HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2014.09.15City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, September 15, 2014
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agenda (Government Code 54956.9(a) and (d)(4)a.
Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the public may address the Council on
any item on the Closed Session Agenda at this time.
b.
Adjournment into Closed Sessionc.
Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation - Gov. Code §54956.9(a) and (d)
(4): One Case
d.
STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A
Representation on Regional Bodiesa.
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Landscape Award to Crosby-N Gray Funeral Homea.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2014
September 15, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Recognition of Jerry Deal for Twenty Years of Service to the Burlingame Communityb.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M .
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion .
Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar.
Approve the City Council Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2014a.
9-2-14min.pdfAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a California Office of Traffic Safety Grantb.
OTS Grant Agreement
OTS Grant Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.04 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to
Update Water Supply Cross-Connection and Backflow Prevention Standards in
Compliance with Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations
c.
Ordinance to amend chapter 15.04
Amended Chapter 15.04
California Code of Regulations Title 17.pdf
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Purchasing Contract to One Workplace L. Ferrari,
LLC for Library Furniture
d.
Resolution to award furniture contractAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Custom Casework Purchasing Contract to Ross
Mcdonald Co., Inc.
e.
Resolution to award custom caseworkAttachments:
Grant Authority to the Chief of Police to Promulgate a Policy for the Waiver of Alarm
Registration Penalties, False Alarm Fees, and Registration Fees
f.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Public Hearing and Adoption of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business
Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2014-15
a.
Reso - DBID 2014-15.pdfAttachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2014
September 15, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of Resolutions Approving the Our Library Our Future Naming Opportunities
Policy and Naming the Library’s Teen Room the Hoefer Teen Room
b.
Resolution Naming Opportunities Policy
Resolution re Hoefer Teen Room
Naming Opportunities Policy
Major Donor Naming Opportunities
Community Recognition Policy - Adopted Oct 2004
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Confirmation of Priority Rankings for Unfunded Needs Infrastructure Projects and
Discussion of Possible Funding Options
a.
Unfunded Needs Questionnaire
Council Project Scoring Sheet
Financing Mechanisms - Comparison Chart
Attachments:
Consideration of a Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reservesb.
Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserves 8-2014Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Planning, August 11 and August 25, 2014
b. Department Reports: Building, August 2014; Finance, July 2014
c. Letter from Burlingame Neighborhood Network Gratefully Acknowledging City's Donation
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next Regular City Council Meeting - Monday, October
6, 2014
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO
"CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2014
September 15, 2014City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this
agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501
Primrose Road during normal business hours.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/11/2014
Burlingame City Council September 15, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of September 15, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Brownrigg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Dale Perkins.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Deal, Keighran, Nagel, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
CA Kane advised that Council met in Closed Session, and there was no reportable action at this time.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATION
Beautification Commissioner Chair Leslie McQuaide reviewed the previous winners of the Landscape
Award and introduced fellow Beautification Commissioners Richard Kirchner, Anne Hinckle, Mary Hunt
and Karen Dittman. Mayor Brownrigg and Ms. McQuaide presented the business landscape award to
Crosby-N Gray Funeral Home and the award was accepted by John Crosby. Ms. McQuaide also introduced
local artist, Dale Perkins who provided his watercolor renderings of the winning design to Crosby-N Gray, to
each Councilmember and the Beautification Commissioners. Mr. Crosby spoke and thanked the Mayor and
the Beautification Commission for the award.
b. RECOGNITION OF COUNCILMEMBER JERRY DEAL FOR TWENTY YEARS OF
SERVICE TO THE BURLINGAME COMMUNITY
Mayor Brownrigg requested that everyone join the Councilmembers in a round of applause as they bid
farewell to Councilmember Jerry Deal.
Burlingame City Council September 15, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
2
Senator Jerry Hill and Assemblyman Kevin Mullin spoke and thanked Jerry for all his community service
and involvement with the various Regional Boards and they presented Jerry with a Proclamation. Brian
Perkins read Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s statement that was entered into the Congressional Record
recognizing Jerry for his time in public office.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if any members of the public would like to speak, and Burlingame resident Alex
Mortazavi spoke.
Councilmembers Ann Keighran, Terry Nagel and Ricardo Ortiz all spoke and expressed their gratitude to
Councilmember Deal for his good nature and guidance.
Mayor Brownrigg presented Councilmember Deal with a City Proclamation outlining his achievements
while on the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Deal spoke and thanked Jerry Hill, Kevin Mullin and Brian Perkins for being there.
Councilmember Deal thanked his wife JoAnn, his fellow Councilmembers, and said he enjoyed his tenure as
a Councilmember and serving on the various boards. He also thanked the staff and said Burlingame is very
fortunate to have such talented individuals working for the City.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Burlingame residents Cynthia Cornell and Cynthia Wukotich spoke on behalf of Burlingame renters on the
high cost of rents in Burlingame.
The following Burlingame residents spoke about the trees that were trimmed on Toledo Court: Martha
Loftis, Gabriela, Diedre Shaw, Lynn Israelit, Ray Marshall, Simon Yu, Juan Gala, Mateo Gala, Byron.
CM Goldman spoke and reviewed the process of the City’s tree permits and advised that the City has hired
two independent Arborists to advise the City on the permit process. She further advised that the permit
process has already been changed to help prevent situations like this from happening again.
Burlingame resident Linda Ryan spoke about windows on a house behind her house. Burlingame resident
Jeff Londer spoke about the Council vacancy interview process. There were no further comments from the
floor.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg removed item 8a and asked if any members of the public wished to remove any items
from the consent calendar, and there were no requests. Councilmember Deal made a motion to adopt items
8b, c, d, e, and f; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2014
CC Kearney requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of September 2, 2014.
Mayor Brownrigg requested that the wording for item 10a be amended to say that Councilmembers
concurred that the go it alone cost was too expensive, but if it could be defrayed with sponsorship, it might
be worth pursuing. Vice Mayor Nagel made a correction to item 8f to change Peninsula Healthcare District
to say Mills-Peninsula Hospital.
Burlingame City Council September 15, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
3
Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to adopt item 8a; seconded by Councilmember Deal. The motion was
approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC
SAFETY GRANT
PD Captain Eric Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 78-2014.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE WATER SUPPLY CROSS-CONNECTION AND
BACKFLOW PREVENTION STANDARDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance No. 1903.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A PURCHASING CONTRACT TO ONE
WORKPLACE L. FERRARI LLC FOR LIBRARY FURNITURE
PL Harding requested Council adopt Resolution No. 79-2014.
e. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AWARDING A CUSTOM CASEWORK PURCHASING
CONTRACT TO ROSS MCDONALD CO., INC.
PL Harding requested Council adopt Resolution No. 80-2014.
f. GRANT AUTHORITY TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO PROMULGATE A POLICY FOR
THE WAIVER OF ALARM REGISTRATION PENALTIES, FALSE ALARM FEES, AND
REGISTRATION FEES
PC Wood and CA Kane requested authority be granted to the Chief of Police to promulgate a policy for the
waiver of alarm registration penalties, false alarm fees, and registration fees.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015
FinDir Augustine reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and determine
whether a majority protest had been made and, if not, adopt the Resolution approving and levying the
assessments.
FinDir Augustine asked CC Kearney how many protests were received and CC Kearney reported that two
protests were received.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Burlingame City Council September 15, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
4
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 81-2014; seconded by Councilman Ortiz.
The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS APPROVING THE OUR LIBRARY OUR FUTURE
NAMING OPPORTUNITIES POLICY AND NAMING THE LIBRARY’S TEEN ROOM THE
HOEFER TEEN ROOM
PL Harding reviewed the staff report and gave a brief update on the Library project and said they are ahead
of schedule and below budget. PL Harding said that the Trustees and the Library Foundation have raised
almost $700,000 of the $1 million for their portion of the project.
PL Harding requested Council approve naming the Teen Room the “Hoefer Teen Room” in recognition of
Melanie and Kurt Hoefer’s $100,000 pledge towards the Library’s capital campaign. Ms. Harding also
requested that Council approve suspending the Community Recognition Policy, as it applies to the Library
Millennium Project fundraising campaign, to facilitate raising the $1 million.
There was Council discussion concerning the Community Recognition Policy and CM Goldman provided
clarification about the policy and the process for public input.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing and Library Capital Campaign Manager Patty Anixter spoke.
There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed.
Vice Mayor Nagel said that another reason the Community Recognition Policy should be revised is that it
includes the Walk of Fame policy that never materialized.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 82-2014 approving the Our Library Our
Future naming opportunities policy for the Library’s $1 million Capital Campaign and adopt Resolution No.
83-2014; naming the Library’s Teen Room the Hoefer Teen Room in recognition of the $100,000 donation
by Melanie and Kurt Hoefer; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by
voice vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF A RISK-BASED ANALYSIS OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES
FinDir Augustine reviewed the staff report and advised that in March 2014 the City contracted with the
Research and Consulting Center of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for assistance in
conducting a risk-based analysis of its General Fund reserve levels. FinDir Augustine gave a very thorough
overview of the findings of the GFOA that identified revenue volatility, public safety, and extreme events as
the primary risk factors. The secondary risk factors identified were legal claims, debt, and pensions and
other post employment benefit (OPEB). FinDir Augustine also reviewed reserve recommendations and
factors relevant to reserve targets.
Council questions and discussion followed and FinDir Augustine addressed their comments and concerns.
Council thanked FinDir Augustine for a very thorough report and presentation.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and Burlingame resident and business owner Lorne
Abramson spoke.
Burlingame City Council September 15, 2014
Unapproved Minutes
5
b. CONFIRMATION OF PRIORITY RANKINGS FOR UNFUNDED NEEDS
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE FUNDING OPTIONS
CM Goldman reviewed the staff report and she and FinDir Augustine gave a presentation on the project
rankings, funding approaches, and financing options.
CM Goldman requested Council review its rankings for the projects, confirm the priority order, discuss
possible funding options, and discuss how many projects it wishes to pursue at this time.
Council discussion followed and the Council ranked the downtown parking garage as the number one, the
Community Center was number two, new City Hall ranked third. The Council agreed that it is worth
pursuing a public/private partnership for building a parking structure and a new City Hall. Council also
agreed to look for funding for a new Community Center and Bayside Park and gave permission to hire a
financial consultant for assistance. CM Goldman advised that City staff can look for grants to fund the
smaller projects.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item for public comment and Burlingame resident and business owner Ross
Bruce spoke.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Planning, August 11 and August 25, 2014
b. Department Reports: Building, August 2014; Finance, July 2014
c. Letter from Burlingame Neighborhood Network gratefully acknowledging the City’s recent
donation
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:09 p.m. and invited everyone to join the Councilmembers for
a farewell reception in the lobby for Councilmember Deal.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Ellen Kearney
City Clerk
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
—� BURLINGAME,CA 94010
E3lJLINGAMI~
Agenda Item 8b
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15, 2014
From: Eric Wollman, Police Captain - (650) 777-4114
Subject:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a California Office of Traffic Safety Grant
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting a $279,784 California Office of
Traffic Safety Grant and amending the Police Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2014-2015.
BACKGROUND
In January 2014, the Police Department submitted a grant application to the State of California, Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS), for funding of a county-wide selective enforcement traffic safety grant (S.T.E.P.) OTS
approved the grant application, and the Police Department was subsequently awarded grant #PT15144 in the
amount of $279,784 for the 2014-2015 federal fiscal year, October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. This
grant is designed to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other
primary collision factors. The program will concentrate on drunk and drugged driving, speed, distracted driving,
seat belt enforcement, enforcement operations at intersections with disproportionate numbers of traffic-related
crashes, and special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety. This county-wide endeavor will
continue to increase traffic safety through heightened public awareness and increased traffic enforcement and
also facilitate the exchange of effective traffic safety strategies among traffic units of the 21 participating
agencies. These strategies are also designed to earn media attention, thus enhancing the overall deterrent
effect.
DISCUSSION
The majority of the grant amount will be allocated for overtime salaries for funding personnel from the
Burlingame Police Department and allied agencies to conduct traffic enforcement deployments throughout
San Mateo County on a monthly basis. Approximately $13,000 will be allocated to purchase radio and
computer equipment for the Burlingame Police Department's Incident Command Trailer, and approximately
$10,000 will be used to fund a Grant Manager.
The Burlingame Police Department Traffic Unit will be responsible for planning all of the traffic enforcement
deployments. These deployments will include DUI checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols, traffic enforcement
operations, distracted driving enforcement, motorcycle safety enforcement, bicycle and pedestrian safety
enforcement, and seat belt enforcement. In addition the Burlingame Police Department and participating allied
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/10/2014
agencies will participate in National Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April, and the Statewide Click It or
Ticket mobilization in May. The Burlingame Police Department Traffic Unit will facilitate training officers in the
areas of Standard Field Sobriety Testing, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, and Drug
Recognition Expert. The Grant Manager will be responsible for the preparation of all claims and writing the
quarterly and final reports.
FISCAL IMPACT
This grant funds the overtime costs associated with conducting the above mentioned deployments, grant
management, and the purchase of radio and computer equipment for the Burlingame Police Department's
Incident Command Trailer. Grant expenditures will be reimbursed through the Office of Traffic Safety on a
quarterly basis, based on expense claims filed. There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund, other
than staff time associated with administering this grant.
Exhibits:
• California Office of Traffic Safety Grant#PT15144
• Resolution
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/10/2014
uwered
by-eqsta,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL
YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR
AN OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY COUNTYWIDE REGIONAL
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT #PT15144
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined there is a need to fund the Office
of Traffic Safety Countywide Regional Enforcement Grant at a total cost of$279,784;
and
WHEREAS, there is funding available under the Office of Traffic Safety Grant
number PT15144 in fiscal year 2014-2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to appropriate the additional $279,784
needed to fund the Office of Traffic Safety activities, from the available Countywide
Regional Enforcement Grant.
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS,AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
The City Manager is authorized to adjust the fiscal year 2014-15 budget to
include the necessary appropriations for the expenditure of the grant funds.
Mayor
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
15th day of September,by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
City Clerk
State of California — Office of Traffic SafetyCOPY
'GRANT AGREEMENT - Page 1 GRANT NUMBER
OTS-38 (Rev. 5/14)
PT15144
1. GRANT TITLE
COUNTYWIDE REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
2. NAME OF APPLICANT AGENCY 4. GRANT PERIOD
CITY OF BURLINGAME
3. AGENCY UNIT TO HANDLE GRANT From: 10/1/14
POLICE DEPARTMENT To: 9/30/15
5. GRANT DESCRIPTION
The City of Burlingame has recognized the necessity for a county-wide collaborative selective enforcement program to
supplement current traffic details and existing grants. In order to reduce the number of fatal and injury collisions in San
Mateo County, a pilot regional enforcement program has been implemented to impact traffic safety throughout the
twenty-one cities and towns within the county. This regional effort primarily would focus enforcement operations in the
top cities with the highest number of incidents: Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Daly City, Pacifica,
Burlingame, and Menlo Park. Additional partnering agencies will be invited to participate in the pilot county-wide
regional enforcement program.
6. FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED: $ 2799784.00
7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this
reference made a part of the Agreement:
• Schedule A (OTS-38b) — Problem Statement, Goals and • Exhibit A —Certifications and Assurances
Objectives and Method of Procedure • Exhibit B* - OTS Grant Program Manual
• Schedule B (OTS-38d) —Detailed Budget Estimate and
Sub-Budget Estimate (if applicable)
• Schedule B-1 (OTS-38f) — Budget Narrative and Sub-
Budget Narrative (if applicable)
*Items shown with an asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto.
These documents can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: www.ots.ca.gov.
We, the officials named below, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we are duly
authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above described Grant terms and conditions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto.
8. APPROVAL SIGNATURES
A. GRANT DIRECTOR ' B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF APPLICANT AGENCY
NAME: Eric Wollman PHONE: 650-777-4114 NAME: Edward Wood PHONE: 650-777-4124
TITLE: Police Captain FAx: 650-697-8130 TSE: Chief of Police FAX: 650-697-8130
ADDRESS: 1111 Trousdale Drive ADDRESS: 1111 Trousdale Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
E-MAI • ewollman burlin ame olice.or E-MAIL: ewood(a,burlinuamepolice.or2
fl/rte/�
It 2:0�e4,(�d ,Q GVow, ,. �Pze;
(Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date)
C. FISCAL OR ACCOUNTING OFFICIAL D. OFFICE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS
NAME: Carol Augustine PHONE: 650-558-7201 NAME: Finance Department
TITLE: Finance Director FAx: N/A 1 ADDRESS: 501 Primrose Road
ADDRESS: 501 Primrose RoadBurlingame, CA 94010
t
Burlingame, CA 94010
9. DUNS NUMBER
E-MAIL: caugustine(i ,burlingame.orzs DuNs #: 083859579
PEGISTEUD�G / �L4l�q ADDRESS & 501 Primrose Road
' ( :gnatu ) (Date) zip: Burlingame, CA 94010
GRANTS MADE EASY-STEP
SCHEDULE A
GRANT DESCRIPTION
GRANT No. PT15144
PAGE 1
1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Late in 2012, the City of Burlingame recognized the necessity for a county-wide collaborative selective
enforcement program to supplement current traffic details and existing grants. In order to reduce the number
of fatal and injury collisions, a public safety concern clearly illustrated from the most current collision data
below, this joint effort created the opportunity to impact cities without grants, and enhance traffic safety in
cities that have been offered grants. This is especially noteworthy, since only a fraction of San Mateo
County agencies are awarded grants annually. In San Mateo County during 2010, there were seven fatal
traffic collisions, and 1815 persons injured in traffic collisions. The following year, fifteen people died in
traffic accidents, and 1939 people were injured. The latest statistics for 2013 indicate a surge in traffic
related fatalities in San Mateo County, with over 25 killed in collisions during the calendar year.
As identified in the 2010 rankings and county needs assessment, San Mateo County would greatly benefit
from SFST, ARIDE, and DRE training. Especially with DUID being an emerging problem, county law
enforcement is committed to training more officers and Burlingame PD could coordinate this training with
the CHP. So far as of January 2014, at least five officers of the participating STEP agencies have been
scheduled to attend ARIDE in March, five have attended SFST and five more are scheduled to attend in
February, and two officers are scheduled to attend DRE in January. The continuation of this grant will
guarantee that even more officers and deputies throughout San Mateo County will receive this indispensable
training throughout the next fiscal year.
A. Traffic Data Summary:
Collision 2011 2012 2013
Type
Collisions Victims Collisions Victims Collisions Victims
Fatal 17 17 1213 20 25
Injury 1556 1862 1839 2289 1815 2240
Fatal Injury Killed Injured Fatal Injury Killed Injured Fatal Injury Killed Injured
Alcohol - 3 99 3 126 1 137 1 148 7 148 12 192
Involved
Hit&Run 5 132 5 183 1 166 1 206 2 155 3 174
Nighttime 8 178 8 224 3 226 3 288 3 185 3 238
(2100-0259
hours)
Top 3 Primary Collision Factors Fatal Injury Killed Injured
#1 - VC 22350 Basic Speed Law 1 654 1 816
#2 - VC 22157 Unsafe Turn 1 211 1 238
#3 - VC 23152 DUI 7 148 1 12 192
OTS-38b(Rev. 5/14)
GRANTS MADE EASY-STEP
SCHEDULE A
GRANT DESCRIPTION
GRANT No. PT15144
PAGE 2
2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES
A. Goals:
1) To reduce the number of persons killed in traffic collisions.
2) To reduce the number of persons injured in traffic collisions.
3) To reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol-involved collisions.
4) To reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol-involved collisions.
5) To reduce the number of persons killed in drug-involved collisions.
6) To reduce the number of persons injured in drug-involved collisions.
7) To reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in traffic collisions.
8) To reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in traffic collisions.
9) To reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in alcohol-involved collisions.
10)To reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in alcohol-involved collisions.
11)To reduce hit &run fatal collisions.
12)To reduce hit &run injury collisions.
13)To reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) fatal collisions.
14)To reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) injury collisions.
15)To reduce the number of bicyclists killed in traffic collisions.
16)To reduce the number of bicyclists injured in traffic collisions.
17)To reduce the number of pedestrians killed in traffic collisions.
18)To reduce the number of pedestrians injured in traffic collisions.
OTS-38b (Rev. 5/14)
GRANTS MADE EASY-STEP
SCHEDULE A
GRANT DESCRIPTION
GRANT No. PT15144
PAGE 3
B. Objectives:
1) To develop (by December 31) and/or maintain a"HOT Sheet"program to notify patrol and traffic
officers to be on the lookout for identified repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license
as a result of DUI convictions. Updated HOT sheets should be distributed to patrol and traffic
officers monthly.
2) To send 10 law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing(SFST)
(minimum 16 hour) POST-certified training.
3) To send 5 law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving
Enforcement(ARIDE) 16 hour POST-certified training.
4) To send 5 law enforcement personnel to the IACP Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training.
5) To conduct 8 DUI/DL Checkpoints. Note:A minimum of I checkpoint should be conducted during
the NHTSA Winter Mobilization and I during the NHTSA Summer Mobilization.
6) To conduct 26 DUI Saturation Patrol operation(s).
7) To conduct 10 Traffic Enforcement operation(s), including but not limited to,primary collision
factor violations.
8) To conduct 10 Distracted Driving enforcement operation(s)targeting drivers using hand held cell
phones and texting.
9) To conduct 4 highly publicized Motorcycle Safety enforcement operation(s) in areas or during
events with a high number of motorcycle incidents or collisions resulting from unsafe speed, DUI,
following too closely, unsafe lane changes, improper turning, and other primary collision factor
violations by motorcyclists and other drivers.
10)To conduct 6 night-time (2100 - 0259 hours) Click It or Ticket enforcement operations.
11)To conduct 6 bicycle and pedestrian enforcement operations in identified areas of high bicycle and
pedestrian traffic.
12)To participate in the National Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April.
13)To participate in the NHTSA Click It or Ticket mobilization period in May.
14)To collaborate with the county's Avoid Lead Agency by: participating in planning/scheduling
meetings and MADD/Avoid DUI Seminars; providing your agency's schedule of operations that
OTS-38b(Rev. 5/14)
GRANTS MADE EASY-STEP
SCHEDULE A
GRANT DESCRIPTION
GRANT No. PT15144
PAGE 4
occur during any Avoid campaign; and reporting your agency's DUI arrests &DUI fatality
information during any Avoid campaign.
15)To collect and report DUI enforcement data fox the NHTSA Winter and Summer Mobilizations.
NOTE:Nothing in this "agreement"shall be interpreted as a requirement,formal or informal, that a
particular police officer issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of the
goals and objectives hereunder.
NOTE. To enhance the overall deterrent effect and promote high visibility, it is recommended the
grantee issue an advance press release for each checkpoint operation. For combination DUI/DL
checkpoints, departments should issue press releases that mention DL's will be checked at the DUI/DL
checkpoint. Signs for DUI/DL checkpoint operations should read "DUI/Driver's License Checkpoint
Ahead. " OTS does not fund or support independent DL checkpoints. Only on an exception basis and
with OTS pre-approval will OTS fund checkpoint operations that begin prior to 1800 hours.
3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE
A. Phase 1 - Program Preparation, Training and Implementation (1St Quarter of Grant Year)
• The police department will develop operational plans to implement the"best practice" strategies
outlined in the objectives section.
• All training needed to implement the program should be conducted this quarter.
• All grant related purchases needed to implement the program should be made this quarter.
• In order to develop/maintain the "Hot Sheets,"research will be conducted to identify the"worst of
the worst"repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions.
The Hot Sheets may include the driver's name, last known address, DOB, description, current license
status, and the number of times suspended or revoked for DUI. Hot Sheets should be updated and
distributed to traffic and patrol officers at least monthly.
• Implementation of the STEP grant activities will be accomplished by deploying personnel at high
collision locations.
Media Requirements
• Issue a press release announcing the kick-off of the grant by November 15. The kick-off press
releases and media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed to the OTS Public Information
Officer at pio a,ots.ca.gov, and copied to your OTS Coordinator, for approval 14 days prior to the
issuance date of the release.
OTS-38b (Rev. 5/14)
GRANTS MADE EASY-STEP
SCHEDULE A
GRANT DESCRIPTION
GRANT No. PT15144
PAGE 5
B. Phase 2 - Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year)
• The police department will work to create media opportunities throughout the grant period to call
attention to the innovative program strategies and outcomes.
Media Requirements
• Send all grant-related activity press releases, media advisories, alerts and general public materials to
the OTS Public Information Officer(PIO) at pionots.ca.gov, with a copy to your OTS Coordinator.
a) If an OTS template-based press release is used, the OTS PIO and Coordinator should be copied
when the release is distributed to the press. If an OTS template is not used, or is substantially
changed, a draft press release should first be sent to the OTS PIO for approval. Optimum lead
time would be 10-20 days prior to the release date to ensure adequate turn-around time.
b) Press releases reporting the results of grant activities such as enforcement operations are exempt
from the recommended advance approval process, but still should be copied to the OTS PIO and
Coordinator when the release is distributed to the press.
c) Activities such as warrant or probation sweeps and court stings that could be compromised by
advanced publicity are exempt from pre-publicity,but are encouraged to offer embargoed media
coverage and to report the results.
• Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials: Funding for this
program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
• Email the OTS PIO at pio ,ots.ca.gov and copy your OTS Coordinator at least 30 days in advance, a
short description of any significant grant-related traffic safety event or program so OTS has sufficient
notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event.
• Submit a draft or rough-cut of all printed or recorded material (brochures,posters, scripts, artwork,
trailer graphics, etc.) to the OTS PIO at pio ,ots.ca.gov and copy your OTS Coordinator for approval
14 days prior to the production or duplication.
• Include the OTS logo, space permitting, on grant-funded print materials; consult your OTS
Coordinator for specifics.
C. Phase 3—Data Collection& Reporting (Throughout Grant Year)
• Agencies are required to collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of
goals and objectives.
OTS-38b (Rev. 5/14)
GRANTS MADE EASY-STEP
SCHEDULE A
GRANT DESCRIPTION
GRANT No. PT15144
PAGE 6
• Statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives will be collected, analyzed, and incorporated
in Quarterly Performance Reports (QPRs). QPRs for the quarter ending September 30 will include
year-to-date comparisons of goals and objectives. If required, a separate quarterly data reporting
form will be completed each quarter and submitted as part of the QPR.
• Reports will compare actual grant accomplishments with the planned accomplishments. They will
include information concerning changes made by the Grant Director in planning and guiding the
grant efforts.
• Reports shall be completed and submitted in accordance with OTS requirements as specified in the
Grant Program Manual.
4. METHOD OF EVALUATION
Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the "Final Evaluation" section in
the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary
of the grant's accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include
whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation why objectives were not completed.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
This program has fall support of the City of Burlingame. Every effort will be made to continue the activities
after the grant conclusion.
OTS-38b (Rev.5/14)
SCHEDULE B
DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATE
GRANT NO.PTI 5144
CATALOG TOTAL
FUND NUMBER NUMBER(CFDA) FUND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR REPEAT
164AL 20.608 OFFENDERS FOR DRIVING WHILE $170,628
INTOXICATED
402PT 20.600 STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY $109,156
SAFETY
FISCAL YEAR ESTIMATES TOTAL COST
COST CATEGORY 10/1/14 thru 9/30/15 TO GRANT
A.PERSONNEL COSTS CFDA FY-1
Positions and Salaries
Overtime
DUI/DL Checkpoints 20.608 $ 68,000.00 $ 68,000.00
DUI Saturation Patrols 20.608 $ 29,501.00 $ 29,501.00
Grant Management $ -
1 x 142 hours x$46.37/hour 20.608 $ 6,585.00 $ 6,585.00
Click it or Ticket Enforcement Operations 20.600 $ 12,643.00 $ 12,643.00
Speed Enforcement Operations 20.600 $ 12,643.00 $ 12,643.00
Traffic Enforcment Operations 20:600 $ 7,262.00 $ 7,262.00
Distracted Driving Operations 20.600 $ 7,262.00 $ 7,262.00
Motorcyle Safety Operations 20.600 $ 2,905.00 $ 2,905.00
Grant Management $ -
1 x 66 hours x$46.37/hour 20.600 $ 3,060.00 $ 3,060.00
Category Sub-Total $ 149,861.00 $ 149,861.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSE
In-State 20.600 $ 3,969.00 $ 3,969.00
Out-of-State $ -
Category Sub-Total $ 3,969.00 $ 3,969.00
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Allied Agencies 20.608 $ 57,312.00 $ 57,312.00
Allied Agencies 20.600 $ 57,312.00 $ 57,312.00
Category Sub-Total $ 114,624.00 $ 114,624.00
D. EQUIPMENT
None $ -
Category Sub-Total $ - $ -
E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Lidar Devices 20.600 $ 2,100.00 $ 2,100.00
Desktop Computer 20.608 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Laptop Computer 20.608 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
PAS Device 20.608 $ 859.00 $ 859.00
Dispatch Headsets 20.608 $ 1,400.00 $ 1,400.00
Dispatch Radios 20.608 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
Portable Radios 20.608 $ 2,971.00 $ 2,971.00
Category Sub-Total $ 11,330.00 $ 11,330.00
F. INDIRECT COSTS
None $ -
Category Sub-Total $ - $ -
GRANT TOTAL $ 279,784.00 1 279,784.00
OTS-38d(Rev.6/14) Page 1 of 2
SCHEDULE B
DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATE
GRANT NO.PT15144
OTS-38d(Rev.6/14) Page 2 of 2
SCHEDULE B-1
GRANT No. PT15144
BUDGET NARRATIVE Page 1
PERSONNEL COSTS
Salaries -may include wages, salaries, special compensations, or authorized absences such as annual leave
and sick leave provided the cost for the individual employee is (a) reasonable for the services rendered, and
(b) follows an appointment made in accordance with state or local laws and rules and meets federal
requirements.
Grant Management (1 x 208 Hours cr $46.37/Hour) - duties will include planning and coordinating
multi-agency activities, collection of statistical data for OTS reporting, assisting in claims preparation along
with oversight of the grant activities and quarterly reporting.
Overtime
Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations may be conducted by personnel such as a Lieutenant,
Sergeant, Corporal, Deputy, Officer, Community Services Officer, Dispatcher, etc., depending on the titles
used by the agency and the grantees overtime policy. Personnel will be deployed as needed to accomplish
the grant goals and objectives.
The primary personnel duties for the Countywide Regional Enforcement Pilot Program host agency will be
for staffing the following operations: DUI Saturation Patrols, Traffic Enforcement Operations, Motorcycle
Operations, and Distracted Driving Operations.
Personnel will be deployed as needed to accomplish the grant goals and objectives. Costs are estimated
based on an overtime hourly rate range (excluding benefits). Overtime reimbursement will reflect actual
costs of the personnel conducting the appropriate operation up to the maximum range specified and benefits.
Costs are estimated based on an overtime hourly rate range of$56.37/hour to $103.54/hour.
Overtime reimbursement will reflect actual costs of the personnel conducting the appropriate operation up to
the maximum range specified.
No benefits will be paid in this grant.
TRAVEL EXPENSE
In State- Costs are included for appropriate staff to attend conferences and training events supporting the
grant goals and objectives and/or traffic safety. Local mileage for grant activities and meetings is included.
Anticipated travel may include DUID Seminar and DRE training. All conferences, seminars or training not
specifically identified in the Schedule B-1 (Budget Narrative) must be approved by OTS. All travel claimed
must be at the agency approved rate. Per Diem may not be claimed for meals provided at conferences when
registration fees are paid with OTS grant funds.
OTS-38f(Rev. 6/14)
SCHEDULE B-1
GRANT No. PT15144
BUDGET NARRATIVE Page 2
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Allied Agency Operations—Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) or contracts will be developed with
each participating allied agency that details overtime costs to be reimbursed. Allied agency personnel may
participate in the following operations: DUI/DL Checkpoints, DUI Saturation Patrols, Multi-Agency DUI
Task Force Operations, Warrant Sweeps, Court Stings and Dispatcher Services.
EQUIPMENT
None
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1 Lidar Device—light detection and ranging device used to measure the speed of motor vehicles. This
device will be used for speed enforcement.
1 Desktop Computer—for use in tracking grant activities and producing required reports. Costs may
include monitor, software, and accessories.
1 Laptop Computer—for use in tracking grant activities and producing required reports and to for use by
dispatcher during grant related activities (excludes iPads, electronic tablets, and electronic notebooks). Costs
may include a printer and accessories.
1 PAS Device/Calibration Supplies -preliminary alcohol screening devices to detect the presence of
alcohol in a person's breath and calibration supplies to ensure accuracy. Costs may include mouth pieces,
gas and accessories.
2 Dispatch Headsets—for use by dispatchers during OTS funded traffic safety, DUI saturation patrols, and
DUI checkpoints while in the trailer conducting dispatch duties during grant related activities.
2 Dispatch Radios—for use by dispatchers during deployments to communicate and track officers in the
field during grant related operations.
3 Portable Radios -used to support grant related activities such as multi agency task force operations or
traffic enforcement operations. Costs may include programming radios and batteries.
INDIRECT COSTS
None
PROGRAM INCOME
There will be no program income generated from this grant.
OTS-38f(Rev. 6/14)
SCHEDULE B
DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATE
GRANT NO. PT15144
SUB BUDGET: Allied Agency Operations
CATALOG TOTAL
FUND NUMBER NUMBER(CFDA) FUND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR REPEAT
164AL 20.608 OFFENDERS FOR DRIVING WHILE $ 57,312.00
INTOXICATED
402PT 20.600 STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY $ 57,312.00
SAFETY
FISCAL YEAR ESTIMATES TOTAL COST
COST CATEGORY TO GRANT
FY-1
CFDA 10/1/14
thru
A.PERSONNEL COSTS 9/30/15
Positions and Salaries
Overtime
DUI Saturation Patrols 20.608 $ 50,112.00 $ 50,112.00
Dispatcher Services 20.608 $ 7,200.00 $ 7,200.00
1 x 96 hrs x$75/hr
Distracted Driving Operations 20.600 $ 20,880.00 $ 20,880.00
Traffic Enforcement Operations 20.600 $ 20,880.00 $ 20,880.00
Motorcycle Safety Enforcement Operations 20.600 $ 8,352.00 $ 8,352.00
Dispatcher Services 20.600 $ 7,200,00 $ 7,200.00
1 x 96 hrs x$75/hr
Category Sub-Total $ 1 14,624.22_L $ 114,624.00
B. TRAVEL EXPENSE
None $ -
Category Sub-Total $ - $
C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
None $ -
Category Sub-Total $ - $ - $
D. EQUIPMENT
None $
Category Sub-Total $ - $ - $
E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
None $
Category Sub-Total $ - $ - $
F. INDIRECT COSTS
None $
Category Sub-Total $ - $ - $ -
OTS-38d(Rev. 6/14) Page 1 of 2
SCHEDULE B
DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATE
GRANT NO. PT15144
SUB BUDGET: Allied Agency Operations
GRANT TOTAL $ 114,624.00 1 $ - I Is 114,624.00
OTS-38d(Rev. 6/14) Page 2 of 2
SCHEDULE B-1
GRANT No. PT15144
SUB BUDGET: ALLIED AGENCY OPERATIONS
BUDGET NARRATIVE Page 1
PERSONNEL COSTS
Overtime
Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations may be conducted by personnel such as a Lieutenant,
Sergeant, Corporal, Deputy, Officer, Community Services Officer, etc., depending on the titles used by the
agency and the grantees overtime policy. Personnel will be deployed as needed to accomplish the grant goals
and objectives.
Dispatcher Services duties will include communications with the host agency and partnering allied agencies
participating in the countywide regional enforcement pilot program. Deployment of officers to the following
law enforcement operations: DUI Saturation Patrols, Traffic Enforcement Operations, Motorcycle
Operations, and Distracted Driving Operations are the primary responsibilities of the dispatcher.
Costs are estimated based on an overtime hourly rate range of$50.68/hr to $115.50/hr.
No benefits will be reimbursed from this grant.
TRAVEL EXPENSE
None
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
None
EQUIPMENT
None
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
None
INDIRECT COSTS
None
PROGRAM INCOME
There will be no program income generated from this grant.
OTS-38f(Rev. 6/14)
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES
Page 1
Failure to comply with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives may subject Grantee Agency
officials to civil or criminal penalties and/or place the State in a high risk grantee status in accordance with 49
CFR §18.12.
The officials named on the Grant Agreement, certify by way of signature on the Grant Agreement signature
page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and
State rules, guidelines,policies and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding.
Applicable provisions include,but are not limited to, the following:
• 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4 - Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended
• 49 CFR Part 18 - Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to
State and Local Governments
• 23 CFR Chapter II - (§§1200, 1205, 1206, 1250, 1251, & 1252) Regulations governing highway safety
programs
• NHTSA Order 462-6C - Matching Rates for State and Community Highway Safety Programs
• Highway Safety Grant Funding Policy for Field-Administered Grants
NONDISCRIMINATION
The Grantee Agency will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to
nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (88),which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin (and 49 CFR Part 21); (b)Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, as amended(20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686), which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended(29 U.S.C.
794), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (101), as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.), which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities (and 49 CFR Part 27); (d) the Age Discrimination Act of
1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Civil
Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (100), which requires Federal-aid recipients and all subrecipients to prevent
discrimination and ensure nondiscrimination in all of their programs and activities; (f) the Drug Abuse Office
and Treatment Act of 1972 (92), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (g)the
comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (91), as
amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (h) Sections 523 and 527 of
the Public Health Service Act of 1912, as amended (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3), relating to confidentiality
of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (i) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C.
3601, et seq.), relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; 0) any other
nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s)under which application for Federal assistance is being
made; and (k)the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s)which may apply to the application.
Certifications and Assurances(Rev.2014)
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES
Page 2
BUY AMERICA ACT
The Grantee Agency will comply with the provisions of the Buy America Act(49 U.S.C. 53230)), which
contains the following requirements:
Only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States may be purchased with Federal funds
unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestic purchases would be inconsistent with the
public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of
domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. Clear
justification for the purchase of non-domestic items must be in the form of a waiver request submitted to and
approved by the Secretary of Transportation.
POLITICAL ACTIVITY(HATCH ACT)
The Grantee Agency will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act(5 U.S.C. 1501-1508) which limits the
political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with
Federal funds.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with
the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the
entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an
officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-
LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,"in accordance with its instructions.
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for
all sub-award at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grant, loans, and
cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction
was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this
transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required
Certifications and Assurances(Rev.2014)
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES
Page 3
certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each
such failure.
RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING
None of the funds under this program will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a
State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any
State or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect(e.g., "grassroots") lobbying
activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA
funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with
customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption
of a specific pending legislative proposal.
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
Instructions for Primary Certification
1. By signing and submitting this Grant Agreement, the Grantee Agency official is providing the certification
set out below.
2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of
participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it
cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in
connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However,
failure of the Grantee Agency official to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such
person from participation in this transaction.
3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the
department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the Grantee
Agency official knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the
Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default.
4. The prospective primary participant shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to
which this Grant Agreement is submitted if at any time the Grantee Agency official learns its certification
was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction,participant,
person,primary covered transaction,principal, Grant Agreement, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this
clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may
contact the department or agency to which this Grant Agreement is being submitted for assistance in
obtaining a copy of those regulations.
6. The Grantee Agency official agrees by submitting this Grant Agreement that, should the proposed covered
transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person
who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible,
or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction,unless authorized by the department
or agency entering into this transaction.
Certifications and Assurances(Rev.2014)
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES
Page 4
7. The Grantee Agency official further agrees by submitting this Grant Agreement that it will include the
clause titled"Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower
Tier Covered Transaction,"provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction,
without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered
transactions.
