HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.09.17City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers6:00 PMMonday, September 17, 2018
STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
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.
Study Session Regarding the Schematic Design for the New Community Centera.
Staff Report
Exterior View of the Community Center
Attachments:
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
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.
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019
September 17, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
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.
Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes September 4, 2018a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25
(Zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal code, Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling
Units), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 district regulations ), Chapter
25.60 (Accessory Structures in R -1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street
Parking) Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted
Amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2 and Additional Changes to
Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units
b.
Staff Report
CEQA Resolution
Ordinance
September 4, 2018 Staff Report
Govt Code Section 65852.2.pdf
Attachments:
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to
Add Regulations Regarding Marijuana
c.
Staff Report
Ordinance
September 4, 2018 Staff Report
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Hillside and Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating
Project, City Project No. 82780
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Easton Addition, Ray Park and Neighborhood
Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, City Project No. 84191
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019
September 17, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates Project, City Project
No. 84740
f.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Construction Project Photos
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Response Letter to the
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report: “Soaring City Pension Costs –
Time for Hard Choices”
g.
Staff Report
Resolution
Grand Jury Response Letter - Draft
Grand Jury Report
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Response Letter to the
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report: “Cooperative Purchasing – A
Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement”
h.
Staff Report
Resolution
Letter of Response to Grand Jury
Cooperative Purchasing - A Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement.pdf
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Opposing Proposition 6, the November 2018 Statewide Ballot
Measure to Repeal Transportation Funds
i.
Staff Report
Resolution
Resolution Supporting Prop. 69 and Opposing AG #17-0033
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for
Professional Services With Group 4 Architecture, Research & Planning, Inc. and
Approving an Initial Appropriation of $3,726,000 for the New Community Center and
Washington Park Renovation Project
j.
Staff Report
Resolution
Group 4 Agreement
Attachments:
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019
September 17, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for
Professional Services With Griffin Structures for Construction Management Services and
Approving an Appropriation of $1,100,000 for the New Community Center and
Washington Park Renovation Project
k.
Staff Report
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services
Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates Inc. to Perform Environmental Review
Services Related to the Proposed Development of a New Commercial Recreation
Facility (Topgolf) at 250 Anza Boulevard
l.
Staff Report
Resolution
Agreement
Revised Topgolf Burlingame Scope of Work
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Classification and Salary Range for the Payroll
Administrator Position, and Approving the Amended City of Burlingame Pay Rates and
Ranges (Salary Schedule)
m.
Staff Report
Resolution
Job Classification
Salary Schedule
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Public Hearing and Adoption of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement
District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2018-19
a.
Staff Report
Method and Formula of Assessment
Resolution
Attachments:
Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.034 to
Amend Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations
b.
Staff Report
Ordinance
Attachments
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019
September 17, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Review of Solid Waste Rate Options for Calendar Year 2019a.
Staff Report
Rate Scenarios
Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta.
Committee ReportAttachments:
Councilmember Beach's Committee Reportb.
Committee ReportAttachments:
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
14. ADJOURNMENT
15. CLOSED SESSION - after adjournment - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa.
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, Existing Litigation, Two Cases :(Government Code
Section 54956.9)
Names of Cases: Clack v. City of Burlingame (San Mateo Sup. Ct. 17CIV03091), and
Fish v. City of Burlingame (San Mateo Sup. Ct. 17CIV04444)
d.
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 1, 2018
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.com/video
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019
September 17, 2018City 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 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/28/2019
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: STUDY
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Study Session Regarding the Schematic Design for the New Community
Center
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback to Group 4 Architecture, Research &
Planning, Inc. and the Community Center Design Committee on the exterior materials for the new
community center.
BACKGROUND
Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4, the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC), and
community members, has been working on developing plans for a new community center in
Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the active areas of the park
and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center Master Plan) and
conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City Council approved
the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014.
Since that time, the City Council has held study sessions, and the City has gathered input through
an advisory committee, at Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission meetings,
as well as at community meetings and public events. Information about the process and public
outreach plan can be found at
https://www.burlingame.org/parksandrec/facilities/projects/community_center_conceptual_plan.ph
p or reviewed at the Parks and Recreation Department by appointment.
At the July 2, 2018 Council meeting, the City Council chose to move forward with the Pavilions
style building, a 35,700 square foot community center with parking under and adjacent to the new
center. The project also includes a new relocated playground, picnic area, and basketball court,
and an indoor and outdoor stage. The tennis courts, Lions Club building, ballfields, and Parking
Lot X will remain unchanged.
DISCUSSION
Early Site Package
With the goal of providing uninterrupted community access to the playground, an early site package
is being developed that will include the design and construction of the relocated playground. The
Study Session Regarding the Schematic Design for the New Community Center September 17, 2018
2
playground site package will be completed independent of the construction of the building and
remaining sitework. The proposed schedule for the early playground package is to begin design
this fall; staff has already issued a community poll seeking input for design ideas and has begun
soliciting volunteers to sit on the playground citizens’ advisory committee. The work plan for the
project anticipates that construction documents will be completed in the winter of 2019; the project
will be bid in late spring 2019; and construction will be completed by the end of December 2019.
This is prior to construction commencing on the building and remaining site work, which is slated
to begin in early winter of 2021. One of the parameters for the building construction package will
be for the contractor to provide safe access for the community to the new playground during
construction of the building and its associated site work.
Parking
The new surface parking lot with vegetated landscape and trees will take the place of the existing
facility location, while the new building will be located immediately to the west of the new lot, closer
to the greater Washington Park and other civic amenities. The surface lot will provide a transitional
buffer between the new building’s activities and the single-family residences along the eastern edge
of the park. A vegetated sound wall between the parking lot and residential homes will be built to
mitigate vehicular noise impact from the surface lot. The parking lot will also include a designated
pick-up and drop-off zone immediately adjacent to the entry plaza. To accommodate tour bus trips
associated with recreation programming, it is anticipated that the section of Burlingame Avenue
directly in front of the community center may be zoned for bus loading and unloading during specific
timeframes.
The underground parking is located partially under the building and partially under the surface lot.
There will be a lobby at the underground parking level that will allow visitors access from the parking
garage up to the street level of the surface lot and into the community center lobby when the center
is open. There are two options for the City Council’s consideration regarding the number of parking
spaces that can be included in the garage: the first option provides 43 spaces (41 are needed in
the garage), while the second option provides an additional 10 spaces, for a total of 53 spaces.
The costs of the two options are included in the project budget section of this report.
Exterior Design
To ensure the design adheres to the City Council’s direction and is sensitive to the community’s
vision, a building design advisory committee was formed to provide additional input into the
development of the design for both the exterior and interior of the building. On August 22, 2018,
staff and Group 4 met with this Advisory Committee to review the exterior envelope design, focusing
on the building’s exterior materials, exterior elevations, and massing.
The Advisory Committee commented on the strengths of the pavilions and how they fit well into the
vocabulary of the park and their welcoming presence on Burlingame Avenue. The committee
provided comments for refinements to the building height and form to further emphasize the
pavilions and the development of each of the pavilion’s unique characteristics.
The Advisory Committee reviewed several exterior material options. Each option included the
primary exterior cladding material of EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System), which has the
look of stucco but is an integrated exterior envelope system that has high insulation performance.
The EIFS is planned to be painted several colors: two neutral shades and one accent color for
Study Session Regarding the Schematic Design for the New Community Center September 17, 2018
3
vibrancy. The Advisory Committee selected three accent materials: metal panels for the vertical
pavilion element, stone planks for a grounding base finish, and wood (phenolic panel) for the
parapeted volumes that connect the three pavilions. The three pavilion butterfly roofs are planned
to be standing seam metal, while the parapeted flat roofs are planned to be TPO roofing. An add
alternate is being included in the project budget for a green roof on the Kids Town portion of the
building, which is the one-story highly visible portion of the building on Burlingame Avenue in front
of the first pavilion. The green roof would be visible from the street, the park, and the second-floor
dance room. Wood and steel trellises will accent the building entry and outdoor program spaces.
Two additional Advisory Committee meetings are planned for this Schematic Design phase to
review exterior material colors, site elements and landscape palettes, interior finishes and design
features, and lighting design.
Floor Plan and Building Systems
The Integrated Design Workshop for the Schematic Design phase was held on Monday, August
27, 2018 with City staff, Group 4, and the subconsultant design team.
Group 4 presented a project overview of the exterior building, a refined floor plan, exterior materials,
and initial interior floor finishes. The floor plan is currently being refined in conjunction with building
systems, as well as staff area requirements. Staff has requested that an additional elevator be
included as an add alternate in the project budget to provide additional access and flexibility for
operations.
The structural engineer gave an overview of the selected structural system, steel, its integration
with the building floor plan, and lateral and seismic considerations. In addition, the recommended
roof system is a concealed steel roof, and the second floor is concrete on metal deck.
The food service consultant reviewed the layout, appliances, and flow for the commercial kitchen
adjacent to the community room. While there is a desire to have the kitchen function as a
demonstration kitchen, the primary purpose of the kitchen is to support the community room for
catered rental events and community events.
The mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineers reviewed sustainable strategies for maximizing
energy efficiency, including: operable windows, daylight and glare control, ceiling fans, heat
recovery, and a decoupled and highly efficient HVAC system (variant refrigerant flow). City staff
supported each of these sustainable strategies. Plumbing system options and fixture locations were
also presented. The electrical engineer reviewed the building’s power requirements, including
electric vehicle charging, which is in high demand in Burlingame, and the request for an emergency
generator or battery-supported microgrid (will require additional study to determine feasibility) to
provide support for limited operations during a power outage. The project budget currently breaks
out the costs for the emergency generator/battery back up as a separate add alternate. The
planned rooftop photovoltaic system is included as an add alternate in the project budget section
because there are other options for procurement that the City may prefer, such as a low interest
loan from the State Energy Commission or a power purchase agreement. Interior and exterior
lighting strategies, including sensitivity to neighbors at night, sensors, dimming controls, and
emergency lighting were also discussed. The lighting fixtures for the project are planned to be LED.
Study Session Regarding the Schematic Design for the New Community Center September 17, 2018
4
The civil engineer and landscape architect reviewed the site plan, access and egress, and vehicular
circulation. It was determined that underground parking that is partially located under the building
is preferred in order to leverage the slab and structure of the building above; this scheme is less
costly than a detached underground parking scheme. The civil engineer presented utility locations
and preliminary stormwater treatment strategies (required by California code) via bioswales located
in key planting areas around the building. The landscape engineer reviewed the site features,
including the entry plazas, outdoor rooms, pathways, basketball/multi-use court, playground, picnic
area, and hardscape and plating strategies.
Updated Project Budget
At the March 17, 2018 Council Meeting, staff and Group 4 presented the City Council with an
estimated project budget of $38-$41.7M in March 2018 dollars (not including escalation). To
accommodate the full-size basketball court that the City Council requested, the site plan needed to
be expanded to relocate the playground to the picnic area to the east of the softball field.
The following table summarizes the current project budget, which is broken down into the following
categories: hard cost, soft cost, project contingency, and escalation. The project hard costs include
local prevailing wage construction costs based on a design-bid-build procurement process with
competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, general contractor’s jobsite
management costs, general contractor’s insurance and bonding costs, and general contractor’s
profit. The project soft costs include allowances for engineering and design fees, construction
management, permit fees, inspections, and testing. The project contingency allowance is
calculated at 10% of the project hard cost and 5% of the project soft cost, and the escalation
allowance is calculated at 5% per annum on the project hard cost estimated to the midpoint of
construction. Construction is anticipated to be January 2020 to December 2022.
Next Steps
The project team is requesting the following information from the City Council at the study session:
1. Provide input on the underground parking options.
Hard Cost Soft Cost Subtotal Project Contingency Escalation Total
Early Site Package (Playground)$718,134 $189,000 $907,134 $67,115 $57,451 $1,031,700
Community Center Building
Project (incl. FF&E & site work)
$22,441,794 $6,327,000 $28,768,794 $2,097,366 $2,526,946 $38,569,583
Building $21,065,794 $6,327,000 $27,392,794 $1,968,766 $2,372,008 $31,733,568
FF&E $1,376,000 $362,000 $1,738,000 $128,600 $154,938 $2,021,538
Sitework $3,234,023 $849,000 $4,083,023 $302,245 $429,210 $4,814,478
Underground Parking
43 spaces ($192K/space) OR $5,613,525 $1,474,000 $7,087,525 $524,628.50 $632,083 $8,244,236
53 space ($181K/space)$6,532,303 $1,716,000 $8,248,303 $593,845.70 $735,537 $9,577,686
TOTAL WITHOUT PLAYGROUND PACKAGE
43 spaces OR $31,289,341 $8,650,000 $39,939,341 $2,924,239 $3,588,239 $46,813,819
53 spaces $32,208,119 $8,892,000 $41,100,119 $2,993,457 $3,691,693 $48,147,269
ADD ALTERNATES (incl. contingencies, escalation, soft costs)
Photovoltaic Panel System PV's on Building $1,170,000
Green Roof on Kid's Town $156,000
Emergency Generator or Battery TBD
Elevator #2 $340,000
Study Session Regarding the Schematic Design for the New Community Center September 17, 2018
5
2. Approve scope and schedule for the early site package for the playground design and
construction.
3. Provide input regarding preliminary exterior color palette.
4. Approve exterior material palette as recommended by the Advisory Committee.
5. Provide input on the project scope and budget.
At the November Council meeting, the project team will be asking the City Council to:
1. Provide direction and approval on the project budget.
2. Approve of the schematic design package.
FISCAL IMPACT
In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure that
will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal-setting
session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan for the
Measure I funds, to include an annual $1 million pledge toward debt service for a lease revenue
bond to fund the Community Center project. The City Council approved the recommendation on
February 20, 2018. An additional $1 million of annual funding from other General Fund monies
was approved with the 2018-19 fiscal year budget. The combined $2 million debt service funding
should allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million. The remaining
funding will need to come from other revenue sources such as the Capital Investment Reserve.
Exhibit:
• Exterior View of the New Community Center
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on September 4, 2018
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.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Joe Baylock.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. STUDY SESSION
STUDY SESSION REGARDING THE PUBLIC ART PROJECT TO HONOR ANSON
BURLINGAME
A study session was held at 6:15 p.m. in Conference Room A regarding the Public Art Project to honor
Anson Burlingame.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
2
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Lynn Israelit, Joe Baylock, and five other residents voiced their concern about the increased noise at SFO.
They stated that air traffic from both SFO and Oakland Airport (which reportedly flies over Burlingame) had
increased and was leading to noise, air quality, and odor issues. They explained that these issues resulted in
the public not being able to have their windows open or spend time in their yards, thereby diminishing their
quality of life. They asked that the City commission a study of both SFO and Oakland Airport in order to
better understand the issue and what could be done.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that the Airport Round Table Committee has requested that SFO conduct a
noise study to determine what has increased the noise and what can be done to mitigate it.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Councilmember Keighran pulled 8b, 8d and 8g. Mayor Brownrigg pulled 8c.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to approve 8a, 8e, 8f, and 8h; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The
motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 20, 2018
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE PUBLIC
SAFETY VEHICLES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 111-2018.
Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the five vehicles staff wished to purchase are a model
that will be discontinued. DPW Murtuza replied in the negative and stated that the deadline for accepting
orders for the model staff wanted was the second week of September.
Councilmember Keighran asked if there were any maintenance concerns with the model staff chose. DPW
Murtuza replied in the negative stating that vehicles are maintained in house.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 111-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
3
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY
AND CONSERVATION AGENCY TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND THE
WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 112-2018.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this item dealt with the way the City negotiates water contracts with the City
and County of San Francisco. He explained that BAWSCA represents all of the water users and that San
Francisco regulates the Hetch-Hetchy water system. He stated that San Francisco also regulates access to the
Crystal Springs Watershed. He asked that the City request additional public access to the watershed as it
could be a recreational asset for the community. He stated that there is plenty of evidence that you can have
walking trails near reservoirs without creating any danger.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City needs more access to open space and it would be worth exploring.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
A Burlingame resident stated that she was concerned that if the Crystal Springs Watershed was opened up to
the general public, that the land could be damaged.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 112-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A COST-SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR THE
RELOCATION OF A WATER MAIN ON AIRPORT BOUELVARD
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 113-2018.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the City is switching from a 6-inch main to a 12-inch main. DPW
Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if with future development and an increase in population, this would be
sufficient. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran stated that it would be the County doing the work on this project. She asked if
anyone from Public Works would be involved. DPW Murtuza stated that staff would be inspecting the line,
approving the design, and overseeing the project.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
4
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 113-2018; seconded by Vice Mayor
Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ZAYO
GROUP, LLC FOR INSTALLATION AND USE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ENCROACHMENT
AGREEMENT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 114-2018.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 1, THE VETERANS
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND ON THE NOVEMBER 6, 2018 BALLOT
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 115-2018.
g. UPDATE ON SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY RESILIENCE GRANT
Councilmember Keighran stated that the County’s grant is for up to $90,000, and the County is encouraging
cities to obtain matching funds. She asked if the City would be willing to match funds. City Manager
Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that the grant would look at the City’s resiliency on the Bayfront in connection
with environmental changes such as sea level rise. She asked that if the City is awarded grant funds, that
staff engage with community members and Bayfront hotels on this matter.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City needs to begin discussing how to pay for the infrastructure to combat
sea level rise. She stated that with the addition of several new hotels on the Bayfront, and the City’s TOT,
the City should discuss setting aside funds.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the grant proposal wasn’t part of this report. CDD Gardiner
stated that staff is still writing the proposal but wanted to ask Council for their input.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City is way beyond the point of producing simulations of sea level rise. He
suggested that the City focus on what SFO and Foster City are doing, as both are in similar situations.
Additionally, he stated that the City should start researching funding mechanisms and how much the City
needs to raise.
Councilmember Beach talked about the work being done at the County level led by Supervisor Dave Pine.
She stated that she believed this problem is a countywide issue and something that the cities will need to
work together on to solve.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
5
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to accept the update on the San Mateo County Resilience Grant;
seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
h. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY
AND PARKING COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Traffic
Safety and Parking Commission.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS
FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE
LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 1800 HILLSIDE DRIVE
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S JUNE 11, 2018 ACTION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AN
APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS
FACILITY (ANTENNA AND EQUIPMENT) ON AN EXISTING WOOD UTILITY POLE
LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE
(EXISTING UTILITY POLE IS LOCATED ALONG OAK GROVE AVENUE)
Mayor Brownrigg asked his colleagues to begin by disclosing any ex-parte communications they had on the
topic. Councilmember Ortiz and Councilmember Keighran stated that they visited both sites. Vice Mayor
Colson stated that she visited both sites and talked with several residents and interested parties.
Councilmember Beach stated that she visited both sites and spoke with Kerbey Altmann. Mayor Brownrigg
stated that he visited both sites and spoke with a few citizens.
Planning Manager Ruben Hurin stated that the City’s Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted in
February 2012. He stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law
and regulations, the placement of wireless communications facilities in Burlingame in a manner that
recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the
communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions.
Planning Manager Hurin noted that federal law prohibits cities from considering radio frequency emissions
as a basis for denying or regulating wireless facilities, if as in the case here, the applicant has demonstrated
that the proposed facility complies with the SEC’s RF emissions regulations.
Planning Manager Hurin explained that AT&T is proposing to install new wireless facilities on existing
wood utility poles. He stated that the utility poles are located adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
6
Winchester Drive. He noted that there are existing street trees on either side of the utility poles at both
locations that would not need to be removed.
Planning Manager Hurin stated that the project consists of installing a cylindrical antenna on top of the utility
pole and associated equipment on the side of the utility pole. The equipment will be painted to match the
utility pole.
Planning Manager Hurin stated that at the Planning Commission’s June 11, 2018 meeting, the Commission
denied without prejudice AT&T’s request for a conditional use permit to install the wireless facilities at both
locations. He noted that the Commission expressed concern with the aesthetics of the facilities. He stated
that since the Planning Commission meeting, AT&T has made a few changes in response to the feedback
they received. He explained that AT&T worked with PG&E to install Smart Pole Meters. Additionally,
while AT&T’s original proposal consisted of the electric load center box and fiber distribution panel being
attached side-by-side on the pole, the revised proposal has the equipment streamlined on the pole.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that a preponderance of the correspondence that the Council received from the
citizens concerned the RF emissions. She asked if she was correct that the devices that AT&T was
proposing to install complied with both State and Federal RF emissions regulations. Planning Manager
Hurin replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked that since the proposed equipment complies with RF emission regulations, the
City couldn’t deny AT&T’s application on that basis. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach stated that she received feedback from the community that the public wanted to see
the City create a master plan that would outline the procedures, design, and location for the installation of
these wireless facilities. She asked how long this would take to develop and if the City could pause future
applications until the master plan is completed. CDD Gardiner stated that staff could look at developing a
master plan and that staff is considering revising the ordinance.
Councilmember Keighran agreed with Councilmember Beach that the City should create a master plan
concerning wireless facilities. She asked if the City could handle these applications in the same fashion that
they do Environmental Impact Reports, where a neutral third party with expertise is asked to look at the
impacts.
Councilmember Ortiz asked how much leeway the City has to determine where the proper sites are for these
wireless facilities or do the carriers have 100% control over choosing the location for their wireless facilities.
Special Counsel Gail Karish stated that as a general matter, cities have police power to regulate zoning.
However, in telecommunications there has been an extraordinary amount of preemption of that authority
both at the Federal and State level. She added that at the State level, telephone companies have a statutory
right to use public rights of way to place their facilities, and through case law this has been extended to
include wireless facilities and wireless providers.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
7
Councilmember Ortiz asked if staff reviewed AT&T’s alternative locations and agreed with their assertion
that these locations were not feasible. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the negative.
AT&T’s Regional Vice President of External Affairs Tedi Vrheas stated that in March 2018, AT&T
participated in a small cell study session with the City Council. She explained that the purpose of the study
session was to introduce small cell technology and explain what it is, how it works, what it looks like, and
why the technology is being deployed across the United States.
Ms. Vrheas explained that small cells are flexible network solutions that can be readily deployed to specific
locations where customers are prone to experience connectivity problems, need more network capacity, and
areas that cannot effectively be served by a traditional macro cell. She stated that AT&T’s small cell design
is intended to maximize facility concealment. She explained that a small cell consists of a set of small boxes
that are no wider than the pole’s diameter and a pole top antenna that are all painted to match the pole.
Additionally, she stated that there can only be one small cell per pole.
Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T’s existing macro cells that serve Burlingame around the two locations are
under duress due to increased traffic on the network. The resulting capacity restraints reduce mobile data
speeds to the point that AT&T cannot meet its service objective. The small cells will help to offload the
network traffic from those macro cells, which will improve signal quality and data speeds.
Ms. Vrheas discussed the community’s concern about having the small cells by their homes. She explained
that AT&T evaluated many locations in order to ensure that they were proposing the best available and least
intrusive means to address the coverage gap. She stated that the proposed locations are chosen based on:
AT&T’s ability to gain attachment rights; feasibility in terms of constructability; and viability from a radio
frequency perspective. She noted that AT&T also considered the location preferences and design standards
articulated in the City’s Wireless Communication Ordinance. She explained that the proposed facilities are
located within the residential zoning districts, which are a third level preference. The primary preference in
the code is for sites farther away from residential districts, which is not feasible because AT&T needs to
place small cell facilities near the macro that is under duress. She noted that they investigated other sites but
didn’t find any viable options.
Ms. Vrheas stated that at the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked AT&T to
go back and consider other sites. She noted that AT&T reviewed alternative sites and reached out to Our
Lady of Angels as an alternative site for1800 Hillside Drive. She explained that OLA would only allow
AT&T to attach the small cell on their property if it wouldn’t affect the architectural character of its
structure. Therefore this wouldn’t work.
Ms. Vrheas stated that the Planning Commission also asked if they could place the small cells on street signs.
She explained that due to the weight of the boxes and the height of the street signs, this wouldn’t work.
Ms. Vrheas stated that after AT&T completed its review of potential sites, it was determined that 1800
Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive were the least intrusive sites.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
8
Councilmember Keighran asked that in the future, applicants bring in samples of the small cell for the
Council and public to see.
Councilmember Keighran asked if AT&T’s definition of coverage gap relates to both capacity and speed.
Ms. Vrheas stated that it is mostly capacity.
Councilmember Keighran asked if AT&T has set criteria that they look at when they pick locations. Ms.
Vrheas replied in the affirmative and stated that it is defined in the radio frequency statement in the staff
report.
Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the small cell only has a radius of five hundred feet.
Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked why AT&T didn’t set up more macro cells, which have a great capacity.
She stated that she would rather see macro cells placed on the Bayfront, outside the residential district,
instead of numerous small cell sites in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Vrheas stated that macro cells cover
between 4 to 8 blocks. Therefore, if the residential area is in need of capacity, AT&T has to put something
in that area to address capacity. She explained that previously, AT&T had focused their efforts on business
districts, but with changing technology, individuals are currently using more wireless data at home to play
video games, watch movies, and communicate. Accordingly, AT&T needs to place small cell sites in
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Keighran asked about boosters that people put in their homes and if this would solve the
problem. Ms. Vrheas stated that AT&T’s capacity needs are far greater than what a booster could provide.
Councilmember Beach stated that at the study session in March 2018, the antennas looked smaller. Ms.
Vrheas stated that she believed it was the photo angle. She added that AT&T also places small cells on street
lights where they run the conduit thru the inside of the poles and it looks a little sleeker. However, AT&T
currently does not have a contract with the City to use the City’s street lights.
Councilmember Beach stated that in some pictures from other communities, the small cells seem to be two
small boxes as opposed to AT&T’s current proposal. Ms. Vrheas explained that the more streamlined
approach of two boxes is on a street light.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City had been asked about using its light poles or if there was a reason this
wasn’t an option. DPW Murtuza stated that the City has 1900 street lights of which half are located on
PG&E poles. He noted that there are City owned street lights, but they aren’t in residential neighborhoods.
Councilmember Beach asked if what AT&T was proposing is the smallest possible technology as far as the
boxes on the utility pole go. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to streamline these boxes. Ms. Vrheas stated that if they put
a cover over all the boxes it would add to the bulk of the pole, which people seem to notice more.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
9
Councilmember Beach asked if there is any way to underground the boxes. Ms. Vrheas replied in the
negative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked how many more applications AT&T would be submitting to the City in the next
two years. Ms. Vrheas replied that AT&T has seven applications for wood poles. She noted that if they
come to agreement with the City to use the steel poles, they would have seven applications for that.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed the fact that AT&T is not the only wireless provider and that the City would be
receiving more and more applications from the different providers to install small cells. He stated that this
should drive both AT&T and the City to have more of a reliance on macro cells.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Nene Argeris spoke against installing these small cell sites because of health concerns.
Burlingame resident Brian Chen stated that he believed AT&T should reapply to the Planning Commission
because of the Commissioners’ expertise.
Burlingame resident Patricia Fraiser talked about how the small cells could diminish surrounding homes’
property value and create an eye sore in the community.
Burlingame resident Clydie Rizzo asked that the Council deny the application as the small cells would be
viewed from all windows in her home.
Burlingame residents David and Raven Sarnoff stated that one of the future sites will be located near their
home. They voiced their concern about the number of small cell sites that could pop up in Burlingame and
asked that the Council deny the applications.
Burlingame residents Doug Luftman and Steve Lamont worked on the City’s Wireless Communication
Ordinance. They voiced concern that AT&T wasn’t following the preference order in the ordinance and
asked the Council to deny AT&T’s application on this basis.
Burlingame resident Mark Haberecht stated that he believed AT&T’s application wasn’t in compliance with
the ordinance and asked that the Council reject the application.
Burlingame resident Chris Kelly stated that he supported hiring a third party to review applications and
asked that Council deny this application.
Burlingame resident Tatyana Shmygol asked about the safety of the poles and if the boxes would fall off
during an earthquake.
Burlingame resident Leslie McQuaid stated that she knew there were better looking small cells in other
towns and wanted to see AT&T put in a more aesthetically appealing cell.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
10
Burlingame residents Tia Razon and Tom Payne asked the Council to deny AT&T’s application.
Burlingame resident Horacio Pleno voiced concern about the number of small cells that could be coming into
the City. He asked that the City do a better job of informing the public about these small cell applications.
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff asked that the old boxes, vaults, and wires be removed when no longer
needed.
Burlingame resident Kerbey Altmann asked AT&T to utilize other technology to increase the capacity and
voiced concern about AT&T making updates to the small cells if the application was approved.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment
Councilmember Ortiz asked Ms. Vrheas to comment on the coverage of the macro cells. Ms. Vrheas stated
that it varies depending on how many people are on the network and the geography. However, she explained
that on average it covers four to six blocks.
Ms. Vrheas stated that what she has heard from the community tonight is that AT&T didn’t apply the
ordinance in the way AT&T should have. She explained that AT&T believes with the assistance of outside
counsel that they have. However, she stated that if the Council feels that AT&T hasn’t followed the
ordinance correctly, they are happy to take three months and work with the City Attorney to make sure they
have done it to the satisfaction of the City. She stated that AT&T is also willing to work with the City to
review alternate sites.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked AT&T for the offer. He asked that during the next three months AT&T also
explore whether they can put another macro cell on the perimeter of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she appreciated AT&T’s offer to extend the decision for three months
while they work with staff. She asked if it was possible to bring in a third party during this period to look at
the options. Ms. Vrheas replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson thanked the community for coming out and sharing their opinions on the topic. She
explained that this conversation wasn’t going away and she didn’t want to kick the can down the road. She
stated that she wanted to see the City work for the next three months with AT&T and the community to
come up with a solution.
Councilmember Beach thanked AT&T for their offer to extend. She asked if the small cell sites emit any
flashing light or noise. Ms. Vrheas replied in the negative.
Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Vrheas if she had any comments on co-location. Ms. Vrheas stated that
co-location isn’t an option.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
11
Councilmember Beach stated that the poles aren’t owned by the City. Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City could mandate that they only want smart poles and ask AT&T to
create something different. DPW Murtuza stated that it isn’t within the City’s rights.
Councilmember Beach stated that some residents are concerned that future locations aren’t around trees and
that maybe this is a way to mitigate the view of the poles. She noted that the ordinance contains language
that the small cells must be camouflaged and hidden from view in the residential districts.
Councilmember Keighran and Mayor Brownrigg talked about the creation of an ad hoc group to assist staff
with reviewing locations over the next three months.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that in the future the City should work with developers who are building
multifamily dwellings on incorporating spaces for the macro cells that will be more aesthetically pleasing to
the community.
Councilmember Ortiz asked AT&T to provide the Council with addresses for existing small cell sites.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to: 1) continue the hearing for three months to allow for AT&T to
work with staff prior to bringing this matter back to the Council for a decision, 2) the City can assemble a
subcommittee including community members, and 3) the City can hire a third party expert to opine on the
work; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (PCN)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 23958.4 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
CODE, RELATED TO A REQUEST FOR A TYPE 42 (ON-SALE BEER AND WINE –
PUBLIC PREMISES) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES PERMIT ISSUED THROUGH
THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC VERAGE CONTROL BOARD (ABC), AS REQUESTED
BY WINE REVELRY, LLC TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN A
NEIGHBORHOOD WINE BAR AT 310 LORTON AVENUE
CDD Gardiner stated that the City received a request from Wine Revelry, LLC for a finding of Public
Convenience and Necessity (“PCN”) for a wine bar at 310 Lorton Avenue. He explained that the Planning
Commission approved a conditional use permit for the wine bar on July 10, 2018. He noted that the request
for a PCN has been reviewed by the Police Department and attached to the staff report is a memorandum
from the Police Department with suggested conditions.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 116-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
12
c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING
MARIJUANA
Mayor Brownrigg opened this item up by stating that there are time limits that require the City to act
expeditiously to have a marijuana ordinance in place. He added that if colleagues have questions and
concerns about the ordinance as written, it can be brought back for review.
Assistant City Attorney Mazarin Vakharia stated that currently the City’s zoning code doesn’t explicitly
address marijuana-related establishments. She explained that previously the City adopted interim
ordinances, and there is currently an imminent deadline to adopt regulations.
Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that the proposed ordinance doesn’t allow any commercial activity
related to marijuana. She explained that the proposed ordinance allows up to six plants in an enclosed
residence.
Councilmember Keighran asked if there is a timeframe after the State adopts regulations for cities to adopt
their own regulations. Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that whatever the City puts on the books now,
stays in place after the State’s regulations are adopted. City Manager Goldman stated that if the City doesn’t
have regulations in place at the time that the State’s regulations are adopted, then the State’s regulations
would cover the City. She added that the League of California Cities released a statement that they are
unhappy with what the Bureau of Cannabis Regulations is coming up with related to delivery of marijuana.
She stated that it is important to get something in place now prior to the State’s regulations being adopted.
Councilmember Beach stated that in the absence of language that addresses delivery what would the rule be.
Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that in the absence of language concerning delivery of marijuana,
the State’s regulations would apply.
Councilmember Keighran asked if delivery would be allowed in Burlingame if the zoning code is silent on it.
Assistant City Attorney Vakharia stated that pursuant to the zoning code, if something is not expressly
permitted, then it is not allowed. However, she explained that marijuana regulations are a new area of law,
and therefore it is unclear whether State regulations could preempt the silence of the zoning code.
Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the
title.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading and introduced the ordinance; seconded by
Councilmember Beach. This motion was passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Tom Payne encouraged the Council to adopt a restrictive ordinance.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
13
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment.
Mayo r Brownrigg voiced concern about personal growth in people’s homes and the amount of water and
energy required.
Vice Mayor Colson asked staff to provide information to the Council on how neighboring cities were
handling personal cultivation.
Mayor Brownrigg asked that the City Clerk publish notice of this item and stated that it would be brought
back for consideration of adoption at the September 17, 2018 meeting.
d. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.59
(ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS), CHAPTER 25.08 (DEFINITIONS), CHAPTER 25.26
(R-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS), CHAPTER 25.60 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1
AND R-2 DISTRICTS) AND CHAPTER 25.70 (OFF-STREET PARKING) OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE
CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
CDD Gardiner explained that the State has adopted a series of mandates to further promote development of
Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”).
CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance would bring the City into compliance with the State
regulations. This includes:
1. No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces, including allowing parking in setbacks;
2. Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family
dwelling or accessory structure;
3. No lot size limitation for ADUs created within existing structures; and
4. Change to the current definition of tandem parking.
CDD Gardiner stated that there are three other provisions that were recommended by the Planning
Commission that are not part of State legislation. However, they are items that have come up again and
again when looking at applications. These additional recommended changes are:
1. Eliminate provisions about ceiling heights for basements to allow them to be turned into ADUs;
2. Elimination of a Special Permit to reduce number of parking spaces on site for ADUs.; and
3. Elimination of Restrictive Covenant that requires owner occupancy of one of the units.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the law allows ADU parking to be provided in required setbacks. She
asked if this means that there could be cars parked in the front yard. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative
and added that it could only be the parking for the ADU.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
14
Mayor Brownrigg asked if by parking in the front yard, CDD Gardiner meant the landscaped portion or the
driveway apron. CDD Gardiner replied that someone with an ADU could park in the landscaped portion.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the ADU is in the basement does that count towards RHNA numbers.
CDD Gardiner stated that if it is a legally defined ADU with a kitchen and bathroom, then yes it would count
towards RHNA numbers.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that if the City has to allow parking in the front setback, she would like to see the
City adopt requirements about what the front yard parking should look like.
Councilmember Keighran stated that if someone builds a house with five bedrooms they have to meet the
requirements for two covered parking spots and one uncovered. She asked if she was correct that if a person
has a four bedroom house and adds 1 or 2 bedrooms to the basement, they wouldn’t have to comply with the
parking requirements. CDD Gardiner stated that this was his understanding of the State’s mandate.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that when it comes to the design impact of the ADU ordinance, the City Council
can ask Planning Commission to review design standards.
Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-
Shearer read the title of the ordinance.
Councilmember Ortiz moved to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Mayor
Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Tom Payne voiced his concern about the ordinance and asked the Council to keep the
owner-occupancy requirement.
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced her concern about losing landscaping in front of people’s yards
and asked that the City maintain the owner-occupancy requirement.
Burlingame resident Leslie McQuaid asked if the City could encourage ADUs to have their own garage.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that because the State wants communities to build ADUs, they have eliminated
parking requirements.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she was concerned with removing the owner-occupancy requirement.
She stated that she thought the City should continue to require owner-occupancy.
Vice Mayor Colson and Councilmember Ortiz voiced support for removing the owner-occupancy
requirement. They cited examples of how this requirement negatively impacts landowners.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
15
Councilmember Beach stated that she is optimistic that the City won’t see parking in front yards. She stated
that millennials don’t want to own cars and are instead using public transportation. She added that the
majority of law changes in the City are from the State’s mandates. And while she wasn’t happy that the
State was mandating regulations, she believes that ADUs could help alleviate housing issues in the City.
Councilmember Keighran asked if someone has an ADU and later on decides to sell their house, what would
happen to the individual living in the ADU. CDD Gardiner stated that the new buyer wouldn’t necessarily
need to keep the individual in the ADU. He stated that either the seller or the buyer could displace the renter.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the potential repeal of Costa Hawkins and if this would affect the
ability to terminate ADU leases. CDD Gardiner stated that repealing Costa Hawkins would permit
municipalities to apply rent control should they choose to do so to properties built after 1979.
Mayor Brownrigg asked City Clerk Hassel-Shearer to publish notice of the proposed ordinance in the
newspaper.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. THE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
(PARKING LOT F – 150 PARK ROAD) AND PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE (PARKING
LOT N – 160 LORTON AVENUE) – PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
MODIFICATIONS
CDD Gardiner stated that the Village at Burlingame consists of 132 affordable work force and senior units
on Lot F and a parking structure on Lot N. He explained that The Pacific Companies submitted applications
to the Planning Division for entitlements related to the development of the affordable housing units and
parking structures. Thereafter, the Planning Commission reviewed the applications as Design Review Study
items on February 28, 2018.
CDD Gardiner stated that in response to the Planning Commission’s feedback, The Pacific Companies has
made changes to the housing portion of the project. Some of the changes include the addition of studio
apartments to the workforce units and decreases in the square footage of units for both workforce and senior
units.
CDD Gardiner added that it is his understanding that the project will be brought back to the Planning
Commission in November and that the Environment Impact Review is also proceeding in that timeframe.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Caleb Roope, CEO Of Pacific Companies, explained that based on community feedback,they have increased
the rear yard setback. He explained that while there is no required rear setback, they propose 8.5 feet.
However, as a result of this setback, the unit sizes had to be decreased.
1. Workforce One Bedroom Units were decreased by 27 square feet
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
16
2. Workforce Two Bedroom Units were decreased by 38 square feet
3. Senior One Bedroom Units were decreased by 21 square feet
4. Senior Two Bedroom Units did not lose any square footage.
Mr. Roope stated that they are still delivering the same number of units, but in slightly different
configurations.
Councilmember Beach stated that with the new unit mix, the City would lose two 50% AMI units. She
asked Mr. Roope to talk about why they had to redistribute the AMI. Mr. Roope explained that if the City
wished, they could re-mark two units as 50% AMI. He added that recent law changes will allow them to do
income averaging if so desired. He stated that previously they were restricted to renting only to individuals
up to 60% AMI. With income averaging, they can average to 60% and aren’t capped at 60%. Therefore, if
they introduce an 80% AMI unit, then it would need to be offset by a 40% AMI unit.
Councilmember Keighran stated that increasing the rear setback led to a narrowing of the side setbacks. She
asked if there were any concerns about this. Mr. Roope stated that they hadn’t heard any concerns from the
community about the narrowing of the side setbacks.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she was a little concerned about the decreased size of the two bedroom
units but liked the addition of the studios.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was leaning towards switching the AMI levels back so that there were
the 50% AMI units.
Councilmember Ortiz thanked Caleb Roope for the presentation and stated that he wanted to see shovels in
the ground.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that they had explored doing an additional story but it’s not feasible. Mr. Roope
replied in the affirmative, stating that the sixth floor requires them to move to a steel structure.
Councilmember Beach asked if it was correct that the senior units preserve more of the square footage than
the workforce units. Mr. Roope replied in the affirmative and added that it was the result of accessibility
provisions and the configuration of units.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff voiced her support for the rear setback.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment.
Councilmember Beach thanked Mr. Roope for engaging with the community.
Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/17/18
Burlingame City Council September 4, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
17
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. MAYOR BROWNRIGG’S COMMITTEE REPORT
b. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT
c. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 11:15 p.m. in memory of Paul de Senna and Alexander Wolf.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
33
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Sheryl Schaffner, Acting City Attorney – (650) 558-7263
Subject: Adoption of An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame
Amending Title 25 (Zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal code, Chapter
25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26
(R-1 district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-
2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street Parking) Related to Accessory
Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted Amendments to
California Government Code Section 65852.2 and Additional Changes to
Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should adopt the resolution:
A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINDING THAT ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 – ZONING CODE
CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60 AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT
TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15282(H) WHICH EXEMPTS THE ADOPTION
OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SECOND UNITS IN A SINGLE FAMILY OR
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE BY A CITY TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 65852.1 AND 6582.2 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 21080.17 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES.
The City Council should adopt the following ordinance:
B. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO
UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO
REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 17, 2018
2
DISCUSSION
The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed amendments
at its regular meeting of September 4, 2018. No changes were requested in the motion, and the
ordinance was scheduled for adoption. The proposed ordinance and a resolution making required
findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are presented to the City
Council for adoption at its regular meeting of September 17, 2018.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibits:
• CEQA Resolution
• Ordinance
• City Council ADU staff report September 4, 2018 - introduction
• Government Code Section 65852.2
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINDING THAT ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 -
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CHAPTERS
25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE
CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, IS
STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15282(H) WHICH EXEMPTS THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
REGARDING SECOND UNITS IN A SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONE BY A CITY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 65852.1 AND 6582.2 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE AS SET
FORTH IN SECTION 21080.17 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows:
Section 1. On September 19, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1865, the
current Secondary Dwelling Unit regulations.
Section 2. On September 27, 2016 Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2299 and SB
1069 into law. This legislation amends Government Code Section 65852.2, the regulations for
accessory dwelling units (ADUs, previously referred to as “Secondary Dwelling Units”). The
amendments are intended to streamline housing production in the face of the State’s ongoing
housing crisis by making it easier for property owners to construct an accessory dwelling unit
associated with a single family dwelling. The City of Burlingame adopted revisions to its Zoning
Code regulations creating consistency with AB 2299 and SB 1069 on February 6, 2017.
Section 3. On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed additional legislation
(SB 229 and AB 494) that provides clarification on the creation of ADUs. The bills became
effective January 1, 2018, and are intended to help clarify and improve various provisions of the
ADU law to promote the development of ADUs.
Section 4. At its meeting of June 25, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed amendments to the Burlingame Zoning Regulations for consistency with State Law. In
addition staff brought forward additional suggested changes to the zoning regulations (beyond
those required for state law compliance) in the interest of removing constraints to the creation of
ADUs, recognizing that ADUs are a way for the City of Burlingame to increase housing stock to
help address the regional housing shortage. The Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) acknowledges ADUs as “housing units” that count toward the City’s
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. The suggestions were referred to the
Planning Commission’s Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for study and then returned
to the Planning Commission, where the Planning Commission voted to recommend these
2
additional changes to the City Council, along with the changes required for compliance with
State Law.
Section 5. At a public hearing held on September 4, 2018, the City Council
introduced an ordinance amending Title 25 – (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code,
Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling
Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government
Code Section 65852.2 Related to Accessory Dwelling Units along with additional zoning code
changes to the above stated chapters to remove constraints to the creation of Accessory
Dwelling Units.
Section 6. The proposed amendments to the zoning code related to accessory
dwelling units are Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15282(h) which exempts the adoption of an ordinance
regarding second units in a single family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement
the provisions of Section 65852.1 and 6582.2 of the Government Code as set forth in Section
21080.17 of the Public Resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME THAT adoption of the amendments to Title 25 (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame
Municipal Code, Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing
Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to
California Government Code Section 65852.2 Related to Accessory Dwelling Units is Statutorily
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15282(h) which exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single
family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1
and 6582.2 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources.
___________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, 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 17th
day of September, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70
TO UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL
CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS.
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Division 1.
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016 Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2299 and SB
1069 into law. This legislation amends Government Code Section 65852.2, the regulations for
accessory dwelling units (ADUs, previously referred to as “Secondary Dwelling Units”). The
amendments are intended to streamline housing production in the face of the State’s ongoing
housing crisis by making it easier for property owners to construct an accessory dwelling unit
associated with a single family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the revisions to State Law became effective on January 1, 2017 and the
City of Burlingame adopted revisions to its Zoning Code regulations creating consistency with
AB 2299 and SB 1069 on February 6, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed additional legislation (SB
229 and AB 494) that provides clarification on the creation of ADUs. The bills became effective
January 1, 2018, and are intended to help clarify and improve various provisions of the ADU law
to promote the development of ADU; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of June 25, 2018, the Burlingame Planning
Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the Burlingame Zoning Regulations for
consistency and the Commission reviewed additional changes to the zoning regulations
(beyond those required for state law compliance) in the interest of removing constraints to the
creation of ADUs, recognizing that ADUs are a way for the City of Burlingame to increase
housing stock to help address the regional housing shortage. The Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) acknowledges ADUs as “housing units” that count toward the
City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. The suggestions were referred
to the Planning Commission’s Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for study and then
returned to the Planning Commission, where the Planning Commission voted to recommend
these additional changes to the City Council, along with the changes required for compliance
with State Law.
2
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 4, 2018 the Burlingame City Council
introduced an ordinance amending Title 25 – (Zoning Code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code,
Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling
Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government
Code Section 65852.2 along with additional zoning code changes to the above stated chapters
to remove constraints to the creation of Accessory Dwelling Units.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Division 2.
Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Title 25 - Zoning is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units is replaced in total with the following text:
Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
25.59.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate both existing and new accessory dwelling units
in residential zoning districts and on residential property consistent with state law (California
Government Code Sections 65852.1 through 65852.2). This chapter is intended to implement
the Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing
opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within
existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-family residential character of the
area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of accessory units to
ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with
public utility services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and
safety impacts.
An accessory residential dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this
chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is
located and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing
General Plan and zoning designations for the lot.
25.59.020 Accessory dwelling unit permit procedure.
(a) Applications for such an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be in writing and
filed with the Community Development Director on a form approved by the Community
Development Director.
(b) As established by council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for
an accessory dwelling unit permit under this chapter.
(c) Within 120 days of receipt of a complete application, the Community
Development Director shall ministerially process for approval any application for an accessory
dwelling unit permit pursuant to this chapter. Upon finding that the performance standards set
3
forth in Section 25.59.060 are met the proposal shall be approved ministerially without
discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may proceed to acquire a building
permit. All accessory units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections15301 and
15303 of the CEQA guidelines. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this
chapter, the Community Development Director shall deny the application.
25.59.030 Appeal.
The applicant that requested the accessory dwelling unit permit may appeal the
community development director’s denial of the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the
community development director in writing within ten (10) days after the date of the community
development director’s decision. The appeal shall be heard by the planning commission in a
public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter
25.16.
25.59.040 Revocation of accessory dwelling unit permit.
(a) Grounds. An accessory dwelling unit permit granted pursuant to this chapter may
be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds:
(1) The performance standards outlined in Sections 25.59 are not being met; or
(2) The accessory dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or
(3) The parking required by Section 25.59 is no longer provided; or
(4) The primary single-family dwelling on the site is purposely demolished; or
(b) Notice. Written notice to revoke an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be served
on the property owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by
certified mail, and shall state:
(1) The reasons for the proposed revocation.
(2) That the proposed action will be taken by the director of community development
unless a hearing before the planning commission is requested within fifteen (15) days after the
date of said notice. If no response is received, the director of community development shall
forthwith revoke the accessory dwelling unit permit as set forth in said notice.
(c) Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least ten (10) days’ notice thereof shall be
given to the requested party. At any such hearing the property owner shall call witnesses and
present evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of such hearing, the planning
commission shall determine whether or not the permit shall be revoked. Such determination
may be appealed to the city council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for
the granting of conditional use permits or variances.
4
25.59.050 Variances prohibited.
No variance under Chapter 25.54 shall be granted from any requirement of this chapter.
25.59.060 Performance standards for accessory dwelling units.
General Provisions. This section allows an accessory dwelling unit, either attached to
the main dwelling or detached in a separate structure to be created on lots which now contain
one single-family dwelling and meet the following criteria, upon approval of an administrative
accessory dwelling unit permit.
(a) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size to accommodate an accessory dwelling
unit shall be no less than six thousand (6,000) square feet except for an accessory dwelling unit
created entirely within an existing (legal) structure there shall be no minimum lot size limit.
(b) There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit permitted on a lot which
contains no more than one primary single-family dwelling.
(c) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from any part of the
property on which it is located.
(d) Unit Size. The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed six
hundred forty (640) square feet.
(e) Floor Area Ratio. The accessory dwelling unit shall fall within the total floor area
ratio and lot coverage allowed by the underlying zoning district.
(f) Other Measurable Standards.
(1) For attached units, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback,
height and declining height envelope regulations which apply to the underlying zoning district.
(2) For detached units, on single family zoned lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall
comply with the setback, height and window placement criteria for accessory structures
contained in Chapter 25.60, and shall meet the setback requirements, including exceptions for
accessory structures, contained in Sections 25.26.072 and 25.26.073.
(3) All detached units shall be limited to one story in height and shall not be
constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures except for accessory
dwelling units created entirely within an existing legal two-story detached accessory structure.
(g) Parking. On-site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the
primary dwelling as required by Chapter 25.70 and parking requirements for an accessory
dwelling unit shall be as follows:
(1) Unless otherwise provided in this section, a minimum of one off-street uncovered
parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit in addition to the off-street
covered and uncovered parking spaces required for the main dwelling.
5
(i) Parking for the accessory dwelling unit may be in tandem with a required parking
space for the primary dwelling, meaning two or more cars located directly behind each other;
(ii) Parking for accessory dwelling units may be provided in the front setback or yard;
and
(iii) All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained
to the public street.
(2) No parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the
following instances:
(i) No on-site parking for the accessory dwelling unit shall be required if the
accessory dwelling unit is only used for “affordable housing” as defined in Chapter 25.63. As a
condition of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter
into and record an agreement generally in conformance with Section 25.63.040 to ensure
continued affordability of the accessory dwelling unit. A draft agreement shall be required at the
time of application submittal;
(ii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop,
as defined in California Public Resources Code § 21064.3 or included in the regional
transportation plan;
(iii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within a designated historic district;
(iv) The accessory dwelling unit is constructed within an existing structure and is part
of an existing single family dwelling or an existing, authorized, permitted and finalized accessory
structure intended for human habitation;
(v) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of
the accessory dwelling unit; and
(vi) When there is a car share vehicle, in a location determined by the Community
Development Director to have at least three dedicated parking spaces, located within one block
of the accessory dwelling unit.
(h) Construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the all applicable
provisions of this title and all applicable building, health and fire codes; except for accessory
dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954.
(i) The new accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar
architectural features, building materials as the primary single family dwelling located on the
property. Compatibility with the primary structure includes coordination of materials, roofing and
other architectural features, and landscaping designed so that the appearance of the site
remains that of a single-family residence.
6
(j) If the accessory dwelling unit is demolished, the accessory dwelling unit permit
shall lapse and be of no further force and effect, and all on-site parking requirements of Chapter
25.70 shall be met for the single family dwelling on the site.
(k) For existing accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954 the
following additional criteria shall be met, in addition to subsections a-j above:
(1) The accessory dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California
Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by
Section 17922;
(2) An applicant for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this section that
has been granted on conditions that it conform to the requirements of this chapter may perform
work to bring the accessory dwelling unit into conformance, such as reducing the size of the
living unit, improving or constructing parking, and correcting violation of Health and Safety Code
Section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code;
(3) Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the accessory dwelling unit shall be
matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the
parcel; and
(4) If the accessory dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe,
the accessory dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area
as it existed immediately before the catastrophe or in conformance with the standards for new
accessory dwelling units contained in Section 25.59.
Section 2: Chapter 25.08 Definitions, Section 25.08.573 is repealed and replaced in total with
the following text:
25.08.573 Accessory dwelling unit.
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an additional residential dwelling unit on a parcel
occupied solely by a single-family residence that provides complete independent living facilities
for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating,
cooking, and sanitation purposes on the same parcel as the primary single-family dwelling is
situated in one of the following forms:
(a) Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure
(b) Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure
(c) Repurposed Existing Space: Space (e.g. master bedroom) within the primary
residence is converted into an independent living unit.
7
Section 3: Section 25.08.647 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text:
25.08.647 Tandem parking.
“Tandem parking” is the parking of one vehicle behind another; except for parking for an
accessory dwelling unit where tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are
parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
Section 4: Chapter 25.50 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Section 15.50.025
Expansion of nonconforming uses – R-1 zone is repealed and replaced in total with the
following text:
25.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses - R-1 zone.
(a) This section shall only be applicable to R-1 zoned parcels which contain two (2)
detached nonconforming residential units. Only the primary residence, as determined by the
director of community development, may be increased in footprint or in any exterior dimension if
the accessory detached unit is to be retained as a residential unit. A conditional use permit
pursuant to Chapter 25.16 shall be required for any such increase to a primary unit. Only
maintenance and repairs as defined by the Uniform Building Code may be made to any
accessory dwelling unit. The floor area or footprint of such an accessory unit shall not be
expanded.
(b) Factors for determining the primary residence shall include, but not be limited to,
relative age, size and conformity with zoning requirements of the two (2) residences. The
property owner may request that the planning commission review any such determination by the
director of community development.
Section 5: Chapter 25.60 Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts is repealed and
replaced in total with the following text:
Chapter 25.60 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS
25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements.
Accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 Districts shall be a conditional use requiring a
conditional use permit if any of the following will exist:
(a) Two (2) or more accessory structures, each having over one hundred (120)
square feet gross floor area, will exist on a single lot, except that there may be two (2)
accessory structures if one is an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of
Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit;
(b) Any single accessory structure will exceed six hundred (600) square feet of gross
floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which
complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit
may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet;
8
(c) All accessory structures on a single lot will exceed a total of eight hundred (800)
square feet gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory
dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory
dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet;
(d) An accessory structure will occupy any portion of the lot in front of the main
building; provided, where a dwelling has been erected on the rear sixty (60) percent of the lot
prior to January 15, 1954, a garage may be erected in front of the main building, but not in any
portion of the front setback;
(e) An accessory structure will be erected closer than four (4) feet to any other
structure on the same lot;
(f) Accessory structures will cover more than fifty (50) percent of the rear thirty (30)
percent of a lot;
(g) The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above
grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade;
(h) The roof height of the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) feet above grade,
except the height may be increased one foot for each foot of separation from an adjacent
property line, up to a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet, provided:
(1) Where the lot slopes more than ten (10) percent at the location of the accessory
structure, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet above the plate line;
(2) The portion of the structure at the rear property line may have a maximum height
of fourteen (14) feet if the structure has a pitched roof on both sides and the rear plate line does
not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade;
(3) The roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of fifteen
(15) feet above grade when the roof is pitched from ridge to plate on at least two (2) sides, and
the ridge is no closer than five (5) feet to a side property line, and the rear plate line does not
exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; and
(4) No portion of the space within any accessory structure between the top of plate
and the lowest portion of the roof structure including any dormer shall exceed seven (7) feet in
height.
(i) Glazed openings of the accessory structure will be within ten (10) feet of the
property line or any portion of a glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above grade;
(j) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code
minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet, except that an
accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of
Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit;
9
(k) The accessory structure will enclose mechanical equipment, excluding air
conditioning equipment, which is designed to operate on a regular or continuous basis, which
may be objectionable because of loudness, hours of operation, odor or other reason, and which
is to be located less than twenty (20) feet from any structure for habitation, or less than ten (10)
feet from any property line; provided such shall be allowed without a special permit if the
building official approves the structure as adequately sound insulated;
(l) Storage of household goods, tools or equipment in the accessory structure will
exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the main dwelling structure;
(m) Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters,
recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; except for an accessory structure
containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and
obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit does not require a conditional use permit;
(n) The accessory structure will be a greenhouse, trellis, lanai, patio shelter or
similar structure exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross floor area.
Section 6: Chapter 25.26 R-1 District Regulations, Section 25.26.035 is repealed and replaced
in total with the following text:
25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit.
The following are uses allowed in the district with a special permit:
(a) Attached garages for single-family dwelling units;
(b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site; except where the on-
site parking requirement is met per Chapter 25.70 for the existing units on-site and the
reduction in the number of parking spaces is for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling
unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59;
(c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope;
(d) A detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty
(40) percent of the lot;
(e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty-
eight (28) feet in width or depth, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory
dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory
dwelling unit permit;
(f) A direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other
than a light or window well.
Section 7: Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.010 is repealed and replaced in
total with the following text:
10
25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided.
(a) Parking Required. At the time of erection of any building or structure, or at the
time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity, there shall be provided off-
street parking spaces with adequate and proper provision for ingress and egress by standard
size automobiles.
(b) Parking with Remodel or Reconstruction. When any building is remodeled,
reconstructed or changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating
capacity, change in type of use or intensified use, such additional garage or parking facilities as
may be required must be provided, except for accessory dwelling units approved per Chapter
25.59.
(c) Minimum Requirements. The regulations which follow are the minimum
requirements unless specific requirements are made for a particular use in a district. Additional
spaces may be provided. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by a section of this chapter,
parking required by this chapter is to be provided on the same lot as the use for which the
parking is required.
Section 8: Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.030 is repealed and replaced in
total with the following text:
25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings.
The following are parking requirements for single-family dwellings.
(a) Parking Space Requirements. Each single-family dwelling shall provide off-street
parking spaces for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or
carport. The following further requirements apply to certain additions and to new single-family
dwellings:
(1) An existing single-family dwelling increased in size to three (3) or four (4)
bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with up to four (4) bedrooms shall provide off-street
parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be
covered by a garage or carport;
(2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five (5) or more bedrooms
and a new single-family dwelling with five (5) or more bedrooms shall provide off-street parking
to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of which must be covered by a
garage or carport;
(3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an existing garage
not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20) feet deep interior dimension shall be
considered to provide two (2) covered off-street parking places;
11
(4) For additions to existing single-family dwellings, an existing garage with an
eighteen (18) foot depth interior dimension shall be considered to meet the dimensional
requirements for a parking space.
(5) Bedrooms that are within accessory dwelling units shall not be counted toward
the overall number of bedrooms for the primary single family dwelling on the lot on which it is
located; parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Section 25.59.060(g).
(b) Parking Aisles and Driveways. Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four
(24) foot back-up area or be designed to be entered or exited in no more than three (3)
maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3) maneuvers in the forward direction.
(c) Parking Limitations.
(1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property
line except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking; except for parking for an accessory
dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59;
(2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section
243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and
front or side property line;
(3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration; except
for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59;
(4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory dwelling
units, required uncovered spaces may be provided in tandem configuration and may extend:
(A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk,
(B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb,
(C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of
pavement.
Division 3.
This ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law and shall
become effective 30-days thereafter.
____________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
12
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day
of September 17, 2018, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 17th day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 4, 2018
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7263
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59
(Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1
district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2
districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal
Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently
Adopted Amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2 and
Additional Changes to Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling
Units
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council consider proposed amendments to the Burlingame Municipal
Code regarding accessory dwelling units. In order to do so, the City Council should:
1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO
UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO
REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
2. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance.
3. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
4. Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and provide any
direction to staff; if no changes are requested, then direct that the ordinance be placed on
the September 4, 2018 City Council Agenda for adoption.
5. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
If introduced, the ordinance along with a resolution verifying that the actions of the City Council are
in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be
presented for adoption at the September 4, 2018 regular meeting of the City Council.
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018
2
BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2016 Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2299 and SB 1069 into law. The
legislation amended Government Code Section 65852.2, regulations for accessory dwelling units
(previously referred to as “Secondary Dwelling Units” in the Burlingame Municipal Code). The
amendments were intended to streamline housing production in the face of the state’s ongoing
housing crisis by making it easier for property owners to create a second unit associated with a
single family dwelling. Under the legislation, such units are now referred to as “Accessory Dwelling
Units” or “ADUs”. The revisions to state law became effective January 1, 2017. The City of
Burlingame adopted revisions to its Zoning Code regulations creating consistency with State law
on February 6, 2017.
On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed additional legislation (SB 229 and AB 494) that
provides clarification on the creation of ADUs. The bills became effective January 1, 2018, and are
intended to help clarify and improve various provisions of the ADU law to promote the development
of ADUs. Not all of the changes included in this new legislation require City action as the City’s
current regulations are largely compliant.
At its meeting of June 25, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to
the Burlingame Zoning Regulations and recommended that the City Council adopt the changes as
proposed below. Staff notes that in addition to the changes that are required in order to be compliant
with the most recent changes to state legislation, staff recommended additional ordinance changes
for the Planning Commission’s consideration in order to reduce obstacles to the creation of ADUs.
These changes are discussed below and are included in the attached ordinance for Council
consideration.
DISCUSSION
Staff is bringing forward these changes to the City Council for adoption of text amendments to the
City’s existing ADU regulations to ensure that the Burlingame Municipal Code is consistent with the
new State regulations (SB 229 and AB 494). Jurisdictions are required to provide a copy of the
changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of their adoption.
Changes mandated by State Law
Staff has provided a summary below of the most significant changes required by the State:
• No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces, including allowing parking in setbacks;
• Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family
dwelling or accessory structure;
• No lot size limitation for ADUs created within existing structures; and
• Change to the current definition of tandem parking.
No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces: Under our current regulations, ADUs have to
provide one uncovered parking space, 9-feet wide by 20-feet deep. The parking space is required
to be provided in addition to the required parking for the single family dwelling per C.S. 25.70. All
ADU spaces are required to be provided in accordance with C.S. 25.70, meaning they cannot be
located in a setback and were required to be independently accessible of the single family parking
space (ingress and egress to the parking space without conflict with the parking required for the
single family dwelling).
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018
3
State law now requires no prohibition on parking locations for ADUs, and the ADU regulations
would be amended to allow ADU parking spaces to be provided in a required setback. Currently
the zoning code prohibits parking within the front and side setback. The zoning code requirements
prohibiting parking in front and side setbacks would remain in place for required parking for all other
uses, except for ADUs.
Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family
dwelling or accessory structure: The most recent change to State law now prohibits requiring a
parking space for an ADU that is created from within the envelope of an existing residence or
existing accessory structure. The parking waiver includes accessory dwelling units that are part of
the living space of the existing main residence or are in an existing detached accessory structure.
This means that accessory dwelling units that are created by converting part of an existing single
family dwelling (vs. adding new square footage) would be exempt from providing a parking space.
This waiver also applies to detached accessory structures that have been previously approved for
accessory living space, such as offices or recreation rooms constructed as part of a detached
garage.
In principle, this square footage has already been counted as living space (in terms of parking),
and the conversion of this space to an accessory dwelling unit is not significantly increasing (or
increasing at all) the parking requirement for the use of the property as a whole. This change would
allow conversion of existing living spaces to ADUs for areas within a prim ary home or within an
attached or detached accessory structure; however, the required parking for the primary residence
must still be met on-site, in compliance with the zoning code regulations. For reference, single
family dwellings with up to four bedrooms, or potential bedrooms, require one covered (10’ x 20’)
parking space and one uncovered (9’ x 20’) space, and a single family dwelling with five or more
bedrooms, or potential bedrooms, requires two covered spaces (20’ x 20’) and one uncovered
space (9’ x 20’).
