maximum 120 days of operating expenses 120 days of operating expenses N/A N/A N/A N/A (1) Defined in the reserve policy as Electric Supply Fund O&M and Commodity Expense (2) Defined in the reserve policy as Electric Distribution Fund O&M Expense Also, it should be noted that the Gas System for the City of Palo Alto had operations and maintenance reserve fund as well, but as none of the benchmark communities had operations and maintenance reserve funds for Gas, no charts are shown for it. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 64 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Operations and Maintenance Observations Observation #1 As shown in Tables 18 and 19, the City of Palo Alto Water Utility and Wastewater Collection Utility both have a set minimum, target, and maximum guideline levels, while the City of Roseville and City of Healdsburg Water and Wastewater Utilities only have minimum guideline levels. While the City of Palo Alto's minimum guideline levels for both utilities are lower than the City of Roseville or the City of Healdsburg Water and Wastewater Utilities, Palo Alto's maximum guideline levels are higher than the minimum guideline levels for the City of Roseville and City of Healdsburg Water and Wastewater Utilities. Observation #2 As shown in Table 20, the City of Palo Alto Electric Utility has set minimum, target, and maximum guideline levels for Electric Supply and Electric Distribution, while City of Healdsburg Electric and San Jose Clean Energy only have a minimum guideline level, City of Pasadena Electric has both a minimum and target guideline levels, and while the City of Santa Clara Electric does not have specified guideline levels, we have listed their current balance expressed as days operating expenses as their target guideline level. Based on these guideline levels of reserves, the City of Palo Alto Electric Utility minimum and target guideline levels are the same as the City of Pasadena Electric, but the minimum and target guideline levels are lower than any minimum or target guideline levels for City of Santa Clara Electric, City of Healdsburg Electric, and San Jose Clean Energy. The City of Palo Alto Electric Utility maximum guideline level is lower than City of Healdsburg Electric and San Jose Clean Energy minimum guideline levels, and the Santa Clara Electric target guideline level. See Table 20. Capital Replacement & Improvement As noted in the overview of current reserve funds and reserve policies section, the City of Palo Alto has a CIP reserve fund for its Electric Utility, Gas Utility, Wastewater Collection Utility, and Water Utility. The current City reserve policies outline the guideline levels for CIP reserves as follows: Table 21 - Palo Alto Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund Minimum 20% of the maximum CIP Reserve guideline level Maximum Average annual (12 month) CIP budget, for 48 months of budgeted CIP expenses City of Santa Clara Water Based upon research, it is determined that the City of Santa Clara Water has a Capital Replacement & Improvement Reserve Fund with a balance as of May 31, 2025 of $303,090; however, we were unable to track down guideline levels for their Water Capital Replacement & Improvement Reserve Fund. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 65 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS City of Healdsburg Electric Table 22 - Healdsburg Electric Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund City of Healdsburg Water Table 23 - Healdsburg Water Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund City of Healdsburg Wastewater Table 24 - Healdsburg Wastewater Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund City of Pasadena Electric Table 25 - Pasadena Electric Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund Comparison to City of Palo Alto Electric Table 26 - Electric Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Palo Alto Healdsburg Pasadena Minimum 20% of the maximum CIP Reserve guideline level N/A N/A Target N/A $4,000,000 capital expenditures budget, for 48 months of City of Santa Clara Financial Status Report as of May 31, 2025 (Pages 23-24), City of Healdsburg Ordinance No. 1240, City of Healdsburg Biennial Budget (Pages 66 and 69-70) One year of budgeted capital expenditures Target $1,000,000 Target $1,000,000 Target $4,000,000 Target Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 66 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Comparison to City of Palo Alto Water Table 27 - Water Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Palo Alto Healdsburg Minimum 20% of the maximum CIP Reserve guideline level N/A Target N/A $1,000,000 Maximum Average annual (12 month) CIP budget, for 48 months of budgeted CIP expenses N/A Table 28 - Wastewater Capital Replacement & Improvement