8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower
tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred,
suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the
certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the
eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the list of Parties Excluded
from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs.
9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in
order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a
participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary
course of business dealings.
10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered
transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for
debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the
department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered
Transactions
(1) The Grantee Agency official certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that its principals:
(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended,proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
by any Federal department or agency;
(b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this Grant Agreement been convicted of or had a civil
judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public
transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or destruction of record, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity(Federal,
State or Local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph(1)(b) of this certification; and
(d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/Grant Agreement had one or more public
transactions (Federal, State, or local)terminated for cause or default.
(2) Where the Grantee Agency official is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such
prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this Grant Agreement.
Certifications and Assurances(Rev.2014)
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES
Page 5
Instructions for Lower Tier Certification
1. By signing and submitting this Grant Agreement, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the
certification set out below.
2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this
transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly
rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the
department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including
suspension and/or debarment.
3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this
Grant Agreement is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification
was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.
4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction,participant,
person,primary covered transaction,principal, Grant Agreement, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this
clause, have the meanings.set out in the Definition and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may
contact the person to whom this Grant Agreement is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those
regulations.
5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this Grant Agreement that, should the proposed
covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with
a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the
department or agency with which this transaction originated.
6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this Grant Agreement that it will include
the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—
Lower Tier Covered Transaction,"without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all
solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (See below)
7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower
tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred,
suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the
certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the
eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of Parties Excluded
from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs.
8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in
order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a
participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary
course of business dealings.
9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered
transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for
debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
Certifications and Assurances(Rev.2014)
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES
Page 6
participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the
department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies,including
suspension and/or debarment.
Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier
Covered Transactions
1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this grant agreement, that neither it nor its
principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.
2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification,
such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this grant agreement.
Certifications and Assurances(Rev.2014)
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CA 94010
BULI
RNGAME
.' Agenda Item 8c
l� Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15,2014
From: Syed Murtuza,Director of Public Works-(650)558-7230
Kathleen Kane,City Attorney-(650)558-7204
Subject:
Adoption an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.04 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Update Water
Supply Cross-Connection and Backflow Prevention Standards in Compliance with Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 15.04 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code to update the City's water supply cross-connection and backflow prevention
standards in compliance with the California Code of Regulations Title 17,as follows:
1. Adopt the proposed ordinance.
2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
BACKGROUND
California Code of Regulations(CCRs),Title 17 requires the City of Burlingame as a water purveyor to protect
the Public Water Supply System from potential and actual contamination. The authority to administer this
program comes from State of California,CCR Title 17,California Public Utilities Rule 16c, and the California
Department of Public Health Services. Burlingame's current water supply cross-connection and backflow
prevention standards were last updated in 2002. A recent survey of the Burlingame water supply system by
the State of California identified that Burlingame's water supply cross-connection standards need to be
updated to be consistent with the current CCR Title 17. Over the last several months,staff has been working
with the California Department of Public Health and the San Mateo County Health Department to update
Chapter 15.04 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to comply with the State regulations.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 2, 2014 regarding this matter and introduced the
ordinance.
DISCUSSION
The attached ordinance amendment proposes to delete Section 15.04.020,and to update Section 15.04.050
of Chapter 15.04 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to provide comprehensive implementation and
administration of the water supply cross-connection and backflow prevention program. Following are the key
changes to the proposed ordinance amendment:
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/9/2014
p-d byLeQs�ar•r
• Section 15.04.020 of Chapter 15.04 is deleted;
• Section 15.04.050 is updated in its entirety to provide definitions of key terms used in the chapter and
to provide comprehensive guidelines and standards for administering the water supply cross-
connection and backflow prevention program as follows:
a) Standards and requirements are provided for residential and commercial customers to protect
the domestic water supply from potential cross-connection contamination arising from irrigation
systems and fire suppression systems.
b) Standards are provided to perform field surveys and audits to determine potential contamination
issues in the water supply system.
c) Standards and requirements are provided for locating and configuring backflow prevention
devices.
d) Standards and requirements are provided for performing inspections, testing, and maintenance
of backflow prevention devices, and
e) Standards are provided for enforcement and compliance with Title 17, reporting and
training/certification of personnel involved in the administration of the program.
FISCAL IMPACT
The costs associated with implementing the standards per Title 17 will be absorbed in the Water Division's
operations budget.
Exhibits:
1 . Ordinance
2. Amended Chapter 15.04 of Burlingame Municipal Code with strikeouts
3. California Code of Regulations Title 17
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/9/2014
powered by Legistar'
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO
UPDATE WATER SUPPLY CROSS-CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW
PREVENTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Factual Background and Findings.
WHEREAS, California Code of Regulations(CCR),Title 17 requires the City of
Burlingame as a water purveyor to protect the Public Water Supply System from
potential and actual contamination;and
WHEREAS, Burlingame's current water supply cross-connection and backflow
prevention standards were last updated in 2002;and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the water supply from potential and actual
contamination and to comply with State regulations, the City must update its current
standards;and
WHEREAS, a recent survey of the Burlingame Water Supply System by the
California Department of Public Health Services identified that Burlingame's water
supply cross-connection standards need to be updated in compliance with the current
CCR,Title 17;and
WHEREAS, Public Works Department staff has jointly worked with the California
Department of Public Health Service and San Mateo County Health Department to
update Chapter 15.04 of the Burlingame Municipal Code for compliance with CCR,Title
17.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 2. Chapter 15.04 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended to be in
compliance with CCR,Title 17 as follows:
a) Section 15.04.020 of Chapter 15.04 is deleted;
b) Section 15.04.050 of Chapter 15.04 is completely replaced with a new section
and shall read as follows:
15.04.050—Cross-Connections and Backflow Standards
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Cross-Connection Control Program
implemented by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department to protect the
public water supply against actual or potential contamination through cross-
connection and backflow.
2.0 SCOPE
The scope of the Cross-Connection Control Program includes all of the elements
necessary to ensure compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title
17, Public Health Sections 7583 through 7605. The City of Burlingame partners
with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division to implement
the majority of the scope of this program, including compliance with required
program personnel certifications, surveying of residential, industrial and
commercial user facilities for potential cross-connection hazards, designation of
appropriate backflow preventers, requirements for testers and testing of backflow
prevention assemblies, and maintenance of records.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions describe those terms and phrases that are pertinent to
the various elements of a cross-connection control program:
3.1 Approved Backflow Prevention Assembly
The term "Approved Backflow Prevention Assembly"shall mean
assemblies listed, and installed as prescribed, on the most current List of
Approved Backflow Prevention assemblies, published by the University of
Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and
Hydraulic Research (USC Foundation), and meet any additional
requirements deemed necessary by the City or Environmental Health.
3.2 Approved Water Supply
The term "approved water supply' means any local water supply whose
potability is regulated by a State or Local Health Agency.
3.3 Auxiliary Water Supply
The term "auxiliary water supply' means any water supply on or available
to the premises other than the approved water supply as delivered by the
water purveyor to the service connection.
3.4 AWWA
The term "AWWA" is an acronym for the American Water Works
Association.
3.5 Backflow
The term "backflow" shall mean a flow condition, caused by a differential
in pressure, which causes the flow of water or other liquid, gases,
mixtures or substances into the distributing pipes of a potable supply of
water from any source or sources other than an approved water supply
source. Back siphonage is one cause of backflow. Back pressure is the
other cause.
3.6 Backflow Preventer
An approved assembly or means designed to prevent backflow.
3.6.1 Air Gap. The unobstructed vertical distance through the free
atmosphere between the lowest opening from any pipe or faucet
conveying water to a tank, plumbing fixture, receptor or other
assembly and the flood level rim of the receptacle. These vertical
physical separations must be at least twice the diameter of the
water supply outlet, never less than 1 inch.
3.6.2 Reduce Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly. This
assembly consists of two independently acting approved check
valves together with a hydraulically operating, mechanically
independent pressure differential relief valve located between the
check valves and below the first check valve. These units are
located between two tightly closing resilient-seated shutoff valves
as an assembly and equipped with properly located resilient-
seated test cocks.
3.6.3 Double Check Valve Assembly. This assembly consists of two
internally loaded check valves, either spring-loaded or internally
weighted, installed as a unit between two tightly closed resilient-
seated shutoff valves and equipped with properly located resilient-
seated test cocks.
3.6.4 Double Check Valve Detector Assembly. This assembly is a
specially designed backflow assembly composed of a line-sized-
approved double check valve assembly with a bypass containing a
water meter and an approved double check valve assembly. The
meter shall register accurately for only very low rates and is used to
show unauthorized usage or leaks in the customers system.
3.6.5 Pressure Vacuum Breaker Assembly. This assembly contains one
or two independently operated spring loaded check valves and an
independently operated spring loaded air inlet valve located on the
discharge side of the check or checks. It also includes two tightly
closing shutoff valves on each side of the check valves and
equipped with properly located resilient-seated test cocks.
3.6.6 Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker Assembly. This assembly contains
an air inlet valve, a check seat and an air inlet port(s). A shut off
valve immediately upstream may be an integral part of the
assembly, but there shall be no shutoff valves or obstructions
downstream. The assembly shall not be subject to operating
pressure for more than twelve (12) hours in any twenty-four(24)
hour period.
3.6.7 Hose Bibb Vacuum Breaker. This device is permanently attached to
a hose bibb and acts as an Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker.
3.7 Customer or Responsible Party
The Customer or Responsible Party is the person that either has applied
for water service from the City, or owns or controls water piping or fixtures
served by the City water supply. The terms customer and responsible
party have the same meaning within this ordinance.
3.8 Contamination
The term "contamination" means a degradation of the quality of the
potable water by any foreign substance which creates a hazard to the
public health, or which may impair the usefulness or quality of the water.
3.9 Pollution
The term "pollution" shall mean an impairment of the quality of the water
to a degree which does not create a hazard to the public health, but,
which does adversely and unreasonably affect the aesthetic qualities of
such waters for domestic use.
3.10 Cross-Connection
The term "cross-connection" as used in this document means any
unprotected actual or potential connection between a potable water
system used to supply water for drinking purposes and any source or
system containing unapproved water or a substance that is not or cannot
be approved as safe, wholesome, and potable. By-pass arrangements,
jumper connections, removable sections, swivel or changeover devices,
or other devices through which backflow could occur, shall be considered
to be cross-connections.
3.11 Person
The term "person" means an individual, corporation, company, association,
partnership, municipality, public utility, or other public body or institution.
3.12 Facility
The term "facility" means any and all areas on a water user's property
which are served or have the potential to be served by the public water
system.
3.13 Public Water System
The term "public water system" means a system for the provision to pipe
water to the public for human consumption that has five or more service
connections or regularly serves an average of 25 individuals daily at least
60 day out of the year.
3.14 Service Connection
The term "service connection" refers to the point of connection of a
facility's piping to the water supplier's facilities, usually considered the
point at the outlet from the water meter.
3.15 Water Supplier
The term "water supplier' means the person who owns or operates the
approved water supply system.
3.16 Water User
The term 'water user" means any person obtaining water from an
approved water supply system.
3.17 City
Unless otherwise specified, the term "City" shall refer to the City of
Burlingame Department of Public Works -Water Division or San Mateo
County Environmental Health working as a partner to the Water Division.
3.18 Inspection Tag
"Inspection Tag" means a current-calendar-year backflow tag purchased
from San Mateo County Environmental Health.
3.19 Cross-Connection Control Program Specialist
The term "cross-connection control program specialist" means a person
certified by AWWA, or an approved equivalent certifying entity, to
evaluate the hazards inherent in supplying a customer's water system.
3.20 Certified Tester
The term"certified tester"means a person certified by AW WA or an approved
equivalent certificate and certified by San Mateo County Environmental Health
Services to perform backflow prevention assembly testing.
4.0 ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM
4.1 Authority
City of Burlingame Department of Public Works is the Administrative
Authority for the Cross-Connection Control Program. The authority to
administer this program comes from State of California, Title 17; State of
California, Public Utilities Commission Rule 16c; and State of California,
Department of Public Health Services (and any successor agencies).
4.2 Program Administrator
The program administrator for the Cross-Connection Control Program in
the City of Burlingame is the Public Works Superintendent or his/her
designee. The City also partners with the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Services Division through an agreement to
implement portions of the program, as allowed by California Health and
Safety Code. However, the City is ultimately responsible for the
implementation of the program.
5.0 APPROPRIATE BACKFLOW PROTECTION
5.1 New Construction, Remodels and Tenant Improvements
5.1.1 Residential, Single-Family and Duplexes Only
A. Domestic Water—The City may require an Approved
Backflow Prevention Assembly to be installed on the
customer's facility, as close as possible to the service
connection. The assembly shall be a Reduced Pressure
Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPP) or a
Double Check Valve Assembly (DC) as determined by the
City. If it is determined that a backflow prevention
assembly is required, the customer may also need to
install a thermal expansion tank in accordance with the
California Plumbing Code.
B. Irrigation System—The City requires an Approved Backflow
Prevention Assembly to be installed on the customer's
facility on the branch line serving an Irrigation system. The
assembly shall be a Pressure Vacuum Breaker(PVB),
Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly
(RPP), or Atmospheric Pressure Vacuum Breaker(AVB) as
determined by the City.
C. Fire Suppression System -All facilities with an installed fire
suppression system must have an Approved Backflow
Prevention Assembly, excluding flow-through fire systems,
on the branch line serving the fire suppression system. The
assembly shall be a Double Check Valve Assembly (DC)
or as determined by the City. Flow-through fire protection
systems shall be constructed with approved potable water
piping and materials.
5.1.2 Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Multi-Family
A. Domestic Water—The City may require an Approved
Backflow Prevention Assembly to be installed on the
customer's facility, as close as possible to the service
connection. The assembly shall be a Reduced Pressure
Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPP) or a
Double Check Valve Assembly (DC) as determined by the
City. If it's determined after a survey, that a backflow
prevention assembly is required, the customer may also
need to install a thermal expansion tank in accordance
with the California Plumbing Code.
B. Irrigation System —The City requires an Approved
Backflow Prevention Assembly to be installed on the
customer's facility, as close as possible to any irrigation
system service connections or on any irrigation branch
line. The assembly shall be a Pressure Vacuum Breaker
(PVB), Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention
Assembly (RPP) or Atmospheric Pressure Vacuum
Breaker(AVB) as determined by the City.
C. Fire Suppression System -All facilities with an installed fire
suppression system must have an Approved Backflow
Prevention Assembly. The assembly shall be a Double
Check Valve Detector Assembly (DCDA) and installed
according to City standard specifications and drawings,
and this Ordinance. The assembly must incorporate a City-
supplied bypass water meter at customer's cost which is
also protected with an approved double check valve
assembly.
5.2 Existing Service Connection
When it is determined in a survey by a City or Environmental Health
cross-connection control program specialist that an actual or potential
cross connection or backflow condition is present on an existing facility,
the installation of an appropriate backflow preventer shall be required.
Should an existing backflow prevention assembly be in place that does
not meet the City's installation requirements, does not comply with this
ordinance, or does not provide adequate protection with the degree of
hazard found on site, the assembly shall be replaced or upgraded as
required by the City, at the expense of the customer or responsible party.
6.0 SURVEYS
6.1 Identification of Survey Candidates
The City may identify specific industries that might pose an actual or
potential backflow hazard to the public water supply. Some of these
industries are identified from common lists of industries where cross-
connections are likely to be found, as provided by the State of California,
the USC Foundation, and other recognized organizations. From these
lists, specific facilities in the City's service area may be identified by
directories, mailing lists, associations, & business licenses.
6.2 Survey
Surveys may take the form of office surveys or field surveys. Office
surveys may include determination of facility hazards based on business
type or known water use on the facility. Office surveys could also include
evaluation of responses to mailed or on-line surveys.
Field surveys may include evaluation of water use by observations made
from public or private areas not on the subject facility, or physical
inspection on all or a portion of the facility. When possible, a request to
survey the facility shall be made at least 24 hours in advance, and a date
and time agreed upon with a responsible party. Should the request to
survey be denied by a responsible party, notice shall be sent to the
customer or responsible party directing installation of the appropriate
backflow assembly, at the water meter, based on best available
knowledge of the water use and potential hazards at the facility.
During the survey many factors are considered to determine if activities or
water use on facility are or could be a potential hazard to the public water
supply. Factors that may be considered include:
1. Alternative sources of water on site (auxiliary water supplies).
2. Piping configurations on site.
3. Uses of water on site.
4. Types of water using equipment.
5. Condition of water using equipment.
6. Complexity and elevations of plumbing on site, and the
potential for alterations of that system.
7. Storage and use of hazardous materials on site.
All the factors found and recorded during the survey shall be considered in the
determination of the degree of potential hazard (degree of hazard)to the public
water supply. This information shall be considered in the determination of the
appropriate backflow preventer. The customer or responsible party shall be
informed of the requirement to provide backflow protection and the type of
backflow prevention assembly required in accordance with Title 17 of the California
Regulations Related to Drinking Water or the direction of the County Health
Officer.
7.0 LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES
Backflow prevention assemblies shall be installed in accordance with Title 17 of
the California Code of Regulations, Section 7603, the City's Standard
Specifications, and the most recent edition of the USC Foundation manual. Any
deviation from these requirements shall require the City's approval. Unless
otherwise permitted by the City, all backflow preventers shall be installed on the
customer's or responsible party's facility.
7.1 Air-Gap Separation (AG)
The Air-gap separation shall be located as close as practical to the user's
connection and all piping between the user's connection and the receiving
tank shall be entirely visible unless otherwise approved.
7.2 Double Check Valve Assembly (DC)
A double check valve assembly and double check valve detector
assembly shall be installed a minimum of twelve inches (12") above grade
and not more than thirty-six inches (36") above grade measured from the
bottom of the assembly in a manner where it is readily accessible for
testing and maintenance.
7.3 Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPP)
A reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assembly shall be
installed a minimum of twelve inches (12") above grade and not more than
thirty-six inches(36") above grade measured from the bottom of the
assembly, and with a minimum of twelve inches (12") side clearance in a
manner where the assembly is readily accessible for testing and
maintenance.
7.4 Pressure Vacuum Breaker (PVB)
A pressure vacuum breaker check valve assembly shall be installed a
minimum of twelve inches (12") above all downstream piping and flood
level rims of receptors and in a manner where it is readily accessible for
testing and maintenance.
7.5 Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker(AVB)
An atmospheric vacuum breaker check valve assembly shall be installed
a minimum of six inches (6") above all downstream piping and flood level
rims of receptors and in a manner where it is readily accessible for testing
and maintenance.
7.6 Backflow Prevention Assembly Enclosures
A backflow prevention assembly enclosure, cage or locked bag may be
required by the City to be installed at the customer's expense, to combat
against tampering, vandalism or theft. The City may require that any
enclosure, cage or locked bag be secured to a concrete slab and securely
locked.
Any deviation of installation from the descriptions provided shall require the City's
approval prior to installation. All backflow prevention assembly installations shall
be inspected by the City to ensure compliance with all relevant Statutes,
Regulations, Ordinances, and City requirements.
8.0 TESTING AND MAINTENANCE OF BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
8.1 Responsibility
As per the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, the City shall assure
that adequate maintenance and periodic testing of backflow, prevention
assemblies are provided by the customer or responsible party, to ensure
the proper operation of the assemblies. Therefore, the City declares that
the customer or responsible party is ultimately responsible for the
installation, testing, and maintenance of all required backflow prevention
assemblies on or related to the customer's facility.
8.2 Certified testers
No person shall test and/or make reports on backflow prevention
assemblies to comply with this chapter unless he or she possesses a
current certification issued by the San Mateo County Environmental
Health Services Division as defined in County Ordinance Code.
8.3 Frequency of Testing
Backflow prevention assemblies shall be tested by a Certified Tester
immediately after they are installed, relocated or repaired and not placed in
service unless they are functioning as required. All backflow prevention
assemblies shall be tested at least annually or more frequently if
determined to be necessary by the City or Environmental Health, in
accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, and San Mateo
County Ordinance Cade. Exception is 8.4.1.A
8.4 Fire Suppression System Backflow Preventer Testing
8.4.1 Single-Family and Duplex Residential
A. Single-Family and Duplex Residential (SFDR) fire
suppression systems with an installed backflow prevention
assembly shall be tested upon installation only, unless
otherwise required by the City. After completion of
successfully testing the assembly, the#1 and #2 shut off
valves shall remain in the open position and the handles
removed. The handles shall be stored in the spare head
box. SFDR fire suppression system backflow,assemblies
are not required to be tested annually because of the low
degree of hazard.
8.4.2 Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Family
A. Commercial, industrial, multi-family fire suppression
system backflow, preventers must be tested annually by a
certified tester.
B. If an existing fire suppression system backflow assembly is
located in a vault, and has adequate physical clearance to
test, it is considered "existing non-conforming" and
approved for testing.
C. If an existing assembly fails the field test, the assembly
must be repaired or replaced with an appropriate,
approved backflow prevention assembly, installed to
current City standards. If any failed assembly is currently in
a vault, the assembly must be relocated above grade, to
meet all current codes and City standards.
D. If an existing fire system does not have testable approved
backflow prevention assembly the City shall require that a
new appropriate assembly that meets all current codes be
installed at customer or responsible party expense.
9.0 PROCEDURES FOR TESTING AND INSPECTION
9.1 Testable backflow prevention assemblies shall be tested using current
USC Foundation test procedures.
9.2 When a backflow prevention assembly is inspected and has passed the
testing procedure, the certified tester shall immediately affix a numbered
inspection tag to the assembly purchased from the County of San Mateo
Environmental Health Services Division.
9.3 When a backflow prevention assembly fails the testing procedure, the
certified tester shall immediately affix a "Failed" inspection tag to the
assembly. Records of failed assembly tests shall be filed/submitted as
directed within ten (10) days. The "Failed" inspection tag shall remain
affixed to the assembly until the assembly is repaired, has passed the
testing procedures and has been affixed with a numbered inspection tag.
9.4 Certified testers are solely responsible to comply with applicable municipal
requirements for additional permits or licenses (i.e., local business license,
plumbing permit, etc.)to test or repair backflow prevention assemblies within
the City.
10.0 ENFORCEMENT
San Mateo County Environmental Health has the authority to take enforcement
action as allowed in the County Ordinance Code Relating to Backflow
Prevention, and as it applies to the agreement between the City and
Environmental Health. The City shall have the authority to enforce this chapter
as follows.
10.1 Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, or bypasses or
renders inoperative any backflow prevention assembly installed under the
provisions of this chapter, shall be subject to fines as detailed in
Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 1.12—Violations of Code.
10.2 Failure to comply with any section of this chapter may be cause for the
discontinuance of water service by the City. The program administrator
shall give notice in writing of any violations of this chapter to the customer
or responsible party. If appropriate action is not taken within ten (10) days
after such notice has been mailed or delivered in person, the program
administrator may discontinue delivery of water. However, if the program
administrator or the health officer determines that the violation constitutes
an immediate threat to the public health or safety or to the integrity of the
public water system, the program administrator or the health officer may
discontinue delivery of water immediately without prior notice; in such an
instance, the program administrator or the health officer shall deliver
notice of discontinuance as soon as practicable to the property owner and
customer or responsible party. Delivery of water shall not be resumed
until all required corrective actions have been made and certified as
complete by the City or Environmental Health.
10.3 All costs incurred by the City for discontinuance of water service and all
fees associated with reinstating water service shall be paid by the
customer or responsible party. Costs incurred by Environmental Health
for inspections shall be paid by the customer or responsible party at the
rate set forth by San Mateo County Ordinance.
11.0 REPORTING
All reporting required by this chapter at the City shall be the responsibility of the program
administrator. This includes any reports to local, state, and federal regulatory or health
agencies such as; California Department of Health Services, and San Mateo County
Environmental Health Services Division.
12.0 TRAINING OF PERSONNEL
12.1 Program Administrator
The Program Administrator of the Cross-Connection Control Program at
the City shall be a minimum of a supervisor capacity. He or she shall be a
Cross-Connection Control Program Specialist as defined in this chapter.
12.2 Cross-Connection Control Inspector and Tester
The City representative assigned to the inspection and survey of
consumers to determine if backflow prevention is warranted shall be a
Cross-Connection Control Program Specialist as defined in this chapter.
The City employee assigned to the testing of City-owned assemblies shall
be a certified Tester as defined in this chapter.
13.0 MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS
13.1 Assembly Records
Records of assembly type, size, manufacturer, installation date, location,
account number, customer or responsible party of record, and repair
history shall be kept electronically or in hard copy form. Assembly records
shall be kept for the life of the assembly by either the City or by
Environmental Health as appropriate.
13.2 Testing Records
Test results on all assemblies shall be kept electronically or in hard copy
form for a minimum of three years.
Section 3. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to implement the
provisions of this Chapter in compliance with CCR Title 17.
Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required
by law.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing occurred at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18'6 day of August, 2014, and adopted
thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of September,
2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
Chapter 15.04 WATER CONNECTIONS AND FEES
15.04.010 Fee for service installations.
Fees for water service installations shall be those provided from time to time by
resolution of the city council. The council shall also establish by resolution such other fees,
charges and procedures as may be necessary for the administration of water service. (Ord. 917 §
2, (1970); Ord. 1026 § 1, (1974))
1:5. .
Any qualified per-son may make a weAer- senciee installation, exeluding the water
,
his er- her- own eest and expense; pr-evided theA stieh installeAiea is made by him or- her- under- the
1'A''hen the sefviee, demestie eF fire, is installed by semeefte ether- than the
,
Pr
(1970))
15.04.030 Installation of fire protection service.
(a) All fire protection services are to be installed by the owner at his or her expense
with the required encroachment permit and inspection by the city public works department.
(b) A double check detector valve of a type approved by the city public works
department is required on all fire services and is to be furnished by the owner. Each building
with a fire protection service shall have its own separate fire connection with the city water main.
(c) A backflow prevention device, which shall be of a type approved by the director
of public works and the health officer, is required on buildings three (3) stories or more in height.
(Ord. 917 § 2, (1970); Ord. 1035 § 1, (1975); Ord. 1679 § 4, (2002))
15.04.040 Ownership of installed service.
The ownership of this water service installation including the meter, and complete service
from main through the meter box shall be vested in the city of Burlingame.
A credit for the cost of the meter on an existing service being abandoned may be claimed
when a new larger service replaces an existing service. (Ord. 917 § 2, (1970))
15.04.050 Cross-connections and backflow.
(a) No ..,ter serviee eenneetion t ill be installed or maintained by
the eity unless the water- supply is adequately pre�eeted in aeear-danee with the requir-effients and
regulations of Title 17 of the Calif6fnia Administr-ative Code and this eade as determined by the
difeetaf of ptibliewor-ks and the health effieer.
shall have eaeh sueh deviee inspeeted and tested in aeeerdanee with the fe '
health aff eeF The eit., shall be f.,«v.;c hed. ith a of the to-st „lt Il, eh ,1e ffiesti
rcccrrcrr-vn-rc
to insur-e a eantintieus tet!to the pr-efflises while efie ufiit is being tested.
(e) Failure to eamplywith any seetion of this ehapter may be eause fef!the
of....4.1:, E)F!Es shall give notiee in «.frog of any . el a4ie s of this e hapto«to the p pe f«
ewfier and eanstiffief. if no aetion is taken within tefl (10) days after stieh fiefiee has been mailed
of deliveredin o h dirthe e.tbli
„«„f pue < er-lis m diseentinue deliye f , of.sato« However,
1-i .� ,
immediate threat to the publie health er safety or to the integfity of the publie water system, the
dir-eeter or the health offieer-may diseenfintie delivery ef water iffiniediately withatit prior-natiee;
,til . r-oteetiye deyiee has been p edy installed and ., owl a pr-evided in this seetieft
(Ord 1035 § 2, (1 975),; Ord 1679 § c (2002»
15.04.050— Cross-Connections and Backflow Standards
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Cross-Connection Control Program
implemented by the City of Burlingame Public Works Department to protect the public
water supply against actual or potential contamination through cross-connection and
backflow.
2.0 SCOPE
The scope of the Cross-Connection Control Program includes all of the elements
necessary to ensure compliance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Public
Health Sections 7583 through 7605. The City of Burlingame partners with the San Mateo
County Environmental Health Services Division to implement the majority of the scope of
this program,including compliance with required program personnel certifications,
surveying of residential,industrial and commercial user facilities for potential cross-
connection hazards,designation of appropriate backflow preventers,requirements for
testers and testing of backflow prevention assemblies,and maintenance of records.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
The following definitions describe those terms and phrases that are pertinent to the
various elements of a cross-connection control program:
3.1 Approved Backflow Prevention Assembly
The term`Approved Backflow Prevention Assembly"shall mean assemblies listed,
and installed as prescribed,on the most current List of Approved Backflow
Prevention assemblies,published by the University of Southern California
Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research(USC
Foundation),and meet any additional requirements deemed necessary by the City
or Environmental Health.
3.2 Approved Water Supply
The term"approved water supply"means any local water supply whose potability
is regulated by a State or Local Health Agency.
3.3 Auxiliary Water Supply
The term"auxiliary water supply'means any water supply on or available to the
premises other than the approved water supply as delivered by the water
purveyor to the service connection.
3.4 AWWA
The term AWWA"is an acronym for the American Water Works Association.
3.5 Backflow
The term"backflow"shall mean a flow condition,caused by a differential in
pressure,which causes the flow of water or other liquid,gases,mixtures or
substances into the distributing pipes of a potable supply of water from any
source or sources other than an approved water supply source.Back siphonage
is one cause of backflow.Back pressure is the other cause.
3.6 Backflow Preventer
An approved assembly or means designed to prevent backflow.
3.6.1 Air Gap. The unobstructed vertical distance through the free atmosphere
between the lowest opening from any pipe or faucet conveying water to a
tank, plumbing fixture, receptor or other assembly and the flood level rim
of the receptacle. These vertical physical separations must be at least
twice the diameter of the water supply outlet, never less than 1 inch.
3.6.2 Reduce Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly. This
assembly consists of two independently acting approved check valves
together with a hydraulically operating, mechanically independent
pressure differential relief valve located between the check valves and
below the first check valve. These units are located between two tightly
closing resilient-seated shutoff valves as an assembly and equipped with
properly located resilient-seated test cocks.
3.6.3 Double Check Valve Assembly. This assembly consists of two internally
loaded check valves, either spring-loaded or internally weighted, installed
as a unit between two tightly closed resilient-seated shutoff valves and
equipped with properly located resilient-seated test cocks.
3.6.4 Double Check Valve Detector Assembly. This assembly is a specially
designed backflow assembly composed of a line-sized-approved double
check valve assembly with a bypass containing a water meter and an
approved double check valve assembly. The meter shall register accurately
for only very low rates and is used to show unauthorized usage or leaks in
the customers system.
3.6.5 Pressure Vacuum Breaker Assembly. This assembly contains one or two
independently operated spring loaded check valves and an independently
operated spring loaded air inlet valve located on the discharge side of the
check or checks. It also includes two tightly closing shutoff valves on each
side of the check valves and equipped with properly located resilient-
seated test cocks.
3.6.6 Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker Assembly. This assembly contains an air
inlet valve, a check seat and an air inlet port(s). A shut off valve
immediately upstream may be an integral part of the assembly, but there
shall be no shutoff valves or obstructions downstream. The assembly
shall not be subject to operating pressure for more than twelve (12) hours
in any twenty-four(24) hour period.
3.6.7 Hose Bibb Vacuum Breaker. This device is permanently attached to a hose
bibb and acts as an Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker.
3.7 Customer or Responsible Party
The Customer or Responsible Party is the person that either has applied for
water service from the City, or owns or controls water piping or fixtures served by
the City water supply. The terms customer and responsible party have the same
meaning within this ordinance.
3.8 Contamination
The term "contamination"means a degradation of the quality of the potable water
by any foreign substance which creates a hazard to the public health, or which
may impair the usefulness or quality of the water.
3.9 Pollution
The term `pollution"shall mean an impairment of the quality of the water to a
degree which does not create a hazard to the public health, but, which does
adversely and unreasonably affect the aesthetic qualities of such waters for
domestic use.
3.10 Cross-Connection
The term "cross-connection"as used in this document means any unprotected
actual or potential connection between a potable water system used to supply
water for drinking purposes and any source or system containing unapproved
water or a substance that is not or cannot be approved as safe, wholesome, and
potable. By-pass arrangements,jumper connections, removable sections, swivel
or changeover devices, or other devices through which backflow could occur,
shall be considered to be cross-connections.
3.11 Person
The term "person"means an individual, corporation, company, association,
partnership, municipality, public utility, or other public body or institution.
3.12 Facility
The term `facility"means any and all areas on a water user's property which are
served or have the potential to be served by the public water system.
3.13 Public Water System
The term `public water system"means a system for the provision to pipe water to
the public for human consumption that has five or more service connections or
regularly serves an average of 25 individuals daily at least 60 day out of the year.
3.14 Service Connection
The term "service connection"refers to the point of connection of a facility's
piping to the water supplier's facilities, usually considered the point at the outlet
from the water meter.
3.15 Water Supplier
The term "water supplier"means the person who owns or operates the approved
water supply system.
3.16 Water User
The term "water user"means any person obtaining water from an approved
water supply system.
3.17 City
Unless otherwise specified, the term "City"shall refer to the City of Burlingame
Department of Public Works- Water Division or San Mateo County
Environmental Health working as a partner to the Water Division.
3.18 Inspection Tag
"Inspection Tag"means a current-calendar-year backflow tag purchased from
San Mateo County Environmental Health.
3.19 Cross-Connection Control Program Specialist
The term "cross-connection control program specialist"means a person certified
by AWWA, or an approved equivalent certifying entity, to evaluate the hazards
inherent in supplying a customer's water system.
3.20 Certified Tester
The term "certified tester"means a person certified by AWWA or an approved
equivalent certificate and certrFed by San Mateo County Environmental Health
Services to perform backflow prevention assembly testing.
4.0 ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM
4.1 Authority
City of Burlingame Department of Public Works is the Administrative Authority for
the Cross-Connection Control Program. The authority to administer this program
comes from State of Califomia, Title 17; State of California, Public Utilities
Commission Rule 16c; and State of California, Department of Public Health
Services (and any successor agencies).
4.2 Program Administrator
The program administrator for the Cross-Connection Control Program in the City
of Burlingame is the Public Works Superintendent or his/her designee. The City
also partners with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division
through an agreement to implement portions of the program, as allowed by
California Health and Safety Code. However, the City is ultimately responsible for
the implementation of the program.
5.0 APPROPRIATE BACKFLOW PROTECTION
5.1 New Construction, Remodels and Tenant Improvements
5.1.1 Residential, Single-Family and Duplexes Only
A. Domestic Water— The City may require an Approved Backflow
Prevention Assembly to be installed on the customer's facility, as
close as possible to the service connection. The assembly shall
be a Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly
(RPP) or a Double Check Valve Assembly(DC) as determined by
the City. If it is determined that a backflow prevention assembly is
required, the customer may also need to install a thermal
expansion tank in accordance with the California Plumbing Code.
B. Irrigation System— The City requires an Approved Backflow
Prevention Assembly to be installed on the customer's facility on
the branch line serving an Irrigation system. The assembly shall be
a Pressure Vacuum Breaker(PVB), Reduced Pressure Principle
Backflow Prevention Assembly(RPP), or Atmospheric Pressure
Vacuum Breaker(AVB) as determined by the City.
C. Fire Suppression System -All facilities with an installed fire
suppression system must have an Approved Backflow Prevention
Assembly, excluding flow-through fire systems, on the branch line
serving the fire suppression system. The assembly shall be a
Double Check Valve Assembly(DC) or as determined by the City.
Flow-through fire protection systems shall be constructed with
approved potable water piping and materials.
5.1.2 Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, Multi-Family
A. Domestic Water— The City may require an Approved Backflow
Prevention Assembly to be installed on the customers facility, as
close as possible to the service connection. The assembly shall
be a Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly
(RPP) or a Double Check Valve Assembly(DC) as determined by
the City. If it's determined after a survey, that a backflow
prevention assembly is required, the customer may also need to
install a thermal expansion tank in accordance with the California
Plumbing Code.
B. Irrigation System— The City requires an Approved Backflow
Prevention Assembly to be installed on the customer's facility, as
close as possible to any irrigation system service connections or
on any irrigation branch line. The assembly shall be a Pressure
Vacuum Breaker(PVB), Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow
Prevention Assembly(RPP) or Atmospheric Pressure Vacuum
Breaker(AVB) as determined by the City.
C. Fire Suppression System-All facilities with an installed fire
suppression system must have an Approved Backflow Prevention
Assembly. The assembly shall be a Double Check Valve Detector
Assembly(DCDA) and installed according to City standard
specifications and drawings, and this Ordinance. The assembly
must incorporate a City-supplied bypass water meter at
customer's cost which is also protected with an approved double
check valve assembly.
5.2 Existing Service Connection
When it is determined in a survey by a City or Environmental Health cross-
connection control program specialist that an actual or potential cross connection
or backflow condition is present on an existing facility, the installation of an
appropriate backflow preventer shall be required. Should an existing backflow
prevention assembly be in place that does not meet the City's installation
requirements, does not comply with this ordinance, or does not provide adequate
protection with the degree of hazard found on site, the assembly shall be
replaced or upgraded as required by the City, at the expense of the customer or
responsible party.
6.0 SURVEYS
6.1 Identification of Survey Candidates
The City may identify specific industries that might pose an actual or potential
backflow hazard to the public water supply. Some of these industries are
identified from common lists of industries where cross-connections are likely to
be found, as provided by the State of California, the USC Foundation, and other
recognized organizations. From these lists, specific facilities in the City's service
area may be identified by directories, mailing lists, associations, & business
licenses.
6.2 Survey
Surveys may take the form of office surveys or field surveys. Office surveys may
include determination of facility hazards based on business type or known water
use on the facility. Office surveys could also include evaluation of responses to
mailed or on-line surveys.
Field surveys may include evaluation of water use by observations made from
public or private areas not on the subject facility, or physical inspection on all or a
portion of the facility. When possible, a request to survey the facility shall be
made at least 24 hours in advance, and a date and time agreed upon with a
responsible party. Should the request to survey be denied by a responsible party,
notice shall be sent to the customer or responsible party directing installation of
the appropriate backflow assembly, at the water meter, based on best available
knowledge of the water use and potential hazards at the facility.
During the survey many factors are considered to determine if activities or water
use on facility are or could be a potential hazard to the public water supply.
Factors that may be considered include:
1. Altemative sources of water on site (auxiliary water supplies).
2. Piping configurations on site.
3. Uses of water on site.
4. Types of water using equipment.
5. Condition of water using equipment.
6. Complexity and elevations of plumbing on site, and the potential for
alterations of that system.
7. Storage and use of hazardous materials on site.
All the factors found and recorded during the survey shall be considered in the
determination of the degree of potential hazard(degree of hazard) to the public water
supply. This information shall be considered in the determination of the appropriate
backflow preventer The customer or responsible party shall be informed of the
requirement to provide backflow protection and the type of backflow prevention assembly
required in accordance with Title 17 of the California Regulations Related to Drinking
Water or the direction of the County Health Officer.
7.0 LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION OF BACKFLOW ASSEMBLIES
Backflow prevention assemblies shall be installed in accordance with Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations, Section 7603, the City's Standard Specifications, and
the most recent edition of the USC Foundation manual. Any deviation from these
requirements shall require the City's approval. Unless otherwise permitted by the City,
all backflow preventers shall be installed on the customer's or responsible party's facility.
7.1 Air-Gap Separation (AG)
The Air-gap separation shall be located as close as practical to the user's
connection and all piping between the user's connection and the receiving tank
shall be entirely visible unless otherwise approved.
