Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.03.01 4�CITY BURLJNGAME �F oe a A.TFn JUME 6. The City of Burlingame City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010-3997 City Council Budtet Policy Study Session Wednesday, March 1, 2006, 6:00 p.m. Burlingame Public Library, Lane Room AGENDA I. Call to Order and Roll Call (6:00)—Mayor Cathy Baylock II. Mid-year Report - Status of the current year budget (6:03) a. FY 06-07 and FY 07-08 Revenue projections vs. actual b. FY 06-07 and FY 07-08 Expenditure levels and projections c. Review of the General Fund Budget Model III. CEP Needs (6:35) IV. Budget Policy Issues (7:10) a. Budget Assumptions b. Budget Suggestions Referred from Goals Session c. Use of Reserves V. Break (7:45) VI. Public Comments (7:55) VII. Council Direction (8:30) a. Budget Assumptions b. Use of Reserves c. CIP Dedicated Funding d. CEP Project funding e. Budget Suggestions VIII. Adjournment (9:00) Note: Time frames and sequence of discussion is tentative and may be changed by the Council BUIWNGAME �o om Background Information and Options For Council AA,� E SBudget Policy Discussion The budget process is once again upon us and the work of formulating a new financial plan is underway. Unlike the last three years, the fiscal pressure is less. Revenue growth has occurred and operating costs have been contained and increased incrementally. However, there is still a need to remain fiscally conservative in the upcoming year in order to solidify our gains and avoid undue financial risks. As we witnessed after the terrorist attacks of 2001, sales tax and transient occupancy tax collections can decline dramatically and impact our budget immediately. Staff has confidence that the growth we have experienced will continue,but there is always the caution that another serious incident will occur causing our gains to disappear. I realize that there is a desire to restore the levels of services that were lost in the last three fiscal years,but it is important to maintain a long-term view of our finances. Ultimately our job is to help you make the decisions that are best for our citizens during good times and bad. The following information is provided to give you insight into the city's finances and to assist you in making policy decisions that we will implement in the new budget. A.Budget Assumptions After three years of revenue declines, the City did experience revenue growth in the General fund in FY03-04 and FY04-05. In FY03-04, the Council adopted a 3%revenue growth factor for the budget and realized actual growth of 5.4%. In FY04-05, the Council approved a revenue growth factor of 3% and achieved actual growth of 6%. Given this trend,the Council opted to budget for 5% growth in the current FY05-06 budget. At mid-year, all indications are that the budget estimate will be again be surpassed. The City's budget model,which we use to forecast revenues and expenditures for the ensuing two fiscal years, has been revised to show FY05-06 year-ending revenue of$37 million instead of the $35.4 million that was budgeted. This amount is$1.6 million over budget. However, it includes the following one-time payments to the City: $480,000 from the repayment of the VLF Gap Loan and an$880,000 ERAF refund from the County of San Mateo. The budget model once again projects 5% growth for the upcoming fiscal year(FY06-07) given the rate of revenue growth that has occurred in the last two years. We believe this to be a conservative, yet realistic projection of growth for the new year. The model also includes employee costs based on our projection of what it would take to keep salaries for all bargaining units at or above the median level for cities within our survey group. In addition,benefits have been adjusted in accordance with the various Memorandums of Understanding. Although increases in salaries will vary by the different bargaining units, the result is an overall increase in employee costs of 3%. FY06-07 Budget Policy Session Report.doc 1 of 7 As you can see the model shows a balanced budget for FY06-07 based on the revenue and expenditure assumptions that have been described. This includes an appropriation of $2 million for capital improvements in the new fiscal year. What the model does not include is any new positions or increases in operating costs beyond the projected 3%. If Council desires to eliminate current revenue sources or add new expenditures to the budget, then new revenue or budget cuts will be required. We ask that Council review the model and provide us feedback on the assumptions that are included, especially the 5% revenue growth rate and the 3% increase in employee costs. B. Use of Reserves A second policy issue is the use of General fund reserves to balance the budget or fund new expenditures with minimal impacts on current service levels or employee reductions. The City Council has five different designated reserve funds in the General fund: The Economic Stability Reserve is available to offset fluctuations in general fund revenues that are highly sensitive to economic conditions, mainly Sales Taxes and Transient Occupancy Taxes. The Catastrophic Reserve is available to make repairs and reconstruct city buildings and facilities that may be damaged by natural disasters or acts of war and terrorism. The Ca1PERS (California Public Employees Retirement Ss� tem) Reserve is available to pay for unfunded liabilities resulting from pension obligations in future fiscal years. The Contingency Reserve covers unexpected expenses that may arise during the course of the fiscal year but that were unknown at the time when the budget was adopted. The Centennial Celebration Reserve is designated to fund special events commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Burlingame. The following table shows the City of Burlingame's General Fund Reserves at the end of each respective fiscal year. The FY06 column is the estimated reserve levels on June 30, 2006 taking into account the use of the $1.6 million that was authorized by the Council this budget year. City of Burlingame, CA General Fund Designated Reserves FY04 FY05 FY06 Economic Stability Reserve $ 2,000,000 $ 250005000 $ 2,000,000 Catastrophic Reserve 250005000 25000,000 2,000,000 CalPERS Reserve 2,8005000 218005000 1 ,200,000 Contingency Reserve 5005000 500,000 500,000 Centennial Reserve 309000 40,000 50,000 Total Designated Reserves: $ 713305000 $ 7,340,000 $ 5,750,000 FY06-07 Budget Policy Session Report.doc 2 of 7 The Council authorized the use of$1 million in reserves to balance the budget in FY03-04 and FY04-05. However, reserves`were not spent in either year because the city departments under- expended their budgets and revenue grew more than had been projected. In FY03-04, the Council did transfer $500,000 from the CalPERS reserve into the Worker's Compensation Fund to establish a new reserve that would be used to cover potentially high losses from extraordinary claims. The establishment of the Worker's Compensation Reserve was recommended by an actuarial study conducted in 2004. Prior to the transfer of funds, the CaIPERs reserve contained $3.3 million. The transfer reduced the reserve to $2.8 million. In the current budget year, FY05-06, the Council authorized the use of$1.6 million from the Ca1PERS reserve to limit the cuts needed to balance the budget and to invest $1.6 million from the General Fund for capital improvements. Given the growth in general fund revenues that have occurred so far this fiscal year, it may be possible to once again cover all general fund expenditures without using the reserve appropriation. As a historical note, the CalPERS reserve was established in 2001 to pay for increases in retirement costs that were projected to occur as a result of the economic recession and the concurrent enhancement of retirement benefits for Police. The retirement actuarial studies that were conducted at that time indicated that city's contribution to Ca1PERS would spike dramatically given negative investment returns and the implementation of the 3% at 50 retirement plan for Police. The PERS reserve would give the city time to absorb the additional CaIPERs costs without having to make major cuts in services. In FY03-04, the Police Officers Association agreed to delay the implementation of their retirement enhancement for two years in exchange for pay increases. The 3% at 50 plan is now scheduled to be implemented July 1, 2006. The PERS expense for FY 06-07 is estimated to be $4.95 million. This is an increase of approximately $400,000 from the current PERS expenses of $4.58 million in FY 05-06. The following table shows the current and the new CalPERS rates for the City of Burlingame. The budget model reflects the new rates for FY06-07: FY 05-06 FY 06-07 Difference Miscellaneous Employees (non-safety) 15.278% 13.860% -1.418% Police (sworn) 34.039% 43.800% 9.761% Fire (sworn) 35.785% 37.737% 1.952% The following options are available to the Council with respect to reserves: 1. Use a portion of the remaining $1.2 million PERS reserve to cover the costs associated with the increase in CaIPERs rates for Police retirement enhancements that will take effect July 1 . This would free up $400,000 to be used for another one-time purpose. FY06-07 Budget Policy Session Report.doc 3 of 7 Retirement costs are an ongoing annual expense and would be financed from annual revenue collection in the following fiscal year. 2. As in previous fiscal years use $1.0 million in reserves for additional CIP or operating needs with the hope that revenues will be higher than expected or that the departments will under expend their operating budgets. 3. Finance the budget solely from annual revenue collections that are projected for FY06-07 and leave all reserves intact for potential use in future fiscal years. C. Budget Reduction Approach The Council has implemented a multi-pronged approach to balancing the budget in past fiscal years. The strategies include: ➢ Annual adjustment to fees and fines ➢ Shared services with neighboring cities ➢ Cuts to services and elimination of positions Annual Adiustment to General Fund Fees and Fines As has been the practice for the past three years we recommend that general fund fees and fines be adjusted to reflect increases in annual operating costs.. That amount represents an increase of 3% for FY06-07. We believe that as with any business it is best to make incremental, annual adjustments to cover rising costs than to delay those increases only to have to make them up with sizable increases two or three years down the road. New and Additional Sources of Revenues If Council is interested in adding new expenditures to the budget or reducing or eliminating current General fund revenues,then there is the option of developing new or additional sources of revenue most of which would require a two-thirds vote of approval. It should be noted that voter approved funding has traditionally been used to finance capital improvements. As we finalize the public facilities master plan the Council will need to provide direction on the possibility of additional revenue sources to cover those capital funding requirements. However, absent any unforeseen circumstances we do not anticipate asking the council to consider approaching voters for a new source of revenue for the operating budget. Shared Services Shared service proposals have provided budget savings in the past three fiscal years. Our success with the fire merger and the temporary sharing of the Parks and Recreation Director with the City of Millbrae are two examples. At this point staff does not have any general fund shared services proposals to present to the Council for implementation in FY06-07. However, it remains an option if the need for additional budget savings is needed. FY06-07 Budget Policy Session Report.doc 4 of 7 The Public