No lot size limit for ADUs created within existing structures: Currently, the ADU regulations require
a minimum lot size of 6,000 SF to accommodate an ADU, except for ADUs constructed prior to
January 1, 1954. The new legislation prohibits limits on lot size for ADUs that are created within an
existing structure; either in the primary residence or in an accessory structure. New ADUs creating
new square footage on a parcel would still have to be on a lot with a minimum size of 6,000 SF
with the exception for those ADUs where a majority (>50% of the square footage) of the ADU is
existing square footage in a legal structure on the property and the remaining construction complies
with all other zoning district standards.
Change to the definition of tandem parking: Currently the zoning code defines tandem parking as
parking “one vehicle behind another.” This has been interpreted to limit only two cars, one behind
the other, for tandem parking configurations. However, under the new changes to the ADU law,
tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are parked on a driveway or in any other
location on a lot, lined up behind one another. The existing definition of tandem parking will be
retained and applied to all other parking configurations except for those that involve parking for
ADUs. The intent of this change is to provide more flexibility in allowing ADUs if the required parking
can only be provided in a driveway behind the required parking for the primary residence. In many
cases, single family homes have detached garages located at the rear of the property with a long
driveway that runs next to the house that provides two or more parking spaces in tandem.
Additional suggested changes – not mandated by State Law
In the interest of removing constraints to the creation of ADUs, staff brought forward to the Planning
Commission additional suggested changes to the zoning regulations (beyond those required for
state law compliance). Staff suggests the additional recommended changes, recognizing that
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018
4
ADUs are a way for the City of Burlingame to increase housing stock to help address the regional
housing shortage. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) acknowledges
ADUs as “housing units” that count toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
numbers. Additionally, given the high cost of living in the Bay Area, there are people who may be
able to afford to stay in the area if they have the added income from an ADU.
The changes noted below were brought before the Planning Commission for consideration. The
suggestions were referred to the Planning Commission’s Neighborhood Consistency
Subcommittee for study and then returned to the Planning Commission, where Commissioners
voted to recommend these additional changes to the City Council.
Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit provisions: Sections 25.60.010 (Conditional use permit
requirements) and 25.26.035 (Uses allowed with a special permit) currently include a number of
provisions that may serve to discourage ADUs. In particular:
1) 25.26.035 (f) requires a special permit for a basement with any interior ceiling height of 6’-
6” or greater;
2) 25.26.035 (h) requires a special permit for a bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding 25 square
feet located in a basement;
3) 25.26.037(a) prohibits bathtubs and shower stalls in basements;
4) 25.26.037(b) prohibits bedrooms in basements:
Discussion: The removal of #1 through #4 above is proposed for cases where ADUs are
proposed AND for all single family dwellings. These changes would eliminate barriers in the
zoning code that currently prohibit ADUs from being developed in basements; for example,
full bathrooms are currently not allowed in basements and also have a size constraint of 25
SF, and a separate unit cannot be created without a full bathroom. This change would
encourage ADUs in basements and would also apply to all single family dwellings in the R-
1 zoning district, regardless if an ADU was being created. However, the zoning code
definition of a basement would not change; a “Basement” means the portion of a building
between the floor and ceiling that is wholly or partially underground and where more than
two (2) feet of any portion of the basement’s height is above the existing grade next to the
basement, a basement shall be counted as a story (and is not considered a basement).
While removing the prohibition of full bathrooms and bedrooms in basements and allowing
a ceiling height greater than 6’-6”, the definition of a basement would not change, and the
floor area regulations that apply to basements would remain in place as well with all
basements with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or greater included in FAR calculations. The
code would still allow up to six hundred (600) square feet of a basement with a ceiling height
of six (6) feet or greater to be deducted from FAR if it meets BOTH the following criteria:
• The top of the finished floor above the basement is less than two (2) feet
above existing grade; and
• No part of the basement is intended or used for parking.
All ADUs in basements would be required to comply with Building Code requirements for
egress, light and ventilation.
5) 25.26.;035 (b) requires a special permit to reduce the number of parking spaces existing
onsite
Discussion: Currently, a special permit is required to remove any parking on-site (a parking
variance is required for removal of required parking), even if the code required parking is
Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units September 4, 2018
5
met. For example a special permit is required if there is a three-bedroom single family home
with a two-car garage (20’ x 20’) where one covered and one uncovered space is required
by code, and the proposal is to expand the kitchen into the garage area, resulting in the loss
of one of the covered parking spaces. The code changes propose removing this
requirement when the reduction in the number of parking spaces is solely for the purpose
of creating an ADU, so long as the code required parking for the main dwelling is still met
on-site. This change is proposed to apply only when the removal of the parking (additional
parking beyond code requirements) is proposed for an ADU. However, this requirement will
remain in place for all single family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district.
Performance Standards to ADUs: Section 25.59.060 (ADU requirements) currently includes a
requirement for a deed restriction that may serve to discourage ADUs and is difficult to enforce.
6) 25.59.060(k) requires a restrictive covenant on properties with ADUs that mandates owner
occupancy of at least one of the units and requires that the covenant be recorded on the
deed for the property to establish the existing accessory dwelling unit. The restrictive
covenant is binding upon any successor in ownership of the property.
Discussion: At the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting, the Planning
Commissioners discussed that the intent of the deed restriction requirement is that if an
owner occupies one of the two units on a property, there would be “pride of ownership”
resulting in a more well maintained property. Staff notes that the deed restriction exists in
some ADU ordinances in other jurisdictions. It was acknowledged that the intent of this
section is for the consideration of the neighbors and the goal of preserving single family
neighborhood character. However, the Subcommittee discussed the fact that there are no
such regulations for renting a single family dwelling, and that the enforcement of such a
requirement is very difficult. It should be noted that zoning does not typically regulate
tenancy. As a practical matter, regulating tenancy can present enforcement issues: for
example, if the owner of a property is deployed on a long-term assignment for work or has
to be in a longer-term nursing facility, the tenant in the ADU would have to be evicted in
order to comply with the ordinance. The provision of a restrictive covenant might inhibit
some property owners from pursuing the construction of an ADU because of the restrictions
that would be placed on the property and its future use.
The proposed ordinance is provided as an attachment to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Ordinance
• Code Language Showing Tracked Changes
• May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
• June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
• Government Code Section 65852.2
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Sheryl Schaffner, Acting City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to Add Regulations Regarding Marijuana
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend
Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add regulations regarding marijuana.
BACKGROUND
On September 4, 2018, the City Council introduced a proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 25.58
to regulate cannabis cultivation and to prohibit commercial cannabis activities.
DISCUSSION
On September 4, 2018, the City Council waived the first reading and introduced a proposed
ordinance to amend Chapter 25.58 to the Burlingame Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance
would allow for the indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants and would prohibit commercial
cannabis activities. The September 4, 2018, staff report contains additional background and
analysis.
The adoption of the proposed ordinance is not a project per the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibit:
• Proposed Ordinance
• September 4, 2018 Staff Report
Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING
MARIJUANA
WHEREAS, in 1970, Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances Act
which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or
use cannabis in the United States; and
WHEREAS, in 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled
Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which
established the state’s prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession,
cultivation, transportation, and distribution of cannabis; and
WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition
215, codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq., “The Compassionate
Use Act of 1996" (CUA); and
WHEREAS, the CUA created a limited exception from criminal liability for seriously
ill persons who are in need of medical cannabis for specified medical purposes and who
obtain and use medical cannabis under limited, specified circumstances; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the California enacted the "Medical Marijuana Program"
(MMP), codified as Health and Safety Code sections 11362.7 to 11362.83, to clarify the
scope of the CUA, establish a voluntary program for identification cards issued by
counties for qualified patients and primary caregivers, and provide criminal immunity to
qualified patients and primary caregivers for certain activities involving medical cannabis,
including the collective or cooperative cultivation of medical cannabis; and
WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in City of Riverside
v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, that
the CUA and the MMP do not preempt local ordinances that completely and permanently
ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and cooperatives; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, California enacted three bills, Assembly Bills 243 and 266
and Senate Bill 643, commonly referred to as the Medical Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act (MCRSA), which established a comprehensive state regulatory and licensing
framework for cultivation, manufacturing, sale, transportation, storage, delivery, and
testing of medical cannabis in California; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 64,
known as the “Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA), which
legalized recreational cannabis use by persons age twenty-one and over, authorized
cultivation of up to six cannabis plants for personal consumption, and established a new
state regulatory and licensing framework for cultivation, manufacturing, sale,
transportation, storage, delivery, and testing of recreational cannabis in California; and
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, in 2017, California enacted Senate Bill 94, which repealed MCRSA,
incorporated certain provisions of the MCRSA into the licensing provisions of the AUMA,
and consolidated the state regulatory and licensing framework for medical and
recreational cannabis, with the consolidated provisions to be known as “Medicinal and
Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act” (MAUCRSA); and
WHEREAS, under Senate Bill 94, a local jurisdiction may reasonably regulate, but
cannot ban, personal indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants per single private
residence, and can ban or regulate personal outdoor cultivation; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 94 preserves the right of property owners, including
landlords, to prohibit cannabis cultivation on their property; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 94 preserves the authority of local jurisdictions to prohibit
or impose additional restrictions on the cultivation, manufacture, transportation, storage,
distribution, delivery, and sale of commercial medical or recreational cannabis; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that express Zoning Code
regulations regarding cannabis cultivation and commercial cannabis activities will benefit
the public by providing clear guidelines regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and
minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City’s policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that impacts of medical and recreational
cannabis are the same and therefore no separate use classifications or regulations are
necessary; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City
Council desires to allow personal indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants, to prohibit
all other cultivation, and to prohibit all commercial cannabis activity except for deliveries
and laboratory testing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the exemption
determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to taking any
approval actions on this Ordinance and approves such exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the
public interest.
Section 3. The proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section
15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change
in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found
to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA
Page 3 of 6
Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility
of a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion
or sections of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares
that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption.
Section 6. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in a manner required
by law.
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.58 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING
MARIJUANA
Sections
25.58.060 Purpose – Regulations of Cannabis (Marijuana).
25.58.060(A) Applicability.
25.58.060(B) Definitions.
25.58.060(C) Commercial Cannabis Activity Prohibited.
25.58.060(D) Cultivation of Cannabis Prohibited.
25.58.060(E) Violations – Penalty.
25.58.060(F) Public Nuisance.
25.58.060 Purpose – Regulations of Cannabis (Marijuana).
This Article (Sections 25.58.060 - 25.58.120(F)) establishes regulations governing
cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, labeling, or sale of
cannabis (commonly known as “marijuana”) and cannabis products, whether for medicinal
or adult use. The City finds it necessary to establish such regulations in the interest of the
public health, safety, and welfare to regulate all cannabis-related activities.
25.58.060(A) Applicability.
This Article shall apply to the establishment of all land uses related to cannabis and
cannabis products, whether for medicinal or adult use.
25.58.060(B) Definitions.
For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the following
meanings:
a. “Cannabis” (also known as “marijuana”) means any or all parts of the plant Cannabis
sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not,
the seeds thereof, the resin or separated resin, whether crude or purified, extracted
from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. “Cannabis” shall not include
industrial hemp, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11018.5.
b. “Cannabis Product” means cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the
plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited
to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing cannabis or
concentrated cannabis and other ingredients. “Commercial cannabis activity”
means the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing,
Page 5 of 6
labeling, transportation, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products for commercial
purposes, whether for profit or nonprofit, and for which a state license is required
under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et seq. Commercial
cannabis activity shall not include delivery of cannabis and cannabis products.
c. “Commercial cannabis activity” means the cultivation, possession, manufacture,
distribution, processing, storing, labeling, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products
for commercial purposes, whether for profit or nonprofit, and for which a state
license is required under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et seq.
Commercial cannabis activity shall not include delivery of cannabis and cannabis
products as “delivery” is defined in state law.
d. “Cultivation” means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying,
curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis.
e. “Fully enclosed and secure structure” means a code-compliant space within a building,
greenhouse or other structure which has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting
walls extending from the ground to the roof, which is secure against unauthorized entry, and
which is accessible only through one or more locking doors.
f. “Indoor” means within a fully enclosed and secure structure as defined herein.
g. “Private residence” means a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home, or other
similar dwelling.
25.58.060(C) Commercial Cannabis Activity Prohibited.
Commercial cannabis activity is a prohibited use in all zoning districts.
25.58.060(D) Cultivation of Cannabis Prohibited.
a. Cannabis cultivation is a prohibited use in all zoning districts except as provided in
25.58.060(D)(b).
b. Notwithstanding the general prohibition in 25.58.060(D)(a), indoor cultivation of no
more than six living cannabis plants for personal use is permitted in all zoning
districts. No more than six living cannabis plants may be possessed, planted,
cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a private residence at any one time,
including within an accessory structure to a private residence that is fully enclosed
and secure. The plants shall not be visible from a public place. Persons engaging
in indoor cultivation must comply with state and local laws, including all applicable
building, electrical fire, and water codes and regulations.
25.58.060(E) Violation—Penalty.
a. Any person found to be in violation of any provision of this Article shall be subject
to the enforcement remedies set forth in the Burlingame Municipal Code.
Page 6 of 6
b. Each violation of this Article and each day of violation of this Article shall be
considered as separate and distinct violations thereof and the imposition of a
penalty shall be as set forth in 25.58.060(E)(a) for each and every separate violation
and each and every day of violation.
25.58.060(F) Public Nuisance.
Any use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this
Article shall be and is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by the City
pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Burlingame Municipal Code.
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
4th day of September 2018 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 17th day of September 2018 by the following votes:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST: ___________________________________
Meaghan Hassel - Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 9c
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 4, 2018
From: Sheryl Schaffner, Acting City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to Add Regulations Regarding Marijuana
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council are prohibited. To do so, the Council should:
Receive the staff report and ask any clarifying questions.
Ask the Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance.
Hold a public hearing.
Discuss the proposed ordinance and direct staff to make any desired changes and return
to Council for adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
BACKGROUND
During the past few years, the regulatory landscape for marijuana uses has changed significantly.
In particular, the State enacted laws regarding cities’ ability to regulate medical marijuana . In
November 2016, California voters approved the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana
Act (“AUMA”) with the passage of Proposition 64. The AUMA established a comprehensive system
to legalize, control, and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and
sale of nonmedical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years and older,
and to tax the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana. Proposition 64 also established a
state agency that would control and license marijuana activities. State licenses will only be issued
to operations that are consistent with local ordinances at the time of licensing. However, licenses
issued by the state take precedence over subsequently enacted local ordinances.
The City has previously adopted interim ordinances regarding marijuana regulation but has not
enacted a permanent ordinance. On November 7, 2016, the City first adopted an interim urgency
ordinance regulating cultivation and prohibiting the manufacture, processing, laboratory testing,
labeling, storing, wholesale, and retail distribution of marijuana. Council extended the interim
ordinance twice, at meetings on December 19, 2016, and September 18, 2017. During these
meetings, Council provided staff with guidance about policy considerations for a permanent
ordinance regulating marijuana. The proposed ordinance would amend the General Use chapter
of the Zoning Code by adding a dedicated article covering marijuana regulation.
Marijuana Ordinance September 4, 2018
2
DISCUSSION
Currently, the City’s Zoning Code does not explicitly address cannabis-related establishments.
Under Section 25.04.070 of the Code, uses that are not listed as permitted or conditional are
prohibited. While this catch-all provision serves to prohibit cannabis-related land uses in the City,
Proposition 64 created the potential for state-issued licenses to be issued in conflict with this
default. Clarifying the status of such uses is therefore prudent and facilitates transparency with
potential applicants and the public. Express Zoning Code regulations regarding cannabis cultivation
and commercial cannabis activities will benefit the public by providing clear guidelines regarding
the scope of prohibited conduct and will minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City’s
policies.
The proposed ordinance bans commercial cannabis activity. Cannabis-related establishments
present potential dangers to the public health, safety, and welfare. Dispensaries, collectives, and
commercial-size growing operations have been associated with increased risks of robberies,
identity falsification, fraudulent resale of marijuana, and loitering. The proposed ordinance would
protect the public from such effects.
The proposed ordinance allows for the indoor cultivation of up to six cannabis plants and bans
outdoor cultivation altogether. The AUMA permits local jurisdictions to regulate, but not to ban,
indoor cultivation of up to six living marijuana plants within a private residence for personal use.
Burlingame does not have any agricultural-zoned areas, so commercial scale outdoor growing
operations are inconsistent with the City’s zoning.
Due to likely changes in the regulatory landscape at the state level, the proposed ordinance does
not address two key issues: (1) cannabis delivery and (2) research and development of cannabis,
such as laboratory testing. The State has released draft regulations that address these issues, and
the State’s rulemaking process is ongoing. Thus, staff advises that the City not pass regulations
on these two issues at this time, so as to prevent City-specific definitions or regulations that could
conflict with the State’s final adopted regulations. Staff recommends that the City re-evaluate its
ordinance once the State’s final regulations are enacted.
The adoption of the proposed ordinance is not a project per the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the
environment, directly or indirectly.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Exhibit: Proposed Ordinance
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8d
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Hillside and Skyview Reservoir
Exterior Coating Project, City Project No. 82780
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Hillside and
Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating Project, City Project No. 82780, by T.P.A Construction, Inc., in
the amount of $170,304.50.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 2018, the Council awarded the Hillside and Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating Project
to T.P.A Construction, Inc., in the amount of $157,080. The Hillside reservoir, located at 2832
Hillside Drive, was built in 1914, and the Skyview reservoir, located at 1321 Skyview Drive, was
built in 1928. The Hillside Reservoir recently had soil removed from its top to inspect the aging
concrete roof and to apply coating to extend its life. Both reservoirs were coated with a heavy
pedestrian traffic system rated coating, which will protect the concrete reservoirs for well over 30
years.
DISCUSSION
The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The
final construction cost is $170,304.50, which is $13,224.50, or 8.4% above the awarded contract
amount but within the Council-approved construction contingency. The increase in construction
costs was due to additional layers of coating required to properly seal and protect uneven concrete
areas discovered after the concrete roof was cleaned. Furthermore, additional coating was added
for the reservoir access hatch on the north corner of the Hillside Reservoir to extend its life.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction $170,304.50
Construction Inspection $20,000.00
Engineering Administration $3,695.50
Total $194,000.00
Resolution Accepting the Hillside/Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating Project, September 17, 2018
City Project, No. 82780
2
Funding Availability:
There are adequate funds available in the Water System Capital Improvement Program to cover
the estimated final costs.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING THE HILLSIDE AND SKYVIEW RESERVOIR EXTERIOR COATING
PROJECT BY T.P.A. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 82780
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council
does hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by T.P.A
Construction, Inc. under the terms of its contract with the City dated April 2, 2018, has been
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 82780.
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, 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
17th day of September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
City Clerk
TPA Construction, Inc DATE: July-30-18 ADDRESS: 2406 Clubhouse DriveFOR THE MONTH OF: August Rocklin, CA 95765PURCHASE ORDER #14597 TELEPHONE: (916) 320-7600 FAX (916) 625-1361 **** * ********************************************************************** * ************ * ********** ************* * **************** ************* *********** * **************** * **************** * ****************ITEM :: UNIT : BID:UNIT : BID : QUANTITY : % : AMOUNT : PREVIOUS : AMOUNT# : ITEM DESCRIPTION : PRICE : QUANTITY:SIZE : AMOUNT : TO DATE : PAID : TO DATE : PAID : THIS PMT. **** * ********************************************************************** * ************ * ********** ************* * **************** * ********** * ********** * **************** * **************** * ****************Base Bid Schedule: Project Site 1: :: : ::: :1:Mobilization/Demobilization at Hillside Reservoir:7,000$ :1:LS : $7,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $7,000.00 : $7,000.00 : $0.002A :Surface Preparation - Removal of Additional CementitiousOverlay Material:3$ :3,150:SF : $8,505.00 : 3,150.00 : 100.00% : $8,505.00 : $8,505.00 : $0.002B :Surface Preparation:20,000$ :1:LS : $20,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $20,000.00 : $20,000.00 : $0.00 3:Coat Ponding Areas with Mortar:12$ :3,150:SF : $38,115.00 : 3,150.00 : 100.00% : $38,115.00 : $38,115.00 : $0.00 4:Application of Heavy Pedestrian Traffic System:5$ :12,500:SF : $60,000.00 : 12,500.00 : 100.00% : $60,000.00 : $60,000.00 : $0.00 5:Detaching and Reattaching Electrical Conduits and IntrusionAlarm System:2,000$ : 1:LS: $2,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $2,000.00 : $2,000.00 : $0.00 Base Bid Schedule: Project Site 2: 1:Mobilization / Demobilization at Skyview Reservoir:2,000$ 1:LS: $2,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $2,000.00 : $2,000.00 : $0.00 2:Surface Preparation:1,620$ : 1:LS: $1,620.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $1,620.00 : $1,620.00 : $0.00 3:Coat Ponding Areas with Mortar:12$ : 600:SF: $7,260.00 : 600.00 : 100.00% : $7,260.00 : $7,260.00 : $0.00 4:Application of Heavy Pedestrian Traffic System:5$ : 2,100:SF: $10,080.00 : 2,100.00 : 100.00% : $10,080.00 : $10,080.00 : $0.00 5:Detaching and Reattaching Electrical Conduits, Unistrut, andIntrusion Alarm System:500$ : 1:LS: $500.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $500.00 : $500.00 : $0.00Subtotal$157,080.00 $157,080.00 $157,080.00 $0.00Change Orders: CCO 1 PROJECT SITE 1 : $11,424.50 : 1:LS : $11,424.50 : 1.0 : 100.00% : $11,424.50 : $11,424.50 : $0.00: CCO 2 PROJECT SITE 2 : $1,800.00 : 1:LS : $1,800.00 : 1 : 100.00% : $1,800.00 : $1,800.00 : $0.00::::::::::**** * ********************************************************************** * ************ * ********** *************** **************** * ********** * ********** : **************** * **************** * ****************DATE : ********** : ********** : : : SUBTOTAL****************** $157,080.00 : ********** : ********** : $170,304.50 : $170,304.50 : $0.00 PREPARED BY: Hillary Tung7-30-2018 LESS RETENTION (5%) : ********** : ********** : $0.00 : ($8,515.23) : $8,515.23********** ************* * **************** : ********** : ********** : ---------------- : ---------------- : ---------------- CHECKED BY: Hillary Tung7-30-2018 SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS : ********** : ********** : $170,304.50 : $161,789.28 : $8,515.23 APPROVED BYAMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR : ******** : ********** : $0.00 : $0.00 : $0.00CITY ENGINEER: ********** *************** **************** : ********** : ********** : ---------------- : ---------------- : ----------------APPROVED BYTOTAL THIS PERIOD **************** : ********** : ********** : $170,304.50 : $161,789.28 $8,515.23 CONSULTANT: ========================= : ================ : ========== : ========== : ================ : ================ : ================ CITY OF BURLINGAMEFINAL PROGRESS PAYMENTHillside and Skyview Exterior Coating ProjectCITY PROJECT NO. 82780S:\A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORY\PROJECTS\82600\Progress Payment #1, (SHEET - FINAL PAYMENT)7/30/2018, 9:36 AMPAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP Hillside and Skyview Reservoir Exterior Coating Project, City Project No. 82780
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Easton Addition, Ray Park and
Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, City Project No. 84191
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Easton
Addition, Ray Park and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, by EPS, Inc. dba
Express Plumbing, City Project No. 84191, in the amount of $1,483,067.
BACKGROUND
On January 2, 2018, the City Council awarded the Easton Addition, Ray Park and Neighborhood
Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, to EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing, in the amount of
$1,374,729.
Phase 3 of the Easton Addition, Ray Park and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project is part
of the overall sanitary sewer system improvements in the Easton Addition and Ray Park
Subdivisions, as well as other high priority neighborhood projects. Phase 3 of the project involved
rehabilitating the existing sanitary sewer pipelines within the lower portion of Easton Addition No.
7 Subdivision. The project upgraded approximately 6,230 linear feet of 6-inch diameter verified
clay sanitary sewer pipelines with new 8-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipeline. The
project also retrofitted the sewer pipelines at 18 locations with sags and structural deficiencies,
replaced 31 sewer manholes with new manholes, and reconstructed 126 sanitary sewer laterals
connecting to residential properties and new cleanouts.
DISCUSSION
The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications. The final construction cost is $1,483,067, which is $108,338 above the awarded
contract amount but within the Council-approved construction contingency, and within the
authorized budget. The increase in construction costs was due to unforeseen field conditions
involving the repair of additional sags, structural deficiencies on the main lines, and at lateral
connections along the existing high-density polyethylene pipeline identified as part of the CCTV
(closed circuit television) inspection.
Resolution Accepting Easton Addition, Ray Park and Neighborhood September 17, 2018
Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 3, City Project No. 84191
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction $1,483,067
Construction Management and Inspection $163,727
Engineering and Administration $103,206
Total $1,750,000
There are adequate funds available in the Capital Improvements budget to cover the estimated
final costs.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
• Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE 3 OF THE EASTON ADDITION, RAY
PARK AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT
BY EPS, INC. DBA EXPRESS PLUMBING
CITY PROJECT NO. 84191
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds,
orders and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by EPS, Inc. dba
Express Plumbing, under the terms of its contract with the City dated February 28, 2018, has
been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council
and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84191.
3. Said work is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of
September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates Project,
City Project No. 84740
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Sanchez
Lagoon Flap Gates Project by Valentine Corporation, in the amount of $185,632.00.
BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2018, the City Council awarded the Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates Project to Valentine
Corporation in the amount of $183,369.
The project consisted of purchasing and installing two 96-inch diameter High Density Polyethylene
(HDPE) flap gates on a double barrel reinforced concrete storm drain pipe structure that services
the Burlingame/Ralston watershed area. The original flap gates had deteriorated, and some of the
parts had separated from the structure, rendering them dysfunctional. The installation of the flap
gates will prevent the flow of backwater from the bay into the local channels and prevent it from
flooding the residential neighborhoods during the event of high tide coupled with heavy rain storm.
DISCUSSION
The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and
specifications. The final construction cost is $185,632, which is $2,263 above the awarded contract
amount but within the City Council-approved contingency. The increase in construction costs was
due to a negotiated change order to repair the damaged wing walls of the concrete storm drain
outlet structure.
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the estimated final project expenditures:
Construction $185,632
Construction Management and Inspection $30,000
Administration and Testing $15,000
Total $230,632
Resolution Accepting the Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates Project, September 17, 2018
City Project No. 84740
2
There are adequate funds available in the Storm Drainage Capital Improvements Program budget
to cover the estimated final costs.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Final Progress Payment
• Project Location Map
• Construction Project Photos
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECT
BY VALENTINE CORPORATION
CITY PROJECT NO. 84740
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds, orders
and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified that the work done by Valentine
Corporation, under the terms of its contract with the City dated April 2, 2018, has been completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of
the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84740.
3. Said work is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of
September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
City Clerk
S:\A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORY\PROJECTS\82600\Progress Payment #3 (release of retention).xls, (SHEET - PAYMENT NO. 1)
8/31/2018, 4:41 PM PAGE 1 OF 1
Valentine Corporation DATE: August-31-18
ADDRESS: 111 Pelican Way FOR THE MONTH OF:May
San Rafael, CA 94901 PURCHASE ORDER #14526
TELEPHONE: (415) 453-3732
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
ITEM ::UNIT :BID :UNIT :BID :QUANTITY :%:AMOUNT :PREVIOUS :AMOUNT
#:ITEM DESCRIPTION :PRICE :QUANTITY :SIZE :AMOUNT :TO DATE :PAID :TO DATE :PAID :THIS PMT.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
::::::::
1 :Dewatering Operations :65,869$ :1 :LS :$65,869.00 :1.0 :100.00%:$65,869.00 :$65,869.00 :$0.00
2 :96-inch HDPE Flap Gate :55,000$ :2 :EA :$110,000.00 :2.0 :100.00%:$110,000.00 :$110,000.00 :$0.00
3 :Cleaning/Debris Removal :100$ :50 :CY :$5,000.00 :5.00 :10.00%:$500.00 :$500.00 :$0.00
4 :Environmental Permits Compliance :2,500$ :1 :LS :$2,500.00 :1.00 :100.00%:$2,500.00 :$2,500.00 :$0.00
Subtotal $183,369.00 $178,869.00 $178,869.00 $0.00
Change Orders
:Existing Headwall Patching ($3,749 Gates & $3,014 Wing Walls):$6,763.00 :1 :LS :$6,763.00 :1.0 :100.00%:$6,763.00 :$6,763.00 :$0.00
:::::::::
::::::::::
**************************************************************************************************************************************************:**************************************************
DATE :**********:**********:::
SUBTOTAL *****************$190,132.00 :**********:**********:$185,632.00 :$185,632.00 :$0.00
PREPARED BY: 8-31-2018 LESS RETENTION (5%):**********:**********:$0.00 :($9,281.60):$9,281.60
*****************************************:**********:**********:----------------:----------------:----------------
CHECKED BY: SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS :**********:**********:$185,632.00 :$176,350.40 :$9,281.60
APPROVED BY AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR :********:**********:$0.00 :$0.00 :$0.00
CITY ENGINEER: *****************************************:**********:**********:----------------:----------------:----------------
APPROVED BY TOTAL THIS PERIOD ****************:**********:**********:$185,632.00 :$176,350.40 $9,281.60
CONSULTANT: =========================:================:==========:==========:================:================:================
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PROGRESS PAYMENT NO. 3 (release of retention)
Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates Project
CITY PROJECT NO. 84740
Project Location Map
Sanchez Lagoon Flap Gates, City Project 84740
Project Site
SANCHEZ LAGOON FLAP GATES PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION PHOTOS
PRE-CONSTRUCTION – REMOVAL OF EXISTING CAST IRON FLAPGATE RINGS
HDPE FLAP GATE RINGS INSTALLED
96-INCH FLAP GATES INSTALLED
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
MEETING DATE:
September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Response
Letter to the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report:
“Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices”
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached response letter to the 2017-2018
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report “Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices”.
BACKGROUND
On July 17, 2018, the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled
“Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices”. An accompanying letter asked for a
response from the City of Burlingame regarding the Grand Jury’s many findings and
recommendations. The City’s response is due no later than October 16, 2018.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury’s report summarized the recent changes in CalPERS’ actuarial assumptions and
the resulting increases in pension costs to cities within the county of San Mateo. The report
consists of findings as to the substantial unfunded pension obligations currently reported in each
city, and concludes that each city should discuss options to address these rising pension costs.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Burlingame has already implemented many of the recommendations provided in the
Grand Jury report, but will continue to review its options to ensure that pension obligations are
addressed in the context of its overall operating budgets.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Draft Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report
• San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT:
“SOARING CITY PENSION COSTS – TIME FOR HARD CHOICES”
WHEREAS, the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled,
“Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices” on July 17, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the report summarizes the impact of recent changes in CalPERS actuarial
assumptions on the funding status of municipal pension obligations, which result in rising pension
costs for cities within the county of San Mateo; and
WHEREAS, the report concludes that there are a number of options to consider in
addressing these rising pension costs; and
WHEREAS, the Grand Jury has recommended that each city report, communicate, and
publicly discuss these options, and develop a financial plan to address rising pension costs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed draft response letter attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
That the letter in response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, “Soaring City
Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices” is approved, and the Mayor is authorized to sign and
convey said letter on behalf of the City.
________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of
September, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, MAYOR
DONNA COLSON, VICE MAYOR
EMILY BEACH
ANN KEIGHRAN
RICARDO ORTIZ
TEL: (650) 558-7200
FAX: (650) 566-9282
www.burlingame.org
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
September 17, 2018
Honorable V. Raymond Swope
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Charlene Kresevich
Hall of Justice
400 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: City of Burlingame’s response to 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Soaring City Pension Cost – Time for
Hard Choices”
Dear Judge Swope:
After reviewing the 2017-2018 Grand Jury report entitled “Soaring City Pension Cost – Time for Hard Choices”, the following
are the City of Burlingame’s responses to the Grand Jury’s findings:
Fl. Each City’s CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017 reported covered payroll for the City’s pension plans in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F2. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 reported
contribution payments to CaIPERS on the City's pension plans in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F3. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 reported Unfunded
Liabilities (as defined in this report) for the City's pension plans in the amount set forth beside its name for
that year in Appendix A. Each City has been required to make large Amortization Cost (as defined in this report) payments of principal and interest to CaIPERS on those Unfunded Liabilities. These payments have
diverted money that could otherwise have been used to provide public services or to add to reserves.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR, with one
clarification: pension payments in general represent costs incurred in the provision of public services. The principal
payments on unfunded pension liabilities represent payment for the prior years’ costs of providing public services. The
City agrees that every effort should be made to reduce the interest expense on these past liabilities, pay down the
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 2
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
principal amount of these obligations, and (as with all operating costs) control increases in the future cost of employee
pensions.
F4. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 reported Funded Percentages (as defined in this report) for the City's pension plans in the amount set forth beside its name for
that year in Appendix A.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F5. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, and June 30, 2017 reported what
the Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in this report) for the City's pension plans would have been if the applicable Discount Rate applied to calculate them had been 1 percentage point lower in the amount set forth beside its
name for that year in Appendix A.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F6. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017 reported general fund total expenditures for that year in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F7. In each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, each City's contribution
payments to CaIPERS on the City's pension plans represented the percentage of that City's general fund total expenditures for that year set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A in the column entitled
"Contribution Payments as % of General Fund Total Expenditures."
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F8. In each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, each City's contribution
payments to CaIPERS on the City's pension plans represented the percentage of that City's covered payroll for the City's pension plans in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A in the column
entitled "Contribution Rate (i.e., Contribution Payments as % of Covered Payroll).”
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F9. In FY 2017-2018, each City (excluding Atherton, Colma, Foster City, Hillsborough, Portola Valley and Woodside) has paid CaIPERS for its Normal Costs (as defined in this report) and Amortization Costs (as defined in this
report) in the amounts set forth beside its name on Table No. 4. (The Cities of Atherton, Colma, Foster City, Hillsborough, Portola Valley and Woodside are not included in Table No. 4 because the source for that table
did not include data for them.)
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR, with one
clarification: the City of Burlingame’s cost shown was partially offset by employees making a portion of the City’s
required contribution.
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 3
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
Fl0. As a result, among other things, of CaIPERS' decreasing its Discount Rate from 7.5 percent to 7 percent by FY 2020-2021, its reduction of future Amortization Periods from 30 to 20 years, and its use of updated mortality assumptions reflecting projected increases in the longevity of Members, each City faces increasing pension
contribution payments to CaIPERS which are likely to more than double by FY 2024-2025.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of
Burlingame has not reviewed any other City’s CAFR.
F11. Principal and interest payments on each City's Unfunded Liabilities will increasingly impair such City's provision of public services, impair the security of employee salary and pension Benefits, and/or result in
proposals for revenue increases. Paying down Unfunded Liabilities early results in large savings. Every City
in the county would save substantial money by paying down their Unfunded Liabilities early.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR, with the
clarification that any pay down of the unfunded liability must be done in the context of the City’s other budgetary
considerations.
F12. The financial documents for each City reviewed by the Grand Jury show that no City has adopted a long-term
financial plan with at least a l0-year time horizon to address rising Normal Costs and Amortization Costs that includes each of the following:
• objectives, such as achieving a target Funded Percentage, eliminating the Unfunded Liabilities over "n"
years or maintaining the cities' share of Normal Costs below "n" percentage of payroll,
• policies to achieve these objectives, such as making supplemental payments to CaIPERS to reduce their Unfunded Liability, keeping salary increases below the actuarially assumed increase rate, capping the cities' share of Normal Costs, reducing operational costs or increasing revenue,
• measures to implement such policies,
• processes to monitor progress in implementing the measures, and
• alternative financial strategies, or a "Plan B," that may be used in the event that CaIPERS' assumptions are not met in future years.
Response: Although not totally familiar with steps other cities in the County have taken to address rising pension costs,
the City of Burlingame has for many years made the identification and funding of long-term liabilities a priority, as an
essential element in the maintenance of fiscal sustainability. Accordingly, the City Council directed the issuance of
Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) in 2006. Most of this $32,975,000 issuance served to reduce the unfunded liability
associated with the City’s Safety and Miscellaneous plans. Since that time, rising pension costs due to the reduction
of amortization periods and updated actuarial assumptions have always been considered in the City’s five-year
forecasts. Mindful of growing pension costs, the City has been very judicious in its consideration of additional staffing.
With the most recent discount rate reductions (7.5% to 7% over three years), Burlingame’s City Council directed staff
to establish a §115 trust account for the exclusive purpose of funding pension obligations. A presentation was
developed for all City employees, and three information and discussion sessions were held in July 2017 to explain to
employees the impact of the CalPERS changes on the City’s future pension costs. (The presentation and tutorial were
also made available on the City’s intranet.) The City made an initial contribution of $3.7 million to the §115 trust account
in October 2017. The fund was augmented by $1 million in March 2018 with the analysis presented as part of the City’s
Mid-year Report. The 2018-19 budget includes nearly $3.4 million in contributions to the fund.
Though not containing all the specific elements of the financial document described in the Grand Jury’s finding, the City
of Burlingame’s plan to address rising pension costs is shown in the FY 2018-19 budget document under the section
entitled “Key Budget Assumptions”, under the subtitle “Pension Liability Strategy”(page 25). In addition, the City is
continually examining its options to fund these pension obligations in order to protect its ability to provide reliable
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 4
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
municipal services into the future. To avoid frequent and significant changes in its funding plan, the City has not
committed to a specific measure or outcome. Rather, in response to projected increases in Required Employer
Contributions to CalPERS, the City plans to pay the required amounts each fiscal year, and fund the §115 trust account
at a higher threshold rate, to provide for future year payments to CalPERS, until these rates level off and gradually
subside. To the extent market conditions and other assumptions vary, the City will alter its contributions to the trust
fund as prudently as possible and in the context of other demands on the City’s fiscal resources. Alternative financial
strategies are continuously analyzed, because actuarial assumptions are continuously adjusted to more accurately
reflect the most current environment. The City includes “worse case” scenarios in its analysis of pension projections,
which are reviewed annually by the Council in a public setting.
Fl3. Despite the fact that rising pension costs and Unfunded Liabilities are a significant problem for each City, no
City (except for Redwood City, the City of San Mateo, the City of Burlingame, the City of Belmont and the City of Menlo Park) includes specific, annual projections of future pension contribution costs in their budgets
published in the finance section of their websites.
Response: The City agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s CAFR. The City of Burlingame has
not reviewed any other City’s CAFR. The discussion of the City of Burlingame’s future pension projections is included
in the FY 2018-19 Budget Transmittal Letter in the section entitled “Citywide Budget Issues”, under the subtitle
“Controlling the Increasing Costs of Employee Benefits” (beginning on page xvii).
The following are the City of Burlingame’s responses to the Grand Jury’s recommendations:
R1. The Grand Jury recommends that, by December 31, 2018, each City schedule public hearings to engage its
residents in addressing the city's increasing pension costs and to develop a long-term plan to address them.
The recommendation has been implemented. All discussions regarding the City’s pension costs have been made
during noticed, public City Council meetings, and the public is encouraged to provide comment on each topic presented
at these meetings. In addition, the annual budget report, including a discussion of pension obligations and other long-
term liabilities, requires a formal budget hearing. (The Grand Jury has included the links to the City’s public pension
discussions in footnote 100.) The City will have a comprehensive update of its pension plans on a Council agenda
again prior to December 31, 2018.
R2. The Grand Jury recommends that, by December 31, 2018, and annually thereafter, each City publish a report
on its website detailing its pension obligations. The report should include, at a minimum, the following: a. The City's total pension contribution costs under all plans, and also broken out into subtotals for
all Miscellaneous Plans, and all Safety Plans, for each of the 3 preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such costs in each of the following 10 fiscal years, assuming CaIPERS' actuarial
assumptions are met.
b. The City's total Unfunded Liabilities under all plans, and also broken out into subtotals for all
Miscellaneous Plans, and all Safety Plans, for each of the 3 preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such Unfunded Liabilities in each of the next 10 fiscal years, assuming CaIPERS'
actuarial assumptions are met.
c. The City's Funded Percentage across all plans, and also broken out into subtotals for all
Miscellaneous Plans, and all Safety Plans, for each of the 3 preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such Funded Percentages in each of the next 10 fiscal years, assuming CaIPERS'
actuarial assumptions are met.
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 5
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
d. The percentage of the City's general fund expenditures and covered payroll represented by the pension costs described in (a) above (using estimates of general fund expenditures in future fiscal years). e. In addition, estimated information for all projections regarding the next 10 fiscal years set forth in
items (a) through (e) above should be presented using a Discount Rate that is I percentage point
below CaIPERS' then-current Discount Rate.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented, as the City does not believe its analysis and discussion of
pension costs should follow a specific frequency, format, or content. The City annually publishes its Comprehensive
Annual Financial Reports (audited) and Budgets on its website. These reports contain information and discussion on
all fiscal topics, concerns, and initiatives of the City. All City Council discussions, including decisions and plans
regarding the funding of long-term liabilities, are held at public meetings where public comment is invited.
R3. The Grand Jury does not recommend specific policies or implementation measures to address pension costs.
However, it recommends that, by no later than December 31, 2018, and annually thereafter, each City instruct its staff to deliver a report to the City Council in connection with the City's financial plan evaluating available
options to address pension costs and that each City hold public hearings to discuss and consider such options
no less than every other fiscal year. These include (but may not be limited to):
• Regular supplemental payments to CaIPERS (beyond those required by CaIPERS) to accelerate the amortization of their Unfunded Liabilities.
• Irregular supplemental payments to CaIPERS (beyond those required by CaIPERS), as when a City has a budget surplus or receives special non-recurring revenues.
• Electing to apply shorter Amortization Periods (that is, less than 20 years) to their Unfunded
Liabilities.
• Issuing pension obligation bonds.
• Establishing substantial reserves that can be applied in the future to help meet rising pension
costs and/or accelerate amortization of Unfunded Liabilities.
• Establishing Section I 15 trusts for the exclusive purposes of meeting rising pension costs and/or accelerating amortization of Unfunded Liabilities.
• Reductions in general fund operating costs other than pensions.
• Seeking additional general fund revenues that can be applied directly to paying pension costs or that can offset general fund budget shortfalls that would otherwise occur.
• Keeping employee salary increases at or below the levels assumed by CaIPERS.
• Negotiating cost-sharing agreements with employees under which employees pay a portion of
the City's pension costs (without at the same time agreeing to offsetting compensation increases).
• Maintaining growth in employee salaries and COLAs at or below the assumed CaIPERS rates.
• To the extent allowed by law, consider the recommendation of the League of California Cities to
renegotiate employee contracts to bring the pension benefits of Classic Members in line with PEPRA Members, for future work. In particular, ensure that the salary used to determine final retirement compensation is based on the average of the final 3 years of employment (rather than highest 1 year), and that the salary is not enhanced by "spiking," such as by including overtime,
unused vacation or sick leave, purchases of "air time," and the like.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Burlingame has considered and implemented
many of the measures suggested in the Grand Jury’s recommendation in the past, and will continue to explore all
options within the context of its overall operating budget.
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 6
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
However, it should be noted that the City has in the past worked closely with its employee groups to reduce the cost of
the long-term liabilities associated with employment and to control the cost of employee benefits: The City negotiated
significant reductions in retiree health benefits for newer employees (hired after 2012, dependent on bargaining unit).
Coupled with contributions to a trust fund account for the purpose of funding prior-year liabilities for retiree health
insurance, this unfunded actuarially accrued liability for retiree health coverage has been greatly reduced. Employees
now not only pay a portion of the cost of their health insurance coverage, but also pay a portion of the employer’s
required contribution for pension benefits with CalPERS (contribution rates vary from 1.5% to 4% depending on
bargaining unit). The City continues to have good relations with its bargaining units; negotiates benefits in good faith;
and is transparent in all its dealings with both represented and unrepresented employee groups. The City will not
propose contracts it sees as too costly to the City or would jeopardize the cooperative nature of future employee
negotiations.
Also of note: The City has never practiced “spiking”, which generally refers to including excess compensation in the
final year of employee pay. The Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), which took effect on January 1,
2013, bans the purchase of “air time”, and eliminated many forms of pay (above base pay) that can be included in
pensionable compensation.
R4. The Grand Jury recommends that, by June 30, 2019, each City develop and publish a long-term financial plan
to deal with rising pension costs, and update that plan annually. Such a plan should include:
• Specific objectives, such as identifying a target Funded Percentage, eliminating the Unfunded Liabilities over "n" years and maintaining the City's share of Normal Costs at "n" percentage of
payroll.
• Policies to achieve these objectives.
• Specific measures to implement the policies.
• A process to monitor progress in implementing the measures and in achieving the objectives.
• Consideration of alternative policies and measures, or a "Plan B," that may be used in the event
that CaIPERS's actuarial assumptions, especially the Discount Rate, are not met in future years. Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The City of Burlingame has a plan in place to assist it in
meeting its pension obligations through years of high pension costs until the employer required contribution rates return
to current levels or below. See pages 30-31 of the Grand Jury report. By funding a §115 Trust established specifically
for this purpose, the City will smooth out the rate (as a percentage of payroll) for the amounts dedicated to its pension
obligations.
The Burlingame City Council approved this response letter at its public meeting on September 17, 2018.
Sincerely,
Michael Brownrigg
Mayor
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
Hall of Justice and Records
400 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
RODINA M. CATALANO
COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CLERK & JURY COMMISSIONER
(6s0) 261-s066
FAX (650) 26t-st41
www. sanmateocourt. org
July 17, 2018
City Council
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Grand Jury Report: "Soaring City Pension Costs - Time for Hard Choices"
Dear Councilmembers:
The 2017 -2018 Grand Jury filed a report on July 17 , 2018 which contains findings and recommendations pertaining
to your agency. Your agency must submit comments, within 90 days, to the Hon. V. Raymond Swope. Your
agency's response is due no later than October 16, 2018. Please note that the response should indicate that it
was approved by your governing body at a public meeting.
For all findings, your responding agency shall indicate one of the following:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify
the portion ofthe finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation ofthe reasons therefore.
Additionally, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, your responding agency shall report one of the following
actions:
l. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a
time frame for implementation.
J The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of
an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or
director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of
the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the Grand Jury report.
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an
explanation therefore.
4
JUL i 9 2OIB
Please submit your responses in all of the following ways:
l. Responses to be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court by the Court Executive Office.
Prepare original on your agency's letterhead, indicate the date of the public meeting that
your governing body approved the response address and mail to Judge Swope.
Hon. V. Raymond Swope
Judge ofthe Superior Court
c/o Charlene Kresevich
Hall of Justice
400 County Centerl 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655.
2. Responses to be placed at the Grand Jury website.
Copy response and send by e-mail to: grandiury@sanmateocourt.org. (Insert agency name
if it is not indicated at the top of your response.)
3. Responses to be placed with the clerk of your agency.
a File a copy of the response directly with the clerk of your agency. Do not send this copy to
the Court.
For up to 45 days after the end ofthe term, the foreperson and the foreperson's designees are available to clariSr the
recommendations of the report. To reach the foreperson, please call the Grand Jury Clerk at (650)261-5066.
If you have any questions regarding these procedures, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Okada, Chief Deputy
Counry Counsel, at (650) 363-4761.
Very truly yours,
a
Gl,aru(fu,q
Rodina M. Catalano
Court Executive Offrcer
RMC:ck
Enclosure
Hon. V. Raymond Swope
PaulOkada
"r{formation
Copy: City Manager
cc:
2
a
Soaring City Pension Costs - Time for Hard
Choices.
Table of Contents
SOARING CITY PENSION COSTS - TIME FOR HARD CHOICES
ISSUES.....
SUIVINIARY
GLOSSARY........
BACKGROI.IND
The Cities' Pension Plans.
Importance of Rate of Return on Investment.
Importance of Discount Rates.
Debate Over CaIPERS' Discount Rates and Projected Rates of Return
Importance of Amortization Periods.......
Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA)
"California Rule".
...,..2
......4
....,.4
......6
.....,6
......7
..,...9
....10
....t2
.... l3
....14
CaIPERS' changes......
CaIPERS' reduction of Discount Rate from 7.5 to 7 percent.......
CaIPERS' adoption of new mortality rate assumptions................ I 5
CaIPERS' reduction of Amortization Period. ........15
DrscussroN................ ......................15
Wh.v are Unfunded Liabilities and Funded Percentages so important? ........... ............15
The Cities'Pension Costs and Unfunded Liabilities Today. .....................16
Unfunded Liabilities and Funded Percentages of the Cities ...,....................16
Table No. 1 - Increasing Unfunded Liabilities and Decreasing Funded Percentages ......................... t6
lncrease in Unfunded Liabilities and Decrease in Funded Percentages if a Lower Discount Rate is
Table No. 2 - Increased Pension Unfunded Liabilities and Decreased Funded Percentages if Discount
Rate is Reduced By I percentage point...
Increasing Pension Contribution Payments...
Table No. 3 - Increasing Pension Contribution Payments....
Percentage of Employer Contribution Paid for Amortization Costs.
Table No. 4 - Percentage of Cities' FY 201 7-18 Pension Costs that are Amortization Costs .
Interest Charges on Unfunded Liabilities
Table No. 5 - Interest payment savings where shorter Amortization Periods are applied .......
What does the future hold? The Impact of Increasing Pension Costs on the Cities.
Table No. 6 - Increasing Pension Costs for Cities..........
Table No. 7.1 - Redwood City's projected increases in pension contribution costs from FY 2016-
2017 toFY 2024-2025 andFY 2027-2028 ............... ...............22
...............17
t7
l7
18
18
19
t9
20
21
2017-18 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
I
Table No. 7.2 -Med'o Park's projected increases in pension contribution costs from FY 2016-2017
toFY 2024-2025 andFY 2027-2028............... ........................22
Table No. 7 .3 - City of Pacifica's projected increases in pension contribution costs from FY 2016-
20 1 7 to FY 2024 -2025 and Fy 2027 -2028 ...............
Pension Information Provided by the Cities Could be Substantially Improved. ............ ................23
What can the Cities do About Their Rising Pension Costs? .....................24
Develop a Financial P1an............ ......24
Specific Measures for the Cities to Consider ......25
(l) Make Supplemental Contributions to Ca1PERS................. .............26
(2) Make Contributions to a Reserve
.23
..........3 r
.........................35
....................38
(3)
(4)
(s)
(6)
(7)
(8)
RECOIIIMENDATIONS...
R_EQUEST FOR RESPOT{SES
IVIETHODOLOGY.....
APPENDIX A _ CITIES' PENSION DATA...
Establish IRS Section 115 non-revocable trusts.......... ....................30
Negotiate Cost-Sharing Arrangements with Employees. .................31
Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs).
Shorten Amortization Periods. ................32
Keep Salary Increases Within the Rate Assumed by CaIPERS .......rr
Reduce Operating Costs. .........................33
(9) Seek New Revenue..........34
Measures That Appear Unavailable at this Time.......... ...........34
(a) Renegotiating employee pension formulas......J+
(b) Adopting a defined contribution pension plan for new employees. ................35
(c)Withdrawing from CaIPERS.
Conclusion........35
FINDINGS
..40
APPENDIX B - HOW TO FIND PENSION DATA IN THE CITIES' CAFRS .............1
Articles and Reports that are cited in report........ .....................1
Cities' Annual Financial Reports that are cited in the report or relied upon for the data reflected
in Appendix A.......
,41
..................1
...............11
Supplemental materials not cited in report but that were reviewed in the Grand Jury's
investigation.................15
il
2017-18 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
SOARING CITY PENSION COSTS _ TIME FOR HARD CHOICES
ISSUES
How high will the pension costs of cities within San Mateo County be in the next ten years and
what actions can the cities take now to meet those obligations?
SUMNIARY
Public pension costs are already eating into city budgets and represent a serious threat to public
services in San Mateo County's cities.
In FY 2016-2017 , the 20 cities within the county of San Mateo (the Cities) spent a total of $ 102
million on their pension plans, representing an average of approximately 13.6 percent of their
general fund expenditures. As heavy a financial burden as this is, the Cities' pension costs are
projected to double by FY 2024-2025 if new actuarial assumptions made by CaIPERS - the
administrator of the Cities' pension plans - prove to be correct. Many experts argue, however,
that CaIPERS' assumptions are unduly optimistic. If these experts are correct, increases in the
Cities' pension costs could be even greater.
The most important change in CaIPERS' actuarial assumptions is a lowered expectation for the
Return on Investment for CaIPERS' pension fund assets. Since Return on Investment is expected
to pay for the majority of retiree pensions, a lower investment retum means that the Cities and
their employees must make up the difference by making larger payments into the pension fund.
The Cities have no control over CaIPERS' assumptions, and each year they must pay the amount
of money required by CaIPERS. In each City, the city government and employees share a
"Normal Cost" of paying for future retiree benefits. These will increase as a result of the changed
CaIPERS's assumptions. However, each City also has an "Unfunded Liability" that represents
the difference between the value of their pension fund assets and the present value of their long-
term pension obligations. As a result, the Cities are required to pay "Amortization Costs"
(principal plus interest) to CaIPERS on their Unfunded Liabilities. Amortization Costs will also
increase because of the changed CaIPERS' assumptions. On average, the Cities' Normal Costs
comprise 4l percent of their total pension payments to CaIPERS, while Amortization Costs
comprise 59 percent.
The Cities have a number of options for paying steeply rising pension costs, each of which can
be implemented on its own, or in combination. First, the Cities can cut public services, reduce
employee salaries and benefits, or lay off employees in order to free up additional funds. Second,
the Cities can negotiate with bargaining units to increase the employees' share of pension costs.
Third, the Cities can attempt to increase revenues from taxes. Fourth, the Cities can use other
existing resources, if any, to pay down the Unfunded Liabilities early. The San Mateo Civil
Grand Jury of 2017 -2018 has found that the last choice could result in large savings for all the
12017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Cities. In one scenario, the savings could exceed $ 125 million each for the Cities of San Mateo
and Redwood City.
In the course of its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that none of the Cities have adopted
long-term financial plans to address their rising pension costs. Some Cities informed the Grand
Jury that, while rising pension costs are important, they must be balanced against "other
priorities" for new spending. While the Grand Jury understands the desire on the part of the
Cities to expand their services in these times of growth and increasing property tax revenues, it is
difficult to think of a more important issue for them to address than the looming pension crisis.
Currently, the region enjoys unprecedented economic conditions, resulting in higher tax revenues
and budget surpluses for many Cities. The Grand Jury asks: If the Cities do not address
Unfunded Liabilities now, when will they ever be able to?
The Grand Jury has compiled data regarding pension costs of each of the Cities, which are set
forth in Appendix A of this report, as well as aggregate information for all of the Cities. This
report also provides a general overview of public pension obligations, the major variables that
drive pension cost and Unfunded Liability calculations, including how these variables can
understate Unfunded Liabilities. This report describes the options available to the Cities to
address the looming budgetary crises they face from rising pension costs.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Cities make addressing pension costs a higher priority and
that they engage residents in a discussion about the hard choices that their local governments will
have to make. The Grand Jury also recommends that each City develop a financial plan to
address rising pension costs. The Grand Jury does not recommend specific policies or
implementation measures for the Cities to adopt, but the Grand Jury does identify a number of
options for them to consider.
GLOSSARY
Agency: Any city, county, or other public entity employer that offers a pension plan to its
employees through CaIPERS. Each of the Cities is, accordingly, an "Agency'' for
purposes of this report.
o Amortization Cost: Payments by the Cities to CaIPERS, to pay down their Unfunded
Liability. It includes payments of (a) principal needed to pay off (amortize) the Unfunded
Liability over a period of years, plus (b) interest charged by CaIPERS on that liability.
Amortization Period: The number of years over which an Unfunded Liability is to be paid
off.
Benefits or Benefits oblieations: Amounts to be paid out of a pension plan's assets to
Members or their beneficiaries.
a
a
22017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
a
o
a
a
a
o
a
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or CAFR: An annual financial report issued by
goverrrment entities, such as the Cities.
CaIPERS: The California Public Employees Retirement System, which administers
pension plans for all of the Cities.
County: The govemment of San Mateo County. The geographic area of San Mateo
County is referred to as the "cou4Iy."
Discount Rate: The interest rate used in calculating the present value of future cash flows.
CaIPERS determines the Discount Rate it will use to calculate each pension plan's Total
Plan Liabilities and Unfunded Liabilities. Under public pension plan accounting rules, the
Discount Rate is the same as the annual Return on Investment that CaIPERS projects it
will eam on plan assets.
Funded Ratio or Funded Percentaqe: Measures the extent to which a pension plan's assets
match the present value of its projected future pension obligations. It is the ratio that
results from dividing Total Plan Assets by Total Plan Liabilities.
GASB: The Government Accounting Standards Board. Among other things, it sets
financial accounting standards for public service employee pension plans.
Members: Current and vested former employees of the Cities, or their beneficiaries, who
participate in one of the Cities' CaIPERS pension plans.
Miscellaneous Plans: Pension plans for public service employees who do not provide
safety services such as police and fire protection. Miscellaneous Plans are generally less
expensive to maintain than Safety Plans.
Normal Cost: The contribution payments Agencies and their employees make to
CaIPERS in order to fund the projected lifetime cost (discounted to present value) of
Benefits that accrue to current employee Members during that year. It does not include
Amortization Costs.
Retum on Investment or Rate of Return: The annual gain or loss on invested pension plan
assets. In public pension plans, this is the same as the Discount Rate.
Safetv Plans: Pension plans for public service employees who provide safety services,
such as police and fire protection.
Cities: The 20 cities located within the San Mateo County
a
a
o
a
J
a
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Total Plan Assets: The current dollar value of all assets within a pension plan (sometimes
referred to in CAFRs as "Fiduciary Net Position").
Total Plan Liabilities: The present value of all future Benefit obligations under a pension
plan (sometimes referred to in a CAFR as "Total Pension Liability").
Unfunded Liabilitlz: The dollar amount, if any, by which Total Plan Liabilities of a
pension plan exceed its Total Plan Assets (sometimes referred to in a CAFR as "Net
Pension Liability").
BACKGROUND
The Cities' Pension Plans.
Each of the Cities provides its employees with a pension plan administered by CaIPERST as an
integral part of their compensation package. All of these plans are defined benefit plans2 in
which future Benefits are determined by a formula that is set at the outset of employment.3'a The
Benefits are guaranteed by the Cities and do not depend on how well pension contributions are
invested. Benefits are financed from three sources:s
1 See, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAfRs) listed in the BIBLIOGRAPHY section below for each
of the Cities.
2 See, CAFRs for each of the Cities listed in the BIBLIOGRAPHY section below. CaIPERS, Comprehensite Annuctl
Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2017, p.7 , <https:rrrvr.v',i,.calpers.ca. goi,' docs, tbrms-publications. cati-
2017.pdt>.
3 Biggs, Andrew and Smetters, Kent, (Jnderstanding the Argument for Market i*aluation of Pubtic Pension
Liabililies, American Enterprise Institute. May 2013, p. 1, <hrtp:.i;wu'w.ae
understanding-the-argument-fbr-market-valuation-ot'-nublic-pension-liabilitiesJ0-{917814-l5.pdf>. Ruloff, Mark,
Defined BeneJit Plans vs. Defined Contribution P/ans, Pension Section News of Society of Actuaries, January 2005
- Issue No. 57, p. 1. Money-Zine, Defined Benefit versus Contribution Plons, J:uly 5,2017, <b[pS._:f5_msl*
zine.corn flnancial-planning retirement. det-rned-benet-rt-l-ersus-contribution-plans. >. Investopedia, Hotv does a
defined beneJit pension plan dffirfrom a defined contribution plan?,March20l5,
<https:,',uu,rr'.inrestopedia.corn ask'ansr'"'c'rs,031.115'hou.does-deflned-benefit-pension-plan-differ-defined-
contribution-plan. asp>.
a In contrast, most private companies' retirement plans are defined contribution plans, such as 401k's, where the
amounts of future benefit payments vary depending on returns achieved on investments. Greenhut, Steven,
California Still Facing Pension Crisis Even with Good Stock Market Returns, Califomia Policy Center, July 14,
2017,
a
a
a
il>
s CaIPERS at a Glance, CaIPERS Communications and Stakeholder Relations,
.https:','w'ww.c . CaIPERS 2017 CAFR, p.4l.Lin,
Judy, Retirement Debt: llthat's the problem and hot does it affect you? CalMatters.org, February 21,2018,
<https: ' calma Nation, Joe, Pension Math: Hotv
California's Retirement Spending is Squeezing the State Budget. SIEPR (Stanford Institute for Economic Policy
Research). December 13,2011,p.23, <http:'/'arc.a . Nation, Joe and Storms, Evan,More
Pension Math: Funded Status, Benefits, and Spending Trends for California's Largest Independent Public Employee
Pension S))stems. SIEPR (Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research). February 21,2012,p.3,
<http: ' siepr.stanibrd.edu sites detault, files,'publications,iNation Nlore_Pension _l0Idj>. Biggs and Smetters,
Understanding t he Argument for Market Val uation, p. 3.
11 A1 '1 AtA^-t l^t ,;^-",',.- nnn,-l rot"m r-tn-d+
42017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
a
a
a
Current employee contributions to CaIPERS of a fixed percentage of their salaries. These
contributions go towards Normal Costs and pay for approximately 13 percent of Benefits
paid under CaIPERS' pension plans).
Agency (that is, employer) contributions to CaIPERS of
(i) the Normal Cost of the pension plan for that year (less the employee
contributions amounts), plus
(ii) if the pension plan has an Unfunded Liability (as do all of the Cities' pension
plans6), the Amortization Cost (that is, the cost of paying off that Unfunded
Liability, including both principal and interest, over a period of years).
These employer contributions pay for approximately 26 percent of Benefits paid
under CaIPERS' pension plans.T
Return on Investment achieved by CaIPERS from investing the contributions made by
employees and Agencies between the time that the contributions are made and the date
when Benefits payments come due. Historically, these Returns on Investment have paid
for approximately 6l percent of Benefits paid under CaIPERS' pension plans.8
CaIPERS determines the contributions that Agencies (that is, employers) must pay to CaIPERS
to cover future Benefits by calculating:
(i) Benefits amounts that will have to be paid, based on assumptions that include projected
future retirement rates, inflation, wage increases and post-retirement longevity, and
(ii) Returns on Investment CaIPERS expects to earn on employee and Agency contributions
To the extent that projected costs of Benefits increase unexpectedly, or Returns on Investment
fall short of projections, pension plans will have Unfunded Liabilities. The Agencies rather than
CaIPERS are responsible for paying down all Unfunded Liabilities through increased
contributions and the Agencies bear all the risk of CaIPERS' projections being wrong.e Agencies
6 Appendix A.
7 CalpERS at a Glance.
8 CaIPERS at a Glance.
e The Economist, Buttonwood's Notebook, The soaring cost of old age, The real problem with pensions, March 7,
2018, <lrttps:,'r'ur,".econon.rist.com bloes'buttonw'ood 20l8rOJ soarinq-cost-old-ase>. Oliveira, Anthony, The Local
Challenges of Pension Rrfor*, Bartel Associates, May 24,2010, p.4, <hllpi-ullUb-Ar*
assc'rciates.com docs. dethult-source articles'oliveira_a_the-cl.rallenges-of-pensioll-refbrm- I .Ddt'lsfvrsn:2>.
Andonov, Aleksander, Bauer, Rob, Cremers, Martijn, Pension Fund Asset Allocation and Liabiliry* Discount Rates,
52017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
have no control over CaIPERS' determinations and must pay all contribution increases mandated
by CaIPERS.ro
Importance of Rate of Return on Investment.