7.2 Double Check Valve Assembly(DC)
A double check valve assembly and double check valve detector assembly shall
be installed a minimum of twelve inches (12') above grade and not more than
thirty-six inches (36') above grade measured from the bottom of the assembly in
a manner where it is readily accessible for testing and maintenance.
7.3 Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Assembly(RPP)
A reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assembly shall be installed a
minimum of twelve inches(12') above grade and not more than thirty-six inches
(36') above grade measured from the bottom of the assembly, and with a minimum
of twelve inches (12') side clearance in a manner where the assembly is readily
accessible for testing and maintenance.
7.4 Pressure Vacuum Breaker(PVB)
A pressure vacuum breaker check valve assembly shall be installed a minimum
of twelve inches (12') above all downstream piping and flood level rims of
receptors and in a manner where it is readily accessible for testing and
maintenance.
7.5 Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker(AVB)
An atmospheric vacuum breaker check valve assembly shall be installed a
minimum of six inches (6') above all downstream piping and flood level rims of
receptors and in a manner where it is readily accessible for testing and
maintenance.
7.6 Backflow Prevention Assembly Enclosures
A backflow prevention assembly enclosure, cage or locked bag may be required
by the City to be installed at the customer's expense, to combat against
tampering, vandalism or theft. The City may require that any enclosure, cage or
locked bag be secured to a concrete slab and securely locked.
Any deviation of installation from the descriptions provided shall require the City's
approval prior to installation. All backflow prevention assembly installations shall be
inspected by the City to ensure compliance with all relevant Statutes, Regulations,
Ordinances, and City requirements.
8.0 TESTING AND MAINTENANCE OF BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
8.1 Responsibility
As per the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, the City shall assure that
adequate maintenance and periodic testing of backflow prevention assemblies
are provided by the customer or responsible party, to ensure the proper
operation of the assemblies. Therefore, the City declares that the customer or
responsible party is ultimately responsible for the installation, testing, and
maintenance of all required backflow prevention assemblies on or related to the
customer's facility.
8.2 Certified testers
No person shall test and/or make reports on backflow prevention assemblies to
comply with this chapter unless he or she possesses a current certification
issued by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division as
defined in County Ordinance Code.
8.3 Frequency of Testing
Backflow prevention assemblies shall be tested by a Certified Tester immediately
after they are installed, relocated or repaired and not placed in service unless they
are functioning as required. All backflow prevention assemblies shall be tested at
least annually or more frequently if determined to be necessary by the City or
Environmental Health, in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title
17, and San Mateo County Ordinance Code. Exception is 8.4.1.A
8.4 Fire Suppression System Backflow Preventer Testing
8.4.1 Single-Family and Duplex Residential
A. Single-Family and Duplex Residential(SFDR) fire suppression
systems with an installed backflow prevention assembly shall be
tested upon installation only, unless otherwise required by the
City. After completion of successfully testing the assembly, the#1
and#2 shut off valves shall remain in the open position and the
handles removed. The handles shall be stored in the spare head
box. SFDR fire suppression system backflow assemblies are not
required to be tested annually because of the low degree of
hazard.
8.4.2 Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Family
A. Commercial, industrial, multi-family fire suppression system
backflow preventers must be tested annually by a certified tester.
B. If an existing fire suppression system backflow assembly is
located in a vault, and has adequate physical clearance to test, it
is considered"existing non-conforming"and approved for testing.
C. If an existing assembly fails the field test, the assembly must be
repaired or replaced with an appropriate, approved backflow
prevention assembly, installed to current City standards. If any
failed assembly is currently in a vault, the assembly must be
relocated above grade, to meet all current codes and City
standards.
D. If an existing fire system does not have testable approved
backflow prevention assembly the City shall require that a new
appropriate assembly that meets all current codes be installed at
customer or responsible party expense.
9.0 PROCEDURES FOR TESTING AND INSPECTION
9.1 Testable backflow prevention assemblies shall be tested using current USC
Foundation test procedures.
9.2 When a backflow prevention assembly is inspected and has passed the testing
procedure, the certified tester shall immediately affix a numbered inspection tag
to the assembly purchased from the County of San Mateo Environmental Health
Services Division.
9.3 When a backflow prevention assembly fails the testing procedure, the certified
tester shall immediately affix a "Failed"inspection tag to the assembly. Records
of failed assembly tests shall be filed/submitted as directed within ten (10) days.
The "Failed"inspection tag shall remain affixed to the assembly until the
assembly is repaired, has passed the testing procedures and has been affixed
with a numbered inspection tag.
9.4 Certified testers are solely responsible to comply with applicable municipal
requirements for additional permits or licenses(i.e., local business license, plumbing
permit, etc.) to test or repair backflow prevention assemblies within the City.
10.0 ENFORCEMENT
San Mateo County Environmental Health has the authority to take enforcement action as
allowed in the County Ordinance Code Relating to Backflow Prevention, as it applies to
the agreement between the City and Environmental Health. The City shall have the
authority to enforce this chapter as follows.
10.1 Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, or bypasses or renders
inoperative any backflow prevention assembly installed under the provisions of
this chapter, shall be subject to fines as detailed in Burlingame Municipal Code
Chapter 1.12— Violations of Code.
10.2 Failure to comply with any section of this chapter may be cause for the
discontinuance of water service by the City. The program administrator shall give
notice in writing of any violations of this chapter to the customer or responsible
party. If appropriate action is not taken within ten (10) days after such notice has
been mailed or delivered in person, the program administrator may discontinue
delivery of water. However, if the program administrator or the health officer
determines that the violation constitutes an immediate threat to the public health
or safety or to the integrity,of the public water system, the program administrator
or the health officer may discontinue delivery of water immediately without prior
notice; in such an instance, the program administrator or the health officer shall
deliver notice of discontinuance as soon as practicable to the property owner and
customer or responsible party. Delivery of water shall not be resumed until all
required corrective actions have been made and certified as complete by the City
or Environmental Health.
10.3 All costs incurred by the City for discontinuance of water service and all fees
associated with reinstating water service shall be paid by the customer or
responsible party. Costs incurred by Environmental Health for inspections shall
be paid by the customer or responsible party at the rate set forth by San Mateo
County Ordinance.
11.0 REPORTING
All reporting required by this chapter at the City shall be the responsibility of the program
administrator. This includes any reports to local, state, and federal regulatory or health agencies
such as; California Department of Health Services, and San Mateo County Environmental
Health Services Division.
12.0 TRAINING OF PERSONNEL
12.1 Program Administrator
The Program Administrator of the Cross-Connection Control Program at the City
shall be a minimum of a supervisor capacity. He or she shall be a Cross-
Connection Control Program Specialist as defined in this chapter.
12.2 Cross-Connection Control Inspector and Tester
The City representative assigned to the inspection and survey of consumers to
determine if backflow prevention is warranted shall be a Cross-Connection
Control Program Specialist as defined in this chapter. The City employee
assigned to the testing of City-owned assemblies shall be a certified Tester as
defined in this chapter.
13.0 MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS
13. 1 Assembly Records
Records of assembly type, size, manufacturer, installation date, location, account
number, customer or responsible party of record, and repair history shall be kept
electronically or in hard copy form. Assembly records shall be kept for the life of
the assembly by either the City or by Environmental Health as appropriate.
13.2 Testing Records
Test results on all assemblies shall be kept electronically or in hard copy form for
a minimum of three years.
15.04.060 Domestic and fire services over two inches within public property.
Design details, methods and materials for construction of water services over two (2)
inches in diameter within public property are not specified in this code. Such details, methods
and materials shall conform with specifications for the construction of such work as are compiled
by the city engineer. Such specifications may be changed from time to time at the option of the
city engineer but such changes shall in no way affect the validity of regulations or requirements
contained herein. (Ord. 1035 § 2, (1975))
NOTE This publication is meant to be an aid to the stqffof the CDPH Drinking Water Program and
cannot be relied upon by the regulated community as the State of California's representation of the law.
j The published codes are the only official representation of the law.Refer to the published codes—in this
I case, 17 CCR and 22 CCR—whenever specific citations are required Statutes related to CDPH's drinking
water-related activities are in the Health&Safety Code, the Water Code, and other codes.
{
DIVISION 1. S'T'ATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
` CHAPTER 5. SANITATION (ENVIRONMENTAL)
SUDCHAPTER 1. ENGINEERING (SANITARY)
GROUP 4. DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
Article 1. General
§7583. pefinitions.
_. In addition to the definitions in Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code,the
following terms are defined for the purpose of this Chapter:
k
(a) "Approved Water Supply" is a water supply whose potability is regulated by a
State of local health agency.
(b) "Auxiliary Water Supply" is any water supply other than that received from a
public water system.
(c)"Air-gap Separation(AG)" is a physical break between the supply line and a
receiving vessel.
(d) "AWWA Standard"is an official standard developed and approved by the
American Water Works Association(AWWA).
(e) "Cross-Connection" is an unprotected actual or potential connection between a
potable water system used to supply water for drinking purposes and any source or
system containing unapproved water or a substance that is not or cannot be approved as
safe,wholesome,and potable.By-pass arrangements,jumper connections,removable
sections,swivel or changeover devices, or other devices through which backflow could
occur, shall be considered to be crass-connections.
(f) 'Double Check Valve Assembly(DC)" is an assembly of at least two
independently acting check valves including tightly closing shut-off valves on each side
of the check valve assembly and test cocks available for testing the watertightness of each
check valve.
i
(g) "Health Agency" means the California Department of Health Services, or the local
health officer with respect to a small water system.
f (h) "Local Health Agency"means the county or city health authority.
(i) "Reclaimed Water"is a wastewater which as a result of treatment is suitable for
uses other than potable use.
'I
} 15
Last updated July 1, 2014 from Titles 17 and 22 California Code of Regulations
California Regulations Related to Drinking Water
J
NOTE. This publication Is meant to bean aid to the stgf of the CDPH Drinking Water Program and
cannot be relied upon by the regulated community as the State of California's representation ofthe law.
The published codes are the only official representation of the law.Refer to the published codes---in this
case, 17 CCR and 22 CCR—whenever specific citations are required Statutes related to CDPH's drinking
water-related acttvi#es are in the Health&Sq/ety Code, the Water Code, and other codes.
0)"Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Device(RP)" is a backflow
prcventer incorporating not less than two check valves,an automatically operated
differential relief valve located between the two check valves, a tightly closing shut-off
valve on each side of the check valve assembly,and equipped with necessary test cocks
for testing.
(k) "User Connection"is the point of connection of a user's piping to the water
supplier's facilities.
i (1) "Water Supplier"is the person who awns or operates the public water system.
(m) "Water User" is any person obtaining water from a public water supply.
§7584.Responsibility and scope of program.
4, The water supplier shall protect the public water supply from contamination by
r implementation of a cross-connection control program. The program, or any portion
thereof,may be implemented directly by the water supplier or by means of a,contract
with the local health agency,or with another agency approved by the health agency. The
water supplier's cross-connection control program shall for the purpose of addressing the
requirements of Sections 7585 through 7605 include,but not be limited to,the following
elements:
(a)The adoption of operating rules or ordinances to implement the cross-connection
program.
(b)The conducting of surveys to identify water user premises where cross-
connections are likely to occur,
(c)The provisions of backflow protection by the water user at the user's connection or
within the user's premises or both,
r
(d)The provision of at least one person trained in cross-connection control to carry .
R out the cross-connection program,
q
(e)The establishment of a procedure or system for testing backflow preventers;and
i
(f)The maintenance of records of locations,tests, and repairs of backflow preventers.
§7585.Evaluation of hazard.
The water supplier shall evaluate the degree of potential health hazard to the public water
supply which may be created as a result of conditions existing on a user's premises. The j
water supplier, however,shall not be responsible for abatement of cross-connections
which may exist within a user's premises. As a minimum,the evaluation should consider:
the existence of cross-connections,the nature of materials handled on the property,the
probability of a backflow occurring,the degree of piping system complexity and the
16i
Last updated July 1,2014--from Titles 17 and 22 California Code of Regulations i
California Regulations Related to Drinking Water
i
i
i
i
NOTE: This publication is meant to be an aid to the staff of the CDPH Drinking Water Program and
cannot be relied upon by the regulated community as the State of California's representation of the law.
The published codes are the only official representation of the law. Refer to the published codes—in this
case, 17 CCR and 22 CCR—whenever specific citations are required. Statutes related to CDPH's drinking
water-related activities are in the Health&Safety Code, the Water Code, and other codes.
t
potential for piping system modification. Special consideration shall be given to the
premises of the following;types of water users:
(a)Premises where substances harmful to health are handled under pressure in a
manner which could permit their entry into the public water system. This includes
chemical or biological process waters and water from public water supplies which have
deteriorated in sanitary quality.
(b)Premises having an auxiliary water supply,unless the auxiliary supply is accepted
as an additional source by the water supplier and is approved by the health agency.
(c)Premises that have internal cross-connections that are not abated to the satisfaction
of the water supplier or the health agency.
i
(d)Premises where cross-connections are likely to occur and entry is restricted so that
cross-connection inspections cannot be made with sufficient frequency or at sufficiently
short notice to assure that cross-connections do not exist.
(e)Premises having a repeated history of cross-connections being established or re-
established.
§7586.User supervisor.
The health agency and water supplier may, at their discretion,require an industrial water
user to designate a user supervisor when the water user's premises has a multipiping
system that convey various types of fluids,some of which may be hazardous and where
changes in the piping system are frequently made. The user supervisor shall be
r responsible for the avoidance of cross-connections during the installation, operation and
maintenance of the water user's pipelines and equipment.
Article 2. Protection of Water System
1 §7601. Approval of backflow preventers.
i Backflow preventers required by this Chapter shall have passed laboratory and field
evaluation tests performed by a recognized testing organization which has demonstrated
their competency to perform such tests to the Department.
§7602. Construction of backflow preventers.
F (a)Air-gap Separation.An Air-gap separation(AG)shall be at least double the
diameter of the supply pipe,measured vertically from the flood rim of the receiving
vessel to the supply pipe,however, in no case shall this separation be less than one inch.
# (b) Double Check Valve Assembly. A required double check valve assembly(DC)
s shall,as a minimum, conform to the AWWA Standard C506-78 (R83)adopted on
January 28, 1978 for Double Check Valve Type Backflow Preventive Devices which is
herein incorporated by reference.
17
Last updated July 1,2014 from Titles 17 and 22 California Code of Regulations
California Regulations Related to Drinking Water
i
I
NOTE: This publication is meant to be an aid to the stgff of the CDPH Drinking Water Program and
cannot be relied upon by the regulated community as the State of California's representation of the law.
f The published codes are the only official representation of the law. Refer to the published codes—in this
! case, 17 CCR and 22 CCR—whenever specific citations are required Statutes related to CDPH's drinking
water-related activities are in the Health&Safety Code, the Water Code,and other codes.
(c)Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Device.A required reduced
pressure principle backflow prevention device(RP)shall,as a minimum,conform to the
AWWA Standard C506-78 (R83)adopted on January 28, 1978 for Reduced Pressure
Principle Type Backflow Prevention Devices which is herein incorporated by reference.
§7603.Location of backflow preventers.
(a)Air-gap Separation.An air-gap separation shall be located as close as practical to
the user's connection and all piping between the user's connection and the receiving tank
" shall be entirely visible unless otherwise approved in writing by the water supplier and
the health agency.
(b)Double Check Valve Assembly.A double check valve assembly shall be located
as close as practical to the user's connection and shall be installed above grade, if
possible,and in a manner where it is readily accessible for testing and maintenance.
(c)Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Device.A reduced pressure
principle backflow prevention device shall be located as close as practical to the user's
connection and shall be installed a minimum of twelve inches(12")above grade and not
more than thirty-six inches(36")above grade measured from the bottom of the device
and with a minimum of twelve inches(12")side clearance.
§7604. Type of protection required.
The type of protection that shall be provided to prevent backflow into the public water
li supply shall be commensurate with the degree of hazard that exists on the consumer's
premises.The type of protective device that may be required(listed in an increasing level
of protection)includes: Double check Valve Assembly-(DC),Reduced Pressure Principle
Backflow Prevention Device-(RP)and an Air gap Separation-(AG).The water user may
choose a higher level of protection than required by the water supplier.The minimum
types of backflow protection required to protect the public water supply,at the water
user's connection to premises with various degrees of hazard,are given in Table 1,
k Situations not covered in Table 1 shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the
appropriate backflow protection shall be determined by the water supplier or health
agency.
18
Last updated July 1,20'14 from Titles 17 and 22 California Code of Regulations
California Regulations Related to Drinking Water
i
i
NOTE., This publication is meant to bean aid to the staff of the CDPHDrinking Water Program and
cannot be relied upon by the regulated community as the State of'Cal fornia's representation of the law.
The published codes are the only official representation of the law. Refer to the published codes—in this
case, 17 CCR and 22 CCR—whenever specific citations are required. Statutes related to CDPH's drinking
{ water-related activities are in the Health&Safety Code, the Water Code,and other codes.
` TABLE 1
TYPE OF BACKFLOW PROTECTION RE,QUIRED
Degree of Hazard Minimum
Type of
Backflow
Prevention
(a) Sewage and Hazardous Substances
(1)Premises where there are waste water pumping and/or treatment AG
plants and there is no interconnection with the potable water system.
This does not include a single-family residence that has a sewage lift
pump. A RP may be provided in lieu of an AG if approved by the
i, health agency and water supplier.
(2)Premises where hazardous substances are handled in any AG
manner in which the substances may enter the potable water system.
This does not include a single-family residence that has a sewage lift
pump. A RP may be provided in lieu of an AG if approved by the
health agency and water supplier.
(3)Premises where there are irrigation systems into which RP
fertilizers, herbicides,or pesticides are,or can be, injected.
(b)Auxiliary Water Supplies
(1)Premises where there is an unapproved auxiliary water supply AG
which is interconnected with the public water system.A RP or DC may
be provided in lieu of an AG if approved by the health agency and
water supplier
(2)Premises where there is an unapproved auxiliary RP water RP
supply and there are no interconnections with the public water system.
A DC may be provided in lieu of a RP if approved by the health agency
and water supplier.
(c)Recycled water
(1)Premises where the public water system is used to supplement AG
r the recycled water supply.
(2)Premises where recycled water is used,other than as allowed in RP
paragraph(3), and there is no interconnection with the potable water
system.
(3)Residences using recycled water for landscape irrigation as part DC
of an approved dual plumbed use area established pursuant to sections
60313 through 6031.6 unless the recycled water supplier obtains
approval of the local public water supplier,or the Department if the
water supplier is also the supplier of the recycled water,to utilize an
alternative backflow protection plain that includes an annual inspection
and annual shutdown test of the recycled water and potable water
systems pursuant to subsection 60316(a).
(d)hire Protection Systems 9
i
Last updated July 1, 2014---from Titles 17 and 22 California Code of Regulations
California Regulations Related to Drinking Water
r
i 1
NOTE. This publication Is meant to bean aid to the stglf of the CDPH Drinking Water Program and
cannot be relied upon by the regulated community as the State of California's representation of the law.
The published codes are the only official representation of the law. Refer to the published codes—in this
case, 17 CCR and 22 CCR—whenever specific citations are required. Statutes related to CDPH's drinking
water-related activities are in the Health&Safety Code, the Water Code, and other codes.
(1)Premises where the fire system is directly supplied from the DC
public water system and there is an unapproved auxiliary water supply
on or to the premises(not interconnected).
(2)Premises where the fire system is supplied from the public water AG
system and interconnected with an unapproved auxiliary water supply.
A RP may be provided in lieu of an AG if approved by the health
! agency and water supplier.
(3)Premises where the fire system is supplied from the public water DC
system and where either elevated storage tanks or fire pumps which
take suction from private reservoirs or tanks are used.
(4)Premises where the fire system is supplied from the public water DC
system and where recycled water is used in a separate piping system
uu within the same building.
!j (e)Dockside Watering Points and Marine Facilities
(1)Pier hydrants for supplying water to vessels for any purpose. RP
(2)Premises where there are marine facilities. RP
(f)Premises where entry is restricted so that inspections for cross- RP
connections cannot be made with sufficient frequency or at sufficiently
short notice to assure that do not exist.
(g)Premises where there is a repeated history of cross-connections being RP
established or re-established.
§7645. Testing and maintenance of backflow preventers.
(a)The water supplier shall assure that adequate maintenance and periodic testing are
provided by the water user to ensure their proper operation.
(b)Backflow preventers shall be tested by persons who have demonstrated their
competency in testing of these devices to the water supplier or health agency.
(c)Backflow preventers shall be tested at least annually or more frequently if
determined to be necessary by the health agency or water supplier. When devices are
f found to be defective,they shall be repaired or replaced in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.
(d)Backflow preventers shall be tested immediately after they are installed,relocated
r
or repaired and not placed in service unless they are functioning as required.
1
' (e)The water supplier shall notify the water user when testing of backflow preventers
is needed. The notice shall contain the date when the test must be completed.
t
(f)Reports of testing and maintenance shall be maintained by the water supplier for a
minimum of three years.
20
Last updated July 1, 2014 from Titles 17 and 22 California Code of Regulations
California Regulalions Related to Drinking Water
i
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME,CA 94010
Agenda Item 8d
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15t1, 2014
From: Pat Harding, City Librarian - (650) 558-7401
Subject:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Purchasing Contract to One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC for Library
Furniture
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a purchasing contract to One
Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC, for the additional furniture needed in association with the Burlingame Public Library
Remodel Project in the amount of$210,029.39 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract.
BACKGROUND
The $3.5 million Millennium Project will modify the Library's interior to meet the needs of today's library
patrons by providing flexible space for collaboration, creativity, and exploration. The project will add a new
Tech/Media Lab, four new Group Study Rooms, a new Conference Room, an expanded Teen Area, a `Market
Place' open-concept lobby with space for the Foundation Book Store and a Cafe, and new carpeting. No
addition of square footage is proposed.
On July 7, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 55-2014, awarding the construction contract of the
project to Zolman Construction, with the contract amount of $1,744,000. This furniture purchase is one of
several contracts, as listed below that will complete the project.
DISCUSSION
The furniture purchasing contract was advertised for bids on August 18, 2014. The bid was opened on
September 8, 2014. The City received one bid from One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC. After carefully examining
the bid and conducting reference checks, staff determined that One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC submitted a
responsible and responsive bid. Staff therefore recommends that the contract be awarded to One Workplace
L. Ferrari, LLC, in the amount of $210,029.39. The estimate of probable cost at the 95% design development
stage is $262,640. The bid from One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC is less than that estimate.
FISCAL IMPACT
Following are the estimated prosect expenditures:
Previously Authorized Design Contract $348,960
Construction Contract $1,744,000
Construction Contingency (10%) $174,400
Consulting Architect for Construction Administration $100,000
Office Furniture Augmentation $80,000
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/11/2014
powered by LegistarTM
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AWARDING A PURCHASE CONTRACT TO ONE WORKPLACE L.FERRARI,LLC FOR
FURNITURE FOR THE BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY REMODEL PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PURCHASE CONTRACT
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2014, the City staff advertised and invited bids for CITY
PROJECT 83320, PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY REMODEL
PROJECT;and
WHEREAS,on September 08,2014,one bid proposal was received and opened before the
City Clerk and representatives of the Library Department;and
WHEREAS,the City received a total of 1 bid proposal,with base bid;and
WHEREAS,ONE WORKPLACE L. FERRARI,LLC submitted a responsible base bid for the
project,in the amount of$210,029.39;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the purchasing
documents,including all addenda,are approved and adopted;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of ONE WORKPLACE L.FERRARI,LLC for said
project in the amount of$210,029.39 is accepted;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the
successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said
work, and that the City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized for and on behalf of the City of
Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor
materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor.
Michael Brownrigg,Mayor
I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15`"day of
September,2014,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mary Ellen Kearney,City Clerk
Library Furniture Augmentation $262,640
Custom Casework and Shelving $310,000
Automated Material Handling System $300,000
Technology Equipment $100,000
Staff Administration and Inspection $80,000
TOTAL $3,500,000
Exhibit:
1 . Resolution Awarding a Purchasing Contract to One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/11/2014
powered by LegistarTIA
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME,CA 94010
Agenda Item 8e
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15, 2014
From: Pat Harding, City Librarian - (650) 558-7401
Subject:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Custom Casework Purchasing Contract to Ross Mcdonald Co.,
Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a purchasing contract to Ross
Mcdonald Co., Inc. for the custom casework needed in association with the Burlingame Public Library
Remodel Project in the amount of$335,758 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract.
BACKGROUND
The $3.5 million Millennium Project will modify the Library's interior to meet the needs of today's library
patrons by providing flexible space for collaboration, creativity, and exploration. The project will add a new
Tech/Media Lab, four new Group Study Rooms, a new Conference Room, an expanded Teen Area, a `Market
Place' open-concept lobby with space for the Foundation Book Store and a Cafe, and new carpeting. No
addition of square footage is proposed.
On July 7, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 55-2014, awarding the construction contract of the
project to Zolman Construction, with the contract amount of $1,744,000. This custom casework purchase is
one of several contracts, as listed below, that will complete the project and will provide custom built items such
as the new service desks in Circulation/Reference and Children's.
DISCUSSION
The purchase was advertised for bids on August 18, 2014. The bids were opened on September 10, 2014.
The City received one bid from Ross Mcdonald Co., Inc. After carefully examining the bid and conducting
reference checks, staff determined that Ross Mcdonald Co., Inc. submitted a responsible and responsive bid.
Staff therefore recommends that the contract be awarded to Ross Mcdonald Co., Inc. in the amount of
$335,758. The estimate of probable cost at the 95% design development stage is $310,000. The bid from
Ross Mcdonald Co., Inc. is 8.3% higher than the estimate but still well within range seen in the industry.
FISCAL IMPACT
Following are the estimated project expenditures:
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/11/2014
powered by Legistar—
Previously Authorized Design Contract $348,960
Construction Contract $1,744,000 $1,744,000
Construction Contingency (10 %) $174,400
Consulting Architect for Construction Administration $100,000
Office Furniture Augmentation $80,000
Library Furniture Augmentation $262,640
Custom Casework and Shelving $310,000
Automated Material Handling System $300,000
Technology Equipment $100,000
Staff Administration and Inspection $80,000
TOTAL $3,500,000
Exhibit:
1. Resolution to Award Custom Casework
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/11/2014
powered by Legistar`"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AWARDING A PURCHASE CONTRACT TO ROSS MCDONALD CO..INC.FOR CUSTOM
CASEWORK FOR THE BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY REMODEL PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PURCHASE CONTRACT
WHEREAS, on August 18th, 2014, the City staff advertised and invited bids for CITY
PROJECT 83320, PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY REMODEL
PROJECT;and
WHEREAS,on September 10`h,2014,all bid proposals were received and opened before the
City Clerk and representatives of the Library Department;and
WHEREAS,the City received one bid proposal,with base bid;and
WHEREAS, Ross McDonald Co., Inc. submitted the lowest responsible base bid for the
project,in the amount of$335,758.00,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the purchasing
documents,including all addenda,are approved and adopted;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of Ross McDonald Co.,Inc.for said project in the
amount of$335,758.00,is accepted;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the
successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said
work, and that the City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized for and on behalf of the City of
Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor
materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor.
Michael Brownrigg,Mayor
I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15'h day of
September,2014,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mary Ellen Kearney,City Clerk
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Agenda Item 8f
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15, 2014
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney - (650) 558-7204
Ed Wood, Police Chief - (650) 777-4100
Subject:
Grant Authority to the Chief of Police to Promulgate a Policy for the Waiver of Alarm Registration
Penalties, False Alarm Fees, and Registration Fees
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, grant authority to the Chief of Police to promulgate a policy for the waiver of registration penalties,
false alarm fees, and one-time waiver of the registration fee.
BACKGROUND
Property alarm systems have been regulated in the City of Burlingame since the 1970's. Historically, Police
Department staff has, on a case by case basis, waived fees and fines associated with alarm installation and
false alarm charges where doing so served the goal of securing compliance with the City's regulations. In
order to clarify the Department's authority to waive such fees, this item is now being brought to the City
Council. The Department, through the Chief, requests authority to issue a policy governing waivers for alarm-
related fees, the aim of which is to promote compliance with registration and system repair requirements under
the City codes.
DISCUSSION
The Police Department has a strong interest in knowing where in the City alarm systems are located and in
having those systems be in proper working order. Having an updated list of systems allows the Department to
coordinate with alarm monitoring companies for both incident response and addressing malfunctioning
systems. Burlingame property owners are required to register their alarms with the City. However, residents
are frequently unaware of this requirement, and the first education they receive on the matter occurs when a
false alarm occurs. The Department's interest is in having good information and working alarm systems, rather
than in punishment. Therefore, the Department has in the past waived fines associated with failure to register
when the property owner immediately disconnects the alarm, or registers his or her system and corrects and
repairs any malfunction in the alarm. Fines have also been waived when a change of property ownership has
occurred and the new owner is unaware of the system, or where there were clerical errors in registering or
recording the alarm system. Where a resident has had multiple false alarm incidents with an opportunity to
correct the underlying problem, or is already on direct notice of registration requirements, waiver requests
have been denied.
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/11/2014
".'9 ed by i egista!1r
In the interest of transparent administration of the alarm registration system, the Police Department would ask
for Council authority to allow the Chief to issue a policy addressing the waiver of alarm fees and fines. Such a
policy would enunciate under what types of circumstances such waivers may be granted, with the goal of
advancing compliance with registration requirements and repair of existing systems.
FISCAL IMPACT
Granting authority to the Chief of Police to promulgate a policy for the waiver of registration penalties, false
alarm fees, and a one-time waiver of the registration fee will be cost neutral relative to past practice.
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/11/2014
powe ed by L.egistai
CITY
INGAME
City of Burlingame 6501LPRIMROSE OADL
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME,CA 94010
Agenda Item 9a
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15,2014
From: Carol Augustine,Finance Director-(650)558-7222
Subject:
Public Hearing and Adoption of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District
Assessments for Fiscal Year 2014-15
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business
Improvement District(BID)assessments;
2. End the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City;and
3. If protests do not represent 50% of the majority of the assessments, then adopt the resolution
approving and levying the 2014-15 assessments.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on August 18, 2014, the City Council approved the 2013-14 annual report of the Burlingame
Avenue Area Business Improvement District, adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2014-15 Downtown
Burlingame Avenue BID assessments, and established September 15, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. as the public
hearing date and time. The Finance Department mailed a Notice of Public Hearing to all affected businesses
with the District, providing each business with the geographic zone and building floor in which they are
located, the square footage used to determine the annual assessment,and the proposed assessment to be
charged. If there are protests by businesses that represent a majority of the value of the assessments,then
the resolution to approve the 2014-15 assessments cannot be approved. Any and all protests must be
received by the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing.
DISCUSSION
As of the time of writing this memorandum, the City had received one protest. Protests may be presented in
writing before or at the hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately $90,000 is assessed annually from businesses within the district; all of these funds are
forwarded to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for improvements as
authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the
renewal of the BID.
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/3/2014
powered by Leglstar'"
Exhibit:
• Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving and Levying the 2014-15 Downtown
Burlingame Avenue Area Business improvements Assessments on the Businesses Within the District
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/3/2014
powered by LegistarTM
RESOLUTION NO.: 2014
A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND
LEVYING THE 2014-15 DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON THE
BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et
seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame adopted ordinance 1735 in 2004,
establishing the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID) for the
purpose of promoting the Downtown Burlingame Avenue business area; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing on the District Assessments for the year 2006-
2007, the Council determined that a majority protest had been made and no further
assessment was levied;and
WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention
to re-establish the DBID and to impose a new assessment formula; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, after a public hearing at which it received
public comment and written protests, the City Council determined that a majority protest
had not been made and adopted the ordinance re-establishing the DBID; and
WHEREAS, the DBID has operated successfully during the past four years as
evidenced by the DBID's annual reports;and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to levy the 2014-15
assessments on businesses within the District and copies of said resolution and notice of
public hearing were mailed to all businesses within the District; and
WHEREAS, the DBID has provided important services in enhancing the
downtown Burlingame Avenue business area, its businesses and properties in the past
year;and
WHEREAS, the basis of assessment on the businesses within the District will
remain the same as the prior year;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby
resolve, determine and find as follows:
1. The City Council finds that all of the facts stated herein and in the staff report are
true and correct.
2. The City Council determines and finds that there is no majority protest
within the meaning of Streets & Highways Code sections 36523,36524,
36525,and 36542.
3. The City Council approves the method and formula of assessment for the
Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District.
4. The City Council approves and levies the 2014-15 assessments on the
businesses within the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business
Improvement District as delineated in assessment list attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" which is by this reference incorporated herein.