Works department is pursuing a shared services agreement with the Town of Hillsborough to provide sewer maintenance services. That proposal affects the Sewer fund and will be presented as part of the proposed budget in May. Tier Cuts Beginning in FY03-04, the Council has authorized four levels of cuts to the General fund operating budget which reduced annual costs by $4.8 million. Tier One Reductions: $1.7 million FY03-04 Tier Two Reductions: $0.9 million FY03-04 Tier Three Reductions: $1.8 million FY04-05 Tier Four Reductions: $0.4 million FY05-06 The goal of those efforts was to achieve a structural balance between annual revenue collections and operating expenses. The good news is that we have limited the structural imbalance between operating revenues and expenditures. The bad news is we still don't have enough projected annual revenues to fund capital improvements from the General fund. We currently estimate that the city's capital needs require $4 million annually. As mentioned earlier, the budget model does include $2 million from the General fund to finance capital improvements next year, but there is still a projected deficit in FY07-08 if an additional $2 million is taken for CIP in that fiscal year. D. General Fund Funding for Capital Improvements Policy issues pertaining to the funding of capital improvements in FY06-07 are presented under a separate report that is part of this packet. E. Community Group Funding The final item requiring Council input is the funding for local community groups. Last year staff developed a standard form that solicited the same information from all applicants for community funding. The form was well received by both the community groups and the Council. It simplified the funding application and provided the Council with similar information from each agency that could be used to compare the different requests for funding. The form will be used once again this year. Funding for the Community Groups has been augmented by 3% in the budget model. This will provide $53,000 for awarding funds to the non-profit organizations. The annual letter informing community groups of the availability of funding will be mailed on Friday, March 3, 2006. The deadline for submitting their funding requests to the City is Friday, April 7, 2006, at 5:00 p.m. FY06-07 Budget Policy Session Report.doc 5 of 7 Final Comments I know that it has been difficult to reduce services and positions over the last three budget years, but I want to acknowledge the discipline and fortitude that the department directors and city staff have shown. No matter what levels of cuts were implemented, they maintained their commitment to public service and continued to assist the citizens as best they could. In addition, the departments have done an excellent job of continuing to under-spend their budgets. Their actions are a far-cry from the general perception that government bureaucrats continuously spend their appropriations only request more. Now that revenues have recovered and are growing, it is important to protect the levels of service that remain in tact. While staff is optimistic about the future we remain cautious of any potential drops in revenue that may occur given the uncertainty in the world. As such, our overall recommendation is that the Council continues the budget philosophy that was implemented from the onset of the economic downturn. That includes: 1. Acknowledging that the loss of transient occupancy and sales taxes created a new base level of revenue and that the recovery, once begun,would not be immediate but rather a normal steady growth of 3%to 5%. 2. Implementation of budget reductions that were designed to reinstate a structurally balanced budget where annual revenue collections would cover or exceed ongoing operating expenses and capital improvements. 3. Judicious and prudent use of our general fund reserves to limit service reductions until we achieved the structural balance between annual revenues and expenses. 4. Identify a recommended ongoing funding requirement to maintain our investment in infrastructure such that at a minimum investment keeps us from getting any farther behind in terms of deterioration. This year we anticipate reaching an important milestone in our recovery where we achieve a structural balance between annual revenues and operating expenses. The good news is that we will avoid further cuts. But we are not ready to celebrate as annual revenues will still be inadequate to fund our ongoing need for$4 million in capital improvements. As the goals suggestions indicate there is a desire to reinstate service reductions. They include increasing library hours, the library collections budget and adding police officers. As public employees we are always interested in improving the services we provide our community, particularly in a community like Burlingame where citizens have enjoyed a relatively high level of service. So we fully understand the temptation to respond to calls for greater services. However the last four budgets have left us in position where we have under funded our public infrastructure by roughly$8 million dollars. This means we have fallen behind in our basic obligation to ensure that the core infrastructure needs are met. We believe that some tough love FY06-07 Budget Policy Session Report.doc 6 of 7 is still needed and that the Council needs to tell the community that they would love nothing more than to start reinstating service levels. However,we need to stay the course and commit that our first call on any new funding is to address our public infrastructure. Again,there is no denying that our service levels in almost all aspects of our operations are below the community's expectation,but it is important to view those expectations from a an objective stand point. For that reason, I have attached are some key indicators about how some of our resources/services compare to other communities. I look forward to our budget discussion on Wednesday,March 1, 2006. FY06-07 Budget Policy Session Report.doc 7 of 7 Agenda Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: March 1, 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: FY 2006-07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: The purpose of this report is to recommend projects for Council to consider for the FY 2006-07 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget and obtain direction, especially as it relates to budget issues raised at the goal setting session. INTRODUCTION: Unlike previous years, this report focuses mainly on general fund projects. It also discusses several projects funded by gas,tax, Measure A, and grant revenues, as well as requests direction on capital projects suggested by Council members and the public. Specific water and sewer projects are not included in this report but instead will be presented during the May 31, 2006 budget study session based on the general direction given by Council at their February 22, 2006 meeting regarding sewer/water programs and rates. (See suggestions list#34-38.) DISCUSSION OF GENERAL FUND PROJECTS: Approximately eight years ago, staff completed several studies to determine the condition of the City's infrastructure. This information was used to develop a long range CIP plan for each category of infrastructure and guided Council on setting the level of funding for the CIP budget. Over the period from 1998-2002, the City enjoyed an average general fund CIP budget of $9,600,000. However, due to difficult economic times and a shortfall in general fund revenues, the CIP program was scaled back starting in FY 2002-03 as indicated on the attachment. Consequently, staff re-evaluated each category of infrastructure to determine the critical minimum level of funding based upon the existing backlog of deferred improvements. The results indicated that the City should be funding $4,000,000 annually to keep pace with the rate of infrastructure deterioration. (This does not include replacing or making major renovations to City buildings.) Over the last three years, the average level of CIP funding has dropped to $1,500,000. Although staff believes that this lower level of funding has been sustainable in the short- term, a continuation will result in a significant increase in the backlog of capital work, thereby increasing liability and maintenance costs for the City. Staff has carefully examined the categories of infrastructure and proposes a $2,270,000 program with projects that have been selected on the basis of safety considerations. As this level of funding is still 40% below addressing the critical infrastructure needs, staff further recommends that any future added funding be first directed toward these critical needs. After careful review of the City's financial situation, the City Manager and Finance Director believe that there are sufficient funds available to finance the following CIP program. • Storm Drainage Improvements ($1,650,000) —There is a backlog of identified regionally significant capital improvements of $36,000,000. In order to optimize the limited funding for storm drainage improvements, staff recommends a mix of regional and local projects to benefit several areas of the City. The Easton Creek watershed has been identified as the top priority in the drainage master plan and 70% of the improvements to this regional system have been completed over the last five years. The next phase involves upgrading an existing pump station near Marsten Road to increase its capacity for flood control during heavy storms with high tide conditions. $1,150,000 of work includes upgrading the pump controls, adding pumps and expanding the existing control building. Based on studies of the storm drainage system's condition, a funding level of $2,200,000 is required to address the annual deterioration. As the recommended 2006-07 regional improvements fall short of this funding level, the $36,000,000 backlog of existing work will continue to rise. Several local projects totaling $500,000 include new catch basins and pipelines in the Cabrillo Avenue/Cortez Avenue/Broadway area and Laguna Avenue area as well as replacement of failed corrugated metal pipes along Skyline Boulevard and Rollins Road. In addition, debris and silt will be removed from the Mills Creek culvert under the 101 Freeway to provide improved storm water flow to the bay. (See suggestions list#86.) • Sidewalks ($50,000) — Prior to the change in policy, the City had spent an annual average of $550,000 for sidewalk replacement mainly due to tripping hazards. This level of City funding would result in replacing the total 116 miles of City sidewalk in 75 years. Under the new program, $42,000 of sidewalk was replaced last year which was paid for by the property owners. Although the project area was similar in size to previous years, the scope of work was limited to just replacing the minimum number of sidewalk sections necessary to address tripping hazards. (The previous City financed program also replaced cracked sidewalk and developing tripping hazards). Due to limited revenues, staff recommends continuing with the current sidewalk policy and funding of $50,000 for sidewalk replacement adjacent to City owned property. The project area is in the Burlingame Park Subdivision located generally north of San Mateo and west of EI Camino Real. (See suggestions list#47.) SAA Public Works Directory\Slaff Reportsl2006-07 Capital Improvement Prog.doc 2 • Handicap Ramps ($100,000) — Staff has developed an American Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan to address accessibility issues on City owned property including handicap ramps along public sidewalks. Staff has identified a total of 1,576 missing ramps of which 100 are in high use and sensitive locations such as shopping areas, schools, churches, and transportation centers. Staff recommends $100,000 which will fund approximately 33 ramps at an average cost of $3,000. This level of funding will eliminate the estimated $4,700,000 backlog of work in approximately 50 years. • Parks and Recreation Improvements ($270,000) — The recommended program emphasizes safety related improvements including $140,000 for resilient surfacing for playgrounds at Village, Paloma and Laguna Parks, $30,000 for court resurfacing at Laguna and Village Parks as well as $50,000 for pathway rehabilitation primarily at Village and Washington Parks. In addition, $50,000 is recommended for ongoing proactive Eucalyptus tree management. • Street Lighting ($200,000) — The City's street light system has aged to the point where it is difficult to find replacement parts for some of the light fixtures. In older areas of the City, such as on Howard Avenue, the electrical conduit system and circuitry is experiencing periodic outages. In order to address these types of issues, staff recommends that a condition assessment of the entire street light system be made and a long-term replacement program be developed. Emphasis will be placed on upgrading street lights in high pedestrian areas such as near schools, the train stations, and businesses districts. The recommended funding would be used to perform the assessment and implement several priority projects. (See suggestions list#78, 79, 82.) DISCUSSION OF GAS TAX, MEASURE A AND GRANT FUNDEDPROJECTS: It is estimated that the City will receive $1,100,000 of gas tax/Measure A revenues and $10,000 in vehicle registration fees (AB1546) as well as a possible $300,000 transportation grant. The total $1,410,000 would be available to fund the street resurfacing program and curb/gutter program. (See suggestions list#80, 84, 85.) Street Resurfacing Program ($1,260,000) — Staff recommends two projects. The first project includes paving several arterial streets which would be eligible for partial funding under a Federal grant program. After careful review of the program's scoring criteria, staff is submitting a project to resurface Hillside Drive between EI Camino Real and Vancouver Avenue, California Drive between Dufferin Avenue and the Millbrae City limit, Rollins Road between Oak Grove Avenue and Cadillac Way and Easton Drive between EI Camino Real and Vancouver Avenue. The $600,000 project would be funded by $300,000 from gas tax/Measure A revenue and a matching $300,000 grant. S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\2006-07 Capital Improvement Prog.doc 3 The second project consists of paving collector and residential streets identified as high priorities by the City Pavement Management Program. Example candidate streets for the $660,000 project are Primrose Road, Farrington Lane, Chula Vista Avenue, and Crossway Avenue. Staff intends to make a presentation to Council later in spring on the pavement management program, including the methodology, scoring, and prioritization of street projects. Staff will also address how the timing of a paving project is coordinated with the sewer, water and storm drain programs in neighborhoods. • Curb and Gutter Program ($150,000) — Staff recommends continuation of a program to replace curb and gutters at various locations along the 150 miles of City streets which are cracked and depressed due to tree roots. The program would address local drainage and standing water problems. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL AND PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO THE CIP BUDGET: Following are suggested projects which have not been addressed in the recommended CIP program and require Council feedback. • Traffic Calming — Staff has researched the traffic calming programs of several jurisdictions and compared it to Burlingame's program. A presentation of the program will be made to Council at a March 20, 2006 study session. Elements of a traffic calming program can include physical features such as speed humps, bulb-outs, traffic circles, and street closures with costs ranging up to $200,000. Research has shown that the most effective element is education with costs ranging up to $50,000 for signage, informational materials and staff time. (See suggestions list#44.) • San Francisco Water Department Property Purchase — Staff received an appraisal of $10,000,000 from the San Francisco Water Department in December 2001 for the purchase of a 50 foot wide strip of land along the railroad tracks from Mills Avenue to North Lane. The City's appraisal for the same property was $4,300,000. The Water Department indicated that they preferred selling the entire strip rather than pieces of the property. Council has expressed several interests for purchasing all or part of the strip including Eucalyptus tree preservation as well as land control with respect to future private development or regional transportation improvements (high speed rail or a Bart extension). (See suggestions list#45, 46.) • Lighted Crosswalks — There are existing lighted crosswalks located near Stacks restaurant on California Drive and at the Hyatt Hotel on Bayshore Road. The average cost for a lighted crosswalk is $70,000. Due to a need to consider less expensive alternatives, staff recommends that lighted crosswalk requests be brought to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission for evaluation, especially with respect to their location. For instance, several suggestions were made from the public to place crosswalks at intersections which have traffic signals. However, the State Manual of Approved Traffic Control Devices SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reportst2006-07 Capital Improvement Prog.doc 4 prohibits placing lighted crosswalks at signalized intersections. (See suggestions list#61, 63.) Pedestrian Access to the Broadway Bridge Over the 101 Freeway — There is an existing four foot wide raised sidewalk on the south side of the Broadway bridge over the 101 Freeway which has no formal pedestrian access to either Rollins Road on the west side or Bayshore Highway on the east side. There is no painted crosswalk from the bridge across Rollins Road and pedestrians use several dirt paths from the bridge to access Bayshore Highway. A suggestion has been made to place a painted crosswalk at Rollins Road and re-grade the path to provide better pedestrian access. Although this can be accomplished by City crews within the existing operating budget, staff can not recommend this option due to safety considerations. Without pedestrian signal controls at Rollins Road, pedestrians are exposed to high traffic volumes and speeds complicated by potentially dangerous vehicular turning movements. Also, placing a painted crosswalk without curb ramps creates an additional danger for handicapped pedestrians. One of the dirt paths on the east side is on a slope making it potentially unsafe. A pedestrian fell on the path in 2002 and submitted a claim to the City for a broken leg. Staff strongly recommends that if this alternate is pursued, signage be placed at both ends notifying the public that they are to proceed at their own risk and stating that the path and crosswalks are not ADA accessible. If Council wishes to provide pedestrian access, staff recommends that a painted crosswalk, handicap ramps and pedestrian signal controls be placed at the Broadway/Rollins Road intersection and that a sidewalk be constructed from the east end of the bridge to Bayshore Highway at an estimated cost of $100,000. The scope of this work as well as several variations will be described in more detail at the study session. As parts of these improvements are within the Caltrans right-of-way, a permit would be required from the agency. Although staff could request financial participation from Caltrans, it is unlikely they would consent since a new pedestrian bridge with local street access is going to be built over the next three years as part of the Auxiliary Lanes Project. (See suggestions list#60.) Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements — There has been a suggestion that a small streetscape project proceed prior to the completion of the Specific Area Plan (SAP) due to the deteriorated state of the infrastructure in the Burlingame Avenue Business District. Staff estimates that there will be approximately $1,400,000 available in the Parking Enterprise fund and from developer contributions in FY 2006-07 to finance streetscape improvements. However, based on the Broadway Improvements Project, the cost of implementing the Burlingame Avenue Area Streetscape Beautification Master Plan would be over $1,000,000 per block and $20,000,000 for the entire district. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\2006-07 Capital Improvement Prog.doc 5 Staff had intended to bank parking meter revenues for several years to accumulate sufficient funds for a major project which would be in sync with the new SAP. Implementing a smaller project with limited funds may not result in any significant visual or physical improvement to the district, and runs the risk of not fitting into the Streetscape Master Plan or SAP. Staff instead has been working with the DBID on providing alternate visual and physical improvements such as placing banners at parking lots and making sidewalk repairs. • Burlingame High School Backfield Drainage and Artificial Surface — The District needs to reconstruct a backfield which has been the location of a temporary classroom site, and is proposing that the City loan them $200,000 for the installation of synthetic versus natural grass on the field. The improvement would provide an all weather surface that is usable for the sports program during the raining season. The District would repay the City $20,000 per year over the next decade through reductions in pool utility bills. The Principal, Matt Biggar indicates that a letter requesting assistance could be sent in March with an agreement negotiated between April and June. Construction could begin in late summer. One option is to finance the work from the PERS or Economic Stability Fund. (See suggestions list#53.) • Council Chamber AudioNisual Modifications — The project involves the installation of equipment that will produce a modern state of the art audio and video digital signal for the City's use. The signal will be delivered to Comcast and RCN for television broadcasts, and can be delivered to Granicus for internet video streaming on the City's future website. In addition, the signal can be delivered to a digital video disc recorder for record keeping, archiving and duplication. The estimated cost is $250,000 including design, equipment, materials, and installation. Although there are inadequate general funds to finance the project, an option is to lease purchase the improvements and pay them off over five years. Due to a strong community interest for quality broadcasts, staff intends to proceed with the work unless Council directs otherwise as a result of other suggested projects. SUMMARY: Staff seeks direction on the recommended CIP program as well as on the suggestions made by the public and Council. In light of the backlog of existing infrastructure improvements including storm drainage ($36,000,000) and facilities (up to $52,000,000), Council may wish to delay adding suggested new projects until gaining a better sense of community support for a parcel tax. Also, Council may wish to pursue alternate revenue sources such as assessment districts, a park in lieu fee or an increase in transient occupancy tax to finance a larger CIP program capable of funding added programs. ATTACHMENT: General Fund CIP Budget History and Critical Needs SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\2006-07 Capital Improvement Prog.doc 6 GENERAL FUND CIP BUDGET HISTORY AND CRITICAL NEEDS PROJECTS AVERAGE 1998.2002 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 