Fund Guideline Reserve Levels Comparison Palo Alto Healdsburg Minimum 20% of the maximum CIP Reserve guideline level N/A Target N/A $1,000,000 Maximum Average annual (12 month) CIP budget, for 48 months of budgeted CIP expenses N/A Also, it should be noted that the Gas System for the City of Palo Alto had capital replacement & improvement reserve fund as well, but as none of the benchmark communities had capital replacement & improvement reserve funds for Gas, no charts are shown for it. Capital Replacement & Improvement Observations Observation #1 The City of Palo Alto Electric, Water, and Wastewater Collection Utilities have set minimum and maximum guideline levels for the capital replacement & improvement reserve funds, while all other benchmark communities that had utilities with capital replacement & improvement reserve funds only had target guideline levels. See Tables 26 - 28 for the comparisons between Palo Alto and the benchmark communities for each of these Utilities. System Critical Failure As noted in the overview of current reserve funds and reserve policies section, the City of Palo Alto has an Emergency Plant Replacement reserve fund for its Wastewater Treatment Utility. The current City reserve policies outline the guideline levels for Emergency Plant Replacement reserves as follows: Table 29 - Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment System Critical Failure Fund Minimum 5% of annual increase in the net book value of fixed assets Maximum 5% of total net book value of fixed assets (1) Levels are found in City Council CMR:320:0 Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 67 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS City of Roseville Water Table 30 - Roseville Water System Critical Failure Fund City of Roseville Wastewater Table 31 - Roseville Wastewater System Critical Failure Fund System Critical Failure Observations Observation #1 The City of Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Utility has set minimum and maximum guideline levels for the emergency plant replacement reserve, while the City of Roseville Water and Wastewater Utilities only had minimum guideline levels. See Table 29, Table 30, Table 31. Debt Service Reserve City of Roseville Electric Table 35 - Roseville Electric Debt Service Reserve Fund City of Pasadena Electric Table 36 - Pasadena Electric Debt Service Reserve Fund Reserve Funds Palo Alto Utilities Do Not Have Debt Service Coverage City of Roseville Electric Table 32 - Roseville Electric Debt Service Coverage Ratio City of Roseville Financial Policies (Page 118-120), City of Pasadena Code of Ordinances 13.04.175 Minimum 1% - 2% of the Capital Assets belonging to the Water Utility Minimum 1% - 2% of the Capital Assets belonging to the Wastewater Utility Minimum 2.0x annual debt service payments Minimum Maintain a fully funded debt service reserve as required by bond covenants. Minimum Maintain a reserve equivalent to one year of debt service payments for outstanding bond or credit obligations. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 40  Packet Pg. 68 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Days Cash on Hand City of Roseville Electric Table 33 - Roseville Electric Days Cash on Hand Fund City of Roseville Electric Table 34 - Roseville Electric Fixed Cost Coverage General Fund Transfer City of Pasadena Electric Table 37 - Pasadena Electric General Fund Transfer Energy Services Charge City of Pasadena Electric Table 38 - Pasadena Electric Energy Services Charge Minimum 60 days of projected power supply costs Target 90 days of projected power supply costs Transmission Services Charge City of Pasadena Electric Table 39 - Pasadena Electric Transmission Services Charge Minimum 60 days of transmission services cost Target 90 days of transmission services cost City of Roseville Financial Policies (Page 106-108), City of Pasadena Code of Ordinances 13.04.175 Minimum 1.5x of annual fixed costs Guideline Level One year of the budgeted General Fund Transfer Target Guideline Level Minimum >250 days Guideline Level Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 41  Packet Pg. 69 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Contingency Reserve City of Pasadena Electric Table 40 - Pasadena Electric Contingency Reserve Fund Minimum Sum of 60 days of operating expenses and 60 days of capital expenditures Target Sum of 90 days of operating expenses and 90 days of capital expenditures Local Economy Specific Reserves Through Benchmarking Comparables Observations Observation #1 The Benchmark Communities typically have some or all of the three commonly established reserve funds that Palo Alto Utilities with updated reserve policies have, which are the rate stabilization reserve, the operations and maintenance reserve, and the CIP reserve. Observation #2 Based upon the research of the City of Roseville, City of Santa Clara, City of Healdsburg, City of Pasadena, and San Jose Clean Energy Reserve Policies, it is determined that the City of Palo Alto's Reserve Policies are more cumbersome than the comparables identified. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Operations and Maintenance Reserve Funds include a minimum, target and maximum guideline level while the other benchmark communities only include a minimum and/or a target. The City of Palo Alto Utilities Capital Replacement and Improvement Reserve Funds also include a minimum, target, and maximum, while the other benchmark communities only include a target. Overall, the City of Palo Alto Utilities have not only more funds established to hold cash reserves, but their policies are more detailed in terms of guideline levels and sources and uses of those reserve funds compared to the other benchmark communities reserve policies. Observation #3 While there are reserve funds that benchmark communities have in place that Palo Alto Utilities does not have in place, none of these reserve funds are vital or in line with industry best practices. In many cases, these reserve funds serve the same or a similar purpose as other reserve funds the benchmark communities and Palo Alto Utilities have in place. For example, the City of Roseville Electric days cash on hand reserve and fixed cost coverage reserve, and the City of Pasadena electric energy services charge and transmission services charge reserve funds serve a similar purpose to the operation and maintenance fund reserve for these Utilities. The City of Pasadena Contingency Reserve serves the same purpose as both the operation and maintenance reserve fund and the capital replacement and improvement reserve fund. City of Pasadena Code of Ordinances 13.04.175 Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 42  Packet Pg. 70 of 84  DETAILED ANALYSIS Reserve Tracking Reserve Tracking Requirements and Processes Current Requirements for Tracking Palo Alto's Reserves The Reserve Management Practices (policies) all state that they should be used when developing each individual Utility's Financial Plan. Guideline levels included in the reserve policies that are not a fixed dollar amount are calculated for each fiscal year of the financial planning period for each individual Utility's Financial Plan. Current Processes Being Performed for Tracking Palo Alto's Reserves Reserve targets are recalibrated annually to calculate the dollar amount planned to be held in reserve. The dollar amount for each reserve target calculated annually does not always represent the target outlined in the policy statement when the policy statement guideline levels are not fixed (for example, a guideline level based on number of days may not have a reserve target in a Financial Plan that matches this metric). During the update of a Utility's Financial Plan, reserve policies are reviewed to determine if they need to be updated. Reserve Tracking Observations Observation #1 Reserve tracking appears to be done on an annual basis in conjunction with the development of each individual Utility's Financial Plan for Palo Alto. A reserve tracking policy with guidance included to report instances when reserve fund balances do not meet guideline levels to Council would provide more assurance that reserve targets are being met throughout the year and equip the Council with better information to make financial decisions than the current process being performed for reserve tracking. Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 43  Packet Pg. 71 of 84  Item 2 ​​Attachment A - City of Palo Alto Utilities Reserves Advisory Report​        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 44  Packet Pg. 72 of 84  ATTACHMENT B        TO: Baker Tilly  FROM: City of Palo Alto (Office of the City Manager, Administrative Services, Utilities & Public Works  Departments)  DATE: April 2, 2026  SUBJECT: Utilities Reserve Advisory Report    UTILITIES RESERVE ADVISORY REPORT  Management Response  Staff is appreciative of the work Baker Tilly has done to provide the City of Palo Alto Utility Reserves  Advisory Report (Reserves Advisory Report) that reviews the reserve policies and peer agency  benchmarks in the various enterprise funds in the Utilities and Public Works Departments. The City  Council directed staff to do a review of reserve policies as part of the FY 2026 Budget Adoption. This  advisory report provides impartial analysis of best practices and recommendations based on Baker Tilly  analysis and research.    