5. New businesses shall not be exempt from the assessment.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15th day of September, 2014, and
was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total Weighted
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge
Assessment Vote
3 1199 HOWARD LLC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#606 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 349 SALON 349 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 450 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 8Z REAL ESTATE 330 PRIMROSE RD#412 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 A RUNNER'S MIND-T BENTON ENTERPRISES LLC 1199 HOWARD AVENUE#101 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,128 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 A-1 CLEANERS 240 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,056 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 AC ELITE PARTNERS INC 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#6 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 ACE GOURMET CORPORATE CATERING,INC 1325 HOWARD AVE,#824 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 ADVANCED BEAUTY CARE AND HEALTH 1241 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 800 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 AERIAL SPA LOUNGE 401 PRIMROSE RD#H BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 AIDA OPERA CANDIES 1117 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 780 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
3 ALAIN PINEL REALTORS 1440 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 ALANA'S CAFE 1408 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 880 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 ALBECO INC DBA MOLLIE STONE'S MARKET 1477 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 22,500 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
2 ALL FIRED UP 344 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 925 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 ALLIED LOMAR,INC DBA INTL BEVERAGE 1199 HOWARD AVE#350 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 ALYS GRACE,LLC 130 TUSCALOOSA AVE ATH ERTON,CA 94027 2,000 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
1 AMBER MOON RESTAURANT&BAR 1425 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,970 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
3 ANDREW LEI,CPA 345 LORTON AVE#305 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 ANN TAYLOR LOFT#1545 1420 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,760 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
3 ANNIE'S NAIL SALON 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#108 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 APPLE INC 1 INFINITE LOOP,MS 104-2TX CUPERTINO,CA 95014 5,200 125 550 $675.00 0.00706
3 APPS&ZERTS INC 1440 CHAPIN AVE#201 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 AQUA NAIL SALON 1234 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,925 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
1 ARBY OF MERCED/TOPPER JEWELERS 1315 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,500 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
3 ARES CORPORATION 1440 CHAPIN AVE#390 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 AUSTIN COCKTAILS&FUR THREAD TECHNOLOGIES 330 PRIMROSE RD#503 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 AVENUE PET SALON 1427 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 AVIRA INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#610 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 B&N INDUSTRIES INC ET AL 1409 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 BABY COUTURE INC 311 LORTON AVENUE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,105 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
1 BABY GAP PO BOX 27809 ALBUQUERQUE,NM 87125 2,300 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
1 BANANA REPUBLIC#8274 PO BOX 27809 ALBUQUERQUE,NM 87125 3,120 125 350 $475.00 0.004968
2 BANK OF AMERICA 400 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME,CA 94010 6,944 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
3 BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS 1440 CHAPIN AVE#250 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 BANK OF THE WEST 149 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 5,426 100 440 $540.00 0.005648
S:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Council_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xls 1 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
-
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Total Weighted
Assessment Vote
3 BANKERS PREFERRED REAL ESTATE LOANS,INC 320 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 BARBARA SEIFER,L.M.F.T. 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#301 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 BARE NECESSITIES 291 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 675 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 BARRACUDA SUSHI JAPANESE RESTAURANT 347 PRIMROSE ROAD#B BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,875 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
2 BARRELHOUSE 305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,585 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
1 BASKIN-ROBBINS 31 FLAVORS STORE 1409 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,360 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
2 BATHINDA FOODS,LLC 1200 HOWARD AVE#106 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 750 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 BAY AREA NATURAL MEDICINE 14419 BURLINGAME AVE#P1 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 BAY CITY MEDICAL SUPPLIES 1465 CHAPIN AVE#A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,128 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
3 BAYWOOD CAPITAL CORPORATION ET AL 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#606 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 BEAUTY CENTURY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#B BURLINGAME,CA 94010 450 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
3 BEGOVICH FAMILY INVESTMENTS 1,11 AND III 340 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 BELLA BOTTEGA 1117 CAMBRIDGE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 600 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 BETTER HOMES&GARDENS-JF FINNEGAN REALTORS 320 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,425 100 280 $380.00 0.003974
3 BEVERLEY B CONRAD PH.D. 1131 HOWARD AVE#201 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 BEVMO 1401 WILLOW PASS RD#900 CONCORD,CA 94520 6,760 125 600 $725.00 0.007583
2 BLOOMING VASE 269 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,610 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
1 BLUE LINE PIZZA 17421 EL RANCHO AVE LOS GATOS,CA 95030 2,519 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
2 BLUSH ORGANIC YOGURT 1212 DONNELLY AVE. BURLINGAME,CA 94010 825 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 BOMBSHELL 263 HATCH LANE#A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 BOOKBOARD INC 345 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 BOOKS INC 1501 VERMONT ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94107 3,880 125 400 $525.00 0.005491
2 BOSTON PRIVATE BANK&TRUST 1440 CHAPIN AVE#101 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 4,020 100 360 $460.00 0.004811
3 BR COMMERCIAL 1408 CHAPIN AVE#4 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 BREATHOMETER INC 330 PRIMROSE RD#400 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 BRIA SALON 1100 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,430 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 BRIDAL PROJECT 319 PRIMROSE RD#B BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 BRIDGEWAY LLC 1199 HOWARD AVE#250 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 BURLINGAME ACE HARDWARE 235 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,225 100 280 $380.00 0.003974
2 BURLINGAME BOUTIQUE 348 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,200 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 BURLINGAME CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 1201 HOWARD AVE#101A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
X BURLINGAME MASONIC HALL,INC. 145 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 0 0 $0.00 0
1 BURLINGAME OPTICAL 1380 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,965 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
1 BURLINGAME TOBACCONISTS 1404 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 488 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
2 CAFE ON PRIMROSE 321 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 845 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
5:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Council_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xis 2 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Total Weighted
Assessment Vote
2 CAFFE SAPORE 1243 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 CALICO CORNERS 1100 HOWARD AVE#A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,608 100 320 $420.00 0.004393
1 CAPITAL AVE EXPRESS 28214 LEAF DR TRACY,CA 95304 2,860 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
3 CAPITAL REALTY GROUP 1200 HOWARD AVE#204 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 CARI LENAHAN MFT ET AL 1408 CHAPIN AVE#3 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 CARR,MCCLELLAN,INGERSOLL,THOMPSON&HORN 216 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 4,665 100 400 $500.00 0.00523
3 CECILIA A NEPOMUCENO,PH.D 405 PRIMROSE RD#318 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 CHANG ARCHITECTURE 251 PARK ROAD#900 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 CHANGE OF SEASON 14 WILLOW AVE MILLBRAE,CA 94030 144 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 CHAPIN COURT SALON 1465 CHAPIN AVE#B BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,240 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 CHASE BANK 1111 POLARIS PARKWAY OH1-0152 COLUMBUS,OH 43240 4,840 100 400 $500.00 0.00523
3 CHASE BERENSTEIN&MURRAY-LAW ET AL 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 CHERIMOYA VIETNAMESE CAFE 283 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 650 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 CHRISTIE'S 245 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,325 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 CITIBANK,N.A. 710 RIVERPOINT DR#268 W SACRAMENTO,CA 95605 4,400 100 360 $460.00 0.004811
2 CITY NATIONAL BANK 350 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 5,564 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
2 CJ'S GOURMET DELI 290 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 525 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 CLASSIC KIDS LLC 566 CHESTNUT,STE 1 WINNETKA IL 60093 1,560 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
2 CLAY HERMAN REALTOR,INC 251 PARK RD SUITE#710 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,100 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 COCONUT BAY COMPANY INC. 1107 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 5,000 100 440 $540.00 0.005648
2 COLDWELL BANKER 1412 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 5,000 100 440 $540.00 0.005648
2 COLDWELL BANKER 1427 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 5,175 100 440 $540.00 0.005648
3 COLLEGE FOCUS,LLC ET AL 251 PARK ROAD,SUITE 1 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 COMERICA BANK 333 W SANTA CLARA ST FL12 SAN JOSE,CA 95113 5,035 100 440 $540.00 0.005648
3 COMPUTER SECTRUM 214 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 CONNECTSOLUTIONS,LLC. 345 LORTON AVE#402 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 COPENHAGEN BAKERY&COFFEE SHOP 1216 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 4,500 125 500 $625.00 0.006537
2 CORN ERSTON E/KARSON WEALTH MANAGEMENT 1201 HOWARD AVE#103 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 CORONADO LAW GROUP INC 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#5A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 CRE8 A COUCH 3940 CASANOVA DRIVE SAN MATEO,CA 94403 900 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 CROWNDSTAR,INC. 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#305,310 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 DANIEL C MORENO CPA 180 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 DANLI CHIROPRACTIC&WELLNESS 340 LORTON AVE#203 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 DAVID LIN,PSY 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#312 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 DAVIDS TEA(USA)INC 1400 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
S:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Council_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xls 3 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
-
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Total Weighted
Assessment Vote
2 DE COLORES HAIR STUDIO 1403 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 315 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 DEAR DECOR 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#AA BURLINGAME,CA 94010 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
3 DEBORAH A SIMMONS MFT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#313 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 DEJA VU 1109 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 720 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
1 DEL OLIVA 1440 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,500 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
2 DETHRONE LLC 261 CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME,CA 94010 6,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
3 DIAMONDS FINE HAND AND FOOT SPA 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#103 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 DID]SALON 1221 DONNELLY AVE. BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,250 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 DINNER-LICIOUS 216 CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME,CA 94010 300 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 DOLSOFT INCORPORATED 301 CALIFORNIA DRIVE#5 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 DON SNIDER&ASSOCIATES 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#213 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 DRYBAR HOLDINGS LLC DBA DRYBAR 49 DISCOVERY,STE 150 IRVINE,CA 92618 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 ECCO 322 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,400 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
3 EDU-THERAPY/DARLENE ROSE DEMARIA 340 LORTON AVE#204 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 EDWARD JONES INVESTMENTS 1201 HOWARD AVE#201 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 EFLEXERVICES INC 1220 HOWARD AVE#220 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 EHRNEST E BALLAGH ACCOUNTANCY CORP 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#204 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
X EL CONCILIO OF SAN MATEO 1419 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 0 0 $0.00 0
1 ELITE SALON&SPA,LLC 275 W 40TH AVE SAN MATEO,CA 94403 1,920 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
3 ELITE TAILORING 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#F BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 EMILY'S NAILS 211 PARK RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 400 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 ENCORE' 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#200 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 ENTER DESIGN AND LIGHTS 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#L3 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 ESZENCE 776 PACHECO ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94116 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 EUROPEAN WAX CENTER 249 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,120 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 FAMILY VISION CENTER 411 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 900 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 FESTIVE PRODUCTIONS 1345 HOWARD AVE#202 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#100 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,540 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
3 FINANCIAL CONCEPTS 205 PARK ROAD#204 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 FINE CONSIGN 233 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 5,490 100 440 $540.00 0.005648
1 FIORI 2314 CHESTNUT ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94123 400 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
3 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY 1440 CHAPIN AVE#350 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 FISH SIX RESTAURANT CORPORATION 345 SPEAR ST STE 12S SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105 1,449 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
2 FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES 551 PILGRIM DRIVE FOSTER CITY,CA 94404 2,001 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
1 FIVE LITTLE MONKEYS 124 SOLANO AVE ALBANY,CA 94706 1,680 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
S:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Counal_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xis 4 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESSIMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total Weighted
Zane Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Assessment Vote
2 FLOORCRAFT 470 BAYSHORE BLVD SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94124 1,150 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 FOREVER CHEESE 340 LORTON AVE#210 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 FOX MALL MANAGEMENT 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#X BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 FRANCESCA'S COLLECTIONS 1235 BURLINGAME AVENUE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,750 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
1 FRINGEAVEDA 1405 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 916 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 FRINGESALON 371 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 480 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 FROM DESIGNS TO DOODADS 145 PARK ROAD#1 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 GAIL M SHAK PHD 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#205 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 GALLERIE CITI 1115 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 750 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
1 GAP#141 PO BOX 27809 ALBUQUERQUE,NM 87125 4,080 125 450 $575.00 0.006014
2 GENERAL NUTRITION CENTER 300 SIXTH AVE PITTSBURGH,PA 15222 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
1 GENEVE JEWELERS-GOLDSMITHS 1465 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,880 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
3 GEORGE ANDERS 228 LORTON AVE#6 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 GERMAN CAR CARE 251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,600 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
3 GILLMARTIN GROUP 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#512 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 GILMAN SCREENS&KITCHENS 217 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 4,235 100 360 $460.00 0.004811
2 GOLD MEDAL MARTIAL ARTS 999A EDGEWATER BLVD FOSTER CITY,CA 94404 2,450 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
2 GOTVIBES71NC DBA WHICH WICH 526 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE MOUNTAIN VIEW,CA 94041 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 GREAT CLIPS FOR HAIR 16292 LYLE STREET SAN LEANDRO,CA 94578 900 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 GREEN BANKER 398 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA94010 4,515 100 400 $500.00 0.00523
1 GREEN CLEAN 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#E BURLINGAME,CA 94010 300 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
3 GRIFFITHS,CASTLE&LAWLOR GOYETTE 330 PRIMROSE RD#614 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 GYMBOREE RETAIL STORES,INC.#409 500 HOWARD ST STE 500 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105 2,450 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 HADIA MAKDISI 251 PARK ROAD#150 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 HAIR SPIES LICE REMOVAL 1419 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 HALO BLOW DRY BAR 311 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,500 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
2 HARMONIOUS HOUSING INC 409 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 990 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 HEADWATERS HOLDING 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#406 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 HEALTHY HORIZONS[PENIN BREASTFEEDING] 720 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 900 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
3 HENRY HORN&SONS,INC. 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#300 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 HERIZ MUSIC&ART 210 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,850 100 240 $340.00 0.003556
2 HERIZ RUGS 218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 600 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 HILARY K ROBINSON,LCSW 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#310 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 HOLIDAY TRAVEL SERVICE OF BURLINGAME 251 PARK ROAD#500 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 HORN APPRAISAL SERVICE 409 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
5:\Businnslmprovem4nt 0istritts\Burlinrpme-...\20-2015\TO--fl DBID Assessment Ro11-FY2014-15A, 5 9/3/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total Weighted
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Assessment Vote
2 HOUSE OF BAGELS 260 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,425 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 HUNTER DOUGLAS/REBARTS 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,875 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
1 1 PRIVE' 3463 RIMINI LN DUBLIN,CA94568 1,600 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
3 ICHINYOSHA INTERNATIONAL U.S.A.,INC. 1200 HOWARD AVE#203 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 IDEAL EYES OPTOMETRY 1365 GREEN ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94109 790 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 IL FORNAIO 327 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 8,883 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
2 IN ANY EVENT LLC DBA POWELL'S SWEET SHOPPE 1166 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,944 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
3 INCOGNITO IMAGE STUDIO 1261 HILLER ST BELMONT,CA 94002 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 ISOBUNE BURLINGAME 1451 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,800 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
1 J.CREW 770 BROADWAY,10TH FLR NEW YORK,NY 10003 4,320 125 450 $575.00 0.006014
3 JAN E PERRY 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#307 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 JANIE AND JACK#938 500 HOWARD ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105 1,240 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 JC INTERNATIONAL 340 LORTON AVE#207 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 JETFLEET MANAGEMENT CORP ET AL 1440 CHAPIN AVE#310 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 JIGSAW LONDON 1314 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,500 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
1 JOANA'S EUROPEAN FASHIONS 1412 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 450 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
2 JONATHAN D.BROWN,ESQ. 407 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 474 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 JOUGERT BAR 1115 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,007 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 JOY'S EUROPEAN TAILORING 401 PRIMROSE ROAD#B BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 JUMPSTART MD PO BOX 158 REDWOOD CITY,CA 94064 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 JUST KIDS CUTS&BEAUTY MARKET 1200 HOWARD AVE#101 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,599 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
1 JW WIRELESS 846 E VALLEY BLVD,STE A SAN GABRIEL,CA 91776 1,850 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
3 K&E MANAGEMENT LTD 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#404 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 KABUL AFGHAN CUISINE 1301 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,496 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 KAI DEVELOPMENT ET AL 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#409 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR,AIA ET AL 205 PARK ROAD#207 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 KARA'S CUPCAKES INC 2565 THIRD ST#334 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94107 4,650 125 500 $625.00 0.006537
3 KAREN S ROBSON MA 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#309 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 KARP COMPANIES/CALIF.REALTY 1209 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 KASSAR ENTERPRISES INC DBA CHARMELLE 28 1445 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,120 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 KATHERINE MAYER M.A.,M.F.T 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#308 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 KATHLEEN ADDISON 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#203 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 KATHY NAIL PEDICURE SPA 595 AVALANI AVE#1 SAN JOSE,CA 95133 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 KEENAN CAPITAL 1229 BURLINGAME AVE 201 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY 1430 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
S:\Business lmpo ment Distnt\Buftgame Avenue\2014-2015\Tp Council DBID Assessment Ro11-FY201415AN 6 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City, State Zip Sq. Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Total Weighted
Assessment Vote
1 KEN Y. TANISAWA, O.D. 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # F BURLINGAME, CA 94010 600 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 KERN JEWELERS 214 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3,000 100 280 $380.00 0.003974
1 KUPFER JEWELRY CENTER 1211 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,240 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
1 LTSCAPE SPA SALON 1217 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 L'VIAN 317 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 625 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
1 LA BOULANGE DE BURLINGAME 2325 PINE ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94115 3,000 125 350 $475.00 0.004968
1 LA CORN ETA TAQUERIA 1123 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2,310 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 LANDSCAPE REFLECTIONS 1345 HOWARD AVE # 203 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAURA BERTETTA CELESTE 405 PRIMROSE RD#310 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAUREN CROWDER, LMFT 524 29TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD L HIBBARD 251 PARK ROAD # 800 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D LIBERTY 1290 HOWARD AVE# 303 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAW OFFICE OF PAUL F VORSATZ 345 LORTON AVE # 200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAW OFFICES OF HAITHAM E BALLOUT 1290 HOWARD AVE # 300 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAW OFFICES OF HERMAN H FITZGERALD 345 LORTON AVE # 302 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LAW OFFICES OF ZACCONE & SCHWARTZ 330 PRIMROSE RD #504 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 LE CROISSANT 1407 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,200 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 LEE MENDELSON FILM PRODUCTIONS, INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD# 215 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 LES DEUX COPINES 1433 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,120 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
2 LITE FOR LIFE INC 1199 HOWARD AVE #103 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 270 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 LOFT INC 1316 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 LUCAS E SORENSEN, CPA INC. 1220 HOWARD AVE # 200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 LUCY ACTIVEWEAR, INC. DBA LUCY 1208 BURLINGAME AVE # 37 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,480 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
1 LULULEMON ATHLETICA USA INC 1304 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 4,000 125 450 $575.00 0.006014
3 LYMELIGHT FOUNDATION INC 1229 BURLINGAME AVENUE #205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 LYNN HILL & CO 330 PRIMROSE ROAD #411 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 M H PODELL CO 1201 HOWARD AVE # 300 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 M3 HAIR DESIGN (JOHN MORIZONO) 1110 BURLINGAME AVE# 212 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 MAINSAIL JEWELRY 1231 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 600 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 MARGARET O'LEARY INC 263 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 MARIANNA MARSHA MEDNIKN, PHD 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 214 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 MARIN CONSULTING INC/ INSPIRATION VENTURES 228 LORTON AVE # 8 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 MARSHA JURASIN & ASSOC 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 209 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 MC GUIRE 2001 LOMBARD ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 4,200 100 360 $460.00 0.004811
3 MCGUIGAN & MCGUIGAN, CPA 345 LORTON AVE # 205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
5:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Council_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.x15 7 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total Weighted
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip F7t Rate Surcharge Assessment Vote
2 ME TIME,INC 62 SEQUOIA CT SAN CARLOS,CA 94070 2,000 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
1 MEDITERRANEAN KEBAB 1318 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,600 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
2 MEYER-BUNJE,LLC 308 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 MIA BELLA BOUTIQUE SALON 29 WOODLAND AVE DALY CITY,CA 94015 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 MICHAEL SULPIZIO,CPA 1419 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 MICHAEL'S JEWELERS 253 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 450 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 MIKE HARVEY HONDA 200 California Drive BURLINGAME,CA 94010 10,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
3 MILLENNIUM STAR LLC 1440 CHAPIN AVE#385 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 MILLIE MANGO 1192 ESSEX LANE FOSTER CITY,CA 94404 2,000 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
1 MINGALABA,INC. 1213 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA94010 1,240 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 MODERN HOUSE 1245 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 MONA KARAM HAUTE COIFFURE 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#G BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
2 MONDI HAIR SALON 1205 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,650 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
3 MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY,I.I.C. 216 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 MORNING GLORY 1436 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,350 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 MURPHY WOOD INCORPORATED 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#403 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 MY LITTLE NAIL SHOP 247 PARK RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 NAJWA'S BEAUTY SALON 401 PRIMROSE ROAD#A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 NARIN THAI CUISINE 231 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 525 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 NATASHA GRASSO PO BOX 280164 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94128 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 NATURAL BRONZING/AIRBRUSH TANNING 1321 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 800 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 NATURALLY ORGANIC SLEEP 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#L2 BURLINGAME,CA 94030 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 NATURE AT PLAY 3 SKYMONT CF BELMONT,CA 94002 990 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
3 NEAL LITMAN COMPANY 345 LORTON AVE#304 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 NEO SALON 401 PRIMROSE ROAD#G BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 NEW FRONTIER FOOD INC 205 PARK RD#210 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 NEXT ADVISOR INC 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#201 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 NICKY'S 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#C BURLINGAME,CA 94010 480 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
3 NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#600 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 NUANCE DESIGN JEWELERS 1152 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 560 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 O'CONNOR MORTGAGE COMPANY 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#216 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY 1001 GALAXY WAY,STE 100 CONCORD,CA 94520 630 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
1 OLEA 1219 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,160 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
2 ONE MEDICAL GROUP 130 SUTTER 5T,FLR 2 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 3,191 100 280 $380.00 0.003974
1 ONYX SALON LLC 1113 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,500 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
S:\Buzm-lemen-nd,\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\TD Council DBID Asfesx-Holl-FY2014-15..is 8 9/1/1014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total Weighted
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City, State Zip Sq. Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Assessment Vote
3 OSBORNE INSURANCE AGENCY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # 0 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 OTTESEN THERAPIES 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 317 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 OUTSELL INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 510 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 PACIFIC BELL- ATTN SBC TAX DEPT 1010 N SAINT MARY'S ST#91306 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78215 10,000 12S 600 $725.00 0.007583
2 PADDY FLYNN'S 246 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 825 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 PAGANO & MCKINNEY, LLP 1424 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,330 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 PAMELA A CRONIN 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 212 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 PAMELA RUDD PHD. 1204 BURLINGAME AVE #5 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 PANDA EXPRESS #907 1683 WALNUT GROVE AVE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 2,475 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
1 PAPER CAPER 1442 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,160 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
1 PAPER SOURCE 410 N MILWAUKEE AVE CHICAGO, IL 60654 3,850 125 400 $525.00 0.005491
1 PAPYRUS #280 500 CHADBORNE RD FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 1,400 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 PARTEE CONSTRUCTION 340 LORTON AVE # 211 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 PATRONIK DESIGNS 314 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,105 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 PAULA ZIMMERMAN, MFT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD #306 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 PEET'S COFFEE &TEA 1241 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,960 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
1 PENINSULA BEAUTY SUPPLY INC 1319 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2,250 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 PENINSULA PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE 345 LORTON AVE# 104 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 PET FOOD EXPRESS 500 85TH AVENUE OAKLAND, CA 94621 6,324 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
2 PINKIES NAIL SALONS 1129 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,598 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
1 PINKY JEWELRY 1411 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1,073 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
2 PIP PRINTING AND DOCUMENT SERVICE 220 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2,464 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
2 PIZZA MY HEART 16222 SHANNON RD LOS GATOS, CA 95032 2,200 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
1 POLISHED 1214 BURLINGAME AVE # 2 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 250 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
1 POTTERY BARN #281 3250 VAN NESS AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 4,480 125 450 $575.00 0.006014
3 PREMIER LENDING 1199 HOWARD AVE # 200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 PREMIER PROPERTIES 1200 HOWARD AVE # 205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 PRESTIGE WINES & LIQUORS 1300 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2,800 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
3 PRIMROSE ALLOYS INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 PRIMROSE CLEANERS 339 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 810 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
1 PRIMROSE TAILOR CLEANERS 1475 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
3 PUBVEST INC 398 PRIMROSE RD #30-31 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 PURE BARRE BURLINGAME 20385 IRON SPRINGS RD LOS GATOS, CA 95033 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 QUEST REAL ESTATE 1201 HOWARD AVE # 102 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 R-SLICE LTD. 1209 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
5:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Council_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xls 9 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Total Weighted
Assessment Vote
3 R.M.BARROWS,INC 205 PARK ROAD#208 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 RADIO SHACK#3891 PO BOX 961090 FT WORTH,TX 76161 1,475 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 RANDOM ACCESS DESIGN LLC 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#8 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 RAYBURN COMPANY 1200 HOWARD AVE#206 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 RB'S THREADING STUDIO 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#107 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MID-PENINSULA/MARDOLLA GRP 405 PRIMROSE ROAD#208 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 REALTY WORLD GOOD HORIZON 63 BOVET RD#416 SAN MATEO,CA 94402 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 RECONNECT HAIR DESIGN 256 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,200 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 RED OAK CAPITAL 1290 HOWARD AVE#323 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 RENDA ZA'AROUR SALON 1210 DONNELLY AVE. BURLINGAME,CA 94010 925 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 REVI,INC 330 PRIMROSE RD#505 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 RITUALS AESTHETIC SKIN CARE 251 PARK ROAD#249 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 RMC REAL ESTATE LOANS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#R BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 ROBERT E PISANO,ATTORNEY AT LAW 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#4 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 ROCKY COLOGNE'S COMEDY TRAFFIC SCHOOL 1243 HOWARD AVE#A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 RUBY RIBBON INC 1200 HOWARD AVE#201 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 RUE DU THE 1030 LARKIN ST#2 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94109 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 RVN ENTERPRISES 355 PRIMROSE ROAD#5 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 SAFEWAY STORES,INC.#1547 PO BOX 29096 PHOENIX,AZ 85038 40,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
2 SAKAE 243 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 875 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 SALON ALCHEMY 401 PRIMROSE ROAD#J BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 SALON LE ROUGE&COLOR STUDIO 1800 SAN CARLOS AVE#8 SAN CARLOS,CA 94070 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 SAM FERDOWS-ATTORNEY AT LAW 1290 HOWARD AVE#327 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 SAM MALOUF 1460 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,064 125 350 $475.00 0.004968
2 SAM'S ITALIAN SANDWICH CO. 1080 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 705 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 SAMATHA CHEN,MFT 340 LORTON AVE#205 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 SAMMY C.YIM 1419 BURLINGAME AVE SUITE P BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 SAN FRANCISCO SOUP COMPANY 451 6TH ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94103 2,000 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
1 SAPORE ITALIANO DBA MAMME INC 1447 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,200 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES 1319 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 SEABU RY VENTURE PARTNERS 345 LO RTO N AVE#401 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 SEPHORA 525 MARKET ST FL 32 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105 3,080 125 350 $475.00 0.004968
2 SHEAR MAGIC HAIR DESIGN 311 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 450 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 SIDDH GROUP LLC/BURLINGAME HOTEL 287 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 SIXTO'S CANTINA 1448 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 4,400 125 450 $575.00 0.006014
S:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Council_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xls 10 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total Weighted
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Assessment Vote
3 SL GRIFFITHS,INC./A.MEYERHOFFER PO BOX 117536 BURLINGAME,CA 94011 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 SOLE DESIRE 1215 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,200 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
1 SOLE DESIRE SHOES 5550 SKYLANE BLVD STE G SANTA ROSA,CA 95403 8,000 125 600 $725.00 0.007583
2 SOLO BAMBINI 1150 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 800 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 ST CLAIR'S 1215 DONNELLY AVE. BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 STACKS RESTAURANT 361 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,906 100 320 $420.00 0.004393
1 STARBUCKS COFFEE CO#523 PO BOX 34442-TAX 2 SEATTLE,WA 98124 1,728 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
2 STEELHEAD BREWING,CO. PO BOX 11006 EUGENE,OR 97440 4,212 100 360 $460.00 0.004811
3 STELLA ALPINA OSTERIA 401 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 STERLING CLEANERS 1681 BROADWAY ST REDWOOD CITY,CA 94063 2,125 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
3 STEVEN GREENBLATT,LCSW 1131 HOWARD AVE#202 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 STRAITS BURLINGAME LLC 1100 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 4,200 125 450 $575.00 0.006014
1 STRIDE RITE#2107 PO BOX 1249 TOPEKA,KS 66601 1,380 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 STUDIO 401 401 PRIMROSE ROAD#K BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 SUNGLASS HUT#5176 1323 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,050 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 SUNKISSED TANNING SALONS 401 PRIMROSE ROAD#? BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 SUR LA TABLE 1208 DONNELLY AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 4,750 100 400 $500.00 0.00523
2 SWITZER,GOLDAU&ASSOCIATES 1201 HOWARD AVE#101 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 SYLVAN LEARNING PO BOX 7421 MENLO PARK,CA 94026 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 TALK[TEACHING&ASSESSING LANGUAGE FOR KIDS] 1209 HOWARD AVE#203 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 TAMER MICKEL SALON&BEAUTY 264 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,000 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
2 TE&ASHI NAIL SPA 363 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 500 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 TEA PLUS NOODLE 1100 HOWARD AVE#D BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,430 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
1 TERRA TEAK AND GARDEN 1320 BURLINGAME AVENUE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,200 125 350 $475.00 0.004968
2 THE ALIBI 220 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 725 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
1 THE ANIMAL CONNECTION II 980 TERESITA BLVD SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94127 2,860 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
1 THE CAKERY 1308 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,200 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 THE COLLINS LAW OFFICE PO BOX 348 BURLINGAME,CA 94011 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 THE CREPEVINE 1310 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,700 125 300 $425.00 0.004445
2 THE CUT BARBER SHOP 218 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 625 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 THE ICE GROUP,LLC 301 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 THE LASH BAR 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#202 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 THE PERSONAL TOUCH 257 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 625 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S EYE 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#W BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 THE PLANT CAFE 1395 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,850 125 400 $525.00 0.005491
5:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Counal_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xls 11 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total lWeigh]tedZone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Assessment Vot
2 THE PO DOLLS 1520 DIAMOND ST SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94131 725 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 THE SKIN CARE CLINIC/CLAUDIA PANITTO 1475 BURLINGAME AVE#D BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,279 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 THE STUDIO SHOP 244 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,110 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
1 THE TAILOR&THE COBBLER 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#K BURLINGAME,CA 94010 400 125 0 $125.00 0.001307
3 THE TRIMM-WAY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#Y BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 THE UPS STORE#2354 1325 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,225 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 THE ZEKA GROUP INC. 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#400 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 THERAPY STORES,INC 347 E CAMPBELL AVE CAMPBELL,CA 95008 1,500 125 200 $325.00 0.003399
3 THOMSON ONLINE BENEFITS 398 PRIMROSE RD#230 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 TIP N TOE SALON 1401 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 315 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 TODAY INC. 1250 SAN CARLOS AVE SAN CARLOS,CA 94070 750 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 TOMOKAZU JAPANESE CUISINE 1101 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,219 100 280 $380.00 0.003974
3 TOO CUTE 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#F BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 TORA TRADING SERVICES,LLC 1440 CHAPIN AVE#205 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 TPUMPS,LLC 25079 VIKING ST HAYWARD,CA 94545 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
2 TRAPEZE RESTAURANT 266 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,690 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
2 TRAVEL WIZARDS 190 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,476 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
1 TREJERD MEMORIES DBA PAPER&PETALS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#I BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,440 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
3 TRIG ARCHITECTS,INC. 205 PARK ROAD#203 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 TRIAD COMMUNICATIONS 1199 HOWARD AVE#325 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 TRILOGY VENTURE SEARCH 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#402 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 TRINA TURK[L2T DBA] 1223 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,040 125 250 $375.00 0.003922
3 TRITERRA REALTY GROUP,INC. 1105 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 TRIVEST PROPERTY CO.,LLC 407 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 TROOYU,LLC 1204 BURLINGAME AVE STE 2 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 TUTTIMELON 1363 WAYNE WAY SAN MATEO,CA 94403 750 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
2 TWEEDLE AND TOOTS(MONTES&WADHAMS,LLC) 277 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 UK HAIR 1410 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,176 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
2 UNION BANK PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 1,500 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
2 UNITED STUDIOS OF DEFENSE 1345 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,330 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 URBAN OUTFITTERS WEST/ANTHROPOLOGIE 5000 S BROAD ST PHILADELPHIA,PA 19112 6,300 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
1 US BANK 1423 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 3,000 125 350 $475.00 0.004968
1 VAN'S#318 PO BOX 21647 GREENSBORO,NC 27420 3,485 125 350 $475.00 0.004968
3 VENTURI COMPANY 345 LORTON AVE#105 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 VINYL ROOM 221 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,600 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
5:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Councll_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.xls 12 9/2/2014
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT-ASSESSMENTS FOR FY2014-2015
Total Weighted
Zone Business/Customer Name Location City,State Zip Sq.Ft. Flat Rate Surcharge Assessment Vote
2 VIVAAA FOR HAIR 345 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 600 100 80 $180.00 0.001883
3 W A CAPITAL 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#202 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 W.J.BRADLEY MORTGAGE CAPITAL,LLC 6465 GREENWOOD PLAZA BLVD ENGLEWOOD,CO 80111 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 WAG IDEAS INC 205 PARK RD#220 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 WALGREEN'S 0086 260 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME,CA 94010 10,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006066
3 WARREN K WOO,ATTY AT LAW 340 LORTON AVE#214 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 WATCH GALLERY 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#F BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 WAVE GROUP SOUND,INC 1220 HOWARD AVE#230 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 WELLS FARGO BANK 1435 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 5,500 125 600 $725.00 0.007583
3 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 1 HOME CAMPUS,MACX2401-036 DES MOINES,IA 50328 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE 1 HOME CAMPUS,MACX2401-036 DES MOINES,IA 50328 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 WILLA HOME,LLC 1414 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 960 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
3 WILLIAM L NAGLE 345 LORTON AVE#204 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 WINGES ARCHITECTS INC 1290 HOWARD AVE#311 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 WINTERS&KRUG 345 LORTON AVE#101 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
3 WOODSTOCK DEVELOPMENT INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD#203 BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
1 WORLD CLASS PIANOS 1471 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,250 125 150 $275.00 0.002876
1 WS JEWELRY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#A BURLINGAME,CA 94010 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002353
2 XL SALON 222 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 YEAMAC 229 PARK RD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 YF INTERNATIONAL 180 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,800 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
2 YOGURTLAND SOUTH BAY 225 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
2 YVES DELORME INC 238 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,100 100 200 $300.00 0.003138
2 ZAMABRA TAPAS&BAR 250 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,550 100 160 $260.00 0.002719
2 ZEN HOLISTIC HEALTH 318 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002301
3 ZOLI 247 Hatch BURLINGAME,CA 94010 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001046
2 [FIDELITY BROKERAGE]FIDELITY INVESTMENTS 1411 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME,CA 94010 2,688 100 240 $340.00 0.003556
TOTAL ASSESSMENT $95,610.00
S:\Business Improvement Districts\Burlingame Avenue\2014-2015\To Council_DBID Assessment Roll-FY2014-15.x15 13 9/2/2014
J.
NAIL SALONS
1129 Howard Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
August 30, 2014
City of Burlingame City Council
City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Downtown Burlingame Ave Business Improvement District Assessment
Please be advised that Pinkies Nail Salons on Howard Avenue is very much AGAINST
the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District assessment. Business
is very difficult and this assessment is a hardship.
Please consider this letter a PROTEST against the assessment.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Rega ds,.
� Y
Connie Kullberg
Pinkies Nail Salons
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
440
City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME,CA 94010
Agenda Item 9b
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15, 2014
From: Pat Harding - (650) 558-7401
Subject:
Adoption of Resolutions Approving the Our Library Our Future Naming Opportunities Policy and
Naming the Library's Teen Room the Hoefer Teen Room
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving the Our Library Our Future
Naming Opportunities Policy and naming the Library's Teen Room the "Hoefer Teen Room" in recognition of
Melanie and Kurt Hoefer's $100,000 pledge towards the Library's capital campaign, Our Library Our Future.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has allocated $2.5 million towards the Library's $3.5 million renovation project. The Council
has charged the Trustees and the Library Foundation with raising the remaining $1 million of the project's cost.
The Library's capital campaign committee has raised $660,000 in pledges and donations towards the $1
million goal thus far. During the process of fundraising for the campaign, the committee developed the
attached Naming Opportunities Policy (Exhibit 3), which includes several levels of naming opportunities for
significant donations. The naming opportunities will vary depending on the amount of the gift and the size of
the area for recognition. A description of Major Donor Naming Opportunities, listing four tiers of donor
recognition, is attached as Exhibit 4.
DISCUSSION
On October 18, 2004, the City Council adopted the attached Community Recognition Policy (Exhibit 5) to
honor those who have made significant contributions to the community and to acknowledge one-time
donations of property or funds. The Policy requires two public hearings: one by the subject matter board or
commission, followed by a three-month waiting period, and another public hearing before the City Council. In
the context of the Library's Our Library Our Future fundraising effort, this timeline is overly long and decreases
the campaign's ability to raise the $1 million mandated by Council.
Staff requests that the Community Recognition Policy be suspended as it applies to the Library Millennium
Project fundraising campaign and that the Our Library Our Future Naming Opportunities Policy be adopted to
facilitate raising the $1 million.
Staff also requests that the City Council approve naming the Library's Teen Room, the Hoefer Teen Room, in
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 2 Printed on 9/9/2014
powered by LegistarTM
Deborah A Simmons PhD
405 Primrose#313
Burlingame, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose
Burlingame, CA 94010
August 27, 2014
Re: DBid assessment
I am wriing this letter of protest regarding the DBid Assessment. As a psychotherapist my
business is not affected by the improvements on the the avenue. The improvements will
not make any difference to my client base. I cannot make the Council meeting but am
submitting this letter of protest to be counted as stated in the letter I received.
Sinceely
�DA f4fts'(
Deborah A Simmons
recognition of the $100,000 pledge of Melanie and Kurt Hoefer. Naming recognition for the Library's Teen
Room meets the criteria of the Naming Opportunity Policy. The Library Board of Trustees held a public
hearing on August 19 and approved naming the Teen Room the Hoefer Teen Room.
Two rooms in the Library currently honor major donors. The naming of the Teen Room would be in keeping
with the naming of the Duncan Children's Room and the Lane Community Room, which were both named
during the "Something New is Building" campaign in 1995.
FISCAL IMPACT
The $100,000 donation by the Hoefer family is a major gift towards the Library's capital campaign goal of $1
million.
Exhibits:
1. Resolution approving the Our Library Our Future Naming Opportunities Policy
2. Resolution naming the Library's Teen Room the Hoefer Teen Room Burlingame Library Foundation
Our Library - Our Future Capital Campaign Naming Opportunities Policy
3. Naming Opportunities Policy
4. Major Donor Naming Opportunities
5. 2004 Community Recognition Policy
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 2 Printed on 9/9/2014
powered by LegistarT"'
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE OUR
LIBRARY OUR FUTURE NAMING OPPORTUNITIES POLICY FOR THE LIBRARY'S$1 MILLION
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN,OUR LIBRARY OUR FUTURE
WHEREAS,the Burlingame Public Library's Millennium Project is a$3.5 million dollar project;and
WHEREAS,the Council has allocated$2.5 million towards the project;and
WHEREAS,the Council has charged the Library Board of Trustees and the Burlingame Library
Foundation to raise the additional$1 million;and
WHEREAS,the capital campaign,Our Library Our Future, has raised$660,000 of the$1 million;
and
WHEREAS,the capital campaign committee has developed a Naming Opportunities Policy with
several levels of naming opportunities for significant donations;and
WHEREAS, the Community Recognition Policy adopted in October 2004 provides for naming
recognition for one-time significant donations to assist with capital projects;and
WHEREAS,the timeline of the 2004 Community Recognition Policy is overly long and decreases
the campaign's ability to raise the$1 million mandated by Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council hereby approves Naming Opportunities Policy for the$1 million Library
capital campaign, superseding the 2004 naming policy for the Library Millennium Project
fundraising initiative.
Michael Brownrigg,Mayor
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15'h day of September,
2014,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Mary Ellen Kearney,City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE
NAMING OF THE LIBRARY'S TEEN ROOM, HOEFER TEEN ROOM, IN RECOGNITION OF
MELANIE AND KURT HOEFER'S DONATION OF $100,000 TOWARDS THE LIBRARY'S $1
MILLION CAPITAL CAMPAIGN, OUR LIBRARY OUR FUTURE
WHEREAS, the Burlingame Public Library's Millennium Project is a $3.5 million dollar project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has allocated $2.5 million towards the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has charged the Library Board of Trustees and the Burlingame Library
Foundation to raise the additional $1 million; and
WHEREAS, the capital campaign, Our Library Our Future, has raised $660,000 of the $1 million;
and
WHEREAS, the capital campaign committee has developed several levels of naming opportunities
for significant donations; and
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees, on August 19, 2014, unanimously approved naming
the Library's Teen Room, Hoefer Teen Room, in recognition of the family's donation to the Our Library
Our Future campaign,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council hereby approves the naming of the Library's Teen Room, the Hoefer
Teen Room, in recognition of Melanie and Kurt Hoefer's $100,000 pledge towards the
Library's capital campaign.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of September,
2014, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
Burlingame Library Foundation
Our Library—Our Future Capital Campaign
Naming Opportunities Policy
Name and mission of the organizing body
Burlingame Library Foundation
The Burlingame Library Foundation seeks to preserve and enhance the Burlingame
Library's vibrant role in enriching a community of lifelong learners. We accomplish our
mission by raising funds to supplement city library support.
Purpose of the campaign
To provide$1 million of the needed$3.5 million for the Millennium Project. The Project includes a
new Tech/Media Lab, Meeting Room,Group Study Rooms,Cafe, Foundation Book Store,expanded
Teen Room, and a digital check-in system.
Expected term of the campaign
The fundraising campaign will run through the end of 2015 with final recognition occurring in 2015
when the funds have been raised and the Project is completed.
Plan for naming recognition
The Burlingame Library Board of Trustees authorizes the Burlingame Library Foundation to develop a
naming opportunities component of the Capital Campaign. Gifts of$100,000 or more will be given a
naming recognition opportunity on a room in the Library. Gifts of$25,000 or more will be given an
opportunity to be recognized on a donor plaque at the Library. Gifts of$1,000 or more will be
recognized on the Library's new Donor Wall in the foyer of the Library.
Approval of naming
The Library Board of Trustees must agree to accept any gift and approve the wording,where
recognition is a condition of the donation.
Major donations that name a room within the Library must also be approved by City Council.See
attached Major Donor Naming Opportunities.
Maintenance/replacement of naming recognition items
There will be a donor wall placed at the front of the Library at the end of the campaign. This will be
designed to require minimal maintenance. To the extent that there is some unusual expense
associated with maintenance or replacement,the Foundation will bear that cost.
Major Donor Naming Opportunities
Four Tiers
A—First Tier--$200,000++ Historic Reading Room
B—Second Tier--$100,000++ New Technology Lab,
Reconfigured Teen Room
C—Third Tier---$50,000++ Historic Conference Room
New Large Meeting Room on Upper Level
Terrace on Upper Level
Main Lobby/Marketplace on Main Level
New Library Bookstore
New Library Cafe
Fiction
Mystery
Biography
D—Fourth Tier--$25,000++ Four Study Rooms—two on Main Level and
two on Lower Level
revised 6/15/2014
CITY OF BURLINGAME
BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY
Adopted by Council - October 18, 2004
I. In order to honor those who have made significant contributions to our Community, this policy
of Community Recognition is established.
II. For the purposes of this policy, examples of a FACILITY include City buildings and parks;
examples of COMPONENTS include rooms inside of buildings, playgrounds and ballfields.
FACILITIES shall be named after their geographical locations or historical names and shall not
be renamed to recognize individuals, groups or donors (hereinafter "individuals").
COMPONENTS of facilities may be named to recognize individuals, as listed below.
III. It is the intent of this policy to prohibit, except under extraordinary circumstances with a 5-0 vote
of the City Council, the following types of recognition:
A. Names of streets that have existing homes or businesses using the street name in their
address;
B. Naming of either FACILITIES or COMPONENTS after corporate entities.
IV. Under extraordinary circumstances that would cast a negative image upon the City, any of the
City recognitions may be revoked at the discretion of the City Council.
V. TYPES OF AWARDS
A. COMPONENTS - Unnamed COMPONENTS may be named to honor individuals for
their service to the community. An example would be: Smith Field at Bayside Park. The
naming of a COMPONENT for an individual will be a permanent honor.
1 . Criteria - For a City COMPONENT to be named in honor of an individual, the
individual must have demonstrated or performed the following:
a. Thirty (30) or more years of service to the community
b. Had a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals
C. Been considered an appropriate role model
d. Made a significant contribution to the community (examples below)
(1) Created opportunities for the community through new facilities or
programs
(2) Made a significant impact on the continuation and/or enhancement
of established community programs
e. Served multiple community programs and touched many lives
1
2. Nomination
a. Individuals need to be nominated by at least two established community
organizations.
b. Nomination submissions should include a list of contributions and written
recommendations from community members. Supporting documentation,
such as newspaper articles or minutes of City meetings, is encouraged.
C. Nominations should be submitted to the City Manager's Office, where
they will be held until the Selection Committee meets. The City Manager
will act as the custodian of the Community Recognition Process.
3. Selection
a. The City Commission whose sphere of influence is most closely
associated with the facility in question will review nominations. For
example,the Parks &Recreation Commission will review nominations
regarding park facilities;the Library Board will review nominations
regarding library rooms, etc. Commissions will consider the criteria
above, including written nominations and supporting documentation, and
will conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City
Council.
b. The City Council will take Commission recommendations into account
and conduct a public hearing before making a final decision. At least four
(4)members of the City Council must vote affirmatively in order to
approve this recognition.
C. The City Manager will notify individuals who have been approved for
recognition by the City Council and will arrange for a Recognition
Ceremony. If the individual is deceased,that person's family will be
notified.
4. Recognition
tion
Recognition will be made either at a City Council meeting or at a special
ceremony at the site of the facility to be renamed.
B. Walk of Fame -Recognizing that few individuals,though deserving of significant
recognition for their service to the community, are likely to qualify to have a
COMPONENT named in their honor, a community Walk of Fame will be established.
The Walk of Fame will be a permanent honor, consisting of a marker describing the
honoree's accomplishments,placed along a selected pathway.