PROPOSED 2006-07 Critical Needs (In thousand Dollars) (In thousand Dollars) (In thousand Dollars) (In thousand Dollars) (In thousand Dollars (In thousand Dollars) (In thousand Dollars) Storm drainage 1650 1470 1575 1000 800 1650 2200 Sidewalk (2) 550 550 100 0 100 50 s0 Handicap ramps 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 Curb & Gutter (5) 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 Parks & Recreation 750 300 175 0 50 270 600 Buildings 350 750 300 0 50 0 400 Communications & I, T 250 100 50 0 0 0 50 Traffic & Bridges 350 230 0 0 0 0 400 Street Lighting 200 0 0 0 100 200 200 Streetscape (6) 650 1000 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (6) 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bike Paths 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 Major Facilities 3250 0 0 0 0 TBD TBD Library, Landfill, etc (City Hall, Rao Center Parks Yard, Police stn & Fire stations) Right of Way 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment (3) 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 8600(1) 4550 2300(4) 1100 1100 2270 4000 NOTES; (1) Prior to 1998, the 10 year annual average General Fund CIP was $4,10 Million. (2) Assumes that property owners are responsible for all necessary sidewalk frontage replacement starting in FY2004-05. There is an annual need of$50,000 for sidewalk replacement adjacent to City properties, (3) Moved from General Fund CIP to Vehicle Allocation Fund starting in FY2002-03 (4) For FY2003-04 no new General Funds were used. $2.3 Million was re-allocated by restructuring projects from previous years CIPs to fund critical projects (5) $150,000 of Gas Tex was used to finance curb and gutter replacement Instead of General Fund monies starting In FY2003-04, (6) Streetsoape and Parking was moved from General Fund CIP to Parking Enterprise Fund CIP starting in FY2003-04 C;\Documents and Settings\gbagdon\Local Settings\Temporary Internet F11esQLK8D\General Funds Needs 06.07Rev,xls ATTACHMENT A 1/2 Per Capita Spent on Materials California Libraries Serving 20,000 to 40,000 Poo Libraries Library Spending Population Per Capita Spending Library Materials Per Capita Materials Del Norte Co Dist 139,438 28,250 4.94 10,543 0.37 Colusa Co 481,519 20,100 23.96 22,910 1.14 Lincoln 230,281 23,050 9.99 27,775 1.20 Plumas Co 404,711 24,620 16.44 37,283 1.51 Coalinga Dist 708,628 26,400 26.84 44,236 1.68 Paso Robles 1,129,594 27,200 41.53 47,742 1.76 Beaumont Dist 479,681 32,400 14.80 57,222 1.77 Santa Paula Dist 439,541 29,100 15.10 54,881 1.89 Banning Dist 369,898 29,650 12.48 64,650 2.18 Monrovia 1,264,089 38,800 32.58 90,230 2.33 Calabasas 931,195 22,900 40.66 60,000 2.62 Calexico 627,271 32,600 19.24 90,622 2.78 Brawley 452,564 23,800 19.02 85,098 3.58 Dixon Dist 649,792 24,010 27.06 86,946 3.62 Los Gatos 1,710,092 28,750 59.48 135,131 4.70 Menlo Park 1,369,081 30,400 45.04 151,076 4.97 South Pasadena 1,217,961 25,500 47.76 175,390 6.88 Monterey 2,377,608 30,250 78.60 217,518 7.19 Benica 1,558,001 27,000 57.70 194,822 7.22 Coronado 1,651,911 26,450 62.45 197,879 7.48 Burlingame 2,753,830 35,180 78.28 299,107 8.50 Beverly Hills 9,733,073 35,700 272.64 990,433 27.74 Burlingame is number two(top 10%) in materials budget of the 22 cities in the state with population range of 20,000-40,000 Burlingame is number three(top 14%)in materials budget of the 22 cities in the state with population range of 20,000-40,000 ATTACHMENT A 2/2 Hours of Open to Public San Mateo County Libraries 2006 Libraries Hours per week Av¢of 54.41 hours Spending Population Per Capita Materials Per Capita Foster City 63 hours ABOVE Burlingame 62 hours ABOVE 2,753,830 35,180 78.28 299,107 8.50 Redwood City 62 hours ABOVE 5,164,956 75,100 68.77 527,340 7.02 Millbrae 60 hours ABOVE San Carlos 60 hours ABOVE Daly City 59 hours ABOVE 2,154,461 103,300 20.86 273,558 2.65 Menlo Park 59 hours ABOVE 1,369,081 30,400 45.04 151,076 4.97 San Bruno 59 hours ABOVE 1,544,644 41,250 37.45 165,223 4.01 Atherton 57 hours ABOVE South San Franicisco 57 hours ABOVE 3,294,417 60,400 54.54 358,326 5.93 Half Moon Bay 56 hours ABOVE East Palo Alto 55 hours ABOVE San Mateo 52 hours BELOW 4,487,122 96,720 46.39 376,991 3.90 Woodside 44 hours BELOW Brisbane 43 hours BELOW Pacifica 41 hours BELOW Portola Valley 38 hours BELOW Colma 0 NO LIBRARY Hillsborough 0 NO LIBRARY Belmont 0 Temporarly closed San Mateo County Varies by Library Varies by Library 13,816,480 270,050 51.16 1,582 626 5.86 For Hours Open Burlingame is Average 46.32 4.91 2nd out of 18 cities Median 45.04 4.97 14% above the average 54.52 average Burlingame is 71% above the median & 73% above 7% above the median 58 median the average of funds spent on materials 1.5% below number one Burlingame is 68% above the average spending and 74% above median spending 2004 Officer/Calls/Population Comparisons Officers* CFS** Population Officers/1000 Calls/1000 CFS ratio Pacifica x 26 281837 40,000 0.65 720.93 774 Millbrae x 15 15,000 21 ,600 0.69 694.44 1000 San Bruno x 34 28,000 43,000 0.79 651 .16 824 Foster Cty x 23 201665 291000 0.79 712.59 898 RDC x 62 60,973 76,325 0.81 798.86 983 Daly City x 97 88,944 103,261 0.84 861 .35 892 San Mateo x 85 88,169 961300 0.88 915.57 1037 SSF x 56 30,350 63,000 0.89 481 .75 542 San Carlos x 26 32,000 28,500 0.91 1122.81 1231 HMB x 12 13,887 12,250 0.98 1133.63 1157 Colma x 12 9,820 1 ,400 1 .00 7014.29 818 Belmont x 27 22,408 25,000 1 .08 896.32 830 66.6 Percent (12 of 18 Burl PD x 31 251471 2811'50 1.10 904:83 822 cities) have less officers Menlo Prk x 38 21 ,150 30,785 1 .23 687.02 557 per 1000 than Hillsborou x 17 8,525 11 ,500 1 .48 741 .30 501 Burlingame. Atherton x 14 16,000 8,0001 .75 2000.00 1143 Burlingame is in the top Broadmoor x 12 71712 61651 1 .80 1159.52 643 1/3rd in Officers per Brisbane x 11 10,884 3,597 3.06 3025.85 989 1000 people. Median 0.95 878.84 861 Average 1 .15 1362.35 869 BPD 1 Unfilled Position Brisbane distorts 2 on Long Term Disability the average which Actual Offs Working - 28 would be 1 .04 without Brisbane Ratio/Pop CFS ratio for the Police Officer/Corporal Rank I requested county police departments to provide me with the 2004 Calls for Service and the sworn police officer (only) positions. Positions for ; Sergeants and above were not included. I used the officers per 1000 population and the number of calls for service (including self initiated activities) in my survey. ATTACHMENT B 2/2 2004 Officer/Calls/Population Comparisons Officers* CFS** Population Officers/1000 Calls/1000 Calls/Officer Hillsborou x 17 8,525 11,500 1.48 741.30 501 -0.390 SSF x 56 30,350 63,000 0.89 481.75 542 -0.340 Menlo Prk x 38 21,150 30,785 1.23 687.02 557 -0.323 Broadmoor x 12 7,712 6,651 1.80 1159.52 643 -0.218 Pacifica x 26 28,837 40,000 0.65 720.93 774 -0.058 Colma x 12 9,820 1,400 1.00 7014.29 818 -0.004 60% (11 Of 18) of SM Burl PD x 31 25,471 28,150 1.10 904.83 822 40th percenti County Cities have San Bruno x 34 28,000 43,000 0.79 651.16 824 0,002 more calls per officer. Belmont x 27 22,408 25,000 1.08 896.32 830 0.010 Daly City x 97 88,944 103,261 0.84 861.35 892 0.086 Foster Cty x 23 20,665 29,000 0.79 712.59 898 0.094 RDC x 62 60,973 76,325 0.81 798.86 983 0.197 Brisbane x 11 10,884 3,597 3.06 3025.85 989 0.204 Millbrae x 15 15,000 21,600 0.69 694.44 1000 0.217 San Mateo x 85 88,169 96,300 0.88 915.57 1037 0.262 Atherton x 14 16,000 8,000 1.75 2000.00 1143 0.391 HMB x 12 13,887 12,250 0.98 1133.63 1157 0.408 San Carlos x 26 32,000 28,500 0.91 1 1122.81 1231 1 0.498 Median 0.95 878.84 861 Average 1.15 1362.35 869 BPD 1 Unfilled Position 2 on l=ong Term Disability Actual Offs Working -28 Ratio/Pop CFS ratio for the Police Officer/Corporal Rank I requested county police departments to provide me with the 2004 Calls for Service and the sworn police officer(only) positions. Positions for:Sergeants and above were not included: I used the officers per 1000 population and the number of calls for service (including self initiated activities) in my survey. Attachment C Traffic Surveillance Cameras and Red Light Enforcement Traffic related issues continue to be one of the major concerns of the residents of Burlingame. Traffic volume continues to increase while Police Department resources to monitor and regulate traffic have been reduced. Currently, there are two officers assigned to the Traffic Unit as motor officers. However, due to reductions in sworn positions, as well as staffing issues, these officers have been temporarily assigned to patrol to cover required minimum shift staffing, which takes them away from dedicated traffic enforcement. One of the most hazardous traffic violations is red light running. However, due to the physical layout of some of our hazardous intersections, monitoring and enforcement of red light violations is difficult and potentially hazardous to the officer, violator and motoring public. Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems, also known as red light cameras, have been in use for appro& 40 years. Currently, there are over 80 jurisdictions in California with Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems. Bay Area locations include: • San Mateo • Fremont • Union City • Berkeley • Emeryville • San Leandro • San Francisco In addition to the cities that currently use automated red light enforcement, the cities of Atherton, Millbrae and Daly City are also exploring the possibility of establishing automated red light enforcement in their cities, as well. One of the first red light camera systems in the Bay Area was established in San Francisco, in 1997. A study conducted to evaluate automated enforcement at five intersections in San Francisco showed that in the first six months of the program, there was a 42 percent reduction in the number of red light violations at intersections with automated enforcement. In a separate study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Oxnard, California, in addition to a reduction in red light violations at intersections with automated enforcement, a number of intersections which were not equipped with cameras showed a reduced number of red light violations. This was attributed to a spill over effect from adjacent deployment. The City of San Mateo was the first and is currently the only jurisdiction in San Mateo County to use Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement. San Mateo uses a system manufactured by Red Flex Traffic Systems. San Mateo installed cameras at one intersection, Hillsdale Blvd & Saratoga Drive in 2004. This installation was successful and it was followed by a second camera system at the intersection of Hillsdale Blvd & Norfolk St. A third location is currently under consideration. San Mateo has a cost neutral contract with Red Flex, which means that the cost of their system and the employee used to manage the system is covered by fines collected from violators. While an Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement Program does relieve the work load on field units, there are personnel costs relating to the operation of system. San Mateo's system is supported by a part-time civilian employee and a Traffic Officer, who includes it as part of his regular duties. In Fremont, the entire system (covering 9 intersections) is managed by a dedicated full-time paid civilian employee. Other cities with similar contracts, but using different companies, are: Capitola, Davis, Gardena, Laguna Woods, Loma Linda, Los Alamitos, Marysville, Modesto,Paramount,Rocklin, San Leandro,Union City, and Yuba City. In San Mateo the violation is captured by digital still and video cameras at the intersection. The violation is sent electronically to the vendor who assembles the information. An employee at San Mateo PD logs onto the Red Flex web site and checks for violations. Each violation is reviewed and then either accepted for citation, accepted for