While the City supports the intent to improve utility reserve levels, streamline reserve management and  improve reserve reporting to the City Council, City staff recommends exploring approaches that align  with existing structures and resources and that can be implemented with gradual impacts to utility rates  that are paid for by residents and businesses in Palo Alto. Any financial decision must be right sized for  the risk profile, impact to customers, and regulatory requirements. After a general review of the  recommendations to assess order of magnitude of financial impacts, staff estimate individual utility rate  increases could range from increases of approximately 2% to 8% at the low range and between 20 – 26%  at the high range of the recommendations (this assumes implementation over a five‐year period). These  increases would be significantly impactful to Palo Alto’s residents and businesses. The primary drivers of  these increases would be to achieve the reserve levels of peers described in the Reserves Advisory  Report as 10‐65% of Operating Revenue in the Rate Stabilization Reserves and 20% of 60 months of  budgeted CIP.   As such, following the Policy and Services Committee review of this Reserves Advisory Report on April  14, 2026 and City Council review to follow, staff recommend a workplan over the coming year to review  and revise reserve policies for City Council consideration with the assistance of the Utility Advisory  Commission and the Finance Committee that balance need to be attractive to private markets with  having rates that are affordable to residents and competitive for businesses while remaining within the  range of recommendations from Baker Tilly in terms of industry standards and peer comparisons.   Staff expect in advance of the FY 2028 rate setting, to prepare discussion and ultimately  recommendations on policy‐related issues including setting the target levels for utility reserves. Staff will  strive for a coordinated approach across Electric, Gas, Water, Wastewater Collection, Wastewater  Treatment, Refuse, and Stormwater Utilities. Staff review will inform the strategic direction and timing  of any changes.  Item 2 Attachment B - Management Response Utilities Reserve Advisory Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 45  Packet Pg. 73 of 84  ATTACHMENT B  Staff have provided more detailed responses to the specific recommendations below as well as a  summary comparison table of existing reserve policies and recommendations from Baker Tilly in Table 1.  Baker Tilly Recommendations and Responses from City Staff  1. Update Dated Policies ‐ Target Date: CY 2026 for Wastewater Treatment, CY Q2 2027 for Refuse  and Stormwater Management  City staff agrees and plans to align reserve policies across Utilities and Public Works enterprise funds as  appropriate. Public Works is currently working with an outside consultant to update the Wastewater  Treatment Fund’s reserves policy.  As part of this effort, the consultant will review Baker Tilly’s  recommendations from the Reserves Advisory Report and incorporate them, as appropriate, into the  overall comprehensive approach. The Wastewater Treatment Fund is an example of a more specific  business operation as it is reflective of a regional operation with other local government partner  agencies that are all contributors and members of the services and funds.  2. Do not eliminate any of the current reserve funds in place    City staff agrees that having operations, rate stabilization and CIP Reserve funds in place makes sense  and that each of the other Utilities reserve funds are in place for specifically defined and valid purposes.  3. Clarify CIP Reserve Fund Language ‐ Target Date: CY Q2 2027  Council renamed the Calaveras Reserve to the Electric Special Projects (ESP) Reserve in 2011 (Resolution  9206)  to fund projects that benefit electric ratepayers. In 2015 (Resolution 9510), Council established  guidelines for managing the ESP Reserve and those guidelines were revised by Council in 2022  (Resolution 10076) . City staff agrees an update of the council‐adopted policy on the use of ESP Reserve  funds is appropriate. Previously, the ESP reserve has been used to fund Electric’s share of the Advanced  Metering Infrastructure (~$10M) and provide seed funding to the Electrification Reserve (~$4.5M).  Future uses of the funds as well as the sunset date and full review of ESP Reserve guidelines should be  considered by Council. The City’s reserve management policies cover how the CIP Reserve is used.   4. Consider adjustment to CIP Reserve Fund Guideline Levels – Target Date: CY Q2 2027  City staff acknowledge the CIP Reserve guideline recommendations made by Baker Tilly to maintain the  CIP Reserve fund at 20% of 60 months of budgeted CIP expenses or alternatively, one‐year of  depreciation expense in the CIP reserve fund and the research used to identify like agencies and best  practices. As noted previously, staff has preliminarily evaluated the rate implications of this  recommendation for the Electric, Gas, Water and Wastewater Funds – assuming the funds are  recovered over five years, a 0% to 4% rate increase specific to each fund is estimated to be needed to  bring reserves to this level. Public Works will consider this recommendation as it brings forward the  comprehensive reserve policy recommendations for Wastewater Treatment, Refuse, and Storm Water  Funds.  