As noted above, Retums on Investments are the primary funding source for meeting Benefits
obligations. Accordingly, annual Returns on Investment achieved by CaIPERS have a major
impact on its ability to fund Benefits payments. As of June 30,2017, CaIPERS reported the
following annualized net Returns on Investment over different periods of time:l I
o Past 3 years: 4.6 percent
o Past 5 years: 8.8 percent
o Past 10 years: 4.4 percent
o Past 20 years: 6.6 percent
Even small changes in CaIPERS' annual Retums on Investments over the long-term can drive
substantial changes in its ability to meet Benefit obligations. For example, if a pension plan had
an obligation to pay Benefits of $150 million in 20 years and CaIPERS projected that its annual
Return on Investment over that time would average 7.5 percent, then CaIPERS would need $35.5
million at the outset to meet that obligation. However, if the actual Return on Investment
achieved by CaIPERS over that period was only 6.5 percent instead of 7 .5 percent, then the
pension plan would only have 5124.4 million available to pay Benefits in the 2Othyear,t2 a
shortfall of more than $35 million on the $150 million obligation.
Importance of Discount Rates.
To determine the Funded Percentage of a pension plan, CaIPERS compares the value of the
pension plan's assets (Total Plan Assets) to the present value of the plan's Benefits payment
obligations (Total Plan Liabilities).13 If the present value of the Benefits obligations is larger than
the current value of pension assets, then the plan is not fully funded and has an Unfunded
Liability equal to the difference.
In economic terms, the promise to make a future Benefit payment is worth less today than an
immediate payment of the same amount. In order to compare the value of a promise to pay a
March 2016, p. I,-1 \r'n-,-^rltant rrh rd{'?O I Rnh-6 0_5,Rrraer What-Is-t Bisoest-
Chal leng-Faceins-Public-P lan-Sponsors Optional.pdf>.
ro Interviews by Grand Jury.
tt CaIPERS, Inyestment & Pension Funding Facts at a Glancefor Fiscal Year 2016-t7,
<https:,'r'wrvrv.calpers.ca.go\''docs,'forms-publications,'f-acts-investment-pension-tunding.pdf>.
12 The formula for the 7.5 percent Return on Investment example is: $150 million / ((1.0 +0.075)"20) :
$35,3 I 1,972. The formula for the 6.5 percent Return on Investment example is: $35,3 I 1,972 x (1.065"20) :
$124,426,8s6.
13 Biggs and Smetters , (Jnderstanding the Argument for Market Valuation, p. l.
62017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
Benefit in the future to the value of plan assets today, the value of the promise to make a future
payment must first be discounted to its present value. As explained by Messrs. Biggs and
Smetters:
Even small changes in the annual interest to be subtracted from the future value (that is, the
Discount Rate), significantly impact present value and, consequently, a plan's Unfunded
Liability.ls See, the section of this report entitled "Increase in Unfunded Liabilities and Decrease
in Funded Percentages if a Lo'uver Discount Rate is Used" at p. [16] for an example of the impact
on the Cities of a drop ofjust one percentage point in the Discount Rate. As a result, the
Discount Rate selected for this calculation matters a great deal.
Debate Over CaIPERS' Discount Rates and Projected Rates of Return.
Discount rates are set based on CaIPERS' projections for long-term Retums on Investment.l6
The higher the projected Return on Investment, the higher the Discount Rate and the lower the
Unfunded Liability. That is often referred to as the "assumed return approach".lT Although
GASB mandates this method of setting public pension plan Discount Rates,ls it is
controversial.le Many economists, academics and commentators claim it understates the size of
Unfunded Liabilities.20 They argue that the present value of future Benefit obligations should be
72017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
"Discounting is a process similar to compound interest. While compound
interest begins rvith a current dollar amount and adds interest to determine the
future value, discounting begins r.vith the future value and subtracts interest
each year until a present value is arrived at."l4
rl Ibid., p. 4.
15 Nation, Pension Math 201I , pp. 9 and 11.
t6 GASB Statement No. 68, Paragraph64,
<lrttp:. , u,u rr .g3sb.org jsp, GASB Docuruent_C Dr)cumentPase ]cid:1 17616011061 i &acceptedDisclaimcr:true>.
Mixon, Peter, Estimating Future Costs at Public Pension Plans: Setting the Discount Rate. Persions & Investments,
Apnl 29,2015, p. l, <http: 'ulu..pionline.com, article l0l-i0-119 ONLINE.'150-1198-i3 estimating-tuture-costs-at-public-pension-plans-setting-th . Brewin-qton, Autumn, Making Sense of the Mathematics of
Califtrnia's Pension Liabilit", Hoover Institution, August 21,2012, <https:i u1r.u'.hoerver.org research, making-
serrse-nratlrematics-calitbmias-pension-liabilit.,->. Biggs and Smetters, Understanding the Argument for lv[arket
Valuation,p.4.
r7 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Pension Plan Valuation: Vietvs on Using Multiple luleasures to Offer a
Iv[ore Complete Financial Picture,September 30, 2014,p.2, <https:,'iu'u' and
<lrttps:,,lvnlv.sao.gov'assets,'670:666187.pdf>. Mixon, Estimating Future Costs at Public Pension Plans,p. 1.
Turner, John, Godinez-Olivares, Humberto, McCarthy, David, del Carmen Boado-Penas, Maria, Determining
Discount Rates Required to Fund Defined Benefit Plans, Society of Actuaries, January 2017 , p. 6,
<u.rvrv.actuaries.org 'oslol0l -5./paoers,'PBSS-Turner&GO&NIcC&B-P.pdf>.
r8 GASB Statement No. 68, Paragraph64.
1e Angelo, Paul, Understanding the Valuation of Public Pension Liabilities - Expected Cost,,'ersus Market Price,In
the Public Interest, January 2016, p. 9, <https:r '"1wrv.soa.org 'libran' ner," sletters, in-public-interest,'...,'ip-10 16-iss 1 2-
anqelo.aspr>.
20 Mixon, Estimating Future Costs at Public Pension Plans,p.l. U.S. Government Accountability Office, p. 2. Bui,
Truong andRandazzo, Anthony, lllhy Discount Rates Should ReJlect Liqbilities: Best Practices for Setting Public
Sector Penston Fund Di.scount Rotes, Reason Foundation, September 2015, p. 4, <lfUpSi.feqfS!.qg_*p.
based on a Discount Rate that reflects the value of those Benefits payments to the beneficiaries
(that is, the amount an investor would pay today in exchange for the right to receive that future
cash flow). Noting that obligations to pay Benefits in the future are similar to obligations to
make future payments on municipal bonds, they argue that yield rates on municipal bonds having
a duration and risk of non-payment similar to pension Benefits obligations are the best yardstick
for establishing the value of those Benefit obligations and, accordingly, the Discount Rate.2l This
approach is sometimes referred to as the "bond-based approach" or "market-based method."22
However, other experts, particularly actuarial professionals, argue that this bond or market-based
approach does not provide useful information to the Agency sponsoring a pension plan about the
cost to that Agency of funding future benefit obligations. They point out that, for purposes of
calculating contribution rates, the expected costs of meeting future Benefit obligations are the
only relevant consideration and that such costs are best calculated based on "assumed rates of
return."23 Yet other experts believe that avariation on the assumed rate of return method in
which the risk that future additional amortizatton payments will be necessary is factored into the
Discount Rate offers the most useful information.2a
This debate has important implications because CaIPERS' assumed Return on Investm ent (7 .5
percent per year from2012 to the present) is significantly greater than municipal bond yield
rates.2s Since CaIPERS' projected Retum on Investment exceeds that of municipal bonds yields,
the result is greater Discount Rates and smaller present values of Benefit payment obligations
and Unfunded Liabilities.
Other experts do not engage in the debate between proponents of the assumed return approach
and the bond or market-based approach but focus instead on concerns that CaIPERS' new
projection of a7.0 percent annual Return on Investment - approved in December 2016 but not
content.'urrloads,'t-rles. oension discount rates:bestJrractices.ndt>. Biggs and Smetters , Understanding the Argument
for Market L'aluation, pp. 2-5 . American Academy of Actuaries. Measuring Pension Obligations: Disconnt Rates
Sen'e VarioLts Purposes. American Academy of Actuaries Issue Brief, November 2013,
<httrr: 'u,-vr.il .actuan.ore't'iles, IB Nleasuring-Pension-Obligations_Nov-l l -20l3.pdt>.
2r Bui and Rardazzo, llhy Discount Rotes Shoutd ReJtect Liabilities, p. 2. U.S. Government Accountability Office,
p. 2. Biggs and Smetters, Understanding the Argumentfor fuIarket Valuation, p. 5. American Academy of Actuaries,
p.2.
22 Miron, Estimating Fttture Costs at Public Pension Plans,p.2. U.S. Government Accountability Office, p. 2.23AmericanAcademyofActuaries,p.2.Angelo, (JnderstandingtheValuationofPublicPensionLiabilitiis,pp.g,
I l-12. Mixon, Estimating Future Costs at Public Pension Plans,p.2. See also, Nation, Pension Math 2O1l,p. 12,
for a chart outlining the arguments for and against public pension systems using high Discount Rates.
2a Turner, Determining Discount Rates, p.3.
25 Boyd, Donald, Kieman, Peter, Strengthening the Securirr- of Public Sector Defineel Benefit Plans,The Blinken
Report, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. January 2014,pp.38-39, footnote 12,
<n'w'w.rockirrst.org pdf'gorernr.nent finance 1014-01-Blinken Report One.pdt>. Angelo, (Jnderstanding the
Valuation of Public Pension Liabilities, p. 10. U.S. Govemment Accountability Office, pp.2-3.
82017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
yet implemented26 - is unrealistically high. They claim that a more reasonable projection would
be 6.0 - 6.5 percent.2T Wilshire Consulting, CaIPERS' general consultant, has advised CaIPERS'
board that it expects the CaIPERS' Retum on Investment over the next ten years to be just 6.2
percent.28 It should be noted, however, that CaIPERS makes Discount Rate decisions based on
projected Retums on Investments over 60-year periods, not 10. CaIPERS' projected 60-year
Returns on Investment are in line with its new 7 percent Discount Rate.2e
As noted above, if Discount Rates and projected Returns on Investment are too high, then they
understate the size of the Cities' Benefit payment obligations and Unfunded Liabilities.
Importance of Amortization Periods.
If a pension plan has Unfunded Liabilities, CaIPERS requires the sponsoring Agency to pay off
(amortize) that Unfunded Liability, together with interest accrued at a rate equal to CaIPERS'
projected Rate of Retuffi,30 through higher annual contribution payments over the Amortization
Period. Historically, CaIPERS' standard Amortization Period for investment gains and losses
16 League of California Cities. CaIPERS Src-vs the Course, Adopts a 7 Percent Assumed Rate of Return, December
22,2017,T Neu s Ner," s--Articles 20 Ii\1'.cac1
Adcrp ts - a- 7 - P erc ent- A s s unt>
27 Nation, Pension lvkilh 201I , p. 1 3. Lir., Retirement Debt. Munnell, Alicia, Appropriate discount rate for public
plans is not simple, MarketWatch, October 5, 2015, <httns:,',r.vwu'.marketu'atch.com ston' appropriate-discount-
ra te- fb r-p ub I ic -p lan s- i s-no t- s imp 1e-2 0 1 6 - I 0 -0,5 >.
28 Rose-Smith, Imogen, Hotv Low Can CaIPERS Go? Institutional Investor.com, November 30, 2016,
<https:.'. wurl- . Kasler, Dale, IVith
int'estments soft, CaIPERS eyes higher contributton rates. llhot does that mean for w'orkers? Sacramento Bee,
November 2l ,2016, <r,"'u'u.sacbee.com'neu's.business.'articlel l6Sil-1-13.htrnl>. Kasler, Dale,CaIPERS moyes to
slash investmentforecast. That means higher pension contributions are coming., Sacramento Bee, December 21,
2016, <http: 'riu,"u,.sacbee.con'r neus business'article1220887i9.html>. League of California Cities, CaLPERSStals
the Course.
2e Diamond, Randy, CaIPERS considers 4 asset qlloccttion options; local fficktls prefer avoiding major changes,
November 14,2017 , p. 2, <httr:: ' u'u'w.pion
asset-allocation-ootions-local-of t-rcials-prefer-avoiding-major-chanses>. CNBC.com , CaIPERS's sees 5 .8 percent
return witlt netv alloccttion; belotv 7 percent goctl, February 8,2017 ,t\,'\\'\1
sees-5 I -nercen t-return-u'i lh-n e\\'-a llocation-belorv-7 a1.htm1>See also, League of California Cities,-nefcenl-(ro
League of Californtu Cities Retirement S.vstem Sustainability Study and Findings, Jarutary 2018, p. 29,
tion Hot-l
Sustainabilitv Leaeue-Pension-Surr,.e)'-($eb)-FINAL.aspx>, in which the authors note that CaIPERS' determines its
Discount Rate based on expectations for returns on investment over a 60 year period.
30 Interviews by Grand Jury. Mendel ,Ed, Old cause of pension debt gets new attention, Calpensions, July 10, 2017,
p. 1, <https:'calrlensions.com,'20 17r07, 10,old-cause-of-pension-debt-gets-ne$'attentioor>. City of La Palma,
CaIPERS Update and Additional Pavment Discussion, February 20,2018, slide 22,
Eastman, Becky, Report on stcttus of
Belvedere's employee pensionfunds, May 13, 2013,p.6,
<httD : / w'-'ru..c ityo fbeh.edere. org DocumentCenter'Vierv' I :lf ,5 >.
.,w\!'11"C
92017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
was 30 years,3l but an Agency could elect a shorter Amortization Period.32 Like home loan
repayment terms, the longer the Amortization Period, the lower the annual payment, but the
larger the accrued interest costs. Examples of the cost of accrued interest to four of the Cities
over different Amortization Periods are given in Table No. 5.
Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA).
In response to soaring public pension Unfunded Liabilities, the Califomia Legislature adopted
the California Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), which imposed
significant reductions on state and local government pension benefits, primarily for employees
hired after January 1,2013 (referred to as "New_\4ernbe6"). Employees hired prior to that date
are termed "ela$rc-\4g!qb-q8."33 Classic Members who change public employers retain their
"Classic" status.3a Thus, to date, the impact of PEPRA on public pension liabilities has been
small.3s However, it will increase over time as Classic Members retire and are replaced by New
Members.
Some of the most important changes mandated by PEPRA include:
o Reduced pension benefit formulas for New Members. For New Member employees with
Miscellaneous Plans, PEPRA requires a"2 percent at age 62" benefit formula, that is, a
New Member retiring at age 62 is entitled to a pension equal to his number of years of
3r Lea,que of Califomia Cities, CaLPERS Board RedLtces Amorti:ation Policy,February 14,2018,
<https: ' rvri rr.cacities.org'Top Ner s Ne$ s-Articles 2018, Februan' CaIPERS-Board-Reduces-Amofiizarion-
Policv>. Lowe, Stephanie and Rogers, Frances, CaIPERS Reduces Amortizcttion Period with Impacts to Emplo-ver
Contribution Rates,Cahfornia Public Agency Labor & Employnnent Blog, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore), March l,
20I8, <https:.'n'*'w
n'ith-inrpacts-to-emplover-contribution-rates >. CaIPERS Actuarial Office, Finance and Adntinistration Committee,
Agenda ltem 7a, Amortization Policy (Second Reading),February 13, 2018,
. \1-\\,'\\'.Ca .Jacobius, Arleen,
CaIPERS shortens amortization period to 20 -vears, Pensions & Investments, February 14,2018,
1 -)
.V"earS>.
32 Interv'iews by Grand Jury. However, if an Agency selects a shorter Amortization Period, CaIPERS does not permit
it to reverse that election later. Interviews by Grand Jury.
33 CaIPERS, Summar.,'of Public Employees Pension Rufor- Act of 2013 ancl Relatetl Changes to Ptblic Employees'
Re t irem ent Lar,r,', Novembe r 27, 20 12, pp. 1 -2, <hrtp :,','wul'
attachments,'calpers sutnrnar.r-.pdti.
34 Ibid. CaIPERS, A Guide to CaIPERS: llhen You Change Rettrement S;,-stems, p.3,
<https:,'ru.rvu,.calpers. ca. got,/docs,'lbrms-Dublications,ichange-retirement-sr-stems.pdfi.
35 League of California Cities, 2018 Retirement System Sustainabiliw* Stud.,-,pp.2 arrd 5. Hutchings, Dane, Closing
the Pension Funding Gap,League of California Cities, slide 4,
rct:ved-0ah
nqhLTbAhL,lP.lS ri'KHeqPC\\'0OFsgplUAA&url:https,l63A9,i,lF9 n2Fuu,iv.cacities.orqgi,2FResources-
Documentst'i,lFPolicv-Adr.ocac.v-Sectiont)1of FHot-Issues9 iilFRetirement-Sr-sterr-
Sustainability9tr2FPension Gan Public.aspx&usg:AOr \''au,lC0l," BgpPolgt n_rb"A38>. Redwood City, Report
- FY 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Stud.v- Session and Proposecl Processfor Detelopment of the FY 2018-19 Budget,
February 26,2018, p. 10, <https: rvr.r'*.redwooclcit)-.org home sho\,,document'lid:146-50>.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury l0
a
service, times 2 percent, times his average salary.36 A New Member retiring before age
62 would have a pension that is further reduced. For instance, at age 55, a New Member
is entitled to a pension equal to his years of service, times 1.3 percent, times his average
salary.37 Many Classic Members are entitled to more generous Benefits. For example,
many City of San Carlos Classic employees under Miscellaneous Plans have pensions
calculated according to a"2.7 percent at 55" formula.3s Such an employee with 30 years
of government service is entitled to a pension equal to 81 percent of their salary at age
55.3e By comparison, a New Member with 30 years of government service would be
entitled to a pension equal to just 39 percent of salary at that same age,40 or less than 50
percent of what a Classic Member would receive. PEPRA specifies similar but more
complex reductions for New Members under Safety Plans.at
Caps on annual salary basis for calculation. PEPRA also caps the amount of annual salary
that can be used to calculate pensions for New Members at $ I 13,700 (if Social Security is
also offered) plus cost of living adjustments (COLAs), or $136,440 (if Social Security is
not offered) plus COLA.42 These caps are less than the salaries of many middle and upper
management government employees.a3 Classic Members are not subject to salary caps in
calculating their pensions.aa
ofsalaries for PEPRA requires, in calculating the annual salary
used to calculate pensions, that New Members use the average of the three highest
consecutive years salary.os In contrast, some public agencies allow Classic Members to
use just their highest salary year.
Prohibition on "spikinq" salaries. PEPRA also prohibits "spiking" salaries used to
calculate pensions by including overtime, bonuses, cash payouts for unused vacation or
sick leave, severance pay and the like.a6
36 CaIPERS, Summary Public Employee Reform Act, p.2.
37 CaIPERS, Retirement Formulas and Benefit Factorsi Your Benefits / Your Futtre What You Need to Knotv About
Your CaIPERS Local Miscellaneous Benefits, p. 28,
<http:ii wrvrv.reedley.ca.eov'departmentsi'administrarive.'pdf-si'CalPERSo,62020 l6-01-
0 1 9 ;l0Localo,o20ivliscellaneous9'n20Pub0zo208.pdf>.
38 City of San Carlos, Teamsters Group - Benehts Summary 20 I 8, p. 3 .
3e CaIPERS, Retirement Formulas and Benefit Factors,pp.32-33.
40 Ibid., pp.28-29.
4' CaIPERS, Summary Public Employee Reform Act, p.2.
42Ibid., p. 3.
a3 lnterviews by Grand Jury.
44 CaIPERS, Summary Public Emplo.v-ee Refor* Act, p.3.
45Ibid., pp.9-10.
46 Ibid., pp. 8-9.
a
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
Prohibition on purchases of "airtime". PEPRA also prohibits employees from purchasing
nonqualified service time ("airtiffi€"), which allorvs Members to boost their pensions by
buying up to five years of additional service credit.aT
As discussed below, PEPRA may have intended to apply some of these prohibitions to both
Classic and New Members. However, whether these provisions apply to Classic Members is
currently before the Califomia Supreme Court.
"California Rule".
A major obstacle to reducing the pension Benefits to be earned by Classic employees in the
future is the so-called "California rule," an interpretation of a 1955 state Supreme Court
decisiona8 that public employee pension Benefits, once granted, can never be modified, even for
future work, without providing "comparable new advantages," and that also still leave employees
with a "reasonable" pension.4e However, in2016, a Court of Appeal ruled that, under the
Supreme Court's decision, employees only have a vested right to "a 'reasonable pension'- not
an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension." 50 At issue in
that case was the prohibition on "spiking" discussed above at p. 1 1. A few months later, another
Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in upholding a prohibition on the purchasing of
"airtime" discussed above at p. 72.st However, a third Court of Appeal recently reached a
different conclusion, finding that detrimental changes to pension benefits of Classic Members
would only be upheld as "reasonable" if supported by "compelling evidence that the required
changes 'bear a material relation to the theory . . . of a pension system' and its successful
operation."s2 The Califomia Supreme Court is currently considering appeals of all three Court of
47 rbid., pp. 7-8.
48 Allen v. Cit"v* of Long Beach, 45 Cal.2d 128 (1955), <https:"scocal.stantbrd.edu opinion allen-r'-cit-"--long-beach-
265 85>.
1e Allenr'. Cir-v* of LongBeach,45 Ca1.2d 128 at l3l. Beyerdorf, Brian,The Fate of Public Employee Pensions:
lularin's Revision of the 'California Rule ', Califomia Law Review Online, September 2017,p. l,
<urr,,rv.calilbmialarvrevie$.ors u'p-content uploads l0 I 7 09 Be)'ersdorf-01-firmatted-61-72.pdt>. Walters, Dan,
Jerry- Brovn, nearing end of tetms, defies unions on pensions, San Francisco Chronicle, November 28,2017 ,
<lrttps: uu.w.stchronicle.corn.'neu,s articier.lerr-u--Brolvn-nearing-end-of-tenn-dc-fies-unions-l]38981.1.php>.
s0 Marin Association of Public Emplo-vees v. L[arin Counry* Employ-ees Retirement Associcttion,2 Cal. App. 5th 674
at 680 (lst Dist. 2016), <https: ,r.rq'rv.leagle.corr'decision,'incaco20160817007>.
5t Cal Fire Local 2881 et al., v. Cal{ornia Public Employees' Retirement S.v-stem et al.,'7 Cal. App. 5th 115 (lst
Dist. 2016), <https:''\!'\\' .
s2 Alamedo Counfi, Depury^ Sheri,ff's Associcttion, et al. v. Alameda Counryn Employees' Retirement Assn., et a/., Case
No. A141913, filed January 8, 2018, as modified February 5, 2018, <https: wu.t
content uploads.2018 0.1 scrv-A1419l3NI.pdt>. Rogers, Frances and Overby, Brett, Califomia Court of Appeal
Issues A Contrat--v- Decision Addressing "Vested Rights" of Public Employees in the Aftermath of PEPRA: ll'here
will the Supreme Court Land?, Califomia Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore),
January 10, 2018, <httDs:.','r.r'u,u'.calpublicaqenc].-laboremploJ'mentblog.com, nensiorr'califomia-court-of-appeal-
issues-a-contrer)'-decision-addressing-\'ested-rishts-of--public-emplo)'ees-in-the-afiermath-o f-pepra-u'here-w'ill-the-
supreme-court-land, >.
a
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
Appeal rulings.53 Acceptance of the "reasonable pension" standard enunciated in the first trvo
Court of Appeal cases could have significant implications for future pension reform efforts, as
well as eliminate the pension "spiking" and "air time" practices for both Classic and New
Members.
CaIPERS' changes.
CaIPERS administers pension plans for Agencies throughout California. CaIPERS' system-wide
Funded Percentage (that is, value of current assets divided by the present value of future Benefit
payments) is only 68 percent.sa'ss 4r discussed below in the section entitled "Unfunded
Liabilities and Funded Percentages of the Cities" at p. 16, among private sector pension plans, a
Funded Percentage of 80 percent is the threshold below which a plan's solvency is considered
"at risk".56 CaIPERS' reported 68 percent Funded Percentage is based on a Return on Investment
and Discount Rate assumption of 7 percent. CaIPERS has been criticized in the past for
inaccurate assumptions made in its calculations of future Benefits obligations and Retums on
Investment.5T The May 2Ol7 Roeder Survey of Califomia public pension plans ranked CaIPERS
a poor 34th out of 37 California public pension plans rated for "funding assumptions."5s
However, CaIPERS has begun taking actions to strengthen its pension system.
53 Webster, Keeley, lvtore briefs ask State Supreme Court to weaken Californta rile on pensions,The Bond Buyer,
February 27,2018,u u u.btrndbu'r.cor1r. ne\\'s rrrrre-briet.i-ask
rule-on-pensic-rns>. GMSR Appellate Lawyers, Caltfornia Supreme Court lTatch,#18-49,
(httDs: I r.r.'u.x:. snlsr.com I 8--19-ahmeda-countv-deLrut\.s hqrit's-assn-v-alameda-cotultv-emp lovees-retirement-assn-
sf{!95:a1419 l3-l9-caLaBp -5th 61 mod-19-cal-app-Sth-9-l5a-contra-costa-coLrntv-superior >
sa Terando, Scott, Strategies for Managing the New Reality, CaIPERS, September 15,2017 , slide 8,
<https: 'u'u'lv.cacities.org 'Resources-Documents 'Education-and-El'ents-Section Annual-Conterence 2017-
Handouts. Strategies-for-lvlanasing-the-Ne$-Realitr--of-CaIPERS>. CaIPERS 20l7 CAfR, p. 27. CaIPERS,
CaIPERS Reports Preliminary 11.2 Percent Investment Retumfor Fiscal Yecu' 2016-17, July 14, 2017,p. l,
<https: r"'rnr.'.calpers.ca.s(rvpasene\\'sroomcalpers-ne\r's.20l7prelinrinar)'-t-iscal-vear-investlnent-returns>.
55 A Funded Percenta-qe of 68 percent is low compared to CaIPERS' historic Funded Percentages over the last 25
years. For a chart showing these percentages since 1993, see, Fox, Kelly, CaIPERS Update and Path Fonvard,
December13,2017,p. 16,<https: u,rv's.'.cacities.ors'Resources-Documents'Education-and-Events-SectionFire-
Chiet\ l0 I 7-Session-NIaterials. CaIPERS-H istory-and-Pension-Updates>.
56 Nation, Pension Math 20ll,p. 17. Financial analyst Rick Roeder notes that a public pension plan with a Funded
Percentage in the 80-90 percent range is considered "reasonably well funded." Roeder, Rick, Roeder Financial,
Califurnfu Pension S.v-stems: Ranking their Funding Assumptions,May 2017,p.2,
<http:'roedertlnancial. com'ramblinss.php'lramble:42>.
s7 See, for example, the following: Ring, Edward, Did CaIPERS [Jse Accounting "Ginmicks" to Enable Financially
Unsustctinable Penstons?, Califomia Policy Center, January 24,2018,cali
use-acct'runting-gimmicks-enable-tlnancially--unsustainable-pensions,>. Dolan, Jack, Hotr tt pen.siou clettl rent
rtt'ottg ctnil cost Calilitmiu td.\potcrs billions, Los Angeles Times, September 18, 2016,
<http:"rvwvu'.latimes.com projects, 1a-me-pension-crisis-davis-deal.'>. Malanga, Steven, The Pension Fund that Ate
California,TheCityJournal,<https: 'u.u,l.v.citv-joumal.ors'html,pension-fund-ate-califomia-13-il8.html>.
58Roeder,Rick,RoederFinancial, California20lTFundingAssumptionsun'ey,May2017,
<http :.''roederfi nancial.com, RoederSun.e:r20 I 7.html>.
2017-2018 San Mateo Countv Civil Grand Jurv t3
CaIPERS' redrrction of I)i Rate from 7t 5 to 7 nercent
In late 2016, CaIPERS decided to lower its Discount Rate from 7.5 to 7.0 percent.se This will
have the effect of significantly increasing the size of CaIPERS' Unfunded Liabilities and,
accordingly, the contribution amounts Agencies must pay. One expert has estimated that, for
every one quarter percentage point decrease in the Discount Rate, Agency contribution rates (that
is, the size of their contribution payments as a percentage of total payroll) go up by
approximately 2.5 percentage points.60 A 5 percentage point increase in the contribution rate
would represent alarge increase in payments by the Cities as their average contribution rate in
FY 2017-2018 was 27.3 percent.6l In order to give Agencies time to prepare for these increased
costs, CaIPERS intends to phase in the change in its Discount Rate from 7.5 to 7 percent over a
three-year period as follows62:
o FY 2018-2019:
o FY 2019-2020:
o FY 2020-2021:
735%
7.25%
7.00%
To further ease the impact on Agencies of these Discount Rate reductions, CaIPERS plans to
phase in the resulting contribution payment increases over an additional 5 years.63 As a result,
the full cost of the Discount Rate decreases to 7 percent will not be felt by Agencies until
approximately FY 2024-2025.64 This phasing-in process comes at a cost, however, as it allows
interest to continue to accrue on Unfunded Liabilities for a longer time, thereby increasing total
costs that the Cities will eventually have to pay.
In late 2017, CaIPERS considered lowering its Discount Rate even further, down to 6.75 or even
6.5 percent.6s Agencies objected because of the increased contribution costs this would impose
on them and CaIPERS decided not to lower the Discount Rate below 7 percent.66 However, one
expert has projected that it is "likely" CaIPERS' Discount Rate will be lowered, in a series of
steps, down to 6 percent over the course of the next 20 years or so.67
se CaIPERS, CaIPERS to Lotver Discount Rqte to Set'en Percent Ov-er the Next Three Years, December 21,2016,<
https: ,rl'u'u'.ca[pers.ca.gor'paqei1e$'sroomcalpers-news'...'calpers-lorrer-discount-rate>.
60 Nation, Pension Math 2011,pp.25-26.
51 Appendix A.
62 CaIPERS, CaIPERS to Lov'er Discount Rote to Set'en Percent. Terando, Strategies for Managing the New Realiry^,
slide 6.
63 Mendel, Old cause of pension debt, p. 3.
6a League of California Cities, CIIPERS Slals the Course.
65 Diamond, CaIPERS considers 4 asset allocation options,p. l.
66 Ibid. League of California Cities, CaIPERSSraTs the Course.
67 Lin, Bianca and Childs, Matthew, City of Pacifica Miscellaneous and Safery* Plans, CaIPERS Actuarial Issues *
6/30/15 Valuation Preliminary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, September 18,2017, slide 3,
<http: "u'$'u.citr,ofpaciilca.ore'civica\. filebank'blobdload.aspx'lBloblD:lJi78>. Lin, Bianca and Yam, Wai Man,
Ciq,* of Menlo Park ilIiscellaneous and Sctfety Plans, CaIPERS Actuarial Issues - 6/30/15 Valuation Preliminary
Results, Bartel Associates LLC, May 2,2017, slide 10,
<littps: '.'w.w . Lin,
2017-2018 San Mateo Countv Civil Grand Jurv 14
CaIPERS'of
In20l4, CaIPERS adopted nerv mortality rate assumptions reflecting the fact that retirees are
expected to live longer. These assumption changes were projected to have the effect of
increasing Agencies' pension contribution costs. 68
CaIPERS' reduction of Amortization Period.
DISCUSSION
Why are Unfunded Liabilities and Funded Percentages so important?
The Grand Jury chose to study public pension costs and Unfunded Liabilities because they
represent a serious threat to public services county-wide and are already eating into public
agency budgets.Tr The League of California Cities recently warned:
"Rising pension costs will require cities over the next seven years to
nearly double the percentage of their general fund dollars they pay to
CaIPERS...fU]nder current law, cities have two choices - attempt to
increase revenue or reduce services. Given that police and fire services
comprise a large percentage of city general fund budgets, public safety,
including response time, will likely be impacted."72
The effects of increasing pension costs are clear:
o As payments consume a larger share of cities' budgets, it becomes more difficult to
maintain, much less improve, public services.
Bianca and Yang Kevin, Redn'ood Cit-v* Miscellctneous and Safety* Plans, CcIIPERS Actuartal Issues - 6/30/15
Valuation Preliminary- Results, Bartel Associates LLC, February 13,2017, slide 7.
68 Bartel Associates, LLC, Nev' CaIPERS Assumptions ll'ill Increase Rates, February 23,2014,<http: rl-u.'rv.banel-
associates.comne'nvs'201-l 0l'13 ner,"'-calpers-assunrptions-u,il[-increase-rates>.
6e Lowe and Rogers, CaIPERS Reduces Amortization Period. CaIPERS, Agenda ltem 7a, Amortization Polic.r-,p. 1..
70 Ibid., p. 4.
7r Nation, Pension lvlath: Public Pension Spending qnd Sen'ice Cron'd Out in California, 2003-20J0, October 2,
2017 , p. xi, <https: ' siepr.stantord.edu research publications pension-math-public-pension-spending-and-sen ice-
crond-out-calitbmia-]00i>. League of Califomia Ciries,20l8 Retirement System Sustainabilitv' Snrdl', p. 5.
72 League of California Cities,20l8 Retirement System Sustainabili4v* Study,p.l.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
In February 2018, CaIPERS reduced its standard Amortization Period from 30 to 20 years.6e To
"avoid undue disruption" to Agency budgets, CaIPERS proposes to implement the new period
prospectively only, starting with amortization bases established by its June 30, 2017 valuation.
Amortization bases established prior to that date would continue as scheduled under current
policy.70 Although this change will decrease the Cities' pension costs over the long run (see,
Table No. 5 below for examples of such savings), in the near term shortened Amortization
Periods will increase their contribution payments.
. As Unfunded Liabilities increase, cities' municipal bond ratings may be hurt, which
could increase the cost of other public improvement projects that require bonds.
o Public employees may face reduced compensation, reduced COLAs, or layoffs.
o Retired employees may find the security of their pensions threatened (obligations
"guaranteed" by the state constitution have been voided in situations of bankruptcy)73.
o Residents may be asked to raise taxes; a difficult "sell" in the present political climate
when the reason is to pay for legacy pension costs and not current services.Ta
The Cities' Pension Costs and Unfunded Liabilities Today.
Appendix A shows each City's pension costs, Funded Percentage and Unfunded Liabilities for
FY 2016-2017 (the most recent year for which information is available), together with a
comparison to each of the two immediately preceding fiscal years. A review of Appendix A data
on a consolidated basis (shown at the bottom of Appendix A) is also revealing. A discussion of
that consolidated data for the Cities follows.
Unfunded Liabilities and Funded Percentaees of the Cities.
Two important measures of the health of pension plans are the size of their Unfunded Liabilities
and their Funded Percentages. Table No. I (below) shows, based on the 7.5 percent Discount
Rate then being used by CaIPERS, that the Cities' aggregate Unfunded Liabilities increased by
10.7 percent from PY 2014-2015 to FY 2015-2016 and by another 22.2 percent from FY 2015-
2016 to FY 2016-20 I 7. Funded Percentages colrespondingly decreased, at an accelerating rate,
over these 3 years.
Table No. I - Increasiug Unfunded Liabilities and Decreasing Funded Percentages
(s000)
Untunded Liabilitic's Percent Increase in Untunded Liabilities Funded Pertentage
2016-20t'7 s I.21 5.465 22.2%70.5%
2015-2016 s991.53s 10.7,,/,7 5.lo/o
2014-2015 $898.036 76.8%
(See, Appendix A.)
As noted previously, among private sector pension plans, a Funded Percentage of 80 percent is
the threshold below which a plan's solvency is considered "at risk".75 Table No. I shows that the
Funded Percentage for the Cities' pension plans, while slightly higher than CaIPERS' system-
wide Funded Percentage of 68 percent, has dropped to 70.5 percent, almost 10 percentage points
below this 80 percent "at risk" threshold. The Funded Percentages in Table No. I would be
significantly lower, and the Unfunded Liabilities correspondingly higher, if a lower Discount
Rate were applied. This difference is shown in Table No. 2, below.
73 Ang, Kimberly, Ilhat Happens to Public Emplo.vee Retirement Benefits llhen Municipalities Go Banl'rupt?,
United States Common Sense, March 10, 2016, p. 3, <http: govrank.ors research researchText J-5>.
7{ Interviews by Crand Jury.
75 Nation, Pension Math 201l, p. 17.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury t6
Increase in Unfurrded Liabilities and D
Discount Rate is Used.
The Cities' Unfunded Liabilities and Funded Percentages in Table No. I were calculated using
CaIPERS then-applicable Discount Rate of 7 .5 percent. If, however, the Discount Rate had been
just one percentage point lower, the Cities' Unfunded Liabilities for FY 2016-2A17 would have
been approximately 44 percent larger (as shown in Table No. 2) and the corresponding Funded
Percentage that year would have been 62.4 percent rather than 70.5 percent, almost 18
percentage points below the 80 percent Funded Percentage standard.
Table No.2 - Increased Pension Unfunded Liabilities and Decreased Funded Percentages
if Discount Rate is Reduced By l percentage point
($000)
Fiscal Year Unfunded Liabilities based
on 7.5 oh Discount Rate
Untunded Liabilities based
on 6.5 oh Discount Rate
Funded Percentages based
on7.5 oh Discount Rates
Funded Percentages based on
6.5 7o Discount Rates
20t6-2017 s 1,215,465 s r,755.047 70.5%62.4%
20r5-20r6 qqgJ s1i $ I ,5 15,521 75.1%66.5%
2014-2015 s898.036 s I,399,702 76.8%68.096
(See, Appendix A.)
Applying its new Discount Rate of 7 percent (which will be implemented in stages over the three
fiscal years ending FY 2020-2021), CaIPERS states that its current, system-wide Funded
Percentage is 68 percent.T6 However, if long-term Returns on Investment decrease, or are
projected to decrease, below 7 percent, then CaIPERS' Funded Percentage (and corresponding
Discount Rate) would drop even lower. For example, at a Discount Rate of 6.2 percent, it has
been estimated that CaIPERS' Funded Percentage would drop by almost 10 percentage points,
from 68 to 58.3 percent.TT
Increasing Pension Contribution Payments.
Increasing Unfunded Liabilities result in larger contribution payment costs. Table No. 3 shows
how the Cities' contribution costs have risen from FY 2014-2015 through FY 2016-2017 and
how the percentages of cities' palroll and general fund spending consumed by contribution
payments have been increasing.
Table No.3 - Increasins Pension Contribution Pavments
($000)
Fiscal Year Total Contribution
Paynents
Contributions as a percent
of covered pa1'roll
Contributions as a percent
of general fund spending
2016-20t7 $ 10,r.986 273%13.6%
2015-2016 s95,98 7 13.20/o
201.1-20t5 s8 5.33 5 25.5%t2.8%
(See, Appendix A.)
76 Terando, Strategiesfor lutanaging the New Realit.v*, slide 8. CaIPERS 2017 CAFR, p. 27. League of California
Cities, 2 0 I 8 Re tirement System S ustainabiliry* S tudy, p. 1.
77 Nation, 201 I Pension Math,p. vii.
2017-2018 San Mateo County CivilGrand Jury 17
The average, statewide percentage of Agencies' general fund budgets projected to be paid to
CaIPERS in FY 2017-2018 is I 1.2 percent.Ts In comparison, the Cities' pension costs in FY
2016-2017 represented an average of 13.6 percent of their general fund spending.
Percentaee of Employer Contribution Paid for Amortizatiot Costs.
All of the Cities have substantial Unfunded LiabilitiesTe and a significant and increasing portion
of their contribution payments go to paying Amortization Costs (that is, payments required to
pay off Unfunded Liabilities, including accrued interest). Table No. 4 (below) shows that well
over half of the Cities' contribution payrnents in FY 2017-2018 have been applied to payment of
Amortization Costs.
Table No. 4 - Percentage of Cities' FY 2017-18 Pension Costs that are
Amortization Costs
(sooo)
Citlu
2017-2018
Normal
Costs
2017-2018
Arnortization
Costs
% ol20 I 7-20 I I
Total
Contribution
Costs for
Arnortization
Belmont s I ..+73 s2.046 58.19lo
Brisbane s989 $e r2 48.0%
Burlingarne ql s5,s3. r 83 55.5%
Daly City s6,28 r $7. l 84 53.4%
East Palo Alto s I,021 s635 38.3%
Half Moon Bav s 174 s654 79.0%
Menlo Park s2.8-+ I s2.9 15 50.6%
Nlillhrae s 783 s2.907 78.8%
Pacifica s2.08-r s2.043 49.5%
Redwood Ciw s8.767 s 12..+79 58.7%
San Bruno s3.33.r S,t,070 5 5.09/o
San Carlos s7l5 q1 565 78.2%
Citv of San N{atecr s6,750 sl1,239 62.s%
Soutl-r San Francisco s5.872 $9,t71 61.0%
Total Total
Weighted
Average
s+3.63 7 s62.00 l 58.7%
Calitbmia Policy Center, CaIPERS Actuarial Report Data - Cities ($=14),
<httt'r: cllilirrnilnolielccnter.org rvp-contr'nt upkrads l0l8 l)l CTIPERS- {ctu.rrirl-Rcp,,rt-Data-
Cities-and-Counti!'s-w-t()tals.xls\>. The Califomia Policy Center provides pension cost data for l4
of the 20 Cities. Data for Atherton, Colma, Foster City, Hillsborough, Portola Valley and Woodside
was not provided.
78 League of California Cities,2018 Retirement System Sustainability Study,p.4
7e Appendix A.
2017-2018 San Mateo Countv Civil Grand Jurv 18
on Unfunded
CaIPERS charges interest on Unfunded Liabilities at an annual rate equal to the then-current
Discount Rate.80 Accordingly, the 3O-year Amortization Period historically used by CaIPERS to
amortize Unfunded Liabilities results in interest payments that make up a large percentage of
total Amortization Costs. Table No. 5 (below) shows, by way of example, that more than 50
percent of the Amortization Costs paid by South San Francisco, Redwood City, the City of San
Mateo, and Daly City go to interest payments. It also shows that, if the Amortization Periods
were shortened to 20 years, or even I 5, those Cities would realize large savings on interest. Most
notably, the City of San Mateo would save $56 million under a Z}-year Amortization Period and
$126 million with al5-year period. Redwood City would save $55 million by switchingto a20-
year Amortization Period and $134 million with a 15-year period.
Shortening the Amortization Period is only one way that savings on interest can be achieved.
Savings can also be made by reducing the size of the Unfunded Liabilities through supplemental
80 Interviews by Grand Jury. Mendel , Old cause of pension debt, p. l. City of La Palma, slide 22. Eastman, p. 6. City
of Daly City, Comprehensite Biennial Operattng and Capital Budget, Fiscal Yeqrs 2017 and 2018,p.25.
srCaIPERS, Actuarieil Valuation - June 30, 2016 luliscellaneous Plan of the City* of South San Francisco,p. 17,
'docs,'actuarial--1.s: .1v\\'\\'I 6 south-san-francisco-citv-nriscel 20l6.pdt>
CaIPERS, Actucriql l'aluation - June 30, 2016 Sctfery* Plan of the City^ of South San Francisco, p. 17,
<https: w\\\.c .
81 CaIPERS, Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2016 Lliscellaneous Plan of the Cit.,^ of Redwood Ciry,p. 17,
<https:,' rv ,rv.calpers.ca.go'"''docs'acnrarial-reports 20 I 6 red"r'ood-cit-,--miscellaneous-10 I 6.pdt> . CaIPERS,
Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2016 Safety Plan of the City^ of Redwood Cit.v*, p. 17,
<https:,rr'u,rv.calpers.ca.sov.rdocs,'actuarial-reports,'2016.'redwood-citv-safetv-20 I6.Ldt>.
83 CaIPERS, Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2016 for the Miscellaneous Plans of the Cit.v of San Mateo, p. 17 ,
<https: ' u.rr r,,'.calpers.ca. eo\' 'docs,'actuarial-reports,'l0 I 6.san-mateo-citv-miscellaneous-:0 i 6.pdl>. CaIPERS
Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 2016 for the Safety Plans of the City of San Mateo, p. 17,
f-et.,-1O I K ndt\
81 CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation as of June 30, 20 I 6 for Miscellaneous Plans of Daly City, p. 17,
-)A ,l 1.t^c-,)O l6 n,lf\CaIPERS Actuarial
Valuation as of June 30, 2016 for Safety Plans of Daly City, p. 17, <https: u,'u'u'.calpers.ca.stov docs'actuarial-
reoorts,'10 I 6 dal-v"-cit_"--satttrv-20 I 6.pdl>.
Table No.5 - Interest pavment savings rvhere shorter Amortization Periods are applied
(sooo)
lnterest ol er 30 1'ears lnterest over 20 r'ears Interest over l5 years
City Total payments
over 30-yearc
(using 30-year
Arnortization
Period).
lnterest
payments
over 30-
years.
Percent of 30-
year.
Amortization
Cost paynents
consisting of
interest
payments.
Interest
payments over
20-years (using
20-year
Amortization
Period).
Savings
compared to
30-year
period.
Interest
payments over
I 5-yean (using
I 5-year
Amortization
Period).
Savings
cornpared to
30-year period
South S.F. i1 s390.708 s206.136 52.8%$r85.r62 $20,s71 s127..157 $78.979
Redwood
citvxr
$s53,787 s305.67 l 55.2%s250,256 $55.{ I 5 st7l.6l6 $ l3{,0ss
City of San
Mateou
$502,87.r s280.5 l 0 55.8%5224,282 s56.228 s r 53.805 $ 126,706
Dalv Citvg s37 1.749 s20 I ,920 5-+ 3%s 1 7 r.295 s30.62s $l17.468 s8{.4s2
2017-2018 San Mateo Countv Civil Grand Jurv l9
payments to CaIPERS beyond the required contribution amounts. This can be done through a
commitment by the Cities to make additional payments on a regular basis that is reflected in the
annual budget, and/or by the Cities making additional paynents as funds become available, as
when there is a budget surplus or non-recurring revenue source. The process is similar to the
experience of a credit card holder. If the holder only pays the minimum monthly balance, long-
term interest expenses are higher than if the holder pays more than the minimum per month in
order to work down the principal amount.
What does the future hold? The Impact of Increasing Pension Costs on the Cities.
Rising Unfunded Liabilities will generate increasing pension costs. A "Key Finding" of the
League of California Cities' January 201 8 report is that "City pension costs will dramatically
increase to unsustainable let,els" (ernphasis added).8s The League reports that the average
percentage of its 426-member cities' general fund spending on CaIPERS pension plans will
almost double between FY 2006-2007 and FY 2024-2025 (from 8.3 percent to 15.8 percent).86
CaIPERS projects that the $3.1 billion in pension costs being paid by member cities in FY 2Ol7 -
2018 will almost double (to $5.8 billion) by FY 2024-2025.87 The Cities'projected future
pension costs, as estimated by CaIPERS, are also projected to almost double during that period,88
and some experts project even larger increases.se Table No. 6 sets out CaIPERS' projections for
increasing pension costs for I 5 of the Cities from FY 2017 -2018 through FY 2024-2025 and
shows that they will have to pay pension costs that are rising by an average of 13.3 percent per
yeat.
85 League of California Cities, 2018 Retirement System Sustainabiliry* Study and Finclings, p.2.
86 Ibid., pp. I and 4.
87 Ring, Edward, Did CaIPERS (Jse Accounting "Gimmicks ...?
88 California Policy Center, CuIPERS Actuarial Report Data - Cities (S--M),
<https:.,','c;rli . This source provides
pension cost data for l5 of the 20 Cities in the County. Data for Atherton, Colma, Foster City, Hillsborough and
Woodside is not included. The weighted average percent increase in costs for these l5 Cities from FY 20 I 7- I 8 to
FY 2024-25 is92.7 percent.
8e See, discussion following Table No. 6 about higher projections by Bartel Associates, LLC and Table Nos. 7.1,7.2
ard7.3 (below).
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
Table No. 6 - Increasing Pension Costs for Cities
($000)
Citv
2017-2018
Total
Pension
Costs
2024-2025
Total
Projected
Pension
Costs
Percent
Increase from
2017-20t8 to
2021-2025
Average Annual
Total Pension
Cost Increase
Average Annual
Percent Increase
Behnont s3,s r 8 s6.039 7t.7%s360 10.2%
Brisbane s 1,90 I s3.85 I t02.6%s279 11.7%
Burlingarre s5.735 s r r.435 99.4%s8 r,+14.2%
Daly Citv S 13,46.+s28.579 tt2.3%52, I 59 16.0%
East Palo Alto $ r.658 s2.873 73.3%st74 10.5%
Half Moon Bav s828 s r,5 r9 83.59'o s99 tt.9%
Nlenlo Park q5 756 s I 1.258 95.6%s786 13.7%
Millbrae s3,690 s6.828 85.09',"s.1-13 t2.t%
Paciflca sl.t27 s8,8e9 n5.6%s682 t6.5%
Redwood Citv s2l ,216 s39.955 88. r 96 s2.673 t2.6%
San Bruno s7,404 s 14.695 98.59lo s I.0.11 t4.t%
San Carlos s3,280 s5.407 61.8%s30.+9.3%
Ciw of San Matm s 17,988 s33, l 78 84.4%s2. l 70 t2.t%
South San Francisco s I 5,0.13 s28.960 92.5%s l,988 13.2%
Total Total
Weighted
Averase Total
Weighted
Average
s 10s.638 s203.477 92.6%s 13.977 13.2%
Califomia Policy Center, CaIPERS .lcnarial Report Data - Cities ($=ll). <http: calitirrli
S!,nqtrryplllr:ql t_l]lli turrill-Rr'p(rft-Date-Citics-and-Countics-w-totals.xls\>. The Calitbmia Policy Center
provides pension cost data for l4 ofthe 20 Cities. Data for Atherton, Colna, Foster City, Hillsborough, Portola Valley and
Woodside was not provided.
Bartel Associates, LLCe0 projects even larger increases in pension costs than CaIPERS. For
example, as shown in Table Nos. 7.7,7 .2 and7.3,Bartel projected tn2017 that pension costs for
Redwood City, Menlo Park and Pacifica will more than double from FY 2016-2017 through FY
2024-2025 (which is substantially greater than CaIPERS' projections for those Cities shown in
Table 6) and are projected to continue to increase substantially thereafter through FY 2027-
202g.el
e0 The public pensior actuarial consulting firm of Bartel Associates, LLC reports havin-g served as consultants to
over 400 public sector clients since 2012 including, within the San Mateo county alone, the Cities of Belmont,
Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San
Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the Town of Hillsborough. See, Bartel website, <http:' u'.,',u..bartel-
associates.com about-us. client-list>.
er It should be noted that the Bartel Associates, LLC projections on which Table Nos. 7 .l , 7 .2 atd 7 .3 rely were set
forth in reports dated February l7 , 2017 , May 2, 2017 ard September 18, 2017 , respectively. They were based on
CaIPERS numbers as of June 30,2015. Last summer, CaIPERS issued updated its numbers as of June 30,2016 and
it is expected to issued June 30, 2017 numbers again this summer. Were the Bartel projections to be re-run based on
the most recent CaIPERS data, they would be somewhat different from those reflected in Table Nos. 71., 7 .2 arrd
7.3. Source: Grand Jury interviews,
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2l
Miscellaneous Plans Safetl Plans
Pension
Costs as a
Percent ol
Payroll
( Projected)
Annual
Pension Costs
(Projected)
lncrease in
Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t7
7o Increase
in Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t'l
Pension
Costs as a
Percent of
Payroll
(Projected)
Annual
Pension Costs
(Projected)
Increase in
Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t7
o/o Increase
in Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t7
FY 2027-
2028 37.3%s l 6.764 s8,69 l t01 .7%67.2%s24,77 r s 13.2.16 I11.90,'o
FY 202.1-
202s s l 7,530 s9,457 l7.t%65 6%s22. I 48 s 10,623 92.2%
FY 2016-
2017 26.3%s8.073 12.9%$l 1.52s
Table No' 7.2 - Nlenlo Park's projected increases in pension coniributiou costs fronr Fl'
2016-2017 to Fl 202J-2025 and Ft' 2027-2028e3
($000)
(Beforee{ taking into account any ernployee cost sharing. )
Nliscellaneous Plans Sat'etl Plans
Pension
Costs as a
Percent of
Payroll
(Projected)
Arnual
Pension
Costs
(Projected)
Increase in
Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t7
o/o lncrease
in Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t7
Pension
Costs as a
Percent of
Payroll
(Projected)
Annual
Pension
Costs
(Projected)
Increase in
Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t7
96 Increase in
Annual
Pension Costs
since FY
2016-20t7
FY 2021-2028 33.99/o s7. I 90 s-r. 140 t35.7%60.5%ss,3 89 q1?RS t56.1%
FY 20t-+-2025 31.5%s6.695 s3,6.+5 n9.5%58.4%s-l.7s6 s2.652 t26.0%
FY20l6-2017 2l.2o/o s3.050 32.3%s2. r 04
e2 Data in Table No. 7.1 is derived from Lin, Bianca and Yang Kevin, Redyvood Ciqv* tuliscellctneol$ and Safery
Plans, CaIPERS Actuarial Issltes - 6/30/15 l'aluation Preliminary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, February 13,
2017, slides 17, 18,29 and 30.
e3 Data in Table No. 7.2 is derived from Lin, Bianca and Yam, Wai Man, City of tvlenlo Park Miscellaneou.s and
Safety* Plans, CaIPERS Actuarial Issnes - 6/30i l5 L'aluation Prelintinary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, May 2,
2017, slides 23,)4,39 and 40, https:.'ir'"tr.'i,r.'.rnenlopark.ors'DocumentCenter Vic-,,r l-+391.
ea Menlo Park's projected Miscellaneous Plan annual pension costs in Table No. 7.2 would be approximately 15
percent lower than shown if employee cost sharing were taken into account and its Safety Plan pension costs would
be 5 - 9 percent lower. Lin, Bianca and Yam, Wai Man, Ciry of Menlo Park lvliscellaneous and Sofe4,* Plans,
CaIPERS Actltarial Issues - 6/30/15 Valuation Preltminary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, }day 2,2017, slides 25.
28,40 and41.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
Table No. 7.1 - Rednood Citl's projected increases in pension contribution costs from FY
2016-2017 to FY 202-l-2025 and FY 2027-2028e2
($000)
Table No. 7.3 - Citl'of Pacifica's projected increases in pension contribution costs from
FY 2016-2017 to FY 202{-2025 and FY 2027-2028es
($000)
(Beforee6 taking into account any employee cost sharins. )
l\liscellaneous Plans Safety Plans
Pension
Costs as a
Percent ol
Payroll
(Projected)
Annual
Pension
Costs
(Projected)
Increase in
Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 20 l6-
2017
7o lncrease
in Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
2017
Pension
Costs as a
Percent of
Payroll
(Projected)
Annual
Pension
Costs
(Projected)
Increase in
Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
20t7
% Increase in
Annual
Pension
Costs since
FY 2016-
2017
FY 2027-2028 36.3%s-+,435 s2.992 2073%1t.8%s6. l 86 s3.910 17 l.8o/o
FY 2024-2025 34.4%s3,8-+6 s2..+03 166 5%69.0o/o s5.428 s3. I 52 l 38.5%
FY 2016-2017 t6.7%s I .4.13 31.6%s2.276
Pension Information Provided by the Cities Could be Substantially Improved.
Clear information about the Cities' current and projected pension costs, as well as their plans for
meeting these rising expenses in the future, is not readily found in the Cities' CAFRs, nor (with a
few notable exceptionseT'e8'ee) in their most recent budgets published in the finance section of
e5 Data in Table No. 7.3 is derived from Lin, Bianca and Childs, Matthew, Citl of PaciJicct Lliscelloneous and Scqfet.v^
Plans, CaIPERS Actucu'icl lssues- 6/30/15 l'oluation Preliminary- Results, Bartel Associates LLC, September 18,
2017, slides 8, 9, 18 and 19, http: 't'ri,,i,.citlotbacifica.org'ciricar tjlebank blobdload.aspr'lBloblD:1j378.
e5 Pacifica's projected N{iscellaneous Plan annual pension costs in Table No. 7.3 would be approximately 15, 7.3
and 7 percent lower in FY 20 l6- 1 7 , FY 2024-25 and FY 2027 -28 respectively than shown if employee cost sharing
were taken into account and its Safety Plan pension costs would be approximately 11, 5.6 and 5.4 percent lower in
FY 2016-17,FY 2024-25 and FY 2027-28 respectively. Lin, Bianca and Childs, Matthew, Ciry of Pacifica
Miscellaneotts and Sctfety Plans, CaIPERS Actuortal Issues - 6/30/15 Valuation Prelimina: Resulrs, Bartel
Associates LLC, September 18, 2017, slides 11,12,20,21,29,30.
e7 Redwood City's FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget provides projections of projected future pension costs through FY
2030-31 , together with a description of steps the city is taking to begin addressing these costs. City of Redwood
City, Report - FY 2017-18 Mid-Yeqr Budget Srud-r" Session. See also, City of Redwood City, Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Recommencled Budget,pp. 13 and 14, <http: ww' >.
e8 The City of San Mateo's FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget includes a table showing how the City's pension costs will
increase from FY 2017 -18 through FY 2027 -28. City of San Mateo, Adopted 2017- I8 Budget, p. ll,
<https: ', ll'r,r r',.cit!'ot.sanmateo.org DocumentCenter,\'ierv 600-li Adopted-l0l 7- 18-Br-rdget>. The City's proposed
20 l8-20 Business Plan also includes annual pension cost projections through FY 2028-29. City of San Mateo,
Proposed 201 8-20 Business Plan, pp. 9, I 1, and 65,
qe Menlo Park's FY 2017-18 budget shows total pension costs for each of the next l0 years. City of Menlo Park,
Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18,p.48.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury !7
their websites.l00'l0l'102'103 Appendix B's guide to locating pension information in CAFRs shows
that a certain level of specialized knowledge and concerted effort is required to extract
information about pension costs from CAFRs. While the Cities' published budgets often refer to
growing budgetary challenges faced by pension costs, the information provided about costs,
especially projected future costs and descriptions of how the Cities are planning to meet them, is
generally not set out in a systematic way. The information falls far short of what it should be
given the importance and growing urgency of the subject matter.
What can the Cities do About Their Rising Pension Costs?
Develop a Financial Plan.
As with any challenge, the first step is to acknowledge the problem. In the case of pensions, this
requires an analysis of future obligations, under various scenarios, over at least a l0-year time
horizon. The second step is for each City to develop a long-term financial plan over at least a 10-
year time period to address rising costs. Such a plan should include:
o Specific objectives, such as identifying a target Funded Percentage, eliminating the
Unfunded Liabilities over "n" years and maintaining the City's share of Normal Costs at
"n" percentage of payroll
a Policies to achieve these objectives, such as making supplemental contributions to
CaIPERS, making amual contributions to a reserve or IRS Section 1 l5 trust (described
below) for the purpose of meeting unanticipated future pension costs, keeping salary
increases below the actuarially assumed increase rate, or negotiating cost-sharing
100 The City of Burlingame provides ilformation about its plans for addressing rising pension costs in Staff Reports
and proposed budgets. See for example, Augustine, Carol, Staff Report to Burlingame City Council, July 3, 2017 ,
<http: 'burlingameca.lesistar.corn gatewa)'.asp.\'lill-FctID:1-15flc47-af'e.+--18e6-8c90-7afX68-llc:+l8.doc\>;
Augustine, Carol, Staff Report to Burlingame City Council, March 14,2018, pp. I 1, 12,27 ,28 and 48,
<http:,' bLrrlinsameca.lesistar. com 'sate\\'a-"-.asp\?lV1:F&lD:8bf+30ff -6a9(J-.+6F+-a-ie8-bc50ad7 105l.1.docx>;
Augustine, Carol, Staff Report to Burlingame City Council, May 9, 2018,
<http: burlinsameca.lesistar.com. qate\i'ar-.aspx'lN{:F&ID:68ce"l13d-.1c73-+elb-abt:-d2e04bidde86.docx>.
l0l The Town of Hillsborough's FY 2018-19 Proposed Budget notes that annual pension costs are projected to
double over the next ten years (from $2.4 to $5.7 million. The Town also provides a l0-year forecast of expenditures
that incorporates data regarding projected pension costs, but the achral pension costs themselves are not broken out.
Town of Hillsborough, FY 20187-19 Proposed Budget,pp.27 and96,
zL++,^-.r.-.. l.itl enter V ieu.File'ltem, 2 l2>
r02 Foster City's preliminary budget for FY 2018-19 states that, between FY 2017-18 and FY 2022-23, the City's
Miscellaneous Plan contribution rate will rise from 27 .9 to 40.8 percent and its Safety Plan contribution rate will rise
from45.2 to70.4 percent. City of Foster City, Preliminary Budget Fiscal Year 2018-2019,p. 10,
<littps:' u'u'rv.tbstercitr'.org'sites,'default'flles.'fileattachments,'t-rnancial*serl ices page, 351 I ti l0 l8-
2019 preliminar]-budget published.pdfi. The proposed budget does not include more specific information about
dollar amounts represented by these percentages.
103 The City of Belmont's 20 I 8 Budget includes a chart showing increasing pension contribution rates over the next
4 years. City of Belmont, FY 2018 Budget,p. 18,httns:. u'u u'-bel nront. -.,or"home'shrr
net .d rr'hiveC
2017-2018 San Mateo Countv Civil Grand Jurv
rvdoc ument'l id: I -5-ll l>
24
agreements with employees that cap the Cities' share of Normal Costs (which are
described below in "Specific Measures for the Cities to Consider")
Specific measures to implement the policies
A process to monitor progress in implementing the measures and in achieving the
objectives
Consideration of altemative policies and measures, or a "Plan B," that may be used in the
event that CaIPERS's Return on Investment assumptions are not met in future years.
Finally, tou-eh decisions need public support. This cannot be achieved without the public being
informed about the issue at every step. The Cities' plans should include a public awareness
component.
The Cities' CAFRs and budget documents published by the Cities in the finance section of their
websites that were reviewed by the Grand Jury show that none of them has adopted a long-term
financial plan with all of the components described above.l0a'l0s'106't07
Specific Measures for the Cities to Consider
There are a number of measures that can be taken to meet objectives that might be included in
the Cities' long-term financial plans. Some of these are summarized below. Most have been
employed by one or more Cities, although not necessarily in a systematic way.
Not every City will be in a financial position to take aggressive action now, but there are options,
including the following nine:
r0+ 16. City of San Mateo states that it has a plan for eliminating its Unfunded Pension Liabilities; it intends to
achieve this by 2050. City of San Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget, p.20.
r05 The City of Foster City plans to "[i]dentify and implement pension sustainability strategies to reduce the City
Unfunded Accrued Liability and improve the City funded starus with CaIPERS" in FY 2018-19. City of Foster City,
Preliminary Budget Fiscal Year 2018-2019,p. 188.
106 It should be noted, however that the City of Redwood City does have a five-year plan that provides for
supplemental palments to CaIPERS (beyond required contributions) of $0.5 million per year; it has funded a Section
115 pension trust (described below) with an initial $10.5 million and plans to make additional contributions to the
trust of $ 1.1 million per year over the next five years, and employee cost sharing. Redwood City also adopted a
lower tier, less expensive, pension plan even before the passage of PEPRA. See, "Specific Measures for the Cities to
Consider" below for references to Redwood City's actions.
t01 ln 2014 San Carlos published annual pension cost projections through FY 2035-36. Ciry of San Carlos, Long-
Temt Financial Plan, November 5,2014,pp.21 arrd22,
<http: ri u'$.cit!'ofsancarlos.orq Hon1e. Shou,Dr)cunlent'lid:700>. The City also published a graph showing pension
costs through FY 2047 -48. City of San Carlos, Ciqv* Council Stctff Report,Item 7.b of March 12, 2018 Agenda
sancarlosca 'Citizens Fi ell r'lT
a
a
a
cPacket, p. 117,
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
(l)Make S Contributions to CaIPERS.
By making supplemental contributions to calPERS beyond the required pa5rments, the cities can
reduce the amounts on which they are paying interest. The Cities generally cannot earn retums
on their reserves equal to the interest rates CaIPERS will be charging,'ot ro using reserves to
make supplemental contributions can result in substantial net savings over the long-term.