nomination (i.e. unable to confirm driver identification) or rejected. If accepted for citation, the vendor notifies the Traffic Division of the San Mateo Superior Court and the driver. Drivers have an opportunity to view the video of their violation at San Mateo PD each Thursday between 1pm and 7pm. Drivers wishing to contest their citation can dispute it through the normal traffic court system as with any other citation. If council direct further study, (including discussions with potential vendors), the exact intersection location(s) would be identified, and the benefits and costs associated with implementation of an Automated Photo Red Light Enforcement System would be discussed at a later time in the form of a staff report. Attachment D For Council edification,the chart below illustrates some comparisons for a number of San Mateo County cities and their relative costs for alarm permit fees and for false alarms.Some cities don't charge for an alarm permit fee,while other cities do(either a,one time registration fee or a recurring annual fee). From the information gathered,it appears that when cities don=t charge for an alarm permit fee,the cost of false alarms and the associated charges,increases. CITY PERMIT FEE FALSE ALARM FEE Belmont $25.00 annual fee 1-2 free;3-$50.00;4-$75; 5 or more-$100.00 Burlingame $49.50 annual fee 1-2 free;3 to5-$50.00;6 or more-$100.00 Daly City $25.00 annual fee 1-free;2 or more-$50.00 Half Moon Bay $50.00 annual fee 1-3 free;4-$100.00;5- $125.00;6 or more- $150.00 Pacifica $50.00 initial fee 1-2 free;3 to5-$70.00;6 or more-$100.00 Redwood City None 1-3 free;4 or more- $100.00 San Bruno None 1-2 free;3-$75.00;4- $100.00;5 or more-125.00 San Mateo None 1-free;2 or more-$100.00 San Carlos $27.00 initial fee 1-free;2 or more-$80.00 Page 1 of 2 CLK-Mortensen, Doris From: Daniel R. and Mary Kay March [drmkmarch@rcn.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:08 PM To: dmortensen@burlingame.org Subject: Input for 28 January 2006 City Council Goal Session To: Doris Mortensen, To be forwarded to Burlingame City Council Members for discussion at the "Council Goal Session" meeting on January 28th at the Recreation Center. Re: Mailed Citizen Notification re: Proposed City Projects From: Daniel R. and Mary Kay March (Mr. & Mrs.) 1569 Newlands Ave, (education professionals, parents, & grandparents) 650.348.1569 drmkmarch@rcn.com Date: January 26, 2006 This suggestion for the Burlingame City Council is a sincere effort to effect POSITIVE POLICY CHANGE as a result of a NEGATIVE (ongoing) experience in our neighborhood: the so-called "renovation" of the Pershing Park playground in 2005, to the tune of$220,000.00 in public funds. We have learned, by phoning City Hall, that the city code items requiring MAILED "Design Review" notification to pertinent neighborhoods regarding upcoming private construction projects "do not apply to city projects." The HYPOCRISY is obvious. Ours is not a simplistic "sour grapes" communication. We know that several justifiable complaints and disappointments about the Pershing Park playground "renovation" are felt by a number of Burlingame citizens residing adjacent to or near Pershing Park, and beyond. Many pertinent concerns have been communicated to the Parks & Rec. administration and/or to the Parks & Rec. Commission; however, those communications are barely alluded to in the published minutes of the Parks & Rec. Commission. The concerns involve many issues, including health and safety, age-breadth of usage, (poor) use of space available, aesthetics, newly posted "rules," and blatant lack of cultural sensitivity. The planning of this major "renovation," - which included the difficult removal of sturdy, custom-built, multi-age-use, wood & steel play equipment and the chopping down of a beautiful mature shade tree - seemingly took place in a circular fashion amongst the Parks & Rec. administration, the Parks & Rec. Commission, and families/staff currently involved with the Parks & Rec. preschool program (which serves several cities, we believe.) There was no systematic involvement of the homeowners/residents who actually live around Pershing Park and whose children range in age from infancy to elementary school age and beyond. The "renovation planning group" apparently gave the then-seated City Council members the impression that "local residents had been involved," and thereby secured approval to contract the demolition and new construction. Then, after the contract(s) were let, we who live by and near the park received (if we found them) copy-machine fliers on our doorsteps, informing us that construction over several weeks' time was imminent, please excuse the inconvenience. (Construction actually was very drawn out over several months of mess, noise, and delays.) There was nothing in those 2/23/2006 Page 2 of 2 doorstep fliers that described the already approved design and changes. The effect was INSULTING to many of those who live near Pershing Park. We not only USE the park,but also we continuously OVERSEE, in a low-key way,what goes on there. Whom do you think calls the city police or firefighters when, on occasion, some activity or condition there is seriously out of order? There is no regular police drive-by in our "quiet" area. We immediate neighbors are the unofficial park monitors, but we weren't considered to be important in the (we think) quite LIMITED SCOPE of THINKING represented by the "Pershing Park playground renovation planning committee." We do believe, quite sincerely, that had the knowing-thinking neighbors around Pershing Park been carefully included in planning whatever changes maybe needed to be made to the playground, that the outcome would have been pleasing to many more persons and may well have cost far fewer dollars. For now, we're seemingly stuck with what was DONE to Pershing Park. We don't want this scenario to be repeated here or in any other Burlingame neighborhood. Therefore,we urge this Council to ENCODE POLICY NOW to ensure that Burlingame citizens will receive MAILED invitations to be involved in both the PLANNING and DESIGN REVIEW stages of"CITY PROJECTS." Such mailings should at least be consistent with the geographic radius requirements that apply to private construction projects. Hopefully this Council will grasp the wisdom, as well as the potential public relations benefit, of establishing such policy. As regrettably we have experienced here in one neighborhood, you should no more depend fully on the "judgment" of city staff and commission members than you would depend on the "taste" of any private builder. Those affected by structural changes should be guaranteed opportunities to affect those changes,BEFORE contracts are approved. Thank you for your time and attention. We'll be watching and listening. We did watch, on TV, the meeting in which this Council nixed a Parks &Rec.merger with Millbrae. We do applaud that decision. Submitted with expectations of open communication, Dan& Mary Kay March 2/23/2006 BURLINGAME I '1 1 F 0 . . City of Burlingame Mid -Year Report Fiscal Year 2005 - 06 Mid-Year Report • Looks at first six months of the fiscal year • Compares current revenue collections to prior years (for same 6 month period) • Includes payments made after December 31 , 2005 if they occurred in the first six months in prior years — $880,000 ERAF Refund (paid 1/15/06) March 1,2006 City of Burlingame,CA 2 Mid -Year Report • Total revenue collections on target with budget projection of 5% growth • Includes one-time paw not included in budget: — Repayment of VLF Gap Loan - $480 , 000 — Supplemental ERAF Refund - $880 , 000 ($325 , 000 included in budget) March 1, 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 3 Property Tax Collections $6.0 Includes Property Tax Payment In Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee in the amount $5.5 of $916,293 and ERAF Refund in the amount of $880,000 i $5.0 $5.2 In FY04-05 Property Tax Payment In Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee was $4.5 - $763,800 and ERAF Refund was $423,000 $4.5 $4.0 -- - ---- - - -- - - - -- - - $4.0 $3.5 $3.7 $3.6 $3.3 $3.0 - -- $2.5 -- — FY 00-01 FY 01 -02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY05 -06 Mid -Year Report March 1 , 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 4 Mid-Year Report • Motor Vehicle License Fee (MVLF) payments were received from State of California prior to FY04-05 • MVLF suspended in FY03-04 under former Governor Davis, MVLF Gap Loan created in the amount of $480,000 (July, Aug, Sep 2003 MVLF amounts owed) • Annual payments reinstated under Governor Schwarznegger as property tax March 1,2006 City of Burlingame,CA 5 Transient Occupancy Tax • Revenue Growth from prior years ➢FY 02-03 = -13% (loss of $1 million) ➢FY 03-04 = +9.27% (increase of $619,000) ➢FY 04-05 = +10.5% (increase of $767,000) ➢FY 05-06 = +11 % (increase of $956,000) as a preliminary est. March 1,2006 City of Burlingame,CA 6 Transient Occupancy Tax • Transient Occupancy Tax collections : — FY 03 - 04 = $ 7 , 299 , 334 — FY 04 - 05 = $ 8 , 066 , 749 — FY 05 - 06 = $ 9 , 023 , 000 ( preliminary est . ) • Occupancy rates : — FY 03 - 04 = 63 . 7 % '^ "" " °" "•` — FY 04 - 05 = 68 . 7 % ` ' — FY O5 - 06 = 73 . 7 % ( July thru December ) March 1 , 2006 City of Burlingame , LA r'aihs ent occupancy Tax Collections $7 - 0 $6.6 E /,.. . $4.1 r $3.6 $3.1 $ $3.0 ��3 ry3 Ia 1 3 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03FY 03-64 FY 04-06 FY 05-06 E 3 � FY 06-06 Mid-Year Report ro� � � 3 H 3 March 1, 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 8 Historic Transient Occupancy Tax Collection � 3 ,r - -Mid-Fear Total -- -Audited Year-End N3 � $ .«..«««............ ---------- $14 e..� $1 ', $12 11' $10 $9 �$7.7 '+ . $ 7. 8 $6-7 $6 $6.6 $5 -:1 $4' $3 �4. 1 FY 0 -01, Fly 01-02 FY 02-03 0 .04 FY 04.06 FY 5-06 3 �3 FY 5- id-Year Repo March 1, 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 9 Sales and Use Tax • City receives 1 % of the 8.25% collected by the State of California • State took 25% of the city's annual sales tax collections under the "Triple-Flip" scheme • Pledged equal amount of property tax as repayment — "Sales Tax Compensation" • State formula calculates growth rate in future fiscal years March 1,2006 City of Burlingame,CA 10 Sales Tax Collections $4.5 0 $4.0 $4.1 $3« --- - - � »3 ,r $3.4 $3.3 $3.0 - - - - - - $3. 1 -- - $2.9 � N 3 5 N )N T y`3 4 , � 3 � L $2«0 - ii'I FY 00-01 FY 01 -02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY05-06 Mid-Year Report March 1 , 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 11 3' R i� Historic Sales Tax Collection -*-Audited Year-End Mid-Year Total 3�i3 3 0 $11 Estimated Year-End $11.4 Collections on June 30 . $9 $9.2 $8 $8.8 $8.5 F$8--91 $7' 410 _ . 7Triple Flip goes into '3 effect July 1, 2004 $4.1 $3 $3.5 $3.1 $2.9 $3.3 $3.4 $2 $7 FY 00-01 FY 04-02 FY 02 3 FY 03-04 FYI�� 5-06 �: March 1, 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 12 City of Burlingame Parking Citation Revenue $1,200,000 $1,100,000 - -- - _ $1,057,060 $1,010,895 ti . a $1,000,000 -- 333 $900,0001 x3 3 001 $875, $800,000 . -- $700,000 - - Estimated Loss - $609,993 of Revenue of $600,000 - - $519,679 - $325,000 $500,000 $530,264 Parking Citation $400,000 _- Increased to $25 in _-- April 2003 $300,000 ----- - $200,000 -- - - -- - $100,000 - - F:a FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 0 �4 FY 06 06 , March 1, 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 13 GENERAL FUN EVENUE COLLECTIONS c o_ $15.6 million if you $18 eliminate the ERAF $18.3 Refund collected in the second half of the $17 fiscal year and the VLF Loan Repayment $17.0 $16 - - - - $15 --- - - - -- - - - $14.7 $14.9 $14 --- $13.9 $13 - $12 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 �I FYOS-06 Mid-Year Report March 1, 2006 City of Burlingame, CA 14 Revenue Growth In FYO6-07 • 5% growth for: — Property Taxes — Transient Occupancy Taxes — Sales Taxes • 3% growth for: — City fees for service March 1,2006 City of Burlingame,CA 15 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Study Session March 1st 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. 