1. Criteria-For a Walk of Fame marker to be dedicated,the individual must have
demonstrated or performed the following:
a. Ten(10)or more years of service to the community
b. Had a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals
C. Been considered an appropriate role model
d. Made a significant contribution to the community by
(1) Creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or
programs; and/or
(2) Making a significant impact on the continuation and/or
enhancement of established community programs
2
2. Nomination
a. On an annual basis,nomination forms will be submitted to community
organizations and placed in public facilities.
b. Nominations must be endorsed and submitted by at least one(1)
established community organization.
C. Each community organization will be limited to one (1)nomination per
year.
d. Nomination submissions should include a list of contributions and written
recommendations from community members. Supporting documentation,
such as newspaper articles or minutes of City meetings, is encouraged.
e. Nominations should be submitted to the City Manager's Office,where
they will be held until the Selection Committee meets. The City Manager
will act as the custodian of the Community Recognition Process.
3. Selection
a. The Selection Committee will be formed each year, consisting of two (2)
representatives from each City Commission. The representatives will be
selected by each Commission's Chairperson.
b. The Selection Committee will consider the criteria above, including
written nominations and supporting documentation, and will conduct a
public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council.
C. The City Council will take the Selection Committee's recommendations
into account and will conduct a public hearing before making a final
decision. Three (3)affirmative votes of the City Council are necessary for
nominees to be recognized on the Walk of Fame.
d. The Selection Committee will limit the number of inductees to the Walk
of Fame to no more than four(4) in any one year.
e. The City Manager will notify individuals who have been approved for
recognition by the City Council and will arrange for a Recognition
Ceremony. If the individual is deceased,that person's family will be
notified.
4. Annual Timeline
a. May—Applications are solicited from recognized community
organizations
b. August—Nomination deadline
C. September—Selection Committee makes recommendations and Council
votes on them
d. October—Recognition Ceremony
5. Recognition Ceremony
The City Manager's office will arrange for a Recognition Ceremony to honor
those added to the Walk of Fame.
3
C. One-Time Donations -The City of Burlingame may occasionally wish to acknowledge
one-time donations of property or funds.
1. Criteria
a. Special consideration may be given to those who greatly assist capital
projects by making a significant donation of:
(1) Land or a facility to be used by the City; or
(2) Funds that enable the City to purchase/develop land or a facility.
b. Consideration may range from placing a plaque of recognition to the
naming of a component of a facility.
2. Nomination
A written request for recognition of a one-time contribution may be made by the
donor or by the City Department Head directly in charge of the capital project.
Requests will be forwarded directly to the City Manager's office.
3. Approval
a. The City Commission whose sphere of influence is most closely
associated with the facility in question and the City Council must agree to
accept any gift where recognition is a condition of donation.
b. Public hearings need to be held by both the City Commission and the City
Council prior to approval by either body. At least four(4)members of the
City Council must vote affirmatively in order to approve this recognition.
C. Other than the above recognition, donors will not be offered,nor will they
receive any privileges or consideration by the City other than those offered
to all community members.
d. In determining whether to accept the contribution,the City Commission
and City Council must consider any ongoing maintenance costs that may
be incurred by the City.
4. Timeline
a. After a written proposal is received by the City, final approval by the City
Council shall not be made for at least three (3)months. During that
period,the City Commission will conduct a public hearing and will make
recommendations to Council. Another public hearing before the City
Council will be held at the end of the three-month period.
b. If recognition is a condition of the donation, approvals must be made prior
to final acceptance of the donation.
5. Reco ing_tion
Recognition will be given during the dedication ceremonies of the facility or
project.
4
INGAME
City of Burlingame B501LPRIMROSETROADL
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Agenda Item 10a
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
_ P
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15, 2014
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager - (650) 558-7204
Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (650) 558-7222
Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director - (650) 558-7230
Subject:
Confirmation of Priority Rankings for Unfunded Needs Infrastructure Projects and Discussion of
Possible Funding Options
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review its rankings for the unfunded needs projects;
2. Confirm the priority order;
3. Discuss possible funding options; and
4. Discuss how many projects it wishes to pursue at this time.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2013, staff presented the City Council with a list of 13 unfunded infrastructure projects, with
a price tag of $103 to $118 million and asked the City Council to approve the list, the staff-developed
prioritization criteria, and the process for prioritizing and developing a funding plan for the projects. The list
included the following projects, with preliminary cost estimates:
Staff included the following projects in the list approved by the City Council:
• Burlingame Community Center - $35M to $40M
• Downtown Streetscape (side streets) - $25M
• Downtown Parking Garage - $10 to $20 M
• City Hall Safety Improvements - $11.5M
• Downtown Parking Lots Resurfacing - $5.00M
• New Bayview Park on State Lands Parcel - $4.00M
• Main Library Millennium Upgrades - $3.50M ($1.2M available in CIP)
• New Parks Yard - $3.40M
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 7 Printed on 9/11/2014
powered by LegistarTM
• Fire Stations Improvements $2.40M
• General Plan Update $2.00M
• Police Station Improvements $1.60M
• Aquatics Center Improvements $0.25M
• Carriage House Improvements $0.15M
The General Plan Update and the Library project were subsequently removed from the list.
In the spring, staff began a significant public outreach process to gauge the community's support for the
various projects. Staff gave presentations about the projects to 14 different community groups,and had tables
set up at a senior showcase at the Rec Center and at the Fresh Market during the Streets Alive event. At the
end of each presentation,attendees were tasked with filling out a questionnaire(Exhibit 1)that asked whether
they thought the various projects were very critical, somewhat critical, or not critical. 96 people returned the
questionnaire. An additional 534 people filled out some or all of the online survey that staff created and
publicized via the City's eNews and through the newsletters of other organizations, like the Burlingame
Chamber of Commerce.
On August 18,2014,staff presented the City Council with the combined results from the paper questionnaires
and the online survey:
Very Critical Somewhat Critical Not Critical ank by"Very
ritical"votes
Burlingame 136 250 167
Community Center
Downtown 137 255 159 3
Streetscape
Downtown Parking 211 181 158 1
Garage
City Hall 48 198 302 10
Parking Lot 72 243 234 9
Resurfacing
Bayview Park 202 156 191 2
New Parks Yard 76 201 271 7
Fire Station 103 227 216 5
Improvements
Police Station 90 243 212 6
Improvements
Aquatic Center 75 144 327
Improvements
Carriage House 3 124 97 11
Improvements
DISCUSSION
At the August 18 meeting,the City Council discussed the results of the outreach efforts and agreed to rank the
projects using a straight 1 through 11 ranking. Each Councilmember was given a Project Scoring Sheet
(Exhibit 2)and asked to return it by August 29.The following table shows the individual results,followed by the
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 7 Printed on 911112014
powered by Leg,sta,—
overall ranking of each project (derived by taking the average of all the scores).
Project Brownrigg Deal Keighran Nagel Ortiz Average
Ranking
Burlingame 5 3 2 3 1 2.8
Community Center
Downtown 11 4 3 4 7 5.8
Streetscape
Downtown Parking 1 1 1 1 3 1.4
Garage
City Hall 2 8 8 2 2 4.4
Parking Lot 8 5 7 8 4 6.4
Resurfacing
Bayview Park 3 2 5 5 9 4.8
New Parks Yard 7 9 9 9 10 8.8
Fire Station 6 10 6 7 8 7.4
Improvements
Police Station 4 7 4 6 5 5.2
Improvements
Aquatic Center 9 11 10 10 6 9.2
Improvements
Carriage House 10 6 11 11 11 9.8
Improvements
As can be seen above, the highest ranked project is the downtown parking garage, followed by the
Burlingame Community Center and City Hall.
Increased Operating Costs
Often times when constructing a new public facility, money needs to be found to operate it. Special attention
should be given to the construction of new assets, as well as expanded assets, to ensure that the funding
necessary to maintain them are considered in future operating budgets. Failure to do so could lead to costly
deferred maintenance problems, creating unfunded capital needs in the future. An example of a new project is
Bayview Park. The responsibility of maintaining additional park acreage will fall on the City's Parks Division,
accounting for approximately 7.5 percent of the current General Fund operating budget. An increase in the
Parks Division budget would put additional strain on the General Fund if off-setting revenues are not made
available. Even in the case of replacement facilities (which might require fewer repairs when new), additional
square footage, functionality or features might increase maintenance costs in the long term. An example of
deferred maintenance can be seen in the City's parking lots. Although $300,000 was included in the fiscal
year 2014-15 budget to support repaving of this important infrastructure asset, this is a maintenance effort that
will not be effective until the lots are totally replaced at a cost of over $5 million.
Pay as You Go Funding
There are a variety of funding mechanisms available to the City to fund one or more of the projects listed
City of Burlingame Page 3 of 7 Printed on 9/11/2014
ti pec sr ,
above. The City cannot at this time use the " Pay as You Go " concept to pay for the acquisition or
construction of large capital projects, as current reserves are largely needed to address unexpected future
events in a fiscally prudent manner. Pay as You Go (Cash) financing avoids the set-up charges and interest
costs inherent in a Pay as You Use (Debt) alternative, but requires the full cost of the asset to be paid at the
outset. This is seldom an option, but can be achieved by prudent saving in advance of the purchase. Using
current revenues and sinking funds to save for future asset needs encourages good financial management
and planning. The City's current operating budget provides only a very small surplus. Although expenditure
reductions continue to be explored in all departments, a significant increase in General Fund revenues would
be needed to allow for such savings. Governments generally achieve additional revenue streams from raising
taxes.
California cities do not have an inherent power to tax. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 created a
distinction between "general" and "special" taxes.
• A general tax is a tax imposed for general governmental purposes, the proceeds of which are
deposited into the General Fund. A majority vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend, or
increase any general tax. An election for a general tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled
general election of City Council members.
• A special tax is a tax that is collected and earmarked for a specific purpose and deposited into a
separate account of the General Fund. A two-thirds vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend or
increase any special tax.
Possible tax measures include:
• Local transactions and use tax increase - must be imposed at a rate of 0.125 percent or a multiple
thereof.
• Business License Tax increase - the City's current collections from this general tax (generally $100 per
business) is slightly less than $1 million annually.
• Utility User Tax - may be imposed on the consumption of any utility services. Different rates may apply
to residential versus commercial users; usually a general purpose tax.
• Parcel Tax - special, non-ad valorum tax. Can be a flat per-parcel rate or a rate that varies depending
upon use, size and/or number of units on each parcel.
While none of these possible tax measures would provide a sufficient amount to fund a capital project outright,
the additional revenues could provide seed money for large projects, fund smaller projects, or generally
increase the City's debt capacity.
If the Council decides not to pursue additional revenue streams, some sort of debt financing will be needed to
undertake projects that cannot be accommodated in the City's five-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
Plan budget. As the objectives of any debt issuance must be well thought out and fit within the goals of the
City, this report discusses the most popular types of financing techniques used for municipal facilities and
other capital projects, and how each might contribute to furthering the various projects prioritized by the
Council.
City of Burlingame Page 4 of 7 Printed on 9/11/2014
c l ,
Examples of Financing Options
General Obligation (GO) Bonds may be sold by the state or any local public entity that has the legal authority
to levy ad valorem taxes on real and personal property located within its boundaries. Cities, counties, school
districts and some special districts may issue general obligation bonds to acquire, construct or improve real
property. A two-thirds majority of those voting in a local election is needed to authorize general obligation
bond issues for specific projects. General obligation bonds pledge a city's General Funds and "full faith and
credit" (i.e., property taxing power) as security for payment of principal and interest to bond holders. As such,
they are the most secure type of municipal security available and therefore attain the lowest interest costs of
any comparable long-term securities. Because general obligation bonds provide an ongoing revenue stream
sized to accommodate the associated debt service, this financing mechanism has little impact on a local
agency's debt capacity. A recent analysis of the cost of a new GO Bond issuance estimates that a $20 million
bond would cost property owners $10-$13.50 (for 30 and 20 year bonds, respectively) per $100,000 in
assessed value. For a $1 million single family home, this equates to a $100 - $135 tax annually. Each
additional $10 million raised through a bond issuance equates to a $50 - $68 increase in the tax, collected by
the County via the annual property tax roll.
Special benefit assessments (also known as Special Assessments) can be levied only to acquire or
construct public improvements that convey a special benefit to an identifiable group of properties. Special
benefit assessments must be apportioned to the benefited properties based upon the respective benefits
received, and they must be levied on a uniform and consistent basis. Benefit assessment financing is
applicable when the value or benefit of the improvement can be assigned to a particular property, or district,
rather than when the improvement is of benefit to the entire community. Each property owner is required to
pay an annual assessment, typically as part of the property tax bill. The sum of the individual assessments
equals the debt service. An example of special benefit assessment financing is the Downtown Burlingame
Avenue Streetscape project.
Certificates of Participation (COPS) provide long-term financing through a lease or installment sale
agreement that does not constitute indebtedness under the California Constitutional debt limit and do not
require voter approval. COPs allow the public to purchase participation in a cash flow stream associated with
a lease or installment payments relating to the acquisition or construction of specific equipment, land or
facilities.
Lease Revenue Bonds are similar to Certificates of Participation. Instead of a third party lessor, the city
creates a "financing authority" as lessor to issue the bonds, construct the facility, and hold title to the facility
until the debt is retired. There is no separate revenue stream associated with this type of financing; bond
capacity is limited to the affordability of annual lease (debt service) payments. Under State law, the annual
lease payments may not exceed the fair rental value of the leased asset, and the term of the bonds cannot
exceed the asset's useful life.
Because lease revenue bonds do not provide a specific revenue stream, the City would have to consider its
debt capacity prior to a new issuance of these bonds. Generally, there are two tests for measuring bonding
capacity: financial and legal. The financial test is one of affordability. Currently, the City's lease revenue and
pension obligation bond (POB) debt combined costs the General Fund nearly $4 million annually to service.
When the current 2004 and 2010 series of lease revenue bonds mature in 2015 and 2021, an additional $1.1
City of Burlingame Page 5 of 7 Printed on 9/11/2014
,,,rad by Leglsla'
million will be available for debt service. Payments on the 2006 POB issue will start to decline significantly in
2017, freeing up an additional $2.8 million in debt service payments in 2019 and beyond. The legal constraint
("Annual Fair Rental Value" test) measures compliance with state law, which states that the annual debt
service payments for lease revenue bonds may not exceed the fair rental value of the lease asset.
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982 allows cities and other public agency issuers to
form a separate district to finance certain public facilities and services on a pay-as-you-go basis or through the
issuance of bonds. Community Facilities District (CFD) Bonds are financed by an annual special non-ad
valorem tax (such as a parcel tax) which is typically included on the property tax bill. Proceedings to authorize
the issuance of such bonds are undertaken simultaneously with the proceedings to form the community
facilities district, and must be approved by two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on such question.
Revenue Bonds are issued to acquire, construct or expand public projects for which fees, charges or
admissions are received for use of the project. The bonds are evidence of direct municipal debt incurred in
purchasing or constructing a revenue-producing project, and are repaid from the income generated by use of
that project or system. Because the debt service is directly paid from income generated by the facility, such
debt is considered self-liquidating and generally does not constitute debt of the issuer. Revenue bonds are
designed to finance facilities that provide benefits to a group of readily identifiable users. The credit is
strongest if the issuer is a monopoly provider of the service, the customer base is large, and the service is of
high essentiality. Water revenue bonds therefore tend to be stronger than parking revenue bonds. Projects
typically financed by revenue bonds include sewer systems, water systems, golf courses, parking facilities,
ferry systems, and airports.
The chart attached to this staff report as Exhibit 3 provides a comparison of these major borrowing
mechanisms for municipal capital projects, including their revenue source, approvals required, who pays,
limitations and examples of each.
A Public/Private Partnership (P3) is defined as a contractual agreement between a public agency and a
private sector entity. Through this agreement, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are
shared in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. In addition to sharing in the
resources, each partner shares in the risks and rewards potential in the delivery of services and/or facility.
P3s are organized along a continuum between public and private nodes and needs; therefore, each
agreement is unique. Initially used mainly for "fee producing" infrastructure projects (toll roads, water
treatment plants, etc.), P3s have more recently utilized development incentives from the public sector to
encourage private capital investment to fund a wide variety of public infrastructure.
Next Steps
There are pros and cons associated with each of the funding mechanisms described above. Before the City
focuses on any particular type of funding, it is prudent to discuss whether the City Council wishes to focus on
one project at a time, or whether it is interested in pursuing funding for multiple projects.
In addition, in order to assist the City in determining the optimal financing mechanisms for the capital projects
the Council wishes to pursue, staff recommends the use of a financial advisor. A financial advisor should be
City of Burlingame Page 6 of 7 Printed on 9/11/2014
[ ; qac .
able to provide an objective and informed review of all aspects of the financing. Although the financing options
chosen will not be delegated to any outside vendor, an advisor can assist in determining the best type of
financing for the City, selecting other finance professionals, and (if applicable) planning a bond sale and
successfully selling and closing the bonds. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), a
professional association of state and local finance officials, recommends as best practice that municipal
issuers select advisors on the basis of merit using a competitive process. GFOA also recommends that
agreements with financial advisors include a provision "restricting any firm engaging in activities on behalf of
the issuer that produce a direct or indirect financial gain for the firm, other than the agreed-upon
compensations, without the issuer's informed consent."
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact associated with the prioritization of these unfunded infrastructure projects is unknown at this
time, and will be determined as part of the financial analysis for the approved projects.
Exhibits:
1 . Unfunded Needs Questionnaire
2. Council Project Scoring Sheet
3. Comparison of Financing Mechanisms for Capital Projects
City of Burlingame Page 7 of 7 Printed on 9/11/2014
powered by LegisterM
Exhibit 1
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY
eURLINGAME
�-�' "'= The City of Burlingame is seeking community input to establish priorities for future capital improvements. Please
rate each of the following currently unfunded projects by placing an"X"in the category you feel applies.Your
response will help advise the Burlingame City Council regarding community priorities. Please note that this is a
survey to gauge community interest and is not meant to be a statement on the financial viability or funding of these
projects.The question of how to fund one or more projects will be addressed at a later date.
PROJECT COST VERY SOMEWHAT NOT
CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL
Burlingame Community Center
The Recreation Center is 65 years old,lacks adequate program facilities,is $35-40M
structurally deficient,and is in need of replacement.
Downtown Streetscape
The existing streetscape on side streets around Burlingame Avenue needs to be $25M
improved and enhanced to match the character of Burlingame Avenue.
Downtown Parking Garage
There is a high demand for parking in and near downtown Burlingame,A new $10-20M
parking garage in the downtown core would help address the parking demand.
City Hall Safety Improvements
City Hall is over 40 years old,does not meet current seismic standards,and lacks $11.5M
adequate fire protection.Many of the building's systems and components are
original,near their expected design life,and need upgrading.
Downtown Parkin¢Lot Resurfacing
Burlingame's 25 public parking lots in the commercial areas have deterriorated $5m
and can no longer be adequately repaired.They now require complete
resurfacing.
New Bawiew Park
The City would like to build a new park along the Bay on Airport Blvd.The park $4M
would provide much-needed picnic areas,restrooms,and sports fields,and it
would fill in a missing gap in the Bay Trail.
New Parks Yard
The existing Parks Yard is inadequate and difficult to access.A new Parks Yard $3.4M
would be relocated away from residential areas,allowing the current location at
Washington Park to be restored to park land.
Fire Station Imorovements
Fire stations 34&36 lack sufficient administrative space,have inadequate 2.4M
facilities for operations,and have limited parking.This project would expand the
current facilities to make them more functional.
Police Station Improvements
The Police station was built in the 1980s.Many components of the building are $1.6M
original and need to be upgraded,such as the emergency generator,the HVAC
system,and the command and operation spaces.
Aquatic Center Improvements
The Aquatic Center,a community facility located at Burlingame High School,lacks $0.25M
sufficient shower and locker facilities.
Carriage House Improvements
The Carriage House in Washington Park needs to be upgraded to meet current $0.15M
building and fire safety codes.
Is there any other community project you would like to see funded that is not on this list?
Exhibit 2
Unfunded Needs Project Scoring Sheet
Councilmember Name: Date:
Project COST RANKING
Burlingame Community Center $35-40M
The Recreation Center is 65 years old, lacks adequate program facilities, is
structurally deficient,and is in need of replacement.
Downtown Streetscape $25M
The existing streetscape on side streets around Burlingame Avenue needs to
be improved and enhanced to match the character of Burlingame Avenue.
Downtown Parking Garage $10-20M
There is a high demand for parking in and near downtown Burlingame. A new
parking garage in the downtown core would help address the parking
demand.
City Hall Safety Improvements $11.5M
City Hall is over 40 years old, does not meet current seismic standards,and
lacks adequate fire protection. Many of the building's systems and
components are original, near their expected design life, and need upgrading.
Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing $5M
Burlingame's 25 public parking lots in the commercial areas have deteriorated
and can no longer be adequately repaired.They now require complete
resurfacing.
New Bawiew Park $4M
The City would like to build a new park along the Bay on Airport Blvd. The
park would provide much-needed picnic areas, restrooms, and sports fields,
and it will fill in a missing gap in the Bay Trail.
New Parks Yard $3.4M
The existing Parks Yard is inadequate and difficult to access.A new Parks Yard
would be relocated away from residential areas,allowing the current location
at Washington Park to be restored to park land.
Fire Station Improvements $2.4M
Fire stations 34& 36 lack sufficient administrative space, have inadequate
facilities for operations, and have limited parking.This project would expand
the current facilities to make them more functional.
Police Station Improvements $1.6M
The Police station was built in the 1980s. Many components of the building
are original and need to be upgraded, such as the emergency generator,the
HVAC system, and the command and operation spaces.
Aquatic Center Improvements $0.25M
The Aquatic Center, a community facility located at Burlingame High School,
lacks sufficient shower and locker facilities.
Carriaee House Improvements $0.15M
The Carriage House in Washington Park needs to be upgraded to meet
current building and fire safety codes.
Note: Projects should be ranked in priority order from 1 through 11(1 representing the highest priority and 11
representing the lowest priority).
Revised 8/19/14
Exhih;t 3
Features of Capital Financing Methods
Certificates of Participation
General Obligation (GO) Special Benefit Community Facilities
Key
Factors Bonds Assessments (COPS) and Lease Revenue District (CFD) Bonds Revenue Bonds
Bonds
"Full faith and credit" of Assessment on Lease or installment sale Special tax on property Service charges and other
issuer: ad valorem property property/fees limited to agreement paid from within community facilities fees paid by users of project
Security/ Revenue Source taxes paid by owners of special benefit to the General Fund (lease) or district (CFD) or services.
taxable property in the property that is charged. special/enterprise
jurisdiction. (installment sale) revenues.
Property owners Property owners in district Typically General Fund; can Property owners in district Users of project or services
Who Pays include repayment from
otherfunds
Council action; 2/3 voter Engineers report; weighted Council action to approve 2/3 voter approval by Council action; usually with
Approval Process approval majority protest procedure lease or installment property owners in district establishment of revenue
agreement stream
Acquisition and Acquisition of property and Acquisition and Acquisition and Acquisition and
Permissible Projects improvement of public improvements of benefit to improvement of public improvement of public improvement of revenue-
property and facilities the property that is property and facilities property and facilities producing public property
charged. and facilities
San Mateo library Burlingame Avenue Burlingame library (2004), Sunnyvale downtown Burlingame water and
Examples streetscape corp yard (2010) and parking garage wastewater systems
streetscape (2012)
9/15/2014
'1
t
Unfunded
t Needs -
Infrastructure
Projects
Priority Rankings and
k, Funding Options
Burlingame ' s
Unfunded Capital Needs
Currently 1 1 unfunded infrastructure
projects, approximately $100 million
Public Outreach in Spring/Summer
2014
Council Prioritization
1
9/15/2014
Project Rankings
# I DT Parking Garage $10-20 million
#2 Community Center $ 35-40 million
#3 City Hall Safety Imprv. $ 11 .5 million
$ 56.5 - 71 .5 million
Project Rankings
#4 Bayview Park $ 4 million
#5 Police Station Imprv. $ 1 .6 million
#6 DT Streetscape $ 25 million
$ 30.6 million
2
9/15/2014
Factors in Funding
Approach
One project at a time?
Location of project(s)
Timing of project(s)
Increased operating costs?
Financing Options
o Pay-as-you-go
Limited reserves
Future operating surpluses
Timing of projects impacted
Debt Financing
i
3
9/15/2014
Increased Revenues
Charges for services
Tax revenue increases
Sales tax increase
Business license ordinance overhaul
(New) UUT - utility user tax
Parcel tax
Debt Financing Options
o GO Bonds
o Not currently utilized
o Ad valorem tax
o 2/3 vote needed if for specific project(s)
o $20 million issuance = $100 annually per
$1 million of assessed value of property
Least costly, as it comes with its own
cash flow
i
4
9/15/2014
I
Debt Financing Options (cant.)
o COPs/Lease Revenue Bonds
Based on a lease or Installment Sale
Agreement
Currently utilized by the City
o 2 debt capacity measures:
o Affordability
o Legal capacity
Debt Financing Options (cont.)
CFD Bonds
Non ad-valorem - "any reasonable
basis"
Requires the formation of a
Community Facilities District
2/3 vote required
5
9/15/2014
Debt Financing Options (cont.)
Revenue Bonds
Secured by future revenues of
facility constructed or improved
Does not constitute debt to the City
o Public Private Partnerships
Unique contract with private sector
entities
Next Steps
o Discussion
o Confirm Priority Ranking
o Discuss the number of projects to be
pursued at this time
Discuss possible/appropriate funding
options
o Authority to procure a Financial Advisor
6
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
BURLINGAME
Agenda Item 10b
Staff Report Meeting Date: 9/15/14
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 15, 2014
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (650) 558-7222
Subject:
Consideration of a Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserves
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the report, "A Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve
Requirements for the City of Burlingame", and discuss the parameters for a General Fund Reserve Policy.
BACKGROUND
In refining the City's goals for the 2014-15 fiscal year, the City Council revised the overarching goal of
sustaining long-term financial strength to include the addition of strong reserve policies. Specifically, the
Council articulated a strategy to "develop a policy for reserves that addresses how much to reserve and for
which events", and established two tasks to support that strategy:
1. Conduct research into options, including a review of other cities' practices
2. Prepare policy for Council's review and adoption
Especially in light of the economic downtown beginning in 2009, the consequent use of reserves, and the need
to fund increasingly large pension and retiree medical benefits, many cities have struggled with the question of
how to appropriately size reserves. Maintenance of adequate reserves is key to a city's ability to deal with
potential emergencies and unforeseen events such as unanticipated dips in revenues, natural disasters,
unbudgeted asset replacements or other expenditure increases. As such, reserves are a critical element of
effective financial management. In addition, California cities have a challenge not shared by many of their non
-California counterparts, in that they have limited ability to raise taxes when events would normally dictate the
need. Because of this added inflexibility, local governments in California need to take extra precautions in
their long-term financial planning, and be especially vigilant about the maintenance of appropriate reserves.
In recent years, the City of Burlingame has aggressively set aside funds (as an assignment of General Fund
balance) to allow for the prefunding of the liability associated with retiree health insurance. With initial funding
of $6.6 million in October 2013, retiree medical benefits earned by past and current employees are now being
funded through monthly contributions to an irrevocable trust fund established specifically for this purpose.
However, these contributions largely represent past commitments, and add a significant burden to the City's
current budget. Even though the General Fund budget for fiscal year 2014-15 provides a slight operating
surplus, the continued existence of critical yet unfunded capital projects indicates that the budget cannot be
City of Burlingame Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/9/2014
Powered by Leg starT"
considered sustainable for the long term. It is under this backdrop that a rigorous analysis was launched to
determine the optimal amount of reserves needed as a hedge against future uncertainties and loss.
In March 2014, the City contracted with the Research and Consulting Center of the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA)for assistance in conducting a risk-based analysis of its General Fund reserve
levels. GFOA has developed a distinctive risk-based approach to analyzing reserves that takes into account
specific risk conditions faced by a local government and the attendant need to mitigate risk by holding
reserves. In addition, the GFOA has a large data-base of municipal financial information for comparison
purposes,and is a promulgator of best practices in governmental financial planning and policy development.
DISCUSSION
GFOA worked with the City to identify risks to the City's financial condition that could be mitigated by holding
reserves. Not surprisingly,GFOA found that the most important risks were volatility in transient occupancy tax
and sales tax revenues, coupled with a susceptibility to regional earthquakes. Secondary risks such as debt,
pension liabilities,and exposure to lawsuits were also assessed. GFOA then applied principles for making
decisions under uncertainty to these risks. The objective of the analysis was to estimate an ideal amount of
General Fund reserves that would provide the City with an adequate hedge against the risks it faced, without
holding excessive reserves. This amount was also compared to the amounts held by comparable
governments.
The intent is for the City to utilize GFOA's recommendation to develop a General Fund reserve policy, and
possibly other fiscal policies that support the City's long-range financial planning processes. The chart below
compares the City's estimated General Fund reserves(based on the revised fiscal year 2013-14 budget)as
they would be reported if the GFOA's recommended reserve targets are applied.
General Fund Balance Assignments
FY 12-13 Actual FY 13-14 GFOA Recommendations
Results Revised
Risk Averse Less Averse
Economic Stability Reserve $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $12,300,000 $12,300,000
Catastrophic Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,600,000 1,200,000
OPEB Retiree Health Reserve 4,800,000
General Plan Reserve 0 500,000
Contingency Reserve 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
Subtotal,Assigned Fund 12,300,000 900,000 17,400,000 14,000,000
Balance
Add:Unassigned Fund Balance 7,429,633 9,324,268 924,268 4,324,268
otal,Ending Fund Balance $19,729,633 $18,324,268 $18,324,268 $18,324,268
The GFOA analysis suggests an Economic Stability Reserve of over twice the amount currently held in the
City's assignment of General Fund balance for this purpose. This is due largely to the volatile nature of the
City of Burlingame Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/9/2014
powered by Leglstarr-
City's top revenue categories, as well as a set-aside amount for pension increases during an economic
decline. The reserve suggested as a Catastrophic Reserve for extreme events is similarly higher. This
amount would be available to mitigate the impact of damage from a major earthquake, as well as the
possibility of adverse legal claims for which the City is self-insured.
If GFOA's recommendations are applied by increasing the assignments to General Fund balance as shown,
the City would still report between $900,000 and $4.3 million in unassigned fund balance. Unassigned fund
balance is defined as funds "available for appropriation" by the City Council in future budgets.
However, throughout the analysis, the GFOA noted several factors that limit the City's financial flexibility, or
leverage:
• Unfunded capital planning requirements
• Limited debt capacity
• Tight operating budget as retiree medical obligations are paid off
Although this limited flexibility may have impacted the various reserve levels suggested by the analysis, GFOA
does not recommend a separate reserve for unfunded capital needs. Capital needs have been identified by
the City, and do not constitute a risk or uncertainty. Hence, it would not be appropriate to establish a reserve
for these capital needs. GFOA instead recommends that the identification of funding strategies for future
capital projects be included in its capital planning. While the GFOA commended the City for its current capital
planning practices, it suggests a written capital asset management policy to formalize these practices, and
included a Sample Asset Management Policy in Appendix 2 of the report. Sinking funds might also be
considered within the City's Capital Projects Fund for specific projects; funding from the General Fund would
be part of the annual budget process.
In summary, the GFOA's analysis found the City's reserves to be adequate as a hedge for unexpected losses
from events such as natural disasters and economic downturns. A General Fund Reserve Policy should be
developed to articulate the City's strategy for managing risks through financial reserves. Though the City will
not be in an untenable position should an unexpected loss occur, current reserves are not adequate to fund
identified capital needs. Therefore, the City will need to find other sources of funding to complete these
projects, and establish strategies for the replacement and renewal of key public facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT
Although there is no fiscal impact in the application of this risk-based analysis of the City's reserves, a General
Fund reserve policy based on this approach will enhance ongoing efforts toward a sustainable budget that will
withstand uncertain economic times in the long term.
Exhibit:
1. A Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve Requirements for the City of Burlingame. GFOA.
August 2014.
City of Burlingame Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/9/2014
powered by Legistar'®
The Government Finance Officers Association
A Risk- Based Analysis of
General Fund Reserve
Requirements for the Cityof
Burlingame
August 2014
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary..............................................................................................................................................2
Section1-Introduction......................................................................................................................................6
Section2-The Approach to Uncertainty......................................................................................................7
Section 3-Analysis of the City's Primary Risks..........................................................................................8
A.Revenue Volatility.................................................................................................................................8
B.Public Safety and Earthquakes............................................................................................................19
Section 4-Secondary Risk Factor Analysis................................................................................................19
Growth....................................................................................................................................................19
Expenditure Volatility-Legal Claims......................................................................................................20
Liquidity...................................................................................................................................................20
Dependency of Other Funds on the General Fund.................................................................................20
CapitalProjects........................................................................................................................................21
Leverage..................................................................................................................................................22
Section5-Recommendations.........................................................................................................................25
A.Review of Risk Factors and Holistic Analysis.......................................................................................25
B.Recommended Reserve Target for Burlingame..................................................................................27
C.Policies to Support the General Fund Reserve Strategy.....................................................................30
Appendix 1-General Fund Reserve Policy...............................................................................................33
Appendix 2-Sample Asset Management Policy......................................................................................33
Page 1 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Executive Summary
Reserves are the cornerstone of financial flexibility. Reserves provide a government with options for
responding to unexpected issues and a buffer against shocks and other forms of risk. Managing reserves,
however,can be a challenge.The main question is how much money to maintain in reserve—how much
is enough and when does it become too much?This is a sensitive question,since money held in reserves
is money taken away from programs that benefit the community,and it could be argued that excessive
reserves should be returned to citizens.
The City of Burlingame(the "City") has been considering this question and has engaged the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA)to analyze its General Fund reserve requirements based on an
assessment of the City's risks compelling it to require a reserve.This report is intended to inform the
policy the City might adopt on how much fund balance to retain in the General Fund as a reserve against
risk.
The GFOA analyzed a variety of distinct risk factors to judge its implications for the City's reserve
strategy.Analyzing risks and,consequently, sizing a reserve requires estimating highly uncertain events,
like natural disasters and economic downturns.To develop an adequate response, GFOA used the
"Triple-A"approach:
• Accept. First we must accept that we are subject to uncertainty, including events that we have
not even imagined.
• Assess. Next,we must assess the potential impact of the uncertainty. Historical reference cases
are a useful baseline.
• Augment.The range of uncertainty we really face will almost always be greater than we assess
it to be,so we should augment that range. Historical reference cases provide a baseline, but
that baseline may not be adequate to account for all future possibilities.
After analyzing the risks using the Triple-A approach,GFOA stepped back from the individual risk factors
to consider how the risk analysis leads to a coherent overall strategy for managing risks through
financial reserves.
Below is a review of the risk factors that influenced GFOA's recommendation,which is followed by a
summary of how GFOA arrived at an overall recommendation for reserves.
Primary Risk Factor-Revenue Volatility.GFOA's analysis shows that transient occupancy tax(TOT)and
sales tax revenues are volatile and that the City's other revenue sources also can be fairly unpredictable.
An analysis of the past history and application of the Triple-A approach for the transient occupancy tax
and the sales tax show that it would be prudent for the City to be prepared to address a potential 33
percent decline in sales tax,a 40 percent decline in TOT, and that the City should be prepared for a 6
percent decline in its other revenues.
Primary Risk Factor–Public Safety and Extreme Events. Burlingame is subject to a number of public
safety risks, but GFOA focused on the risk of earthquakes,since seismic activity seems to be the most
plausible cause of extreme events for which the City is at risk. Major earthquakes are not a frequent
Page 2 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
event,and fiscal data regarding prior experiences is scarce. The GFOA was able to gather some data
points from cities affected by the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. However, a higher risk multiplier is
appropriate when dealing with smaller sample sizes,and the variation of possible impacts yields a wider
range in the reserve recommendation. As a result, a potential range of reserves from about$170,000 to
$2.6 million was derived for this risk factor.
Secondary Risk Factor-Legal Claims-The City carries workers'compensation and tort liability
insurance. However,the City is self-insured for employer practices liability,various forms of statutory
liability,and for cases subject to exceptions in coverage under existing insurance. Some of these cases
could present large, unanticipated demands on the General Fund,and it is impossible to predict with
accuracy when such cases could arise. It is therefore prudent to set aside a standing reserve of$1
million to$2 million from which the City may litigate or settle such cases.
Secondary Risk Factor-Debt.The City does not have an especially high amount of debt. However, it
does have enough debt such that,when coupled with the City's number of important capital
investment needs, spare debt capacity will likely not be a source of future financial flexibility for the City.
While there is not a specific dollar amount of reserves that is necessary to hold,the City's overall reserve
strategy will need to take into account this limitation on the City's financial flexibility.
Secondary Risk Factor—Pensions and OPEB. The City is part of CalPERS and makes annual
contributions to support its pension obligations.The City will in the future have a series of inevitable
increases in its annually required contributions.While this does not constitute a "risk" (because it is a
foreseen occurrence and can be estimated),the possibility of increasing pension costs during an
economic downturn is a risk. Hence, a reserve of$400,000 can help the City meet its pension obligations
in the event of a revenue downturn. GFOA also considered the impact of Other Post-Employment
Benefits(OPEB).The City does not need to create a reserve for OPEB because the City has already
invested a substantial amount in an irrevocable trust specifically for retiree medical costs(the fund is
administered by CaIPERS). This trust requires the City to make significant annual contributions from its
budget,which does constrain the financial flexibility of the City.This reduced flexibility makes reserves
more important for other risks,where reserves are an appropriate mitigation strategy.
Recommendations.As described in the preceding paragraphs,there are implied reserve amounts'for
each risk identified.The table below summarizes the results of the risk analysis for each risk factor and
adds to it a "contingency reserve"that the City has already established for itself.
Hence, the City should choose a reserve target for its General Fund between$14.0 million and$17.4
million to cover the risks addressed in this analysis. This equates to a reserve equal to about 28
percent and 34 percent of the City's General Fund revenues,respectively.
'Targets have been rounded to nearest"whole" numbers for ease of use in polity making.Also,see the main body
of the report for a discussion of the independence of the risk factors and the implication for sizing the reserve.
Page 3 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Category Comment Risk Averse Less Risk
Amount Averse
Amount
Economic Stability Encompasses the risks of "revenue volatility' and $12.3 million $12.3 million
"pension cost increases during a revenue decline"
Catastrophic Reserve3 Encompasses the risks of"extreme events and public $4.6 million $1 .2 million
safety" and "expenditure spike due to lawsuits or
adverse litigation"
Contingency Reserve 4 Not included in the risk analysis, as this is an annual $500,000 $500,000
budget management tool, not a risk
TOTAL $17.4 million $14 million
Percent of General Fund 2013 Revenues 34% 28%
To help the City pick a target within the range of reserve targets provided by GFOA, the City should
consider three factors that are relevant to sizing a reserve:
• Government size: As a smaller municipality, Burlingame will generally have more vulnerability to
risk because it has a less diverse tax base, less diverse geography than a larger municipality
might have, and less diverse resources to draw upon than a much larger City. This suggests a
reserve at the higher end of the range.
• Borrowing capacity: The City does have significant debt and has some important unfunded
capital needs to consider. Hence, the City has less financial flexibility than municipalities with
less debt and/or outstanding capital asset acquisition requirements. This suggests that should
the City need access to capital, it does not have the capability to assume more risk with lesser
reserves since debt will not provide an attractive alternative method of financial flexibility if the
City needs to access it.