Although not a subject of this report,l0e actions taken by the County to reduce its pension costs
are instructive. In FY 2011-2012 and FY 2012-2013, the County paid "supplemental
contributions" to SamCERA (the plan administrator for the County's pension plans) to reduce its
Unfunded Liability. These were in addition to its Annual Required Contribution (ARC)rr0
payments.lll However, these supplemental contributions were applied to the entire SamCERA
system, not the County alone.l 12 Then, in Novemb er 2013, SamCERA and the County signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formalize a plan to pay supplemental contributions.l 13
Under the MOU, the County made two commitments. First, it agreed to pay supplemental
contributions in a lump sum of $50 million in the initial fiscal year (FY 2013-2014) and then to
pay an additional $10 million in each of the following nine years. Second, the County stated that
it intended to maintain a minimum average employer contribution rate of 38 percent of payroll
during the 10-year period. Since the ARC would otherwise decrease each year, as the Unfunded
Liability is reduced, maintaining a contribution rate higher than the ARC would provide a second
source of supplemental payments. For its part, SamCERA committed to establish a Supplemental
Contribution Account to receive the supplemental contributions, which would be credited just to
the County, rather than all three SamCERA employers. If SamCERA's actuarial assumptions are
met, the County's supplemental contributions are expected to eliminate the Unfunded Liability
within 10 years (FY 2022-2023).111
The MOU includes language stating that the County's supplemental contributions are not legally
binding. However, as of June 30,2017, the MOU had been implemented on schedule. The
r08 City of Menlo Park, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18,p.48,
<https: lr ww .
roe Progress made by the County of San Mateo in planning for and reducing its pension costs is the subject of the
Grand Jury's report for 2017-2018, entitled "County Pension Costs - Hard Choices Paying Off." San Mateo County
Civil Grand Jury 2017-2018 report, "County Pension Costs - Hard Choices Paying Off."
t to 4ry1ual Required Contribution (ARC) is the sum of an Agencies' share of Normal Cost and, if any, the
Amortization Cost. ARC is the amount an Agency is legally required to pay to the plan administrator in order to
fund a pension plan. See, Brainard, Keith and Brown, Nex, The Anruml ReqLtired ContribLttion Experience of State
Retirement Plans, FY}l to FYl3, National Association of State Retirement Administrators, March 2015,p.2,
<https: "u'w .
rrr Referred to by SamCERA as the annual "statutory contribution rate." SamCERA,2017 Comprehensi,te Annual
Financial Reportfor the Fiscal Year Ended on June 30, 2017, p. 49, <https:' $'u,u'.samcera.ors sites nlain t-lles tlle-
attachrnents, l0 I Tcati_final.pdt>.
rr: County Pension Costs - Hard Choices Paying Off, p. 6.
l13 Memorandum of Understanding Between the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Employees'
Retirement System Funding, November 19,2013.
rra County Pension Costs - Hard Choices Paying Off., p. 7.
2017-2018 San Mateo Countv Civil Grand Jurv 26
County's supplemental contributions, including payments made before the MOU, as well as
payments made pursuant to the MOU, total nearly $139 million, through June 30, 2017.tts
In theory, without supplemental contributions, the Unfunded Liability would be paid off at the
end of the l5-year Amortization Period used by SamCERA. The benefit of making supplemental
contributions to pay off the Unfunded Liability early is to reduce the interest payments that are
included in the Amortization Cost. This is substantial. Prior to adoption of the MOU, the County
Manager estimated the cumulative savings at $304 million.lt6 In 2017 the County Manager
reported that the County could expect annual savings approaching $90 million to $ 100 million in
principal and interest payments, beginning in FY 2023-2024, assuming the Unfunded Liability
has been paid off by that date.117
It should be noted that the County was fortunate in having a non-recurring gain of about $50
million from the 2014 sale of the County-owned Circle Star Plaza, which helped fund its capital
plan.r18 The County general fund benefitted from passage of Measure Ain2012, which adds a
one-half cent countywide sales tax for 10 years, through Apil2023, as well as Measure K
(2016) which extended the sales tax through 2043.tte
Among the Cities, Redwood City's Preliminary Five-Year Forecast calls for additional payments
to CaIPERS of $500,000 per year beyond the required contribution amounts.l20 As discussed
belorv in "Establish IRS Section 1 1 5 non-revocable trusts," at p. 29 , Redwood City's Preliminary
Five-Year Forecast also calls for the city to annually contribute additional amounts to an
irrevocable fund for the purposes of paying pension costs.
In April 2018, the City of San Carlos approved making an additional payment to CaIPERS of $5
million, beyond the required contribution, to pay down a portion of the City's Unfunded
Liability.12r The City estimates that this payment will result in $4.3 million of net savings over
the long-tem.l22
The City of San Mateo made additional payments to CaIPERS of $1.375 million in FY 2016-17
and $1.4 million in FY 2017-18. The City's proposed 2018-20 budget recommends continued
additional payments to CaIPERS out of the general fund in the amounts of $1.625 million in FY
2018-19 and an additional $14 million thereafter over the course of approximately the next 10
rr5Ibid.
rr6Ibid., pp.7-8.
rr7 Ibid., p. 8.
rr8 Torres, Blanca, San Msteo Couruy* cashes in with sale of Circle Star Plaza for $90.1 million, The San Francisco
Business Times, May 20, 2014, <httos:t,wu-
plaza-qriftin-capital-san-mateo-countl/. html>.
Ire Ballotpedi a, San Mateo CounQ Sales Tax Increase, Measure A (No,u'ember 20 t 2),
Coun Sales Tax Inc lvleasure A Ballotpedia, San
lvlateo Couruy* Sales Tttx Increase, Measure K (November 2016).
lvlateo C Cali Sales T
rr0 Redwood City Report - FY 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Study Session, pp. 20 and 21. Grand Jury Interv'iews.
12r Interviews by Grand Jury. San Carlos, Ciry Council Staff Report,Item 9.a of April 9,2018 Agenda Packet,
com,'Citizens'F 'tT 1&tD:27,)
rr2 Ibid.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
years.l23 11r. City does not indicate how much savings is expected to result from these additional
payments.
The City of Foster City's preliminary budget for FY 2018- 19 calls for an additional payment to
CaIPERS of $2.1 million, representing4.3% of its projected general fund operating expenditures
budget that year.l2a
(2) Make Contributions to a Reserve.
In the current good financial times, most of the Cities have experienced rising revenues and
should be able to set their general fund budgets to yield a surplus of revenues over expenses and
put the difference into a general fund reserve to be applied in their discretion against future
unanticipated, special, or one-time expenses.l25 A portion of such reserves could be used to
manage or smooth payments to CaIPERS, consistent with budgetary needs. However, since the
Cities retain the right to use these reserves as they deem appropriate, there is no guarantee that
these reserves will be applied to pension costs.126 Payments into a reserve do not reduce the
Amortization Costs charged by CaIPERS.
Several of the Cities have established reserves out of their general fund budgets that are
earmarked for future increased pension contributions.
Menlo Park. The City has established a "Strategic Pension Funding reserve" which, as of June
30,2077, held assets of $3.2 million. That represents approximately 7 months of its annual
pension contribution costs of $5.56 million.l27 Menlo Park's policy is to assign 25 percent of any
general fund operating budget surpluses to this pension reserve.l2s Based on its expected general
fund operating budget surplus of approximately $2.5 to $3.5 million in FY 2017-2018, this
policy will add another $625,000 to $875,000 to the reserye.l2e However, the Strategic Pension
Funding reserve currently represents only approximately 10 percent of the City's total general
fund reservesls0 and, even assuming continued growth in the Strategic Pension Funding reserve
similar to FY 2017-2018, would only modestly help pay for increases in the City's expected
pension costs over the next 10 years.13l
r23 City of San Mateo, Proposed 2018-20 Business Plan,pp. 58 and 67.
r21 City of Foster City, Pretiminon, Budget Fiscal Year 2018-2019,p. 50.
r25 See, for example, City of Menlo Park, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18, pp. 8, 33 - 38; City of San Mateo,
Adopted 2017-18 Budget,pp.6,32,36;CityofFoster City,Preliminarv Budget FiscolYear 2018-2019,pp.47 - 48;
City of Belmont, FY 2018 Budget,, p. 16, 22:, City of Brisbane, Fiscal Years 2016-2017 & 2017 -2018, Adopted
TwoYearOperatingBudget,p. 11,<http:r'1*'u'rv.brisbaneca.org'sitesidefault,files,Cit-v-9;l0of,ol0Brisbane:l.pdf>;
Town of Portola Valley, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-2018,p.4,<http:.',wu'u'.po ; Town of Hillsborough, FY 2017-18 Adopted
Budget, p. 26;Town of Hillsborough, FY 20187-19 Proposed Budget,p.95.
tl6 Interviews by Grand Jury.
r27 Appendix A.
r28 City of Menlo Park, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18,p.48.
t2e Interviews by Grand Jury.
r30 Cityof Menlo Park,Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18,p.49.
r3r Menlo Park expects its pension costs to almost double to $ I 0. I 4 million per year by FY 2027 -28. City of Menlo
Park, Adopted Budget, Fiscol Year 20 I 7-l 8, p. 48.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28
Half Moon Bay. The City has established a pension stabilization fund.r32 As of Jun e 30,2017,
the City reported having approximately $1 million in the 5n6t3r and its FY 2017-2018 budget
provides for the transfer of another $0.51 million into the fund.r3a This would bring the fund total
to slightly more than $1.5 million by the end of FY 2017-2018. When compared to Half Moon
Bay's pension costs of $0.59 million in FY 2016-2017,'" u $1.5 million pension stabilization
fund represents a reasonable start to the city's preparations for rising pension costs. It compares
favorably to Menlo Park's pension reserve, which holds only approximately 7 months' worth of
pension costs.l36 In contrast, Half Moon Bay's fund holds the equivalent of well over 2 years of
pension costs.
The Citv of San Mateo. The city's long-term budget calls for funding an $8.95 million pension
cost reserve, with $1.4 million to be contributed in FY 2017-2018 and additional annual amounts
thereafter equal to 50 percent of certain budget surpluses.l3T The City of San Mateo's annual
pension costs were over $17.5 million in FY 2016-2017,'" ro this reserve amount for pension
costs is modest.
South San Francisco. The city reports that it established a "CaIPERS Stabilization Reserve" with
an initial amount of $3.99 million in FY 2015-2016. It funded this reserve with another $509,104
in FY 2016-2017 and projects funding it with an additional $586,968 in FY 2018-2019, for a
combined total of approximately $5.1 million. r3e This $5.1 million total would represent 27.3
percent of the City's S18.7 million in unassigned reserves as of June 30,2017110 and roughly 5
months' worth of its FY 2016-2017 pension costs of $13.3 million.rar
Brisbane. The City of Brisbane reports having adopted a policy of allocating 40 percent of
unanticipated ending fund balance to be used to be set aside to pay for unfunded pension and
OPEB obligations.ra2
t32 City of Half Moon Bay, FY 2017-18 Adopted Operattng Btdget, pp.68, 7l and 224, <hgpi-$SS-hS!:!09S!:
ba)'. ca.usi DocumentCenter Vie$,, 9-10>.
tri City of Half Moon Bay, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2Ol7 ,
p. 102, <https:.' '."r'rvt.halt'-ntrlon-ba_v.ca.us, Dl.rcumentCenter'Vieu'r 1J-1 I >.
134 City of Half Moon Bay, FY 2017-18 Adopted Operattng Budget,pp. 69 and7l.
r35 Appendix A.
136 Menlo Park's pension costs in FY 2016-17 were approximately $5.6 million. Appendix A.
r37 City of San Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget, pp. 54 and 117,
<https:,','urvrv.citvot.sanmateo.org DocumentCenter'\'ieu,' 600;13>.
r38 Appendix A.
r3e South San Francisco, Letter from City of South San Francisco to Grand Jury, dated June 11, 2018. City of South
San Francisco, FY 2018-19 Addendum to Adopted FY 20187-19 Biennial Operating Budget, p. B-5. Ciry ofSouth
San Francisco, FY 2018-19 Operating Budget Stud.v Session,May 23,2018, p. 28. City of South San Francisco,
Adopted Biennial Operating Budget and Capital Improlement Program Fiscal Years 2017-19, p.D-5,
<http :.','rvu""r'. ssf.net, home,'shoudocument'lid=202 7>.
Iao City of South San Francisco, Letter from South San Francisco to Grand Jury, dated June 7, 20 I 8.
tar Appendix A.
rar Brisbane, Letter from City of Brisbane to Grand Jury, dated June I l, 2018. The City's letter does not disclose the
estimated amounts that might be set aside as a result of this policy.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29
(3) Establish IRS Section 115 non-revocable trusts
The Cities can also put reserves that are set aside for pension costs into non-revocable trusts
under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to Section 115 trusts are
voluntary and can be made as city budgets allow. Funds in such trusts can only be used to pay
pension costs.l43 As with ordinary reseryes, the Cities can use funds in Section I l5 trusts to
manage or smooth payments to CaIPERS, consistent with their budgetary needs.laa The non-
revocable feature assures employees, retirees and taxpayers that the funds will be used for
pension costs. Another advantage of Section 1 15 trusts is that they offer different investment
choices and risk profileslas which can yield higher rates of Return on Investments than the rates
available to the Cities for their general fund reserves.la6 Pa5rments into a reserye do not reduce
the Amortization Costs charged by CaIPERS.
In January 2018 Redwood City deposited $10.5 million into a Section 115 trust,ra7 representing
approximately 7 months of its annual pension costs of $17.7 million in FY 2OI6-20n.118
Redwood City's finance group has recommended that the City deposit $ 1.1 million per year from
general fund reserves into the Section 1i5 trust over the 5-year period from and including FY
201 8-201 9 through FY 2022-2023. rle This $ 1 .1 million per year would represent slightly less
than 50 percent of the estimated $2.5 million per year increase in pension costs that Redwood
City is likely to experience.rs0 In FY 201 6-2017, the Redwood City Council adopted a general
fund reserve policy, where the unreserved portion of the general fund's balance would be 15
percent of anticipated general fund revenues. Any excess balance above a l5 percent reserve
threshold would be utilized to fund a Section 115 Trust Account to help pay pension expenses.lsl
In October 2017 Burlingame contributed $3.7 million into a Section 115 trust for the purpose of
paying pension obligations and, approximately six months later, an additional $l million.l52 The
r13 CaIPERS, Finance and Administration Committee, Proposed California Emplol,ers' Pension Preftmding Trust
(CEPPT) Legislation,February 17, 2016, pp. |-2,4, <https:,tr"wu
agendas I0 I 601. tlnairceadrlin. itern-6a-00.pdt>.
r44Ibid.
r15Ibid.
la6 The City of Menlo Park notes that, if it moves funds in its Strategic Pension Funding reserye into a Section I l5
trust, it would expect to earn returns on those assets of approximately 4 percent per year, as compared to the
approximately I percent per year it earns on general fund reserves to due restrictions imposed on available
investments for general fund reserves. City of Menlo Park, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18, p. 48.
ra7 Redwood City Report - Fy 2017-18 lt'Iicl-Year Budget Studlt Session,p. 10. City of Redwood City, Fiscal Year
2017-20lSAdoptedBudget,BudgetMessage,pp. 13and28,<http:i'w'ebapps.reduoodcitv.orsfiles,tlnancemair'1.-
Red$ ood-Cit).CA-Adopted-FY- I 7- I 8 -Budqet-.pdf>.
148 Appendix A.
r4e City of Redwood City, Fiscal Yeor 2018-2019 Recommended Budget,p.174,
<http:,,rr.l'r.,,-rv.redu'oodcitv.org home,'sho'"vdocument'.)id:1-5 l2-l>.
1s0 Table No. 7.1, above shows that Redwood City's pension costs (Miscellaneous and Safety plans) are projected to
increase by $20.1 million between FY 2016-17 and FY 2024-25. $20.1 million / 8 years: $2.5 million in increases
per year.
I5r City of Redwood City,2017 CAFR, p. v of Letter of Transmittal.
r52 Letter from City of Burlingame to Grand Jury, dated June 7,2018. Augustine, Carol, Staff Report to Burlingame
City Council, March 14, 2018, pp. I I and 12.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
City's proposed FY 2018-19 budget recommends contributing another $3.4 million to the
Section 115 trust,ts3 which would bring total funds in the trust to $8.1 million. The City's five-
year forecast projects ongoing annual contributions to the Section I 15 trust in the amounts of
$2.7 million in FY 2019-20, $2.1 million in FY 2020-21, $1.5 million in FY 2021-22 and $1.21
million in FY 202-23.ts1If the additional FY 2018-19 contribution of $3.4 million is made, the
$8.1 million total Section 115 trust amount would represent 29 percent of Burlingame's
projected total general fund reserves of $28.19 million at the end of FY 2017-2018, of which
$9.15 million will be unassignedr5s and approximately 19 months' worth of its $5.3 million in
pension costs in FY 2016-2017.
The City of Brisbane also reports having recently established a Section 1 15 trust to help pay any
unexpected increases in pension payment obligations. The City's financial plan calls for it to put
aside funding for additional payments into the 115 trust.r56
(4) Neeotiate Cost-Sharing Arraneements with Employees.
The Cities can reduce their pension costs through cost-sharing agreements with employees under
which employees agree to pay a portion of the Cities' Normal Costs. For example, the City of
Menlo Park has negotiated cost-sharing agreements with non-sworn employees under which
those employees will pay an additional amount equal to 50 percent of the City's future pension
cost increases and agreements with sworn employees under which they will pay a portion of the
City's pension costs equal to 3 percent of total paynoll.lsT Redwood Cityhas also negotiated cost-
sharing agreements with employees under which those employees pay a portion of the City's
Normal Costs,lss as have Atherton,l5e Burlingame,l60 Hillsborough,l6l and Millbrae.l62
(5) Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs).
Another option is to accelerate repayment of Unfunded Liabilities with the proceeds of pension
obligation bonds issued by the City. Where the interest rate being charged by CaIPERS on
Unfunded Liabilities is higher than the interest rate on the bonds, this can result in savings for a
City. For example, in FY 2003-2004, Daly City issued $36.2 million in pension obligation bonds
and applied the proceeds to reduce its Unfunded Liabilities. At the time, CaIPERS was charging
annual interest of 8.25 percent on Unfunded Liabilities and the interest on the bonds was only
5.973 percent. According to Daly City, the difference between the interest rate charged by
1s3 Burlingame, Letter from City of Burlingame to Grand Jury, dated June 7, 2018.
ria Burlingame, Email from City of Burlingame to Grand Jury, dated June 9, 2018. See also, Augustine, Staff Report
March 14,2018, p. 48 for information on the portion of these payments that will be made out of the general fund.
r55 City of Burlingame, Fiscal Yeor 2017-18 Adopted Budget,p. xnl
156 Brisbane, Letter from City of Brisbane to Grand Jury, dated June I l, 2018. The City's letter does not disclose the
amount(s) contributed into its Section I l5 Trust.
r57 City of Menlo Park, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18,p. 48.
r58 Redwood City Report - FY 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Sudy Session, p. 10.
r5eTown of Atherton, Fiscal Year 2017/18 Operating & Capital Improvement Budget,p.4,
<http: ' 'r.vrvu'.ci.atherton.ca. us.'ArchiveCenter'\'iervFile,'Item. 2 535>.
160 City of Burlingame, Fiscal Year 2017-18 Adopted Budget,p.xviii.
151 Interviews by Grand Jury.
162 City of Millbrae, Letter from City of Millbrae to Grand Jury, dated June I l, 2018.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31
CaIPERS, and the lower rate paid to bondholders, resulted in $7 million in net present value
savings.l63 However, these bonds did not solve Daly City's pension problems. As of June 30,
2A17, Daly City had a remaining unpaid balance of $22.8 million on these bonds, which mature
on August 1,2022.164 In evaluating Daly City's total Unfunded Liabilities and pension costs in
Appendix A, the reader should take into account that Appendix A does not reflect Daly City's
outstanding balance on the bonds, nor the annual costs of repayments of principal and interest on
the bonds (which totaled approximately $3.54 million in FY 2016-2017;.r65 If these amounts
were included, then Daly City's FY 2016-2017 Unfunded Liabilities in Appendix A would rise
from $139.86 million to $162.66 million and its annual pension costs would rise from $11.63
million to $ 15.17 million. Daly City's interest payments on the bonds, however, do remain lower
than the interest it
"vould
otherwise have had to pay on Unfunded Liabilities.
In 201 3, the City of San Bruno issued $ 13.2 million in pension obligation bonds.166 The City of
Brisbane issued $4.7 million in pension obligation bonds in 2006 and took out a S I .6 million
loan in 2013 to pay off certain pension obligations,t6T andthe City of Burlingame issued $33
million in pension obligation bonds in2007.168
An analysis of the risks and benefits of pension obligation bonds is beyond the scope of this
report. See the Govemment Finance Officers Association's analysis of pension obligation bonds
for an analysis of the reasons not to issue such bonds.l6e
(6) Shorten Amortization Periods.
The Cities may instruct CaIPERS to shorten the AmortizationPeriod of their Unfunded
Liabilities. That would increase their contribution costs in the short-term but decrease aggregate
interest costs over the long-term.l70 Such a decision, however, is irrevocable. Once it has
shortened an Amortization Period at the request of an Agency, CaIPERS will not subsequently
increase it at the request of the Agency.lTt 11r" City of Palo Alto, although outside the borders of
the county, has stated that it is looking at this option.lT2 In essence, asking CaIPERS to shorten
163 City of Daly City, Comprehensite Biennial Operating and Capital Btdget, Fiscal Yectrs 2017 crnd 2018,p.25,
F 20t7 -
r6a City of Daly City,2017 CAIR, p. 15
r65 City of Daly City,2017 CAIR, p. 53
166 City of San Bruno , Fiscal Year 2013-l4 Ci2v^ Council Adoptecl General FLmd, Enterprise Ftmcls, Internal Senice
Ftmds and Special Reyerute Funds Operating Budget,p. K-4,
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civica/filebanVblobdload.aspx?BloblD:23046
167 City of Brisbane,2014 CAFR, pp.54,55 and 59,
<http:i 'brisbaneca.org sites.'detault, tiles brisbane%20cafi9i,l0ocr.pd>.
168 City of Burlingame, 2010 CAFR, p. 60,
<https:'',r'u,rv.burlinganre.org document centerFinance,Comprehensiveo,irf0Aunualg.610Financial0ol0Renorts CAF
R'l'i,1009-l0.pdf>. City of Burlingame, Fiscal Yeer 2017-18 Adopted Budger,p. x.
r6e League of California Cities,20t8 Retirement System Sustainabiliry+ Study,pp.6 and 33.
r70 Lin, Bianca and Yam, Wai Man, Ciry* of lulenlo Park Miscellaneous and Sctfery* Plcms, CaIPERS Actuarial Issttes
- 6/30/15 Valuation Preliminary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, May 2,2017 , p. 48.
I7r Interviews by Grand Jury.
172 Keene, James, Palo Alto City Mana-eer, Letter to Tamara L. Davis, Deputy Manager, Jury Services, Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury, January 30,2017, p. 1, (Updated response to 201 1-12 Santa Clara County Civil Grand
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32
the Amortization Period is a more structured way to achieve the same goal as making
supplemental contributions to CaIPERS beyond the required contribution. CaIPERS has
announced that it will be phasing in a2}-year amortization schedule for all member Agencies.lT3
However, Agencies remain free to elect more aggressive reductions in their Amortization
Periods.
(7) Keep Salarlu Increases Within the Rate Assumed by CaIPERS
Calculations of future Benefit obligations are based, in part, on assumptions CaIPERS makes
about future salary increases by the Cities. Cities can impact the size of their contribution
payments over time by ensuring that future employee salary increases do not exceed CaIPERS's
assumed amounts.
(8)Reduce Operatin qCosts.
Painful though it may be, the Cities can reduce operating costs to create additional reserves,
which they could then apply to pension costs. Redwood City's finance group has warned of
"future recessionary impacts that loom in the future"l7a and notes that, to meet these challenges,
it recommends reducing operating costs by $3.7 million in the FY 2018-2019 budget (primarily
through reductions in budgeted headcount, including police and firefighters) and another $2.3
million in FY 2019-2020.r75 Indeed, Redwood City's finance group stated that rising pension
costs are the biggest factor driving the city's efforts to reduce operating costs.l76
Daly City describes its increasing pension costs as a "major challenge for the City's budget in
coming years."t77 It is in the process of cutting operating costs through, among other things, a
freeze on filling six vacant police officer positions and eliminating nine firefighter positions
through attrition. Daly City notes that its general fund has a structural budget deficit of
approximately $6 million in the biennial budget for FY 2016-2017 and2017-2018 and that it is
drawing down existing general fund reserves to close this budget gap.178 The Town of Colma
notes that "Rising costs of health care and pension rates are placing extraordinary pressure on the
fiscal health of most California municipalities, including the Town of Colma" and, among other
responses to this pressure, has elected to terminate its retiree health premium payments programs
for all employees hired after January 7,2017 .t1e
Jury report, An Anal.v"sis of Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits),
-)
o, ol 0 Paloo,irl 0 Alto. PDF>.
r73 League of California Cities, CaIPERS Board Reduces Amortizatton Policy. Lowe and Rogers, CaIPERS Retluces
Amortization Period with Impacts to Emplo.u-er Contribtttion Rates. CaIPERS Actuarial Office, Finance and
Administration Committee, Agenda ltem 7a. Jacobius, Arleen, CaIPERS shortens amortization period to 20 !-ears.r7a Redwood City, Report - FY 2017-18lulid-Year Budget Study Session,pp. T and I l.
1's City of Redwood City, Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Recommended Budget,pp. 9, l8 and 19.
175 Interviews by Grand Jury.
t77 City of Daly City, Adopted Comprehensive Btennial Operating and Capital Budget, Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018,
p.26.
r78 Ibid., at p. 7 .
r7e Town of Colma, FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget,p.8.
2017-2018 San Mateo Countv Civil Grand Jurv JJ
(9) Seek New Revenue.
Although raising additional revenues for the purpose of paying down pension obligations may be
difficult, it may still be possible for the Cities to supplement their funding of services through
new revenue sources to protect them from cuts that might otherwise have to be made to pay
rising pension costs. Redwood City's finance goup notes that the City has increased revenues by
approximately $2 million per year through higher development fees and that it is in the process
of developing a phased approach to cannabis regulation as a result of which it expects to generate
at least $0.3 million a year in additional taxes.r80 Redwood City is also exploring the possibility
of implementing new solid waste fees to support street sweeping and parking enforcement
services. The city's finance group concludes that: "Without new revenues, staff projects deficits
beginning in FY ZOlg-zO."tBr These deficits are projected to reach $6.6 million per year in the
general fund budget by FY 2022-2023.182 In November 2016, Daly City residents voted on
Measure V, a five-year supplemental parcel tax of $162 per parcel for the purpose of restoring
police and fire personnel and related operational costs. Measure V was defeated by a vote of 53
to 47 percent.ls3
Measures That Appear Unavailable at this Time.
Several more obvious strategies appear to be off the table at this time:
(a)Renegotiatin{r employee pension formulas
As described in BACKGROTIND (pages 12-13), the California Rule, a California Supreme
Court interpretation of the state constitution, appears to prohibit even prospective reductions in
pension Benefits for existing employees. As noted, cases challenging that interpretation are
currently before the Califomia Supreme Court. In the event that the Supreme Court loosens the
California Rule, local jurisdictions may be able to renegotiate pension Benefits with their
employees. Under PEPRA, Benefits for "New Members" hired after January l, 2013, are much
lower than for the "Classic Members" hired prior to that date. The California League of Cities
"supports a change in state law or judicial precedent to allow employers to negotiate plan
changes with classic CaIPERS members" and suggests "converting all currently deemed
"Classic" employees to the same provisions (Benefits and employee contributions) currently in
place for "PEPRA" employees for all future years of service."
t80 Redwood City, Report - FY 2017-18 tulid-Year Budget Stud.v Session,p. 12.
r8r Ibid.
r82 City of Redwood City, Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Recommended Budget,p.174.
rs3Ballotpedia, Daly- Cit.v, California, Parcel Taxfor Police and Fire Departments, Meosure V (Not'ember 2016),
<https:'ballotpedia.org Dal-\:Cit.v-. Calilomia._Parcel_Ta.\_tbr_Police and-Firc' Depannlents. lvleasure \' (No\e
mber 20 l6>.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
(b) Adoptine a defined contribution pension plan for new emplovees.
As noted in BACKGROUND (page 4), defined contribution (as opposed to defined benefit)
plans such as 401k plans relieve municipalities of the risks and uncertainties of below-projected
investment retums and other assumptions about the future (for example, mortality rates). A large
percentage of private companies have now adopted this approachlsa but they may be
compensating for this, at least in part, with salaries that are greater than public agency salaries.
As of 2009, only 7 percent of private-sector employees had their sole pension plan in the form of
a defined benefit plan, down from 62 percent in 1975.18s The Cities could achieve much greater
certainty with respect to future pension costs if they could switch to a defined contribution plan
for new employees. However, CaIPERS does not currently offer defined contribution plans as an
option for its member agencies and it requires that all new employees of the member Agencies
participate in CaIPERS' pension plans.l86 As a result, the Cities could only offer defined
contribution plans to new employees in addition to, rather than in place of, existing pension plans
"vith
the result that defined contribution plans would increase, rather than reduce, overall costs
for the Cities. In addition, offering only defined contribution plans could put the Cities at a
significant employee recruiting and retention disadvantage compared to private industry unless
the Cities increased salaries to rates more competitive with private industry.
(c)Withdrawine from CaIPERS
Several cities have considered the possibility of withdrawing from CaIPERS altogether in order
to have more flexibility and visibility into their future pension costs. However, CaIPERS'
termination payment requirements are prohibitive. 187 The City of Palo Alto determined that, in
order to leave CaIPERS, it would first need to "immediately deposit" in excess of $ I billion to
the CaIPERS Pension Trust, and then establish a new deferred compensation plan for
employees.r8s A City of San Carlos official advised the Grand Jury that withdrawal from
CaIPERS is effectively "impossible" because of the high termination fees imposed by CaIPERS
Conclusion.
Most of the Cities do not yet appear to have adopted a long-term financial plan to address their
rising pension costs. They have not adopted target Funded Percentages for their plans, dates for
achieving them, or plans for monitoring progress against their targets. Thus far, they have not
made it a priority to provide clear, regular and public disclosure to their residents of their future
projected pension costs and Unfunded Liabilities, nor the cuts in services that they will make, or
r8a Since 1980, when participation in defined benefits plans was at its peak in the United States, 30.1 million people
participated in defined benefit plans. That number has dropped by 40 percent over the past 30 years. Money-Zine,
Defined Benefit verslts Contribution Plans, July 5,2017 , p. 2, <https: ', ww,u
plannins retirernent deflned-benefi t-\,'ersus-contribution-plalls,'>.
r85 Nation, Pension Math 201l, p. 3, footnote I l.
l8(' Interviews by Grand Jury.
r87 Interviews by Grand Jury.
188 Keene, James, Palo Alto City Manager, Letter to Tamara L. Davis.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
increases in revenues they will seek, in response to rapidly increasing pension costs. Where
projected pension costs are disclosed, they are often based on CaIPERS projections for returns on
investment that some experts argue are optimistic, and residents are not apprised of the potential
for far greater costs should another recession occur, or other CaIPERS assumptions prove
inaccurate.
The steps necessary to address the pension crisis are unpleasant to think about, much less
implement. Indeed, some of the Cities have advised the Grand Jury that, while important,
amortization of Unfunded Liabilities must be balanced against "other priorities" for new
spending.lse While the Grand Jury understands the desire on the part of the Cities to expand city
services in these times of economic growth and increasing property tax revenues, it is difficult to
think of a more important issue for the Cities to focus on than the looming pension crisis.
Currently, the county enjoys good economic conditions. Its unemployment rate recently dropped
to 2.1percent.le0 Many of the Cities are experiencing rising revenues.lel If the Cities do not
address Unfunded Liabilities in a decisive way norv, when will they ever be able to? The next
recession may well reduce CaIPERS' Retums on Investment below their projected level,
resulting in even larger Unfunded Liabilities and higher pension costs. The next recession may
also reduce or eliminate the Cities' budget surpluses, making it harder for them to cope.le2 Now
is the time for the Cities to engage their residents in the issue and, with the residents' support,
take the difficult actions necessary to secure a bright future for their communities.
FINDINGS
Fl. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30,
2077 reported covered payroll for the City's pension plans in the amount set forth beside its
name for that year in Appendix A.
F2. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2075, June 30, 2076 and June 30,
2017 reporled contribution payments to CaIPERS on the City's pension plans in the
amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
F3. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30,
2017 reported Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in this report) for the City's pension plans
in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Each City has been
required to make large Amortization Cost (as defined in this report) payments of principal
and interest to CaIPERS on those Unfunded Liabilities. These payments have diverted
money that could otherwise have been used to provide public serv'ices or to add to reserves.
l8e Interviews by Grand Jury.
reo Glover, Mark, California sets ct nett recordfor lor,vest unemployment rate,The Sacramento Bee, January 19,
20 1 8, <u,rvrv.sacbee.corn neu's,business'article,'i 9-55 7 1 63-1.html>.
lel See footnote 125 above.
le2 Redwood City notes that the current expansion phase of the economy has now lasted for eight years, and that,
historically, expansionary cycles only last an average ofhve years. It cautions that the economy is in a "late stage of
expansion" and that prudent long-term budgeting requires the city to "proactively prepare for future recessionary
impacts that loom in the future." Redwood City, Report - FY 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Study.lession, p. I l.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36
F4. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30,
2017 reported Funded Percentages (as defined in this report) for the City's pension plans in
the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A.
F5. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30,
2017 reported what the Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in this report) for the City's
pension plans would have been if the applicable Discount Rate applied to calculate them
had been 1 percentage point lower in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in
Appendix A.
F6. Each City's CAFR for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30,
2017 reported general fund total expenditures for that year in the amount set forth beside its
name for that year in Appendix A.
F7 . In each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 20 1 6 and June 30, 2017 , each
City's contribution payments to CaIPERS on the City's pension plans represented the
percentage of that City's general fund total expenditures for that year set forth beside its
name for that year in Appendix A in the column entitled "Contribution Payments as % of
General Fund Total Expenditures."
F8. In each ofthe fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017, each
City's contribution payments to CaIPERS on the City's pension plans represented the
percentage of that City's covered payroll for the City's pension plans in the amount set
forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A in the column entitled "Contribution Rate
(i.e., Contribution Payments as % of Covered Payroll)."
F9. In FY 2017-2018, each City (excluding Atherton, Colma, Foster City, Hillsborough,
Portola Valley and Woodside) has paid CaIPERS for its Normal Costs (as defined in this
report) and Amortization Costs (as defined in this report) in the amounts set forth beside its
name on Table No. 4. (The Cities of Atherton, Colma, Foster City, Hillsborough, Portola
Valley and Woodside are not included in Table No. 4 because the source for that table did
not included data for them.)
Fl0. As a result, among other things, of CaIPERS' decreasing its Discount Rate from 7.5
percent to 7 percent by FY 2020-2021, its reduction of future Amortization Periods from
30 to 20 years, and its use of updated mortality assumptions reflecting projected increases
in the longevity of Members, each City faces increasing pension contribution payments to
CaIPERS which are likely to more than double by FY 2024-2025.
F11. Principal and interest payments on each City's Unfunded Liabilities will increasingly
impair such City's provision of public services, impair the security of employee salary and
pension Benefits, and/or result in proposals for revenue increases. Paying down Unfunded
Liabilities early results in large savings. Every City in the county would save substantial
money by payrng down their Unfunded Liabilities early.
F12. The financial documents for each City reviewed by the Grand Jury show that no City has
adopted a long-term financial plan with at least a l0-year time horizon to address rising
Normal Costs and Amortization Costs that includes each of the following:
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37
. objectives, such as achieving a target Funded Percentage, eliminating the Unfunded
Liabilities over "n" years or maintaining the cities' share of Normal Costs below
"n" percentage of payroll,
o policies to achieve these objectives, such as making supplemental payments to
CaIPERS to reduce their Unfunded Liability, keeping salary increases below the
actuarially assumed increase rate, capping the cities' share of Normal Costs,
reducing operational costs or increasing revenue,
. measures to implement such policies,
. processes to monitor progress in implementing the measures, and
o altemative financial strategies, or a "Plan B," that may be used in the event that
CaIPERS' assumptions are not met in future years.
Fl3. Despite the fact that rising pension costs and Unfunded Liabilities are a significant problem
for each City, no City (except for Redwood City, the City of San Mateo, the City of
Burlingame, the City of Belmont and the City of Menlo Park) includes specific, annual
projections of future pension contribution costs in their budgets published in the finance
section of their websites.
RECON,INIENDATIONS
Rl. The Grand Jury recommends that, by December 31,2018, each City schedule public
hearings to engage its residents in addressing the city's increasing pension costs and to
develop a long-term plan to address them.
R2. The Grand Jury recommends that, by December 31,2018, and annually thereafter, each
City publish a report on its website detailing its pension obligations. The report should
include, at a minimum, the following:
a) The City's total pension contribution costs under all plans, and also broken out into
subtotals for all Miscellaneous Plans, and all Safety Plans, for each of the 3
preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such costs in each of the following 10
fiscal years, assuming CaIPERS' actuarial assumptions are met.
b) The City's total Unfunded Liabilities under all plans, and also broken out into
subtotals for all Miscellaneous Plans, and all Safety Plans, for each of the 3
preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such Unfunded Liabilities in each of
the next 10 fiscal years, assuming CaIPERS' actuarial assumptions are met.
c) The City's Funded Percentage across all plans, and also broken out into subtotals
for all Miscellaneous Plans, and all Safety Plans, for each of the 3 preceding fiscal
years as well as estimates for such Funded Percentages in each of the next 10 fiscal
years, assuming CaIPERS' actuarial assumptions are met.
d) The percentage of the City's general fund expenditures and covered payroll
represented by the pension costs described in (a) above (using estimates of general
fund expenditures in future fiscal years).
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 38
e) In addition, estimated information for all projections regarding the next 10 fiscal
years set forth in items (a) through (e) above should be presented using a Discount
Rate that is I percentage point below CaIPERS' then-current Discount Rate.
R3. The Grand Jury does not recommend specific policies or implementation measures to
address pension costs. However, it recommends that, by no later than December 31, 2018,
and annually thereafter, each City instruct its staff to deliver a report to the City Council in
connection with the City's financial plan evaluating available options to address pension
costs and that each City hold public hearings to discuss and consider such options no less
than every other fiscal year. These include (but may not be limited to):
o Regular supplemental payments to CaIPERS (beyond those required by CaIPERS)
to accelerate the amortization of their Unfunded Liabilities.
o Irregular supplemental payments to CaIPERS (beyond those required by
CaIPERS), as when a City has a budget surplus or receives special non-recurring
revenues.
o Electing to apply shorter Amortization Periods (that is, less than 20 years) to their
Unfunded Liabilities.
o Issuing pension obligation bonds.
o Establishing substantial reserves that can be applied in the future to help meet
rising pension costs and/or accelerate amortization of Unfunded Liabilities.
o Establishing Section I 15 trusts for the exclusive purposes of meeting rising
pension costs and/or accelerating amortization of Unfunded Liabilities.
o Reductions in general fund operating costs other than pensions.
o Seeking additional general fund revenues that can be applied directly to paying
pension costs or that can offset general fund budget shortfalls that would
otherwise occur.
. Keeping employee salary increases at or below the levels assumed by CaIPERS.
o Negotiating cost-sharing agreements with employees under which employees pay
a portion of the City's pension costs (without at the same time agreeing to
offsetting compensation increases).
o Maintaining growth in employee salaries and COLAs at or below the assumed
CaIPERS rates.
o To the extent allowed by law, consider the recommendation of the League of
California Cities to renegotiate employee contracts to bring the pension Benefits
of Classic Members in line with PEPRA Members, for future work. In particular,
ensure that the salary used to determine final retirement compensation is based on
the average of the final 3 years of employment (rather than highest 1 year), and
that the salary is not enhanced by "spiking," such as by including overtime,
unused vacation or sick leave, purchases of "air time," and the like.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 39
R4:The Grand Jury recommends that, by June 30, 2019, each city develop and publish a
long-term financial plan to deal with rising pension costs, and update that plan annually.
Such a plan should include:
. Specific objectives, such as identifying a target Funded Percentage, eliminating
the Unfunded Liabilities over "n" years and maintaining the City's share of
Normal Costs at "n" percentage of payroll.
o Policies to achieve these objectives.
o Specific measures to implement the policies.
o I process to monitor progress in implementing the measures and in achieving the
objectives.
o Consideration of altemative policies and measures, or a "Plan 8," that may be
used in the event that CaIPERS's actuarial assumptions, especially the Discount
Rate, are not met in future years.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests that the City Councils of each of
the following respond to the foregoing Findings and Recommendations referring in each instance
to the number thereof:
. The Town of Atherton
. The City of Belmont
. The City of Brisbane
o The City of Burlingame
. The Town of Colma
. The City of Daly City
. The City of East Palo Alto
o The City of Foster City
o The City of Half Moon Bay
. The Town of Hillsborough
. The City of Menlo Park
. The City of Millbrae
. The City of Pacifica
. The Town of Portola Valley
. The City of Redwood City
o The City of San Bruno
. The City of San Carlos
. The City of San Mateo
. The City of South San Francisco
o The Town of Woodside
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 40
In responding to the foregoing Findings and Recommendations, each city and town should
understand references to "[E]ach City" as referring only to itself. No city or town should be
responding as to an entity other than itself.
NTETHODOLOG}'
The Grand Jury reviewed each of the documents listed in "BIBLIOGRAPHY" below.
In addition, the Grand Jury interviewed representatives of 6 of the Cities, the County, and an
independent public pensions expert.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 41
APPENDIX A - CITIES' PENSION DATA
(Based on the Cities' Annual Financial Reports for FY 2014-2015, FY 2015-2016 and FY 2016-20t7)
All dollar amounts in thousands.
*Note: Coverc'd Payroll amounts in CAFRs may include compensation paid to certain employees whose activities are not accounted for as pat of
General Fund activities, and their compensation would not be included in Ceneral Fund Total Expenditures. As a result, the percentage of
General Fund Total Expc'nditures represented by Covered Payroll may somewhat overstate the percentage represented by Ceneral Fund Covered
Payroll. Sorne experts have estimated that this might result in an overstatement ofthe percentage by l0 - 30 percent, such that a Contnbution
Payment as a % ofCeneral Fund Total Expenditures of l0 percent might actually be somewhere between 7 and 9 percent.
CITIES Fiscal Year
Covered
Pavroll
Contribution
Pavments
Contribution
Rate (i.e.,
Contribution
Payments as
9/" of
Covered
Pavroll)
Unfunded
Liabilitv
Funded
Percentase
Unfunded
Liability if
Discount
Rate Is
Reduced I
Percentage
Point
General
Fund Total
Expendinrres
Contribution
Payments as
% ofCeneral
Fund Total
Expenditures*
Athe(on 2016-20t7 $.1.327 $ l,155 26.70 s r3,982 71.3'h $21J.rl $ l 1.137 l0.lo/o
2015-2016 s.+,26 r s6l 7 14j%s I 0.671 80.4%s 17.326 s r0.61 l 5.8%
20 l.t-20 I 5 s3.988 s826 20.7%s9.253 8 L 9or'o s 16.088 s n .622 7.1%
Bchnont 20t6-2017 $ 15,198 $3.582 23.6%$32.835 72.00h $.18,680 $ 18,3{{19.50h
2015-2016 s l I,79.1 s1,1 9 l 35.5o/o s26,626 76.2%S,t 1.855 s r 6.800 24.9%
20 l.t-20 I 5 s l.+, I 76 s2.788 19.7%s25.059 76.7%sl9,4l2 sl6.777 t6.6%
Brisbane 2016-20t7 $7,9 r 6 $r.7r3 21.60/0 $ 18.227 71.80/"$27.989 $ 15.52 I ll-0.h
2015-2016 s7, l0 I s883 12.4%s 13.952 79.99/o s23,110 s r4.850 5.9%
20 l4-20 I 5 6.1 52 t.153 t8.1%12.071 8)..29/o s2l.ll9 s t 3,217 8.7%
Burlinearne 2016-2017 $ 18.617 $5.29{28.4"$57,69{73.1o/o $86.0s l ${9.707 10.70
2015-20r6 s l 7,65.+s3.810 21.8%s.r6.987 71.8%s7s.062 s47,159 8.1%
2014-20r5 16.7 t3 3.822 22.9%4t.762 80.1 %s69.0.12 s.{.1.40s 8.6%
Colma 2016-20t7 s{.03 l $ r.048 26.004 $9,4{9 $ l r"008 $r3J23 7.9%
2015-2016 s3,7.+e s937 25.0%s7.747 71.7%sll,969 s 13,410 7.0%
201-+-20I5 s3.604 s9i9 26 r%s6,88s 76.1%s r0,72.+s 12.918 7.3%
Dalv Citv 20t6-20t7 ${0.070 $lr,63r 29.0o/o $ 139.861 75.70 $2 13.9 l8 $77.139 15_loh
2015-2016 s42.608 s 12.081 28 4%su2.l95 80.0%s r 85.217 s79.062 15.3%
20 t-+-20 r 5 42.226 8.862 2t.0%99,631 81.9%s 169.965 572.615 12.2%
East Palo
Alto 20t6-20t7 8.,16{1.193 17.60/,9.{59 71.106 13.750 sl8.l09 8.20/"
2015-2016 s8,408 ql i7)16.3%s8, r l2 78.4%s 12.086 s l 7,735
20 l-+-2() I 5 T Q1A I,477 t8.6%7.856 70.6%sll.4l7 s 16,s24 8.9%
Foster City 20t6-2017 $19.875 $7.209 36.30/"$69.207 68.70 $98.575 $36.116 19.80
2015-2016 s r 8.71.r s5.294 28.3%s56,390 76.7%s8-1.686 s33.018 t6.0%
20 l.t-20 I 5 t7.696 4.552 25.7%50.458 78.2%s77.531 s3 1.322 t4.5%
Half Moon
Bav 20t6-)0t7 $2.,123 $59{21.5o/o $9.502 71.6.4 $ 11.557 $ 10.418 5.70
201 5-20 t6 s2.0 r1 s583 28.90,L s7,3 t 9 80. r%s 12.33 2 s8,781 6.6o/o
201.1-2015 1.987 5?9 26.60/o o, /Jo 8t.6%$11.620 s8.352 63%
Hillsboroush 2016-20t7 $8.66 l $2. l s8 24.9'$22J87 71.5o/o $3.1.262 $2 I,22{10.20h
2015-2016 s9.089 s 1.893 20.8%sl7,l87 80.2%s28.063 s 19,693 9.6%
20 1.1-20 I 5 8,625 r.605 t8.6%t1.770 79.8%s25.822 sr8.72l 8.6%
Appendix A-l
CITIES Fiscal Year
Covered
Pavroll
Contribution
Pavments
Contribution
Rate (i.e.,
Contribution
Payments as
o/o of
Covered
Payroll )
Unfunded
Liabiliw
Funded
Percentase
Unfunded
Liability if
Discount
Rate [s
Reduced I
Percentage
Point
Ceneral
Fund Total
Expenditures
Contribution
Payments as
96 ofGeneral
Fund Total
Expenditures+
Menlo Park 20t6-2017 $23.1 l2 $5.565 21,1o/o $50.993 74.1o/o s77.5 I {$.r7Jl1 ll.8o/o
20r5-2016 s 1e,868 s1,717 23.9%s38,881 793%s64. l 70 s12.565 I I .2o/o
201.+-20 r5 19.969 4.228 2t.2%31.371 8t.2%s58.596 s.r0.s8 l 10.40,6
Millbrae 2016-20t7 s6.165 $2.31s 37.9o/o $.12.769 71.lo 562.(t76 $25,.t91 9.20h
2015-2016 s5,83 5 s2,06.{35I%S3,1.256 18.49'o ss3,883 s22,5 l4 92%
2014-201 5 6,8 7l 1.400 20.4%28.989 78.6%47.9'79 s 18.201
Pac illca 2016-20t7 $ I 5,720 $3.736 23.8%$l{.{00 77,5'h $70,6s0 $28.78 l 13.00h
2015-2016 s 15.000 (1 7lq 18.3%s32,81 l 82.7o,/o s56.750 s27,358 10.0%
20 l-1-20 I s S 1,1.365 q1 71q t9.t%s28.08e 85.09'o s52.855 s25,3s4 r0.8%
Portola
Valley 20t6-2017 $ t..l{2 sl l6 8.lo/o $52{91.80h $ 1.382 $.1.361
2015-2016 s r.072 s8"+7.8%s8l 98.6%s88 l s-+,303
20 l'+-20 I 5 se93 sl.0l9 1o2.60/o s957 83.096 s 1.706 s5,58 7 18.2%
Redwood
Citv 2016-2011 s62.098 st7,722 28.50/"s2 15.202 65.70h $298.653 $ I 12.112 15.80
2015-20r6 ss 7.3 52 s l 7.363 30.3',6 s I 77.937 70.1%s257.798 sr0r.68.+t1.t%
20 l-r-20 l 5 s54.275 sl6.467 30.3%s r 64.1 49 71.696 s240.1 r l s95.856 17.2%
San Bruno 2016-2017 s25.173 $6.3.11 25.2'$78.198 70.70h $l l{.t80 s{3.2{{11.70h
2015-2016 s2l.3r5 s.+.434 20.8%s6t .771 75.6%s96,281 s38.882 il.4%
20 l:1-20 I 5 s20.532 s,{.979 243%s53.53 r 78.4%s86.63 7 s36.738 13.6%
San Carlos 2016-2017 $l1.017 $2. r3{19.3"/o s{7.009 63.30h s6.r.530 $33,r82 6,40/"
2015-2016 s I 0.-r86 s2.60 l 21.3%s.+0,263 67 .3o/o s57.2e3 s.r I ,261 63%
201{-2015 s8..180 s2.296 27.t%s27.74 I 75.5%s-r2.821 s29,067 7.9%
San Mateo
(Citv)2016-2017 $58.6{5 $ I 7*537 29.9o/o $ 197,822 66.2'/,$27 1.523 $ 103.992 16.9o/o
2015-2016 s52.3.+5 s 15.908 30.4%s 168.693 70.1o/o s2.+0..t59 s95,779 16.6%
2014-2015 s.tg.788 s l 3,860 27.8%s I 59.585 71.4o/o s228.s88 s88.078 15.7%
South San
Francisco 2016-20t7 ${8.9sJ $13300 $ l s2.786 68.1o/o $2 r6.r 03 $92J67 11.40
2015-2016 s.+0.396 s 13.938 31.5o/o s r30.042 72.20/o st9I.669 s86.795 t6.t%
20t1-2015 s3.1.178 sl r.403 33.t%s r 2.r.085 73.1%s I 81.305 s76.805 t+.8%
Woodside 2016-20r7 $ 1.996 s323 16.2o/o $3, l 6{72.3"h ${.702 $5.80 l 4.80h
2015-20r6 $ 1,809 s.t0e 22.6%s2,578 75.8%s4,325 s6,638 6.20,'o
20 l-t-20 r 5 s 1.6.{0 s389 23.7%s2.0s3 79.1o/o $3.356 s6, I 07 6A%
Totals &
Weighted
Averases 2016-201'1 $383,935 $ r 0{.986 27.3o/o s t.215.167 70.5"/,$ I,7ss,0{7 $769Jls 13,6"h
2015-2016 s350.879 s95,987 qqqJ 5 l5 7 5.lo/o s 1.5 r 5.516 s729.230 t3.2%
2014-20 t5 s334.48.+s85.3 3s 25.s%s8e8.036 76.8%$ r .39e.702 s668.9r9 12.89/"
Appendix A-2
APPENDIX B - HO\Y TO FIND PENSIOI{ DATA IN THE CITIES'CAFRS
Set forth belorv is a guide to where information compiled in Appendix A can be found in the
Cities'CAFRs.
Amount of Emplolzer Contributions to Pension Plans: This information is set forth in the
"Required Supplemental Information" section of the CAFR, in the "schedule(s) of
Contributions" for the pension plans. Sometimes a separate Schedule of Contribution is included
for each pension plan, other times only an aggregate number for all plans is given.
Covered Pawoll for Pension Plans:This information is set forth in the "Required Supplemental
Information" section of the CAFR, in the "schedule(s) of Contributions" for the pension plans.
Where the CAFR has a separate Schedule of Contributions for each pension plan, it will also
show the payroll specific to that plan's employees. Where plan information is aggregated, then
the payoll number will also be aggregated.
Amount of Unfunded Liabilities: This information is set forth in the "Required Supplemental
Information" section of the CAFR, in the "schedule of Proportionate Share of The Net Pension
Liability" as "Plan's proportionate share of the Net Pension Liability (Asset)." Note: The
amounts given for "covered payroll" in this schedule should not be relied upon as they often
apply to the year (either one or two years prior) in which pension assets and liabilities were last
measured, rather than the fiscal year covered in the CAFR itself. For information as to covered
payroll during the current fiscal year, rely only on the information is set forth in the "Required
Supplemental Information" section of the CAFR, in the "schedule(s) of Contributions" for the
pension plans.
Funded Percentaqe of Pension Plan. This information is set forth in the "Required Supplemental
Information" section of the CAFR, in the "schedule of Proportionate Share of The Net Pension
Liability" as "Plan's proportionate share of Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of Plan's
Total Pension Liability." As used in CAFRs, "Fiduciary Net Position" refers to the total assets in
the pension plan. Hence, the Funded Percentage of a pension plan is equal to its "Fiduciary Net
Position" divided by "Total Pension Liability." The term, "Net Pension Liability" refers to the
difference between plan assets ("Fiduciary Net Position") and plan liabilities ("Total Pension
Liability"). The amounts given for "covered payroll" in this schedule should not be relied upon
as they often apply to the year (either one or two years prior) in which pension assets and
liabilities were last measured, rather than the fiscal year covered in the CAFR itself. For
information as to covered payroll during the current fiscal year, rely only on the information is
set forth in the "Required Supplemental Information" section of the CAFR, in the "schedule(s)
of Contributions" for the pension plans.
Total Liabi lities of Pens This information,
if provided in the CAFR, is set forth in the "Required Supplemental Information" section of the
CAFR, in the "Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios" as (i) "Plan
Appendix B-l
Fiduciary Net Position - ending (b)" with respect to plan assets, (ii) "Total Pension Liability -
ending (a)" with respect to total plan liabilities, and (iii) "Net Pension Liability - ending (a) -
(b)" with respect to unfunded pension liabilities. Note: In many CAFRs the amount of unfunded
pension liabilities ("Net Pension Liabilities") and the Funded Percentage of the pension plan are
given, but the total assets amount ("Plan Fiduciary Net Position") and the total liabilities amount
("Total Pension Liability") are not given. They can, however, be calculated in the following way
To derive total liabilities, simply divide the Unfunded Liability amount ("Net Pension
Liabilities") by I minus the Funded Percentage for the fund. To derive total assets ("Plan
Fiduciary Net Position") simply subtract the Unfunded Liabilities amount ("Net Pension
Liability") from the amount of total plan liabilities ("Total Pension Liability''). Where the
aggregate Funded Percentage of all pension plans is not given in a CAFR, it can be derived
simply by dividing the sum of all of the plan asset amounts for each plan by the sum of all plan
liabilities for each plan.
The following example will demonstrate the foregoing. Assume the CAFR provides the
fo llowing information :
Net Pension Liability under Miscellaneous Plan is $ l5 million
Funded percentage under Miscellaneous Plan is75%.
Net Pension Liability under Safety Plan is $20 million.
Funded percentage under Safety Plan is 80%.
Accordingly,
Total liabilities under the Miscellaneous Plan are $60 million ($15M net pension liability/ (1-
75o/oFunded Percentage) : $60 million)
Total assets under the Miscellaneous Plan are $35M ($60M total liabilities amount minus
$15M net pension liability: $35M)
Total liabilities under the Safety Plan are $ l00M ($20M net pension liability/ ( I -80% Funded
Percentage) : $100M)
Total assets under Safety Plan are $80M ($100M total liabilities amount minus $20M net
pension liability : $80M)
Total liabilities under al1 pension plans are $160M ($60M under Miscellaneous Plan and
$ I 00M under Safety Plan)
Total assets under all pension plans are $105M ($35M under Miscellaneous Plan plus $80M
under Safety Plan
Appendir B-2
Aggregate Funded Percentage under all plans is 65.6% ($105M aggregate total assets divided
by $ l60M aggregate total liabilities.
Unfunded Liabilities Where Discount Rate Is IncreasediDecreased by 100 Points (i.e.. I
percentage point): This information is set forth in the section of "Notes to Basic Financial
Statements" describing the pension plans under the heading "sensitivity of Proportionate Share
of Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate." It is sometimes provided separately
for each pension plan and other times only an aggregate number for all pension plans is given.
General Fund Spendine by City: This information is found in the "Government Fund Financial
Statements" section of the CAFR in the "statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in
Fund Balances, Governmental Funds for the Year Ended
Appendix B-3
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles and Reports that are cited in report
Alameda Counry^ Deputy Sheri,f's Associcilion, et al. v. Alameda Counry Emplo.vees' Retirement Assn., et al.,
Case No. A141913, filed January 8, 2018, as modified February 5, 2018, <https: *o.r'
content'upjoads,20l8 0-1 scr.r-A1.1 l9lJNl.pdf>. (Last accessed, June 5,2018.)
Allen v. City* of Long Beach, 45 CaL2d 128 (1955), <https:,''scocal.stantbrd.edu, opinion allen-r,-cit-,--lonq-beach-
26-i85>. (Last accessed, June 3, 2018.)
American Academy of Actuaries. Measuring Pension Obligations: Discount Rates Sen'e Various Prtrposes.
American Academy of Actuaries Issue Brief. November 20 I 3, <http: w"rlll'.actuerl.ors files 'IB lvlsa$ring:
Pension-Obligations_Nor -2 I -10 1l.pdi>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Ang, Kimberly. ll'hat Happens to Public Employee Retirement Benefits llhen Municipalities Go Bankrupt?
UnitedStatesCommonSense,March10,2016,<http:, sovranli.orgresearchresearcltTe\t,-1-i>.(Lastaccessed,
June 10,2018.)
Angelo, Paul, Understanding the ValLtation of Public Pension Liabilities - Expected Cost versus Market Price,
In the Public Interest, January 2016,< http: ,u'rvu.retirement.saccountr'.net Documents sac_033971.pdt>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Andonov, Aleksander, Bauer, Rob, Cremers, Martijn, Pension Fund Asset Allocation and Liubiliqv* Discount
Rcfes,March20l6,<http:,."rtu..icpmnetwork.comup-content,uploads,"20l6'05'Rerb-Buaer_\\'bal[$hg:
Biegest-Challeng-Faceing-Public-Plan-Sponsors_lQE[qnAl.p!!4. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Augustine, Carol, Staff Report to Burlingame City Council, IuJy 3,2017,
<http:.''burlinqameca.lesistar.conr qatervat".asp. ?NI=F&ID:14,5flc47-afeil-.48e6-8c90-7att6841c428.docx>,
(Last accessed, June 8, 2018.)
Augustine, Carol, Staff Report to Burlingame City Council, March 14,2018,
<http:. burlingameca.lesistar,com,qate\.\'a)'.aspx'llvI:F&ID:8bf+30n-6a90-.16t-t-a-ie8-bc50ad7 l05l4.docx>,
(Last accessed, June 8, 2018.)
Augustine, Carol, Staff Report to Burlingame City Council, May 9, 2018,
<http; ' burlingameca.lesistar.conl gate\\ al-.asp\'lNI=F&lD:68ce-l 13d-,lc7i --{elb-abfl-dle0+b I dde86.docx>
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Ballotpedia, Daly Ciqv*, California, Parcel Tarfor Police and Fire Departments, lvleasure V (Not'ember 2016),
<https:,''ballotpedia.org'Dal):Cit.u*.:Caiifomia. Parcel Tax for Police:andj
No','ernber 2016>. (Last accessed, June 6,2018.)
Ballotpedia, San L[ateo Count.v Sales Tax Increase, ]uleasLre A (Noyember 2012),
'San lvlateo C Nleasure A (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Ballotpedia, Sqn Mateo County* Sales Tax Increase, Measure K (November 2016),
<https:' ballotpedia.ors,'San*lUateo_Countr-._Califbmia. Sales_Tax.J1easure_K_(November_2016 )>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
ll
Bibliography-l
Bartel Associates, LLC, New CaIPERS Assumptions ll'ill Increase Rotes, February 23,2014,
tions-u,'ill (Last
accessed, June 6, 2018.)
Bartel Associates, LLC website, <http:','tvwu . (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
Beyerdorf, Bria\ The Fate of Public Employee Pensions: l,[arin's Revision of the 'Califurnia Rule ', California
Law Reviev"' Online, September 20 17,ontent.
0l-formatted -6)-7 2 (Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Biggs, Andrew and Smetters, Kent. Understanding the Argumentfor lv[arket Valuation of Public Pension
Liabilities. American Enterprise Institute. May 20 I 3, <hup:,''u'ww.
understand in !r-the-arsurnent- tbr- market-r, al -s 1'-pub I ic-Fension-liab il it ies I 0-19 I 78 l-l.l-5.odt>(Last
7
accessed. June 10. 20 I 8.)
Boyd, Donald, Kiernan, Peter, Strengthening the Secw"iry of Public Sector Defined Benefit Plans,The Blinken
Report, The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. January 2014,
:l-e +^.-.,. c,.1.i+'+L..,.1 i- ^^,..T lates \ledia F Prrh'licntion<. PDF,Kii l--t n Blinken Renort Janl0 1.:1.pd
t>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Brainard, Keith and Brown, Alex, The Annual ReqLtired ContribLttion Experience of State Rettrement Plans,
FYOl to FI'l-i, National Association of State Retirement Administrators, March 2015,
<https: ri. rr'u.nasra.ors tiles. JrrintPublications, NASRA*ARC_Spotlisht.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 6, 2018.)
Brewington, Aufumn, lVlaking Sense of the Mathematics of California's Pension Lictbility, Hoover Institution,
August 21,2012, <https: \\.\i\\'
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Bui, Truong and Randazzo, Anthony. llhy Discount Rates Shoulel Reflect Liabilities: Best Practices for Setting
Public Sector Pension Fund Discount Rates, Reason Foundation, September 2015, <htjps:. rgASS!-aIs5p:
content. uoloads, trles oension di eunt rates best practices.pdl>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Burlingame, Email from City of Burlingame Finance Director dated June 9, 2018
Burlingame, Letter from City of Burlingame Finance Director dated June 7 , 2018
Cal Fire Local 2881 et al., ,''. California Public Employees' Retirement System et a|.,7 Cal. App. 5th 115 (1st
Dist. 20I6), <https: ,\\'w\r'.
(Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
California Policy Center, CaIPERS Actuarial Report Data - Cities ($--M) ,
<https: ' calitomi . (Last accessed, June
7 , 2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Office, Finance and Administration Committee, Agenda ltem 7a, Amortization Policy
(S e cond Re ad ing), F ebruary I 3, 20 I 8, <https :'','wrvw
agendas:20 l80l llnanceadnlin item-7a-O0_g.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 5,2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30,2016 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Daly City,
<https: ll'wu.cal . (Last accessed,
June 10,2018.)