1. Increase sidewalk and street cleaning on Broadway, especially around business areas. Public Works 4. Increase steam cleaning of sidewalks on Burlingame Ave. 5. Increase frequency of sidewalk sweeper on Burlingame Ave. 6. Increase frequency of cleaning downtown parking lots 7. Increase Burlingame Ave. sidewalk and street cleaning, especially around business areas. The existing business district cleaning includes the following tasks and annual costs: • Sidewalk power washing five times/year (contract) $201200 • Sidewalk/parking lot litter pickup three times/week (in-house) 265400 • Parking lot landscaped areas litter pickup average once/month 6,000 (in-house) $52,600 Council may wish to consider four options (or a combination of options) to address the business district cleanliness. • A. Increase the level of City services. • Add one more day per year of sidewalk power washing $4,000 • Add one more day per week (on a weekend) for sidewalk 121000 parking lot/litter pickup • Add one more day per month for parking lot landscape 3,000 areas litter pickup $ 191000 • B. Solicit volunteers through the Parks and Recreation Department, the ListServ, and advertisements to perform litter pickup. • C. Require all businesses with an encroachment permit for tables and chairs to either periodically steam clean their sidewalk frontage or contribute to the City's steam cleaning program. • D. Work with the DBID to facilitate an optional steam cleaning program in front of stores that are willing to pool together for a more cost effective rate. Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Study Session March 1st 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. 10. Establish an annuity to guarantee the jobs of crossing guards Finance Unless this was to be privately funded, setting aside a corpus to fund the annuity that would generate adequate funds for the $60,000 cost of crossing guard would require a significant onetime investment which would require reductions in services in other areas. Doing so would not prevent future Councils from using the income from the annuity for something else. Recommend that the Council continue to fund crossing guards as part of the budget. 11. Allocate property taxes to better help schools Finance Allocation of property taxes is set by State law. Prop 13 and subsequent law shifted that authority to the voters. If the voters want to allocate more property tax to school they can do so. State law also restricts the amount of City Funds that can be used to support school district needs. 14. Continue to look for new efficiencies, don't necessarily restore lost jobs Finance Staff Agrees 15. Don't increase pensions for public safety employees Finance These is a meet and confer/labor relations issue and is probably best dealt with in closed session. It is also greatly influenced by what State PERS laws and the prevailing practice in the market. 18. Balance the FY2006-07 budget with minimal impacts on employees and substantial investments Finance in infrastructure improvements and city reserves Staff Agrees and feels that at a minimum $2 million should be dedicated annually to the CIP and feels that we should be looking to invest $4 million annually. Priority for new revenues should be given to GF CIP needs. 19. Make investment in "social capital" a budget priority Finance Staff agrees that the impact on"social capital" is an important element that should be considered in our budgeting process. However for most cities it is often not seen as part of the city's responsibility. As illustrated by block party permits, charging for them may discourage people from holding block parties which develop neighborhood connectedness and thus a sense of community. Sponsoring or facilitating the creation of community events i.e. Pet parade and tree lighting helps maintain a sense of community. However, like our recreation and cultural arts programs, most cities have shifted from subsidizing those activities to charging to cover their cost, particularly when they are fund raisers for some other organization. Many of the suggestions that were included under the Civic Engagement goal fall into the area of enhancing "social capital". Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 2 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Study Session March 1st 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. 30. Eliminating block party permit fees if budget permits (less full cost recovery) PW The current $124 fee is based on full cost recovery for a secretary to process the application, verify the required signatures from 75% of the affected residents and notify the Police Department as well as for the Corporation Yard crews to drop off and pickup the barricades. Council may wish to consider eliminating the fee which generates about $6,000 annually (based on an average 50 permits per year) or reduce the fee to less than full cost recovery. 31. Reducing solar power permit fees if budget permits PW The plan check and inspection fees for the average rooftop mounted solar panel valued at $35,000 are approximately $1,000 for full cost recovery. In order to encourage solar panel installation, staff recommends a flat fee of$300 for a system valued up to $60,000. Because larger installations typically entail a more in depth plan review and require additional time for inspecting sophisticated electrical and electronic systems, staff recommends a base fee of$300 plus $80 per hour for the plan check. 32. Update Master-Fee Schedule to increase costs for condominium permits. Planning/Fin. As is the case with all planning fees they were significantly increased three years ago. We would estimate that they currently cover 80% to 100% of the planning department's cost for processing the projects. Some increases could be considered to ensure that we are covering closer to 100% of the staff costs. 41. Increase funds reserved for CIP Finance 42. Create an annual dedicated fund for CIP 43. Dedicating the (1991) extra 2% TOT or $2 million per annum, whichever is larger Staff agrees that at a minimum $2 million should be dedicated annually to the CIP and feels that we should be looking to invest $4 million annually. The Council has worked hard in the last four years to achieve a structurally balanced operating budget but due to economic the downturn has had to defer adequate funding for the General Funded CII'. Priority for new revenues should be given to GF CIP needs. 44. Traffic calming program PW The DPW will be making a presentation to the Council in March on traffic calming. As the Council knows we are not currently meeting our target of$4 million for GF CIP projects. Setting money aside for traffic calming would require additional CIP funding. One possibility that might be considered is to set up improvement districts in those neighborhoods that are requesting significant traffic calming CIP projects. 46. Consider ways to acquire 50 foot right that is in the ownership of SF PUC. Possibly include in PW-CIP survey re:public facilities Discuss as part of CIP priorities. Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 3 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Study Session March Ist 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. 47. Look at possible ways Burlingame can go back to paying for sidewalk repair especially when PW-CIP damage is caused by trees. Sidewalk maintenance is an example of city services that were providing at the request of the community when city councils had the authority to respond to those requests by adjusting the property tax rate to reflect those costs. The changes in funding for public services have necessitated that cities discontinue funding lower priority capital infrastructure needs. Staff strongly recommends that reinstating this program should be predicated on voters' decision to fund it through additional taxes or through an optional improvement district. Without additional revenues reinstating the program would be at the expense of more basic capital improvement needs such as storm drains which if not addresses could have drastic impacts on private properties. 48. Increasing library hours if budget permits Library See Attachment A for more information. Trustees and Managers agreed that restoration of the 4 lost Friday night hours would the best choice, budget permitting 49. Restore Library collection budget Library See Attachment A for more information. We are down $ 66,000 from where we were 3 years ago; I would support adding back into the budget half this year and half next year. Cost impact: $ 33,000 for 2006-2007 50. Restore Library hours on Friday nights Library See Attachment A for more information. To open Friday Nights we would need to recruit and hire more hourly staff. Approximate cost for hourly staff for 50 Fridays would be $ 50,000. 53. Support teaming with Burlingame High School to provide drainage & install artificial surface on Parks &Rec. the backfield when school construction is complete. The proposal by the High School is that the City would loan $200,000 to the District for the installation of the synthetic grass rather than the installation of natural grass. The District would then repay the City$20,000/year over the next 10 years with reductions in the utility cost of the pool. We lose the interest on the $200,000, but gain a 12 month field for our community. Matt Biggar, the High School Principal, has confirmed the following time frame: • Letter from District to City requesting assistance: March • Agreement between District & City: April—June • Transfer of funds: Start of construction(August or September) 60. Add sidewalk at Airport Blvd Broadway Over crossing PW-CII' Discuss as part of CIP priorities Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 4 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Stud Session March 15 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. 61. More flashing crosswalks (like the one outside of Stacks). Put one of both ends of Broadway PW-CIP and Burlingame Ave.; and Burlingame Ave, to Washington Park. Should pay for themselves quickly with increased foot traffic and sales tax revenue. Discuss as part of CIP priorities. 68. Increase level of PD staffing Police 70. More police in downtown More info on Attachment B relative to call volumes etc. Since FY 2001-2002, the City of Burlingame had to reduce budget and personnel in all city departments to balance the budget and meet the downturn in the economy. As a result, the police department eliminated 9 sworn FTE positions and reduced staffing from 50 to 41. Also included in the police department reductions were 2 non-sworn FTE positions.The cost of a sworn officer FTE, including salary and benefits, would be: Step A (starting) $131,285.00; Step C (mid-range) $139,357. 