As part of City staff’s recommendations that it will bring forward, the rate and bill impacts across each  utility need to be considered to find alignment with Baker Tilly’s recommendation while considering  customer affordability. This approach aligns with the GFOA recommendation mentioned by Baker Tilly  that recommends capital reserve level development should be designed to best serve the particular  needs of a given organization. In evaluating appropriate rate stabilization reserve levels, staff plans to  Item 2 Attachment B - Management Response Utilities Reserve Advisory Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 46  Packet Pg. 74 of 84  ATTACHMENT B  assess each utility holistically, taking into account the full suite of available reserves and overall financial  position and compliance with bond covenants, preservation of credit ratings, and affordability.  5. Adjust Rate Stabilization Reserve Policy to align with Bond Covenants –Target Date: CY Q2 2027  – CY Q2 2028  As noted in the Reserves Advisory Report, staff plans to refund the 2009 Bonds later in 2026 and a  normal payoff of the 2011 Bonds is expected in June 2026 which would eliminate the need to make a  change to these minimum guideline levels due to this Bond Covenant as reserve policies will align with  bond or loan covenants as applicable. According to the latest Ratings Affirmation from S&P on the  outstanding 2009 and 2011 bonds, Palo Alto is in compliance with the Rate and Available Reserves  Covenants.   City staff agrees with the recommendation to weigh the need for additional Rate Stabilization Reserve  fund levels, comparability to peer agencies, and the impacts to customer rates among other  considerations in order to determine an appropriate level of funding for each reserve fund. Staff will  work through these considerations depending on the individual circumstances for each reserve, staff will  consider the options available in the context of the totality of reserves for each fund.   6. Formalize Reserve Tracking – Target Date: CY Q4 2026  City Staff agrees transparency of reserve fund balances, reserve policies and guideline levels, and use of  reserves is important.  Staff already provide this information about the reserve balances in the annual  budget, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, and utility financial plans each year. Staff plans to  continue its current practices of providing this information to the City Council. Staff recommends  exception‐based reporting added to the existing quarterly financial report to Council to supplement  current transparency reporting.      The Reserves Advisory Report mentions the following observations regarding further specificity of the  flow of funds and reserve targets in the reserve policies and credit rating reserve targets.  While staff  agree specificity is helpful, policies are intended to be evergreen so staff will review and include this  feedback in the recommended policy updates as appropriate. Staff agree that exploring the use of a  target or guideline levels could reduce administrative burden.             Item 2 Attachment B - Management Response Utilities Reserve Advisory Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 47  Packet Pg. 75 of 84  ATTACHMENT B  Table 1: Palo Alto Current and Baker Tilly Proposed Reserve Targets and Guidelines for the  Operations, CIP, and Rate Stabilization Reserves   OPERATIONS RESERVE CIP RESERVE RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE   Current  Palo Alto  Target  Proposed Baker  Tilly Target  Current Palo Alto  Guidelines  Proposed Baker  Tilly Guidelines  Current Palo Alto  Guidelines Proposed Baker Tilly Guidelines  Electric  U lity  90 days of  O&M and  Commodity  Expense  No Change Minimum: 5% of 48  months of budgeted CIP   Maximum: 25% of 48  months (12 months) of  budgeted CIP    20% of 60  months (12  months) of  budgeted CIP  Each year, the  Financial forecast must  plan for the  withdrawal of all Rate  Stabiliza on Reserve  funds within 5 years.   10 to 65% of either revenues or  expenses  Gas U lity 90 days of  O&M and  Commodity  Expense  No Change Minimum: 5% of 48  months of budgeted CIP   Maximum: 25% of 48  months of budgeted CIP    20% of 60  months of  budgeted CIP  Each year, the  Financial forecast must  plan for the  withdrawal of all Rate  Stabiliza on Reserve  funds within 5 years.  