Bibliography-2
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 20 I 6 Safety Plan of the City of Daly City,
,''ul W'ff'.Cal r 'docs.1 (Last accessed, June 10,
20 1 8.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2016 Miscellaneous PIan of the City of Redwood City,
s:. \1'w1v.ca .ca ;/docs.(Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2016 Safety Plan of the City of Redwood City,
<https: , .,r,u'$'.calpers.ca. go\''docs,'actuarial-reoorts, 20 1 6.'redu'ood-cit.v--safetv-20 I 6.pdf>. (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2016 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of San Mateo,
<https: urlu'.calners.ca.gov'dLrcs actuarial-reports l0l6 san-mateo-cit)--miscellaneous-2016.pdt>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS Acfuarial Valuation - June 30, 20 l6 Safety Plan of the City of San Mateo,
<https:
"."r'r'"
u .calpers.ca.gor 'docs, acruarial-repons.'2016 san-mateo-cit)-safet.v'--2016.pdti. (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2016 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of South San Francisco,
<https: w'w'rr'.calpers.ca.qovdocs,'actuarial-reports20 l6south-san-lrancisco-citv-miscellaneous-f016.pdt>.
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 20 I 6 Safety Plan of the City of South San Francisco,
<https: wuar'.calpers.ca.govdrrcs,actuarial-reports20l6south-san-francisco-citv-safetr--2016.Ddt>.(Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS, Addressing Benefit Equit.v, The CaIPERS Proposal SB 400 (Ortiz and BLtrton),1999,
<http: "dar idqcrane.ors $x-content uploads,'1012 06.'CaIPERS-SB-.100-Proposal- 1999.pdt>. (Last accessed,
June 10,2018.)
CaIPERS, A Guide to CaIPERS: Ilhen You Change Retirentent Systems,
lications,t>(Last accessed, June 5,
2018.)
CaIPERS at a Glance, CaIPERS Communiccttions and Stakeholders Communications,
lications (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
CaIPERS, CaIPERS Reports Preliminary I1.2 Percent Int'estment Rettnnfor Fiscal Year 2016-17, July 14,
2017 , < https: 'r-"vr."'ri.'.calpers.ca. govioage/neri,'sroom'calpers-nei.r.s.:20 1 T.preiiminarl.fiscal-vear-inr,estment-
returns>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
CaIPERS, Comprehensite Annual Finoncial Report for the Fiscal Year Ending Jtme 30, 2006,
tr a-fr)D DED DED a\-a A trP )OnA nrlf>(Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS, Comprehensit'e Annuql Financiql Reportfor the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013,
<https: ur'"u.calpers.ca.gol drrcs fbrms-publications.cafi-l0l3.pdf>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Bibliography-3
CaIPERS, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reportfor the Fiscal Year Ended hme 30, 2016,
16.(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)ca.
CaIPERS, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reportfor the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20t7,
lcatlons ti-(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
CaIPERS, Finance and Administration Committee, Proposed California Employers' Pension Prefuncling Tntst
(CEPPT) Legislation, February 17 ,2016, <https:' u \\'\\'.calpers.ca.so!. drrcs'board-
a qendas lll16 finnn in itenr-6a-00.ndf>(Last accessed, June 6, 2018.)0 )
calPERS, Investment & Pension Funtling Facts at a Glancefor Fiscal Year 20t6-17,
/w\'"'N
I 11\(Last accessed on
June 4,2018.)
CaIPERS, Perspecti'u'e l\'inter 20l8, <httos:r rvu'rv.calpers.ca.qov docs tbrms-pLlblications Derspecti\e-\\inter-
2018.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
CaIPERS, Retirement FormLlas and Benefit Factors: Your Benefits / Your Future lVhcrt YoLt J,leed to Knox,
About Your CaIPERS Local Miscellaneous Benefits,
<[rttp: .lvu'*.reed1e]'.ca.go\,'departments.'administrative pdf.s, CaIPERS?;202016-0 1-
0 I'l.ir20Local'rol0\l iscellaneous9o20Pub9 o208.pdti. (Last accessed, June 5, 20 18.)
CaIPERS, Summary of Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 und Related Changes to Public
Emplo-v-ees' Retirement lcn,, Novemb er 27 ,2012. <http: ',:ri,rvu'.counties.org sites. main, t'iles file-
attachments calpers surulnar\'.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS, CaIPERS to Lower Discount Rate to Seven Percent Oter the I'lext Three )'ears, December 21,2016,
l6 (Last accessed,
June 10,2018.)
Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, Numbers in the News, The Ba.v- Area Led the State ancl
J'iation in GDP Gronth in 2016, September 2017,.ccsce.
Reqirrnal-Econorlt\,-Raltkinqs-2016.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Belmont, Fy 20i,8 Budget, <https: 'rl,r.r'rv.belmont.go"''home,'shorvdocumenflid-15.11i>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Burlin-qame, CA Fiscal Yectr 2017-18 Adopted Budget,
<ht 017-
]!,pdj>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Brisbane, Letter from City of Brisbane to Grand Jury, dated June I 1 , 201 8
City of Brisbane, Fiscal Years 20 I 6-2 017 & 2017 -20 18, Adopted Two Year Operating Budget,
<http: ','ri,r.r ri'.brisbaneca.ore'sires,'defaulr,:tjles, Cit,v9;l0ot!;20Brisbane l.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Daly City, Adopted Comprehensive Bierurial Operating and Capital Budget, Fiscal Years 2017 and
2018,
S:/rWWIV
t7-
l0l8.pdf>. (Last accessed, June 6, 2018.)
, Finance+
Bibliography-4
City of Foster City, PreliminarT Budget Fiscal Year 2018-2019,p.10,
-+.--^ir,. ^-,.i-it-- /I-f^,,1r,Al-.'fil-hnrent<'financial aPr\:lfe{ 1120 e i52l f\ l0l8-
20 I gJrel iminar!*budqetjLrblished.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 9, 20 I 8.)
City of Half Moon Bay, FY 2017-18 Adopted Operating Bndgel, <https: u'r'"'r'"'.halt'-ntcron-
balz.ca.us. DocumentCenter.'\'iet 9-10>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of La Palma, CaIPERS Update and Additional Pa.v"ment Discussion, February 20, 2018,
<httl-rs: '',i.u,u..citvof'lapalr.na.ors Archilecenter Vie\\'File Item 137-i>. (Last accessed, June 6, 2018.)
City of Menlo Park, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18,
<httns: 'rl,lvr.menlopark.org ArchiveCenter Vieu,'File, Itern 6173>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Millbrae, Letter from City of Ivlillbrae to Grand Jury, dated June 1 I , 20 18
City of Redwood City, Fiscql Yeqr 2017-20l8Adopted Budget,
<http:. ,'r.r,ebapps.red$'oodcit.'-.org 'ti1es,'llnance'main 1 .-Red$ ood-Cit),-CA-Adopted-F\'- 17- l8-Budeet-.pdf>
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Redwood City, Report - FY 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Stud-," Session and Proposed Processfor
Development of the FY 2018-19 Budget, February 26,2018,
<https: 'u.ur,u.redr"oodcitv.org home shou,dt'rcument'lid:146-i0>. (Last accessed, June 5,2018.)
City of Redwood City, Fisctrl Year 2018-2019 Recommended Budget,
<http: lruu'.redu'oodcit).org home'shrr$.dL)cument'lid-1-5 ll+>. (Last accessed, June 9,2018.)
City of San Bruno, Fiscal Yeer 2013-14 Ciry- Council Adopted Generol Fund, Enterprise Funds, Internal
Sen'ice Ftmds and Special Re1'enue Funds Operating Budget,
<https: wuu. >. (Last accessed, June 10,
20 1 8.)
City of San Carlos, Long-Term Financial Plcun, November 5, 2014,
<http: li'll'ri >. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
City of San Carlos, Teomsters Group - Benefits Summarl 2018
City of San Carlos, Ciqv^ Council Stcff Report,Item 7.b of March 12, 2018 Agenda Packet,
<httg' sancarl-rsca.iclml.com Citizens'FileOpen.aspr?Tlr:e:l&ID:]699&lnline:True>. (Last accessed, June
9,2018.) (Note: TheStaffReport, ItemT.bcanbefoundatp. ll3oftheAgendaPacketthatopenswhenthis
URL is accessed.)
City of San Carlos, Cit-v* Council Staff Report,Item 9.a of April 9, 2018 Agenda Packet,
<http:, sancarlosca.iqml.com'Citizens.FileOpen.aspx.)Tlpe=1&ID=1707&lnline:True>. (Lastaccessed,June
9, 2018.) (Note: The Staff Report, Item 9.a of April 9, 2018 Agenda Packet can be found atp.34 of the Agenda
Packet that opens when this URL is accessed.)
City of San Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget,
<https:, u,'u'u'.cit)'ot\anmateo.org'DocumentCenterVierv'600.13'Adopted-20 l7- 18-Budget>. (Last accessed,
June 9,2018.)
Bibliography-5
City of San Mateo, Proposed 2018-20 Business Plan,
F\'-l (Last
accessed, June 9, 2018.)
City of South San Francisco , Adopted Biennial Operating Budget and Capital Improrement Program Fiscal
Years 20I7-I9, <http: ,'lvi . . (Last accessed, June I0,2018.)
City ofSouth San Francisco, FY 2018-19 Addendum to Adopted Fy 20187-19 Biennial Operating Budget.
City of South San Francisco, FY 2018-19 Operating Budget Study Session,}day 23,2018.
City of South San Francisco, Letter from City of South San Francisco to Grand Jury, dated June 7, 2018.
City of South San Francisco, Letter from City of South San Francisco to Grand Jury, dated June I 1 , 201 8.
CNBC.com, CaIPERS's sees 5.8 percent retlo'n',vith new ellocation; belou: 7 percent goal, February 8,2017,
.,, ^-k,, ^^*fiR nelnerrs-ccpc-iR -nercen t-retr rrn-rr. i th2017 02 I Ir-rc ation-belor.r -7-Dercellt-
goal.html>.(Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
County of San Mateo, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2017,
<https: controller.snrcso\'.or,' docunlent. 20 1 7-cati>. (Last accessed, June 10, 20 18.)
Costigan, Richard, Hollinger, Dana and Slaton, 8111, The Pension Debqte; Our Focus is on the Future,
September 28,2016,
ftrcus-is-the-future>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Diamond, Randy, CaIPERS considers 4 asset allocation options; local fficials prefer avoiding mcjor chqnges,
November 14,2017,,< httn:.'r.rl'rv.oionline.com'article'20i 7 I I I 4 ONLINE, 171 I I 9918 calners-considers-.1-
asset-alloca tion-oDtions-lL)ca l-o tlrci als-prefer-ar, oidins-mai or-chanqes>(Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Dolan, Jack, Flor.r' a pen.siort deal went wrong oncl cost C(iifornia tuxpu.\'ers hilliott:i, Los Angeles Times,
September 18,2016, <http:,'.'wxu'.la . (Last accessed, June
10,20r8.)
Eastman, Becky, Report on stcttus of Belvedere's employee pensionfunds, May 13,2013,
<hftp:,' u,r.,rv.cit)'ofbelr,'edere.org DocumentCenter Vierv'1,125>. (Last accessed, June 6, 2018.)
The Economist, Buttonwood's Notebook, Another discount rate illusion, May 30, 2013, <
httDs :', lvvu'r,"'. econonlist. co m. buttort* oods-note 1013 05 30 another-discount-rate-illusion>(Last accessed,
June 10,2018.)
The Economist, Buttonwood's Notebook, The soaring cost of old age, The real problem with pensions, March
7 ,2018, <lrttps:'. w't'l'.economist.com bloss, blrtton\,"ood 2018,0i 'soaring-cost-old-ase>. (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
Fox, Kelly, CaIPERS Update and Path Fonrard, December 13,2017, <http:.',uu
Updates>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
GASB Statement No. 68. Summary at
<http://www.gasb.org/jsp/GASBiPronouncement_C/GASBSummaryPage&cid:1176160219492>. Full text at
Bibliography-6
<http: ',ri'u'rv.sasb.orq jsp G.{SB 'Document_C,'DocumentPase'lcid: I 1761602.10611&acceptedDisclaimer:true
>. (Last accessed June 4, 2018.)
Glover, Mark, Cali"fornia sets a nev' record for lotr:est tmemplo,r-ment rate, The Sacramento Bee, January 19,
2018, <ur.r.r,i,.sacbee.conr'net's business article,'19557163-l.html>. (Last accessed, June 6, 20 18.)
GMSR Appellate Lawyers, California Supreme Court ll'atch,#18-49, <lrttos: uu''ur'.qn.rsr.cortr l8-49-alamc'da-
retlrement
6 I -ruod- 19-cal-app-5t1.r-9J5a-contra-costa-countv-superior, >. (Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Government Officers Finance Association, Best Practices Guide, <http:",u'w'w.qfu . (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Greenhut, Steven, California Still Facing Pension Crisis Even vvith Good Stock Market Retw'ns, July 14, 2017,
<http: 'reason (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
Hutchings, Dane, Closing the Pension Funding Gap,League of California Cities,
<https: $-$.r'.google.cL)m url'.)sa:t&rct:j&q=&esrc:sctsource:web&cd:1&cad=rja&uect=8&\'ed:OahUKEwi
-l ri \-n gh L 7b.\h LIP J,1 ri K H eq P C' \\'0O F u gnN I A A&url :httos9i,3A9ol Fo, i,lFwr,r u.cacities.orqt' nlFResources-
Docurrrentso,;l FPolicv-Adr.ocacv-Sectiou9'o2 FHot-Issues9 o2 FRetirement-S,vstem-
Sustairrabilit)grlFPension Gap Public.aspx&usg >. (Last accessed,
June 5,2018.)
Investopedia, Hot does a defined benefit pension plan dffirfrom a defined contribution plan?,March20l5,
<httgs: w'u'r.r .inr estr.pedia.corn ask, ansrvers'032-l 1-i horv-does-defined-benefit-pension-plan-difter-det-rned-
contributiorr-plan.asp>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Jacobius, Arleen, CaIPERS shortens amortizcuion period to 20 years, Pensions & Investments, February 14,
2018, <http: rr'tw'.pioriline.coru. article.'201801 1r1 ONLINE,'1801 1993.1 'calpers-shortens-amortization-period-
to-20-r,ears>. (Last accessed, June 5,2018.)
Kasler, Dale, CaIPERS moves to slash in,'estmentforecast. That means higher pension contributions are
coming., Sacramento Bee, December 21, 201 6,
<http: w'u,t,.sacbee.com neu's business ar1icle12l0387,59.htrnl>. (Last accessed, June 5,2018.)
Kasler, Dale,Il'ith investments soft, CaIPERS e-r-es higher contribution rates. Ilhat does that meanfor w'orkers?
Sacramento Bee, November 21,2016, <wl,u'.sacbee.com neu's.business,'articlei 163i 1-1-l3.html>. (Last
accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Keene, James, Palo Alto City Manager, Letter to Tamara L. Davis, Deputy Manager, Jury Services, Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury, January 30, 2017 (Updated response to 20 I I - I 2 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
report, An Analysis of Pension und Other Post-Employment Benefits.)
<littp:,' "'*rt .sc
9ol0Palt-ro,ol0^\lto.PDF>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
League of California Cities, Retirement System Sustainobilit-v: A Secure Future for California Cities, Existing
General Pension Principles (modified), adopted June 30, 2017.
League of California Cities, League of Californtu Cities Retirement St-stem Sustainabiliqv* Study and Findings,
January 2018, <https: lr'u u.cacities.ors Resources-Docunlents Polic)'Advocac)'-Section Hot-
Bibliography-7
Issues,'Retirement-System-Sustainabilit.v-rLeaeue-Pension-Sun'ev-(web)-FNAL.asp\>. (Last accessed, June 5,
2018.)
League of California Ctties, CaIPERS Board Reduces Amortization Policy, February 14,2018,
<https: w'w-$'.cacities.ors Top,'News,'Nervs-Articles 2018 Februarv,CalPERS-Board-Reduces-Amortizarion-
Policy>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
League of Califomia Cities, Ca|PERSSral's the Course, Adopts a 7 Percent Assumed Rate of Return, December
22,2017 , <https:' r'u,r'.cacities.ors'TopiNews Ne\\'s-Articles,'2017 December CAIPERS-Sravs-the-Course.-
Adopts-a-7-Percent- tssurn>. (Last accessed on June 5, 2018.)
Lin, Bianca and Childs, Matthew, Ciry^ of Paci,fica Miscellaneous and Safery* Plans, CaIPERS Actuarial Issues -
6/30/15 Valuation Preliminary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, September 18,2017,
<http: llrlli.c (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
Lin, Bianca and Yam, Wai Man, Ciry* of Menlo Park Miscellaneous and Safety Plans, CaIPERS Actuarial Issues
- 6/30/15 L'aluation Preliminary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, May 2,2017 ,
<https: rvr'"'r.l,.menlopark.org.DocumentCenter Vieu,,'1439f>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Lin, Bianca and Yang. Kevin, Redwood City luliscellaneous and Safety^ Plans, CaIPERS Actuarial Issues -
6/30/15 Valuation Preliminary Results, Bartel Associates LLC, February 13,2017.
Lin, Judy, Retirement Debt: ll'hat's the problem and how does it affect you? CalMatters.org, February 21,2018,
<https: 'calmat . (Last accessed on June 5, 2018.)
Lowe, Stephanie and Rogers, Frances, CaIPERS Reduces Amortization Period with Impacts to Employer
Contribrtion Rates, California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore), March
1,2018,<ltttps: n'tr,t'.calpublicasencvlaboremplo]-mentblog.comretirentent'call1ers-reduces-amortizttion-
period-w'ith-impacts-to-ernplo)rer-cotrtribution-rates,'>. (Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Malanga, Steven, The Penston Fund that Ate Californfu, The City Joumal, <https:'rtvrr'rr,'.cir).
iournal.ors'html pension-fund-ate-calitbmia-l35l8.htnll>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Marin Associcttion of Public Employees v. Marin Count-v Employees Retirement Association,2 Cal. App. 5th
674 (lst Dist. 2016), <littpr.:, s ecision in >. (Last accessed, June 5,2018.)
McDermid, Riley, Bay Area economy growing three times faster than national average, San Francisco Business
Times, <https: rr'*'ri .bizjoumals.com sanfrancisco neu s l0l 7 09 26 ba)'-area-economic-growth.htn.rl>. (Last
accessed, June 9, 20 18.)
Memorandum of Understanding Between the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Employees'
Retirement System Funding, November 19,2013.
Mendel, Ed, Archive for the "Funding" Category;, CaIPERS stays the course on rates, in.testing risk,
Calpensions, December L9,2017 , <https:, 'cal . (Last accessed, June 9,
2018.)
Mendel, Ed, Old cause ofpension debt gets new attention, Calpensions, July 10,2017,
<https:r' calpensions.corn 20I7,07'10 old-car.rse-of'-pension-debt-gets-neu-attention,>. (Last accessed, June 9,
2018.)
Bibliography-8
Mixon, Peter, Estintating Futttre Costs at Public Pension Plans: Setting the Discount Rate. Pensions &
Investments. April 29,2015, <http:"wuu'.pionline.conrarticle, l0 1-50,119 ONLlNEr1504198-i3 estinratins-
futurc--costs-at-public-pension-plans-setting-the-discount-rate>. (Last accessed June 4, 2018.)
Money-Zine, Defined Benefit versus Contribution Plans, July 5,2017, <httns: ' uu'u'
planning retirement'det'ined-benefit-r'ersus-contribution-plans >. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Munnell, Alicia, Appropriate discount rate for public plans is not simple, MarketWatch, October 5, 2015,
<l.rttns: li.rvrl'.r.narketu,atch.cour'stor.,-'appropriate-discount-rate-for-public-plans-is-ncrt-simple-2016-10-05>
(Last accessed. June 5.2018.)
Nation, Joe, Pension Math: Hotv Califomia's Retirement Spending is Squeezing the State Budget. SIEPR
(Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research). December 13, 2011, <http:,"arc.asm.ca.eo\ NSR.pdt>. (Last
accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Nation, Ioe, Pension Math: Public Pension Spending and Senice Cron'd Out in California, 2003-20J0, October
2,2017,<https: 'siepr.stantbrd.edu'researchpublicationspension-math-public-Dension-snendins-and-service-
crorid-out-calitbmia-]00i>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Nation, Joe and Storms, Eyan. lvlore Pension blath: Funded Stans, Benefits, and Spending Trends for
Culifornia's Largest Independent Public Emplo.v"ee Pension Systems. SIEPR (Stanford Institute for Economic
Policy Research). February 21,2012.
<http:, sieprr.stanlbrd.edu'sites dethult't'iles publications Nation IUtrre:Pension:0.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 9,
20 1 8.)
Nory-Marx, Robert and Rauh, Joshua D., The Liabilities and Risks of State-Sponsored Pension Plans. Journal
of Economic Perspectives - Volume 23, Number 4 - Fall 2009,
<http: ri,eb.stantbrd.edu. -rauh, research JEP Fa1l2009.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Oliveira, Anthony, The Locol Challenges of Pension Reform, Bartel Associates, May 24,2010,
<httlr:."urr'."r-.bafiel-associates.com'docs.default-source'articlesioliveira*a the-challenqes-ot'-pension-refornl-
1.pdt'1sfi,'rsn:l>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Ring, Edward, Did CaIPERS Use Accounting "Gimmicks" to Enable Finonciolly (Jnsustainable Pensions?,
California Policy Center, January 24,2078, <https:;'calilbrniapolic)'cer.rter.org'calpers-use-accountinq-
simmicks-eneble-flnanciall)'-unsustainable-pensions'>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Roeder, Rick, Roeder Financial, Califomia Pension S.u*stems: Ranking their Funding Assumptions.May 2017,
<http: reredertinar.rcial.conr rarublinqs.php'.)ramble:-+2>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Roeder, Rick, Roeder Financial, Califurnia 2017 Funding A.ssumption Slt.n'ey,May 2017,
<httl'r::roedertlnar.rcial.con.r RoederSune)-l017.html>. (Last accessed, June 9,2018.)
Rogers, Frances and Overby, Brett, California Court of Appeal Issues A Contrctry Decision Aclclressing "Vested
Rights" of Publtc Emploz"ees in the Aftetmath of PEPRA: ll'here n'ill the Supreme Court Lanel?, Califomia
Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore), January 10, 2018,
<https: ,u'$'u'.calpublicaeenc)'laboremplo)'melltblog.com'pension'califomia-court-of-aplleal-issLles-a-contrar)--
decision-addressing-"'ested-rights-of'-public-emplovees-in-the-aftermath-ot--pepra-rvhere-ri,ill-the-supreme-
court-land >. (Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Bibliography-9
Rose-Smith, Imogen, How Lou: Can CaIPERS Go? Institutional Investor.com, November 30, 2016,
<https:,.'w'w'u'.institutionalinvestor.com'article,bl-1z9p7tu'9pdzO''1.rou-lou-can-calpers-go>. (Last accessed, June
5,2018.)
Ruloft Mark, Defined Benefit Plans vs. Defined Contribution P/ars, Pension Section News of Society of
Actuaries, January 2005 - Issue No. 57.
SamCERA, 2017 Comprehensive Anntml Financial Reportfor the Fiscal Year Ended on June 30, 2017,
:. u1v\\..sarncera.(Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20 I 7- I 8 report, County Pension Costs - Hard Choices Paying Off.
Terando, Scott, Srrategies for Managing the New Realiqv^, CaIPERS, September 15,2017 , slide 8,
'Resources-t7-
tbr-\l N (Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Torres, Blanca, San Mateo Counrl,* coshes in w'ith sale of Circle Stur Pla:a for $90. I million, The San Francisco
Business Times, May 20,2014,ouma cor-n.
plaza-sritfln-capital-san-mateo-counr-v-.html>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Town of Atherto\ Fiscql Year 2017/18 Operating & Capital Improrement Budget,
<httrr: u.'ri.ri.ci.atherton.ca.us, ArchiveCenter ViewFile.'ltem f -il5>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Town of Colma, FY 2017-18 Adopted Budgel, <https:/;'"r-'i'ri'.coLna.ca.gov docurlents't-rscal--vear-1017-18-
br.rdqet >. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Town of Hillsborough, FY 20187-19 Proposed Budget,
b
.,., -,. l";t r-.h...^,,,rh net A rrlri veCenter View'File Item l Ll>(Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Town of Portola Valley, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-2018,
<http: rw.u'r.r.-.portolavallev.net:home'sl.rorvdocument'.rid:1091 I>.(Lastaccessed,June9,2018.)
Turner, John, Godinez-Olivares, Humberto, McCarthy, David, del Carmen Boado-Penas, Maria, Detetmining
Discount Rates Required to Fund Defined Benefit Plans, Society of Actuaries, January 2017,
<*r,ru'.actuaries.orq oslol0l-i papers'PBSS-Tumer&GO&NlcC&B-P.L1clt>. (Last accessed, June 9,2018.)
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Pension Plan L'aluation: L'iews on Using lvlultiple Measures to Offer a
lv'Iore Complete Financial Picture, September 30,2014,s:,''\1'r1'1\j and
<https: urr . (Last accessed June 4,2018.)
Walters, Dan, Jerry Brotvn, nearing end of terms, defies unions on pensions, in San Francisco Chronicle,
November 28, 2017, <https:t'wwrr. stbhr
unions-11i898 1-l.php>. (Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Walsh, Mary Williams, A Sour Surprise for Public Pensions: Ttvo Sets of Books, Nerv York Times, September,
17 , 2016, <https: r,'w rvu'.n,vtimes.com,'l0l 6,r09 'i 8 'business,'dealbook a-sour-sr-rrprise-ftrr-nublic-pensions-ts o-
sets-of'-books.html>. (Last accessed, June 9, 2018.)
Webster, Keeley, More briefs ask Steile Supreme Court to v'eaken California rule on pensions, The Bond Buyer,
.coll1 ne\\'s lllL)re--1\February 27,2018,
ons>(Last accessed, June 5, 2018.)
Bibliography-10
Cities'Annual Financial Reports that are cited in the report or relied upon for the data
reflected in Appendix A.
Town of Atherton, Califoruio, Basic Financial Statements, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015, <http: ca-
atl.rerton.civicplus.com ArchireCenter Vieu'Filerltem'2179>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Town of Atherton, California, Basic Financial Statements, Ftscal Year Ended June 30, 2016
Town of Atherton, California, Basic Financial Statements, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, <hqp._Sa-
atherton.ciricplus.conr ArchiveCenter'Vieri,File,'Item,'2538>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Belmont, California, Comprehensit'e Annual Financial Report 201 6, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 I 5 ,
<https:,'u, u,rv.belmont.qor''home: shou'document lid:1f 680>. (Last accessed, June 10, 20I8.)
City of Belmont, California, Comprehensive Anrunl Financial Report 2016, Fiscal Yecu'Ended June 30, 2016,
<https: ' urvw.belrnont.so\,'home,shou'document'Jid=1+89J>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Belmont, California, Comprehensive Annual Finonciol Report 2017, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017,
<httls: ' 'r,"'r.r'r.r'.beluront. so! 'home. showdocument'l id: 1 5900>. (Last accessed, June 10, 20 I 8.)
City of Brisbane, Califomia, Comprehensite Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended JLme 30, 2014,
<http:.,brisbane . (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Brisbane, Califomia, Comprehensi,,'e Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Encled June 30, 2015,
<hur-r: brisbaneca.ors sites default, files l0159i,lOC.A.FR.pdf>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Brisbane, Califomia, Comprehensive Anrutol Financial Report, Fiscctl Year Ended JLrne 30, 2016,
<http: brisbaneca.orq sites dethulr files.Brislraneq;l0l016oirl0CAFR.pdf>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Brisbane, Califomia, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended JLtne 30, 2017,
<http: brisbanec . (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Burlin-eame, California, Comprehensive AnnLtal Finoncial Report, Fiscal Year Ended JLme 30, 2010,
u.'-'rrv.bUrl nle -)ln3nce
CAFR%2009- 10.pdt>.(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Burlingame, California, Comprehensit'e Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Yecu" Ended June 30, 20I 5 ,
u'r,. u.'.bttrl Finance CC
eAERld.Oll l-1Bdt>(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Burlingame, Califomia, Comprehensfue AnnLtal Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended JLtne 30, 2016,
3me.o document center Finance.'C ' -o
C,-\FR9,101,i-1 6.pdt>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Burlingame, Califorrria, Comprehensive Annual Financiol Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017,
<l.rttps: ,'vr.r.l',v.burlinsame.orq document center Finance. Conlprehensive9b20,fuinual')t20Financialo,o20Reports
'CAFR9i,l01 6-17.rrdt>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Town of Colma, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Yeur Ended June 30, 201 5 ,
<https: urvrv.colnra.ca.gov documents.basic-tlnancials-f0[-1-15'>. (Last accessed, June 10,20l8.)
Biblioglaphy-11
Town of Colma, California, Comprehensive Annucl Financial Report, Fisccl Year Ended June 30, 2016.
'documents (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Town of Colma, California, Comprehensit'e Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2017,
<https:.'lt'u' . (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Daly City, California, Comprehensit'e Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20t5,
<httn: wrru'.dalycitl.ore Assets Departnlents'Finance-and-Administration pdf 2015 cafr.pdf>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Daly City, California, Comprehensi,t'e Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2016,
<http: *'u u'.dall'cit)'.org Assets 'Departments.'Finance*and*Adntinistration l0l 6-cati.pdt>. (Last accessed,
June 10,2018.)
City of Daly City, California. Comprehensi.,'e Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2017,
<http: turv.dallicitv.org Assets,'Departments Finance*and+Administration l0lT-CAFR.ndt>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of East Palo Alto, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscol Yeor Ended hme 30, 2015,
<http: 'u'w'r.r'.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us ArchiveCenter Vier,,'Filerltem.'3 18>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of East Palo Alto, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Yeor Ended hme 30, 2016,
<http: uu'u (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of East Palo Alto, California, Comprehensite Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended JLme 30, 20I 7,
<lrttn: u. wri..ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us ,ArchiveCenter VieuFile ltem..1l2:. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, California, Comprehensite Anrunl Financial
Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015,
<https: u'ri r.lbstercit.v-.org sites,'default'files.rtileattachments,'financial serr ices.'pase 350 I 'cafi-l015.pdt>.
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report, Fiscctl Year Ended June 30, 2016,
<https: u'rr"'lv.lostercitr,'.ore'sites'detault'files.fileattachrr-rents,'t'inancial_5e11ices pase 3501
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, California, Comprehensite Annual Financial
Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017,
<https: 'wu'w
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Half Moon Bay, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
20.1J, <l.rttlrs: ' n'uu'. half--moon-bav.ca.us DocumentCenter Vieri.''1 1l I >. (Last accessed, June 10, 20I8.)
City of Half Moon Bay, Califomia, Comprehensite Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2016, <https:,'u.'rl'w.hall--moon-bav.ca.us'DocumentCenter'\'ieu,'1 130>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Half Moon Bay, Califomia, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
2017, <l.rttps: u'r.r'u,.l.ralt'-rnoon-ba)'.ca.r,rs DocumentCenter'Vieu 13Jl>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Bibliography-12
Town of Hillsborough, Califomia, Comprehensive Anruml Financial Report, Ftscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 20 I 5 ,
<http: 'n'rr.w'.l . (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Town of Hillsborough, Califomia, Comprehensi'te Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2016,
ur,, u.hills net hi enter V m lli>(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Town of Hillsborough, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017,
<l.rttp: rr,r,u.r.i.hillsborough.net .\rchiveCente: \'ier.',.File Iten.r 107>(Last accessed. June 10, 2018.)
City of Menlo Park, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended JLme 30, 2015,
<https:,i
"l'$rv.menlopark.ors
Archii'ecenter View'File Item'J 161>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Menlo Park, California, Comprehensire Anruml Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016,
<httns:.'u'wu . (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Menlo Park, California, Comprehenstve Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2017,
<https: 'rvr,'u.menlopark.ore Archivecenter Vie$'File Iten1, 7607>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Millbrae, California, Comprehensit'e Anrurul Financiol Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2015,
<https: ' u*.u'.ci.millbrae.ca.us horne shoi.idocument'lid:l-1201>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Millbrae, California, Contprehensite Anruml Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2016,
<https: u.ii . (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Ivlillbrae, California, Comprehensfue Anrunl Finoncial Report, Fiscul Year Ended JLtne 30, 2017,
<https: riu.u.ci.nrillbrae.ca.us.home'shor"document'lid:l-119J>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Pacifica, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscctl Yeur Ended Jtme 30, 2015,
<httlr: u.u.'rl.citr,'otbacit'ica.org ci\ica.\. filebank'blobdload.asp\?blobid:8379>. (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
City of Pacifica, California, Comprehensite Anntrul Financial Report, Fiscal Yeur Ended Jtme 30, 2016,
<http: 'u,wu'. . (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
City of Pacifica, California, Comprehensit'e Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017,
<http: u'rl'u.ci >. (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
Town of Portola Valley, California, Basic Financial Statements, Fiscal Year Ended Jttne 30, 2015,
<http: u'ul\'.pofiolavalle)'.net honte shotdL)cument'lid:S710>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Town of Portola Valley, California, Basic Financial Statements, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2016,
<http: u"i.u.portola''aller-.net home slios'document'lid:10.i18>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
To'u'"n of Portola Valley, California, Bctsic Financiol Statements, Fiscol Year Ended JLtne 30, 2017,
<http:.,r',uu.rrortolar.allev.net home shtrridtrcument'lid:10885>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Redwood City, California, Comprehensite Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 I 5 ,
<https: 'r,''u'rl'.red$'oodcitJ-'.ors 'home sho\i'document'lid-7f 9 I >. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Bibliography-13
City of Redwood City, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended JLtne 30, 2016,
<http: 'rvll'i,u'.red"r"oodcitv.ors home. shou,document'lid:10165>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of Redwood City, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20t7,
: wu'u..redu (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Cityof SanBruno, California, Comprehensive Annual Finoncial Report, Fiscal YearEndedJune 30,2015,
<https:,' u'u'w . (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
City of San Bruno, California, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016,
civicar 'tllebank (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
City of San Bruno, Califomia, Comprehensire Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 I7,
<https:. u.-uu.sanbruno.ca.eo\'rcivicax'tjlebank blobdload.asp\'lBloblD-288I9>. (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
City of San Carlos, Califomia, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015,
http: '$nri'.epackets.netsirenub cache 2 ouiglpixcrmu-lzpxvt.\px1t-''i 1.'108891790603:01810-+75 1,l70.PDF>
(Last accessed June 3,2018.)
City of San Carlos, California, Comprehensit'e Anrutal Financicl Report, Fiscol Year Ended June 30, 2016,
<http: r.rwt'.epackets.netsirepLrbcache2or.viglpixqmlrJzpxr'ftp\1fi1'108891780603101810-+339166.PDF>
(Last accessed June 3, 2018.)
City of San Carlos, Califomia, Comprehenstve Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 20 I 7,
http: ' ri u.'u'.cit)'ot\ancarlos.orrr Flome Shou,Document'lid=1015. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of San Mateo, California, Comprehensive Annual Financiol Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015,
https: '"l.lrrr.cit)'ofsanrrateo.ors DocumentCenter'Viervi47909. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of San Mateo, California. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016,
https:, r"w'u..cit)'of.sanmeteo.org DocumentCenter'\'ie."v.'5i086. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of San Mateo, California, Comprehensite Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended Jtme 30, 2017,
https: rv'nr'$'.cit.v-of-sanmatet).ors DocumentCenter'Vierv'62063. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of South San Francisco, Califomia, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
201J, <httrl: "ri'rvu.sst.net home showdtrcument'lid:558>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of South San Francisco, Califomia, Comprehensit'e Annual Finoncial Report, Fiscal Year Endecl June 30,
2016, <http: ,r,''u'u'.sst'.net. home shori,document'Jid:560>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of South San Francisco, California, Comprehensite AnnLtal Financial Report, Fiscal Yeur Entled June 30,
2017, <httr;:.'.t'r.ll:.ssf-.net liome shou'document'lid:1050.1>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Town of Woodside, California, Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015,
(Last accessedt
June 3,2018.)
sltes hrnents,item S attachment al
Bibliography-14
Town of Woodside, California, Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016,
rioodside fl ')
001.ndt>. (Last accessed June 3,2018.)
Town of Woodside, California, Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30,2017,
<https: ,wr.rv.woodsidetou'n.org'sites default, files.'llleattachments. basic tjnanacial_statements*1016- l 7.pdf>
(Last accessed June 3, 2018.)
Supplemental materials not cited in report but that lvere revietved in the Grand Jury's
investigation
An Analysis of Public Employee Retirement Systems in California, The Center for Government Analysis,
January 2007,IH.lTA.Pension.(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Ashton. Adam, CaIPERS beots earnings target for first time in three years, Sacramento Bee, July 14,2017 ,
'en]n1r-11t thr'(Last accessed,
June 10,2018.)
Barron III, Robert, Finance Director, Town of Atherton Finance Committee Staff Report, Ret'iew and Discttss
CaIPERS Actuarial Reports as Of June 30, 2015, And lieu'Pension Discount Rctte Assumptionsfor Discussion
of Paytng Down Long-Term Liabiltties; If Approprktte lulake Recommendcttions of Optionsfor Council
Consideration, July 1 l, 2017,
June 10,2018.)
(Last accessed,
Bartel, Johrl., CoIPERS (Pension) Emplo.v*er Conn"ibution Rqtes: llhot Cqn You Expect?, Bartel Associates,
LLC, December 7,2017,les
:. tvt'tr'.ci.a 7\
: \\'t\:w,-)
07.pdt'.'st\rsn:-l>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Biggs, Andrew, The Public Pension Funding Trap,The Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2015,
/l-conl a r-ti,.let fha-n,r Iic-n.-r.tsion-f'r rn dins-tran- l.ll3 1 09363>
CaIPERS Acfuarial Office, Finance and Administration Committee, Agenda Item 8b, Amorti:ation Polic.v-
(First Readingl, November |4,2017, <https: ' rr'u'n'.
asendas l0l7l I tlna dmin item-8b-00.pdf>(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2015 Misceilaneous Plan of the City of Redwood City.
-mlsce (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
calPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2015 Safety Plan of the City of Redwood city,
v doc (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30,2014 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Redwood City,
, \\'\t'\!'.cA (Last
accessed. June 10, 2018.)
calPERS Actuarial valuation - June 30,2014 Safety Plan of the city of Redwood city,
<https: ,',''u.w . (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
Bibliography-15
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 201 5 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of South San Francisco,
ca.1,5 -mlsc
(Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2015 Safety Plan of the City of South San Francisco.
201 )(Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS Acfuarial Valuation - June 30, 2014 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of South San Francisco,
20 1.+o-ct ")
(Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
CaIPERS Actuarial Valuation - June 30, 2014 Safety Plan of the City of South San Francisco.
<l'rttps: :$'u'u.calpers.ca.go\"docs.'actuarial-reDorts,'201:1 south-san-fiancisco-cit\.-sat-etv-2014.pd1>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of East Palo Alto, Adopted Biennial Budget, Fiscal Years 2016-2018, <https:,'.r,,'u-,r,.ci.east-palo-
alto.ca.us',A,rchir-e. \'ie-nFile Itenr 38.1>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Foster City Estero Municipal Improvement District Final Budget, Fiscal Year 2Ol7-2018,
, rr-rlrl fnctprnitr tac rlpfrrrlt f'!'filerttre hnren 2017-2018-
t'inal-blrdget.r'dt>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Millbrae, City Council Agenda Report on Second Budget Srudy Session for the Fiscal Years 2016-17
and 2017-18 as approved by City Council on June 14,2016,
<https: ' u'u,u'.ci.millbrae.ca.us. home'showde.rcurlrent'lid:78-iJ>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
City of Pacifica, Adopted Anrunl Operating and Capital Budget 2017-2018,<http:,'w-n'u'.c . (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
City of SanBruno, Adopted Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 2017-18,<https:1'li-u . (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
City of San Carlos, FY 20 l7- 18 Adopted Budget Update,
<http:, uli,l.cit)'ofsancarl-rs.ors HLrme Sho\vDocument'lid:67f>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
City of San Mateo, General Fund Financial Forecast, FY 2015-16 - FY 2021-22,
<https:,"i.r'u'u..cit.vofsantlateo.ors'DocumentCenter,'Vierv'46893>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
County of contra Costa Civil Grand Jury. "Pension Reform, If Not Now, when?" May 10, 2016,
cc-courts (Last accessed, June
10, 2018.)
County of Marin Civil Grand Jury. Pension Enhancements: A Case of Got'ernment Code Violations and A
Lack of Transparencr-. April 16, 2015, <https:.,'iwrrw.mar
responsesi'2014-15,'pension-enhancements>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
County of San Mateo Civil Grand Jury, Unflmded Pension Liabilities: Earl,,- Results Under GASB Standard
68, June 27,2017, <http: uri'l'.s . (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
s1 nrncinl qen'i nase ''152 I tv-
Bibliography-16
County of San Mateo Civil Grand Jury. SawCERA's Unfunded Liabiliy*: The Elephant in The Room,2013,<http:,'rw.rv'w . (Last accessed, June 10,
20 r 8.)
County of Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury. An Analysis of Pension and Other Post-Employ-ment Benefits. May
17,2012, <http:, uuw'. . (Last accessed, June 10,
2018.)
The Economisl, Promise now, bill your children Iune 16,2072,
<https:,'.,'*u >. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
The Economist, Public Pensions America's Greece?, December 20,2014,
<https:'u.rvu.ecor-romist.com.neu's,'united-states,'2 16J6786-illinois-risks-default-it--it-t-ails-tackle-its-public-
pension-crisis-americas-greece>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
The Financial Times. A Reulistic Discount Rate for Pensions. The Financial Times, Opinion. August 19 , 2012,
<https: "r.r.urv.ft.com content. b-ie7a3bc-el3i-l 1e1-9c71-001-1{t'eab.l9a>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Garstka, Stanley J. and Antle, Rick, Car better accounting atert a pension crisis? Yale School of
Management, January 8,2013, <httns: ,insish
crisis>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
GASB Statement No. 67, Summary at
G-{SB Prono
accessed. June 10,2018.) Full text at
I19.+.1-l>(Last
G.\SB
e>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
GASB Statement No. 74. Summarv at
l1 059.1&ac
C&cid:11
o'olFPronouncement C9iilFG.A.SBSumrnar,v-Paqe>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.) Full text at
.\SB
e>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
GASB Statement No. 75. Summary at
iscl
C id:B
'li,lFPronouncement:C9olFGASBSummar-vPase>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.) Full text at
el
e>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Jacobius, Arleen, How CaIPERS's strateg-v- bacffired, Pensions & Intestments, December 28,2009,
<httn: u'u'u.oionline.co article 2009 1 ll8 PRINT'3 1 ll89983'hcrw,cal backfired>(Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Johnson, Dorothy and Sullivan, Tracy, California State Association of Counties (CSAC), CaIPERS Needs
Feedback on Proposed Amortizcrtion Changes, January 18, 2018. <http: ,'lr.r.r'rv.counties.org'csac-bulletin-
article caloers-needs-f-eedback-proposed-amortization-chanqes>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Lin, Judy, Understanding California's public pension debt, Los Angeles Times, September 18,20 16,
<http:' r'"'u'r"'.latin.res.com projects la-me-pension-unfunded, >. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Bibliography- 17
2012,
20 1 8.)
Melcon, Mel and Gross, Ashley,llhy the Dot-Com Bubble k Key To [Jnderstantling California's Gror,,'ing
Public Employee Pension Debt, Capital Public Radio, Los Angeles Times and CalMatters, September 19,
2016,<httn:"$'uu'.capradio.ors'articles201609 l9\\'h,v-the-dot-com-bubble-is-ke.v--to-undersrandins-
califbrn ias-ero$ inq-public-emp1o)'ee-pension-debr >. (Last accessed, June 10, 201 8.)
Mendel, Ed, Archive for the 'SB 400 " Category', How, more generolts pensions boosted ciry* costs, Calpensions,
March 5,2018, <http: r'"r'u,.publicceo.com.2018'03 hor.'".more-senerous-pensions-boosted-cit)-costs >. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Moorlach, John, Setting the Record Straight on CaIPERS and SB 400, Fox&Hounds, March 7,2018,
<http: u'u'u . (Last accessed, June
10,2018.)
Pellisier, Dan, Horv did CaIPERS dig a $153 billion pension hole? San Jose Mercury News, November 13,
2017, <lrttps: n't'$-.urercurlnews.com 2017 I I 13 opinion-ho',r-did-calpers-die-a-151-billion-lrension-hole >.
(Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Pozen, Robert C. and Hamacher, Theresa. A Realistic Discount Rate for Pension; Brookings. August 20,
-rate-for-(Last accessed, June 10,
Ring, Edward , If You Think the Bull Market Rescued Pensions, Think Again, Califomia Policy Center,
December 7 ,2017 , <https: ,cali . (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Town of Woodside, Adopted Budget, Fiscal Years 2017-19,
<htlps: u'\r'u'.uoodsidetou'n.org sites detault'files. fileattachments adopted_2017-19 budget.pdt>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 20 I 8.)
underfunded Pensions: Tackling an 'Invisible'Crusls, Wharton University of Pennsylvania
Knowlege@Wharton, January 26, 20 1 5, <http : 1,'knou'l
tacklins-an-in\.isible-crisis, >. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
The Untlerftmding of State and Locul Pension Plans, Congressional Budget Office Economic and Budget Issue
Brief, May 20I l, <https: ' 'ri'rt
pensions.pdl>. (Last accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Town of Hillsborough, California, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2017-18.
<httt'rs:''uri'ri..hillsboroush.net Arclii\.ecenter Vieu'File Itenr 181>. (Last accessed, June 10,2018.)
Warshawsky, Mark J. and Norcross, Eileen, Underfunded Pensions: The Expanding and Escalating Challenge,
Mercatus Center George Mason University, September 1,2016,
<https: ', ri'r'u'w'.mercatr.rs.ore'publicatior'undertunded-pensions-expandins-a11d-escaleting-challenqe>. (Last
accessed, June 10, 2018.)
Weintraub, Daniel, Co4' state pension deal costs taxpa!-ers billions, The Sacramento Bee, August 10, 2003,
'documents. 20{ll \\'eintraub-C I O-O1 n,-lf>(Last
accessed, June 10,2018
Issued: July 17,2018
D--.'lf'rR
Bibliography-18
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM NO:
MEETING DATE:
September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Response Letter
to the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report: “Cooperative
Purchasing – A Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement”
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached response letter to the 2017-2018
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report “Cooperative Purchasing – A Roadmap to More
Effective City Procurement”.
BACKGROUND
On July 17, 2018, the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled
“Cooperative Purchasing – A Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement”. An accompanying
letter asked for a response from the City of Burlingame regarding the Grand Jury’s many findings
and recommendations. The City’s response is due no later than October 17, 2018 and must be
approved by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury’s report summarized the history of purchasing practices and the current use of
decentralized purchasing systems in cities in San Mateo County. The report noted several
limitations of decentralized purchasing systems that could be avoided through the use of (1)
piggyback contracts, (2) cooperative purchasing agreements, and (3) collaboration with the
County’s Purchasing Department. The report consists of findings as to the current state of
purchasing systems in all 20 of the cities in the County, and recommends that each city should
optimize the use of piggyback contracts and joint procurement agreements. In addition, the report
concludes that the County’s Procurement Department should prepare and implement a program
of City-County Procurement Cooperation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Burlingame has already implemented many of the recommendations provided in the
Grand Jury report. Nevertheless, staff will continue to review the City’s options to ensure that its
purchasing and contracting practices result in the most efficient and cost-effective procurement
of resources possible.
Grand Jury Response Regarding Cooperative Purchasing September 17 2018
2
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Draft Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report
• San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE LETTER TO THE 2017-2018 SAN MATEO
COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT: “COOPERATIVE PURCHASING – A ROADMAP
TO MORE EFFECTIVE CITY PROCUREMENT”
WHEREAS, the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled
“Cooperative Purchasing – A Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement” on July 19, 2018;
and
WHEREAS, the report summarizes the various decentralized purchasing practices for
cities within the County of San Mateo and the benefits that could be achieved through cooperative
purchasing arrangements, specifically with San Mateo County’s Procurement Department; and
WHEREAS, the Grand Jury provides recommendations that each city should optimize the
use of piggyback contracts, joint procurement agreements, and collaboration with the County’s
Procurement Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed draft response letter attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
That the letter in response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, “Cooperative
Purchasing – A Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement” is approved, and the Mayor is
authorized to sign and convey said letter on behalf of the City.
________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of
September, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, MAYOR
DONNA COLSON, VICE MAYOR
EMILY BEACH
ANN KEIGHRAN
RICARDO ORTIZ
TEL: (650) 558-7200
FAX: (650) 566-9282
www.burlingame.org
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
September 17, 2018
Honorable V. Raymond Swope
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Charlene Kresevich
Hall of Justice
400 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: City of Burlingame’s response to 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Cooperative Purchasing – A Roadmap
to More Effective City Procurement”
Dear Judge Swope:
After reviewing the 2017-2018 Grand Jury report entitled "Cooperative Purchasing – A Roadmap to More Effective City
Procurement”, the following are the City of Burlingame’s responses to the Grand Jury’s findings:
Fl. All 20 of the cities in the County purchase goods and services through decentralized purchasing systems.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s purchasing process.
F2. Decentralized purchasing systems successfully allow the Cities to procure goods and services at fair market
prices while minimizing labor costs
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s purchasing process.
F3. The creation of a centralized purchasing department to provide the organization with advanced procurement
services and guidance can be cost prohibitive.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s purchasing process.
F4. While city employees receive training on municipal purchasing guidelines and policies, many employees who
conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility are not trained or instructed to negotiate optimum prices by leveraging market power.
Response: The City of Burlingame disagrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s purchasing
practices. Employees that conduct purchasing and contracting tasks within the department are well acquainted with
how to procure bids for goods or services as required by the City’s Purchasing Policy, and they are capable of
negotiating with the successful bidder to obtain optimal terms for the City. These employees are most familiar with the
needs of the department, and are attuned to the timing requirements for meeting the departmental resources required.
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 2
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
Assistance is always available in both the City’s Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office. F5. City employees who conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility often do not identify
commonly purchased goods that other departments also purchase and so miss the opportunity to negotiate lower costs which could be obtained by purchasing the items in bulk for multiple departments.
Response: The City of Burlingame disagrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s purchasing
practices. Employees often compare notes and utilize cross-departmental efforts in order to procure bids for goods or
services that are desired by more than one department. This is most apparent in purchases amongst the administrative
departments (certain supplies, copy paper, off-site storage, etc.), but is also common between departments with similar
needs, such as the Parks Maintenance Division and Public Works Corp Yard. In addition, the City utilizes internal
service funds for city-wide procurements of Facilities (maintenance and repair); Equipment (vehicles and large
machinery); and Information Technology, a division which is operated largely through contract with the City of Redwood
City, and is able to compare bids with those previously obtained by Redwood City.
F6. Cooperative purchasing practices allow multiple public entities to collaboratively purchase goods and services, thereby gaining economies of scale that they would otherwise not have.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding.
F7. Cooperative purchasing practices are compatible with decentralized purchasing systems and can allow the Cities to leverage their collective market power, without changing existing purchasing systems.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding.
F8. Adoption of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback agreements and cooperative purchasing agreements, can enable all Cities to obtain lower prices on goods and services.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding.
F9. Each city has limited communications with each other regarding procurement best practices, shared purchasing challenges, and purchasing solutions.
Response: The City of Burlingame disagrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s purchasing
processes. Departmental personnel are encouraged to discuss all best practices with their peers in neighboring cities
to optimize vendor contacts/listing, provide and receive references, and avoid missteps in the procurement of similar
goods or services.
Fl0. The County of San Mateo's Procurement Division is the only remaining public centralized purchasing department at the City and County level within San Mateo County.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with respect to the City of Burlingame’s purchasing process.
F11. Collaboration between the Cities and the Procurement Division through cooperative purchasing practices
could achieve significant cost savings for both the Cities and the County.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding.
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 3
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
F12. The Procurement Division presently lacks the operational capacity to fully collaborate with the Cities.
Response: City staff are not familiar with procurement processes in other cities and the operational capacity of the
Procurement Division of the County of San Mateo.
Fl3. There are no formal channels for communication between the County and the Cities regarding procurement
cooperation opportunities.
Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding with one clarification: the City participates in several
professional organizations that include both cities and counties. City staff are encouraged to network with neighboring
cities and the County to establish informal contacts, and utilize those contacts to develop best practices. Should the
procurement opportunity present itself, the City is then prepared through these informal channels to obtain
procurements that are best suited to the City’s needs.
The following are the City of Burlingame’s responses to the Grand Jury’s recommendations:
R1. Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback contracts and joint procurement agreements.
The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Burlingame departments frequently utilize cooperative
purchasing databases when available, at least to provide a data point as to the pricing available for a particular
product or service. For example, the City recently purchased field turf fiber and padding, along with a groomer and
sweeper and an eight-year maintenance plan, through CMAS, a purchasing cooperative under the California
Department of General Services Procurement Division, at a cost of $780,000. CMAS, a procurement option for
California local governmental agencies, is a receptacle for Federal General Services Administration previously bid
and awarded contracts. CMAS then establishes an independent California contract for the same products and
services at equal or lower prices. The product is then purchased directly from the manufacturer. The Parks and
recreation Department has also utilized the KCDA - King County Directors Association - procurement group (LED
field lights and poles, playground equipment); US Communities (playground replacement pieces); NJPA - National
Joint Powers Alliance – (heavy equipment) and the NCPA - National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance - (various
purchases). The PLS - Peninsula Library System - is a consortium that provides excellent negotiating power for
libraries in the county, and PLAN - Peninsula Library Automated Network – provides for IT procurements through the
PLS. Califa is an organization that negotiates group purchases and contracts for libraries all over the state
(magazines, certain online databases). Departmental staff are also encouraged to seek out and use “piggyback”
contracts. For example, in 2014, the Finance Department “piggybacked” on a contract that Redwood City negotiated
several years earlier for its utility bill printing, mailing, and on-line payment portal.
The City relies on its departmental employees to understand the unique requirements of its needs when procuring
goods and services, and to also possess and utilize all their available contacts within other cities with similar
requirements. These same contacts resulted in the RFP which formed the basis for the Turbo Data Systems contract
(referred to in the Grand Jury’s Report) in 1999, 2006, and again in 2015. Departmental staff are most
knowledgeable about the vendors and markets relevant to their specific operations. City staff have always been
encourage to cooperate with other cities in procurement and other administrative activities to provide the biggest
bang for the taxpayer dollar. The cities rely on each other for the sharing of data through surveys, vendor references,
user groups, professional organizations and other regional contacts.
R2. Share with other Cities and the County Procurement Division their procurement needs in order to identify opportunities for cooperative procurements between the Cities and the County.
Response: The recommendation will be implemented. Once the County informs City staff as to the format and
frequency desired, the City would be happy to share with the County it procurement needs.
The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
September 17, 2018
Page 4
Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org
The Burlingame City Council approved this response letter at its public meeting on September 17, 2018.
Sincerely,
Michael Brownrigg
Mayor
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
Hall of Justice and Records
400 County Center
Redwood ciry, cA 94063-1655
RODINA M. CATALANO
COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CLERK & JURY COMMISSIONER
(650) 261-s066
FAx (650) 261-s147
www. sanmateocourt. org
July 19, 2018
City Council
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Grand Jury Report: "Cooperative Purchasing - A Roadmap to More Effective City Procurement"
Dear Councilmembers:
The2017-2018 Grand Jury filed a report on July 19,2018 which contains findings and recommendations pertaining
to your agency. Your agency must submit comments, within 90 days, to the Hon. V. Raymond Swope. Your
agency's response is due no later than October 17,2018. Please note that the response should indicate that it
was approved by your governing body at a public meeting.
For all findings, your responding agency shall indicate one of the following:
l. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall speciff
the portion ofthe finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation ofthe reasons therefore.
Additionally, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, your responding agency shall report one of the following
actions:
l. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
2 The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a
time frame for implementation.
3 The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of
an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or
director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of
the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the Grand Jury report.
4.The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an
explanation therefore.
Please submit your responses in all of the following ways:
1. Responses to be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court by the Court Executive Office.
Prepare original on your agency's letterhead, indicate the date of the public meeting that
your governing body approved the response address and mail to Judge Swope.
Hon. V. Raymond Swope
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Charlene Kresevich
Hall of Justice
400 County Centerl 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655.
2. Responses to be placed at the Grand Jury website.
Copyresponseandsendbye-mailto:@.(Insertagencyname
ifit is not indicated at the top ofyour response.)
3. Responses to be placed with the clerk of your agency.
a File a copy of the response directly with the clerk of your agency. Do not send this copy to
the Court.
For up to 45 days after the end ofthe term, the foreperson and the foreperson's designees are available to clariff the
recommendations of the report. To reach the foreperson, please call the Grand Jury Clerk at (650) 261-5066.
If you have any questions regarding these procedures, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Okada, Chief Deputy
County Counsel, at (650) 363-4761.
Very truly yours,
a
Gl,ffiit(fu,^o
Rodina M. Catalano
Court Executive Officer
RMC:ck
Enclosure
cc:Hon. V. Raymond Swope
Paul Okada
Information Copy: City Manager
2
a
COOPERATTYE PURCHASING_A ROADMAP TO MORE EFFECTIVE CITY PROCT]REMENT
ISSUE
How can cities in San Mateo County save taxpayer money by adopting cooperative procurement
practices?
SUMMARY
The 20 cities in San Mateo County (the Cities) spent $425 million and the County of San Mateo
(the County) $300 million on goods and services in FY 2015-l6,for an estimated total in
purchasing of $725 million.12 The Cities and the County could spend millions less - without
increasing costs - by increasing the use of o'piggyback3" contracis and cooperative purchasing
agreements. The Cities andthe County could save the most money, an estimated annual saviigs
between 5 and l5 percent, through cooperatively purchasing goodr and services with the
County's Procurement Division for a total annual savings between $35 million and $108 million.
All of the Cities procure goods and services through decentralized purchasing systems in which
individual municipal departments are authorized to identifu the need for a go"od'or service,
conduct the appropriate selection process, and place u prrihar. order, under the supervision of
their city's finance department and or city manager. Decentralized,purchasing systems
successfully allow cities to procure goods and services at fair markit prices *frit. minimizing
labor costs associated with centralized procurement departments by assigning purchasing
functions to-individual departments.
However, the Grand Jury found that while city employees receive training on municipal
purchasing guidelines and policies, many employees who conduct purcha-sing operations as a
secondary responsibility Te not trained and or instructed to negotiate optimrin prices Uy
leveraging market power.a
Further, in exchange for minimizing labor and related costs, the Cities have forfeited the benefits
associated with a centralized purchasing system. Under a centralized purchasing system, trained
and experienced purchasing agents, located in a central purchasing department,Le responsible
t California State Controller's Office, Schedule of Totat City Expenditures by Major Object Classificatio4 AccessedOn: October 2017 https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.eov/Citv-Expenditures/Schedule-of-Total-Citv-Expenditures-by-
Maior-Obi eclq6pc-n5 bo.
2 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, "San Mateo County Procurement Division Recommendations Follow-Up,,
Superior Court of Califurnia San Mateo Counfit,June 21, 2017:2.
:http:ttwww.sanmateo3Aformofintergovernmentalcooperativepu'"n@willbeextendedthesamepricingand
terms of a contract entered by another entity. Generally, the originating intity will competitively award a contract
that will include language allowing for other entities to utilize the contract, which may te to ttr"i. advantage in terms
9f pr!9ing' thereby gaining economies of scale that they would otherwise not receive if thry .o.p.ted on iheir own.4 Clifford McCue, Jack Pitzer "Centralized vs. Decentialized Purchasing: Current Trends in Governmental
Procurement Practices" Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management (yol l2,Issue: 3)2000: 400. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10, t 108/JpgtFVt- t Z-03-2000--g003. '
2017-2018 San Mateo Counry Civil Grand Jury
;
I
for all purchasing functions. Due to centralized purchasing authority, purchasing agents are
better able to identify goods and services with a high potential for savings and then leverage their
experience, greater knowledge of markets, and their municipality's market power to negotiate
better terms, including lower prices, with vendors.
This report identifies ways the Cities can attain the cost-saving benefits of centralized purchasing
systems while retaining the benefits of a decentralized purchasing system.
Three approaches can improve decentralized purchasing systems without increasing staffing and
operations costs:
(l) Increase the use of "piggybacking" to access beneficial terms of contracts previously entered
by public entities.
(2)Utilize cooperative purchasing agreements to allow Cities to obtain volume discounts among
themselves, even without County participation.
(3) Collaborate with the County's Procurement Division to negotiate lower prices for common
goods and services.
If these changes resulted in even a conservative five percent average savings on procurements,
the County could save more than $ 15 million and the Cities collectively corta save more than
$21.25 million per year.
GLOSSARY and ABBREVIATIONS
California Association of Public Procurement Officials (the CAPPO): The CAppO is a
nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of professional behavior
and ethical conduct in public purchasing. As the oldest public procurement association in the
United States, CAPPO works to provide tools to buyers in the public sector that will help them
develop their professional skills for their benefit and the benefit of their agencies.
California Department of General Services (the DGS or General Services?): The DGS
serves as business manager for the state of California. The DGS provides a variety of services to
state agencies, including procurement and acquisition solutions.
Centralized Procurement: Centralized procurement means that a single department controls
and manages the purchasing for the whole organization. Ideally a manager oversees the
purchasing department regarding what materials need to be purchased and in what quantity.s
City-Counfy Procurement Cooperation (C-CPC): C-CPC is a term for practices, if adopted,
that will allow Cities and the County to save millions of dollars on procurement each year.
Cooperative Purchasing Agreements: A type of procurement in which multiple purchasing entities
collaborate in purchasing to increase their market power, thereby gaining acceis to lower pri..r.
5 Effia Soft, "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing" Effiasoft.comAccessed on May 20,2OlB
https ://effi asoft .com/central ized-vs-decentral ized-purchas in g.
22017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
All20 cities in San Mateo County (the Cities): the Town of Atherton, the City of Belmont, the
City of Brisbane, the City of Burlingame, the Town of Colma, the City of Daly City, the City of
East Palo Alto, the City of Foster City, the City of Half Moon Bay, the Town of Hillsbororgh,
the City of Menlo Park, the City of Millbrae, the City of Pacifica, the Town of Portola Valley,
the City of Redwood City, the City of San Bruno, the City of San Carlos, the City of San Mateo,
the City of South San Francisco, and the Town of Woodside.
Decentralized Procurement: Purchasing control and authority is granted to local branches or
departments. They have the authority to purchase items necessary as per their requirements.6
Piggyback Contracts: A form of intergovernmental cooperative purchasing in which an entity
will be extended the same pricing and terms of a contract entered by another entity. Generally,
the originating entity will competitively award a contract that will include language allowingfor
other entities to utilize the contract, which may be to their advantage in terms of pricing, theieby
gaining economies of scale that they would otherwise not receive if they competed on ih.ir own.7
San Mateo County Finance Officers Group (the SAMFOG): The SAMFOG is an informal
professional group for municipal finance officers in San Mateo County to share information and
resources.
County of San Mateo Procurement Division (the PD): The PD provides procurement services
to all county departments and acts as a regulatory mechanism to help County departments obtain
maximum value for each dollar spent while maintaining compliance with all relevant county,
state and federal laws, ordinances, and policies.
Volume Discount: A Volume Discount is an incentive offered to a buyer that results in a
decreased cost per unit of goods or materials when purchased in greater numbers. Sellers often
offer a volume discount to entice buyers to purchase in larger quantities. The seller can move
more goods or materials, and the buyer receives a more favorable price for the goods.s
BACKGROUND
The 20 cities in San Mateo County together purchased approximately $425 million of in goods
and services in FY 2015-16, representing an estimated 35 percent of their General Fund
spending.e'10 In a time defined by rising labor costs, exploding pension program payments, and
other municipal budget constraints, spending on goods and services still represents a significant
portion of a city's discretionary spending.ll
6 Effra Soft, "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing" Efliasoft.com
7 Principles and Practices of Public Procurement "Usg of Cooperative Contracts for Public procurement,'
California Association of Public Procurement officials Accessed on August 28,2017: l.
http://c.ymcdn.corn/sites/www.cappo.org/resource/collection/FBBFCTBF-369D-43DE-B609-
3D4 1 BA05D I 0E/Cooperati ve%2OContracts.pdf.
s "Quantity Discount" Investopedia, Accessed on: May 20,2018 https://www.investooedia.com/terms/q/quantit_v-
discount.asp#ixzz5 F214B9Sp.
e California State Controller's Office, Schedule of Total City Expenditures by Major Object Classification (2017).
r0 ibid.