69. Develop a neighborhood watch program Police The original "Neighborhood Watch"program was started in Burlingame in 982 by the police department. The program was initially formed by an officer who had an interest in the program to educate citizens and reduce crime in their neighborhoods. The program was later administered and overseen by a crime prevention sergeant, who met with and monitored the various neighborhood watch groups. The program continued to expand and at one point included a"Business Watch" component in the Burlingame Avenue area. However, due to the downturn in the economy and the reductions at all levels of city employees, the police department had to abandon this program, as well as the citizen's police academy, which was an"off shoot" of the Neighborhood Watch program. Since 911, the focus of a Neighborhood Watch program has changed. The current thought is to involve neighborhoods in a blend of both Neighborhood Watch and Neighborhood Disaster Preparedness. Topics such as crime prevention, target hardening, first aid, CPR, disaster preparedness, and neighborhoods coming together in an emergency or disaster appears, to be a more comprehensive program. Such a program would be more useful to our neighborhoods and to our citizens in a number of different ways. Additionally, formation of these Neighborhood Watch/Neighborhood Disaster Preparedness groups could add an additional dimension or component - that of Citizen Volunteers who could assist the police/fire department citizen patrols in their neighborhoods or in other parts of our community. Both the fire chief and I have discussed this issue and feel that the city should look to hire a F/T safety position coordinator(who has experience in BOTH the police and fire service) and split the duties/costs Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 5 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Study Session March 1st 2006 Goals/ideas Cate ory Council Direction Lead Dept. associated with a single person creating this new program. This F/T coordinator would be responsible for overseeing the creation and administration of the program, enlist and train volunteers to assume the management component of the program. The management volunteers would then be responsible for coordinating the training with neighborhoods, meetings, establishing email and other forms of communications with the neighborhoods, etc. The fire chief has initially approached the Town of Hillsborough with this combined concept and they are receptive to the program. The possibility exists that Burlingame could split the cost of the F/T safety position coordinator(60/40) with the town of Hillsborough to reduce the costs to each city. It is envisioned the F/T coordinator would work for one (1) year at a CCFD Division Chief(step D - approximately$140,000), then after one (1) year when the program is established and running, the position would revert to P/T in the second year, saving money. The 60/40 split for Burlingame would be approximately$84,000.00. 71. Install cameras for traffic surveillance Police See Attachment C for further information. Traffic related issues continue to be one of the major concerns of the residents of Burlingame. Traffic volume continues to increase while Police Department resources to monitor and regulate traffic have been reduced. One of the most hazardous traffic violations is red light running. However, due to the physical layout of some of our hazardous intersections, monitoring and enforcement of red light violations is difficult and potentially hazardous to the officer, violator and motoring public. Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems, also known as red light cameras, have been in use for approx. 40 years. Currently, there are over 80 jurisdictions in California with Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement Systems. In addition to the cities that currently use automated red light enforcement, the cities of Atherton, Millbrae and Daly City are also exploring the possibility of establishing automated red light enforcement in their cities, as well. If council direct further study, (including discussions with potential vendors), the exact intersection location(s) would—be identified, and the benefits and costs associated with implementation of an Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 6 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Study Session March 1st 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. Automated Photo Red Light Enforcement System would be discussed at a later time in the form of a staff report. 78. Improve lighting around parking lots, train stations and schools PW -CIP 79. Improve level of street lighting near Recreation center and High School 80. Increase street resurfacing 82. Upgrade and repair street lights 84. Resurface Broadway to make it more attractive for Business 85. Resurface Adeline and other streets where sewer/storm drain work was done. 86. Make infrastructure improvements to address flooding problems Discuss as part of CIP Priorities 96a Look at Alarm fees and false alarm fees Police Historically, the false alarm ordinance was created to recapture the enormous amount of time that the police department was spending responding to false alarms, of which 99% are false (due to operator or mechanical error). Responding to the great number of false alarms also creates an atmosphere where responding officers let down their guard, which can have deadly results for officers and citizens, if the alarm is real. The cost recovery includes officer and dispatcher time, as well as other costs associated with a police response to false alarms. The alarm permit fee was established to provide contact information on the alarm location, contact names and addresses for false alarm billing and to off-set city costs for the entire service. The City of Burlingame currently charges an annual alarm permit fee of$49.50. The original alarm permit fee was $25.00 and was established in approximately 1993. The fee remained at that rate for approximately 10 years, until the 03-04 FY, where it was changed to the existing rate by council. At the present time, the City of Burlingame has 1,516 registered alarm permits. This includes both residential and commercial facilities. Currently the annual revenue to the city from alarm permit fees is approximately $75,000.00 at the current $49.50 rate, compared to approximately$38,000.00 at the $25.00 rate. For Council edification, the chart in Attachment D illustrates some comparisons for a number of San Mateo County cities and their relative costs for alarm permit fees and for false alarms. Some cities Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 7 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Study Session March 1st 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. don't charge for an alarm permit fee, while other cities do (either a one time registration fee or a recurring annual fee). From the information gathered, it appears that when cities don't charge for an alarm permit fee, the cost of false alarms and the associated charge increases. Create city code requirements to public notify through US post mail on all city projects. (Attached Jan. 26`h e-mail from Dan & Kay March) This suggestion was initiated by neighbors concerned that they did not receive any notice through the US mail regarding the playground improvements being planned for Pershing Park. Although notice were hand delivered by staff, and it is our understand that they did see the hand delivered notice, they feel that post office delivered notices, as we require of planning projects, should also be required for all city projects. City policy has been to notify near by residents about most city projects including playground modifications of the magnitude undertaken at Pershing Park. As council knows for large CIP projects like sewer and water we often do hand deliver door hangers to those that we feel will be impacted by the projects. Our Park and Recreation Department have decided to follow the suggestion that in the future we also have planning send a notice out to addresses with in 300 feet of the park being modified. However the party submitting the suggestion wanted an"Encoded Policy"by the Council. Fund the printing of Hotel Shuttle promotional brochure The brochure was funded by the City at the request of the Chamber of Commerce for a cost of$18,000. They will run out of brochures by the end of this fiscal year. Many Council members have mentioned the desire to make sure that any new brochures include more businesses on the avenues, not just chamber members. At this time the Chamber does not have funds to reprint it. Although staff acknowledges that it has value in terms of encouraging hotel quests to visits our two retail areas, from a cost recovery standpoint it would need to generate an additional $1.8 million in gross sales tax for the city to cover the cost of the brochure (the city gets one cent of the sales tax). Cost per mailing is $400 to $600. Web Site Management Resource A number of suggestions were contained in the Council suggested goals relative to making more effective use of our web site that is currently under reconstruction. Currently the City has no technical expertise available to help manage the web site. That situation has resulted in a poorly maintained site and dependent upon the generosity of volunteers. For example Stephen Hamilton has been volunteering to help us with our list serve system that we use to communicate with the 4000+residents e-mail addressees. He has indicated that the current provider can not meet our needs and we are planning to shift that to a new list serve system we will be getting with the redesigned web site. Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 8 Items from Council Goals Study Session — Referred To Budget Discussion Stud Session March 1st 2006 Goals/ideas Category Council Direction Lead Dept. Based on current budget we will continue to manage the new web site as we have the current site, without any technical resource to help handle the more complicated technical issues. That means that we would continue to have each department assign a staff person, usually their most tech savvy employee, to help manage their pages of the web site. Given the Council comments about wanting to increase our usage of the web a low cost option is to add some funding for a part time computer resource to help manage our web site. Their role would be to assist the departments getting their content up to date; managing the list serve process; researching, evaluating and prioritizing the new feature requests. If the Council wants us to further explore that option and bring it back in the budget process we would need that direction at this time. A very rough guess is that we are looking at about $25,000 for ten hours a week of support. Absent that direction we will continue to plan to manage in the decentralized fashion that we have to date. Last printed 2/28/2006 8:50:00 AM 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME GENERAL FUND BUDGET MODEL FOR FY 07 & FY 08 (Showing 5% Revenue Growth and Average 3% Increase in Operation Costs) FY04-05 FY05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 Audited Actuals Adopted Budget Year-End Estimate Forecast Forecast Beginning Unreserved Fund Balance: 1.30 1.29 1.66 2.46 0.31 General Fund Revenues: 34.82 35.40 37.00 38.85 40.79 Transfers Into General Fund: 0.58 0.70 0.70 0.73 0.75 Use of Reserves: 0.00 1.60 1.60 0.00 0.00 State Take Aways: Included Included Included 0.00 0.00 Total Available Financing: $36.70 $38.99 $40.96 $42.04 $41.85 Operating Expenditures: 33.86 36.18 35.90 38.23 40.24 Transfers Out(Debt Svc. &Shuttle Bus): 1.18 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.70 Total Expenditures: 35.04 $37.68 $37.40 $39.73 $41.94 Shared Services: Included 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Budget Balancing Strategies: Tier III: Included Included Included 0.00 0.00 Tier IV: Included Included Included 0.00 0.00 Tier V: Included 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 Total Budget Reductions: 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Net Operating Expenditures: $35.04 $37.68 $37.40 $39.73 $41.94 Contribution To Workers' Comp&Gen Liability Reserve: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Expenditures: $35.04 1 $37.68 1 $37.40 1 $39.73 1 $41.94 Ending Fund Balance: $1.66 $1`.31 $3.56 $2.31 -$0.09 Aleve.General Fund..Goritrtbutror►s to CIP.:: UO $0.00 ;1A0 $200 $2.00 .. Furxl.Ballance:�AfEer.CIP..