• TOT volatility. GFOA's analysis of TOT volatility shows that the City experienced a 45 percent
annual decline in TOT revenues in the wake of the dot.com bust. For various reasons described
in the report GFOA did not augment this historical experience and suggest that the City prepare
for more than a 45 percent decline. Instead, more recent history was used to suggest preparing
for a 40 percent decline. While this approach does not seem imprudent, it may behoove the City
to focus on the higher end of the suggested range of reserve targets.
• Peer cities. An analysis of peer cities conducted by GFOA shows that choosing a reserve at either
end of the range would not be out of line with the reserves held by peer cities.
To zero in on a final reserve target GFOA recommends that the City of Burlingame's City Council and
staff have a conversation about their risk appetite. A low risk appetite should suggest that a reserve
closer to 34 percent for the General Fund would be safer for the City. If the City has a higher risk
appetite it would adopt a reserve target closer to 28 percent. The City could also adopt a target between
2 The sum of $11.9 million (revenue volatility) and $400,000 (pensions) for the risk averse and less risk averse
columns
3 The sum of $2.6 million (extreme events) and $2 million (legal claims) for the risk averse column and $170,000
(extreme events) and $1 million (legal claims) for the less risk averse column.
4 Reflects existing practice of Burlingame for 2012 — 2013 actual
Page 4 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
these two poles.However,the bullet points above suggest that Burlingame should pick a target towards
the higher end of the range.
Page 5 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Section 1 - Introduction
Reserves are the cornerstone of financial flexibility. Reserves provide a government with options to
respond to unexpected issues and afford a buffer against shocks and other forms of risk. Managing
reserves,though, can be a challenge. Foremost, is the question of how much money to maintain in
reserve? How much is enough,and when does a reserve become too much?This can be a sensitive
question because money held in reserve is money taken from programs for the community,and the
argument could be made that excessive reserves should be returned to residents in the form of lower
taxes or additional services.
The City of Burlingame has been considering this question recently, especially in light of the volatility of
its revenue portfolio,the area's vulnerability to earthquakes,and the City's many ongoing obligations.
The City engaged the GFOA to help produce a recommendation.GFOA is a non-profit association of over
17,000 state and local government finance professionals and elected officials from across North
America.A key part of GFOA's mission is to promote best practices in good public finance, including
reserve policies.
GFOA's approach to reserves does not suppose "one-size-fits-all."GFOA's"Best Practice" on general
fund reserves recommends,at a minimum,that general-purpose governments, regardless of size,
maintain unrestricted fund balance in their general fund of no less than two months of regular general
fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures(i.e., reserves equal to about 16
percent of revenues).s However,this 16 percent is only intended as a baseline, and it needs to be
adjusted according to local conditions.To make the adjustment,GFOA worked with the City to conduct
an analysis of the risks that influence the need for reserves as a hedge against uncertainty and loss.
A"risk" is defined as the probability and magnitude of a loss, disaster,or other undesirable event 6 The
GFOA's framework of risk assessment is based on the risk management cycle: identify risks; assess risks;
identify risk mitigation approaches; assess expected risk reduction; and select and implement mitigation
methods.The framework focuses primarily on risk retention,or using reserves,to manage risk.
However,the framework also encourages the City to think about how other risk management methods
might alleviate the need to retain risk by building up larger fund balances. In other words, can the City
manage its risks in some other way besides holding a reserve? Hence,a thorough examination of the risk
factors should not only help lead to a customized reserve target size, but also improve the City's
understanding of the risks it faces and its overall financial risk profile.
As a first step to this project,GFOA conducted a basic review of the risk factors that generally influence
the amount of reserves a municipal government should hold 7 This review enabled the City and GFOA to
classify factors as primary risks or as secondary risks. Exhibit 1.1 lists how the risk factors were classified.
s GFOA Best Practice. "Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund."GFOA.2009.
c Definition of risk taken from:Douglas W. Hubbard. The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to
Fix It.John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken,New Jersey. 2009.
7 The risk factors and basic review method were developed and published in the GFOA publication:Shayne C.
Kavanagh.Financial Policies.(Government Finance Officers Association:Chicago,IL)2012.
Page 6 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 1.1 — Categorization of Risk Factors that Influence Reserve levels for Burlingame
Primary Risk Factor
Revenue Volatility articular) transient occupancy tax and sales tax
Vulnerability to Extreme Events and Public Safety Concerns articular) earthquakes)
Secondary Risk Factors
Dependency of Other Funds on the General Fund Capital Projects
Leverage Expenditure Volatility
Liquidity / Cash Flow Growth of the Community
The rest of this report is composed of the following sections:
• Section 2 - The Approach to Uncertainty. Risks are, by definition, uncertain events. This section
describes the "Triple-A" approach to analyzing and planning for uncertain events. The Triple-A
approach was used to analyze the risk factors described in Exhibit 1.1. The Triple-A approach is
described in detail in Section 2.
• Section 3 - Analysis of the City's Primary Risks. This section analyzes the risk posed by revenue
volatility, particularly in sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes. This section also addresses
risks the City faces from catastrophic natural events such as earthquakes, and the reserves
needed to be able to respond effectively.
• Section 4 - Secondary Risk Factor Analysis. This section reviews secondary risk factors that have
less weighty implications for the City's General Fund reserve strategy.
• Section 5 - Recommendations. This final section of the report presents the conclusion of the
analysis. It addresses a target reserve level for the City's General Fund and provides other
suggestions to improve the financial health of the City and to support a sustainable reserve
strategy.
Section 2 - The Approach to Uncertainty
Risks are inherently uncertain. The accomplished forecasting scientist, Spyros Makridakis, suggests a
"Triple-A" approach for dealing with highly uncertain phenomena.8
1. Accept. First we must accept that we are subject to uncertainty. For example, our analysis of
sales tax shows that it is subject to relatively little seasonal variation (see Section 3); however, it
is clearly subject to uncertainty from the economic cycles and other factors that could interrupt
economic activity in Burlingame. Because it is relatively easy to imagine scenarios that could
cause the Bay Area economy or San Francisco's tourism industry to suffer, we must also accept
that Burlingame's financial position is subject to additional potentially dangerous unknowns that
we cannot imagine.
2. Assess. Next, we must assess the potential impact of the uncertainty. Past history can provide a
useful reference point. To illustrate, later in this report we will review the degree of fluctuation
Burlingame has experienced with its sales tax revenue and transient occupancy taxes (TOT).
8 See: Spyros Makridakis, Robin Hogarth, and Anil Gaba. Dance with Chance: Making Luck Work for You. (Oneworld
Publications: Oxford, England). 2009.
Page 7 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
3. Augment.The range of uncertainty we actually face will almost always be greater than what we
assess it to be, so we should augment that range. For example,we will later see in Section 3 that
the City experienced an 18 percent decline in TOT in the wake of the Great Recession. Hence, if
were to look just at that data, we could conclude that an 18 percent decline was a reasonable
"worst case scenario" given the severity of the Great Recession. However, it is not difficult to
imagine the City experiencing an unanticipated event that causes a more dramatic decline in the
TOT than occurred during the Great Recession - in fact, as we will see later in this report,the
City experienced a much greater decline in the aftermath of the "dot.com" bust. Hence, it would
be prudent to augment our expectations of uncertainty to account for more than an 18 percent
decline in TOT revenues. Makridakis suggests a mathematical rule-of-thumb to guide this
augmentation. If you have used relatively little historical data to assess the degree of
uncertainty, he suggests doubling your assessed amount of uncertainty. If you have used more
historical data,the multiplier need only be 1.5.
We will refer to the Triple-A approach and its guidelines throughout the analysis.
Section 3 - Analysis of the City's Primary Risks
This section presents the analysis of the City's primary risks—the volatility of its revenue portfolio and
public safety concerns arising from earthquakes and other natural catastrophic events.Sub-section "A"
will address revenue volatility, and "B" will address catastrophic events.
A. Revenue Volatility
The City of Burlingame's General Fund relies primarily on three revenue sources: property taxes,
transient occupancy taxes(TOT), and sales taxes.As Exhibit 3.1 shows, these three comprise just under
80 percent of all of the City's General Fund revenues since 2005. Generally, in local government finance,
property taxes have a reputation for
being fairly stable, and that appears to Exhibit 3.1—Relative Share of General Fund Revenues
since 2005
be true of property taxes in Burlingame
as well. Since 2005, property tax Other,12.6% Property Tax,
revenues have increased by as much as 29.4%
11.0 percent year-over-year and Fees,9.2%
decreased by only 0.3 percent,for a
total range of 11.3 percentage points.9
This contrasts sharply with sales tax and
TOT. Since 2005, sales tax revenues
have increased by as much as 28.1 TOT,
percent year-over-year and decreased 28.5% Sales Tax,
by as much as 23.9 percent,for a total 20.3
range of 52 percentage points.TOT Property taxes, sales taxes, and TOT are the three most
imporant revenues in the General Fund
9 Property tax revue data was adjusted to eliminate the impact of the State's borrowing of local property taxes
(Prop 1A)in 2009.The revenues were repaid in 2012.
Page 8 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
revenues have increased by as much as 20.7 percent and declined by as much as 9.9 percent year-over-
year,resulting in a range of 30.6 percentage points10(the next section explains some of the factors
underlying these swings). Hence,understanding revenue volatility in the City s entire General Fund
revenue portfolio must start with understanding volatility in TOT and sales taxes in particular.We will
examine these revenues in the next two subsections and then return to the City's General Fund revenue
portfolio as a whole in the third subsection.
Transient Occupancy Tax.Since 2005,the City has received,on average,about$11.9 million per year
from TOT.However,in recent years TOT has become the City's most important revenue source,
eclipsing even the property tax.In fiscal year 2013 the City received about$18.2 million from TOT,
compared to$15.4 million from property taxes and about$9.2 million from sales taxes. In fiscal year
2005,the City only received a bit over$8 million in TOT.Rising TOT revenue is primarily due to two
factors.First is the increasing demand for hotel rooms in Burlingame:the average occupancy rate has
been climbing steadily from under 70 percent in late 2008 to around 85 percent in 2013,and average
room rates have increased with demand.Second is a 20 percent increase in the TOT rate(from 10
percent to 12 percent)that was effective as of January 1,2010.New hotel rooms were last added to the
City in 2003 and 2004,but this only added about 200 rooms to the approximately 3,500 existing rooms—
hence,the rise in revenues cannot be attributed to new supplies of rooms.
One particularly striking illustration of the steady upward rise of TOT is what happened during the
aftermath of the Great Recession.From 2008 to 2010,the City's sales tax revenues declined about 34
percent,while during the same period TOT only declined by 18 percent(after removing the effect of the
TOT rate increase)."Even though the effect of the rate increase is removed,the increase in TOT
revenues has been impressive—TOT revenues are 80 percent greater in 2013 than they were in 2005.By
way of comparison,sales tax revenues are only 8 percent greater over the same period.12
Another interesting feature of the TOT is that it has taken on a distinct seasonal pattern.Exhibit 3.2 plots
monthly revenues as the blue line. The blue line shows that the low point in the City's TOT revenue
occurs in December,after which it ascends rapidly to reach a high point in October.As the exhibit
shows,this pattern has been pronounced for the last few years.
10 Adjusted for a TOT rate increase that is discussed in greater detail later in the main text.
"TOT declined about 8%during the period when the effects of the rate increase are not removed.
12 Note that GFOA is assuming that the changes in the TOT rate had no impact on demand for hotel rooms in
Burlingame.
Page 9 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 3.2 — Burlingame's TOT Monthly Revenues and Trend Cycle (July 2007 — November 2013)
$2,500,000
-- -- —-- ---- ---— --- - --- ----- -—— -- -
$2,000,000 - ---
$1,500,000
A TNA
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0 - r---r - ---- - -r-------
59, ob o� o� do do ;No titi titi ;Nti titi titi ti3 ti�
�aJ O`w bac PJo; NaP Nip �o4 PQc �eQ �ep
Monthly TOT Trend-Cycle
The City's TOT revenues have enjoyed a steady upward trend over the past few years.
Exhibit 3.2 also includes, as the red line, the "trend-cycle." As the name implies, a trend-cycle line is
intended to show longer term trends and the impact of business cycles by smoothing out seasonal (i.e.,
monthly) variation. The trend-cycle line is calculated by using a 12-month "centered moving average." A
12-month centered moving average defines the average value for a given month as the mean of that
month plus the six months before, plus the five months after. So, for example, in Exhibit 3.2 the moving
average for January 2011 would be an average of August 2010 through July 2011. February 2011 would
be an average of September 2010 through August 2011, and so on. In Exhibit 3.2, the trend-cycle goes
sharply and consistently upwards after taking a small dip from 2008 to 2009.
Exhibit 3.3 duplicates Exhibit 3.2 but illustrates the trend-cycle that emerges once the impact of the 20
percent rate increase (effective January 1, 2010) is removed from the data. As the Exhibit shows, the
lines are somewhat lower, but follow the same general pattern as Exhibit 3.2.
Page 10 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 3.3—TOT Monthly Revenues and Trend Cycle Modified to Remove Tax Rate Increase
$2,500,000
$2,000,000 - --- --- ---
$1,500,000 �- t
T
$1,000,000 +
'7
v + f
$500,000
$0 .. T-- -- TT—r__—
o� �o� `Ao, Ay c o c o ,tio ttiti titititi J\1ti `titi X13 `sti3
It baa po �`a
Actual Monthly TOT Trend-Cycle -- -ModifedMonthlyTOT — — Modified Trend-Cycle
Even with the 20%tax rate increase removed, the City's TOT revenue hs followed a steady upward
trajectory.
While this steady upward trend is certainly good for Burlingame's financial position,the available
historical monthly data does not give us a great sense of what the potential for a decline in the TOT
might be, because it does not include the post-2001 dot.com bust recession.
Annual TOT data,as shown in Exhibit 3.4, does provide some insight into the 2001 period.The City
experienced a prodigious 44 percent decline in TOT revenues from 2001 to 2002,which then declined
further in 2003, amounting to over a 50 percent decline from 2001 to 2003.
Interestingly, when inflation-adjusted to 2013 dollars,TOT revenues in 2001 were $18.2 million,the
same as 2013 actual revenues. Revenues(in 2013 dollars)fell to$10 million in 2002.
Preparing for about a 45 percent decline would represent a replication of the 2001 experiences. Of
course,the San Francisco area economy is not the same as it was in 2001, but the historical data does
give us a sense of what is possible. The 18 percent reduction that occurred during the more recent
downturn might be more representative of what is probable in the current economic environment.
Notwithstanding, the Triple-A approach tells us that we should increase our expectations for
uncertainty. From this perspective, a reasonable strategy may be to plan for a 40 percent decline. It
would be about double the decline experienced in the Great Recession,which is in line with the Triple-A
Page 11 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
approach of doubling expectations of uncertainty when looking at a small number of data points (i.e.,
one recession).This would be in line with the actual decline in the wake of the dot.com bust, as well. It
would also be consistent with some of the fluctuations in occupancy rates experienced more recently,
which were as low as 66 percent in early 2009 and as high as 85 percent in mid-2013 (a twenty
percentage point difference,which we'd then double under the Triple A rule).13 A 40 percent decline
amounts to about$7.5 million based on the City's 2013/14 adopted budget.
Exhibit 3.4—Annual TOT Revenues, Nominal Dollars
20,000,000
18,000,000 — —--- -- -- - -- --
16,000,000 --- — ----- . ..-- -
14,000,000 -- — -
12,000,000 -- --
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000 --
4,000,000
2,000,000 - -- -
ti0 �°P�1�°�1CP y�°w�0 x.63 SCS, 66ti 4P�4zp AQP �(P�d'��d'���'�-°ti° titip
TOT revenues dropped significantly after the dot.com bust.
Average Daily Room Rate (ADR)
ADR in the San Francisco/San Mateo area is at record highs according to data from Smith Travel
Research. In fact,the pattern of room rates in the region basically mirrors Exhibit 3.4—a drop after the
dot.com bust followed by a steady rise (with a recessionary speed bump in 2008/2009). Record high
room rates, coupled with the very high occupancy rates of hotels in Burlingame, means that the high
growth that Burlingame has seen in TOT will likely level off in the foreseeable future.
13 There would,of course, be a corresponding downward pressure on room rates,which would further bite into
the City's TOT revenue. Hence,an application of the Triple-A rule would account for the relatively short period of
history from which we are drawing these occupancy figures,and the additional uncertainty around room rates that
would become relevant in the case of a declining local hotel market.
Page 12 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Sales Tax.Since 2005 the City has received,on average, about$8.5 million per year from sales taxes,
making it the City's third most important source of revenue. The relative proportion of the sales tax has
not changed much from 2005 to 2013, with annual revenues of$9.2 million in 2013 and $8.5 million in
2012. Unlike the TOT,the sales tax does not appear to have a strong seasonal component—in fact,the
impact of seasonal forces appears to be over three times greater in the TOT than in sales taxes.14
Upon examining the City's tax base, this lack of seasonal variation is, perhaps, not surprising. Since 2001,
just over a one-third of the City's sales tax revenue has been generated by automotive and
transportation sales. Sales taxes generated by purchases of general consumer goods have also
traditionally been important, currently at just over 17 percent of sales tax revenues since 2001. Other
major categories include restaurants and hotels and business to business sales. None of these sources
of sales tax revenue have the seasonal variation one might normally associate with traditional retail
sales. Even the City's general consumer retail category doesn't exhibit much seasonal variation.This is
likely because Burlingame has more consistent year-round activity,and is not a destination for a heavy
volume of holiday shopping,for example.While seasonal variation does not appear to be a major force
impacting the sales tax, business cycles clearly are. Exhibit 3.5 shows sales tax quarterly revenue (blue
line) overlaid with the 12-month moving average trend-cycle (red line). The reader may recall the
explanation of the trend cycle line from earlier in this report—it serves to average out seasonal variation
in order to provide a clearer picture of the long-term trend. Exhibit 3.5 shows two major cycles.The first
is the very beginning of the "dot.com" bubble burst in the 2001 recession and the second is the 2008
"Great Recession."The dot.com bubble burst saw a decline of about 21 percent in the trend cycle from
the end of 2000 to the middle of 2002.The Great Recession resulted in a decrease in the trend cycle of
about 24 percent from the middle of 2007 to the end of 2009. The green arrows on Exhibit 3.5 note the
high and low points for these figures.
14 Determined using a statistical technique called "multiplicative decomposition"which separates seasonal,
cyclical,and the random elements of a revenue trend.
Page 13 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 3.5—Burlingame's Quarterly Sales Tax Revenues and The Trend Cycle('00 Q2—'13 Q4)
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000 tv V V I
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
o-� o-, o-, o-, (Y CP 0� o-, 0ti 0� 0� <Y 0� 0�
I(Z ` .O� ,OHO OIN ,O�
Monthly Sales Tax Trend-Cycle
The City's sales tax revenues are strongly impacted by cyclical forces, having experienced over a 20%
decline in the wake of both the dot.com bust and the Great Recession.
When considering the vulnerability of the City's sales tax base to shifts in the economy, we must also
consider the composition of the sales tax base.As mentioned earlier, a large portion of the base is made
up of sales in automotive and transportation, which has comprised almost 40 percent of the City's sales
taxes historically.Other important categories within sales tax include general consumer goods,
restaurants and hotels, and business and industry. Exhibit 3.6 shows the trend cycle line for sales tax
receipts for each of these categories.As the chart shows, automotive and transportation fell significantly
in the wake of the Great Recession—by almost one-third. General consumer goods and business and
industry also saw important reductions—by over 20 percent. These three revenues make about three-
quarters of the City's sales tax base.
Conversely, sales tax revenues from restaurants and hotels barely decreased. Not shown on Exhibit 3.6
are the City's other sources of sales tax(comprising just over 13 percent of all sales taxes),which also
did not exhibit very large declines in the wake of the Great Recession.These other sources include
categories such as"food and drugs" and "fuel and service stations" which traditionally tend to have
more stable demand. Regardless, it appears that around three-quarters of the City's sales tax base is
likely to be significantly impacted by a recessionary event.
Page 14 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 3.6—Burlingame's Quarterly Trend Cycle in Sales Taxes from Categories of Major Sales Tax
Producers('00 Q2—'14 Q4)
$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
0, 6ti a° 0- 6 0. U 0- (3i0- U 0� 0ti ati
16 p� .p3 (Z ` ,ph 1-rD 1p1 p1 •O`b p°� .tip ,p yy yL 11y''5
Autos and Transportation Business and Industry
General Consumer goods Restaurants and hotels
The "Autos and Transportion"category is the City's largest and dropped significantly during the Great
Recession. Other imporant categories dropped significantly as well. Hence, a larger portion (about 75%)
of the City's sales tax producers is vulnerable to economic dislocations.
To conclude the analysis, it appears that the sales tax has significant vulnerability to economic
dislocations. The City experienced about a 22 percent decline in the sales tax in both the wake of the
2001 dot.com bust and the 2008 Great Recession. Given that we have examined over ten years of data,
the Triple-A approach suggests a lower risk multiplier(1.5x)when preparing for future downturns, which
suggests that we might prepare for a downturn to have as much as a 33 percent negative impact in the
sales tax,which equates to about$3.1 million based on the 2013/14 adopted budget.
Long Term Prospects of the Sales Tax
Though not directly related to "volatility," it is worth noting that the sales tax is subject to factors that
negatively impact the long-term prospects for growth of the sales tax, such as: changing social
/demographic preferences that shift purchases of tangible taxable goods to non-taxable services;
technology advancements that not only reduce costs of goods but also convert tangible personal
property to non-taxable e-transfers; a loss of middle skilled/income jobs,which reduces purchasing
power; and e-commerce,which tends to shift allocation of local taxes from point of sale to the
fulfillment centers where orders are placed. is
is Source: presentation made by HdL to Sacramento Valley Chapter of CSMFO,October 2013)
Page 15 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Other Revenues.The foregoing subsections have made it clear that the TOT and sales tax have
significant potential for volatility that the City should prepare for. However, in order to determine a
dollar amount that the City should reserve in its General Fund in the event of revenue volatility, we must
consider its other revenues as well.The other revenues, as a group, tend to act as a moderately
stabilizing force on the City's General Fund revenue portfolio.The property tax is, by far, the largest of
the City's revenues besides TOT, and is also relatively stable. Since 2005, property taxes revenues have
increased by as much as 11.0 percent year-over-year and decreased by only 0.3 percent,for a total
range of 11.3 percentage points. By way of comparison, the City's total General Fund revenue, with
property tax excluded, has decreased by as much as 14.3 percent and increased by as much as 16.2
percent. Outside of the property tax, the City's other General Fund revenues have declined since 2005
when they were$8.9 million to$8.5 million in 2013. The average year-over-year absolute change in
these revenues has been relatively mild at 7.5 percent(i.e., the annual percentage change has been 7.5
percent regardless of whether it is an increase or a decrease). However, this is only mild when compared
to sales and TOT, which all have greater average annual changes. When one considers the entire City
General Fund revenue portfolio,the average absolute annual change is 7.8 percent year-over-year.
Exhibit 3.7 shows the actual revenues for the City's major revenue categories for the General Fund.
Exhibit 3.8 shows the year-to-year percent changes for each revenue category for the General Fund.
Both exhibits also include total figures that exclude TOT and sales taxes in order to better illustrate the
behaviors of the rest of the City's revenue portfolio.16 These exhibits further illustrate that Burlingame
experiences significant volatility in its General Fund revenues.
Volatility of Investment Income
In Exhibit 3.8, the reader may notice some of the extreme changes that occur in investment income over
the analysis period from a 92 percent increase in one year to a 64 percent decrease in another year
(there have been declines greater than 30 percent in 4 of the 9 years analyzed). Cities should be
cautious about funding recurring expenditures from revenues this volatile. Rather, non-recurring uses
might be better. Section 5 of this report discusses financial policies that address this issue.
16 For the sake of consistency, both exhibits include the adjustments that were made to TOT and property tax
revenues that were noted earlier in the report.Therefore,the figures in these tables will not match the figures
found in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.
Page 16 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 3.7-Historical Revenue Yields in the General Fund
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 2011 2012 2013
Property Tax 9,359,960 10,390,458 11,469,225 12,198,306 12,798,399 13,355,639 13,310,194 13,459,642 14,237,873
Sales Tax 8,508,127 8,806,450 9,231,243 9,458,535 8,251,423 6,276,152 8,040,542 8,495,398 9,189,871
Transient Occupancy Tax 8,066,749 9,273,442 10,355,405 11,264,601 10,154,993 9,307,410 10,723,262 12,946,526 14,595,448
Other Taxes 1,860,825 1,842,778 1,899,963 1,981,024 2,012,420 2,158,881 2,415,918 2,582,128 2,969,688
Fees 3,636,987 4,236,992 4,144,757 3,797,156 3,985,710 3,954,470 3,618,259 3,439,921 3,68Q900
Licenses and Permits 815,980 927,010 966,647 1,220,758 298,161 92,371 96,716 99,512 101,753
Fines Forfeitures and Penaltiees 1,010,894 931,472 1,126,809 1,126,528 1,228,594 404,137 967,582 838,614 860,476
Investment Income 782,599 733,625 1,408,232 1,609,529 896,601 618,888 644,379 372,178 133,386
Motor Vehicle 308,004 654,531 190,053 122,270 82,960 107,583 148,089 - -
Intergovernmental 140,410 157,185 182,801 191,273 182,437 173,553 195,238 399,321 404,875
Grants 174,436 159,406 205,024 157,172 139,234 111,200 99,489 - -
Otherrevenues 159,741 267,831 422,869 251,328 159,431 277,562 325,719 443,666 308,603
TOTAL 34,824,712 38,381,180 41,603,028 43,378,480 40,190,363 36,837,846 40,585,387 43,076,906 46,482,873
TOTAL./O TOT&Sales 18,249,836 20,301,285 22,016,380 22,655,344 21,783,947 21,254,284 21,821,583 1 21,634,982 1 22,697,554
Exhibit 3.8-Year-over-Year Percentage Changes in General Fund Revenues
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20111 2012 2013
Property Tax 11.0% 10.49,. 6.491 4.9% 4.4% -0.3%1 1.1% 5.891
Sales Tax 3.5% 4.8% 2.5% -12.8% -23.9% 28.1%1 5.7% 8.2%
Transient Occupancy Tax 15.0% 11.7% 8.8% -9.9% -8.3% 15.2%1 20.7% 12.7%
OtherTaxes -1.0% 3.1% 4.3% 1.69/ 7.3% 11.9%1 6.9% 15.0%
Fees 16.5% -2.2% -8.491 5.0% -0.89, -8.5% -4.9% 7.0%
Licenses and Permits 13.6% 4.3% 26.3% -75.6% -69.091 4.7%1 2.9% 2.3%
Fines Forfeitures and Penaltiees -7.W.1 21.09/. 0.0y.1 9.1% -67.1% 139.4%1_ -13.3% 2.6%
I nvestment Income -6.3%1 92.0% 14.3% -44.3% -31.0% 4.1% -42.2% -64.2%
Motor Vehicle 112.5% -71.091 -35.7% -32.2% 29.7% 37.7% -100.0% NA
Intergovernmental 11.9% 16.3% 4.6% -4.6% -4.9% 12.5% 104.5% 1.491
Grants -8.6% 28.691 -23.3% -11.4% -20.1% -10.59' -100.0% NA
Other revenues 67.7% 57.9% -40.6% -36.6% 74.1% 17.391 36.2% -30.4%
TOTAL 10.2% 8.4% 4.3% -7.3% -8.3% 10.2% 6.1% 7.9%
TOTAL w/o TOT&Sales 11.2% 8.4% 2.91/. -3.8% -2.4% 2.7% .0.9%1 4.9%
Page 17 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
To determine the reserves necessary to counteract volatility in the rest of the revenue portfolio, we
begin with an examination of Exhibit 3.8, which shows that the largest annual decrease in the City's
other revenues (those besides TOT and sales taxes) was in 2009, which witnessed a drop of 3.8 percent
from 2008. Hence, this year should provide a reasonable reference point for the upper limit of
downside risk the City faces in its other revenues. The Triple-A approach to managing uncertainty directs
that we multiply the level of risk suggested by historical reference points. This approach suggests a
multiple of 2.0 if we have little data to draw from and a multiple of 1.5 if we have more data. Since we
have examined almost 10 years of data, including data around the time period of the Great Recession, a
multiple of 1.5 is sufficient. This means the worst downturn the City should plan for in its other General
Fund revenues would be a 5.7 percent decrease (3.8 percent x 1.5). A 5.7 percent decrease equates to
about $1.3 million, based on revenues from the adopted 2013/14 budget.
Conclusion on Revenue Volatility. The preceding sections have analyzed the reserves that might be
necessary to counteract volatility in the City's revenues. Sometimes cities have a certain amount of
cushion built into their budget such that should the municipality experience a decrease in revenues, it
would respond by reducing its budget and not rely on reserves to cover the entire amount of the
reduction. However, the City of Burlingame's management staff estimates that the City's budget is
already as lean as possible and does not have additional Why an "Implied" Reserve Component?
capacity. Given the City's many unfunded capital needs, The reader will notice that the blue
the requirement to continue funding its retiree medical summary boxes for each risk factor refer
obligations, its limited debt capacity (to be discussed in to "implied" reserve components. This is
Section 4), and limited personnel to undertake additional because the amounts described are
projects, the City's resources are already stretched. As implied reserve amounts based on analysis
of that risk factor in isolation. As will be
such, City management believes that a serious decline in addressed later, a final recommended
revenue would potentially create a major disruption to reserve target must consider all of the
services if adequate reserves were not available. Given risks together.
the City's inability to reduce the budget in a manner that does not disrupt services severely, the City
should reserve the $11.9 million ($7.5 million for TOT, $3.1 million for sales taxes, and $1.3 million for
other revenues) as a hedge against budgetary instability.
7- --
Implied Reserve Component for Revenue Volatility
• A reserve of $7.5 million for TOT volatility based on a maximum plausible decline in revenues
of 40 percent.
• A reserve of $3.1 million for sales tax volatility based on a maximum plausible decline in
revenues of 33 percent.
• A reserve of $1.3 million for other General Fund revenues volatility based on a maximum
plausible decline in revenues of 5.7 percent.
• The City currently has a very lean budget. If not for sufficient reserves, a sharp decline in
revenues would create serious disruptions to the City's ability to provide services. As such, the
City should reserve the entire $11.9 million described in the points above and not adjust it
downward.
Page 18 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
B. Public Safety and Earthquakes
Reserves are important for responding quickly and decisively to extreme events, such as natural
disasters. In Burlingame,the type of extreme event that is of greatest concern is earthquakes, but other
types of extreme events are possible, ranging from other natural disasters like a
storm/tsunami/mudslide to man-made
calamities, such as the 2010 San Bruno FEMA and Reserves
natural gas pipeline explosion. While the Federal Emergency Management Agency
reimburses local governments for monies spent in
GFOA focused on the risk of earthquakes response to a federally-declared disaster, the
since that seems to be the most reimbursement is only partial (typically 75 percent) and
does not occur right away.Therefore, local governments
plausible of extreme events for which must have the financial capacity to respond immediately
the City is at risk.The Loma Prieta and decisively, independent of FEMA's financial support.
earthquake in 1989 measured a 6.9 on
the Richter scale and was the last major earthquake that the area experienced for which useful data on
the financial impact on municipalities is available.17 Unfortunately, municipal records dating back to
1989 are not readily available, but GFOA contacted a number of smaller cities in northern California that
were affected by the earthquake. GFOA obtained data from three cities (Morgan Hill, Hollister, and
Menlo Park) on damages they experienced.The amounts spent in response to the earthquake ranged
from $84,000 to$1.3 million in 2014 dollars.The Triple-A approach advises us to use a higher risk
multiplier(2.0x)when we have fewer data points. In this case, we only have three data points, and that
data are over 20 years old, so a higher risk multiplier seems appropriate. That gives us a potential range
of reserves from about$170,000 to$2.6 million.The higher end of the range may be more prudent in
order to account for the impact of other potential extreme events for which we do not have reference
point data.
Implied Reserve Components for Public Safety and Extreme Events
• The data suggests a reserve between $170,000 to$2.6 million for public safety and extreme
events. A$2.6 million reserve might be more prudent given the lack of reference point data
on other extreme events the City could experience.
Section 4 - Secondary Risk Factor Analysis
This section provides an overview of risk factors that have implications for the City's General Fund
reserve strategy, but are less complex or of lower magnitude than the primary risk factors of revenue
volatility and extreme events.
Growth
The City does not expect to experience significant population growth. A downtown renewal project
(primarily landscaping and lighting) on Burlingame Avenue is in progress,though it is primarily catered
toward retail establishments. The City estimates a maximum 1.5 percent annual growth in population;
hence, a reserve to cushion the City's finances against the short-term costs of growth is not necessary.
17 Estimates of damage to public infrastructure and facilities from the most recent earthquake in Napa are not yet
available.
Page 19 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Implied Reserve Component for Growth
• No reserve for growth needed.
Expenditure Volatility - Legal Claims
The City carries workers' compensation and tort liability insurance. However,the City is self-insured for
employer practices liability,various forms of statutory liability, and for cases subject to exceptions in
coverage under existing insurance.Though the City is diligent about managing its risks from lawsuits,
some of these cases could present large, unanticipated demands on the General Fund, and it is
impossible to predict with accuracy when such cases could arise. It is therefore prudent to set aside a
standing reserve of$1 million to $2 million from which the City may litigate or settle such cases.
Implied Reserve Component for Expenditure Volatility
• A reserve between$1 million and $2 million for liabilities.
Liquidity
If the City were to experience a significant gap between the timing of its payables and receivables it
might need a certain amount of working capital to keep in a reserve to cover the risk of a cash shortfall.
However, the City does not experience cash flow problems as a result of timing differences between its
receivables and payables.The City receives its sales tax and TOT revenues monthly, so there is a regular
inflow of cash. Thus, a special reserve for working capital appears unnecessary.
Implied Reserve Component for Liquidity
• No reserve for working capital is needed.
Dependency of Other Funds on the General Fund
As recognized in the City's budget processes, long-term financial planning is not limited to the General
Fund. Although emphasis is placed on the General Fund, the City's other operating funds are also
examined for unfunded liabilities and future vulnerabilities, and adjustments to the budget are made as
needed. To the extent these funds are not self-sustaining, they can indicate a drag on the City's General
Fund operations. If the City's General Fund were responsible for supporting the financial health of other
City operating funds, it would be put at risk by unexpected financial pressures from these other funds. If
this were the case, a reserve might be necessary to hedge against the risk of unanticipated events
impacting other funds, with the ripple effect significantly impacting the General Fund. However, the
City's General Fund does not provide subsidies or transfers to other funds due to a lack of revenue
generated by that fund's individual activities.Therefore, no special reserve is needed.
Implied Reserve Component for Dependency of Other Funds on General Fund
• No reserve for subsidies or transfers of funds is needed.
Page 20 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Capital Projects
Beyond the City's existing, robust capital improvement program (CIP),the City has identified 11 projects
that are currently unfunded, with an estimated total cost between$98.3 million and $113.3 million. By
way of comparison,the City reflects$63.4 million in funded capital projects in its fiscal year 2015 capital
budget, and $131.7 million in capital projects in its capital improvement plan from fiscal year 2015
through fiscal year 2019.18 The most expensive unfunded capital need is the replacement of the 65-year
old Burlingame Community Center,estimated at a cost of$35 million to $40 million.The City also has
needs to further improve the Downtown Burlingame streetscape, construct a downtown parking garage,
and make safety improvements to City Hall. Exhibit 4.1 lists the City's capital needs and estimated costs.
Exhibit 4.1—Burlingame's Capital Needs and Estimated Cost
Project Cost Project Cost
Burlingame Community Center $35-40 million New Parks Yard $3.4 million
Downtown Burlingame Streetsca a $25 million Fire Station Improvements $2.4 million
Downtown Parking Garage $10-20 million Police Station Improvements $2.4 million
City Hall Safety Improvements $11.5 million Aquatic Center Improvements $250,000
Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing $5 million Carriage House Improvements $150,000
New Bayview Park $4 million
The City's approach to prioritizing capital needs, identifying project scope and cost, identifying project
funding, projecting operating and maintenance costs, and maintaining a capital improvement program
plan is consistent with GFOA's recommended approach.19 GFOA does not recommend a specific capital
project reserve amount because the capital budgeting process in Burlingame is already used to identify
what the funding sources for each project should be. If the City wishes to establish a sinking fund that is
funded by general revenues in order to finance a specific project,then that should be a decision
stemming from the budget process. For GFOA to recommend an all-purpose capital reserve would not
represent a strategic approach to capital financing. Hence, no specific amount is suggested for a capital
project reserve. In Section 5, however, GFOA has recommended a policy to establish a sinking fund for
asset renewal and replacement, which would represent a strategic approach to capital financing.
While no capital projects reserve is recommended, the City should adopt a formal capital asset
management policy to formalize the good practices it follows now and to further enhance its capital
planning. A policy should address prioritization of projects and identifying funding strategies. It should
also address regular renewal and replacement of assets,which helps prevent maintenance obligations
from accumulating into a much larger liability. GFOA has included a sample policy in Appendix 2 .
18 The City has many capital projects that are funded.The City's CIP describes the range of projects,including
water,sewer,facilities,street maintenance, parks,etc.
19 GFOA's recommended approach is described in GFOA's"Multi-Year Capital Planning Best Practice"available at
http://www.gfoa.org/multi-year-capital-planning.
Page 21 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Implied Reserve Component for Capital Projects
• No additional reserve is needed, but its capital planning requirements do limit the City's
financial flexibility.
Leverage
Any form of leverage could reduce the City's financial flexibility,thus increasing the need for reserves to
provide some offsetting flexibility. GFOA examined two forms of leverage: outstanding debt and
pension/OPEB.
Outstanding debt.The City has no outstanding general obligation bonds, but has approximately$93
million in debt associated with governmental activities.This includes lease revenue bonds for
improvements to the City's Main Library and Corporation Yard as well as to finance streetscape
improvements to Downtown Burlingame, pension obligation bonds, and storm drainage bonds.The City
also has a lease purchase agreement with Holman Capital to replace technology infrastructure, and
loans with both the California Energy Commission and the California Water Resources Control Board to
retrofit City-maintained streetlights and to improve its wastewater treatment plant, respectively.
The City has a rating of AA as assigned by Standard & Poor's Rating Services. A rating of AA by Standard
& Poor's Rating Services is roughly equivalent to an Aa rating by Moody's Investors Services. Exhibit 4.2
below compares the City's financial indicators with medians of similar sized cities by credit rating as
reported in Moody's Investors Services "2011 US Local Government Medians" report.As the exhibit
shows,the City's level of direct net debt,which includes a non-self-supporting portion of general
obligation bonds, sales and special tax bonds, general fund lease obligations, bond anticipation notes,
and capital leases, compared to its full value (or estimated full market value of taxable property within
its boundaries), is only 0.42 percent,far lower than the medians recorded across the five ratings.
Exhibit 4.2 also shows"overall" debt, which is the City's direct debt plus the debt of overlapping
jurisdictions.The rationale for this measure is the burden on the community from a dollar of local
government debt is the same,whether it comes from the city government, school district, library
district, etc. The City's overall debt burden is 2.89 percent of full value, which is on par with other Aa-
rated cities.
Exhibit 4.2—Comparison of Burlingame's Financial Indicators to Cities with Less Than 50,000
Population by Credit Rating from Moody's Medians
Burlingame Aaa Aa A Baa Ba
Direct Net Debt as%of 0.42% 0.61% 0.96% 1.44% 1.69% 2.99%
Full Value
Overall Debt Burden
(Overall Net Debt as% 2.89% 2.14% 2.71% 4.32% 4.40% 5.93%
Full Value)
It is important to note that the City will have additional debt capacity in the near future as several debt
obligations from governmental activities are scheduled to expire. Exhibit 4.3 details the City's debt
Page 22 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlinizame
obligations scheduled to expire between 2016 and 2021,with a principal total of approximately$19.5
million.The City's$6.7 million lease revenue refunding bonds issued for its main library will mature in
2016,followed by$1.5 million from its lease purchase agreement for technology infrastructure in 2018.