It lnterviews with City Finance Officials.
J2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
While every city in the County operates its own purchasing system, all cities share common
practices and operations.12 These commonalities stem from shared state and federal regulatory
requirements, adherence to generally accepted best practices, and similar economic pressures.l3
By identifying systemic purchasing challenges and common solutions, cities have the potential to
achieve consequential cost savings.
In addition to benefiting from cost savings, the effective and efficient purchasing of goods and
services is essential to the proper function of municipal govemment. When purchasing fails to
achieve the highest standard of excellence, the quality and variety of services fall and the
potential for wasting taxpayer money increases.
Advantages of Decentralized Procurement Practices
In decentralized purchasing systems, individual departments are responsible for: (a) identifying
the need for a good or service, (b) conducting the appropriate vendor selection process, and (c)
placing a purchase order for the good or negotiating a contract for services.14 In contrast, under a
centralized purchasing system, individual departments still identify the need for a good or
service, but a central purchasing department is responsible for conducting the appropriate
selection process, negotiating with the vendor, and purchasing the good or service.15
Although these processes might appear identical-a city entity identifies goods and services for
purchase, competitively bids the product, and purchases it from a vendor-fundamental
operational differences and outcomes exist between these two systems.
Historically, limited supply chains and less competitive markets for goods and services required
municipalities to rely on specialized purchasing agents for competitive purchasing.l6 These
purchasing agents, working in central purchasing departments, could negotiate directly with
producers to secure lower prices for goods and services.lT Specialized purchasing roles also gave
agents substantial expertise and experience in their field that today's employees cannot
accumulate.l8
However, as the market for goods and services has grown more competitive (a result of
globalization, the internet, lower transportation costs, and gains to economic productivity) prices
have fallen, leading many to believe that the need for specialized purchasing agents has
12 Interviews with City Finance Officials, Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
13 Interviews with City Finance Officials.
la Clifford McCue, Jack Pitzer "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing: Current Trends in Governmental
Procurement Practices" (2000): a.
15 ibid.
t6 "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing: Current Trends in Governmental Procurement Practices" Journal of
Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financiol Management (2000).
rTMoney Matters "Centralized & Decentralized Purchase: Suitability, Merits and Detriments" Accountlearning.com
Accessed on March 28,2018. https://accountlearning.com/centralized-decentralized-purchase-suitabilify-merits-
demerits-differences.
r8lbid.
42017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
diminished.rr'zo 466i1ionally, the high cost of labor in the San Francisco Bay Area, coupled with
the economic contractions in 2002 and 2008, has placed pressure on public entities to reduce
costs by consolidating positions.2l Under these pressures, decentralized purchasing became the
norm throughout the San Mateo County and California.22
Common Practices in Decentralized Purchasing Systems
In its investigation, the Grand Jury learned that the cities in San Mateo County generally regulate
their decentralized purchasing systems through three primary mechanisms--graduated purcliasing
authority levels, competitive bidding requirements, and budget controls.
All of the Cities delegate purchasing authority to different levels of city employees based on the
size of the purchase; higher ranking employees must approve costlier purchases.23 While the
exact purchasing authority levels vary between cities, Figure I is an example of the allocation of
purchasing authority levels for the City of San Mateo. This graduated purchasing authority
system, which is like those in other cities, gives individual departments the power to make
smaller purchases quickly at market prices, while subjecting larger purchases to increasing
scrutiny.
The Cities also regulate decentralized purchasing systems through competitive bidding
requirements.2s These requirements are meant to ensure fair maiket prices by requiring
purchasers to obtain multiple vendor bids and to select the lowest responsible bidder.26 As with
purchasing authority, competitive bidding requirements follow a graduated approval system
re Michael Sposi, "The Effect of Globalization of Market Structure, Industry Evolution and pricing" Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute 20 t 3 Annual Report, May 3 i, 2013:24.
Ir=ttps :Zwww. aat t asfea
20 Clifford McCue, Jack Pitzer "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing, Cr,r."rrt trends in Governmental
Procurement Practices" (2000) 400.
2r lbid.
22 Interview with City Finance Officials.
23Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
2aGrand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
2sGrand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
26 Qualified bidder with the lowest or best bid price, and whose business and financial capabilities, past
performance, and reputation meet the required standards.
5
FIGURE I
Award A uth orization and Comp etitive Bidding Requirement Levelsfor the City of San
Purchase Levels Authority Required to Approve Purchase Competitive Bidding Requirement
Purchases over $ 100,000 City Council Formal Bid Procedure (RFP)
Purchases between
$50,000 and $99,999
City Manager Open Market Procedures
Purchases between
$25,000 and $49,999
Department Head Open Market Procedures
Purchase under $25,000 Division Manager Open Market Procedures
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
based on size of purchase. For smaller purchases of commodity items where competition already
exists between vendors (e.g., paper products and other offrce supplies), the Cities allow for
purchases on the open market without multiple bids. However, for larger purchases where
generally less competition exists between vendors, stricter bidding requirements apply.
Competitive bidding requirements range from requiring informal bids and formal bids to issuing
a Request for Proposals.
Departmental budget controls are another regulatory check on decentralized purchase systems.2T
Budget controls require city finance officials to confirm that any proposed purchase fits within a
department's budget prior to authorizing a purchase order. As a result of these controls, a
department proposing to make a substantial purchase is incentivizedto seek the lowest
responsible price.28
DISCUSSION
The Limitations of Decentralized Purchasing Systems
While the Cities' decentralized purchasing systems have technically achieved the goals of
obtaining fair market prices while minimizing labor costs, such decentralized purchasing
approaches are not designed to use the Cities' collective marketing power, together with that of
the County,2e to obtain optimum prices and terms.
In modern supply chains, few goods and services have fixed prices. Rather, prices are generally
negotiable, with outcomes contingent on factors like the quantity being purchased, the potential
for future sales, the present level of market demand, the vendor's available stock, and profit
margins.3o Often, the given market price-the price quoted on a store shelf or business'
website-does not represent this variance.3l
In the private sector, dedicated buyers with deep expertise and experience take advantage of that
knowledge and their firms' market power to negotiate lower prices.32 Depending on the
particular good, buyers can often negotiate prices 30 to 40 percent below'omarket," For some
goods, like software, savings upwards of 50 percent are attainable.33
27 Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
28 Interviews with City Finance Officials.
2e Market Power represents a firm's or, in this case, city's capaciry to negotiate prices better than the going market
price. Market power can be exerted through negotiation, buying in bulk, buying "higher" (e.g. buying from a
wholesaler) in the supply chain, etc.
30 Henry Hazlitt, "How Should Prices Be Determined" Foundation for Economic Education, February l, 1967.
Accessed On: June 6,2012 https://fee.org/articles/how-should-prices-be-determined.
3r Krishna, Aradhna, Richard Briesch, Donald Lehmann, and Hong Yuan (2002), "A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of
Price Presentation on Perceived Savings." Journal of Retailing 78 (2),101-18.
https://www8. esb.columbia.edu/researcharchive/articles/969.
32 Severin Borenstein "Understanding Competitive Pricing and Market Power in Wholesale Electricity Markets" I/le
Electricity Journal July 2000: 50. <hrp://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/mba2l2/ElecjoO0mktPower.pdf)
33 Seeking Alpha Editorial Board "Chart: Software Companies - Gross Profit Margins" seekingalpha.comMay 7,
2006. Accessed On: June 12,2018 https://seekingalpha.com/article/10166-chart-software-companies-sross-profit-
margins.
62017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
The Cities' shift from centralized to decentralized purchasing systems evolved over time on a
local basis, with individual cities responding to the immediate needs and available resources.
Regardless of a particular city's path towards decentralized purchasing, cities lost the expertise
necessary to negotiate these kinds of savings. Apart from some employees in public works and
engineering departments, most purchasing activities are a secondary responsibility for the
employees responsible for their department's procurement function.3a While these employees all
receive training on municipal purchasing guidelines and policies, they often lack training and
familiarity with advanced procurement practices.3s For many cities, training employees in
purchasing practices found in a centralized purchasing department is prohibitively expensive.36
This loss of purchasing expertise has real financial consequences. For instance, most of the
Cities' employees are unaware of and untrained in the use of cooperative purchasing databases.3T
Cooperative purchasing databases, like the California Department of General Services' (DGS's)
State Contracts Index Listing and State Leveraged Procurement Agreements, are databases of
pre-negotiated contracts for common goods and services, for prices lower than market.38 By not
piggybacking on these pre-negotiated contracts, the Cities miss the opportunity to purchase a
wide range of products at lower prices.
Employees in decentralized systems often do not identify commonly purchased goods that other
departments are also buying and so miss the opportunity to negotiate lower costs which could be
obtained by purchasing the items in bulk for multiple departments.3e While finance officers do
track purchases on a departmental level, only the City of San Mateo has a staff position
dedicated to tracking the cost, type, quantity, and frequency with which all city departments are
purchasing products.ao In cities that fail to track products purchased across multiple departments,
finance officers cannot identiff goods (like office supplies, fumiture, automobile parts) and
services (like translators), that could be purchased in bulk through a volume discount contract. In
effect, each individual department pays for goods and services at a price that is higher than could
be achieved through purchasing at the municipal level.al
Conversely, in centralized purchasing systems a dedicated staff of purchasing agents specializes
in securing the lowest prices for goods and services.a2 Purchasing agents have the training,
resources, time, and specialization to identify the best vendors and negotiate below-market prices
through leveraging their city's market power.a3 Purchasing agents have the authority and
capacity to unlock low prices by buying in bulk, authorizing long term contracts, and negotiating
volume discounts. Centralized purchasing agents also have acquired specific purchasing
3a Interviews with City Finance Officials.
3s Interviews with City Finance Officials.
36 Interviews with City Finance Officials.
37 Interviews with Finance Officials.
38 Procurement Division "Leveraged Procurement Agreements (LPAs) Califurnia Department of General Services
Accessed on April 5, 20 I 8. <http://www.dgs.ca. g
3e Money Matters "Centralized & Decentralized Purchase: Suitability, Merits and Detriments" 2018.
a0Interview with City Finance Officials.
4r lbid.
a2 Clifford McCue, Jack Pitzer "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing: Current Trends in Governmental
Procurement Practices" 2000.
43 Ibid.
72017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
knowledge over the course of their careers, knowledge which enables them to access lower
prices through hidden markets.aa
Cooperative Purchasing Solutions
In the course of its inyestigation, the Grand Jury learned that each City could adopt three
practices which would improve its decentralized purchasing system without increasing staffing
and operations costs: (l) utilizing piggybacking to access pre-negotiated contracts, (2)
collaborating with other Cities to purchase goods through the use of cooperative purchasing
agreements, and (3) collaborating with San Mateo County's Procurement Division to negotiate
lower prices for common goods and services.
1. Utilize Piggyback Contracts
Piggybacking on pre-negotiated contracts with favorable pricing allows Cities to benefit from
those terms without changing their purchasing practices. Per the California Association of Public
Procurement Officials, Piggybacking (a "Piggyback Cooperative") is:
A form of intergovernmental cooperative purchasing in which an entity will be
extended the same pricing and terms of a contract entered by another entity.
Generally, the originating entity will competitively award a contract that will
include language allowing for other entities to utilize the contract, which may be
to their advantage in terms of pricing, thereby gaining economies of scale that
they would otherwise not receive if they competed on their own (Emphasis
added).as
Piggyback contracts are widely used by public entities in California and nationwide.a6
Piggyback contracts can be to the benefit of both the vendor and the public entity that
negotiated the original cost (the originating entity), as well as any other public entities
that ultimately utilize the contract (piggybacking entities). Benefits can accrue to the
vendor by increasing the potential volume of sales under the agreement, which results in
increased product sales.
The Grand Jury's investigation revealed that although some Cities have used piggyback
contracts in the past, the practice is currently underutilized.aT In fact, the Grand Jury
found during its interviews that City employees at the departmental level were generally
unaware of: (a) the existence of piggyback contracts, (b) the possible cost savings from
piggyback contracts, (c) the numerous piggyback contract databases, and (d) how to use a
piggyback contract in a decentralized purchasing system.
When asked why they did not make greater use of piggyback contracts, officials from
seven of the Cities expressed concems about compatibility with their City's legal
aa Interview with City Finance Officials.
a5Principles and Practices of Public Procurement "Use of Cooperative Contracts for Public Procurement"
California Association of Pubtic Procuremeni Oficials (2017) l.
a6lnterviews with City Finance Officials.
aTlnterviews with City Finance Officials.
82017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
requirements.as They also expressed concem that the time necessary to train department-
level employees to use piggyback contracts and, subsequently, the time spent selecting
the best contract, would be costlier than potential savings. Those officials were also
concerned that existing piggyback contracts would not reflect their city's purchasing
policies, such as environmental and local purchasing preference requirements.4e
While these concerns are legitimate, approaches to piggyback contracting, such as the
one illustrated below, are available:
a
a
The City's Finance Office identifies the most commonly purchased goods and
services across all city departments.
The City Finance Office, in conjunction with city attorneys, searches piggyback
contract databases for compatible contracts on the most common goods and
services and evaluates whether such contracts would follow the city's purchase
preference requirements.
Once compatible contracts have been identified and confirmed with vendors, the
City Finance Office disseminates an internal list of preferred vendors for the
specific goods and services covered by these contracts, in accordance with the
municipality's preferred vendor requirements.
Individual city departments conduct normal purchasing activities, using the list of
preferred vendors when applicable.
a
o
2. Utillze Cooperative Purchasing Agreements
The Cities generally provide comparable services to residents using similar resources and
procedures.s0 Accordingly, they often purchase nearly identical goods and services. Yet, by
purchasing common goods and services individually, each city can only leverage its own market
power to negotiate lower prices. Were the Cities to collaborate with one another in their
purchases of common goods and services, they would increase their purchasing power and
facilitate the negotiation of lower prices.
Cooperative purchasing agreements, in which multiple public entities collaborate in purchasing
to increase their market power, are not new to the Cities.sl They have successfully achieved
significant cost savings in the past through cooperative purchasing agreements. Most notably, in
2015, all of the Cities, together with the County, jointly entered into a cooperative purchasing
agreement with Turbo Data Systems Inc. for common parking ticket citation and adjudication
services. In this arrangement, the Cities paid the County to hire a consultant, issue a request for
proposal (an RFP), and evaluate the responses with a committee consisting of representatives
from Belmont, Burlingame,Daly City, San Mateo, and South San Francisco.S2 This committee,
on behalf of all member agencies, selected Turbo Data Systems as the best candidate.
a8 Interviews with City Finance Officials.
ae lnterviews with City Finance Officials.
50Interviews with City Finance Officials.
5r Interviews with City Finance Officials.
52 Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
92017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
By utilizing a collaborative purchase agreement when selecting Turbo Data systems, Cities
realized an estimated savings approaching 35 to 40 percent of original costs.s3 Before
negotiations, Turbo Data charged processing fees of $1.28 for electronic citations and $1.35 for
hand-written citations. These rates were lowered to $0.50 and $0.80 for electronic and hand-
written citations, respectively.sa Based on the number of citations issued, the County saved
approximately $17,000 per year under the new agreement. A city's approximate savings varied
with the number of citations but were consistent with the County's rates. For smaller cities which
lacked the market power to achieve the pre-contract rates achieved by the County, savings
exceeded 45 percent.ss
Moreover, by paying a nominal sum to San Mateo County to conduct the RFP process, cities
were able to produce a superior RFP at a significantly lower cost than had each city issued its
own request.s6
The Turbo Data Systems cooperative purchasing agreement serves as model of what these
agreements can achieve. When asked why they did not make greater use of cooperative
purchasing agreements, City officials responded that they had difficulty identiffing goods and
services to collaboratively purchase. They attributed this difficulty to the limited communication
channels among city finance officers and the deprioritization of the purchasing function in
finance departments.5T For instance, while the San Mateo County Finance Officer Group
(SAMFOG), which consists of all City finance officials, meets on a bimonthly basis,
procurement is rarely discussed. Despite these difficulties, city officials recognized that
cooperative purchasing agreements have earned Cities significant savings.
To help expand the use of cooperative purchasing agreements, the Grand Jury asked city officials
to identifu commonalities between goods and services that could be purchased cooperatively.
Finance officials reported that goods and services best suited for cooperative purchase are:
o Common: products which are purchased by multiple or all Cities
o HomoBeneous Products that are substantially similar
o Discrete: Products that are measurable in individual units such that they can be
individually purchased
o Foreseeable: Products whose purchase can be predicted, allowing the Cities time to
negotiate and prepare a cooperative purchasing agreement
3. Collaborate with the County's Purchasing Division
The highest potential for cost savings, while maintaining the Cities' decentralized purchasing
systems, can be achieved through collaboration with the County of San Mateo (City-County
53 Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
54lbid.
55 Grand Jury Review of City Procurement Documents.
56 Interviews with City Finance Officials.
5T lnterviews with City Finance Officials.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury l0
\
Procurement Cooperation or C-CPC).
Unlike the Cities, the County maintains a hybrid centralized/decentralized purchasing system,
which includes a dedicated procurement division. Under the County's system, the County of San
Mateo's Procurement Division (PD) is generally responsible for purchases of goods that are
greater than $5,000, while individual departments retain responsibility for smaller purchases.ss
The PD employs a staff of specialized buyers to fulfill its purchasing functions. In FY 2015-
20l6,the County spent more than $300 million on goods and services.se
Collaborating with the County's Procurement Department (PD) provides a unique opportunity
for C-CPC to maximize cost savings for all parties.
As described above, specialized purchasing agents in centralized purchasing departments have
the training, experience, and resources to identify superior vendors and negotiate lower prices
using their entity's market power. Were the Cities to collaborate with the PD in their purchases
of common goods and services, they could increase their purchasing power and thereby facilitate
even greater savings than from their own intercity cooperative purchasing agreements.
This example demonstrates one way the Cities could collaborate with the PD
The PD coordinates with City finance offrcers to identify the common goods and
services used by participating entities.
The PD competitively negotiates and awards contracts for those goods and services
that allow for the Cities to piggyback on the contract.
During negotiations, PD purchasing agents implement volume-discounting, such that
the participation of any of the Cities thereafter unlocks lower prices for all parties.
Once the PD finalizes these contracts, City finance officers disseminate
internal lists of preferred vendors under these agreements, in accordance with
the Cities' preferred vendor requirements, to their respective departments.
To minimize impact on City employees, and thereby increase transition costs,
authorized city employees should be able to buy goods and services in a
method similar to their current systems.
For instance, buyers would search the County Purchasing System for the
desired goods, generate a purchase order through the system, and that pending
order would be sent to the appropriate city purchasing authority for review
and approval.
Upon approval, the County Purchasing System executes the order, sending it
to the vendor. The County Purchasing System also tallies the order for
discounts, recording and reporting to the City the initial savings from
negotiated prices and additional volume discounts.
58lnterview with County Finance Officials.
5e San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, "San Mateo County Procurement Division Recommendations Follow-Up"
(2017)2.
a
o
o
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury ll
The Cities and County can implement these processes, without substantially changing
their existing procurement processes.60 City finance departments already create prefened
vendor lists and disseminate them to departments. The PD's purchasing agents already
conduct negotiations with vendors to unlock volume-based discounts. Indeed, the
increased cost savings are unlocked by combining preexisting and previously
independent operations as to maximize the negotiating power of all parties involved.
Given that the Cities and the County spend over $725 million per year, and assuming only a I
percent average cost saving, for example, municipalities in San Mateo County would save
upwards of $7 million. In a review of the federal government's Strategic Sourcing,6l the
Government Accountability Office found that, "when strategic sourcing was used, annual
savings was along the lines of 5-20 percent."62 While the mechanisms by which federal
government's Strategic Sourcing achieved savings is equivalent to C-CPC, Strategic Sourcing's
larger scale means C-CPC is unlikely to achieve 20 percent savings. The Grand Jury estimates
that a 5-15 percent annual savings spread is achievable through C-CPC.
When the 5-15 percent annual average savings spread is applied to C-CPC, projected savings are
between $ 15 million and $45 million for the County and $21 .25 million and $63.75 million for
the Cities, for a total savings of $108.75 million.
There is precedent for C-CPC within the County and throughout Califomia. As previously
discussed, the Cities and the County have already achieved significant savings through
cooperatively purchased goods and services. Because of this cooperation, the Cities and the
County are familiar with cooperative purchasing agreements and piggyback contracts. As such,
C-CPC would not be introducing new purchasing methods, but rather be introducing a formal
mechanism by which the Cities and County could expand and formalizethe use of cooperative
purchasing practices to achieve greater savings.
Other counties and the State of Califomia have successfully adopted similar C-CPC practices.
For instance,in 1999 Los Angeles County created a cooperative purchasing program with the
cities with its jurisdiction for the purchase of recycled paper goods.63 Under this program, cities
could join Los Angeles County in purchasing recycled paper such that participating entities
benefitted from greater purchasing power. Per the Los Angeles County Procurement Program
website, 26 cities participate in the program, with the City of Los Angeles and County of Los
Angeles alone saving $84,000 and $40,000 per year, respectively.6a Similarly, Alameda County
uses cooperative purchasing with cities to achieve its Strategic Vision for environmental
60 Interviews with City Finance Officials.
6r Strategic Sourcing is the term for cooperative purchasing between federal agencies overseen by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy.
62 Charles Clark, "Government Doesn't use Bulk-Purchasing lnitiative Enough, Auditors Say" Government
Executive October 4, 2014. Accessed On: May 15,
2018.<https://www.sovexec.com/contracting/2012/ l0/government-doesnt-use-bulk-purchasing-initiative-enough-
auditors-say/58590/>
63 Department of Public Works "Los Angeles County Procurement Programs" The County of Los Angeles Accessed
on April 20, 20 18 https://dpw. lacounry. sov/epd/awards/procurement.cfm.
64 Ibid.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury t2
sustainability and economic growth.6s Specifically, Alameda County invites public entities
within its jurisdiction to piggyback on green contracts, in order to achieve lower prices, defray
the higher costs associated with sustainable materials, and promote environmental sustainability
among public agencies.66 To facilitate this C-CPC, Alameda County opens its Procurement
Department and Contracts Team to support and facilitate local public agencies piggybacking on
sustainable contracts.6T While both Los Angeles County and Alameda County leveraged
cooperative purchasing to achieve environmental objectives, the success of these programs
underscores the effectiveness of City-County Procurement Cooperation for achieving cost
savings.
However, there are barriers to collaboration between the Cities and the County. The Grand Jury
has already issued three reports (in 2004, 2015, and2017), identifying dysfunction within the
County's procurement system. Among other issues,the2016-2017 Grand Jury identified that the
PD's subordination to a Deputy Director of Human Resources, is inconsistent with best practices
set forth by the Institute for Public Procurement and the California Association of Public
Procurement Officials and inconsistent with the operational practices of 45 Califomia Counties.68
The2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury concluded that the Procurement Division manager lacked
sufficient independent authority to implement the changes necessary to improve County
procurement. Moreover, as of the date of this writing, the County's Procurement Division
manager position is vacant with the County's most recent director having left for employment
with another public entity.
While the PD is not functioning well now, the County can take steps to improve the PD's
function. Revising the County's purchasing process to allow effective cooperation between the
Cities and the County will not only grant access to aforementioned savings, but also lower
current operational costs. To that end, the Grand Jury has identified nine checkpoints along the
pathway toward City-County Procurement Cooperation. The first three checkpoints are steps the
County can take to prepare for C-CPC. The remaining checkpoints are actions the PD needs to
take in order to implement C-CPC.
6s "strategic Vision 2026" The County of Alameda, Accessed on April 20,2018
y'rttp://www.acgov.org/government/strate gic.htm.
66 "Piggybackng" The County of Alameda, Accessed on: April 20,2018
https ://www. ac gov. ore/sustair/whaUpurchas ing/bids/p i ggyback,htm.
67 Stop Waste "Piggybacking for Green Purchasing" The County of Alameda, Accessed on: April 20,2018
https://www.ac gov.ordsustain/documents/Pi ggybackingResources.pdf.
68 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, "San Mateo County Procurement Division Recommendations Follow-Up":
5-6.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
Checkpoints on the Pathway toward City-County Procurement Cooperation
When subordinate to another department, procurement lacks
the authority and credibility to effectively regulate the
entity's procurement system and/or effectively negotiate
with vendors.
"In the Grand Jury's opinion, these bureaucratic layers
reduce the authority and effectiveness of the procurement
function."70
The PD would be more appropriately located as a direct
report to the County Manager.Tl
2. Hire Experienced Buyers Implementation of C-CPC requires the PD to be staffed with
buyers who have procurement management experience.
Procurement management experience is essential for (a)
implementing structural changes required for C-CPC, (b)
managing current PD buyers, and (c) negotiating deep
discounts with vendors.
1. Move the PD into an
Appropriate Department
3. Develop and Insert
Pigryback Language into
County Contracts
4. Create and Distribute to
the Cities a Register of
Open Contracts
Per the CAPPO, "the placement of the procurement
(division) should be operationally distinct from other
departments and divisions within the entity."6e
Piggyback contracts are the vehicles through which the
Cities and the County can combine their purchasing power,
gain access to deep discounts, and save millions of dollars.
The PD must develop and insert piggyback language into
procurement contracts where applicable.
For the Cities to piggyback on the County's contracts, the
Cities must first be aware of available contracts.
6e "Use of Cooperative Contracts for Public Procurement" California Association of Public Procuremenl Oficials
(2017): t.
70 lbid. 5.
7' Ibid. 8.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury t4
5. Identify the Goods and
Services with the Highest
Potential Savings in
Conjunction with the
Cities.
6. Ensure County
Purchasing Software
Can Track Key
Indicators
7. Ensure County
Purchasing Software
Can Accommodate City
Purchases
8. NegotiateDiscounted
Contracts for those
Goods and Services
The PD should create and distribute to city finance officers a
searchable register of open contracts, including:
o the goods and services . the vendor
o the terms and o other pertinent
conditions information
To focus the PD's efforts and secure the greatest savings for
the Cities and the County, the PD needs to identify the goods
and services with the highest potential savings.
To this end, the PD should survey the Cities to identify (a)
the most commonly purchased category and classes of goods
and services and (b) the goods and service with the highest
potential discounts.
Volume discounts on goods and services are predominately
earned through "steps" (e.g., the first 100 purchases are
discounted at l0 percent, purchases 101-200 are discounted
at l5 percent, and purchases 200+ are discounted at 20
percent.
To achieve discounts, purchasing software must be able to
track key indicators. These indicators include:
. Purchases, by vendor . Purchases, by
o Purchases, by category buyer
o Purchases, by date o Vendor
Performance
The PD should ensure their current procurement system can
track these performance indicators.
To effectively track purchases such that the County can
accurately distribute rebates to the Cities, the PD must track
the number and variety of purchases by City.
Operational costs can be minimized by allowing City
employees to place purchase orders to vendors through the
PD procurement system.
The PD should ensure their current procurement system can
accommodate this purchasing arrangement.
City participation in C-CPC requires County negotiated
contracts to offer a better deal than the Cities could achieve
on their own.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury l5
9. Distribute and Report
Discounts to the Cities on
a Consistent Basis
Once the goods and services with the highest potential for
savings have been identified, the PD's buyers should
negotiate leveraged contract with vendors, achieving
maximum savings through discounting.
In a volume-based discount contract, discounts are based on
the total sales in a given accounting period. Often, discounts
take the foim of a rebate; however, the exact specifications
will depend on the product and the contract.
The PD should develop the tools to effectively report and
distribute discounts to cities.
While implementing the changes necessary to allow C-CPC will come at a cost, the benefits
accrued from crossing these checkpoints will go to great lengths to address the current
"dysfunction" in the PD, in addition to the potential savings from C-CPC.72 The County's
Purchasing Compliance Committee identified in "Purchasing Redesign Report, Procurement of
Goods" 48 deviations from best practices and issued 84 recommendations for improving the
County's procurement process. Notable findings included:
1. "It is unclear who is supposed to monitor the purchasing process."73
2. "Departments and Purchasing Unit staff sometimes go around purchasing procedures but
there is no way to know when this happens; when it is discovered there is no follow up or
action taken and is not clear who should take that action or when."74
3. "Staff often do not know that processes, rules, and regulations exist."7s
4. "Written documents such as handbooks, reference tools and other materials have not been
updated, sometimes for more than 10 years"76
5. "There are no methods to monitor if the County is receiving the best value or if purchases
are consistent from one department to another (maybe one department is paying more
than another for the same item)."77
6. "There is no system in place to know iflwhen current processes either save the County
money or lose money."78
7. "No data is collected and used to monitor performance of the overall purchasing
process."79
8. "We have no way of knowing if we are being fiscally responsible."so
72 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, "San Mateo County Procurement Division Recommendations Follow-Up": 4.
73 lbid. 18.
74 lbid. 18.
75 lbid. lg.
76 lbid.20.
77lbid. 19.
78lbid. 19.
7e lbid. 20.
t0 lbid. 19.
2017-2018 San Mateo County CivilGrand Jury t6
From the Grand Jury's prior reports and the County's Purchasing Compliance Committee's
report, it is eminently clear that the Purchasing Division requires significant reform. The Grand
Jury recommends that the County develop and study a plan to achieve the Checkpoints on the
Pathway towards City-County Procurement Cooperation within current plans to improve the
Purchasing Division.
The Grand Jury recognizes that the implementation of C-CPC will require upfront investment by
the County before significant savings can be achieved. To the extent the County determines the
cost of implementing this plan would result in greater cost to the County not recouped by cost
savings, the County could propose a cost sharing fee for those Cities accessing the collective
purchasing program. City officials expressed pleasure with the RFP cost sharing arrangement for
the Turbo Data Systems contract and expressed willingness to participate in cost sharing
affangements when those contracts would allow their city to access greater savings.
As the County continues to improve the PD, beginning with a Controller's Office Audit to be
completed by December 31, 2018,81 achieving these nine checkpoints may unlock C-CPC and
tens of millions of dollars in potential savings each year.
FINDINGS
Fl. All 20 of the cities in the County purchase goods and services through decentralized
purchasing systems.
F2. Decentralized purchasing systems successfully allow the Cities to procure goods and
services at fair market prices while minimizing labor costs.
F3. The creation of a centralized purchasing department to provide the organization with
advanced procurement services and guidance can be cost prohibitive.
F4. While city employees receive training on municipal purchasing guidelines and policies,
many employees who conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility are not
trained or instructed to negotiate optimum prices by leveraging market power.
F5. City employees who conduct purchasing operations as a secondary responsibility often do
not identifu commonly purchased goods that other departments also purchase and so miss
the opportunity to negotiate lower costs which could be obtained by purchasing the items in
bulk for multiple departments.
F7. Cooperative purchasing practices are compatible with decentralized purchasing systems
and can allow the Cities to leverage their collective market power, without changing
existing purchasing systems.
8r Ibid.27
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury t'7
F6. Cooperative purchasing practices allow multiple public entities to collaboratively purchase
goods and services, thereby gaining economies of scale that they would otherwise not have.
F8. Adoption of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback agreements and
cooperative purchasing agreements, can enable all Cities to obtain lower prices on goods
and services.
F9. Each city has limited communications with each other regarding procurement best
practices, shared purchasing challenges, and purchasing solutions.
F10. The County of San Mateo's Procurement Division is the only remaining public centralized
purchasing department at the City and County level within San Mateo County.
Fl l. Collaboration between the Cities and the Procurement Division through cooperative
purchasing practices could achieve significant cost savings for both the Cities and the
County.
F12. The Procurement Division presently lacks the operational capacity to fully collaborate with
the Cities.
F13. There are no formal channels for communication between the County and the Cities
regarding procurement cooperation opportunities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that each City undertake the
following by no later than February I,2019:
Rl. Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including piggyback contracts and
j oint procurement agreements.
R2. Share with other Cities and the County Procurement Division their procurement needs in
order to identify opportunities for cooperative procurements between the Cities and the
County.
The2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo
do the following by no later than February 1,2019:
R3. Increase the use of cooperative purchasing practices, including the development and
insertion of piggyback language into County contracts, with the Cities.
R4. Share with the Cities the County's procurement needs to identify opportunities for further
cooperative purchasing.
R5. Relocate the County's Procurement Division into an appropriate reporting structure, such
that the Procurement Division shall report directly to the County Manager.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury l8
The2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Mateo
do the following by no later than July 1, 2019.
R6. Develop and study a plan to achieve the Checkpoints on the Pathway towards City-County
Procurement Cooperation within current plans to improve the Purchasing Division,
including:
a. Hire experienced buyers.
b. Create and distribute to the Cities a register of open contracts.
c. Ensure the County's purchasing software can track key indicators.
d. Ensure the County's purchasing software can accommodate city purchases.
e. Identify, in conjunction with the Cities, the goods and services with the highest
potential savings.
f. Negotiate discounted contracts for those goods and services.
g. Distribute and report discounts to the Cities on a consistent basis.
REQUESTS FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests the following to respond to the
foregoing Findings and Recommendations referring in each instance to the number thereof:
a
a
The City Councils of The Town of Atherton, the City of Belmont, the City of Brisbane,
the City of Burlingame, the Town of Colma, the City of Daly City, the City of East Palo
Alto, the City of Foster City, the City of Half Moon Bay, the Town of Hillsborough, the
City of Menlo Park, the City of Millbrae, the City of Pacifica, the Town of Portola
Valley, the City of Redwood City, the City of San Bruno, the City of San Carlos, the City
of San Mateo, the City of South San Francisco, and the Town of Woodside to respond no
later than 90 days after the date of this Grand Jury Report.
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to respond no later than 90 days after the date of
this Grand Jury Report.
Each City Council and the County Board of Supervisors should respond to the findings and
recommendations with respect to their own policies, procedures, and operations, not in regards to
the Cities and the County as a whole.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the
governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements
of the Brown Act.
METHODOLOGY
Documents
The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents
Purchasing Policy Manuals or equivalent documents from: the Town of Atherton, the
City of Belmont, the City of Brisbane, the City of Burlingame, the Town of Colma, the
City of Daly City, the City of East Palo Alto, the City of Foster City, the City of Half
a
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury l9
Moon Bay, the Town of Hillsborough, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Millbrae, the
City of Pacifica, the Town of Portola Valley, the City of Redwood City, the City of San
Bruno, the City of San Carlos, the City of San Mateo, the City of South San Francisco,
and the Town of Woodside.
o The California Association of Public Procurement Officials, Inc.:
Best Practices: Global Procurement Best Practiceso The Turbo Data Contract between San Mateo County and Turbo Data Systems Inc.o Merno to the Burlingame City Council: Turbo Data Contract Recommendationo Memo to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors: Turbo Data Contract
Recommendation
Interviews
The Grand Jury conducted interviews with City Procurement Officers, City Management,
County Procurement Officers, and County Management.
a
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Borenstein, Severin. "Understanding Competitive Pricing and Market Power in Wholesale
Electricity Markets" The Electricity Journal July, 2000: 50
http://faculty.haas.berkelev.edu/borenste/mba2l2lElecjo00mktPower.pdf.
Clark, Charles. "Government Doesn't use Bulk-Purchasing Initiative Enough, Auditors Say"
Government Executive October 4, 2014. <
https://www.govexec.com/contractinq/20I2/10/government-doesnt-use-bulk-purchasing-
Department of Public Works "Los Angeles County Procurement Programs" The County of Los
Angeles Accessed on April 20,2018 https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/awards/procurement.cfm.
Hazlitt, Henry. "How Should Prices Be Determined" Foundationfor Economic Education,
February l, 1967 . https://fee.ore/articles/how-should-prices-be-determined.
Krishna, Aradhna, fuchard Briesch, Donald Lehmann, and Hong Yuan (2002), "A Meta-
Analysis of the Impact of Price Presentation on Perceived Savings." Journal of Retailing 78 (2),
I 0 I - 1 8. https : //www8. ssb. columbia. edu/researcharchive/articles/969.
McCue, Clifford. Pitzer, Jack. "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing: Current Trends in
Governmental Procurement Practices" Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial
Management (Yol12, Issue: 3) 2000: 400
1108/JPBAFM-
Money Matters. "Centralized & Decentralized Purchase: Suitability, Merits and Detriments"
Accountlearning.com Accessed on March 28,2018. https://accountlearning.corn/centralized-
decentral ized-purchase-suitabi lity-merits-demerits-differences.
"Piggybacking" The County of Alameda, Accessed on: April 20,2018
https : //www.ac gov. ore/sustair/what/purchasin g/bids/pi g gyback.htm.
Principles and Practices of Public Procurement "Use of Cooperative Contracts for Public
Procurement" California Associotion of Public Procurement Officials Accessed on
August 28,2017: l.
htto ://c.vmcdn.com/si tes/www.caono. ors/resource/co Ilection/FB BFC 7RF-369D-43DE-
8609-3D4 I BA05D I 0E/Cooperative%20Contracts.pdf
Procurement Division "Leveraged Procurement Agreements (LPAs) Califurnia Department of
General Services Accessed on April 5, 2018
http ://www.dss.ca. eov/pd/Pro grams/Leveraged. aspx.
"Quantity Discount" Investopedia, Accessed on: May 20,2018
https ://www. i nvestopedia. com/terms/q./quantitL-d iscount. asp#ixzz5 F2 14 B 9 Sp.
2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2t
a
i n i t i at iv e - e nou gh- oudi t o r s - s a:t/ 5 I 5 9 0/>
I
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. "San Mateo County Procurement Division
Recommendations Follow-Up" Superior Court of California San Mqteo County, June 21 ,2017
2 http://www.sanmateocoun.org/documents/grand-iury/2016/procurement.pdf.
"schedule of Total City Expenditures by Major Object Classification" California State
Controller's Ofice, Accessed on: October 21,2017 https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/City-
Expenditures/Schedule-of-Total-C ity-Expenditures-by-Maj or-Obj eclq6pc -n5bp.
Seeking Alpha Editorial Board "Chart: Software Companies - Gross Profit Margins"
seekingalpha. com May 7 ,2006 https://seekingalpha.com/article/ I 0 1 66-chart-software-
companies- gross-profi t-margins
Soft, Effia. "Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing" Effiasoft.com Accessed on May 20, 2018
https ://effi asoft .com/centralized-vs-decentralized-purchasin g.
Sposi, Michael. "The Effect of Globalization of Market Structure, Industry Evolution and
Pricing" Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute 20I3
Annual Report, May 31,2013:p9.24
https://www.dallasfed.org/-/media/documents/institute/annual/2013/annual l3f.pdf.
Stop Waste "Piggybacking for Green Purchasing" The County of Alameda, Accessed on: April
20,2019 https://www.aceov,org/sustain/documents/PigeybackingResources.pdf.
"strategic Vision 2026- The County of Alomeda, Accessed on April 20,2018
ft rp ://www. ac gov.or g/govemmenVstrate gic.htm.
Issued: July 19,2018
2017-2018 San Mateo County CivilGrand Jury 22
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Opposing Proposition 6, the November 2018
Statewide Ballot Measure to Repeal Transportation Funds
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution opposing the Proposition 6, a statewide
ballot measure on the November ballot that would repeal transportation funding.
BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017, which raises $5 billion annually over the next decade to make road
safety improvements, fix potholes, and repair local streets, highways, bridges, and overpasses,
with the revenues split equally between state and local government projects. In June 2018,
California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 69, which ensured that transportation funds
can only be used for transportation purposes, thereby holding state and local governments
accountable to taxpayers. The City of Burlingame endorsed Proposition 69 prior to the June
election and also opposed a proposed November ballot proposition then in circulation (Attorney
General #17-0033) that would repeal these new transportation funds and make it more difficult to
raise state and location transportation funds in the future. That ballot measure qualified for the
November statewide ballot and is now Proposition 6.
DISCUSSION
Cities and counties own and operate more than 81% of streets and roads in California, and people
are dependent upon a safe, reliable, local transportation network. The 2016 California Statewide
Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment, which provides critical analysis and information on
the local transportation network’s condition and funding needs, indicates that the condition of the
local transportation network is deteriorating at an increasing rate.
California has more than 1,600 bridges and overpasses that are structurally deficient and unsafe,
and 89% of counties have roads that are in ‘poor’ or ‘at-risk’ condition. According to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Association, there were more than 3,600 fatalities on California roads in
2016, with poor road conditions as a major factor in vehicle collisions and accidents.
Resolution Opposing State Proposition 6 September 17, 2018
2
Proposition 6 would eliminate more than $52 billion over the next 10 years in existing
transportation funding, including $15 billion in direct apportionments, and $11 billion in available
competitive grant funding, to cities and counties statewide. If approved by the voters, the measure
would stop funding for more than 6,500 transportation improvement projects currently underway
or planned in every California community, jeopardizing public safety by eliminating thousands of
projects to fix unsafe bridges and overpasses, repair crumbling and unsafe roads, and enhance
pedestrian safety.
FISCAL IMPACT
If Proposition 6 were to pass, the City would lose approximately $500,000 per year in designated
tax revenue for transportation infrastructure projects.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• City Resolution Supporting Proposition 69 and Opposing Attorney General #17-0033
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OPPOSING
PROPOSITION 6, THE NOVEMBER 2018 STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURE TO REPEAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81% of streets and roads in
California and people are dependent upon a safe, reliable, local transportation network; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment,
which provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network’s condition
and funding needs, indicates that the condition of the local transportation network is deteriorating
at an increasing rate; and
WHEREAS, California has more than 1,600 bridges and overpasses that are structurally
def icient and unsafe and 89% of counties have roads that are in ‘poor’ or ‘at-risk’ condition; and
WHEREAS, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, there were
more than 3,600 fatalities on California roads in 2016, with poor road conditions as a major factor
in vehicle collisions and accidents; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 6 would eliminate more than $52 billion over the next 10 years in
existing transportation funding, including the $15 billion in direct apportionments, and $11 billion
in available competitive grant funding, to cities and counties statewide; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 6 would stop funding for more than 6,500 transportation
improvement projects currently underway or planned in every California community; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 6 would eliminate approximately $500,000 annually dedicated to
the City of Burlingame and halt critical investments in future transportation improvement projects
in our community, such as our annual street resurfacing efforts; and
WHEREAS, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 69 in June, thereby ensuring the
transportation funds can only be used for transportation purposes, holding state and local
governments accountable to taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 6 would eliminate transportation revenues that are accountable
to taxpayers, cannot be diverted or borrowed, and that voters overwhelmingly dedicated to fixing
our roads.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City of Burlingame hereby opposes Proposition 6 on the November 2018 ballot; and
2. The City of Burlingame can be listed as a member of the No on Prop. 6 Coalition, a diverse
coalition of local governments, public safety organizations, business, labor, environmental
leaders, transportation advocates and other organizations throughout the state.
Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, 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 17th day of September, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
RESOLUTTON NO. 045-2018
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAI'E SUPPORTING
PROPOSITION 69 AND OPPOSING REPEAL OF SB 1
WHEREAS, in April 2017, Califomia passed 'The Road Repair and Accountability Act"
(SB 1) to raise $5 billion annually in long-term, dedicated transportation funding to make road
safety improvements, fix potholes, and repair local streets, highways, bridges, and overpasses,
with the revenues split equally between state and local government projects; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 will allocate over $365 million in critically-needed funding throughout
San Mateo County over ten years, including $8.49 million in Burlingame, for such projects as
the City's annual street repairs and resurfacing program; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 contains strong accountability provisions to streamline projects by
cutting red tape to ensure transportation funds are spent efficiently and effectively, while also
establishing the independent office of Transportation lnspector General to perform audits,
improve efficiency, and increase transparency; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 69 on the June 20'18 ballot would add additional accountability
for taxpayers by preventing the State Legislature from diverting or raiding any new
transportation revenues for nontransportation improvement purposes; and
WHEREAS, there is also a proposed November 2018 ballot measure (Attorney General
#17-0033) cunently being circulated for signatures that would repeal the new transportation
revenues provided by SB 1 and make it more difficult to increase funding for state and local
transportation improvements in the future; and
WHEREAS, this proposed November proposition would raid funds annually dedicated to
the City of Burlingame and halt future transportation improvement projects in the community;
and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities has asked all member cities to formally
support Proposition 69 on the June 2018 statewide general election ballot and oppose repeal of
SB 1 slated for the November 2018 ballot.
WHEREAS, California's cities, counties, and transportation agencies face a statewide
backlog of over $130 billion in needed funds to make transportation infrastructure
improvements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES THAT:
The City supports Proposition 69, the June 2018 constitutional amendment to prevent new
transportation funds from being diverted for non-transportation purposes;
The City opposes the proposed November ballot proposition (Attorney General #17-0033)
that would repeal the new transportation funds and make it more dfficult to raise state and
location transportation funds in the future; and
The City supports and can be listed as a member of the Coalition to Protect Local
Transportation lmprovements, a diverse coalition of local govemment, business, labor,
transportation and other organization throughout the state, in support of Proposition 69 and
opposing the repeal of SB 1.
Micha B g, Ma
l, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlinga e, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
day of April, 2018 and was adopted by the following vote:
ncil held on the 2nd
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
Councilmembers: BEACH, BROWNRIGG, COLSON IGHRAN, ORTIZ
Councilmembers: NONE
Councilmembers: NONE
Meghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
\
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement for Professional Services With Group 4 Architecture, Research
& Planning, Inc. and Approving an Initial Appropriation of $3,726,000 for the
New Community Center and Washington Park Renovation Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager
to execute the Agreement for Professional Services with Group 4 Architecture, Research &
Planning, Inc. (Group 4) for construction documents (30% through 100%), bidding support,
construction administration, and associated work at a cost of $3,726,000 and approving an initial
appropriation of $3,726,000 for the new Community Center and Washington Park renovation
project.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2015, the City Council approved a contract with Group 4 for the conceptual design
services for the Burlingame Community Center and Washington Park renovation in the amount of
$192,310. The City subsequently amended the agreement to include artist renderings and a
promotional video and amended it a second time to include refinement to the conceptual plans,
development of schematic designs, CEQA documentation, and associated work.
On March 19, 2018, the City Council reviewed the latest building plans for the Community Center.
After public comment and Council discussion, the City Council requested that Group 4 further refine
the Pavilions conceptual building option and reduce the scope of the project as a cost-saving
measure. The revised scope includes the Community Center building, parking underneath the
building and adjacent to the building, a playground, and a full-sized basketball court.
Group 4 has been working on the schematic design phase (30% construction documents), and
staff will bring the schematic designs to the City Council for approval at the November 5, 2018
meeting.
Agreement with Group 4 Architecture, Research & Planning Inc. September 17, 2018
2
DISCUSSION
The next step in the project is the construction document phase. This will be followed by bidding,
award of construction contract, construction, and closeout. In order to ensure a smooth transition
without work being delayed, staff is requesting approval of the agreement with Group 4.
The scope of services is Exhibit A of the agreement, attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
A budget for the new Community Center construction project has not yet been established. If the
agreement for construction documents is approved, staff requests an associated capital
appropriation of $3,726,000 for the project to fund this phase of work within the Facilities Capital
Improvement Fund. Initially funded with an appropriation from the City’s Capital Investment
Reserve, the project will ultimately be funded with a combination of lease revenue bond proceeds
and other revenue sources.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Group 4 Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WITH GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH & PLANNING, INC. AND APPROVING AN
INITIAL APPROPRIATION OF $3,726,000 FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AND
WASHINGTON PARK REMOVATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, in 2012, the City staff issued a Request for Proposals for the Community
Center Master Plan project; and
WHEREAS, the City received 12 proposals, and a committee of Councilmembers and City
staff interviewed the top five firms; and
WHEREAS, Group 4 Architecture, Research & Planning, Inc. was determined to be the
most qualified and appropriate firm to provide the services; and the City Council approved a
contract with the firm at the November 5, 2012 Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015, the City Council approved a contract with Group 4
Architecture, Research & Planning, Inc. for the conceptual design services for the Burlingame
Community Center and Washington Park renovation in the amount of $192,310; and
WHEREAS, the City amended the agreement to include artist renderings and a
promotional video, increasing the contract amount to $225,310; and
WHEREAS, the City amended the contract again to include refinement to the conceptual
plans, development of schematic designs, CEQA documentation, and associated work in the
amount of $672,887; and
WHEREAS, the conceptual plan is complete, and staff will request that the City Council
approve the schematic design in November of 2018; and
WHEREAS, the next phase is the construction document, bidding, and construction
management phase; and
WHEREAS, a new professional services agreement with Group 4 Architecture, Research
& Planning, Inc. is necessary to continue with the new Community Center and Washington Park
renovations project; and
WHEREAS, the debt service funding from Measure I and other General Fund monies, $2
million in total, has been included in the budget for FY 2018-19 in anticipation of the bond issuance
for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council approves the agreement with Group 4 Architecture, Research &
Planning, Inc. to include construction document, bidding, construction management, and
associated work at a project cost of $3,726,000.
2. The City of Burlingame’s 2018-19 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Budget is hereby
amended to include $3,726,000 for the new Community Center and Washington Park
project, with funding provided from the City’s Capital Investment Reserve.
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute the agreement and any necessary documents
to undertake the above said work.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on September
17, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH & PLANNING, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between Group 4 Architecture, Research & Planning,
Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of Burlingame, a California municipal corporation ("City").
Consultant and City agree:
1.Services. City wishes to obtain the services of Consultant for the new Community
Center and Washington Park project including the following: Design Development, Construction
Documents, Bidding and Award, Construction Administration, Project Closeout, and associated
tasks necessary to complete the project. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2.Compensation. Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein
required of Consultant for an amount not to exceed $3,725,963 including all materials and other
reimbursable amounts "Maximum Compensation". Consultant shall submit invoices on a
monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to
determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief
description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent
and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant's signature.
3.Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on
January 1, 2022 unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof
Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to
completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this
Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control,
other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract
Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date.
4.Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the
prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that
Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
5.Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages . specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance
coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance and original endorsements to City. Except in the case of professional
design/errors and omissions insurance, the City shall be named as a primary insured.
6.Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or
agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement for Professional Services With Griffin Structures for
Construction Management Services and Approving an Initial Appropriation
of $1,100,000 for the New Community Center and Washington Park
Renovation Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager
to execute the Agreement for Professional Services with Griffin Structures for Construction
Management Services and approving an initial appropriation of $1,100,000 for the New Community
Center and Washington Park Renovation Project.
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2015, the City Council ratified a contract with Group 4 Architecture, Research &
Planning, Inc. for the conceptual design services for the Burlingame Community Center and
Washington Park renovation project. On July 2, 2018, the City Council revised the scope of the
project to include the Community Center building, parking underneath the building and adjacent to
the building, a playground, a full-sized basketball court, and a new picnic area.
Since that time, Group 4 has been working on the schematic design phase (30% construction
documents), and staff anticipates bringing the schematic designs to the City Council for approval
at the November 5, 2018 City Council meeting.
Due to the size and complexity of the project, staff recommends retaining the services of a
construction management firm.
DISCUSSION
On July 5, 2018, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for construction management services
for this project. The City received eight responses to the RFP; four firms were subsequently invited
to an interview: Griffin Structures, JKL, Cummings, and CGS. The panel included Assistant
Director of Public Works Art Morimoto, Deputy Director of Public Works Operations Rob Mallick,
and Parks and Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad. Staff reviewed the presentations and
determined that Griffin Structures is well qualified to perform the work based on their experience
Agreement with Griffin Structures September 17, 2018
2
and knowledge of construction management of similar projects. Staff has negotiated the following
scope of professional services with Griffin Structures in the amount of $1,098,580:
Phase 1 - Preconstruction
• Construction management coordination and value engineering;
• Project budgeting and scheduling; and
• Temporary facilities and public relations activities.
Phase 2 – Plan Check and Bidding
• Addenda review;
• Bid review, evaluation and recommendations; and
• If needed, rebidding.
Phase 3 – Construction
• Preconstruction conference and contract administration;
• Submittal procedures and meetings;
• Quality assurance, quality control and coordination of technical inspections and testing;
• Endorsements of insurance: performance and payment bonds;
• Attending meetings, maintaining on-site records, schedule of values and processing
payments, and project status reports;
• Evaluate change order proposals and prepare change order reports;
• Contractor claims and accounting records;
• Progress reports and completion of contracts and projects;
• Permits and Storm Water Prevention Plan;
• Initial start-up and testing; and
• Equipment instruction manuals, warranties, and releases.
Phase 4 – Project Close-out and Post Construction
• Relocation and user training;
• Punch lists and project as-builts, closeout and warranties;
• Final claims releases, project report and payment; and
• User complaints and year-end walk through.
The professional services fee amount represents approximately 2.75% of the construction cost of
$40,000,000. (The final project construction cost is still being developed.) The fee amount is
reasonable and consistent with industry standards for construction management, inspection, and
construction material testing and quality assurance services based on the scope and complexity of
the project as well as performing public outreach to the stakeholders during the construction.
FISCAL IMPACT
A budget for the New Community Center construction project has not yet been established. If the
agreement for construction management services is approved, staff requests an associated capital
appropriation of $1,100,000 for the project to fund this portion of work within the Facilities Capital
Improvement Fund. Initially funded with an appropriation from the City’s Capital Investment
Agreement with Griffin Structures September 17, 2018
3
Reserve, the project will ultimately be funded with a combination of lease revenue bond proceeds
and other revenue sources.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Professional Services Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. _______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GRIFFIN STRUCTURES FOR CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND APPROVING AN INITIAL APPROPRIATION OF
$1,100,000 FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER AND WASHINGTON PARK
RENOVOATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City is in the process of completing the schematic designs for a new
community center and Washington Park renovation; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends retaining the services of a construction management
firm; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2018, the City issued a Request for Proposals for construction
management services for the New Community Center and Washington Park Renovation project
and received eight responses; and
WHEREAS, City staff interviewed four of the firms that submitted responses; and
WHEREAS, Griffin Structures was determined to be the most qualified and appropriate
firm to provide the services to the City by the committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council approves the agreement with Griffin Structures for construction
management services and associated work at a cost of $1,098,580.
2. The City of Burlingame’s 2018-19 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Budget is hereby
amended to include $1,100,000 for the New Community Center and Washington Park
project construction management services, with funding provided from the City’s Capital
Investment Reserve.
3. The City Manager is authorized to execute the agreement and any necessary documents
to undertake the above said work.
_____________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of
September, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a
Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates Inc. to
Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed
Development of a New Commercial Recreation Facility (Topgolf) at 250 Anza
Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute
a Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers Associates Inc. (DJP&A) for
environmental review services in the amount of $111,502 related to the development of a Topgolf
commercial recreation facility on approximately 13 acres of a City-owned property in the Bayfront
area of Burlingame, which currently contains the Burlingame Golf Center located at 250 Anza
Boulevard, Burlingame.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2016, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the lease management of the
Golf Center site for the operation of golf or other recreational or entertainment activities that would
be open to the public. On March 21, 2017, the City Council selected TopGolf USA Inc. as the
preferred operator of the site. On May 21, 2018, the City Council adopted an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement (ENA) with Topgolf that covers the terms of the environmental review and design review
process to be completed, at which time a Final Lease Agreement can be executed.
The proposed project would include the development of a Topgolf commercial recreation
entertainment complex on an approximately 13-acre portion of a City-owned property. The
proposed 76,489 square foot, three-level building would include 120 climate-controlled hitting bays
along with a restaurant, outdoor dining, and indoor event space. In addition to the internal building
areas, an external mini-golf activation area is proposed adjacent to the outdoor patio area, on the
south side of the property. This ±20,000 SF outdoor activation area would provide a family-friendly
activity for patrons during off-peak as well as peak times when there may be a wait for hitting bays
within the venue. The outfield area (range) would be approximately five acres and 240 yards from
the tee line (at the building) to the net line and would include ten illuminated round targets that
would be located 20 to 215 yards away from the tee line. The outfield perimeter would be completely
enclosed by a transparent netting ranging in height from 90 feet to 190 feet high secured by steel
poles.
Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers Associates Inc. September 17, 2018
2
The project would include 522 parking spaces provided in two parking fields surrounding the main
building and driving range. This is in addition to the lower parking field, which is currently serving
the existing driving range and soccer field. Access to the Topgolf site would be provided through a
shared access driveway along Anza Boulevard as well as a proposed driveway connection to
Airport Boulevard.
DISCUSSION
The Community Development Department circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three
environmental consultants qualified to provide environmental review services for development
projects, and two of the three firms responded to the RFP. After reviewing the proposals, the
Community Development Department selected DJP&A to perform the environmental review
required for the proposed Topgolf project. Given the uniqueness of the Topgolf use, the Bayfront
location, and the former landfill use of the site, staff assessed the two proposals carefully. Final
selection of the CEQA consultant was based on the combination of the consultant’s previous
experience in preparing CEQA analysis for other Topgolf projects (which includes specific issues
related to the pole netting, noise, and trip generation rates), as well as previous experience in
preparing CEQA documents for the City of Burlingame.
Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under state law, but such review is
funded by the development applicant. Therefore, although the contract is with the City of
Burlingame, the applicant will pay $111,502 to the City to cover the costs of the environmental
review. The City will administer the contract and will pay the consultant on a monthly basis as
services are rendered.
Attached is a draft Agreement for Professional Services with DJP&A to perform the environmental
review services for the proposed project, in an amount not to exceed $111,502 including optional
services for peer review of both the traffic and geotechnical studies as well as an air quality analysis
if triggers warrant further air analysis. Because the cost of the agreement exceeds $100,000,
Council approval is required. The Scope of Work for services to be provided by DJP&A is included
in the proposal attached to this report as Exhibit 3.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the project's environmental review is provided by the project applicant. Therefore, there
will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Resolution
• Draft Agreement for Professional Services with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
• Scope of Work – David J. Powers & Associates Inc. Proposal to Prepare Environmental
Documentation for the Topgolf Burlingame Golf Center Project at 250 Anza Boulevard,
Burlingame
RESOLUTION NO.
1
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SERVICES RELATED TO THE TOPGOLF DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT
250 ANZA BOULEVARD, BURLINGAME
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by TopGolf USA Inc. to develop a commercial
recreation entertainment complex on an approximately 13-acre portion of a City-owned property with a
76,489 square foot building with 120 hitting bays, a restaurant, outdoor dining area, and indoor event space
at 250 Anza Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review
of the project must occur prior to consideration of the proposed development of the Topgolf facility at 250
Anza Boulevard by the Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (DJP&A) has submitted a proposal to conduct the
required environmental review related to the Topgolf project, at 250 Anza Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, an agreement has been prepared incorporating the Scope of Services prepared by
DJP&A in the amount of $111,502.00, which was found to be adequate to provide the level of
environmental review required for the proposed Topgolf project at 250 Anza Boulevard, and that the costs
associated with the services to be provided by DJP&A are to be reimbursed by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, because the agreement will authorize work in excess of $100,000, City Council
approval is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. for environmental review services related to the proposed
Topgolf facility, a commercial recreation entertainment complex, at 250 Anza Boulevard with the
Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for a maximum cost of $111,502.00, as stated in the
Scope of Work.
2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the
Professional Services Agreement.
_______________________________________
Mayor
2
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, 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 17th day of
September, 2018, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________________
City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between David J. Powers & Associates Inc. (DJP&A)
(“Consultant”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”).
Consultant and City agree:
1. Services. Consultant shall provide environmental consulting services for review
of a proposed commercial recreation entertainment complex, Topgolf, with a 76,489 square foot
building with 120 hitting bays, a restaurant, outdoor dining area and indoor event space on an
approximately 13-acre portion of a City owned property at 250 Anza Boulevard, as further set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of
the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $111,502.00, including all materials and
other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”), for preparation of a CEQA document
for the proposed Topgolf facility at 250 Anza Boulevard, Burlingame. Consultant shall submit
invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient
information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall
include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number
of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant’s
signature.
3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on
December 31, 2019, unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof.
Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to
completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this
Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant’s control,
other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City’s Contract
Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date.
4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the
prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that
Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance
coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance to City.
2
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or
agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim
arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees,
agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold
harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and
indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8.
Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not
relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This
indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall
have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time
by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination,
Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to
the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the
event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the
project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall,
without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance
of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services
performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any
damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished
nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs,
computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions,
prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the
property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited
to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material
referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be
made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation
on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to
the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall
return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination.
9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall
abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all
work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws,
statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or
registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by
law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and
3
Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any
applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently
has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render
the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state,
local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter
arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that
the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its
compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this
Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or
oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary
of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This
Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the
City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly
state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not
constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a
different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but
the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the
Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the
document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California.
12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to
the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter
into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into
this Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision
by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the
authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the
remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give
effect to the intentions of the parties.
14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i)
depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such
notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage
paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by
4
facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the
sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by
personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the
receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the
address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent.
15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the
term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be
considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or
complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement.
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine,
the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the
plural.
The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is
permissive.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same
or a different provision of this Agreement.
When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost
and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is
made otherwise.
Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to
restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees,
contractors, subcontractors and employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
501 Primrose Road 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95126
By: By:
Lisa Goldman Akoni Danielsen
City Manager Vice President
Date: Date:
--
5
Attest: Federal Employer ID Number:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number:
City Clerk Expiration Date:
6
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane
City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A Scope of Work
Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
September 7, 2018
Catherine Keylon
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Sent Via e-mail: ckeylon@burlingame.org
RE: REVISED Proposal to Provide Environmental Consulting Services for the TopGolf
Burlingame Golf Center Project, City of Burlingame
Dear Ms. Keylon:
David J. Powers & Associates (DJP&A) is pleased to provide you with this REVISED scope of
work to prepare an Initial Study for the TopGolf project in Burlingame. The approximately 13-acre
project site is located at 250 Anza Boulevard in the Bayfront area of Burlingame, adjacent to the
Burlingame Soccer Complex. Currently, the site operates as a driving range known as the
Burlingame Golf Center and was previously a landfill. The property is bordered by Airport
Boulevard to the north, DoubleTree Hotel to the east, Sanchez Marsh to the south, and the City of
Burlingame Waste Water Treatment Plan to the west.
It is our understanding the project proposes to redevelop the site with a TopGolf commercial
recreation and sports complex. The proposed TopGolf facility would consist of a three-level,
approximately 84,140 square-foot main building, outdoor patio, and an approximately five-acre
outdoor driving range outfield. The proposed facility would be located on the site so that the tee line
is facing northeast, away from the afternoon sun and residential properties opposite the adjacent
Highway 101/Bayshore Freeway.
The main building of the proposed TopGolf facility would have 120 hitting bays, including bays
designated for golf instruction and team practice. The maximum capacity proposed for this facility
would be 1,804 occupants, including employees and guests.
Attached is a scope of work that describes the main issues to be discussed in the Initial Study, and
the estimated cost and schedule for completion. Our scope of work was prepared based upon the
information you have provided and our previous experience with a TopGolf project in the City of
San José Alviso area. Our work will be billed on a time and materials basis, in accordance with the
attached fee schedule. If we do not need all the staff hours/cost that have been budgeted, we will
only charge you for the time actually spent completing the work.
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
If this proposal is acceptable to you, it can be attached to the City’s standard consultant agreement as
a scope of work. Please do not hesitate to contact our Associate Project Manager, Tali Ashurov
(direct line: 510-458-3041, email: tashurov@davidjpowers.com) if you have any questions
regarding this proposal or need any additional information. We appreciate your consideration of our
firm for this work and look forward to working with you on this project.