10 to 65% of either revenues or  expenses  Water U lity 90 days of  O&M and  Commodity  Expense  No Change Minimum: 5% of 48  months of budgeted CIP   Maximum: 25% of 48  months of budgeted CIP    20% of 60  months of  budgeted CIP  Each year, the  Financial forecast must  plan for the  withdrawal of all Rate  Stabiliza on Reserve  funds within 5 years.  10 to 65% of either revenues or  expenses  Wastewater  U lity  105 days of  O&M and  Commodity  Expense  No Change Minimum: 5% of 48  months of budgeted CIP   Maximum: 25% of 48  months of budgeted CIP    20% of 60  months of  budgeted CIP  Each year, the  Financial forecast must  plan for the  withdrawal of all Rate  Stabiliza on Reserve  funds within 5 years.  10 to 65% of either revenues or  expenses  Wastewater  Treatment  No  Opera ons  Reserve  Baker Tilly  views  maintaining  Opera ons  Reserve as a  best prac ce.  No CIP Reserve Baker Tilly views  maintaining CIP  Reserve as a best  prac ce.  Minimum: 15%, Target  22.5%, Maximum 30%  % of sales revenue  Baker Tilly proposes management  should consider the need for the  exis ng reserve funds. If no longer  necessary, these funds should be  closed out and the money  transferred to other funds in place.  Refuse No  Opera ons  Reserve  Baker Tilly  views  maintaining  Opera ons  Reserve as a  best prac ce.  No CIP Reserve Baker Tilly views  maintaining CIP  Reserve as a best  prac ce.  Minimum: 10%, Target  15%, Maximum 20%  % of sales revenue  Baker Tilly proposes management  should consider the need for the  exis ng reserve funds. If no longer  necessary, these funds should be  closed out and the money  transferred to other funds in place.  Stormwater No  Opera ons  Reserve  Baker Tilly  views  maintaining  Opera ons  Reserve as a  best prac ce.  No CIP Reserve Baker Tilly views  maintaining CIP  Reserve as a best  prac ce.  Target: $500,000 Baker Tilly proposes management  should consider the need for the  exis ng reserve funds. If no longer  necessary, these funds should be  closed out and the money  transferred to other funds in place.    Item 2 Attachment B - Management Response Utilities Reserve Advisory Report        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 48  Packet Pg. 76 of 84  Policy & Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 14, 2026 Report #:2604-6208 TITLE Update on Citywide Development Impact Fee Nexus and Housing Feasibility Study. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. This report will be a late packet report published on March 9, 2026. Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 77 of 84  1 9 5 1 0 Policy & Services Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 14, 2026 Report #: 2603-6061 TITLE Update on Citywide Development Impact Fee Nexus and Housing Feasibility Study. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the Committee receive an update on the subject effort and provide feedback on potential 2050 residential and non-residential growth projections. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff are conducting a comprehensive update of Palo Alto's development impact fees and related in-lieu fees. In December 2025, City Council approved a professional services contract with Keyser Marston Associates (KMA), with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) as a subconsultant, to prepare an AB 602-compliant nexus study and financial feasibility analysis. This report provides a preliminary analysis of 2050 growth projections, which will serve as an input for certain fee calculations related to transportation and fire safety, and provide a basis for projecting fee revenues over time. BACKGROUND Development impact fees help ensure new development pays its fair share of the public facilities needed to serve growth. Under California's Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600), jurisdictions may charge these fees when there is a reasonable relationship, or nexus, between the fee and the type of development. Assembly Bill 602, effective January 1, 2022, added requirements to adopt and update certain impact fees at least every eight years. Palo Alto's Housing Element also requires timely updates to certain housing-related fees and feasibility analyses. To meet these state law and Housing Element requirements, and to create a consistent citywide fee framework, the City Council approved a professional services contract in December 2025 to comprehensively update multiple impact and in-lieu fees. The work includes Item 3 Item 3 Late Packet Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 78 of 84  2 9 5 1 0 development forecasting, facility needs analysis, fee and revenue analysis, financial feasibility testing, and implementation recommendations for administration, accounting, and reporting. ANALYSIS Item 3 Item 3 Late Packet Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 79 