In 2021,three debt obligations amounting to$11.2 million will expire.These include lease revenue
bonds used to finance the City's Corporation Yard,tax-exempt bonds issued for the City's storm
drainage system,and a loan from the California Energy Commission to retrofit City-maintained
streetlights. It is also important to note that the City's debt service for its pension obligation bonds will
drop substantially,starting in 2019. Debt service on these bonds steadily increases until it peaks at$3.8
million in 2018,but then drops to$957,000 in 2019 and remains near or substantially below this level
for the life of the issue.
Exhibit 4.3—Debt Obligations from Governmental Activities Expiring Between 2016 and 2021
Expiration Debt Principal Amount
2016 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds-City's Main Library $6,705,000
2018 Lease Purchase Agreement-Technology Infrastructure $1,500,000
2021 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds-City's Corporation Yard $8,205,000
2021 Tax-Exempt Bonds-City's Storm Drainage System $2,635,000
2021 California Energy Commission-Streetlight Retrofit $405,300
Total $19,450,300
Another important point of comparison for debt is how Burlingame compares to peer cities in California.
Exhibit 4.4 shows a group of California cities that are comparable to Burlingame,as well as two cities
that receive a large portion of their revenues from TOT- Dana Point and South Lake Tahoe.The exhibit
provides summary statistics on the municipalities,including four commonly used measures of
indebtedness.
The first three debt measures in Exhibit 4.4 examine direct debt only.The first,debt per capita,
measures the burden placed on citizens by municipal indebtedness.The second measure is debt service
(principal and interest payments)as a percent of city expenditures.This figure measures the pressure
placed on the budget by debt payments.The third measure shows direct debt as a percent of the city's
full value. Burlingame has relatively less favorable measures when considering direct debt.For example,
Burlingame has the second highest direct debt per capita,behind Beverly Hills,and the highest debt
service relative to expenditures.
However,when examining overall debt as a percent of full value(the fourth debt measure),there is a
somewhat different story.Burlingame has the fourth highest overall debt burden,and its debt level is
now only 9.4 percent greater than the average of the peer group,compared to 44.8 percent greater
than the average of the peer group when considering direct debt as a percent of full value.So,while the
overlapping debt measure indicates that Burlingame does not have an especially high level of debt,it
does still have a significant amount of debt compared to peer cities in California.
Page 23 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 4.4 — Comparison of Burlingame's Indebtedness with Other California Cities
Beverly Dana Foster Menlo Palo San San South
Burlingame Hills Point City Park Alto Carlos Mateo Lake Average
Tahoe
Population 28,168 34,494 33,398 31 ,120 32,881 66,368 28,931 99,061 21,498 41 ,769
Debt per Capita $2,291 $4,628 $0 $0 $639 $1,245 $231 $1 $1,187 $1 ,136
Debt Service as a
% of 10.60% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 2.60% 1.80% 3.80% 6.20% 3.31%
Expenditures
Direct Net Debt
as % of Full 0.42% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 0.33% 0.09% 0.38% 0.61% 0.29%
Value
Overall Debt
Burden (Overall 2.89% 2,14% 0.35% 2.28% 2.72% 2.94% 2.57% 3.48% 4.41% 2.64%
Net Debt as %
Full Value)
To conclude our discussion on debt, we saw earlier in this report that the City also has a number of
outstanding unfunded capital needs. This combined with the City's existing level of indebtedness means
that debt is not a source of future financial flexibility for the City. In Section 5 of this report we will
examine the implications of this constraint on flexibility for the City's reserve strategy.
Pension and OPEB liabilities. The City participates in the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CaIPERS) pool.20 The City participates in separate plans for public safety (police and fire) and
miscellaneous (all other employees). The plans are facing some challenges, 21 though the State has
enacted legislation to reduce costs and increase both employee and employer contribution
requirements. Employer contribution rates are estimated to increase from the current 19.9 percent to
30.0 percent in 2022-23 for the miscellaneous plan, and from 29.6 percent to 45.6 percent for the public
safety plan. The average annual increase between 2014-15 and 2022-33 is approximately 5.3 percent for
the miscellaneous plan and 5.6 percent for the public safety plan. Presently the City contributes
approximately $1.4 million to the miscellaneous plan and $1.2 million to the public safety plan annually.
Increasing pension contributions are normally a cost that would be dealt with within the annual
budgeting process. Since rising pension costs are a recurring expenditure, reserves, as a one-time
resource, are not a sustainable solution for rising pension costs.
However, a scenario where reserves could play a role in ameliorating rising pension costs is if City
revenues are flat or declining. Steep increases in pension costs would make it more difficult for the City
to reduce expenditures in the face of stagnant or declining revenues. Hence, a reserve could help the
City make a more gradual adjustment to its cost structure — otherwise the City might be forced into
more abrupt cost reductions, thereby interrupting crucial services and preventing a long-term, coherent
approach to achieving the City's public service goals. The annual increase in the City's pension costs is
20CalPERS assumes a discount rate of 7.50 percent. While this is in line with most public pension plans, researchers
and rating agencies caution against the use of aggressive discount rates.
21 The public safety plan is funded at 73.7 percent, and the miscellaneous plan is funded at 86.5 percent.
Page 24 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
expected to be about$200,000.22 Since this figure is not based on a wealth of historical experiences, but
rather a single projection based on data from CalPERS,the Triple-A approach would advise doubling our
expectation for risk. Hence, a reserve of$400,000 should be adequate to provide the City with capacity
to make an orderly adjustment to its cost structures in the face of declining or stagnant revenues,
despite sharply increasing pension costs.
The City also has substantial obligations for other post-employment benefits (OPEB).The City invested a
substantial amount last year($6.6 million) in an irrevocable trust specifically for retiree medical costs
(the fund is administered by CalPERS). Starting in 2014-15, the City will pay approximately$5 million
annually into the trust(including both actuarially determined normal costs and amortization of the
accrued liability). The City expects its OPEB liabilities to be fully funded in 20 years. As with other long-
term obligations, including debt service,the City's financial flexibility will be constrained by the annual
commitment of this new$5 million annual expenditure.
Implied Reserve Components for Leverage T �`
• While the City does not have an especially high amount of debt, it does have a significant
amount of debt as well as a number of important capital investment needs.This means that
spare debt capacity will likely not be a source of future financial flexibility for the City. While
there is not a specific dollar amount of reserves that is necessary to hold because of this,the
City's overall reserve strategy will need to take into account this limitation on the City's
financial flexibility.
• A reserve of$400,000 can help the City meet its pension obligations in the event of a revenue
downturn.
• A General Fund reserve amount for OPEB is not necessary because the City has already
established a trust fund with CalPERS for its OPEB liabilities. However,the$5 million annual
contribution towards this obligation over the next 20 years does constrain the City's financial
flexibility.
Section 5 - Recommendations
This section provides GFOA's recommendations to Burlingame based on the analysis presented in this
paper.Sub-section "A" reviews the risk factors that were analyzed independently in Section 3 and
Section 4, and considers issues relative to analyzing the risk factors as a whole. Sub-section "B"
addresses the primary purpose of this report:to recommend a reserve target for Burlingame. Sub-
section "C" discusses formal policies the City could adopt to support the City's reserve management
strategy.
A. Review of Risk Factors and Holistic Analysis
We will start with a brief overview of the risk factors that have implications for the City's reserves in
Exhibit 5.1.
22 The increases are about$120,000 annually for the miscellaneous plan and about$80,000 for the public safety
plan.
Page 25 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Exhibit 5.1—Risk Factor Overview
Specific Risk Implied Reserve Amounts
Revenue volatility $11.9 million
Extreme events and public safety $170,000 to$2.6 million
Expenditure spike due to lawsuit $1 million to$2 million
Pension cost increases during a revenue decline $400,000
TOTAL $13.5 to$16.9 million
However, determining a final reserve target is not as straightforward as summing the numbers in Exhibit
5.1.There are three issues we must consider before arriving at a final target:
• Risk interdependency,
• Risk's probability of occurring, and
• The City's ability to reduce its budget in the event of a downturn.
Risk interdependency. Risk interdependency refers to the relationship between the different risk
factors.To illustrate, if two risks are highly dependent,then there is a strong likelihood that both will
occur at the same time. If two risks are independent there is no particular reason they should occur at
the same time.There are some dependencies between revenue volatility and pension cost increases
during a revenue decline because an economic slowdown would result in downward revenue pressures,
coupled with pressures of increasing costs.There is also some dependency between public safety risks
and revenue volatility because a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area could interrupt the
travel and tourism industry, as well as the routine business and commerce that provides the area's sales
tax and TOT revenues. Expenditure volatility associated with potential lawsuits appears to be an
independent risk because the occurrence of this risk has little to do with the occurrence of other risks.
Where risks are highly dependent, it is wise to hold reserves for the full implied reserve amount for each
dependent risk factor because if one happens it is likely the other one will occur as well.Where risks are
independent and the risks have a low probability of occurring, it may not be necessary to hold the full
amount of implied reserves for each risk because one shared reserve for multiple risk factors that is less
than the total implied reserve amounts of the individuals risks will probably be sufficient to protect the
City.
Risk's probability of occurring. Some risks have a low probability of occurring, but have extreme
consequences if they occur.An earthquake is the leading example of this. Some risks are almost certain
to occur, but the consequences are not necessarily so severe. General revenue instability is certain to
occur, and the impact to the City in the past has been manageable.When risks are likely to occur, it is
wise to hold the full implied reserve amount. When risks have a low probability of occurring it is possible
to hold less than the implied reserve amount if the low probability risks are independent of each other.
The odds that these risks occur at the same time are very small,thus the City could elect to not hold
reserves large enough to cover all low probability risks.
Page 26 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
City's ability to reduce budget in the event of downturn. In Section 3,we established that the City does
not have the ability to significantly reduce its budget in the event of a downturn in revenues(e.g.,the
City's required annual OPEB contribution makes it more difficult to reduce spending).If the City did have
more budgetary flexibility,it may not be necessary to reserve quite as much as the City could more
easily reduce expenditures in the face of a revenue interruption.
B.Recommended Reserve Target for Burlingame
This section addresses a recommended range of reserves for Burlingame.First we synthesize the risk
analysis into a recommended range of reserves.Then we discuss how the recommendation fits with
Burlingame's existing reserve strategy.
Reserve Amount Derived from Risk Analysis
If we consider the risks to have a high degree of dependency,the City should reserve close to$16.9
million,which is about 33 percent of the General Fund revenues in order to cover the risks addressed in
this report.23 This represents a more"risk averse"approach to reserves.There are a number of potential
interdependencies between the City's risks,so a reserve of$13.5 million(27 percent of General Fund
revenues)would represent a less risk averse approach,while still respecting the potential
interdependencies and still falling within the range of reserve targets that GFOA's analysis would
consider reasonable.
To help the City make a more informed consideration of this range of possibilities,Exhibit 5.2 provides a
table of General Fund balances as a percent of General Fund revenues(as of fiscal year 2013)for
California cities that are comparable to Burlingame.A couple of notes should be made about Exhibit 5.2
in order for the reader to fully understand its meaning.First,"fund balance"is an accounting term that
describes the difference between the assets and liabilities in the General Fund."Reserves"(which are
the main topic of GFOA's analysis for Burlingame)are the portion of fund balance that is set aside,by
city council policy,as a hedge against risk.Hence,not all"fund balance"is necessarily available as a
reserve.The right-hand section of Exhibit 5.2 shows how much each City holds in fund balances as a
percent of general revenue.Each of the three columns in this section examines fund balances from a
different perspective on the relationship between fund balances and risk mitigation.
The first column shows"unrestricted"fund balance.This is an accounting term that includes fund
balances that do not have constraints placed on their use by an outside entity(e.g.,a bond covenant
might restrict the use of some portion of fund balance to debt service)and that are spendable(e.g.,do
not represent inventory or other non-liquid assets)."Unrestricted"fund balances may still have
constraints placed upon their use,but these constraints would be created by the municipal government
itself. One common constraint is to dedicate some portion of fund balance to hedging against the types
of risks described in this report.However,other constraints have nothing to do with this kind of risk
mitigation-to illustrate,a common self-imposed constraint is putting aside fund balance to pay for a
23 These percentages are calculated using the City's 2013/14 adopted budgeted revenues,which is$50.5 million.
This is thought to be the most realistic representation of the City's revenue structure and requirements for the
future.The most realistic depiction of the City's revenue structure gives the City the best chance of having the right
amount of dollars on hand should the need to use reserves arise.
Page 27 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
special capital project. While such a constraint could be removed and, thus, the entirety of monies in
the "unrestricted" category made available for risk mitigation, it is not the intent of the municipality to
do so.
The second column shows the amount of fund balance that is available for risk mitigation after fund
balances that have self-imposed restrictions (that are not germane to risk mitigation) are removed from
consideration. This leaves self-imposed restrictions that are germane to risk mitigation as well as fund
balance that does not have any restrictions placed upon it at all, so could easily be used for responding
to emergency events if needed.
The third category includes only those fund balances that have been specifically identified by the
municipality as intended for creating a risk mitigating reserve. The financial statements of two of the
municipalities have not specifically identified any fund balance as a risk mitigating reserve and so are
labeled with "NA." It should be noted that since the analysis in Exhibit 5.2 is based only upon the
information included in each municipalities' comprehensive annual financial report, it is possible that
the amount dedicated to risk mitigation could be somewhat higher for some of the municipalities as a
city council policy document might call for maintaining a given amount in fund balances as a reserve
without creating an accounting restriction that would show up in the financial report. That said, the
figures in Exhibit 5.2 are probably inclusive of most of the funds these cities have dedicated to risk
mitigation.
Exhibit 5.2 — Fund Balance as a Percent of General Fund Revenues for Comparable California Cities
Fund Balances as Percent of • Revenue
City Population Unrestricted Available for Risk Dedicated to Risk
Mitigation Mitigation
Beverly Hills 34,291 52% 49% 5%
Burlingame 29,106 38% 29% 15%
Dana Point 33,054 72% 62% 34%
Foster City 30,895 62% 61 % NA
Menlo Park 32,412 51 % 44% 33%
Palo Alto 65,544 27% 23% 23%
San Carlos 28,600 69% 20% 10%
San Mateo 98,298 28% 24% 24%
South Lake
Tahoe 21 ,343 40% 39% NA
Average 41,505 49% 39% 21%
Median 32,412 51% 39% 23%
Unsurprisingly, the averages at the bottom of the table decline as one reads from left to right, as the
scope of the cities' fund balance that is included in the analysis declines.
For Burlingame's purposes, the figures in the second and third columns are most relevant. These figures
tell us that Burlingame's previous practices did result in it carrying a little less fund balance for risk
Page 28 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
mitigation than the comparable cities.It also tells us that the GFOA recommendation of a reserve equal
to between 27 and 33 percent of the City s General Fund revenues would not be out of line with the
amounts maintained by peer cities.
As a final input into considering the range of reserve targets,the City should consider three factors that
are relevant to sizing a reserve:
• Government size:As a smaller municipality,Burlingame will generally have more vulnerability to
risk because it has a less diverse tax base,less diverse geography than a larger municipality
might have,and less diverse resources to draw upon than a much larger City.This suggests a
reserve at the higher end of the range.
• Borrowing capacity:The City does have significant debt and has some important unfunded
capital needs to consider.Hence,the City has less financial flexibility than municipalities with
less debt and/or outstanding capital asset acquisition requirements.This suggests that should
the City need access to capital,it does not have the capability to assume more risk with lesser
reserves since debt will not provide an attractive alternative method of financial flexibility if the
City needs to access it.
• TOT volatility.GFOA's analysis of TOT volatility showed that the City experienced a 45 percent
annual decline in TOT revenues in the wake of the dot.com bust.For various reasons described
earlier,GFOA did not recommend applying the Triple-A rule to the 45 percent decline,which
would have advised the City to prepare for a 66 percent decline.Instead,more recent history
was used to suggest preparing for a 40 percent decline.While this approach does not seem
imprudent,it may behoove the City to focus on the top of the suggested range of reserve
targets.
In conclusion,to zero in on a final reserve target,GFOA recommends that the City of Burlingame's City
Council and staff have a conversation about their risk appetite.A low risk appetite should suggest that a
reserve closer to 33 percent of General Fund revenues would be safer for the City.If the City has a
higher risk appetite it would adopt a reserve target closer to 27 percent.The City could also adopt a
target between these two poles.In short,there is no one"correct"answer as the final target is a
product of the City's willingness to assume risk,though the three bullet points above suggest that
Burlingame should pick a target towards the higher end of the range.
Relation to the City's Existing Reserve Strategy
The City's existing reserve strategy calls for three categories of reserve.
• Economic Stability Reserve. Available to protect and to preserve City services from dramatic
drops in General Fund revenues that are highly sensitive to economic conditions,mainly sales
taxes and TOT.
• Catastrophic Reserve. Available to make repairs and to reconstruct City buildings and facilities
that may be damaged by natural disasters or acts of war or terrorism.
• Contingency Reserve. Available to cover ordinary but unexpected expenses that may arise
during the course of the fiscal year that were not considered during budget planning.This
Page 29 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
category would represent an addition to the reserves beyond what was considered in the report
(a contingency is used to facilitate ordinary management of the budget, not to mitigate against
extraordinary risks, like those analyzed in this report).
GFOA applauds the City for this practice of explicitly recognizing the purposes of the reserves and for
identifying an explicit contingency for ordinary management of the budget. This provides for greater
transparency on why the City holds reserves. GFOA also recommends retaining these same
categorizations going forward. Exhibit 5.3 presents a summary of how the categorizations might now
look in light of the results of the risk analysis.
Exhibit 5.3 — Reserve Categories
Category Comment Risk Averse Less Risk
Amount Averse
Amount
Economic Stability Encompasses the risks of "revenue volatility" and $12.3 million $12.3 million
"pension cost increases during a revenue decline"
Catastrophic Reserve Encompasses the risks of"extreme events and public $4.6 million $1 .2 million
safety" and "expenditure spike due to lawsuit'
Contingency Reserve25 Not included in the risk analysis, as this is an budget $500,000 $500,000
annual management tool not a risk
TOTAL $17.4 million $14.0 million
Percent of General Fund 2013114 Budgeted Revenues 34% 28%
In conclusion, the City should choose a reserve target for its General Fund between $14.0 million and
$17.4 million to cover the risks addressed in this analysis, which also includes a small contingency for
ordinary management of the budget during the year. With the inclusion of the City's current
contingency reserve amount of$500,000, the target range of reserves becomes about 28 percent to 34
percent of the City's General Fund revenues. The points described earlier in Section 8 (size, borrowing
capacity, TOT volatility, comparable city analysis) can be used to guide the City in picking between the
top and bottom of this range.
C. Policies to Support the General Fund Reserve Strategy
This section presents ideas for formal policies that Burlingame may wish to adopt that would support
the City's reserve strategy.
General Fund Reserve Policy
The City should adopt a formal General Fund reserve policy. A policy would accomplish the following:
• Memorialize the final reserve target in a document that receives formal City Council approval.
• Officially establish the intent of the City to maintain the target level of reserves.
24 The sum of $11.9 million and $400,000 for the risk averse and less risk averse columns
25 The sum of $2.6 million and $2 million for the risk averse column and $1 million and $170,000 for the less risk
averse column.
26 Reflects existing practice of Burlingame for 2012 — 13 actual
Page 30 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
• Describe the acceptable uses of reserves.This prevents the reserves from being used
inappropriately and,thus,degrading the City's risk mitigation capabilities.
• Describe who is authorized to use the reserves.
• Provide guidance on how to replenish reserves back to target levels when necessary.
GFOA has worked with the City staff to develop a draft General Fund Reserve policy for City Council's
consideration.The policy is in Appendix 1.
Asset Management Policy
An asset management policy will help support the City's reserve strategy because acquisition and
maintenance of capital assets is a major draw on the City's resources. A policy will help the City improve
upon its already very good capital planning practices and standardize its approach to asset renewal and
replacement.This will create greater predictability in capital financing needs,thereby improving the
flexibility of the City's financing structure.Greater flexibility helps reduce the pressure on reserves.
Appendix 2 provides an example of an asset management policy,including wording for establishing
sinking funds to finance asset renewal and replacement.
One-Time and Volatile Revenue Policies
A one-time revenue policy directs that non-recurring sources of revenue(e.g.,asset sale,settlement
from a lawsuit that the City wins,etc.)be used only for non-recurring purposes(e.g.,pay down debt,
buy a capital asset Z'etc.).One-time revenues are,by definition,undependable,so they should not be
used to fund expenditures of a recurring nature.A volatile revenue policy takes the concept a step
further by declaring unusually high yields from volatile revenue sources as the equivalent of a one-time
revenue.For example,if the City has a record-breaking year for automotive sales,it would be unwise to
consider the resulting sales tax as the new baseline for the amount of sales tax revenue the City should
expect in future years and to plan spending accordingly.Rather,the revenue above and beyond what
might be considered"normal"should be used for non-recurring expenditures.
Below is an example of a volatile revenue policy for sales taxes.A similar policy could be adopted for
TOT and investment income.
It is not prudent to allocate sales tax revenue that exceeds the normal growth rate(defined as the
average annual growth rate over the last ten years)to ongoing programs.Therefore,sales tax revenues
that exceed the normal growth rate should be used for one-time expenditures or to increase reserves for
the inevitable economic downturns.
The City will note that the policy calls for extraordinary revenues to be directed towards one-time uses.
A sinking fund to pay for important unfunded capital projects could be an example of a one-time use
and could be explicitly stated as such in a policy.Again,Appendix 2 provides the wording for a sinking
fund(along with other asset management policies).
Z'Assuming that the future operating and maintenance costs of the asset can be handled with recurring revenues.
Page 31 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Adopt Structurally Balanced Budget Policy
A"balanced budget" is often defined as one where sources equal uses.Such a budget might be balanced
in a single year, but might not be sustainable. For example, if expenditures on the salaries and benefits
for permanent employee positions are paid for with one-time revenues or capital cost deferrals, a
government will soon face financial challenges.A structurally balanced budget policy provides a more
rigorous definition of a balanced budget,one where recurring revenues equal recurring expenditures
and non-recurring revenues equal non-recurring expenditures.A structurally balanced budget policy
supports a reserve policy because it makes it less likely that the City will find itself in a situation where it
is unable to cover its recurring expenditures in a given year and,thus, have to draw upon its reserves.
Page 32 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Appendix 1 - General Fund Reserve Policy
Adoption Date: TBD
Last Revision Date: September 15, 2014
Owner Department: Finance
I. Introduction
A General Fund reserve helps ensure that the City of Burlingame (the City) can provide consistent,
uninterrupted municipal services in the event of economic disruption or an extreme event. Two of the
City's primary revenue sources, the transient occupancy tax and sales tax, are known to be sensitive to
downturns in the economy. Further, like many other California cities, Burlingame is at risk for
earthquakes.
This policy establishes the amounts the City will strive to maintain in the General Fund reserve, how the
reserve will be funded, and the conditions under which the reserve may be spent.
II. Amounts Held in Reserve
The City of Burlingame will strive to hold the amount listed below in unrestrictedeneral Fund balance, comment[Sl]:This could also be"assigned"to
expressed as a percentage of the City's annual operating expenditures for the General Fund. These be consistent with past practice of the City
amounts are expressed as goal ranges, recognizing that fund balance levels can fluctuate from year to
year in the normal course of operations for any local government. The reserves are broken into three
separate categories, each with their associated target amount of reserves:
■ 24 % of budget revenue - Economic Stability Reserve. Available to protect and
preserve City services from dramatic drops in General Fund revenues that are highly
sensitive to economic conditions, mainly transient occupancy taxes and sales taxes
■ 2% - 9% of budgeted revenues - Catastrophic Reserve. Available to make repairs and
reconstruct City buildings and facilities that may be damaged by natural disasters or acts
of war or terrorism
■ $500,000 - Contingency Reserve. Available to cover unexpected expenses that may
arise during the course of the fiscal year that were not considered during budget
planning
If, based on the Finance Director's analysis and forecasting, the target balance is not being met or is
likely not going to be met at some point within a five-year time horizon, then a plan to meet the target
balance will be developed. This plan will then be presented to the City Council for consideration.
III. Funding Reserve Targets
Funding of unrestricted fund balance targets will come generally from one-time revenues, unusually
high yields from transit occupancy taxes or sales taxes, and projected revenues in excess of projected
expenditures. They will generally be reserved in the following priority order:
1. Economic stability reserve
2. Catastrophic reserve
Page 33 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
IV. Conditions for Use of Reserves
A. Use of Reserves
It is the intent of the City to limit use of the General Fund reserves to address unanticipated, non-
recurring needs or known and planned future obligations. Reserves shall not normally be applied to
recurring annual operating expenditures.The reserves may,however,be used to allow time for the City
to restructure its operations in a deliberate manner(such as might be required in the case of a severe
economic downturn), but such use will only take place in the context of an adopted long-term plan to
reach a sustainable structure.
However,the City may only use up to SO%of the reserve for Economic Stability to continue operations
without reductions in any one year of economic difficulty. The use of the reserve is limited in this way
so that the balance of the reserve would be available to help the City address any additional financial
problems that the City could confront after adoption of a subsequent year's budget.
B. Authority to Use Reserves
The City Manager may authorize the use of reserves unless that use would cause the City's reserves to
drop below INo of the city's regular annual operating general fund revenues. Any proposed use that ,_, Comment[S2]:26%would be a good starting
d staff
would cause the reserves to be below this amount must be approved by the City Council, by majority about
point a right number.26%ersation betweenround he lower
about the right number.26%is around the low end
vote.In all cases,the City Council and management shall only use reserves for purposes consistent with of the risk range described in the report.
the purposes described in Policy IV-A above.
C. Replenishment of Reserves
In the event the City Council authorizes use of the reserves,the City Manager shall propose a plan for
the replenishment of the reserves to the City Council.The City will strive to replenish the reserves within
one year of use,but will fully replenish it within five years of use.
Page 34 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
Appendix 2 -Sample Asset Management Policy
Adoption Date: TBD
Last Revision Date: TBD
Owner Department: Finance Department
I. Introduction
Capital assets have a major impact on the quality of the City's service,the economic vitality of the
community,and the overall quality of life for constituents.The purpose of this policy is to provide
guidelines to help the City make better capital asset investment and management decisions.
II. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Scope
Each year City staff shall develop a five-year long-range capital improvement plan that describes and
prioritizes the major capital projects that the City intends to undertake during the next five years.
A. Definition of a capital project.For the purposes of the CIP,the definition of a capital project
is a project with al useful life of at least(3-5)years and a cost of at least($15,000 to
$300,000)� ---- Comment[S3]:These are the ranges our
B. Link to needs assessments.All projects in the CIP,with minor and occasional exceptions, research suggests are reasonable.Smaller
governments will tend towards the smaller numbers
should be based on needs assessments conducted to determine the benefit of the asset
relative to its potential cost.
III. Roles in the CIP Process
The Public Works Director,working under the direction of the City Manager,is responsible for
coordinating the CIP process and compiling the CIP document.Other key roles include:
A. Review of Capital Project Proposals.The Department of Finance will coordinate a capital
project review process within the annual budget calendar.
B. Capital Financing.The Department of Finance will work with the lCity Engineer o_develop a__ -" Comment[so or equivalent position
capital financing strategy to support the CIP.
C. Approval of the CIP.The City Council shall review and approve the final CIP.
IV. CIP Project Identification
Each year City staff will propose projects for potential inclusion in the CIP,using a procedure developed
jointly by the Departments of Public Works and Finance.At minimum,this procedure shall provide for
the following:
A. Long-term operating and maintenance costs.A proposal will identify the cost to operate
and maintain the asset over the lifecycle of the asset.
B. Anticipated source of funding.A proposal shall describe where the funding to acquire the
asset and to operate and maintain the asset is expected to come from.
C. Proposed timing of the project.A proposal will identify the proposed schedule for planning,
bidding,construction,and other relevant milestones in acquiring the asset.
Page 35 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
V. CIP Project Selection
The Department of Public Works will develop a procedure to assess and evaluate project proposals using
an objective set of criteria.Staff and Council shall agree to the set of criteria before evaluation. The
principles and practices that should be reflected in the selection process include:
A. Long-term forecasts.Long-term forecasts should be prepared to better understand the
resources available for capital spending and to assess operational impacts and eventual
replacement costs.
B. Impact on other projects.Projects should not be considered in isolation.One project's
impact on others should be recognized and costs shared between projects where
appropriate.
C. Allow for funding of preliminary activities.A policy should recognize that,for some
projects,it may be wise to fund only preliminary engineering/planning before committing to
funding the whole project.However,even these expenditures can be considerable,so
should be evaluated and prioritized appropriately.
D. Full Consideration of Operating and Maintenance Costs.Adequate resources should be
identified to operate and maintain an asset before allocating resources to build the new
asset.
E. Full lifecycle costing.Analysis of the cost of a proposed project should encompass the entire
life of the asset,from planning and acquisition to disposal.
F. Predictable project timing and scope.Schedule and scope estimates should be practical and
achievable within the requested financial and human resources.
VI. Balanced CIP
The CIP Plan is a balanced five-year plan.This means that for the entire five-year period,revenues will
be equal to project expenditures in the CIP.It is possible that the plan will have more expenditures than
revenues in any single year of the Plan(with the exception of the first year of the plan which is intended
to become an appropriation plan for the City._However,over the life-o-
f the five-year plan_all Comment(ssf:The aP is not an appropriations
expenditures will be provided for with identified revenues.Staff may record,on an appended document, document so it would not necessarily have to be
balanced every year,but you'd then need a budget
projects that are deemed important but that cannot fit into a balanced CIP.The Council may choose to plan for the budget to be balanced when it comes to
examine the unfunded projects and defund an existing project in favor of another. the point of appropriating for year Iofthe CIP(the
future years remain a"plan"),
VII. CIP Funding Strategy.
The City may elect to use debt financing to acquire an asset,or pay-as-you-go(i.e.,cash financing).
Guidelines are provided below to help the City make the best choice between debt and pay-as-you-go
financing.
A. Factors which favor pay-as-you-go financing include circumstances where:
1. The project can be adequately funded from available current revenues and fund
balances;
2. The project can be completed in an acceptable timeframe given the available revenues;
3. Additional debt levels could adversely affect the City's credit rating or repayment
sources;or,
4. Market conditions are unstable or suggest difficulties in marketing a debt.
B. Factors which favor long-term debt financing include circumstances where:
Page 36 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
1. Revenues available for debt issues are considered sufficient and reliable so that long-
term financing can be marketed with an appropriate credit rating,which can be
maintained;
2. Market conditions present favorable interest rates and demand for City debt financing;
3. A project is mandated by state or federal government,and current revenues or fund
balances are insufficient to pay project costs;
4. A project is immediately required to meet or relieve capacity needs,and existing un-
programmed cash reserves are insufficient to pay project costs;
S. The life of the project or asset financed is five years or longer;or,
6. The capital project or asset lends itself to debt financing rather than pay-as-you-go
funding based on the expected useful life of the project and based on the City's ability
to pay debt service.
VIII. Capital Budget
Each year the Department of Finance will work with the Department of Public Works to develop a
capital budget,which will be the spending plan for capital.The first year of the adopted capital
improvement plan will be the capital budget for the fiscal year.
IX. Capital Project Management
Good management of capital projects is essential to create the best value for City taxpayers through
capital spending. The following policies shall be observed in order to help ensure the best project
management posslbl4 ------------- Comment[S6]:Not all of these are necessary-
- ------------------------------------- ---
you can pick the most helpful ones.
A. Project manager.Every CIP project will have a project manager who will prepare the project
proposal,develop a project budget and cash flow forecast prior to project commencement,
ensure that required phases are completed on schedule,authorize all project expenditures,
monitor project cash flows,ensure that all regulations and laws are observed,and
periodically report project status.
B. Regular progress reviews.Quarterly capital project and program reviews are to be
conducted to monitor existing project performance.Each department must actively manage
each project,and major departments will provide quarterly reports on the physical and
financial status of each project to the City ounci( ___ - ------------------------------------------- Comment[S7]:or it could be a subcommittee of
C. Limits on amendments.Capital project amendments during a year shall not exceed the some kind.
annually adopted budget and funding levels.All amendments shall be reviewed and
evaluated by the CityouncilIquarterly or annually.Each department must manage its-------- ------ Comment[S8]:or subcommittee
capital program within certain time and cost constraints.
D. Sunset on authorization.Each capital project will have a"sunset provision"after 24 months,
which can be lifted only by a resolution adopted by the City Council(as may be the case for
mitigating circumstances that require the project to continue past 24 months,for example).
Each department must commit to the timely completion of each project.
E. Financial analysis.Each department shall submit a monthly capital cash forecast(receipts
and disbursements)for a twelve-month period and a quarterly variance analysis(forecast to
actual)in order to ensure that project remains in budget and to help guard against cash flow
problems.Each department must actively oversee and report the fiscal activity of each
project in order to maximize the value taxpayers receive for their money.
Page 37 of 38
GFOA Reserve Analysis for the City of Burlingame
X. Establishment of an Asset Inventory
City staff shall develop a comprehensive asset inventory that projects equipment replacement and
maintenance needs for the next five years and shall update this projection each year.The asset
inventory will describe the current condition of the City's assets,establish standards for asset condition,
account for the complete cost to maintain assets up to standard over their lifecycle,and account for
risks associated with assets that are below condition standards.Cit de artments shall have --- comment[S9]:The City would have toset the
responsibility for inventorying and assessing the assets within their urview,and ensuring that they standards it wishes to meet
reconcile this information with the Department of Finance's capital asset records.
XI. Prioritization of Asset Maintenance and Replacement
It is the policy of the City to maintain its assets at a level that protects capital investment and minimizes
future maintenance and replacement costs.Based on an asset inventory and risk assessment,staff shall
develop and recommend to the City Council a prioritized asset maintenance spending plan for each
year.
XII. Funding of Asset Maintenance
It is the City's policy to ensure that adequate resources are allocated to preserve the City's existing
infrastructure to the best of its ability before targeting resources to build new facilities that also have
operating and maintenance obligations.This policy addresses the need to protect the City's historical
investment in capital assets and to avoid embarking on an asset enhancement program,which when
coupled with the existing asset requirements,the City cannot afford to adequately maintain.
In the interest of keeping the City's asset stock maintained,this policy hereby establishes a Renewal and
Replacement Reserve.When a new capital project is added to the City's portfolio,the City shall establish
a reserve for the project.The reserve amount should be equal to the greater of the average renewal and
replacement needs of the asset over the next five years,or 2 percent of the current replacement value.
The City shall develop long-term forecasts to determine available capacity to fund the renewal and
replacement reserves. Comment[S1o]:Here is an approach GFOA has
seen work elsewhere
Page 38 of 38
9/15/2014
General Fund Reserves
A Risk-Based Analysis -= - --.
Analysis provided by GFOA
• Government Finance Officers Association
Research and Consulting Center
• Identify and promulgate best practices
• Promote long-term financial planning
• Develop financial policies
• Financial Policies: Design and Implementation
• Author Shayne Kavanagh
1
9/15/2014
"Triple A" Approach
• ACCEPT uncertainty
• ASSESS the potential impact
• AUGMENT the initial assessment
Burlingame's Risk Factors
• Primary Risk Factors
• Revenue Volatility
• Public Safety & Extreme Events
• Secondary Risk Factors
• Legal Claims
• Debt (Leverage)
• Pensions and OPEB
2
9/15/2014
Reserve Recommendations
Millions
• Primary Risk Factors
• Revenue Volatility 11.9 11.9
Pubic Safety&Extreme Events 2.6 .17
• Secondary Risk Factors
• Legal Claims 2.0 1.0
• Debt (Leverage) - -
• Pensions and OPEB 4 .4
• Reserve Recommendations
• Economic Stability 12.3 12.3
• Catastrophic Reserve 4—.6 1,117
16.9 13.47
�LL
Comparison to Current Reserves
FY32-13 FY13-14 GFOA Recommendations
Actual Revised Risk Averse Less Risk
Results Budget Amount Averse Amount
Economic Stability Reserve $ 5,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 12,300,000 $ 12,300,000
Catastrophic Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,600,000 1,200,000
OPEB Retiree Health Reserve 4,800,000
General Plan Reserve 0 500,000
Contingency Reserve 500,000 500,000 5 000 5 000
Subtotal,Assigned Fund Balance 12,300,000 9,000,000 17,400,000 14,000,000
Add:Unassigned Fund Balance 7,429,633 9,324,268 924,268 4,324,268
Total,Ending Fund Balance $ 19,729,633 $ 18,324,268 $ 18,324,268 $ 18,324,268
3
9/15/2014
Factors Relevant to Reserve Targets
• Amounts maintained by comparable cities
• Government size
• Borrowing capacity
• TOT volatility
... suggest a more conservative reserve
target?
Conclusion
Risk appetite determines reserve target:
• More risk averse = 34%
of General Fund
Reserves
• Less risk averse = 28%
4
9/15/2014
Next Steps
• Fuller discussion on risk tolerance/risk
appetite
• Draft General Fund Reserve Policy (see
Appendix A for sample)
• Further discussion about funding capital
project needs in the future, and other
supporting fiscal policies
5
INGAME
HALL
City of Burlingame B501 PRIMROSE ROAD 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME - BURLINGAME,CA 94010
_ Meeting Minutes -Final-revised
Planning Commission
Monday,August 11,2014 7:00 PM Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Ali Commissioners were present.
Present 7- Bandrapalli,DeMartini,Yie,Loftis,Sargent,Terrones,and Gum
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. July 28,2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
attachments: July 28 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting DRAFT
Minutes
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
minutes of July 28,2014 with the following changes:
> Page 1-Roll Call-add Sargent as present.
> Page 1-Approval of Minutes-first line-add"will abstain from voting on these minutes".
> Page.1-Approval of Minutes-first bullet-delete"and minutes".
> Page 2-Commission comments-fourth bullet-replace"drawing"with"Floor plan".
> Page 3 - Commission questions/comments - second bullet - insert "true" between "be" and
"divided".
> Page 3-last line at bottom of page-replace"Audry"with"Audrey".
> Page 5 - Commission discussion - first bullet - revise to read "Existing windows are fairly
new;the proposed windows will not match them".
> Page 6-second paragraph-replace"DeMartin"with"DeMartini".
> Page 6 - Questions of staff - revise Hurin's response to read: "Looks at long distant views,
though the code does not define that. However, in 2007 the City Council adopted a resolution
related to tree trimming that defines Bay views as a distant view or vista of San Francisco Bay,
also that it is not intended to protect views of hills or other features. Also clarified that views are
to be from habitable spaces".
> Page 6-Public comments-replace"Chen"with"Chin".
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Bandrapalli,DeMartini,Yie,Loftis,Sargent,Terrones,and Gum
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Community Development Director Meeker noted that Agenda Item 8d (113 Crescent Avenue) is pulled
from the agenda due to a noticing error and will be renoticed for an agenda when the applicant is
available. Also, Agenda Item 9b (12 Vista Lane) is pulled from the agenda to permit investigation of
alleged code enforcement violations on the property; the item will be renoticed when this issue is
resolved.
City or Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 8/27/2014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Final-revised August 11,2014
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a. 1545 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 — Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new single
family dwelling (George Novitskiy, applicant and designer; Chris Sadlak and Mee
Kwong, property owners) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (continued from the
June 23, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting)
Attachments: 1545 Los Montes Dr-08.11.14 staff rpt.pdf
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Christopher Sadlak and George Novitsklyrepresented the applicant.