Best regards,
Will Burns
Principal Project Manager
1
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
TopGolf Initial Study Scope of Work
The project proposes to redevelop approximately 13 acres of the site with a TopGolf commercial
recreation and sports complex. The proposed TopGolf facility would consist of a three-level,
approximately 84,140 square-foot main building, outdoor patio, and an approximately five-acre
outdoor driving range outfield. The proposed facility would be located on the site so that the tee line
is facing northeast, away from the afternoon sun and residential properties opposite the adjacent
Highway 101/Bayshore Freeway.
In addition to the internal building areas, an external mini-golf activation area is proposed adjacent
to the outdoor patio area, on the south side of the property. This approximately 20,000 SF outdoor
activation area would provide a family-friendly activity for patrons during off-peak as well as peak
times when there may be a wait for hitting bays within the venue.
It is our understanding the project would require approvals from the City of Burlingame for a Design
Review and a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational facility on a property zoned as Unclassified.
PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
DJP&A will prepare an Initial Study consistent with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Burlingame. The Initial Study will include a
project description, discussion of consistency with applicable plans and policies, and a section that
includes a description of existing conditions on the site, the CEQA environmental checklist, and an
explanation of project effects and mitigations, as described below. For your convenience, a list of
information assumed to be provided by TopGolf is included in this scope of work on pages 6-7 of
this proposal.
Based upon our current understanding of this project, it is believed that the project will not result in
any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, and that all appropriate mitigation measures
will be incorporated into the project. Therefore, the project would be eligible for an Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration.1
Upon completion of the Administrative Draft Initial Study (ADIS), DJP&A will submit up to five
hard copies of the document to City Staff for review and comment. Once DJP&A receives
comments from the City, DJP&A will revise the document and submit one electronic copy of a
“Screencheck” Initial Study to the City for final review. After incorporating final edits from the
City (if any), DJP&A will provide up to 15 hard copies and one PDF of the Initial Study to the City
for its use and departmental files. Up to three hard copies and one CD of the Initial Study will be
provided to TopGolf.
1 If the outcome of the environmental review determines that the project would result in a significant unavoidable
impact, or that the project does not want to include the features required to mitigate impacts to a less than
significant level, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required. DJP&A is capable of preparing
the EIR under a separate scope of services.
2
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
The primary components of the Initial Study are outlined below:
Project Description
Based on information provided to DJP&A by TopGolf, the Initial Study will provide a detailed
description of the proposed project, including the physical characteristics (e.g., maximum
development, maximum building and net height, building setbacks, landscaping and hardscape,
circulation, etc.) as well as the operational characteristics of the development. For those aspects of
project design that may not yet be known, we will rely on more general parameters and/or
performance standards. This section will also discuss whether the proposed project is consistent
with applicable land use controls, and will include a list of necessary discretionary actions and
decision-making agencies. Maps and graphics will be provided to illustrate the text.
Consistency with Plans and Policies
Throughout the Initial Study, in relevant sections, discussions of the proposed project’s consistency
with the General Plan and other applicable plans and policies will be included. As required by
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, particular attention will be given to inconsistencies, if any are
identified.
Environmental Setting and CEQA Checklist and Mitigations
The Initial Study will be divided into subsections for each subject area, such as land use, cultural
resources, hazardous materials, and noise. The subsections will be formatted to include a
description of the existing environmental setting followed by the relevant CEQA checklist section
with a discussion of any question that is not answered “no impact.” The sources of information for
determining impacts will be identified.
Based upon our current understanding of the project, the key environmental issues for the project are
aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, noise,
and traffic. The Initial Study will also discuss the other environmental issues including, geology and
soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population
and housing, recreation, and utilities and service systems. The key environmental issues are
described in more detail below.
Aesthetics
The IS/MND will describe the existing visual setting of the project area and will evaluate the
aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. Under contract to DJP&A, Digital Imaging Studio would
provide architectural design visualization services and prepare two photo composite renderings from
public vantage points surrounding the project site. Additional photo composites can be requested
for an additional cost, as necessary. This scope includes up to three hours of Digital Imaging Studio
time to respond to public comments on the Initial Study, if needed. Mitigation measures will be
identified for any significant aesthetic impacts.
3
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
The proposed project would include energy efficient field lights that would be attached to the main
building and would illuminate the outfield for night play. The light fixtures would be directed
downward to the driving range outfield and designed to provide 0.0 foot-candles at the property
boundaries. The IS/MND will describe existing ambient light levels in the project area, which will
then be compared to future light levels resulting from the proposed project to be provided by
TopGolf. Mitigation measures will be identified for significant lighting impacts, if any.
Air Quality
The primary air quality issue associated with the proposed project would be the potential community
health risk impacts that may result from diesel exhaust and other toxic air contaminant (TAC)
emissions associated with project construction. The proposed project site is located approximately
730 feet away from residences south of Highway 101. Based upon the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) screening tool analysis, cumulative cancer cases are
approximately 95 cases per million within 1,000 feet of the project site. Given that BAAQMD’s
threshold of significance for a cumulative impact is greater than 100 cumulative cancer cases per
million, it is possible the project could contribute to a significant cumulative health risk.
Given the construction details of this project are unknown at this time (i.e. construction duration,
amount of import/export, etc.), it is not known whether or not the construction of the TopGolf
project would result in an increased cancer risk, which in combination with other cumulative
sources, would exceed BAAQMD’s threshold of greater than 100 cancer cases and would be a
significant cumulative health risk. DJP&A will provide the applicant with a construction activity
worksheet to provide construction details, which would determine if the emissions of the project
would need to be modeled to determine health risk.
If the construction data provided by the applicant indicates a short, simple construction process
unlikely to involve substantial TACs emissions, such that air quality modeling is not needed,
DJP&A would prepare a qualitative discussion describing anticipated air quality
impacts. Mitigation measures consisting of best management practices to reduce identified air
quality impacts would be included, as necessary.
Should the proposed project, based upon the construction activity worksheet, involve substantial,
extended construction activity that warrant emissions modeling, an Air Quality Emissions Analysis
would be completed, as an optional task, by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., under contract to
DJP&A. Cancer risks associated with modeled construction-period diesel particulate matter
concentrations would be computed following the BAAQMD guidance and best management
practices to control particulate matter emissions would be identified.
Biological Resources
A Biological Resources Report will be completed for the project by H.T. Harvey & Associates. H.T.
Harvey & Associates will complete a brief field visit to characterize the existing conditions on the
entire 13-acre project site. The Biological Resources Report will briefly describe existing biological
conditions and any sensitive biological resources, such as potentially regulated habitats (e.g.,
wetlands) and special-status species, which may occur within the project site. Based on H.T.
4
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
Harvey’s review of the project description and prior experience on a TopGolf project in San José,
the potential for birds to become entangled in, or to be injured by collisions with the proposed golf
barrier netting (the maximum height of which would be substantially higher than the existing netting
on the site) could result in a significant impact of the project. It is also expected that this is a topic
of great concern to local environmental groups, such as the local Audobon chapter.
The proposed Burlingame project site is located between two bodies of water (i.e., the Bay Front
Channel to the south and the San Francisco Bay to the north, as well as the Anza Lagoon to the
east), suggesting that waterbirds may move between the waterbodies, and it is expected to
experience more fog than the San José TopGolf site. In addition, according to the Request for
Proposals, the netting and color of the supporting poles proposed for the Burlingame facility seem to
be intended to reduce their conspicuousness, thus making them less visible to birds. As a result, H.T.
Harvey & Associates, Inc. anticipates the proposed project to have a greater potential for bird strikes
than at the San José facility.
H.T. Harvey & Associates will tier off of the prior analysis of impacts from netting collisions
prepared for the San José TopGolf project for the proposed Burlingame facility. In addition, to
provide a basis for the analysis of significance of potential bird collisions with the proposed golf
barrier netting, an H. T. Harvey & Associates wildlife ecologist will visit the existing Roseville
TopGolf location to observe bird response to the netting and will monitor bird movement around
and through the proposed project site, including response to the existing netting on the site, for up to
five days.
Thus, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc. proposes to conduct focused monitoring of bird movement
throughout the proposed project area, as well as limited monitoring of bird movements at an existing
TopGolf facility, to inform the impact analysis. This scope includes up to 8 hours of H.T. Harvey &
Associates’ time for responding to comments and/or attending public hearings. The project site
boundary is more than 100 feet from the Bay shoreline and, therefore, is outside of the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and consultation would not be required.
Significant biological impacts and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary.
If the following findings do result in significant biological impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant level, an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared by DJP&A under a separate
scope of work.
Cultural Resources
The project site located on a prior landfill, and, therefore, has low potential to impact historic or
archaeological resources. In the event Native American tribes have requested notification and
consultation under AB52, DJP&A will assist the City with that process. Mitigation measures will be
identified if needed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
5
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
Geology and Soils
The entire 13-acre proposed TopGolf facility would be constructed on top of the closed Burlingame
Landfill. Structures currently present on the closed landfill include a baseball field, driving range
and putting area, soccer field, clubhouse, parking area, and access roads. The existing driving range,
putting area, soccer field, clubhouse, parking lot, and maintenance area were constructed on the top
deck of the closed landfill and are surrounded by final slopes that are inclined about 3:1
(horizontal:vertical) and are up to 40 feet high. The IS will discuss the potential for the project to
result in significant geologic impacts based on a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by
GeoLogic Associates that was commissioned by the applicant and provided to DJP&A. This scope
assumes that the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation is adequate for CEQA purposes. As
requested by the City of Burlingame, Cornerstone Earth Group will prepare a peer review of the
Geotechnical Investigation under contract to DJP&A. Mitigation measures will be identified for
significant geology and soils impacts, as appropriate.
Noise
A Noise Analysis will be completed for the project by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC).
BAC will conduct a site inspection and take long-term ambient noise level measurements at a
sufficient number of locations on the project site to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of sensitive residential and biological areas. BAC will utilize reference sound level data
previously collected at the Scottsdale, Arizona and/or Allen, Texas, and/or Roseville TopGolf
facilities to quantify the noise generation of the project. The reference data will be projected to
nearby noise-sensitive uses using industry standard sound propagation algorithms.
In addition, BAC will provide an analysis of changes in off-site traffic noise levels resulting from the
proposed development of the site. BAC will compare the calculated noise exposure to the applicable
City of Burlingame noise exposure criteria and the existing ambient noise levels in the project area.
Given the setbacks between the project site and nearby existing land uses, BAC does not anticipate
any appreciable vibration impacts associated with either project construction or operation, and will
include a brief analysis of project vibration impacts.
Specific noise sources to be evaluated include large crowds and music, mechanical equipment, and
on-site traffic circulation (parking lot noise). Significant noise impacts will be identified if the
project results in either exceedance of City noise standards or a substantial increase in ambient noise
levels at existing noise-sensitive receptor locations. Mitigation measures will be identified if needed
to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. This scope includes up to four hours of BAC time
to respond to public comments on the Initial Study. This scope does not include BAC attendance at
any meetings or public hearings, and any requested attendance would be added to the scope on a
time and materials basis.
Transportation
The Initial Study will describe the potential traffic and circulation impacts resulting from the
proposed project, based upon a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) to be prepared by Fehr &
Peers, Inc. under contract to the applicant. This scope assumes the TIA will be adequate for CEQA
6
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
purposes. As requested by the City of Burlingame, Hexagon Transportation Consultants will
prepare a peer review of the TIA under contract to DJP&A. Mitigation measures will be identified
for significant traffic impacts, as needed.
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
DJP&A will review the comments received during public circulation of the Initial Study and assist
the City in preparing response to the comments. This scope includes approximately 35 hours of
DJP&A staff time to prepare responses to comments, which can be attached as a memorandum to
the Planning Staff Report for the project. In the event more than 15 pages of substantive comments
are received, or if a Protest to the Negative Declaration if filed, DJP&A can provide support to the
City on a time and materials basis, upon your authorization. This work cannot be anticipated at this
time, since it is unknown what issue(s) would be the focus of the protest.
PREPARATION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
In accordance with State law and CEQA Guidelines, DJP&A will draft a Mitigation Monitoring or
Reporting Program (MMRP) that identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, who
will be responsible for implementing them, and who will provide oversight. The draft MMRP will
be submitted to City Staff prior to the hearing on the project.
DJP&A would prepare the Notice of Determination with the understanding that the staff would do
the local postings and filings.
MEETINGS AND COORDINATION
This scope of work includes DJP&A Principal and/or Project Manager attendance at one project
team meeting and up to three public hearings. DJP&A and DJP&A subconsultants can attend
additional meetings upon your approval, on a time and materials basis.
The DJP&A Project Manager will coordinate with City Staff and the project team on a regular basis
using email and telephone communications.
PROJECT INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM TOPGOLF
Our scope and schedule are based on the assumption that we will receive the following concurrent
with a Notice to Proceed.
Plans (in PDF)
□ Site plan
□ Drainage/grading/landscape plans
□ Project elevations
□ Projected spill light levels provided by lighting manufacturer
7
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
Reports
□ Arborist Report
□ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
□ Traffic Impact Analysis
8
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1611 Telegraph Avenue • Suite 1002 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Tel: 510-458-4162 • www.davidjpowers.com
Project Detail
□ Operational features, including days and hours of business, hours of proposed outdoor music
□ Height and location of existing and proposed lights and netting
□ Analysis of proposed light levels (provided by manufacturer/applicant)
□ Project building height (not to exceed)
□ Plans and/or development envelope and minimum setbacks for hotel and retail space
□ Number of parking spaces to be provided
□ Utility improvements (if any)
□ Details on project construction (total duration, estimated maximum depth of excavation, cut
and fill amounts, need for pile driving, etc.)
□ Proposed construction phasing, overall duration, estimated equipment use for TAC analysis
(a table will be provided by DJP&A to TopGolf to fill out)
□ List of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed to conform to Provisions
C.3 of the NPDES permit and City Policy 6-29
□ Any proposed street dedications or improvements (including sidewalks)
□ Completed pervious and impervious surfaces pre- and post-construction table provided
below.
Pervious and Impervious Surfaces On-Site
Site Surface
Existing/Pre-
Construction
(SF)
%
Project/Post-
Construction
(SF)
% Difference
(SF) %
Impervious
Driveways, Surface
Parking, Sidewalks, and
Paths
Pervious
Unpaved and/or
Landscaped Areas
Total
9
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Key Staff and Subconsultants
DJP&A STAFF
Will Burns, AICP is a Principal Project Manager and has over 15 years
of experience in the environmental field preparing documents for both
private and public sector projects. His experience includes transit-
oriented mixed-use, residential, hotel/resort, commercial, office, park,
transportation, Specific Plan, and General Plan Update/Amendment
projects. As a Principal Project Manager, Will provides environmental
consulting services for public agencies and private sector clients. Will
prepares Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Initial Studies, and
Environmental Assessments in conformance with requirements of CEQA
and NEPA. Mr. Burns is responsible for the entire project life cycle,
from proposal development through product delivery and client support.
Will currently works out of DJP&A’s Oakland Office.
Tali Ashurov is an Associate Project Manager for the company. She
works closely with other members of the staff researching and preparing
documents for both private and public sector projects. Her experience
includes CEQA compliance for hotel, residential, mixed-use, park, and
commercial projects. Tali currently works out of DJP&A’s Oakland
Office.
SUBCONSULTANTS
James Reyff is a Senior Consultant and Meteorologist at Illingworth &
Rodkin, Inc., and has been with the firm since 1995. He is an expert in
the area of air quality and greenhouse gas emission calculations and is
familiar with federal, state, and local air quality and noise regulations.
James has developed effective working relationships with many
regulatory agencies. In the past 24 years, James has prepared Air
Quality Technical Reports for over 20 major Caltrans highway projects
and has conducted over 200 air quality analyses for other land use
development projects. Recently, James served as principal-in-charge for
Illingworth & Rodkin’s work assessing air quality impacts from, and
identifying appropriate mitigation measures for, the proposed TopGolf
facility in San José, California.
10
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
Patrick Ghiringhelli is a Project Manager/Partner at Digital Imaging
Studio. He has over twenty-five years of experience in the field of
architectural design visualization. Over the course of his career, and as
Project Manager, he has collaborated with a variety of architecture firms,
municipalities, developers, and designers to integrate their concepts into 3D
illustrative representations. He specializes in providing multimedia support
to clients desiring depiction validation, design review, as well as marketing
conceptualization and presentation. Patrick’s broad-spectrum background
has been instrumental in fostering the development of visual production
teams in the process and creation of digital imagery. He is registered with the
Urban Land Institute in San Francisco, California.
Dr. Steve Rottenborn is a principal in the Wildlife Ecology group at H. T.
Harvey & Associates. He specializes in resolving issues related to special-
status wildlife species and in meeting the wildlife-related requirements of
federal and state environmental laws and regulations. Steve has a Ph.D. in
biological sciences from Stanford University, where his doctoral dissertation
focused on the effects of urbanization on riparian bird communities in the
South San Francisco Bay area. He has been an active birder for more than 35
years and has conducted or assisted with research on birds since 1990. Steve
has served for eight years as an elected member of the California Bird
Records Committee and for 12 years as a Regional Editor for the Northern
California region of the journal North American Birds. He is a member of
the Scientific Advisory Board for the San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory,
the Technical Advisory Committee for the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration
Project, and the Board of Directors of the Western Field Ornithologists.
Recently, Steve served as principal-in-charge for H. T. Harvey’s work
assessing biological impacts from, and identifying appropriate mitigation
measures for, the proposed TopGolf facility in San José, California.
Mr. Paul Bollard has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, 29 years
experience as an acoustical consultant, and is a Board Certified Member of
the Institute of Noise Control Engineers (INCE). Mr. Bollard has prepared
in excess of a thousand acoustical studies covering a wide variety of
environmental, industrial, and architectural issues. He has developed and
demonstrated particular expertise in noise control using sophisticated data
acquisition instrumentation and complex analytical modeling techniques.
Representative studies to which Mr. Bollard has managed or made
significant contributions follow. Mr. Bollard has extensive experience
working on TopGolf projects as he has completed the noise analyses for the
San José, Roseville, Gilbert, and Thornton TopGolf facilities.
11
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Experience and Reference Projects
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
DJP&A specializes in preparing environmental review documents meeting the requirements of
CEQA and NEPA. We have extensive experience evaluating environmental impacts associated with
urban development, including the environmental review of public projects like roadway
improvements, pipelines, corporation yards, community centers, parks, trails, stadiums, recreational
facilities, libraries, and police and fire stations. DJP&A has a history of successfully completing
CEQA review for recreational facilities and bayfront development in the San Francisco Bay Area.
DJP&A also completed the environmental review for the TopGolf project in San José in 2016. A
sampling of our relevant project experience is provided below.
Our firm is selected for complex projects with difficult technical issues and critical time schedules
because of our reputation for strong management and organizational control. DJP&A has a proven
record of accomplishment of delivering projects on time and often under budget. DJP&A staff are
experts in CEQA and NEPA and are seasoned presenters at public meetings and hearings. Our goal
is to create a comprehensive environmental document that not only helps decisionmakers make
effective policies, but also helps members of the public understand the environmental issues related
to the TopGolf Burlingame Golf Center project
REFERENCE PROJECTS
TopGolf Entertainment Complex Project | City of San José
In September 2016, DJP&A prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the TopGolf @ Terra
Project in San José. The project proposed to construct a
TopGolf entertainment complex, 200-room hotel, and
approximately 110,000 square feet of retail spaces on the 36-
acre site. The TopGolf entertainment complex included a
three-story, 71,456 square foot structure reach up to 54 feet in
height that was enclosed on the north, east, and west sides. The
south side of the structure was open-faced, containing 120
hitting bays that faced south toward a 5.2-acre artificial turf
outfield enclosed by poles and netting reaching up to 170 feet
in height. The facility contained entertainment amenities
including a full-service restaurant, lounges, bar, rooftop
entertainment area, corporate/event meeting space, and a
family entertainment area.
Contact Information
Krinjal Mathur
Associate Planner
City of San José
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
(408) 535-7874
Krinjal.Mathur@sanjoseca.gov
12
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
The project site was proposed for the Alviso
neighborhood of San José, a biologically
sensitive area that interfaced the City and the
San Francisco Bay. The IS/MND discussed
the project’s potential impacts to biological
resources in the area based on a biological
report prepared by WRA, Inc. The report
determined that proposed netting and height
of structures would not result in adverse
impacts to avian species. Payment of fees to
the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency mitigated the project’s impact to sensitive land covers and
species on-site. The IS/MND determined through implementation of mitigation measures, potential
resource impacts from project implementation were all reduced to a less than significant level. The
City of San José City Council approved the project in January 2017.
Central Marin Ferry Connection | City of Larkspur
In 2012, DJP&A prepared a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application (JARPA) for a proposed multi-use pathway
intended to further promote non-motorized commute
alternatives and enhance recreational travel within the City of
Larkspur in Marin County, California. The project proposed to
connect the planned Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Larkspur
Station with the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. The project included
an overcrossing above East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and
required the placement of fill within tidal marsh habitat along
Corte Madera Creek for a ramp connecting the proposed
structure to an existing multi-use pathway. In 2013, permits for
the project were issued from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Section 404), San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board (401 Water Quality Certification), the California
Department of Fish and Game (Streambed Alteration Agreement), and San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (Major Permit). The Central Marin Ferry Connection
opened to the public in May 2016.
Contact Information
Bill Whitney
Deputy Executive Director
Transportation Authority of Marin
900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415) 226-0823
bwhitney@tam.ca.gov
13
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Building Improvement | City of Palo Alto
David J. Powers &
Associates, Inc.
prepared an Initial
Study to support the
conclusions of a
Categorical
Exemption for the
renovation of the existing 3,101 square foot Lucy Evans
Baylands Interpretive Center in the City of Palo Alto. The one-
story building was built above the bay marsh on woodpiles and
wood beams. Most of the proposed improvements were
replaced in-kind, so the overall original character, square
footage, and purpose of the building was maintained. The
Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center provides a unique
opportunity to view a pristine salt marsh habitat and serves
approximately 130 classes and camps, 3,000 elementary students and 80,000 visitors annually.
Given the Interpretive Center’s location in the Palo Alto Baylands, the project included features to
avoid impacts to biological resources during construction and operation.
Oracle Design-Tech High School Project | City of Redwood City
In 2016, DJP&A prepared an EIR for the Oracle Design-
Tech High School project to construct a new school facility
on an existing surface parking lot and open space area within
the Oracle Campus in Redwood City. The 4.3-acre project
site is located adjacent to Belmont Slough and the Bay Trail.
The project included construction of a two-story, 64,000
square foot building, a surface parking lot for staff and
visitors, student drop-off areas, and outdoor open space for
the Design-Tech Charter High School which previously
shared space within the Mills High School campus. The new
open space areas around the school would be available to the
general public when school is not in session. In addition, the
project proposed to widen the Bay Trail in the vicinity of the
project to 12
feet. To
address the limited availability of parking on the
project site and area-wide traffic concerns, most
students would be precluded from driving to school
and the school would utilize the existing Oracle
Campus transit shuttles to provide transport between
the school and nearby transit centers. The school
would have a maximum of 580 students, faculty, and
staff.
Contact Information
Elizabeth Ames
Senior Project Manager
City of Palo Alto Department of
Public Works
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2502
Elizabeth.Ames@CityofPaloAlto.org
Contact Information
Lindy Chan
Senior Planner
City of Redwood City
1017 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 780-7237
lchan@redwoodcity.org
14
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Estimated Schedule
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. proposes the following optimum schedule for preparation of the
Initial Study. DJP&A can commit to maintain the schedule in the areas that are within our control.
Completion of the Initial Study, as outlined in the schedule below, is based upon receipt of all
necessary project information on schedule (refer to Project Information Required on pages 6-7 of
our proposal). Delays in receiving requested information or responses by others will result in at
least day-for-day delays in the overall schedule.
Task Product Duration
of Task
Time
Elapsed
1 DJP&A receives signed contract, final site plan and project
details 1 week
2 Completion of Biology Report, optional Air Quality Report,
Photosimulations, Peers Reviews, and Noise Report 6 weeks 7 weeks
3 DJP&A prepares and submits the Administrative Draft IS to
City 3 weeks 10 weeks
6 Review of Administrative Draft IS by City Staff 4 weeks 14 weeks
7 DJP&A revises Administrative Draft IS, prepares Screencheck
IS 2 weeks 16 weeks
8 Review of Screencheck IS by City Staff 2 weeks 18 weeks
9 DJP&A revises Screencheck IS, prepares IS for public
circulation 1 week 19 weeks
10 30-day IS public circulation period 30 days 23 weeks
11 DJP&A responds to comments received on the IS, completes
MMRP 2 weeks 25 weeks
12 City staff reviews responses to comments and MMRP, DJP&A
revises and finalizes. 2 weeks 27 weeks
13 Planning Commission and City Council Hearing. -- --
TOTAL +/- 27 weeks
15
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Cost Proposal
The estimated costs for the Initial Study would be $105,062 excluding the optional task, as
summarized below. Our work will be billed on a time and materials basis, in accordance with the
attached fee schedule. If we do not need all the time that has been budgeted, we will only charge for
the time that we actually spend completing the work.
Please note that the cost estimate shown below is a not-to-exceed amount for all tasks combined.
DJP&A will complete the environmental review for the not-to-exceed total cost below. Within this
not-to-exceed total, actual amounts spent on individual tasks may be more or less than the estimates.
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
In-house Staff – Preparation of Initial Study
In-house Staff – Meetings, project management
Expenses – Mileage, reproduction, and courier services1
Technical Report1
H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc. – Biological Resources Assessment
Digital Imaging Studio – Photosimulations
Bollard Acoustical Consultants – Noise Assessment
Hexagon Transportation Consultants – Peer Review of TIA
Cornerstone Earth Group – Peer Review of Geotechnical Report
Optional Task
Illingworth & Rodkin – Air Quality Analysis
$34,500
$6,255
$1,968
$32,444
$6,320
$9,775
$9,200
$4,600
$6,440
Total
Total with Optional Task
$105,062
$111,502
Cost of Additional Services
Meetings2
Additional printed copies of the Initial Study3
$790
$35
1 Subconsultant and reimbursable expense costs include a 15% Administration Fee.
2 Assumes a two-hour meeting attended by a Principal Project Manager and an Associate
Project Manager.
3 Cost per copy.
16
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Charge Rate Schedule2
Title Hourly Rate
Senior Principal $ 275.00
Principal Project Manager $ 250.00
Senior Environmental Specialist $ 220.00
Senior Project Manager $ 195.00
Environmental Specialist $ 180.00
Biologist $ 170.00
Project Manager $ 170.00
Associate Project Manager $ 145.00
Assistant Project Manager $ 120.00
Researcher $ 105.00
Draftsperson/Graphic Artist $ 110.00
Document Processor/Quality Control $ 100.00
Administrative Manager $ 100.00
Office Support $ 85.00
Materials, outside services and subconsultants include a 15% administration fee.
Mileage will be charged per the current IRS standard mileage rate at the time costs occur.
Subject to revision January 1, 2019.
2 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. provides regular, clear and accurate invoices as the work on this project
proceeds, in accordance with normal company billing procedures. The cost estimate prepared for this project does
not include special accounting or bookkeeping procedures, nor does it include preparation of extraordinary or
unique statements or invoices. If a special invoice or accounting process is requested, the service can be provided
on a time and materials basis. Any fees charged to DJP&A for Client’s third-party services related to invoicing,
insurance certificate maintenance, or other administrative functions will be billed as a reimbursable expense.
17
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Terms and Conditions
1. Notice. Notice shall be deemed received (i) on the date when either personally delivered, (ii) the next
day when sent by email, (iii) the next day when sent by overnight mail, or (iv) three (3) days after deposited in
the U.S. Mail, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid to the last known address for
the party on the records of the other party.
2. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire and complete understanding and agreement
between the parties hereto and any prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreement not contained herein
shall be of no further force or effect.
3. Due Date, Interest and Attorneys' Fees. All invoices are absolutely due and payable in full within ten
(10) days from receipt; provided that they will be deemed late if not paid in full by the thirtieth (30th) day
from receipt of the invoice from DJP&A. All due and unpaid amounts shall bear and incur interest at the rate
of one and one-half percent (1 ½%) per month calculated on the basis of actual days from the beginning of the
eleventh (11th) day until paid. If any action is taken to collect for non-payment of any invoice, the prevailing
party, in addition to any other relief which the court may grant, shall be reimbursed for attorneys' fees and
actual cost incurred. In addition, the prevailing party shall, as a separate item, also be reimbursed for
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing and recovering under any judgment, and further this post-
judgment attorneys' fees provision is intended to be severable from the other provisions of the contract and is
intended to survive any judgment and is not to be deemed merged into the judgment.
Notwithstanding any other actions taken or available remedies to DJP&A, in addition to and not instead of
any other actions or remedies DJP&A may have or have already taken, DJP&A shall have the option in its
sole discretion, if payment in full of all unpaid invoices is not received within sixty (60) days of the receipt of
the invoice from DJP&A, to stop or cease any and all work remaining to be performed under the agreement
upon three (3) days prior written notice to the Client. DJP&A may exercise this option to stop or cease work
at any time after the sixty (60) day period and shall not be deemed to have waived its right to exercise this
option not withstanding any actions taken or not taken by DJP&A, except a written waiver specifically
referencing this option signed by DJP&A. The Client understands and acknowledges that if DJP&A exercises
its option to cease its work hereunder that the timing and completion of DJP&A’s work would be delayed and
not completed within any time periods indicated in the scope of work until payment in full of all outstanding
amounts is received by DJP&A from the Client. The Client understands and knowingly waives any claim for
damages or injuries caused by DJP&A’s stopping or ceasing to continue its work until payment in full is
received.
4. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the state of California. The parties agree that the exclusive jurisdiction and venue
for all Federal and State Court actions, including arbitrations, arising out of or in connection to this contract
shall be only bought and maintained in Santa Clara County, California.
5. Amendments and Changes. No amendments, changes or modification of this Agreement shall be
valid and binding unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives by both parties.
6. Additional Work. Notwithstanding the above, the client may verbally authorize DJP&A to perform
additional work beyond the scope of the work indicated in this Agreement and DJP&A may subsequently
confirm the additional work authorized by client in writing along with the costs for the additional work. If the
Client does not correct, disagree or reject the additional work set forth in the writing from DJP&A within two
18
Environmental Consultants & Planners
1871 The Alameda • Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: 408-248-3500 • Fax: 408-248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com
(2) business days of receipt of the writing from DJP&A, the Client shall irrevocably be deemed to have
consented and agreed to the terms, price and scope of work set forth in the writing received from DJP&A.
7. Severability. If any term or provision is held or deemed to be void or unenforceable, the rest of the
terms and conditions shall be interpreted and enforced as if said void or unenforceable term or provision was
not contained herein.
8. Interpretation. Both parties acknowledge that they have had adequate time to review and understand
this Agreement and any unclear or ambiguous term or provision shall not be more strongly construed against
the party drafting this Agreement.
9. Authority. The person executing this Agreement represents and warrants to the other party that it has
the authority and power to bind its party to all the terms and conditions contained herein and additional work
authorizations.
10. Counterparts and Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument. An electronic or faxed copy of a party’s signature shall
be deemed binding and conclusive on said party to the same extent as an original signature.
11. No Representation or Warranty by DJP&A. DJP&A does not represent, warrant or guaranty that it
will make any particular finding or result regarding the work and investigation it is providing under this
Agreement and the Scope of Work.
12. Limitation of Liability. DJP&A’s liability on any claim by the Client of any kind (excluding bodily
injury or death) based on contract, warranty, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise, for any
loss or damage arising out of, connected with, or resulting from this Agreement or from the performance or
breach thereof, or from services covered by or furnished under this Agreement, will in no case exceed the
total amount actually received by DJP&A under this Agreement. In no event will DJP&A be liable for
special, incidental, exemplary or consequential damages including but not limited to loss of profits or revenue
to Client arising out of the work performed by DJP&A under the Agreement.
13. Dispute Resolution/Attorney’s Fees. All disputes, claims, and causes of action, in law or equity,
arising from or relating to this Agreement or its enforcement, performance, breach, or interpretation (other for
the non-payment of monies owed by Client to DJP&A) shall be pursued and resolved solely and exclusively
by final, binding and confidential arbitration through Judicial Arbitration & Mediation Services/Endispute,
Inc. (“JAMS”) under the then existing JAMS arbitration rules. The parties understand and agree that this
provision waives their right to a jury trial on these claims. This arbitration shall be held in Santa Clara
County. Nothing in this provision is intended to prevent DJP&A from pursuing a civil suit to collect on
monies owed by Client, or either party from obtaining injunctive relief in court to prevent irreparable harm
pending the conclusion of any such arbitration. The arbitrator shall have the authority to allocate the expenses
relating to the arbitration in the manner the arbitrator determines to be appropriate, after taking into account
the relative success and reasonableness of the arguments and positions advanced by the parties in the
arbitration, and the arbitrator also shall have the authority to award the prevailing party its reasonable
attorneys’ fees and other costs if it determines that the other party’s arguments or positions were frivolous or
were otherwise made in bad faith.
14. Incorporation by Reference. The Client understands and agrees that all of the terms and provisions
contained in the terms and conditions set forth above shall be incorporated by reference and shall be included
in and shall be deemed part of the agreement with Client.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing the Classification and Salary Range
for the Payroll Administrator Position and Approving the Amended City of
Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution establishing the classification
and salary range for the Payroll Administrator position and authorizing the amended City of
Burlingame pay rates and ranges for employees (salary schedule).
BACKGROUND
The City is proposing the following amendment to the classification plan:
1) Addition of one Payroll Administrator (new classification, 1.0 FTE) in the Finance
Department.
2) Deletion of one vacant Accounting Technician (-1.0 FTE) position in the Finance
Department.
The function of the Payroll Administrator is critical to the success of the implementation of the new
integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system the City is planning to implement over the
next several years. The addition of a dedicated Payroll Administrator will provide the much needed
support for the implementation and beyond.
Per City of Burlingame Civil Service Rules, adopted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 3.52.030,
the City Council is the final authority for approving the classification and compensation plan,
including any new job specifications.
The personnel change proposed and the new job specification require the City Council to
authorize a new salary schedule that, once approved, will be made available to the public via the
City of Burlingame website.
New Job Specification and Salary Range September 17, 2018
2
DISCUSSION
The Payroll Administrator is a new classification. Currently, the payroll function is fulfilled by an
Accounting Technician reporting to the Deputy Finance Director. The payroll position requires a
highly specialized skill-set, distinguished from other financial related classifications in that this
position has significant responsibility for coordinating and administering payroll activities and
researching and resolving complex technical issues that include working with IT, outside agencies,
departments, and employees. Incumbents exercise considerable judgment in decision-making and
organization of the day-to-day work flow associated with payroll operations.
The City is on the verge of purchasing and implementing a new integrated Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) system that is more complex than the legacy financial system the City has been
using. The payroll position will play a key role in the implementation of the new ERP and act as
the subject matter expert. He or she will be responsible for coordinating Payroll implementation
activities with the vendor, trouble shooting system and software issues, and ensuring smooth and
uninterrupted payroll processing for the City’s more than 300 full time and casual employees.
Ongoing duties associated with the new ERP include: administering and maintaining the accuracy
of the City’s payroll software; implementing and testing payroll software system changes; and
consulting with City Information Technology staff, Human Resources staff, Finance staff, and
outside vendor staff regarding software updates.
With the resignation of the incumbent Accounting Technician assigned to Payroll, the Human
Resources Department analyzed the current market and duties of the Payroll positon, and
determined that the recruitment for the vacant position will be more successful if the classification
and salary more accurately reflect the duties and level of responsibility required of this position.
The deletion of a vacant Accounting Technician position and the addition of a dedicated Payroll
Administrator will better help the City meet the demands of implementing a new ERP and the
ongoing duties associated with the City’s payroll processes. The recommended monthly salary is
$6,447.29 – $7,831.33; this is internally aligned with the Accountant I classification. This
classification will be represented by the AFSCME Local 829 Administrative Unit (as are the
Accounting Technician and Accountant I classifications).
City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule)
Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 570.5, requires the City Council to
adopt a full salary schedule as a standalone document detailing the rates of pay for each City
classification, and to maintain this salary schedule as a publicly available document for at least five
years. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System uses this salary schedule to determine
the “compensation earnable” when calculating the monthly pension an individual will receive when
he or she retires. “Compensation earnable” includes the employee’s pay rate and special
compensation as defined by the Public Employees’ Retirement Law Government Code Sections
20636, and 20636.1.
The City Council must adopt a revised salary schedule, in its entirety, as a standalone document,
each time a revision is made to the salary schedule through revised classification titles or pay
ranges, the addition of new classifications, the deletion of abolished classifications, and changes
to salary ranges through negotiated increases.
New Job Specification and Salary Range September 17, 2018
3
The change has been provided to the appropriate bargaining unit.
FISCAL IMPACT
The financial impact to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 City budget due to the increased salary will be
$8,200. The Fiscal Year 2018-19 City budget includes sufficient funding for the personnel changes
described above.
Exhibits:
• Resolution
• Job Specification
• Salary Schedule
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ESTABLISHING THE CLASSIFICATION AND SALARY RANGE FOR THE PAYROLL
ADMINISTRATOR POSITION AND APPROVING THE AMENDED CITY OF BURLINGAME
PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULE)
WHEREAS, under the City of Burlingame Civil Service Rules, adopted pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 3.52.030, the City Council is the final authority for approving the City’s
classification and compensation plan, including any new job specifications; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes are as detailed below:
• Add a 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) Payroll Administrator position in the Finance
Department; and
• Delete a vacant 1.0 FTE Accounting Technician position in the Finance
Department; and
• Approve the job specification and set a monthly salary range of $6,447.29 to
$7,831.33 for the new classification of Payroll Administrator that will be a
classification represented by the AFSCME Local 829 Administrative Unit; and
• Amend the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the bargaining unit representing the impacted classification has reviewed the
proposed changes and has not brought forth any objections or concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame finds,
orders and declares that:
1. The Council approves the addition of a 1.0 FTE Payroll Administrator position in
the Finance Department; and
2. The Council approves the deletion of a 1.0 FTE Accounting Technician position in
the Finance Department; and
3. The Council approves the job specification and monthly salary range of $6,447.29
to $7,831.33 for the new classification of Payroll Administrator that will be a
classification represented by the AFSCME Local 829 Administrative Unit; and
4. The Council adopts the amended City of Burlingame Salary Schedule.
____________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer 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 17th day
of September 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk
PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR
DEFINITION:
Under minimal supervision, plans, organizes, administers, and implements the City payroll system; ensures
the proper operation and maintenance of the City’s payroll system; maintains, prepares, submits and
reconciles payroll related reports; prepares journal entries; provides technical support to departmental staff
and employees with respect to payroll processing and related questions; coordinates with City’s Human
Resources and Information Technology Departments on needed changes, and performs other related duties
as required.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:
This classification is distinguished from other financial related classifications in that this classification has
significant responsibility for coordinating and administering payroll activities and researching and
resolving technical issues, including payroll software issues. Incumbents have direct contact with other
departments, employees, and outside agencies, ensuring compliance with union agreements and City, state
and federal rules and regulations related to payroll. Incumbents exercise considerable judgment in decision-
making and organization of the day-to-day work flow associated with payroll operations.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXCERCISED:
Receives general supervision from the Deputy Finance Director. Incumbents may exercise lead, technical
and functional supervision over assigned personnel.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: (include but are not limited to the following)
• Recommends and assists in the implementation of goals and objectives related to the administration of
City payroll; establishes schedules and methods for the maintenance and processing of payroll;
implements policies and procedures.
• Maintains the payroll system and employee payroll records; posts and distributes time and attendance
records; audits time sheets; inputs approved payroll changes and new employee information; prepares
paychecks; distributes paychecks and reports to various departments; and provides technical support to
departmental staff.
• Demonstrates a full understanding of applicable wage policies, procedures and work methods
associated with assigned duties; maintains current knowledge of memoranda of understanding, City,
CalPERS, state and federal legislation affecting payroll procedures and the payroll system; develops
and implements modifications, ensuring compliance.
• Reviews Personnel Action forms and related documents for accuracy and compliance with payroll
related policies.
• Calculates a variety of pay, including but not limited to, retroactive pay, step increases, and premium
pay across bargaining units with different rules.
• Determines schedules and timelines for payroll processes and preparation and submission of related
reports.
Class specifications are only intended to present a descriptive summary of the range of duties and responsibilities that are
associated with specified positions. Therefore, specifications may not include all duties performed by individuals within a
classification. In addition, specifications are intended to outline the minimum qualifications necessary for entry into the class and
do not necessarily convey the qualifications of incumbents within the position.
PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR
Page 2 of 3
• Prepares, reconciles, and submits a variety of bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual payroll reports,
including but not limited to payroll taxes reports, retirement, retiree medical trust contributions,
deferred compensation, payroll deductions, and sick/vacation accruals.
• Creates files for payroll-to-general ledger interface; processes journal entries as well as payroll-to-
benefit related interface files; establishes and maintains balancing procedures; reviews and approves
all vouchers for payment of payroll liabilities; researches and resolves issues.
• Identifies and resolves problems and inconsistencies relative to the maintenance of payroll accounting
controls; analyzes payroll activities and develops corrective action.
• Administers and maintains the accuracy of the City’s payroll software; implements and tests payroll
software system changes; consults with City Information Technology staff, Human Resources staff,
Finance staff, and outside vendor regarding software updates.
• Recommends and implements system and procedure changes, which includes testing changes in a test
software environment, assessing results, and coordinating to obtain software changes/upgrades, and IT
Department support as needed to implement new legislation and regulations.
• Coordinates with Human Resources staff regarding the implementation of changes to negotiated salary
and benefits and their impact on the payroll process.
• Reviews new MOU provisions and provides for implementation; tests in system for accuracy; works
with software consultant and IT Department to correct problems.
• Supports the annual outside audit process, as well as federal, state, CalPERS or any other regulatory
audits, by compiling requested information and responding to questions regarding payroll related
matters and processes.
• Assists employees, benefit vendors and outside agencies with payroll and benefit questions and
requests; researches and analyzes data regarding salaries and benefits for cost studies.
• May provide lead direction, training and work review to assigned staff.
• Establishes positive working relationships with representatives of community organizations, state/local
agencies and associations, other payroll professionals, City management and staff, and the public.
• Performs other duties as assigned.
PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING CONDITIONS:
Position requires prolonged sitting, standing, walking, reaching, twisting, turning, kneeling, bending,
squatting, and stooping in the performance of daily activities. The position also requires grasping, repetitive
hand movement, and fine coordination in preparing statistical reports and data using a computer keyboard.
Additionally, the position requires near vision in reading correspondence, statistical data, and using a
computer. Acute hearing is required when providing phone and personal service. The need to lift, drag,
and push files, paper, and documents weighing up to 25 pounds also is required.
Some of these requirements may be accommodated for otherwise qualified individuals requiring and
requesting such accommodations.
QUALIFICATIONS: (The following are minimal qualifications necessary for entry into the classification.)
Education and/or Experience:
PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR
Page 3 of 3
Any combination of education and experience that has provided the knowledge, skills, and abilities
and skills necessary for a Payroll Administrator. A typical way of obtaining the required
qualifications is to possess the equivalent of five years of increasingly responsible experience in
the preparation and processing of payroll in a multi-union environment including two years in
coordinating payroll processes and administering laws and regulation changes.
A Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics, Business, Finance, or Accounting, or related field is highly
desirable.
License/Certificate:
Possession of, or ability to obtain, a valid Class C California driver’s license.
KNOWLEDGE/ABILITIES/SKILLS: (The following are a representative sample of the KAS’s necessary to perform
essential duties of the position.)
Knowledge of:
Principles and practice of municipal payroll processing, payroll records maintenance; CalPERS
reporting requirements for different tiered employees and different bargaining units; federal, state
and local wage and hour laws, codes, ordinance and labor agreements; generally accepted
accounting principles; automated payroll systems and operations; methods and practices used in
financial and statistical calculations; computerized payroll procedures and practices including basic
knowledge of database and system modification; basic principles and practices of governmental
payroll accounting; basic bookkeeping and accounting principles; computerized record keeping
system principles and practices; basic principles and practices of supervision; applicable federal,
state, and local laws, codes, and regulations; standard office procedures, practices, and equipment;
modern office practices, methods, and equipment, including a computer and applicable software;
methods and techniques for record keeping and report preparation and writing; proper English,
spelling, and grammar; occupational hazards and standard safety practices.
Ability to:
Maintain internal control of payroll operations; interpret, explain and apply a variety of laws and
regulations governing payroll administration; accurately maintain payroll records, reports and files;
accurately process a complex payroll on a timely basis; identify errors in records and payroll
information and make appropriate changes; accurately count, record and balance assigned
transactions; update, maintain and test payroll software; independently make decisions regarding
procedural activities or requirements; interpret, explain, and apply applicable laws, codes, and
regulations; read, interpret and record data accurately; organize, prioritize, and follow-up on work
assignments; work independently and as part of a team; make sound decisions within established
guidelines; maintain confidentiality regarding all employee information; analyze a complex issue
and develop and implement an appropriate response; follow written and oral directions; observe
safety principles and work in a safe manner; communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in
writing; establish and maintain effective working relationships.
Skill to:
Operate an office computer and a variety of word processing, spreadsheet and software
applications, including payroll and other financial systems.
A-114
PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR
AFSCME 829 ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT
NON-EXEMPT
ADOPTED: 09/17/2018
Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step F
A109 ACCOUNTANT I MONTHLY $6,447.29 $6,769.53 $7,098.74 $7,458.08 $7,831.33
BIWEEKLY $2,975.67 $3,124.40 $3,276.34 $3,442.19 $3,614.46
HRLY.RATE $37.20 $39.06 $40.95 $43.03 $45.18
A104 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,404.83 $4,629.71 $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80
BIWEEKLY $2,033.00 $2,136.79 $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14
HRLY.RATE $25.41 $26.71 $28.05 $29.38 $30.79
A160 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 $5,584.87 $5,858.43
BIWEEKLY $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 $2,577.63 $2,703.89
HRLY.RATE $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 $32.22 $33.80
A102 ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,584.87 $5,858.43 $6,148.22 $6,456.56 $6,778.81
BIWEEKLY $2,577.63 $2,703.89 $2,837.64 $2,979.95 $3,128.68
HRLY.RATE $32.22 $33.80 $35.47 $37.25 $39.11
A103 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $6,159.81 $6,468.15 $6,790.40 $7,128.88 $7,485.90
BIWEEKLY $2,842.99 $2,985.30 $3,134.03 $3,290.25 $3,455.03
HRLY.RATE $35.54 $37.32 $39.18 $41.13 $43.19
D202 ACTING POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $15,628.70 $16,407.15
BIWEEKLY $7,213.24 $7,572.53
HRLY.RATE $90.17 $94.66
A105 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $5,325.21 $5,601.09 $5,883.93 $6,171.40 $6,468.15
BIWEEKLY $2,457.79 $2,585.12 $2,715.66 $2,848.34 $2,985.30
HRLY.RATE $30.72 $32.31 $33.95 $35.60 $37.32
A100
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
II MONTHLY $5,858.43 $6,148.22 $6,451.92 $6,755.62 $7,080.19
BIWEEKLY $2,703.89 $2,837.64 $2,977.81 $3,117.98 $3,267.78
HRLY.RATE $33.80 $35.47 $37.22 $38.97 $40.85
D106
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/
ADMIN. SVCS. DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,569.82 $13,183.50 $13,844.95 $14,530.27 $15,265.74
BIWEEKLY $5,801.45 $6,084.69 $6,389.98 $6,706.28 $7,045.73
HRLY.RATE $72.52 $76.06 $79.87 $83.83 $88.07
A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,555.45 $7,924.06 $8,299.63 $8,735.48 $9,178.28
City of Burlingame Salary Schedule
Amended 9/17/2018
BIWEEKLY $3,487.13 $3,657.26 $3,830.60 $4,031.76 $4,236.13
HRLY.RATE $43.59 $45.72 $47.88 $50.40 $52.95
B421
ASSISTANT PARKS
SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,136.85 $7,493.71 $7,868.38 $8,261.80 $8,674.90
BIWEEKLY $3,293.93 $3,458.64 $3,631.56 $3,813.14 $4,003.80
HRLY.RATE $41.17 $43.23 $45.39 $47.66 $50.05
A111 ASSISTANT PLANNER MONTHLY $6,444.97 $6,769.53 $7,101.06 $7,455.76 $7,831.33
BIWEEKLY $2,974.60 $3,124.40 $3,277.41 $3,441.12 $3,614.46
HRLY.RATE $37.18 $39.06 $40.97 $43.01 $45.18
A608 ASSOCIATE ENGINEER MONTHLY $8,308.91 $8,716.93 $9,131.92 $9,614.13 $10,098.66
BIWEEKLY $3,834.88 $4,023.20 $4,214.73 $4,437.29 $4,660.92
HRLY.RATE $47.94 $50.29 $52.68 $55.47 $58.26
A112 ASSOCIATE PLANNER MONTHLY $7,196.11 $7,555.45 $7,935.66 $8,336.73 $8,754.03
BIWEEKLY $3,321.28 $3,487.13 $3,662.61 $3,847.72 $4,040.32
HRLY.RATE $41.52 $43.59 $45.78 $48.10 $50.50
B600
ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS MONTHLY $12,302.51 $12,922.32 $13,544.58 $14,238.16 $14,951.42
BIWEEKLY $5,678.08 $5,964.15 $6,251.35 $6,571.46 $6,900.65
HRLY.RATE $70.98 $74.55 $78.14 $82.14 $86.26
S607 AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC MONTHLY $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65 $6,862.05 $7,214.12
BIWEEKLY $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99 $3,167.10 $3,329.60
HRLY.RATE $34.23 $35.90 $37.70 $39.59 $41.62
A705 BUILDING ATTENDANT MONTHLY $3,551.69 $3,725.56 $3,917.98 $4,115.04 $4,312.10
BIWEEKLY $1,639.24 $1,719.49 $1,808.30 $1,899.25 $1,990.20
HRLY.RATE $20.49 $21.49 $22.60 $23.74 $24.88
A706 BUILDING ATTENDANT - CS MONTHLY $4,673.76
BIWEEKLY $2,157.12
HRLY.RATE $26.96
A603 BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,145.10 $7,485.90 $7,875.38 $8,248.63 $8,645.07
BIWEEKLY $3,297.74 $3,455.03 $3,634.79 $3,807.06 $3,990.03
HRLY.RATE $41.22 $43.19 $45.43 $47.59 $49.88
A101
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,422.58 $5,710.06 $5,941.89 $6,254.86 $6,560.88
BIWEEKLY $2,502.73 $2,635.41 $2,742.41 $2,886.86 $3,028.10
HRLY.RATE $31.28 $32.94 $34.28 $36.09 $37.85
S603 CCTV LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
B604 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MONTHLY $10,543.97 $11,067.84 $11,613.85 $12,184.46 $12,789.50
BIWEEKLY $4,866.45 $5,108.23 $5,360.24 $5,623.60 $5,902.85
HRLY.RATE $60.83 $63.85 $67.00 $70.30 $73.79
D102 CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $18,812.49
BIWEEKLY $8,682.69
HRLY.RATE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $108.53
D109 CITY CLERK MONTHLY $8,628.00 $9,004.29 $9,447.02 $9,902.02 $10,389.01
BIWEEKLY $3,982.15 $4,155.83 $4,360.16 $4,570.16 $4,794.93
HRLY.RATE $49.78 $51.95 $54.50 $57.13 $59.94
B602 CITY ENGINEER MONTHLY $11,187.07 $11,754.55 $12,322.01 $12,955.31 $13,601.31
BIWEEKLY $5,163.26 $5,425.18 $5,687.08 $5,979.37 $6,277.53
HRLY.RATE $64.54 $67.81 $71.09 $74.74 $78.47
D801 CITY LIBRARIAN MONTHLY $12,998.57 $13,687.23 $14,378.35 $15,099.00 $15,834.38
BIWEEKLY $5,999.34 $6,317.18 $6,636.16 $6,968.77 $7,308.17
HRLY.RATE $74.99 $78.96 $82.95 $87.11 $91.35
D200 CITY MANAGER MONTHLY $19,924.57
BIWEEKLY $9,195.95
HRLY.RATE $114.95
B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,543.86 $7,889.29 $8,285.72 $8,696.07 $9,131.92
BIWEEKLY $3,481.78 $3,641.21 $3,824.18 $4,013.57 $4,214.73
HRLY.RATE $43.52 $45.52 $47.80 $50.17 $52.68
D110
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
AND SENIOR RISK ANALYST MONTHLY $7,543.86 $7,889.29 $8,285.72 $8,696.07 $9,131.92
0.9 FTE (36 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $3,481.78 $3,641.21 $3,824.18 $4,013.57 $4,214.73
HRLY.RATE $43.52 $45.52 $47.80 $50.17 $52.68
T900
COMMUNICATION
DISPATCHER I MONTHLY $5,793.68 $6,054.61 $6,343.38 $6,639.80 $6,966.59
BIWEEKLY $2,674.00 $2,794.43 $2,927.71 $3,064.52 $3,215.35
HRLY.RATE $33.43 $34.93 $36.60 $38.31 $40.19
T901
COMMUNICATION
DISPATCHER II MONTHLY $6,079.92 $6,345.93 $6,660.06 $6,966.59 $7,323.78
BIWEEKLY $2,806.12 $2,928.89 $3,073.87 $3,215.35 $3,380.20
HRLY.RATE $35.08 $36.61 $38.42 $40.19 $42.25
D108
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,106.79 $13,758.54 $14,449.68 $15,172.77 $15,927.85
BIWEEKLY $6,049.29 $6,350.10 $6,669.09 $7,002.82 $7,351.32
HRLY.RATE $75.62 $79.38 $83.36 $87.54 $91.89
D100 COUNCIL MEMBER MONTHLY $590.04
BIWEEKLY $272.33
HRLY.RATE $3.40
A106 CUSTODIAN MONTHLY $4,446.56 $4,650.58 $4,880.09 $5,137.43 $5,401.72
BIWEEKLY $2,052.26 $2,146.42 $2,252.35 $2,371.12 $2,493.10
HRLY.RATE $25.65 $26.83 $28.15 $29.64 $31.16
B603
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS OPERATIONS MONTHLY $11,262.25 $11,827.84 $12,416.67 $13,041.62 $13,687.23
BIWEEKLY $5,197.96 $5,459.00 $5,730.77 $6,019.21 $6,317.18
HRLY.RATE $64.97 $68.24 $71.63 $75.24 $78.96
B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $10,020.09 $10,521.83 $11,048.16 $11,596.63 $12,179.55
BIWEEKLY $4,624.66 $4,856.23 $5,099.15 $5,352.29 $5,621.33
HRLY.RATE $57.81 $60.70 $63.74 $66.90 $70.27
D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $13,859.39 $14,550.51 $15,280.99 $16,043.45 $16,847.72
BIWEEKLY $6,396.64 $6,715.62 $7,052.77 $7,404.67 $7,775.87
HRLY.RATE $79.96 $83.95 $88.16 $92.56 $97.20
A451
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST MONTHLY $7,856.83 $8,253.27 $8,665.93 $9,097.14 $9,553.85
BIWEEKLY $3,626.23 $3,809.20 $3,999.66 $4,198.68 $4,409.47
HRLY.RATE $45.33 $47.62 $50.00 $52.48 $55.12
B605 ELECTRICAL SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,924.20 $8,283.89 $8,704.44 $9,132.56 $9,591.11
BIWEEKLY $3,657.32 $3,823.33 $4,017.43 $4,215.03 $4,426.66
HRLY.RATE $45.72 $47.79 $50.22 $52.69 $55.33
A301
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS/FIRE
EDUCATION SPECIALIST MONTHLY $6,083.31 $6,373.10 $6,693.03 $7,036.14 $7,374.62
BIWEEKLY $2,807.68 $2,941.43 $3,089.09 $3,247.45 $3,403.67
HRLY.RATE $35.10 $36.77 $38.61 $40.59 $42.55
A604 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II MONTHLY $6,060.12 $6,366.14 $6,693.03 $7,022.23 $7,367.66
BIWEEKLY $2,796.98 $2,938.22 $3,089.09 $3,241.03 $3,400.46
HRLY.RATE $34.96 $36.73 $38.61 $40.51 $42.51
A615
ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
COORDINATOR MONTHLY $6,829.81 $7,168.29 $7,532.27 $7,905.52 $8,299.63
BIWEEKLY $3,152.22 $3,308.44 $3,476.43 $3,648.70 $3,830.60
HRLY.RATE $39.40 $41.36 $43.46 $45.61 $47.88
D105 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,311.13 $6,598.88 $6,938.31 $7,285.11 $7,651.57
BIWEEKLY $2,912.83 $3,045.64 $3,202.30 $3,362.36 $3,531.49
HRLY.RATE $36.41 $38.07 $40.03 $42.03 $44.14
B900
FACILITIES DIVISION
MANAGER MONTHLY $8,440.98 $8,864.03 $9,307.37 $9,773.49 $10,259.90
BIWEEKLY $3,895.84 $4,091.09 $4,295.71 $4,510.84 $4,735.34
HRLY.RATE $48.70 $51.14 $53.70 $56.39 $59.19
S704 FACILITIES LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S703
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,420.12 $5,704.92 $5,949.35 $6,256.58 $6,559.31
BIWEEKLY $2,501.60 $2,633.04 $2,745.86 $2,887.65 $3,027.38
HRLY.RATE $31.27 $32.91 $34.32 $36.10 $37.84
D103 FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,733.97 $14,420.17 $15,135.89 $15,898.34 $16,690.31
BIWEEKLY $6,338.75 $6,655.46 $6,985.79 $7,337.70 $7,703.22
HRLY.RATE $79.23 $83.19 $87.32 $91.72 $96.29
B606 FLEET MANAGER MONTHLY $8,250.97 $8,668.97 $9,099.62 $9,553.09 $10,029.34
BIWEEKLY $3,808.14 $4,001.06 $4,199.82 $4,409.12 $4,628.93
HRLY.RATE $47.60 $50.01 $52.50 $55.11 $57.86
A805 GRAPHIC ARTIST MONTHLY $5,378.53 $5,645.14 $5,927.98 $6,224.73 $6,535.38
BIWEEKLY $2,482.40 $2,605.45 $2,735.99 $2,872.95 $3,016.33
HRLY.RATE $31.03 $32.57 $34.20 $35.91 $37.70
S403
GROUNDS EQUIPMENT
REPAIR WORKER MONTHLY $5,397.70 $5,651.10 $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65
BIWEEKLY $2,491.25 $2,608.20 $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99
HRLY.RATE $31.14 $32.60 $34.23 $35.90 $37.70
D107
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
II MONTHLY $7,390.85 $7,762.24 $8,133.64 $8,549.29 $8,979.72
BIWEEKLY $3,411.16 $3,582.57 $3,753.99 $3,945.83 $4,144.48
HRLY.RATE $42.64 $44.78 $46.92 $49.32 $51.81
D805
HUMAN RESOURCES
DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,929.69 $13,615.90 $14,299.64 $15,015.36 $15,753.21
BIWEEKLY $5,967.55 $6,284.26 $6,599.83 $6,930.17 $7,270.71
HRLY.RATE $74.59 $78.55 $82.50 $86.63 $90.88
D400
HUMAN RESOURCES
TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,623.47 $5,888.52 $6,177.45 $6,485.49 $6,824.57
BIWEEKLY $2,595.45 $2,717.78 $2,851.13 $2,993.30 $3,149.80
HRLY.RATE $32.44 $33.97 $35.64 $37.42 $39.37
S610
INSTRUMENTATION
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S404
IRRIGATION REPAIR
SPECIALIST MONTHLY $5,397.70 $5,651.10 $5,933.66 $6,222.94 $6,534.65
BIWEEKLY $2,491.25 $2,608.20 $2,738.61 $2,872.13 $3,015.99
HRLY.RATE $31.14 $32.60 $34.23 $35.90 $37.70
A606 JUNIOR ENGINEER MONTHLY $6,862.27 $7,186.83 $7,555.45 $7,924.06 $8,299.63
BIWEEKLY $3,167.20 $3,317.00 $3,487.13 $3,657.26 $3,830.60
HRLY.RATE $39.59 $41.46 $43.59 $45.72 $47.88
S605 LABORER MONTHLY $4,848.29 $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78
BIWEEKLY $2,237.67 $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05
HRLY.RATE $27.97 $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03
A801 LIBRARIAN I MONTHLY $5,640.51 $5,911.75 $6,185.31 $6,502.93 $6,811.26
BIWEEKLY $2,603.31 $2,728.50 $2,854.76 $3,001.35 $3,143.66
HRLY.RATE $32.54 $34.11 $35.68 $37.52 $39.30
A800 LIBRARIAN II MONTHLY $6,208.50 $6,519.15 $6,832.13 $7,165.97 $7,541.54
BIWEEKLY $2,865.46 $3,008.84 $3,153.29 $3,307.37 $3,480.71
HRLY.RATE $35.82 $37.61 $39.42 $41.34 $43.51
B801 LIBRARIAN III MONTHLY $7,604.97 $7,984.99 $8,370.04 $8,803.24 $9,233.90
BIWEEKLY $3,509.99 $3,685.38 $3,863.10 $4,063.04 $4,261.80
HRLY.RATE $43.87 $46.07 $48.29 $50.79 $53.27
A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,319.06 $4,543.93 $4,766.49 $4,986.74 $5,248.71 $5,385.49
BIWEEKLY $1,993.41 $2,097.20 $2,199.92 $2,301.57 $2,422.48 $2,485.61
HRLY.RATE $24.92 $26.22 $27.50 $28.77 $30.28 $31.07
A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,819.82 $5,033.10 $5,304.35 $5,543.14 $5,814.38 $5,965.07
BIWEEKLY $2,224.53 $2,322.97 $2,448.16 $2,558.37 $2,683.56 $2,753.11
HRLY.RATE $27.81 $29.04 $30.60 $31.98 $33.54 $34.41
A802 LIBRARY ASSISTANT III MONTHLY $5,380.85 $5,626.60 $5,918.71 $6,213.13 $6,507.56
BIWEEKLY $2,483.47 $2,596.89 $2,731.71 $2,867.60 $3,003.49
HRLY.RATE $31.04 $32.46 $34.15 $35.85 $37.54
B803
LIBRARY CIRCULATION
SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $5,998.87 $6,282.59 $6,578.99 $6,923.52 $7,242.71
BIWEEKLY $2,768.71 $2,899.66 $3,036.46 $3,195.47 $3,342.79
HRLY.RATE $34.61 $36.25 $37.96 $39.94 $41.78
B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $8,866.56 $9,320.02 $9,781.07 $10,272.56 $10,804.55
BIWEEKLY $4,092.26 $4,301.55 $4,514.34 $4,741.18 $4,986.71
HRLY.RATE $51.15 $53.77 $56.43 $59.26 $62.33
S606 MAINTENANCE ELECTRICIAN MONTHLY $6,649.01 $6,980.90 $7,337.46 $7,700.75 $8,093.18
BIWEEKLY $3,068.78 $3,221.96 $3,386.52 $3,554.19 $3,735.32
HRLY.RATE $38.36 $40.27 $42.33 $44.43 $46.69
B610 MANAGEMENT ANALYST MONTHLY $7,544.18 $7,888.71 $8,286.44 $8,696.83 $9,132.56
BIWEEKLY $3,481.93 $3,640.94 $3,824.51 $4,013.92 $4,215.03
HRLY.RATE $43.52 $45.51 $47.81 $50.17 $52.69
A120 MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT MONTHLY $6,424.10 $6,746.35 $7,080.19 $7,437.21 $7,805.83
BIWEEKLY $2,964.97 $3,113.70 $3,267.78 $3,432.56 $3,602.69
HRLY.RATE $37.06 $38.92 $40.85 $42.91 $45.03
A107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,230.96 $4,446.56 $4,666.81 $4,889.37 $5,155.97 $5,274.21
BIWEEKLY $1,952.75 $2,052.26 $2,153.91 $2,256.63 $2,379.68 $2,434.25
HRLY.RATE $24.41 $25.65 $26.92 $28.21 $29.75 $30.43
A670 OFFICE ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,634.35 $4,845.32 $5,088.74 $5,341.44 $5,587.18
BIWEEKLY $2,138.93 $2,236.30 $2,348.65 $2,465.28 $2,578.70
HRLY.RATE $26.74 $27.95 $29.36 $30.82 $32.23
S401
PARK MAINTENANCE
LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S407
PARK MAINTENANCE
WORKER I MONTHLY $4,866.23 $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78
BIWEEKLY $2,245.95 $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05
HRLY.RATE $28.07 $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03
S406
PARK MAINTENANCE
WORKER II MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30
BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60
HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71
A201
PARKING ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER MONTHLY $4,729.40 $4,954.28 $5,197.70 $5,461.99 $5,735.56
BIWEEKLY $2,182.80 $2,286.59 $2,398.94 $2,520.92 $2,647.18
HRLY.RATE $27.29 $28.58 $29.99 $31.51 $33.09
A200
PARKING SYSTEM
TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,137.43 $5,401.72 $5,649.78 $5,925.66 $6,222.41
BIWEEKLY $2,371.12 $2,493.10 $2,607.59 $2,734.92 $2,871.88
HRLY.RATE $29.64 $31.16 $32.59 $34.19 $35.90
D705
PARKS & RECREATION
DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,998.57 $13,687.23 $14,378.35 $15,099.00 $15,834.38
BIWEEKLY $5,999.34 $6,317.18 $6,636.16 $6,968.77 $7,308.17
HRLY.RATE $74.99 $78.96 $82.95 $87.11 $91.35
B410
PARKS
SUPERINTENDENT/CITY
ARBORIST MONTHLY $9,306.83 $9,788.88 $10,266.04 $10,785.00 $11,343.30
BIWEEKLY $4,295.46 $4,517.95 $4,738.17 $4,977.69 $5,235.37
HRLY.RATE $53.69 $56.47 $59.23 $62.22 $65.44
B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,617.65 $8,005.23 $8,408.04 $8,831.11 $9,375.76
BIWEEKLY $3,515.84 $3,694.72 $3,880.63 $4,075.90 $4,327.27
HRLY.RATE $43.95 $46.18 $48.51 $50.95 $54.09
B430
PARKS SUPERVISOR/CITY
ARBORIST MONTHLY $7,802.58 $8,205.39 $8,610.71 $9,038.83 $9,596.16
BIWEEKLY $3,601.19 $3,787.10 $3,974.17 $4,171.77 $4,429.00
HRLY.RATE $45.01 $47.34 $49.68 $52.15 $55.36
A114 PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR MONTHLY $6,447.29 $6,769.53 $7,098.74 $7,458.08 $7,831.33
BIWEEKLY $2,975.67 $3,124.40 $3,276.34 $3,442.19 $3,614.46
HRLY.RATE $37.20 $39.06 $40.95 $43.03 $45.18
A614
PERMIT TECH/GREEN
BUILDING SPECIALIST MONTHLY $6,224.73 $6,535.38 $6,869.22 $7,205.38 $7,567.04
BIWEEKLY $2,872.95 $3,016.33 $3,170.41 $3,325.56 $3,492.48
HRLY.RATE $35.91 $37.70 $39.63 $41.57 $43.66
A609 PERMIT TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,659.05 $5,939.57 $6,245.59 $6,549.29 $6,876.18
BIWEEKLY $2,611.87 $2,741.34 $2,882.58 $3,022.75 $3,173.62
HRLY.RATE $32.65 $34.27 $36.03 $37.78 $39.67
A108 PLANNER MONTHLY $7,196.11 $7,553.13 $7,940.29 $8,308.91 $8,735.48
BIWEEKLY $3,321.28 $3,486.06 $3,664.75 $3,834.88 $4,031.76
HRLY.RATE $41.52 $43.58 $45.81 $47.94 $50.40
D104 PLANNING DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,863.30 $13,497.85 $14,181.59 $14,698.09 $15,622.88
BIWEEKLY $5,936.91 $6,229.78 $6,545.35 $6,783.74 $7,210.56
HRLY.RATE $74.21 $77.87 $81.82 $84.80 $90.13
B111 PLANNING MANAGER MONTHLY $10,192.25 $10,701.38 $11,232.63 $11,795.87 $12,388.59
BIWEEKLY $4,704.12 $4,939.10 $5,184.29 $5,444.25 $5,717.81
HRLY.RATE $58.80 $61.74 $64.80 $68.05 $71.47
A205
POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,522.27 $5,795.83 $6,080.99 $6,368.46 $6,674.48
BIWEEKLY $2,548.74 $2,675.00 $2,806.61 $2,939.29 $3,080.53
HRLY.RATE $31.86 $33.44 $35.08 $36.74 $38.51
M200 POLICE CAPTAIN MONTHLY $12,038.57 $12,622.73 $13,175.19 $13,825.00 $14,495.20
BIWEEKLY $5,556.27 $5,825.88 $6,080.86 $6,380.77 $6,690.09
HRLY.RATE $69.45 $72.82 $76.01 $79.76 $83.63
D201 POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $14,975.33 $15,721.97 $16,506.18 $17,322.97 $18,194.89
BIWEEKLY $6,911.69 $7,256.29 $7,618.24 $7,995.22 $8,397.64
HRLY.RATE $86.40 $90.70 $95.23 $99.94 $104.97
A202 POLICE CLERK I MONTHLY $4,404.83 $4,629.71 $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80
BIWEEKLY $2,033.00 $2,136.79 $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14
HRLY.RATE $25.41 $26.71 $28.05 $29.38 $30.79
A203 POLICE CLERK II MONTHLY $4,861.55 $5,093.38 $5,336.80 $5,584.87 $5,858.43
BIWEEKLY $2,243.79 $2,350.79 $2,463.14 $2,577.63 $2,703.89
HRLY.RATE $28.05 $29.38 $30.79 $32.22 $33.80
A204 POLICE CLERK III MONTHLY $6,746.35
BIWEEKLY $3,113.70
HRLY.RATE $38.92
M202 POLICE LIEUTENANT MONTHLY $10,301.59 $10,814.07 $11,357.26 $11,924.06 $12,519.20
BIWEEKLY $4,754.58 $4,991.11 $5,241.81 $5,503.41 $5,778.09
HRLY.RATE $59.43 $62.39 $65.52 $68.79 $72.23
P200 POLICE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,118.06 $7,510.10 $7,850.18 $8,263.47 $8,657.87
BIWEEKLY $3,285.26 $3,466.20 $3,623.16 $3,813.91 $3,995.94
HRLY.RATE $41.07 $43.33 $45.29 $47.67 $49.95
P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE MONTHLY $6,850.68
BIWEEKLY $3,161.85
HRLY.RATE $39.52
M201 POLICE SERGEANT MONTHLY $8,648.42 $9,056.99 $9,508.07 $9,989.85 $10,499.97
BIWEEKLY $3,991.58 $4,180.15 $4,388.34 $4,610.70 $4,846.14
HRLY.RATE $49.89 $52.25 $54.85 $57.63 $60.58
B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $8,724.82 $9,161.06 $9,619.14 $10,100.07 $10,605.10
BIWEEKLY $4,026.84 $4,228.18 $4,439.60 $4,661.57 $4,894.66
HRLY.RATE $50.34 $52.85 $55.50 $58.27 $61.18
A711 PROGRAM COORDINATOR MONTHLY $3,850.75 $4,040.86 $4,240.23 $4,451.20 $4,673.76
BIWEEKLY $1,777.27 $1,865.01 $1,957.03 $2,054.40 $2,157.12
HRLY.RATE $22.22 $23.31 $24.46 $25.68 $26.96
A612 PROGRAM MANAGER MONTHLY $9,257.11 $9,723.09 $10,202.99 $10,717.66 $11,253.19
BIWEEKLY $4,272.51 $4,487.58 $4,709.07 $4,946.61 $5,193.78
HRLY.RATE $53.41 $56.09 $58.86 $61.83 $64.92
A130
PROGRAM OUTREACH
SPECIALIST MONTHLY $4,597.26 $4,826.77 $5,067.88 $5,322.89 $5,587.18
0.8 FTE (32 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $2,121.81 $2,227.74 $2,339.02 $2,456.72 $2,578.70
HRLY.RATE $26.52 $27.85 $29.24 $30.71 $32.23
A610
PROJECT MANAGER/GIS
COORDINATOR MONTHLY $10,604.06
BIWEEKLY $4,894.18
HRLY.RATE $61.18
A611 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,126.56 $7,476.63 $7,854.51 $8,246.31 $8,663.61
BIWEEKLY $3,289.18 $3,450.75 $3,625.16 $3,805.99 $3,998.59
HRLY.RATE $41.11 $43.13 $45.31 $47.57 $49.98
A701 RECREATION COORDINATOR MONTHLY $5,554.73 $5,821.34 $6,097.22 $6,400.92 $6,718.53
BIWEEKLY $2,563.72 $2,686.77 $2,814.10 $2,954.27 $3,100.86
HRLY.RATE $32.05 $33.58 $35.18 $36.93 $38.76
B710
RECREATION
SUPERINTENDENT MONTHLY $8,866.56 $9,322.55 $9,781.07 $10,277.61 $10,807.07
BIWEEKLY $4,092.26 $4,302.72 $4,514.34 $4,743.51 $4,987.88
HRLY.RATE $51.15 $53.78 $56.43 $59.29 $62.35
B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,465.64 $7,853.24 $8,215.52 $8,646.18 $9,076.83
BIWEEKLY $3,445.68 $3,624.57 $3,791.78 $3,990.54 $4,189.31
HRLY.RATE $43.07 $45.31 $47.40 $49.88 $52.37
B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT MONTHLY $6,872.86 $7,232.60 $7,617.65 $8,015.38 $8,438.46
BIWEEKLY $3,172.09 $3,338.12 $3,515.84 $3,699.41 $3,894.67
HRLY.RATE $39.65 $41.73 $43.95 $46.24 $48.68
A602 SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR MONTHLY $8,016.80 $8,413.23 $8,811.99 $9,277.97 $9,746.27
BIWEEKLY $3,700.06 $3,883.03 $4,067.07 $4,282.14 $4,498.28
HRLY.RATE $46.25 $48.54 $50.84 $53.53 $56.23
B601 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $10,652.53 $11,184.54 $11,746.93 $12,332.12 $12,952.78
BIWEEKLY $4,916.55 $5,162.10 $5,421.66 $5,691.75 $5,978.21
HRLY.RATE $61.46 $64.53 $67.77 $71.15 $74.73
A113 SENIOR PLANNER MONTHLY $8,735.48 $9,169.01 $9,625.72 $10,107.93 $10,617.97
BIWEEKLY $4,031.76 $4,231.85 $4,442.64 $4,665.20 $4,900.60
HRLY.RATE $50.40 $52.90 $55.53 $58.32 $61.26
A607
SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTOR MONTHLY $7,912.47 $8,308.91 $8,716.93 $9,131.92 $9,614.13
BIWEEKLY $3,651.91 $3,834.88 $4,023.20 $4,214.73 $4,437.29
HRLY.RATE $45.65 $47.94 $50.29 $52.68 $55.47
B608
STREET & SEWER
SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64
BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68
HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37
S604
STREET, SEWER &
DOWNTOWN MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30
BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60
HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71
S601
STREET, SEWER AND
DOWNTOWN LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
B607
STREETS, STORM DRAINS,
AND SEWER DIVISIONS
MANAGER MONTHLY $8,440.98 $8,864.03 $9,307.37 $9,773.49 $10,259.90
BIWEEKLY $3,895.84 $4,091.09 $4,295.71 $4,510.84 $4,735.34
HRLY.RATE $48.70 $51.14 $53.70 $56.39 $59.19
S602
TRAFFIC SIGN & PAINT
LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
A601 TRAFFIC-CIVIL ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,924.06 $8,299.63 $8,735.48 $9,178.28 $9,639.63
BIWEEKLY $3,657.26 $3,830.60 $4,031.76 $4,236.13 $4,449.06
HRLY.RATE $45.72 $47.88 $50.40 $52.95 $55.61
A600 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER MONTHLY $9,136.55 $9,597.90 $10,075.48 $10,578.56 $11,114.09
BIWEEKLY $4,216.87 $4,429.80 $4,650.22 $4,882.41 $5,129.58
HRLY.RATE $52.71 $55.37 $58.13 $61.03 $64.12
S405 TREE LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S409 TREE MAINTENANCE WORKER MONTHLY $5,218.30 $5,516.55 $5,767.71 $6,048.02 $6,344.03
BIWEEKLY $2,408.45 $2,546.10 $2,662.02 $2,791.40 $2,928.02
HRLY.RATE $30.11 $31.83 $33.28 $34.89 $36.60
S411 TREE WORKER MONTHLY $5,386.49 $5,639.89 $5,924.69 $6,216.21 $6,530.16
BIWEEKLY $2,486.07 $2,603.03 $2,734.47 $2,869.02 $3,013.92
HRLY.RATE $31.08 $32.54 $34.18 $35.86 $37.67
S400
UTILITIES
INSPECTOR/LOCATOR MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
B500 WATER DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,440.98 $8,864.03 $9,307.37 $9,773.49 $10,259.90
BIWEEKLY $3,895.84 $4,091.09 $4,295.71 $4,510.84 $4,735.34
HRLY.RATE $48.70 $51.14 $53.70 $56.39 $59.19
S501
WATER MAINTENANCE
LEADWORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S503
WATER MAINTENANCE
WORKER MONTHLY $5,092.72 $5,375.27 $5,626.43 $5,897.78 $6,189.30
BIWEEKLY $2,350.49 $2,480.90 $2,596.82 $2,722.05 $2,856.60
HRLY.RATE $29.38 $31.01 $32.46 $34.03 $35.71
S502 WATER METER REPAIRER MONTHLY $5,142.05 $5,388.73 $5,646.62 $5,929.17 $6,222.94
BIWEEKLY $2,373.26 $2,487.11 $2,606.13 $2,736.54 $2,872.13
HRLY.RATE $29.67 $31.09 $32.58 $34.21 $35.90
B501 WATER OPERATIONS SUPERVISMONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64
BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68
HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37
S508
WATER QUALITY AND METER
LEAD WORKER MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
S507
WATER QUALITY AND METER
TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,375.27 $5,644.37 $5,926.93 $6,222.94 $6,534.65
BIWEEKLY $2,480.90 $2,605.10 $2,735.51 $2,872.13 $3,015.99
HRLY.RATE $31.01 $32.56 $34.19 $35.90 $37.70
B503 WATER QUALITY SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,467.53 $7,842.02 $8,236.70 $8,647.08 $9,077.64
BIWEEKLY $3,446.55 $3,619.40 $3,801.56 $3,990.96 $4,189.68
HRLY.RATE $43.08 $45.24 $47.52 $49.89 $52.37
S505
WATER SERVICE &
OPERATIONS TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,956.08 $6,256.58 $6,568.28 $6,906.90 $7,252.25
BIWEEKLY $2,748.96 $2,887.65 $3,031.52 $3,187.80 $3,347.19
HRLY.RATE $34.36 $36.10 $37.89 $39.85 $41.84
A110 ZONING TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $6,143.58 $6,438.01 $6,757.94 $7,101.06 $7,446.49
BIWEEKLY $2,835.50 $2,971.39 $3,119.05 $3,277.41 $3,436.84
HRLY.RATE $35.44 $37.14 $38.99 $40.97 $42.96
NOTES
All positions are 40-hour week, unless otherwise noted
Effective 6/26/2017
6/26/2017 3% salary increase for all AFSCME bargaining unit positions, per applicable MOUs
Amended 7/10/17 FY2017-18 budget classification and compensation revisions
Amended 8/21/17 classification and compensation revisions
Amended 9/18/17 classification and compensation revisions
Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, Teamsters, AFSCME BAMM,
2% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergaeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs
3% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement
Amended 6/25/2018 3% salary increase for AFSCME Admin and Maint bargaining unit, per applicable MOUs
3% salary increase City Attorney, per employment agreement
Amended 9/17/18 classification and compensation revisions
Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
CP50 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $37.13 $79.56
CP25 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $50.34 $52.86 $55.50 $58.28 $61.20
CP30 INTERN II $25.75 $30.90 $36.05 $41.20 $46.35
CP60 LABORER $25.07 $26.23 $27.68 $28.97 $30.38
CP86 LIBRARIAN II $30.93 $32.46 $34.03 $35.73 $37.56
CP80 LIBRARY AIDE $12.57 $13.17 $13.83 $14.55 $15.25
CP10 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $21.51 $22.63 $23.75 $24.83 $26.15
CP11 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.00 $25.09 $26.43 $27.60 $28.96
CP21 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $26.49 $27.76 $29.12 $30.58 $32.13
CP40 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $26.72 $28.05 $29.46 $30.92 $32.48
CP15 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $18.60 $22.56 $37.21 $43.42
CP71 RECREATION SPECIALIST $16.64 $17.45 $18.33 $19.26 $20.23
CP05 SENIOR PLANNER $47.01 $49.37 $51.82 $54.40 $57.14
CP20 SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR $44.44 $46.67 $49.00 $51.45 $54.02
NOTES
All positions are hourly
Effective 7/10/2017
Amended 9/18/17
Amended 12/25/17 3% salary incr per approved salary and benefit memo for part-time casual ees
Amended 6/18/18 adding Intern II, and Library Assistant II
Amended 9/17/18 adding Librarian II
Amended 9/17/18 adding Parking Enforcement Officer
City of Burlingame Salary Schedule - Casual Positions
Amended 9/17/2018
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
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 2018-19
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. Close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City;
and,
3. If protests do not constitute a majority of the value of the assessments, adopt the resolution
approving and levying the 2018-19 assessments.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the Burlingame City
Council 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. In the summer of 2010, the DBID was re-instituted after a hiatus of several years.