of 84  3 9 5 1 0 number of existing residential units is based on the January 1, 2025 DOF report, increased by 0.3 percent to account for 2025 growth. The estimate of existing jobs in the City was based on data from the 2022 Economic Census, adjusted to 2026. Non-residential development amounts were estimated from the jobs data using employment density factors, with no assumed growth in non-residential categories from 2022 to 2026 except in the office category, where 0.1 percent annual growth was applied. Item 3 Item 3 Late Packet Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 80 of 84  4 9 5 1 0 the likelihood that buildout will approach Plan Bay Area 2050's projections within the study horizon. Table 1: City of Palo Alto Residential Growth Projections Through 2050 Approximate Existing Conditions (January 2026) Low Range Plan Bay Area 2050 Staff Recommended Item 3 Item 3 Late Packet Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 81 of 84  5 9 5 1 0 planning horizon; 2,700 units associated with SB 79 development potential around existing transit stations; and 2,400 units from the San Antonio Road corridor. This estimate is considered conservative, reflecting real market constraints including elevated construction costs, labor costs, and tight lending conditions that continue to compress development margins and make it difficult for many builders to achieve the returns necessary to move projects forward. That said, several factors could drive higher production over the horizon. Development may occur outside of transit stations or housing focus areas; lower borrowing costs or higher rents may stimulate greater activity; and local or state housing policies may serve as additional catalysts. Conversely, if fewer units are produced, the city would collect less fee revenue, while greater production would generate more revenue, though that revenue would also correspond to increased demand for city services. Total development impact fee revenue is demand-driven and fluctuates accordingly. Fees are required to be updated every eight years, ensuring they remain calibrated to anticipated development levels and the infrastructure planning needed to accommodate that growth. Hotel/motel: the initially projected decline was revised upward because it was skewed by a small number of recent projects that replaced hotels with housing; the revised estimate reflects pipeline projects and development trends from 2018 to 2024. Commercial: although some commercial space is being converted to residential use, the initial projected decline was removed to reflect City efforts to strengthen retail along El Camino Real and encourage ground-floor retail; commercial space is therefore projected to remain at approximately 6.5 million square feet through 2050. Item 3 Item 3 Late Packet Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 82 of 84  6 9 5 1 0 Industrial: the initial estimate was reduced by 5 percent to reflect expected residential development along San Antonio Road and Fabian Way, where some existing industrial uses may transition. Public facilities: the initial growth rate is retained to account for likely new public facilities associated with the Cubberley Community Center project. Job growth was then estimated using NBS employment density assumptions applied to the projected increase in non-residential square footage by 2050. Table 2: City of Palo Alto Existing Non-Residential Conditions and 2050 Growth Projections Existing Conditions (estimated as of January 2026) Staff Recommendation Total Jobs 125,000 130,000 Total Hotel/Motel Rooms 2,500 2,750 Total Non-Residential Development 53,100,000 53,700,000 Total Square Feet of Commercial Development 6,500,000 6,500,000 Total Square Feet of Office Development 27,500,000 28,500,000 Total Square Feet of Medical Development 8,000,000 8,000,000 Total Square Feet of Industrial Development 10,500,000 10,000,000 Total Square Feet of Public Facilities Development 600,000 700,000 Overall, the non-residential forecast reflects a relatively stable development picture, with net growth of approximately 600,000 square feet and 5,000 jobs citywide by 2050. The modest scale of this projection is intentional: it reflects the continued constraints on large-scale office and commercial development in a largely built-out city, tempered by the policy adjustments described above. Staff is comfortable that this estimate provides a reasonable basis for fee calculations and revenue projections, and it will be revisited as part of the required eight-year update cycle. Item 3 Item 3 Late Packet Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 83 of 84  7 9 5 1 0 Next Steps and Anticipated Schedule FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 3 Item 3 Late Packet Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 84 of 84