Commission commentsrquestions:
> Expressed concern regarding the compatibility of the proposed orange paint color with the
neighborhood. Felt that the color creates a disjointed effect when viewed in context with the fascias and
the roof edges. Is the applicant committed to the color? (Novitskiy - provided a more subdued color
sample to the Commission.Noted that the color will only be applied to the smooth stucco areas.)
> Feels that the tree within the front yard area can be adequately protected according to the arborist's
report.
> Concerned that what is being shown on the rendering will not actually be built, the project plans do
not provide complete details of materials and finishes on all sides of the structure.
> What type of trim will be used around the garage door? (Novitskiy - aluminum to match the
windows.)
> Will the file applied to the side match the tile on the front? (Novitskiy-yes.)
> Due to the information lacking on the plans, it is difficult for the Commission to determine if the
project is compatible with the neighborhood.
> Asked if the applicant received the e-mail from Jose Franco who questioned the wall height and
whether the structure will comply with the height restriction? (Novitskiy - at maximum built height it could
exceed the height limit by roughly one-half inch due to the construction materials used on the roof.)
> Given the home's location atop a hill,it could appear too massive for the area.
> Typically, a lesser plate height than that proposed is supported on the second floor Will the
applicant consider a lesser plate height on both the first and second floors? (Novitskiy - noted that the
applicant is quite tall and doesn't like the feeling associated with a lesser ceiling height. Also, he noted
that the applicant is from Eastern Europe and grew up in small, confined structures; the design appeals
to him on a more emotional level.)
City ofauriingeme Page 2 Primed on 827/2014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014
> Why are there two arborist reports? (Novitskiy-the first report did not contain enough information.)
> How will the tree protection measures be implemented? (Novitskiy- the arborist will be on site as
excavation and grading in the area of the tree is performed in order to ensure Me tree's health.)
> Feels that the front of the house is nicely articulated,but the sides are not.
> When the walls are painted the accent colors, the intention is to draw attention to these elements.
There is little detail in these areas. (Novitskiy-the color is intended to accentuate these areas.)
> Feels the front of the house is nicely articulated, but the design breaks down less successfully on
the sides.
> Protection of the existing landscaping will be necessary. Significant landscaping will be required to
enhance the compatibility with the neighborhood.
> What will happen if the finished height of the roof slightly exceeds the approved height? (Nunn -
staff provides latitude for up to six-inches of deviation from the approved height. Novitskiy - will not
actually see the roof. The central portion of the roof is the high point. Hurin - a height survey will be
required.)
> Have insinuated the Commission into the color choice due to the applicant's characterization of the
color as hot"orange.
> A lot of work has been done on the design in response to the design reviewer's suggestions.
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Additional Commission comments✓questions:
> Is there a standard condition regarding the implementation of tree protection measures? (Meeker -
read the condition in the suggested conditions.) Also requested that the arborist review and be present
during the root cutting.
> Is important that the drawings are clear on what is being specked. It would be good to ask that an
FYI be submitted with fully annotated drawings prior to building permit issuance. The information has
been requested on multiple occasions, this suggestion is totally appropriate.
> Still concerned about the overall height of the building. Isn't certain that this is the appropriate
location for a taller, flat-roofed building. Uncertain if the design actually fits the character of the
neighborhood. Other homes in the area have lower plate heights even on the first floor. The greater
plate heights make the design pretty imposing.
> Some elements on the sides are broken up well,but generally the design towers over the street.
> Part of the purpose of design review is to maintain Me character of the neighborhoods.
> Haven't as a consensus advised the applicant that the structure is too tall. It would be good if the
Commissioners had said the building was too tall.
> The design reviewer had suggested revisions to lower the height that have not been addressed.
> One of the first things said at the design review study session was that the height was too tall. Feels
like this has been a consistent concern.
> Is a handsome design on paper. The design reviewer's suggestions have made the design more
cohesive. However, still feels that the ten foot and nine foot plate heights are too tall.
> if the design fits within the regulatory constraints, then it is something that is a subjective matter.
> A thirty foot height is allowed by right. Is a bit of a slippery slope to reduce the height to something
that is lower than what is allowed by right.
> Perhaps the porton of the structure that reaches the thirty foot height contributes to the
incompatibility with the neighborhood context.
> Noted that the thirty foot height limit was designed for gable roofed homes where a lower height will
exist adjacent to neighboring properties.
> Looking at 1547 Los Montes Drive, there is a two story element that somewhat towers over the
one-story home to the left; however, that tower is balanced by other sections of the home that are built at
a lower height.
> Perhaps the height limit for flat roofed homes should be less than thirty feet.
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 8/27/2014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014 1
Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing to permit the applicant to respond to questions from the
Commission.
Additional Commission comments/questions(continued):
> Noted that the applicant's response letter indicated an unwillingness to reduce the plate heights.
(Novitskiy - feels that given the setback of the structure from the front property line, reduces the impact
of the height. Feels the design falls within the maximum height. The applicant is also a taller individual
that would prefer the greater plate height.)
> The Commission could still impose a requirement for a lesser plate height given that the design does
not comply with neighborhood character (Novitskiy - the reduced height would impact the mental state
of the client)
> Feels like the structure feels very tall. (Sadlak - the garage makes the structure feel much taller than
it is. Novitskiy-the structure would be six to seven feet taller if the design were of a Spanish design.)
> Clarified that the height from the curb to the first floor is eight feet.
> On a prior project, recalls making the finding that the height wasnY reduced given relationship to the
street.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Yie, to continue this Item to
the August 25, 2014 regular meeting, with direction to the applicant to revise the project plans as
highlighted in the Commission's discussion of the item (note: this action is not appealable).
Chair Bandrapaili asked for a voice vote,and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 5- Bandrapalli, DeMartini,Yie, Sargent, and Terrones
Nay: 2- Loftis,and Gum
b. 2532 Hayward Drive, zoned R-1 — Application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit
for a change in the roof line on the first floor of the existing house (Randy Grange,
TRG Architects, architect and applicant; Roy and Cecilia Parker, property owners) )
(32 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Attachments: 2532 Hayward Dr-08.11.14 staff rot odf
2532 Hayward Dr-0811 14 recd after 1 Of
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director presented the staff report. He also noted that the individual that
called this matter up for review by the Planning Commission has since withdrawn her opposition to the
project, this is documented in a memorandum prepared by Planner Erika Lewit.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public heating.
Roy Parker represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
> The existing windows are wood frame and casement-style. What will the new windows be? (Parker
-likely wood frame with aluminum cladding) It is important to have the new windows match the old.
Public comments.,
There were no public comments.
City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on W712014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve this item
subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report (note: the Commission's action is
appealable). Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
Aye: 7- Bandrapalli, DeMartini,Yie, Loftis, Sargent,Terrones, and Gum
C. 1048 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 — Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition and a new detached garage (Anthony Ho, LPMD Architects,
designer; Mr. & Mrs. Wilson Cheng, property owners) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica
Strohmeier
Attachments: 1048 Balboa Ave-08.11.14 staff mt.odf
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing
Wilson Cheng represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
> Applauded the decision to replace all windows. Is happy with all the changes made.
> Specify that the windows should be simulated true divided light windows.
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
item subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report, plus the following additional
condition(note: the Commission's action is appealable):
> "that all windows shall be simulated,true divided-light design"
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Bandrapalli, DeMartini,Yie, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Gum
d. 113 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 — Application for Special Permits for construction of
a new basement within an existing single family dwelling (Flury Bryant Design Group,
applicant and designer; Thomas and Tammy Kiely, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff
Contact: Ruben Hurin
Attachments: 113 Crescent Ave-08.11.14 staff rot odf
Community Development Director Meeker noted that this item has been pulled from the agenda due to
an error in the noticing. The item will be re-noticed and placed on an agenda when the applicant is
�► available.
City or Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 812712014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014
e. 1469 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 — Application for Conditional Use Permits for
construction of a new detached garage with an attic storage space above the garage
(Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Ranjan Prasad and
Monisha Deshpande, property owners) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Attachments: 1469 Bernal Ave-08.11.14 staff rpt.pdf
1469 Bernal Ave-08.11.14 recd after pdf
Commissioner Terrones recused himself from participating on this item as he has a business
relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
> Likes the dormers with the faux windows.
> Any thought to providing a faux window at the rear? (Furlong - the windows are not faux. They will
have obscured glass.)
> What is the height of the existing garage? (Furlong-roughly thirteen feet.)
> Feels like the bump out at the front of the garage accentuates the vertical height of the building.
(Furlong-wanted to maximize the storage above. Are already over 600 square feet.)
> Thanked the applicant for the proposed improvement.
> Has there been any feedback from the other neighbor? (Furlong-no.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the item
subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report (the Commission's action is
appealable).
Discussion of motion:
> The space will not be used as an active space and the windows will be obscured to prevent
views into the space.
> The overall building height is reduced due to the balloon framing. The actual floor will be
below the plate height.
> The overall size of the structure is being reduced.
> The overall building is well articulated and will not appear as a massive structure.
> There have been no objections from the neighbors.
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Bandrapalli, DeMartini,Yie, Loffis, Sargent, and Gum
Recused: 1 - Terrones
City or Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 8/27/2014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014
f. 141 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 — Application for Conditional Use Permits and Special
Permit for construction of a new covered patio attached to an existing accessory
structure (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Keith and Beth
Taylor Tr, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
Attachments: 141 Pepper Ave-08.11.14 staff rpt.pdf
Commissioner Terrones was recused from the discussion regarding this item as he has a business
relationship with the applicant. He remained outside the City Council Chambers.
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners DeMartini and Gum had met with the
property owner while visiting the site.
Senior Planner Huhn presented the staff report.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public heating.
Jacob Furlong represented the applicant.
Commission Comments:
> Commented on the existing length of the garage and secondary unit. (Hurin - noted that this is an
existing condition.)
Public comments:
'�.. There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair DeMartini, to approve the item
subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report (note: the Commissions's action
is appealable).
Discussion of motion:
> The addition is well designed and fits with the character of the neighborhood.
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 6- Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum
Recused: 1 - Terrones
g. 1480 Broadway, zoned C-1, Broadway Commercial Area — Application for Conditional
Use Permits for expansion of an existing gasoline service station and convenience
store (Shatara Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; 1480 Broadway Property
LLC, property owner) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Erica Strohmeier
Attachments: 1480 Broadway-08 11 14 staff rot pdf
Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais.
All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
City o/Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 8/27/2014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014
Senior Planner Hurin presented the staff report.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Suheil Shatara and Roger Abuyaghi represented the applicant.
Commission commentsrquestions:
> Feels that the County Health Department was suggesting this requirement at a time when the
property was being redeveloped. Uncomfortable with holding up the current project modifying the
existing building. (Kane - if the Commission feels it has the information needed to make a decision
tonight that is okay, but the Commission could also request additional information from the County
regarding its interests.)
> Must be able to find that the use will not result in a threat to the public health and safety.
> Can't tell if accessible parking is provided on the site to meet standards.
> Must the applicant show all aspects of the design on the plans.
> Expressed confusion regarding the closing time for the business. Is it 11 p.m. or midnight?
(Abuyagi-the business is closed to customers at 11 p.m.)
> Comments regarding the pollution from the fuel spill. Spent a fair amount of time reviewing the
environmental documents in prior submissions. There was testing done previously. Referenced
hazardous materials in report. There is one sample area under the area where the retail is to be
provided. There is a very high benzene reading at this location. The Planning Commission must be
able to find that the proposed use is not detrimental to the public health. Would like a report that
demonstrates that a hazardous condition doesn't exist. (Abuyagi - air sampling is done on a continuing
basis, but has been discontinued.) Wants this information prior to making a decision regarding the
application. (Architect-feels this information can be provided.)
> Has there been any discussion with Chevron regarding clean up? (Abuyagi - Chevron is in charge --�
of clean up. Testing results are provided to the Health Department.)
> Is the existing stone veneer to remain and additional will be provided in the new areas. (Architect -
likely would replace all veneer.) Would be okay with replacing all of the stone veneer with new stone
veneer)
> Will the light pole that is currently unused be removed? (Abuyagi - plans will be revised to show its
removal.)
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public heating.
Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item with
direction to the applicant to determine if an unsafe condition exists on the property due to soil
contamination, and to confer with an expert and the County of San Mateo Health Department to
determine what mitigations may occur to ensure that the conversion of the space, as requested,
will not create a threat to the public health and safety . Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,
and the motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Bandrapalli, DeMartini,Yie, Loftis, Sargent,Terrones, and Gum
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 308 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (Jerry Deal, JD Associates,
designer and applicant; Pascal Parrot and Lusine Yeghiazaryan, property owners) (64
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Cityof Buriingame Page 8 Printed on 812712014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014
Attachments: 308 Bayswater Ave-08.11.14 staff rot.odf
All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner DeMartini indicated that he had met with the
property owner when he visited the property.
Community Development Director Meeker presented the staff report.
Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing.
Lusine Yeghiazaryan and Pascal Parrot represented the applicant.
Commission comments/questions:
> Will the shed at the rear of the property be removed? (Yeghiazaryan-yes.)
> Is the slider at the rear being reused? Suggested extending the landing outside the door.
> Straightforward design.
> Concerned regarding potential impact upon the neighbor's tree. Suggested having an arborist
review the tree to determine that there is no impact to the tree. (Yeghiazaryan - are planning to have
this issue reviewed.)
> Noted that the fence is built around the tree.
Public comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item
on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the
motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: 7- Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Yie, Loftis, Sargent,Terrones, and Gum
b. 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for
attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family
dwelling with an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc,
applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner) (35 noticed) Staff
Contact: Erica Strohmeier
Attachments: 12 Vista Ln-08.11.14 staff rot.odf
12 Vista Ln-08.11.14 recd after 1.0f
12 Vista Ln-08.11.14 recd after 2.odf
12 Vista Ln-08.11.14 recd after 3 odf
Community Development Director Meeker noted that this item had been pulled from the agenda to
permit time for staff to investigate an alleged code enforcement matter on the property that was brought
to light after noticing was completed and the staff report was published. The item will be scheduled for
review by the Planning Commission at a future date once investigation of the code enforcement matter
concludes.
10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
There were no Commissioners'reports.
City o1 Burlingame Page 9 Printed on W712014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-Final-revised August 11,2014
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a. Commission Communications
There were no Commission Communications.
b. City Council Regular Meeting-August 18, 2014
There were no action to report from the last City Council meeting as the City Council is on hiatus until
August 18, 2014.
C. FYI: 1301 Drake Avenue — review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
Attachments: 1301 Drake Ave-08 11 14 staff rot odf
Approved.
d. FYI: 1435 Benito Avenue — review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
Attachments: 1435 Benito Ave-08 11 14 staff rot odf
Approved.
e. FYI: 1412 Drake Avenue — review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
Attachments: 1412 Drake Ave-08 11 14 staff rot odf
Approved.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Note:An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on August 11, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 21, 2014, the action becomes
final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by
an appeal fee of$485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
City of Burlingame Page 10 Printed on 812712014
k ' BURLINGAME CITY HALL
} N City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
711111111,
BURLINGAME BURLINGAME,CA 94010
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
Monday,August 25,2014 7:00 PM Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. August 11, 2014 Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Minutes of August 11,2014 with the following changes:
> Page 8; Commission comments/questions, sixth bullet; in Abuyagi response replaced "the"
with"air".
> Page 8; Commission comments/questions, seventh bullet replace "within" with "with" in first
sentence.
> Page 9; third line from top; replace "There were no ex-parte communications to report' with
"Commissioner DeMartini met with the property owner when he visited the property".
The motion carried by the following vote:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
6. STUDY ITEMS
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. 308 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and
second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (Jerry Deal, JD Associates,
designer and applicant; Pascal Parrot and Lusine Yeghiazaryan, property owners) (64
noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve the
application with the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. The motion was
approved unanimously by the following vote:
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a. 113 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 — Application for Special Permits for construction of
a new basement within an existing single family dwelling (Flury Bryant Design Group,
applicant and designer; Thomas and Tammy Kiely, property owners) (49 noticed) Staff
City of Burlingame Pagel Printed on 911712014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 25,2014
Contact: Ruben Hurin (continued from the August 11, 2014 Planning Commission
Meeting)
Commissioner Yie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve with the
findings and conditions in the staff report (the Commission's action is appealable). The motion
was approved unanimously by the following vote:
b. 1510 La Mesa Lane, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review, Variance for building
height and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing
single family dwelling (Audrey Tse, Insite Design, designer and applicant; Isako
Hoshino and Matthew Machlis, property owners) (44 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben
Hurin
Commissoner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, made a motion to approve
subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report, plus the following amended conditions
(the Commission's action is appealable).
> that the design shall be revised to include "hips" on both ends of the second floor roof and
the specific materials to be used for exterior siding shall come back as an FYI before a building
permit is issued.
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote,and the motion carried by the following vote:
C. 1340 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and a Special
Permit for Declining Height Envelope for first and second story additions to an existing
single family dwelling and a new, detached garage (Geoff Gibson, architect and
applicant; Amita Jain and Niteen Patkar, property owners) (54 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
Commissoner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Gum, made a motion to approve the
application subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report (the Commission's action is
appealable). Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
d. 1545 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1— Application for Design Review, Hillside Area
Construction Permit, and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new single
family dwelling (George Novitskiy, applicant and designer; Chris Sadlak and Mee
Kwong,property owners)(43 noticed)Staff Contact:Erika Lewit
Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, made a motion to approve the
application subject to the findings and conditions stated in the staff report, With the following
additional conditions(the Commission's decision is appealable):
> that the tile proposed on the exterior of the building shall be changed to a more natural
material. The decision regarding this material shall be brought back to the Commission as an
FYI.
> that lower profile trees shall be selected for placement at the left rear portion of the property.
The final selection shall be bought back to the Commission as an FYI.
> that the plate height for the first floor shall be reduced by one foot,from ten feet to nine feet.
Chair Bandrapalli asked for a roll call vote,and the motion carried by the following vote:
e. 10 Kenmar Way, zoned R-1— Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit to
replace an existing deck, build a new balcony, and extend a patio (Sarah Small,
City o/eurtinganne Page 2 Printed on 9/1712014
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 25,2014
architect and applicant, Rachael and Geoff Clarke, property owners) (28 noticed)
Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
Commissoner Loftier seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, made a motion to approve subject
to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report (the Commission's action is
appealable). Chair Bandrapalli asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following
vote:
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a. 2308 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 — Application for Design Review and Special Permit for
a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Harumitsu Inouye,
applicant and property owner Michael Ma, March Design, architect;) (65 noticed) Staff
Contact: Kevin Gardiner
10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a. Commission Communications
b. City Council Regular Meeting -September 15, 2014
C. FYI: 2747 Burlingview Drive — review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
d. FYI: 1240 Capuchino Avenue — review of proposed changes to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
e. FYI: 1301 Drake Avenue — review of proposed change to a previously approved
Design Review Project.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Note:An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on August 25, 2014. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 4, 2014, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of$485, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community DevelopmentlPlanning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 9117/1014
1 City of Bh..ingame
AUGUST PERMIT ACTIVITY
* Total building permit valuation for August was down significantly from the same time last year. Residential alterations were on a par with last year's activity.
Non-residential valuations were off by more than 50%. Permits were issued for three new single-family dwellings.
*" No pre-application meetings were held in August.
THIS MONTH
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2014 F. Y.2013 DIFF
Permit Type # # % # # %
WATER HEATER 1 1,600 1 1,600 1 0 0
SWIMMING POOL 1 1100 1 429000 1 11,000 282
SIGN 3 9,432 5 373600 -75 6 24,166 6 4700 -49
ROOFING 19 4775477 12 1885140 154 32 7111002 33 5733741 24
RETAINING WALL 1 8,000 1 8,000
PLUMBING 23 145,228 18 801657 80 43 226,793 39 183,103 24
NEW SFD 3 15850,000 1 788,600 135 4 2,515,000 2 15393,600 80
NEW COMMERCIAL
NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 1,500,000
NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT
MECHANICAL 4 273300 2 9,825 178 7 551516 7 541595 2
KITCHEN UPGRADE 3 611800 3 817488 -24 4 965800 5 117,988 -18
FURNACE 1 5,900 1 5,900
ELECTRICAL SERVICE
City of Burlingame
AUGUST PERMIT ACTIVITY
THIS MONTH
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F.Y. 2014 F. Y.2013 DIFF
Permit Type # # % # # %
ELECTRICAL 18 158,300 6 50,350 214 31 344,800 30 382,619 -10
BATHROOM UPGRADE 11 157,000 5 58,800 167 16 226,500 11 162,300 40
ALTERATION RESIDENTI 21 1,161,269 28 1,319,455 -12 43 2,603,691 60 2,326,573 12
ALTERATION NON RES 8 186,000 16 6,541,717 -97 17 2,528,984 25 8,040,717 -69
Totals: 115 4,243,406 98 9,173,532 -54 206 9,384,851 222 14,799,736 -37
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
July 31, 2014
Par Market Book %of Days to YTM1C YTMlC
Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
LAIF 3 County Pool 49,623,232.58 49,516,891.89 49,623,232.58 53.81 1 1 0.288 0.292
Certificates of Deposit-Bank 3,500,000.00 3,523,895.35 3,500,000.00 3.80 1,396 880 1.234 1.251
CORP NOTES 3,000,000.00 3,188,705.00 3,218,300.00 3.49 1,095 991 -1.092 -1.108
Commercial Paper-Discount 1,000,000.00 999,773,70 997,334.86 1.08 269 45 0.362 0.367
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 34,909,654.50 34,709,672.58 34,878,644.84 37.82 1,631 484 0.946 0.960
92,032,887.08 92,038,938.52 92,217,512.30 100.00% 712 252 0.525 0.533
Investments
Total Earnings July 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 44,865.90 44,865.90
Average Daily Balance 92,208,417.34 80,989,614.31
Effective Rate of Return 0.57% 0.05%
Pursuant to State law,there are sufficient ailable funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types,and
availabili y*Tf some of es nds is restri ed by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&AAgency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds).
CAR/4-AUGUSTIN ,FKANCE REC R/TREASURER f
• 1�
Reporting period 07101/2014-0713112014 Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Dale:08/25/2014-16:35 PM(PRF PM1)7.2.5
Report Ver.7.3.1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 1
Portfolio Details - Investments
July 31 , 2014
Average Purchase Stated YTM/C Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 365 Maturity Date
LAIF & County Pool
SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 07/01/2013 44,445,760.07 44,457,902.96 44,445,760.07 0,244 0.244 1
i
SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 07/01/2013 5,177,472.51 5,158,988.93 5,177,472.51 0.700 0.700 1
Subtotal and Average 49,614,137.62 49,623,232.58 49,616,891.89 49,623,232.58 0.292 1
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
02005QT862 728 ALLY BANK UT 12!05/2012 250,000.00 250,458.00 250,000.00 0.750 0.760 126 12/05/2014
02587DSFO 756 AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION 08/22/2013 250,000.00 252,766.55 250,000.00 1.900 1.900 1,482 08/2212018
05568P4S3 753 BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA 08/16/2013 250,000.00 251,237.93 250,000.00 1.400 1.400 746 08/16/2016
17284CUXO 763 CIT BANK 12/0412013 250,000.00 250,683.28 250,000.00 1.450 1.450 1,221 12/04/2017
20451PCL8 755 COMPASS BANK 08/21/2013 250,000.00 251,773.23 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1,481 08/21/2018
2546710E8 702 DISCOVER BANK 06/06/2012 250,000.00 254,505.80 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1,040 06/06/2017
321086FJ4 734 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 02113/2013 250,000.00 249,829,83 250,000.00 0.400 0.400 377 08/13/2015
33764JYJ8 750 FIRST BANK OF PUERTO RICO 08/16/2013 250,000.00 250,643.00 250,000.00 0.900 0.900 746 08/16/2016
36161TAQB 704 GE CAPITAL FINANCIAL 06/08/2012 250,000.00 252,977.55 250,000.00 1.350 1.350 677 06/08/2016
36157QEL7 703 GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK 06/08/2012 250,000.00 254,514.38 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1,042 06/08/2017
38143AUGB 701 GOLDMAN SACHS BANK 06/06/2012 250,000.00 254,505.80 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1,040 06/0612017
48125TGH2 774 JP MORGAN CHASE 03/1012014 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 1.000 1.000 1,682 03/10/2019
59012YZ91 730 Merrick Bank 12/21/2012 250,000.00 250,000-00 250,000.00 0.550 0.550 143 12/2212014
7865BAAZ1 731 SAFRA NATIONAL BANK 12/31/2012 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.600 0.600 517 12/3112015
Subtotal and Average 3,500,000.00 3,500,000,00 3,523,895.35 3,500,000.00 1.251 880
CORP NOTES
46625HHL7 777 JP MORGAN SECURITIES 05/09/2014 1,000,000.00 1,170,625.00 1,188,900.00 2.250 -3.730 1,011 05/08/2017
80236TBD6 773 TOYOTA MTR CR CORP 03/05/2014 1,000,000.00 995,230.00 1,000,000.00 0.750 0.750 947 03/05/2017
94974BFD7 776 WELLS FARGO CO 05/09/2014 1,000,000.00 1,022,650.00 1,029,400.00 1.100 0.116 1,011 05/08/2017
Subtotal and Average 3,218,300.00 3,000,000.00 3,188,705.00 3,218,300.00 -1.108 991
Commercial Paper - Discount
46640QJF9 769 JP MORGAN SECURITIES 12/20/2013 1,000,000.00 999,773.70 997,334.88 0.357 0.367 45 09115/2014
Subtotal and Average 997,334.88 1,000,000.00 999,773.70 997,334.88 0.367 45
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
3133EAA81 711 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 07/31/2012 2,000,000.00 1,992,520.00 1,998,000.00 0.780 0.803 913 01/30/2017
3133EAE38 716 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08108/2012 2,000,000.00 1,988,860.00 1,998,000.00 0.820 0.842 1,004 05/01/2017
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 00/25/2014 - 16:35 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.2.5
Report Ver. 7.3.1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 2
Portfolio Details - Investments
July 31 , 2014
Average Purchase Stated YTMIC Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 5&P 365 Maturity Date
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
3133ECE91 733 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 02/01/2013 1,000,000.00 1,000,290.00 1,000,000.00 0.400 0.400 549 02/01/2016
3133ECHS6 735 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/12/2013 1,000,000.00 990,720.00 1,000,000.00 1.030 1.030 1,319 03/12/2018
3133802CO 710 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 07/26/2012 1,000,000.00 998,580_Do 1,000,000.00 1.050 1.050 1,090 07/26/2017
3133805K9 713 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/08/2012 654,827.25 654,866.54 654,172,42 0.720 0.745 738 08/08/2016
3133805KS 714 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/08/2012 654,827.25 654,866.54 654,172.42 0.720 0.745 738 08108/2016
3133804V6 718 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/14/2012 1,000,000.00 995,840.00 999,300.00 1.000 1.014 1,104 08/09/2017
3133804VB 719 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/05/2012 1,000,000.00 995,840.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 1,104 08/09/2017
31338OMF1 720 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2012 1,000,000.00 995,312.50 999,500.00 1.000 Aaa 1.010 1,144 09/18/2017
31338OMFI 721 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2012 1,000,000.00 995,312.50 1,000,000,00 1.000 Aaa 1.000 1,144 09118/2017
31338ONTO 722 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/27/2012 1,000,000.00 989,830.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 1,153 09/27/2017
313381W68 732 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/30/2013 2,000,000.00 1,994,600.00 2,000,000.00 0.750 0.600 90 01/30/2018
3130A1063 771 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/26/2014 1,000,000.00 997,400.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.250 56 03/26/2019
3130A15W4 772 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/27/2014 1,000,000.00 994,490.00 999,000.00 0.875 1.076 57 03/27/2017
3134G44N5 741 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 05/28/2013 1,000,000.00 981,010.00 1,000,000.00 0.750 0.750 300 11/28/2017
3134G43S5 744 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 05115/2013 1,000,000,00 989,910.00 1,000,000.00 0.625 0.625 287 05/15/2017
3134G46D5 746 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 06/12/2013 2,000,000,00 1,977,320.00 1,989,000.00 1.200 1.572 42 06/1212018
3134G4EF1 748 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 08/13/2013 1,550,000.00 1,550,465.00 1,550,000.00 1.000 1.000 12 02/13/2017
3134G4FA1 751 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 08/27/2013 1,000,000.00 1,000,660.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 26 0212712017
3134G4NZ7 768 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 12/27/2013 1,000,000.00 996,240.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.500 57 12/27/2018
3134G4V39 770 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 02/28/2014 1,000,000.00 1,000,930.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 2.008 27 02/28/2019
3135GORQB 723 FANNIE MAE 11/15/2012 1,000,000.00 996,830.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 14 11/15/2017
3136GOZ61 724 FANNIE MAE 11/14/2012 1,000,000.00 987,812.50 998,500.00 0.900 0.976 13 11/14/2017
3136G06M8 726 FANNIE MAE 11/27/2012 2,000,000.00 1,971,940.00 2,000,000.00 0.900 0.900 26 11/27/2017
3136GOGZO 729 FANNIE MAE 12113/2012 2,000,000.00 1,988,480.00 2,000,000.00 0.650 0.650 43 12/13/2016
3136G1KS7 736 FANNIE MAE 05/15/2013 1,050,000.00 1,045,947.00 1,050,000.00 0.500 0.500 14 08/15/2016
3136GIBT55 761 FANNIE MAE 11/19/2013 2,000,000.00 1,982,800.00 1,989,000.00 0.850 Aaa 1.015 1,102 08/07/2017
Subtotal and Average 34,878,644.84 34,909,654.50 34,709,672.58 34,878,644.84 0.960 484
Total and Average 92,208,417,34 92,032,887.08 92,038,938.52 92,217,512,30 0.533 252
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 08/25/2014- 16:35 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.2.5
: I
CITY OF BURLINGAME
I � Portfolio Management Page
Portfolio Details - Cash
'I July 31 , 2014
Average Purchase Stated YTMlC Days to
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 5&P 365 Maturity
Average Balance 0.00 0
Total Cash and Investments 92,208,417.34 92,032,887.08 92,038,938.52 92,217,512.30 0.533 252
l
_I
I ,
Ili
i
SII
ill
I !
I
' I
I,
i
Portfolio CITY
II CP
Run Date: 08/2512014 - 16:35 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.2.5
I �
i
i
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Investment Status Report - Investments Pagel
July 31 , 2914
Stated Maturity Purchase YTM/C YTMIC Payment Accrued Interest Current
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Par Value Rate Date Date 360 365 Dates At Purchase Principal Book Value
LAIF & County Pool
SYS77 77 LAIF 44,445,760.07 0.244 07/01/2013 0.241 0.244 09130 - Quarterly 44,445,760.07 44,445,760.07
SYS79 79 SMPOOL 5,177,472.51 0.700 07/01/2013 0.690 0.700 09130 - Quarterly 5,177,472.51 5,177,472.51
LAIF & County Pool Totals 49,623,232.58 0.288 0.292 0.00 49,623,232.58 49,623,232,68
Certificates of deposit - Bank
02005QT862 728 ALLY B 250,000.00 0.7501210512014 12/05/2012 0.750 0.760 01/05 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00
02587DSF6 756 AMEXCN 250,000.00 1.90008/22/2018 08/22/2013 1.874 1.900 02112- 08/12 250,000.00 250,000.00
!, 05568P453 753 BMW 250,000.00 1.40008116/2016 08/16/2013 1.381 1.400 02116 - 08/16 250,000.00 250,000.00
17284OUXO 763 CITBAK 250,000.00 1.4501210412017 12/04/2013 1.430 1.450 06/04 - 12/04 250,000.00 250,000.00
20451PCL8 755 COMPAS 250,000.00 1.8000812112018 08/21/2013 1.775 1.600 02112- 08/12 250,000.00 250,000.00
254671 CE8 702 DISCOV 250,000.00 1.800 06/0612017 06/06/2012 1.775 1.800 12/06 - 06106 250,000.00 250,000.00
321086FJ4 734 FIRST 250,000.00 0.4000811312015 02/13/2013 0.395 0.400 03101 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00
33764JYJ8 750 FPR 250,000.00 0.90008/16/2016 08/16/2013 0.888 0.900 09116 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00
i 36161TAQS 704 GE CAP 250,000.00 1.35008/0812016 06108/2012 1.332 1.350 12101 - 06/01 250,000.00 250,000.00
361570EL7 703 GE RET 250,000.00 1.800 06/0812017 06108/2012 1.775 1.800 12108 - 06108 250,000.00 250,000.00
38143AUGS 701 GOLD 250,000.00 1.800.0610612017 06/06/2012 1.775 1.800 12106 - 06106 250,000.00 250,000.00
48125TGH2 774 JPCHAS 250,000.00 1.000 03/10/2019 03110/2014 0.986 1.000 09110 - 03/10 250,000.00 250,000.00
59012YZ91 730 MERRIC 250,000.00 0.55012122/2014 12/21/2012 0.542 0.550 01113 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00
7B658AAZ1 731 SAFRA 250,000.00 0.60012131/2015 12/31/2012 0.592 0.600 06/30 - 12131 250,000.00 250,000.00
Certificates of Deposit - Bank Totals 3,500,000.00 1.234 1.251 0.00 3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00
_........ ...................... ................._.....
,__._.,_
CORP NOTES
46625HHL7 777 JP MOR 1,000,000.00 2.25005/0812017 05/09/2014 -3.678 -3.730 11/06- 05106 2,800.00 1,188,900.00 1,188,900.00
89236TBD6 773 TOY 1,000,000.00 0.75003/0512017 03/05/2014 0.740 0.750 06/05- Quarterly 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
94974BFD7 776 WELLS 1,000,000.00 1.10005/0812017 05/09/2014 0,114 0,116 10/23 - 04/23 58.33 1,029,400.00 1,029,400.00
CORP NOTES Totals 3,000,000.00 -1.092 -1.108 2,858.33 3,218,300.00 3,218,300.00
-- ._._._._._.._._........._....._._..._........
-...._..- ---
Commercial Paper - Discount
46640QJF9 769 JP MOR 1,000,000.00 0.35709/15/2014 12/20/2013 0.362 0.367 09/15 - At Maturity 997,334.88 997,334.88
Commercial Paper . Discount Totals 1,000,000.00 0.362 0.367 0.00 997,334.88 997,334.88
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
3133EAABI 711 FFCB 2,000,000.00 0.76001/3012017 07/31/2012 0.792 0.803 01/30 - 07130 1,998,000.00 1,998,000.00
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 08/2512014- 1 0:35 PM (PRF PMS) 7.2.5
Report Ver. 7.3.1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Investment Status Report - Investments Page 2
July 31 , 2014
Stated Maturity Purchase YTM/C YTMIC Payment Accrued Interest Current
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Par Value Rate Date Date 360 365 Dates At Purchase Principal Book Value
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
3133E-AE35 716 FFCB 2,000,000.00 0,82005/01/2017 08/08/2012 0.830 0.642 11/01 - 05/01 318.89 1,998,000.00 1,998,000.00
3133ECE91 733 FFCB 1,000,000.00 0.40002/01/2016 02/01/2013 0.395 0.400 08/01 - 02101 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
3133ECHS6 735 FFCB 1,000,000.00 1.03003/12/2018 03112/2013 1.016 1.030 09112 - 03/12 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
3133802CO 710 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.05007/26/2017 07/26/2012 1.036 1.050 01/26 - 07/26 1,000,000,00 1,000,000.00
3133805KO 713 FHLB 654,627.25 0.72008/0812016 08/08/2012 0.735 0.745 02108 - 09100 654,172.42 654,172.42
3133805K9 714 FHLB 654,82725 0.72008/08/2016 08/08/2012 0.735 0.745 02/08 - 08108 654,172.42 654,172.42
3133804VB 718 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.00008/09/2017 06/14/2012 1.001 1.014 02109 - 08/09 138.89 999,300.00 999,300.00
3133804V6 719 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.0000810912017 09/05/2012 0.986 1.000 02109 - 08/09 722.22 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
313360MFI 720 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.00009/18/2017 09/18/2012 0.996 1.010 03118 - 09/18 999,500.00 999,500.00
3133SOMFI 721 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.0000911812017 0911812012 0.986 1.000 03/18 - 09118 1,000,000.00 1,000,000,00
3133801TO 722 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.00009/27/2017 09/27/2012 0.986 1.000 03127 - 09127 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
31336IW68 732 FHLB 2,000,000.00 0.7500113012018 01130/2013 0.592 0.600 07130 - 01130 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00
3130A-IC63 771 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.25003/2612019 03126/2014 1.233 1.250 09126 - 03126 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
313OA15W4 772 FHLB 1,000,000,00 0.87503/2712017 03/27/2014 1.061 1.076 09127 - 03127 999,000.00 999,000.00
3134G44N5 741 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 0.75011/28/2017 05/28/2013 0.740 0.750 11128 - 05128 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
3134G43S5 744 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 0.6250511512017 05/15/2013 0.616 0.625 11115 - 05115 1,000,000.00 1,000,000,00
3134G46D5 746 FHLMC 2,000,000.00 1.20005112/2018 05/12/2013 1.551 1.572 12112 - 06/12 1,989,000.00 1,989,000.00
3134G4EF1 748 FHLMC 1,550,000.00 1.00002/13/2017 08113/2013 0.986 1.000 02113 - 08113 1,550,000.00 1,550,000.00
313404FAI 751 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 1.00002127/2017 08/27/2013 0.986 1.000 02127 - 08/27 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
3,134G4NZ7 768 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 1.50012/27/2018 12/27/2013 1.479 1.500 06127 - 12127 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
3134G4V39 770 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 1.5000212812019 02/28/2014 1.981 2.008 08128 - 02128 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
3135GORQ8 723 FNMA 1,000,000.00 1.0001111512017 11/15/2012 0.986 1.000 05/15 - 11115 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
3136GOZGI 724 FNMA 1,000,000.00 0.90011/14/2017 11/1412012 0.963 0.976 05114 - 11114 998,500.00 998,500.00
313BG06MB 725 FNMA 2,000,000.00 0.90011/27/2017 11/27/2012 0,888 0.900 05/27 - 11/27 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00
3136GO6Z9 729 FNMA 2,000,000.00 0.65012/13/2016 12113/2012 0.641 0.650 06/13 - 12113 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00
3136G1KS7 736 FNMA 1,050,000.00 0.5000811512016 05/1512013 0.493 0.500 08115 - 02115 1,050,000.00 1,050,000.00
3136GIBT55 761 FNMA 2,000,000.00 0.85008/0712017 11/19/2013 1.001 1.015 02/07 - Quarterly 1,989,000.00 1,989,000.00
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Totals 34,909,654.50 0.946 0,960 1,180.00 34,878,644.84 34,878,644.84
Investment Totals 92,032,887.08 0.525 0.533 4,038.33 92,217,512.30 92,217,512.30
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 08/25/2014 - 16.35 PM (PRF PMS) 7.2,5
RECEIVED
SEP OR 2014
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
eiAt
AM
BURLINGAME NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK
September 5, 2014
The Honorable Mayor Michael Brownrigg
and City Council Members
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Major Brownrigg and City Council Members:
On behalf of the Burlingame Neighborhood Network, I would like to thank you for the $1,750
Community Funding Grant. We are very grateful for the financial support.
The monies will be used for materials and events to support the growth of neighborhood
networks within Burlingame. We will also use the funds for materials to enable blocks to
participate in the citywide disaster exercise, materials such as the "drill in a box" which provides
the instructions for how to organize a block in the event of a disaster and run a drill, forms to use
during the drill, scenarios to use during the drill and more. We have received very positive
feedback on these materials and are very grateful to have the funding to provide more groups
with these tools.
Sincerel
K c idt
air, Burlingame Neighborhood Network