�antril�utioins: 1:841 I.31 246 :3. 1 ......... __ .. � ..:. ... Annual Ongoing Revenue Shortfall: $0.36 -$1.58 $0.30 -$0.15 -$0.40 General Fund Reserve Balance: 7:34 5.75 5.75 5.75 5.75 Economic Stability $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,0001 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Catastrophic, $ 2,000,000, $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 CaIPERS Reserve $ 2,800,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 Contingency A: 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000; $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Centennial $, 40,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Total General Fund Reserves: is 7,340,000 1 $ 51750,000 1 $ 5,750,OOOJ I$ 5,750,022J 1 $ 5,750,000 Budget Model-FY07 FY08 Forecast.As 5%Rev Growth 2/28/2006 8 48 AM FY 2006-07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AGENDA • General Fund recommended projects • Gas Tax, Measure A and grant funded projects • CIP related suggestions from Council and public • Council feedback and direction GENERAL FUND RECOMMENDED PROJECTS • Funding history and critical needs • Storm drainage • Sidewalks • Handicap ramps • Parks and Recreation improvements • Street lighting GENERAL FUND CIP BUDGET HISTORY AND CRITICAL NEEDS AVERAGE PROJECTS 1998-2002 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 PROPOSED 2006-07 (In thousand (In thousands (In thousands (In thousands (In thousands (In thousands • Dollars) Dollars) Dollars) Dollars) Dollars) Dollars) • Storm drainage 1650 1470 1575 1000 800 1650 Sidewalk (2) 550 550 100 0 100 50 Handicap ramps 100 100 100 100 0 100 Curb & Gutter (5) 50 50 0 0 0 0 Park & Recreation 750 300 175 0 50 270 • i Buildings 350 750 300 0 50 0 Communications & I.T. 250 100 50 0 0 0 Traffic & Bridges 350 230 0 0 0 0 i Street Lighting 200 0 0 0 100 200 Streetscape (6) 650 1000 0 0 0 0 Parking (6) 550 0 0 0 0 0 Bike Paths 350 0 0 0 0 0 Major Facilities 3250 0 0 0 0 0 = Library, Landfill, etc. (City Hall, Rec. Center Parks Yard, Police Stn. & Fire Stations Right of Way 400 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment (3) 150 0 0 0 0 0 9,600 (l ) 4,550 2,300 (4) 1 , 100 1 ,100 2,270 NOTES: (1 ) Prior to 1998, the 10 year annual average General Fund CIP was $4.10 Million (2) Assumes that property owners are responsible for all necessary sidewalk frontage replacement starting in FY2004-05. There is an annual need of $50,000 for sidewalk replacement adjacent to City properties (3) Moved from General Fund CIP to Vehicle Allocation Fund starting in FY2002-03 (4) For FY2003-04, no new General Funds were used, $2.3 Million was re-allocated by restructuring projects from previous years CIPS to fund critical projects (5) $150,000 of Gas Tax was used to finance curb and gutter replacement instead of General Fund monies starting in FY2003-04 (6) Streetscape and Parking was moved from General Fund CIP to Parking Enterprise Fund CIP starting in FY2003-04 STORM DRAINAGE • City maintains 42 miles of storm drain valued at $70,000,000 • $36,000,000 backlog • Recommend $1,650,000 program • Regionally significant projects $1,150,000 • Locally significant projects $500,000 • Backlog of regional projects increases at this funding level by about $1 ,000,000 annually STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PROJECTS COMPLETED / IN PROGRESS ESTIMATED TOTAL SECTION PROJECT NAME PROJECT COST ($THOUSANDS) AMills Creek SD Facilities Improvement $ 2,600 ......................__... ............................ ....... _............. ............ ......... ,.. . .. ............... . . . _.. ...-............. . ,............ B Easton Creek SD Facilities Improvement $ ................. C Sanchez Crook Improvements $ 860 ............-..........• ..._...._._...._......_.._.................._._........-...._.-- _. ._ ___..._.. . ._........................_..... D SCADA Integration Project $ 1,200 ............ .....-.....__.,......._....._.._. ...._........_-.-..-.-._................ _. _ -- _.... ._.._.. ... .. .......-.......,....... E Local Storm Drain Rehabilitation $ 200 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ($ thousand) $ 8,050 \\ N`: f' j 2006 - 07 PROJECTS / i± ESTIMATED TOTAL SECTION PROJECT NAME PROJECT COST �\ ($TH NDS) F Marston Out(aN Pipeline, Phase 3/Pump Station $ A 1,160 ...._. .............. .. .. .. .. .. G Miscellaneous Storm Drain Rehabilitation $ 600 H f \ TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ($ thousand) S 1,650 b. 10 V/ l SIDEWALKS • City maintains 116 miles of sidewalk valued at $20,000,000 $10,000,000 backlog • Recommend continuing with property owner paid program • Recommend $50,000 for sidewalk replacement adjacent to City owned property SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS i I I I , - `` � �� :'� � r '� -// ) ii•�� v��`'( \'.�/�<;, '�� ��' � '. Jl� ��'\��� iii �� �\ . � � c \ � � � > A `�.@� � \\\ \ -- �� ;°, � ' r � � �r1. �. 7 ,> � , ✓�, ` . �, \� COMPLETED IN 2005 1" l/, '�,' a COMPLETED 2006 IN 2005 PROJECT v� AREA i I HANDICAP RAMPS • $4,700,000 backlog • 1576 missing ramps city wide • 100 missing ramps in sensitive areas • Recommend $100,000 to install 33 ramps in high use areas • Eliminate backlog in 50 years at this funding level MAP OF ADA CURB RAMPS IN HIGH USE AND SENSITIVE AREAS `4 No. of Burlingame Plaza Ramps C1 3 f ' < Lincoln Elem. ,y) �,� ,. , Broadway Business " District JVD 18 Burlingame High & Rec. Center Burlingame Intermed. Washington % & Franklin Elem. / � -< :. \� � �� �, ,, ,: aEem. ,� ` � Our Lady/Angels •` '''� �` , 10 1 , syr , , g L Y act f _ / � McKinley Elem 4 i k, / \\ �`�_:�\y� ,_ fix• ` / Burlingame Ave. Business District PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS • Recommend $270,000 program • Playground surfacing $ 140,000 • Court resurfacing $ 30,000 • Pathway rehabilitation $ 50,000 • Eucalyptus tree replacement $ 50,000 PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED PLAYGROUND SURFACING >� COURT RESURFACING PATHWAY RECONSTRUCTION VILLAGE PARK • \� �� \�/ )ice , \\� �\. :J, `.J % /, ' \ \�.jJ` '�\, : •�\ __ - �_l ly :5� LAGUNA PARK WASHINGTON PARK ; • \\ . ' a PALOMA PLAYGROUND \ \ 4� 1' 1 1 STREET LIGHTING • City maintains 900 street lights • Recommend $200,000 program • Assessment of city street light system • Implement several priority projects such as at schools, business districts, and train stations GAS TAX, MEASURE A, AND GRANT FUNDED PROJECTS STREETS • City maintains 80 miles of streets valued at $110,000,000 • $2,200,000 annual program to avoid increasing backlog • Recommend $1,260,000 Street Resurfacing Program • Arterial streets funded 50% by grant $ 600,000 • Collector/local streets $ 660,000 • Spring study session to discuss Pavement Management Program and paving project coordination with other programs STREET CANDIDATES FOR RESURFACING PROGRAM 2006 STREETS WITH CONDITION SCORE OF 50 OR LOWER (TARGET IS 65 ) No - - w ''•✓ - _ / ,• � 11 1 1,, ^.\ \��� •v�\\���` r 7 -�` ---'-�_af _ NX —1 r l , /.. it / � y \` 'f1 _—i `•�•'=� p � / � �/ \\ t i FEDERAL GRANT STREET RESURFACING PROJECTS 2006-07 k" IX r l/ JR- 40 MzAce 77co ji \'\�,`\\Q / ' �"—,\/44 \ /O � � _✓ice ��,� �w �O y\�\�,� �,`��C� \ � J � ,/1 \\�:. \ .<' �\ \ \ l \ �-�A<,\k. L \ ti l� GAS TAX, MEASURE A, AND GRANT FUNDED PROJECTS CURB AND GUTTER • City maintains 160 miles of curb and gutter valued at $85,000,000 • $8,000,000 backlog • Recommend $150,000 program COUNCIL AND PUBLIC SUGGESTIONS • Traffic calming • San Francisco Water Department property purchase • Lighted crosswalks • Pedestrian access to Broadway bridge over 101 Freeway • Burlingame Avenue Business District streetscape improvements • Burlingame High School backfield drainage and artificial surface • Council Chamber audio/visual modifications TRAFFIC CALMING • Researched programs from other cities • Most focus on public education • Presentation of City plan at March 20, 2006 study session SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT PROPERTY PURCHASE • $ 10 , 000, 000 San Francisco appraisal • $4,300 , 000 City appraisal • Several interests for buying • Tree preservation • Land use control LIGHTED CROSSWALKS • $ 70 , 000 each to install • Refer to Traffic , Safety , Parking Commission for evaluation • State prohibition at signalized intersections • Typically used for mid-block crossings BROADWAY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING VIDEO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BROADWAY BRIDGE OVER 101 FREEWAY • New separate pedestrian bridge including connections to City streets to be built within 2-3 years as part of Auxiliary Lanes Project • Any improvements now increases risk of separate bridge being deleted from Auxiliary Lane Project. 7$r' A PEDESTRIAN �� M ��� i u ��n w� �q CROSSING OPTIONS s X1 . T OPTION 1 ( $ 100 , 000 ) x Installp pedestrian signals , handicap ramps , �x } on Rollins Road and construct to Bayshore Highwaylk f ISSUESNN ; �. • Insufficient sidewalk width on the bridge ', over crossing ;, • Pedestrian signal timing may slow ' ' w the vehicular traffic causing congestionboo ry If- OPTION 2 ($701000) 4 ''riM 6t T Install pedestrian signals, handicap ramps, on , Rollins Road and to Bayshore Highway 4 ,� ISSUES • Insufficient sidewalk width on the bridge over crossing • Pedestrian signal timing may slow the 07 vehicular traffic causin g congestion estion ��, , • Graded dirt path on Bayshore Highway does not meet ADA requirements >, r OPTION,$ ..emsIN Installedestrian signals, .i p on Rollins Road and to Bayshore Highway ISSUES • Insufficient sidewalk width on the bridge (. over crossing • Pedestrian signal timing may slow the vehicular traffic causing congestion Wr i6 u7, 9 • Does not meet ADA requirements without handicap ramps at Rollins Road 3,t � ► • Graded dirt path to Ba shore Highway does not meet ADA requirements OPTION 4 (IN-HOUSE WORK) ar. A � - at Rollins Road and ; T to Bayshore Highway � a � �: r= t ISSUES p • Insufficient sidewalk width on the bridge over crossing ->> ` � '� ► Y • Exposes pedestrians to unsafe condition in the absence of a pedestrian signal r Does not meet ADA requirements �� �:� �:♦ without handicap ramps at Rollins Road ' �:• • Graded dirt path to Bayshore Highway ` *�,, , ;'� does not meet ADA requirements SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS OPTIONS • No option will correct the deficient 45 inch wide sidewalk on the bridge • All options will encourage more use of the bridge resulting in : • False sense of security • Greater number of pedestrians exposed to danger Al! or�t+ons require Caltrans approval BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS • $1 ,400,000 of Parking Funds available • Streetscape costs at least $1 ,000,000 per block • Small project may not have much of an impact Project now may not fit future Specific Area Plan or Streetscape Plan BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL BACKFIELD DRAINAGE AND ARTIFICIAL SURFACE • Install synthetic rather than natural grass • Provides all weather field usable during rainy season • Construction in late summer • $200 , 000 City loan to District with repayment at $20 , 000 per year for a decade COUNCIL CHAMBER AUDIOVISUAL MODIFICATIONS • State of the art digital signal for television broadcasting • Signal delivered for internet video streaming • Signal delivered to video disc recorder for record keeping , archiving and duplication • $250 , 000 lease purchase of improvements and pay off over five years SUMMARY • Large backlog of critical projects • Storm drainage -- $36 , 000, 000 • Facilities -- up to $52 , 000 ,000 • May wish to delay adding suggested projects until polling results • May wish to pursue other revenue sources • Assessment districts • Park in lieu fee • Increased hotel tax • QUESTIONS • FEEDBACK • DIRECTION