At that time, the Council reviewed and approved a new annual assessment formula (revising
Chapter 6.54 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, attached as an exhibit to this staff report), which
has remained unchanged since that time. For the past seven years, the DBID has provided
business-enhancing activities, events and publicity for the downtown Burlingame businesses.
The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2018-19 Downtown Burlingame Avenue
BID assessments on August 20, 2018 and established September 17, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. as the
public hearing date and time. If there is a protest by businesses that represent a majority of the
value of the assessments, then the resolution cannot be approved. As of the time of writing this
memorandum, the City had received no protests (out of 430 businesses); protests may be
presented in writing before or at the hearing. Any and all protests must be received by the City
Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing.
DBID Public Hearing – 2018-19 Assessments September 17, 2018
2
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately $90,000 in assessments is collected 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 has
in the past covered the expenses associated with the renewal of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue
BID.
Exhibits:
• Method and Formula of Assessment, Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District
• Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2018-19 Assessments
for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District
Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID)
Formula/Rate Calculation for Assessments
Burlingame Municipal Code
Title 6 BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
Chapter 6.54 BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
6.54.040 Establishment of benefit assessments.
All businesses located within the district boundaries shall pay an annual benefit
assessment to the district for each fiscal year as levied by the city council.
(a) Assessments Zones. For assessment purposes, the district shall be divided into
three (3) zones:
(1) Zone 1 shall consist of all businesses located on the ground floor of buildings on
Burlingame Avenue;
(2) Zone 2 shall consist of all businesses located on the ground floor of buildings on
all streets within the district boundaries other than Burlingame Avenue;
(3) Zone 3 shall consist of all businesses located either below or above the ground
floor of buildings on all streets within the district boundaries.
(b) Assessment Amounts.
(1) Zone 1. All businesses in zone 1 shall be assessed each fiscal year, a basic
assessment fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) and an additional assessment based
upon the square foot measurement of their ground floor space as follows:
(A) Under five hundred (500) square feet, zero dollars ($0.00);
(B) Five hundred (500) square feet, one hundred dollars ($100.00);
(C) For each additional five hundred (500) square feet or portion thereof above five
hundred (500) square feet, an additional fifty dollars ($50.00);
(D) The additional square foot assessment shall be capped at the rate for five thousand
five hundred (5,500) square feet.
(2) Zone 2. All businesses in zone 2 shall be assessed each fiscal year, a basic
assessment fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and an additional assessment based upon the
square foot measurement of their ground floor space as follows:
(A) Under five hundred (500) square feet, zero dollars ($0.00);
(B) Five hundred (500) square feet, eighty dollars ($80.00);
(C) For each additional five hundred (500) square feet or portion thereof, above five
hundred (500) square feet, an additional forty dollars ($40.00);
(D) The additional square foot assessment shall be capped at the rate for five thousand
five hundred (5,500) square feet.
(3) Zone 3. All businesses in zone 3 shall be assessed a basic assessment fee of one
hundred dollars ($100.00).
The annual amount of assessment for each of the businesses in each zone shall not exceed
these amounts without notice, a public hearing and adoption of an ordinance amendment
pursuant to state law. The total annual assessment shall be due and payable thirty (30) days from
receipt of invoice. (Ord. 1854 § 7, (2010))
RESOLUTION NO.:_____2018
A RESOLUTION OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND
LEVYING THE 2018-19 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 method and formula of assessment remains unchanged since that
time; and
WHEREAS, the DBID has operated successfully during the past eight years as
evidenced by the DBID's annual reports; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to levy the 2018-19
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 2018-19 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, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, 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 17th day of September, 2018, and was
adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
1199 HOWARD LLC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 606 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
4G WIRELESS 1344 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,850 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
8Z REAL ESTATE 330 PRIMROSE RD #412 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
A RUNNER'S MIND 1111 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,700 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
A TOUCH OF FLAIR 308 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
A-1 CLEANERS 240 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,056 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
ADVANCED BEAUTY CARE AND
HEALTH 1241 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 800 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
AERIAL SPA LOUNGE 401 PRIMROSE RD #H BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
AJ TUTORING 1199 HOWARD AVE #250 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ALAIN PINEL REALTORS 1440 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ALANA'S CAFE 1408 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 880 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
ALBECO INC DBA MOLLIE
STONE'S MARKET 1477 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 22,500 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
ALHAMBRA GROWTH
PARTNERS, LLC 1460 BALBOA AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ALL FIRED UP 344 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 925 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
ALPHA KITCHEN AND BATH INC.311 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,105 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
AMASIA 301 CALIFORNIA DR #1 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
AMIKO BOUTIQUE 1112 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 420 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
ANDRA NORRIS GALLERY 1107 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 975 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
ANDREW LEI, CPA 345 LORTON AVE #305 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ANNIE'S NAIL SALON 1110 BURLINGAME AVE # 108 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
APPLE INC 1 INFINITE LOOP, MS 104-2TX CUPERTINO, CA 95014 1 5,200 125 550 $675.00 0.007351
AQUA NAIL SALON 1234 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,925 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
ARBY OF MERCED / TOPPER
JEWELERS 1315 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 2,500 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
ARES CORPORATION 1440 CHAPIN AVE # 390 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ASIAN BOX 2706 MIDDLEFIELD RD PALO ALTO, CA 94306 1 1,449 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
ASLAM'S RASOI 2 INC 16 JOSEPH DR S SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 1 2,970 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
AT&T #1521 625 WESTPORT PKWY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051 2 1,800 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
ATHLETA #4630 PO BOX 27809 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125 1 2,800 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
AVANT REAL ESTATE GROUP 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #N BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
AVENUE PET SALON 1427 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
B & N INDUSTRIES INC ET AL 1409 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BABY GAP #9614 PO BOX 27809 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125 1 3,350 125 350 $475.00 0.005173
BALLAST POINT FINANCIAL
PLANNING 340 LORTON AVE #216 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BANANA REPUBLIC #8274 PO BOX 27809 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125 1 6,043 125 600 $725.00 0.007895
BANK OF AMERICA 31303 AGOURA RD WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 2 6,944 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
BANK OF THE WEST 149 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 5,426 100 440 $540.00 0.005881
BARBARA SEIFER, L.M.F.T.405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 301 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BARE BOWLS, INC 240 PARK RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 600 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
BARRACUDA SUSHI JAPANESE
RESTAURANT 347 PRIMROSE ROAD # B BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,875 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
BARRELHOUSE 305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,585 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
BASKIN-ROBBINS 31 FLAVORS
STORE 1409 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,360 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
BAY AREA NATURAL MEDICINE 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #S BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BAY CITY MEDICAL SUPPLIES 1465 CHAPIN AVE # A BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,128 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
BAYWOOD CAPITAL
CORPORATION ET AL 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 606 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BEAUTY CENTURY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # B BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 450 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
BEGOVICH FAMILY
INVESTMENTS LP 340 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BETTER HOMES & GARDENS-JF
FINNEGAN REALTORS 330 PRIMROSE RD #300 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BEVMO 1401 WILLOW PASS RD #900 CONCORD, CA 94520 1 6,760 125 600 $725.00 0.007895
BILL CODY INVESTIGATIONS 405 PRIMROSE RD #317 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BLOOMING VASE 2341 S EL CAMINO REAL SAN MATEO, CA 94403 2 1,610 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
BLUE LINE PIZZA 7200 A WINDSOR DR ALLENTOWN, PA 18106 1 2,519 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
BLUEMERCURY 7 W. 7TH ST. 17TH FLR CINCINNATI, OH 45203 1 2,250 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
BLUSH ORGANIC FROZEN
YOGURT PO BOX 25462 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 2 825 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
BOMBSHELL 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #W BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BONNIE'S FINE JEWELRY, LLC.330 PRIMROSE RD #509 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
BOOKS INC 1501 VERMONT ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 1 3,880 125 400 $525.00 0.005717
BOOSTER FUELS, INC.1201 HOWARD AVE #200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BOSTON PRIVATE BANK & TRUST 1440 CHAPIN AVE #101 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 4,020 100 360 $460.00 0.005010
BR COMMERCIAL 1408 CHAPIN AVE # 4 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BRIA SALON 1100 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,430 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
BURLINGAME ACE HARDWARE 235 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 3,225 100 280 $380.00 0.004138
BURLINGAME CHIROPRACTIC
CLINIC 1201 HOWARD AVE # 101A BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
BURLINGAME MASONIC HALL,
INC.145 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 X 0 0 0 $0.00 0.000000
BURLINGAME OPTICAL 257 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 625 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
BURLINGAME TOBACCONISTS 1404 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 488 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
CAFE ON PRIMROSE 321 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 845 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
CAFFE CENTRAL 235 POWELL ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 1 1,965 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
CALICO CORNERS 1100 HOWARD AVE # A BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 3,608 100 320 $420.00 0.004574
CALIFORNIA CLOSETS 247 CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,875 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
CAPITAL AVE EXPRESS 28214 LEAF DR TRACY, CA 95304 1 2,860 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
CAPITAL REALTY GROUP 1200 HOWARD AVE # 204 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CARI LENAHAN MFT ET AL 1408 CHAPIN AVE # 3 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL,
THOMPSON & HORN 216 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 4,665 100 400 $500.00 0.005445
CECILIA A NEPOMUCENO, PH.D 405 PRIMROSE RD #318 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CHANG ARCHITECTURE 251 PARK ROAD # 900 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CHANGE OF SEASON 14 WILLOW AVE MILLBRAE, CA 94030 2 144 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CHASE BANK 8111 PRESTON RD #250 DALLAS TX 75225 2 4,840 100 400 $500.00 0.005445
CHASE BERENSTEIN & MURRAY -
LAW ET AL 1220 HOWARD AVE # 250 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CHERIMOYA VIETNAMESE CAFE 283 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 650 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
CHRISTIE'S 245 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,325 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
CITIBANK, N.A.210 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 4,400 100 360 $460.00 0.005010
CITY NATIONAL BANK 1450 CHAPIN AVE #100 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CJ'S GOURMET DELI 290 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 525 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
CLASSIC KIDS LLC 566 CHESTNUT, STE 1 WINNETKA IL 60093 2 1,560 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
CLAY HERMAN REALTOR, INC 251 PARK RD SUITE #710 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,100 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
CLOUDXTENSION CORP 1200 HOWARD AVE #201 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
COCONUT BAY COMPANY INC.1107 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 5,000 100 440 $540.00 0.005881
COLDWELL BANKER 1412 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 5,000 100 440 $540.00 0.005881
COLDWELL BANKER 1427 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 5,175 100 440 $540.00 0.005881
COMERICA BANK/CBRE 301 E. OCEAN BLVD. 18TH FL,
MC 4447 LONG BEACH, CA 90802 2 5,035 100 440 $540.00 0.005881
COMPUTER SPECTRUM 214 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
COPENHAGEN BAKERY & CAFE 1216 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 4,500 125 500 $625.00 0.006806
CRE8 A COUCH 347 PRIMROSE RD #C BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 900 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
CROWDSTAR, INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 305, 310 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CRUX SYSTEMS, INC 340 LORTON AVE #213 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
CRYSTAL GALLERIA 480 BARBER LANE MILPITAS, CA 95035 1 916 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
DANIEL C MORENO CPA 180 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DANLI CHIROPRACTIC &
WELLNESS 340 LORTON AVE # 203 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DAVID LIN, PSY 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 312 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DAVIDS TEA (USA) INC 1400 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
DE COLORES HAIR STUDIO 1403 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 315 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DEBORAH A SIMMONS MFT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 313 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DEJA VU 1109 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 720 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
DEL OLIVA 1440 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,500 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
DETHRONE LLC 261 CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 6,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
DIAMONDS FINE HAND AND
FOOT SPA 1110 BURLINGAME AVE # 103 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DIDI SALON 1221 DONNELLY AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,250 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
DON SNIDER & ASSOCIATES 1110 BURLINGAME AVE # 213 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
DRYBAR HOLDINGS LLC DBA
DRYBAR 125 TECHNOLOGY DR #150 IRVINE, CA 92618 2 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
DYNORA BAKERY 522 N CLAREMONT ST SAN MATEO, CA 94401 2 720 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
EDU - THERAPY/ DARLENE ROSE
DEMARIA 340 LORTON AVE # 204 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
EDWARD JONES INVESTMENTS 1201 HOWARD AVE # 201 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
EFLEXERVICES INC 1220 HOWARD AVE #220 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
EHRNEST E BALLAGH
ACCOUNTANCY CORP 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 204 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
EMERY HOWARD PORTFOLIO
MANAGEMENT, LLC 333 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,950 100 240 $340.00 0.003703
EMILY'S NAILS 211 PARK RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 400 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ENCORE'1375 BURLINGAME AVE #200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ESZENCE 776 PACHECO ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
EUROPEAN WAX CENTER 249 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,120 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
FAITH S. FREED, MFT 340 LORTON AVE #210 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
FAMILY VISION CENTER 411 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 900 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
FARM AND VINE 250 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,550 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
FATED BRANDS 405 PRIMROSE RD #200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
FATED STUDIOS 405 PRIMROSE RD #322 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
FESTIVE PRODUCTIONS 1345 HOWARD AVE # 202 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 100 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,540 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
FIORI 2314 CHESTNUT ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 1 400 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
COMPANY 1440 CHAPIN AVE # 350 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES 1118 CHESS DR FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 2 2,001 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
FIVE LITTLE MONKEYS 1144 10TH STREET BERKELEY, CA 94710 1 1,680 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
FLIGHTS RESTAURANT 1100 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 4,200 125 450 $575.00 0.006262
FLORALART & DECOR 1414 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 960 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
FOX MALL MANAGEMENT 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # X BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
FRANCESCA'S COLLECTIONS 8760 CLAY RD #100 HOUSTON, TX 77080 1 1,750 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
FRINGE SALON 371 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 480 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
GAIL M SHAK PHD 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
GAP #141 PO BOX 27809 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87125 1 7,435 125 600 $725.00 0.007895
GEKAKIS & COMPANY 345 LORTON AVE #204 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
GENERAL NUTRITION CENTER 300 SIXTH AVE PITTSBURGH, PA 15222 2 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
GENEVE JEWELERS -
GOLDSMITHS 291 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 675 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
GEORGE ANDERS 301 CALIFORNIA DR #8 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
GERMAN CAR CARE 251 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,600 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
GILMARTIN GROUP 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 512 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
GOODWATER CAPITAL 240 LORTON AVE, 3RD FLOOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
GREAT CLIPS FOR HAIR 16292 LYLE STREET SAN LEANDRO, CA 94578 2 900 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
GREEN BANKER 398 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 4,515 100 400 $500.00 0.005445
GRIFFITHS - GOYETTE 330 PRIMROSE RD #614 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HADIA MAKDISI 251 PARK ROAD # 150 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HAIR FAIRIES INC.21700 OXNARD ST #850 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HALO BLOW DRY BAR 311 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,500 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
HAPPY LEMON 851 BURLWAY RD #716 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
HARMONIOUS HOUSING INC 409 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 990 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
HEALTHY HORIZONS [PENIN
BREASTFEEDING]720 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 900 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
HEAVENLY COUTURE, INC 5355 PRODUCTION DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 1 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
HENRY HORN & SONS, INC.405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 300 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HERIZ MUSIC & ART 210 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,850 100 240 $340.00 0.003703
HERIZ RUGS 218 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 600 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
HIGHLAND REALTY CAPITAL 301 CALIFORNIA DR #4 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HILARY K ROBINSON, LCSW 405 PRIMROSE RD #307 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HOLIDAY TRAVEL SERVICE OF
BURLINGAME 251 PARK ROAD # 500 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HOME CARE ASSISTANCE OF
CALIFORNIA, LLC.1255 OAKMEAD PKWY SUNNYVALE, CA 94085 2 810 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
HORN APPRAISAL SERVICE 409 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
HOUSE OF BAGELS 260 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,425 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
I LOVE GREEN CLEAN 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #E BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 300 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
I PRIVE'3463 RIMINI LN DUBLIN, CA 94568 1 1,600 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
I TEA 346 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
I80 GROUP 345 LORTON AVE #304 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
IBUILDAPP 330 PRIMROSE RD #402 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ICHINYOSHA INTERNATIONAL
U.S.A., INC.1200 HOWARD AVE # 203 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
IDEAL EYES OPTOMETRY 1403 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 790 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
IKE'S LOVE & SANDWICHES 1400 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
IL FORNAIO 327 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 8,883 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
JANIE AND JACK #938 PO BOX 40016 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 1 1,240 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
JC INTERNATIONAL 340 LORTON AVE # 207 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
JETFLEET MANAGEMENT CORP
ET AL 1440 CHAPIN AVE # 310 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
JIGSAW USA 145 S. FAIRFAX AVE #200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90036 1 1,200 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
JOANA'S EUROPEAN FASHIONS 1412 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 450 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
JOE & THE JUICE SFO LLC 110 GREENE ST., SUITE 702 NEW YORK, NY 10012 1 3,850 125 400 $525.00 0.005717
JONATHAN D. BROWN, ESQ.407 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 474 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
JOSEPH V. ZACCONE, CPA 330 PRIMROSE RD #504 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
JOUGERT BAR 1115 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,007 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
JUMPSTART MD PO BOX 117627 BURLINGAME, CA 94011 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
JUST KIDS CUTS & BEAUTY
MARKET 890 DONNER AVE SONOMA, CA 95476 2 1,599 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
K & E MANAGEMENT LTD 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 404 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KAI DEVELOPMENT ET AL 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 409 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KARA'S CUPCAKES INC 2565 THIRD ST #334 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 1 1,096 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
KAREN S ROBSON MA 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 309 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KARP COMPANIES/CALIF.
REALTY 1209 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KATE SPADE #3054 PO BOX 8000 MONSEY, NY 10952 1 1,840 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
KATHERINE MAYER M.A., M.F.T 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 308 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KATHY NAIL PEDICURE SPA 1345 HOWARD AVE #101 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KAYU DESIGN INC.1245 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
KEENAN CAPITAL 1229 BURLINGAME AVE 201 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY 1430 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
KERN JEWELERS 214 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 3,000 100 280 $380.00 0.004138
KUPFER JEWELRY CENTER 1211 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,240 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
L'ESCAPE SPA SALON 347 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 500 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
L'VIAN 317 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 625 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
LA CORNETA TAQUERIA 1123 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 2,310 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
LACELET 100 BALTIC CIRCLE #122 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 1 450 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
LANDSCAPE REFLECTIONS 1345 HOWARD AVE # 203 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID
MAGNUSON 345 LORTON AVE #201 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D
LIBERTY 1290 HOWARD AVE # 303 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LAW OFFICES OF HAITHAM E
BALLOUT 1290 HOWARD AVE # 300 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LAW OFFICES OF HERMAN H
FITZGERALD 345 LORTON AVE #301 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LAW OFFICES OF VORSATZ &
VORSATZ 345 LORTON AVE #103 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LEE MENDELSON FILM
PRODUCTIONS, INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 215 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LELAND TEA COMPANY 1030 LARKIN ST #2 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LEMONADE 10000 CULVER BLVD CULVER CITY, CA 90232 1 3,000 125 350 $475.00 0.005173
LES DEUX COPINES 1433 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,120 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
LF STORES 5333 MMCCONNELL AVE LOS ANGELES, CA 90066 1 2,000 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
LIMON ROTISSERIE 1101 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 2,496 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
LOFT INC 1316 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
LUCY ACTIVEWEAR, INC.PO BOX 21647 GREENSBORO, NC 27420 1 1,480 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
LULULEMON ATHLETICA USA INC 1304 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 4,000 125 450 $575.00 0.006262
LUNULA NAIL SALON 951 OLD COUNTY RD #2-285 BELMONT, CA 94002 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LUXE 359 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 481 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LYMELIGHT FOUNDATION INC 1229 BURLINGAME AVENUE
#205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
LYNN HILL & CO 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 411 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LYNNE RUPPEL, LEARNING
SPECIALIST 6600 GOLF COURSE DR HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
LYRA 205 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
M H PODELL CO 1201 HOWARD AVE # 300 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
M3 HAIR DESIGN (JOHN
MORIZONO)1110 BURLINGAME AVE # 212 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MAINSAIL JEWELRY 1231 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 600 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
MAITE NAIL SPA 349 CALLIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 450 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MARGARET O'LEARY INC 263 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 950 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
MARIANNA MARSHA MEDNIKN,
PHD 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 214 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MARIE'S BRIDAL 1666 VIA LAGUNA FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 2 330 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MARIN CONSULTING INC/
INSPIRATION VENTURES 330 PRIMROSE RD #612 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MARLINDA SKIN & BODY CARE -
MOD 1199 HOWARD AVE #102 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 750 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
MARSHA JURASIN & ASSOC 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 209 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MC GUIRE 2001 LOMBARD ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 2 4,200 100 360 $460.00 0.005010
MCGUIGAN & MCGUIGAN, CPA 345 LORTON AVE # 205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ME TIME, INC 62 SEQUOIA CT SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 2 2,000 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
MEDITERRANEAN KEBAB 1318 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,600 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
MIA BELLA BOUTIQUE SALON 29 WOODLAND AVE DALY CITY, CA 94015 2 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MICHAEL SULPIZIO, CPA 1419 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MILLENNIUM STAR LLC 1440 CHAPIN AVE # 385 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MILLIE MANGO 1192 ESSEX LANE FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 1 2,000 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
MINGALABA, INC.1213 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,240 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
MOBIUS HOLDINGS, LLC 1290 HOWARD AVE #323 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MODA STUDIOS 348 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 800 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
MONA KARAM HAUTE COIFFURE 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # G BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 0 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
MONACO FINE WATCH &
JEWELRY DESIGN, LLC 2059 31ST AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116 2 450 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
MONDI HAIR SALON 1205 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,650 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH
BARNEY, LLC.216 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MORNING GLORY 1436 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,350 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
MULBERRY'S 251 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 725 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
MURPHY WOOD
INCORPORATED 1110 BURLINGAME AVE # 403 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
MY LITTLE NAIL SHOP 247 PARK RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
NACHORIA 1325 HOWARD AVE #705 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,000 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
NAJWA'S BEAUTY SALON 401 PRIMROSE ROAD # A BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
NARIN THAI CUISINE 231 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 525 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
NEW FRONTIER FOOD INC 1424 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
NEW LIGHT COUNSELING
SERVICE PO BOX 1290 BELMONT, CA 94002 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
NEXT ADVISOR INC 1409 CHAPIN AVE, 3RD FLOOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
NICKY'S 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # C BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 480 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
NICOLE NICOLE LILLES SALON &
COLOR LOUNGE 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #T BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
NOIR LASH LOUNGE 23515 NE NOVELTY HILL RD
B221 #300 REDMOND, WA 98053 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE CO 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 600 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
NUANCE DESIGN JEWELERS 1152 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 560 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
O'CONNOR MORTGAGE
COMPANY 330 PRIMROSE RD #315-B BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
OCCIDENTAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT LLC 301 CALIFORNIA DR #9 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
OCEAN HONDA OF BURLINGAME 43652 MICHIGAN AVE CANTON, MI 48188 2 10,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY 1855 GATEWAY BLVD, STE 200 CONCORD, CA 94520 2 630 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
ONE MEDICAL GROUP 130 SUTTER ST, FLR 2 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 2 3,191 100 280 $380.00 0.004138
ONYX SALON LLC 1113 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,500 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
OPEN IMPACT LLC 345 LORTON AVE #302 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
OSBORNE INSURANCE AGENCY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # O BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
OUTSELL INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 510 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PACIFIC BELL - ATTN SBC TAX
DEPT 1010 N SAINT MARY'S 9TH FLR SAN ANTONIO, TX 78215 1 10,000 125 600 $725.00 0.007895
PACIFIC NEUROSURGERY 45 CASTRO ST #421 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PADDY FLYNN'S 246 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 825 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
PAMELA A CRONIN 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 212 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PAMELA RUDD PHD.1204 BURLINGAME AVE # 5 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PANDA EXPRESS #907 1683 WALNUT GROVE AVE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 1 2,475 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
PAPER CAPER 1442 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,160 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
PAPER SOURCE 125 S. CLARK ST. FL15 CHICAGO, IL 60603 1 3,650 125 400 $525.00 0.005717
PAPYRUS #280 500 CHADBORNE RD FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 1 1,400 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
PARK & HOWARD BISTRO 1300 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,640 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
PARTEE CONSTRUCTION 340 LORTON AVE # 211 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PATRONIK DESIGNS 314 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,105 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
PAULA ZIMMERMAN, MFT 405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 306 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PEET'S COFFEE & TEA 21 ROBERT PITT DR, STE 310 MONSEY, NY 10952 1 1,960 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
PENINSULA PSYCHIATRIC
PRACTICE 345 LORTON AVE # 104 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PENINSULA PSYCHIC CENTER 929 S. EL CAMINO REAL SAN MATEO, CA 94402 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PET FOOD EXPRESS 500 85TH AVENUE OAKLAND, CA 94621 2 6,324 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
PHILZ COFFEE, INC 1258 MINNESOTA ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
PIZZA MY HEART 16222 SHANNON RD LOS GATOS, CA 95032 2 2,200 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
PIZZERIA DELFINA 3621 18TH ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 1 2,000 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
POKE TIME HAWAIIAN POKI
SHOP 1117 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 780 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
POLISHED 1214 BURLINGAME AVE # 2 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 250 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
POTTERY BARN #281 3250 VAN NESS AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 1 4,480 125 450 $575.00 0.006262
PREMIER LENDING 1199 HOWARD AVE # 200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PRESTIGE WINES & LIQUORS 377 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
PRIMP & POLISHED 363 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 500 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
PRIMROSE ALLOYS INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
PRIMROSE TAILOR CLEANERS 1475 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
PRIVATE MORTGAGE ADVISORS,
LLC 555 ANTON BLVD.COSTA MESA, CA 92626 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
PROJECT ZEN WELLNESS 318 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
PURE BARRE BURLINGAME 20385 IRON SPRINGS RD LOS GATOS, CA 95033 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
QUEST REAL ESTATE 1201 HOWARD AVE # 102 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
QUICKLY 1407 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,200 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
R-SLICE LTD.1209 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
RANGOON RUBY BURMESE
CUISINE 1219 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 2,160 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
RASA 209 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,075 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
RAYBURN COMPANY 1200 HOWARD AVE #206 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
RB'S THREADING STUDIO 1110 BURLINGAME AVE # 107 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
MID-PENINSULA/MARDOLLA
GRP
405 PRIMROSE ROAD # 208 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
REALTY WORLD GOOD HORIZON 63 BOVET RD #416 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
REC ROOM CREATIVE 11419 CHAPIN AVE #101 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
RECONNECT HAIR DESIGN 256 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,200 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
REDLINE MOTORSPORTS 251 CALIFORNIA DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,600 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
RENDA ZA'AROUR SALON 1210 DONNELLY AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 925 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
RETRO SWEETS SHOPPE 1166 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,944 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
REVI, INC 330 PRIMROSE RD #217 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
RISE PIZZERIA 1451 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,800 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
RITUALS AESTHETIC SKIN CARE 251 PARK ROAD # 249 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
RMC REAL ESTATE LOANS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # R BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ROBERT E PISANO, ATTORNEY
AT LAW 1204 BURLINGAME AVE # 4 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ROCKY COLOGNE'S COMEDY
TRAFFIC SCHOOL 1243 HOWARD AVE # A BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
ROSDAHL HOLDINGS LLC DBA
DEVAN VINCENT 8662 GALINDO DR DUBLIN, CA 94568 3 800 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
ROYAL LOAN LLC & ROYAL LOAN
CO.1419 BURLINGAME AVE #F BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
RVN ENTERPRISES 355 PRIMROSE ROAD # 5 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SAFEWAY STORES, INC. #1547 PO BOX 29096 PHOENIX, AZ 85038 2 40,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
SAKAE 243 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 875 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
SALON 1461 391 BODEGA ST FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 1 1,641 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
SALON LE ROUGE & COLOR
STUDIO 1375 BURLINGAME AVE #205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SALON REVEL LLC 401 PRIMROSE RD #G BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SALON STILO 1200 HOWARD AVE #105 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SALTYARD RESTAURANT & WINE
BAR 322 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,400 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
SAM FERDOWS - ATTORNEY AT
LAW 1290 HOWARD AVE # 327 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SAM MALOUF 1460 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 3,064 125 350 $475.00 0.005173
SAM'S ITALIAN SANDWICH CO.1080 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 705 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
SAMANTHA CHEN, MFT 340 LORTON AVE # 205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SAMMY C. YIM 1419 BURLINGAME AVE SUITE P BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SAN FRANCISCO SOUP
COMPANY 451 6TH ST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 2 2,000 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
SANIEFAR LAW 1220 HOWARD AVE STE 200 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SAPORE ITALIANO DBA MAMME
INC 1447 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,200 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES 1319 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SEESAW PSYCHOLOGY GROUP 309 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,145 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
SELLING ENERGY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #P1 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SEPHORA 525 MARKET ST FL 32 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 1 3,080 125 350 $475.00 0.005173
SHAMA THAI MASSAGE 1100 HOWARD AVE #B BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 947 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
SHEAR MAGIC HAIR DESIGN 311 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 450 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SIXTO'S CANTINA 1448 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 4,400 125 450 $575.00 0.006262
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
SL GRIFFITHS, INC./ A.
MEYERHOFFER PO BOX 117536 BURLINGAME, CA 94011 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SOLE DESIRE SHOES 5550 SKYLANE BLVD STE G SANTA ROSA, CA 95403 1 8,000 125 600 $725.00 0.007895
SOLO BAMBINI 1150 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 800 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
ST CLAIR'S 1215 DONNELLY AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
STACKS RESTAURANT 361 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 3,906 100 320 $420.00 0.004574
STARBUCKS COFFEE CO #523 PO BOX 34442-TAX 2 SEATTLE, WA 98124 1 1,728 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
STEELHEAD BREWING, CO.PO BOX 11006 EUGENE, OR 97440 2 4,212 100 360 $460.00 0.005010
STELLA ALPINA OSTERIA 401 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
STERLING CLEANERS 1681 BROADWAY ST REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 2 2,125 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
STRATEGY WORKPLACE
COMMUNICATIONS 330 PRIMROSE RD #218 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
STUDIO 401 1199 HOWARD AVE #102 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 750 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
STUMPF CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT 1290 HOWARD AVE #311-B BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SUB BURLINGAME LLC 1325 HOWARD AVE #705 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 550 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
SUNGLASS HUT #5176 PO BOX 8509 MASON, OH 45040 1 2,050 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
SUNKISSED TANNING SALONS 401 PRIMROSE ROAD #C BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SUR LA TABLE 6100 4TH AVE S, SUITE 500 SEATTLE, WA 98108 2 4,750 100 400 $500.00 0.005445
SWITZER,GOLDAU &
ASSOCIATES 1201 HOWARD AVE # 101 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
SYME GROUP INC.1427 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
TALK [TEACHING & ASSESSING
LANGUAGE FOR KIDS]1209 HOWARD AVE # 203 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
TAMER MICKEL SALON &
BEAUTY 264 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,000 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
TAMIKA NAILS AND SPA 2649 HUTCHINGS DR SAN JOSE, CA 95111 2 1,598 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
TAPAS MEDIA, INC.263 HATCH LN, SUITE C BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
TEA PLUS NOODLE 1100 HOWARD AVE # D BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,430 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
TECHLOOP
IPHONE,IPAD,MAC,PC REPAIR
AND SALES
708 SANTA CRUZ AVE MENLO PARK, CA 94025 1 800 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
TERRA TEAK AND GARDEN 1320 BURLINGAME AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 3,200 125 350 $475.00 0.005173
THE ALIBI 220 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 725 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
THE ANIMAL CONNECTION II 980 TERESITA BLVD SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94127 1 2,860 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
THE CAKERY 1308 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 2,200 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
THE CHEF AND THE COOK 1465 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,880 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
THE CREPEVINE 1310 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 2,700 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
THE CUT BARBER SHOP 218 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 625 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
THE LASH BAR 1229 BURLINGAME AVE #202 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
THE POKE SHOP 210 GREENDALE WAY #4 SAN JOSE, CA 95129 2 500 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
THE SHADE STORE, LLC 21 ABENDROTH AVE PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 1 916 125 100 $225.00 0.002450
THE SKIN CARE CLINIC / CLAUDIA
PANITTO 1475 BURLINGAME AVE # D BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 2,279 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
THE STUDIO SHOP 244 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,110 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
THE TAILOR & THE COBBLER 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # K BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 400 125 0 $125.00 0.001361
THE TRIMM-WAY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # Y BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
THE UPS STORE #2354 1325 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,225 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
THE ZEKA GROUP INC.1110 BURLINGAME AVE # 400 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
THERAPY STORES, INC 347 E CAMPBELL AVE CAMPBELL, CA 95008 1 1,500 125 200 $325.00 0.003539
TIP N TOE SALON 1401 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 315 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
TODAY SOTHEBY'S
INTERNATIONAL REALTY 1250 SAN CARLOS AVE SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
TOMOKAZU JAPANESE CUISINE 1101 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 3,219 100 280 $380.00 0.004138
TORA TRADING SERVICES, LLC 1440 CHAPIN AVE #205 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
TPUMPS, LLC 25079 VIKING ST HAYWARD, CA 94545 1 1,000 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
TRAPEZE RESTAURANT 266 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,690 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
TRAVEL WIZARDS 190 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,476 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
TREJERD MEMORIES DBA PAPER
& PETALS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE # I BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,440 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
TRIAD COMMUNICATIONS 1199 HOWARD AVE # 325 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
TRINA TURK [L2T DBA]1223 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 2,040 125 250 $375.00 0.004084
TRITERRA REALTY GROUP, INC.1105 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
U-WILL MARKETING USA 1204 BURLINGAME AVE #10 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
UK HAIR 1410 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 1,176 125 150 $275.00 0.002995
UNION BANK PO BOX 7788 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 2 1,500 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
UNITED STUDIOS OF DEFENSE 1345 HOWARD AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,330 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
URBAN ROCK PROPERTIES 1204 BURLINGAME AVE #9 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
US BANK 1423 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 3,000 125 350 $475.00 0.005173
USA NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY,
INC 398 PRIMROSE RD #226 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
VAN'S #318 PO BOX 21647 GREENSBORO, NC 27420 1 3,485 125 350 $475.00 0.005173
VENTURI COMPANY 345 LORTON AVE # 105 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
VINEYARD VINES RETAIL, LLC.181 HARBOR DR STAMFORD, CT 06902 1 2,760 125 300 $425.00 0.004628
VINYL ROOM 221 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,600 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
VIVAAA FOR HAIR 345 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 600 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
W A CAPITAL 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 202 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WAG!1290 HOWARD AVE #319 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WALGREEN'S 0086 260 EL CAMINO REAL BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 10,000 100 480 $580.00 0.006316
WARREN K WOO, ATTY AT LAW 340 LORTON AVE # 214 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WATCH GALLERY 1375 BURLINGAME AVE # F BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WAVE GROUP SOUND, INC 1220 HOWARD AVE #230 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WEHMEYER DESIGN & CUSTOM
HOMES 1204 BURLINGAME AVE #7 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WELLS FARGO BANK 1500 BROADWAY #T3203-025 LUBBOCK, TX 79401 1 5,500 125 600 $725.00 0.007895
WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE 1500 BROADWAY LUBBOCK, TX 79401 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WELLS FARGO HOME
MORTGAGE 1500 BROADWAY LUBBOCK, TX 79401 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WONDER TECHNOLOGIES INC 1229 BURLINGAME AVE #120 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WOODSTOCK DEVELOPMENT
INC 330 PRIMROSE ROAD # 203 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
WOWPRETTY PROFESSIONAL
MAKEUP AND HAIR 1200 HOWARD AVE #103 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 675 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
Business/Customer Name Location/Mailing Address City, State, Zip Zone Feet2 Flat Rate Surcharge Total
Assessment
Weighted
Vote
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - ASSESSMENT FOR FY2018-19
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
EXHIBIT A
XL SALON 222 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
YEAMAC 277 PRIMROSE RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 825 100 80 $180.00 0.001960
YF INTERNATIONAL 180 PARK ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,800 100 160 $260.00 0.002831
YOGURTLAND SOUTH BAY 225 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 1,000 100 120 $220.00 0.002396
YVES DELORME INC 1725 BROADWAY ST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 2 2,100 100 200 $300.00 0.003267
ZOZAN RUGS 1375 BURLINGAME AVE #103 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3 0 100 0 $100.00 0.001089
[FIDELITY BROKERAGE] FIDELITY
INVESTMENTS 1411 CHAPIN AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2 2,688 100 240 $340.00 0.003703
430 TOTAL ASSESSMENTS 45,425 46,400 $91,825.00
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Sheryl Schaffner, Acting City Attorney – (650) 558-7263
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapter
25.70.034 to amend hotel and motel parking regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council consider proposed amendments to the Burlingame Municipal
Code regarding accessory dwelling units. In order to do so, the City Council should:
1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,
AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTER 25.70.034 TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL
PARKING REGULATIONS.
2. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance.
3. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
4. Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and provide any
direction to staff; if no changes are requested, then direct that the ordinance be placed on
the October 1, 2018 City Council Agenda for adoption.
5. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
If introduced, the ordinance along with a resolution verifying that the actions of the City Council are
in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will be
presented for adoption at the October 1, 2018 regular meeting of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
In June 2017, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee conducted a periodic
check-in with the local hotel general managers. As part of the discussion, the managers
encouraged the City to conduct a review of the parking requirements for hotels due to
underutilization of their existing parking facilities. Data provided at that time showed that as much
as 20% of on-site parking was going unused on a regular basis at some of the hotels, and that in
some instances, the percentage of unused parking spaces was greater.
Title 25 – Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations September 17, 2018
2
Managers cited three influencing factors: the popularity of ride-share services such as Lyft and
Uber, the high use of hotel shuttles by guests, and the use of hotels in Burlingame as lodging for
flight crews. Ride-share services and the availability of hotel shuttles are affordable alternatives to
renting a car, and, given the close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), flight
crews use hotel shuttles for transport to and from the hotels.
On July 3, 2017, the City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to proceed with a
review and potential modification of parking requirements for hotel uses. Current zoning code
regulations (Chapter 25.70.034) require hotels and motels to provide one parking space for every
one room. A survey of all the local hotels and motels (12 hotels/motels in total) was conducted in
May 2018 to evaluate parking utilization for each respective hotel/motel. The following section is
an analysis and discussion of the survey findings.
DISCUSSION
In May 2018, Planning Division staff conducted an online survey to gather hotel and motel
information for parking and room occupancy. Of the 12 hotels and motels in Burlingame, eight
general managers responded to the survey (seven online, one by phone). The table below
summarizes data collected from the survey. Some hotels provided the specific number of cars
parked on a monthly and annual basis. For the remaining hotels, the daily average of unused
spaces was calculated taking the total annual parking revenue for 2017 and dividing it by the daily
parking rate. The weekly average of hotel occupancy was directly provided by survey respondents.
This space intentionally blank
Title 25 – Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations September 17, 2018
3
Table 1
Summary of Burlingame Hotel and Motel Parking and Occupancy in 2017
Hotel/Motel
Operator Total
Rooms
Total
Spaces
Daily Average
of Unused
Spaces**
Weekly
Average of
Hotel
Occupancy
Paid Parking
Fees
Park &
Fly
Bay Landing* 130 - - - - -
Crowne Plaza 309 317 54% 80-90%
Self-parking:
$24/daily
Valet: $26/daily
Yes
Doubletree 395 250 81% 91%
Self-parking:
$26/daily
No valet
Yes
Embassy
Suites 340 325 94% 90%
Free to the
public;
Self-parking:
$29/daily
No
Hampton Inn
& Suites* 77 - - - - -
Hilton Garden
Inn 132 139 Does not track 80-85% Free Parking No
Hilton SFO 400 400 Not provided
on survey 92%
Self-parking:
$20/ daily
Valet: $26/daily
Yes
Holiday Inn
Express* 146 - - - - -
Hyatt
Regency 789 798 75% 83.8% - 85.6% Self-parking:
$25/daily Yes
Marriott 688 630 79-80% 87.4%
Self-parking:
$30/daily
Valet: $35/daily
No
Red Roof
Plus+* 213 - - - - -
Vagabond Inn 90 78 Did not track in
2017 88.5%
Free Parking
with exception of
park-and-fly
Yes
* These hotels did not participate in the survey.
** These figures represent hotel occupancy only; park-and-fly utilization is not included in these figures.
Based on the data collected, there is a high underutilization of parking facilities at the respective
hotels – ranging from 54% to 94% parking vacancy on a daily average. Findings from the survey
also included the following:
• 100% of the hotels and motels surveyed provide complimentary airport shuttle service; and
• The average hotel stay for flight crews is one to three days.
Comparison to Similar Cities: All the Burlingame hotels and motels are located on the Bayfront,
in close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport. The farthest distance between the
airport and a hotel/motel in Burlingame is three miles, and the closest distance is less than one
mile. Ride-share and airport shuttle services act as alternative transportation options for hotel and
motel guests. Flight crews, in particular, make up a significant percentage of hotel/motel guests
(25% for one hotel surveyed) and tend to take advantage of airport hotel shuttles
Title 25 – Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations September 17, 2018
4
Table 2 summarizes the hotel and motel parking requirements for cities near the three major
airports in the Bay Area: San Francisco International (SFO), Oakland International (OAK), and San
José International (SJC).
Table 2.
Hotel and Motel Parking Requirements in Cities near Major Airports in the Bay Area
Near San Francisco International Airport
Burlingame 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
San Bruno
1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
1 space for resident manager
San Mateo 2 spaces for every 5 hotel/motel rooms
South San Francisco
1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
2 spaces adjacent to registration office;
Specific parking requirements for airport hotels and motels (see attachments)
Near Oakland International Airport
Oakland
Based on zoning area ranging from the following parking requirements:
• no parking required;
• 1 space for 1 motel room, 1 space for each 2 hotel rooms; or
• 1 space for 1 motel room, 3 spaces for every 4 hotel rooms.
Alameda
1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
1 space for resident manager
Hayward
1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
1 space for each 2 employees
San Leandro
1.1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
1 space for every 50 SF of banquet seating area
Near San José International Airport
San José
1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
1 space per employee
Cupertino
1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
1 space per employee
Milpitas
1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
+
2 spaces per manager’s unit
Santa Clara 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room
Planning Commission Review and Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed hotel and motel parking amendments as a study item at its June 25, 2018 meeting and
as an action item at its August 27, 2018 meeting (meeting minutes attached). The Commission
discussed potential alternatives to the current hotel and motel parking requirements in Burlingame
including:
• Propose a decreased parking ratio that aligns with the data provided in this survey;
• Allow a Conditional Use Permit (as opposed to a Variance) to reduce the number of parking
spaces required for a particular hotel;
• Impose no parking requirement, and instead allow hotels and motels to determine how much
parking to provide to meet anticipated demand; or
Title 25 – Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations September 17, 2018
5
• Maintain the existing hotel and motel parking requirement.
The Commission came to consensus that a Conditional Use Permit for parking reduction would be
the preferred approach. Two hotels submitted letters to the Planning Commission, both expressing
preference for the Conditional Use Permit approach (attached).
Proposed Ordinance. The proposed ordinance sets forth text amendments to the City’s existing
hotel and motel parking regulations to address the underutilization of parking at nearly half of the
City’s hotel and motel establishments. A reduction in parking from the existing parking standards
would provide hotel and motel operators additional options with respect to how to utilize excess
parking areas. Such options may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Expand existing park-and-fly programs that would generate increased revenue for
hotels/motels;
• Allow existing hotels/motels that currently cannot have a park-and-fly program due to the
existing parking requirements the opportunity to have a park-and-fly program;
• Allow new (and existing) hotel/motel projects to propose their own parking ratio;
• Allow for mixed uses or expansion of mixed uses on site such as restaurant or commercial
recreation; and
• Reduce underutilized land.
The proposed amendment is an added provision to Code Section 25.70.034 that would allow
parking reductions through approval of a Conditional Use Permit and establish criteria for approval
of such requests.
The proposed ordinance is provided as an attachment to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The unutilized parking spaces identified in the survey do not generate revenue for the City.
Depending on how hotels repurpose existing utilized spaces, new revenues may be generated
through uses such as expanded park-and-fly operations, expansion of hotel operations, etc.
In instances where park-and-fly operations are added or expanded, hotel charges fall under the
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate of 12 percent, while any parking proceeds (usually collected
by a third-party parking operation) fall under a "special business license tax" of 5 percent of gross
proceeds.
Exhibits:
• Proposed Ordinance
• Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.70.034 – Tracked Changes
• June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
• August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes
• Hotel Comment Letters
• Hotel Survey Questionnaire
• Public Notice
1
ORDINANCE NO. ____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING
TITLE 25 – CHAPTER 25.70.034 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND
HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning amendments would allow parking reductions for hotel and
motel operators through approval of a Conditional Use Permit, as reflected in the amendments
to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.034; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the zoning code are considered minor alterations to
land use limitations, which are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame on July 3, 2017 directed staff to proceed
with amendments for hotel and motel parking regulations; and
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
August 27, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written
materials and testimony presented at said hearing and recommended to the City Council that it
adopt amendments to Title 25 (zoning code) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend the
hotel and motel parking regulations to allow parking reductions through approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby ordains as follows:
Division 1:
Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units is amended with the
following text:
Chapter 25.70 OFF-STREET PARKING
25.70.034 Requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, group residential facilities
for the elderly.
The following are parking requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, and group
residential facilities for the elderly:
(a) Lodging Houses, Rooming Houses. There shall be provided one parking space for
each two (2) lodging rooms plus one parking space for each two (2) persons employed on the
premises, including the owner or manager.
2
(b) Motels, Hotels. There shall be provided one parking space for each dwelling unit or
lodging room, except as provided in subsection 25.70.034 (d).
(c) Group Residential Facilities for Elderly People. There shall be provided one
parking space for each three (3) residential units where such facilities are designed as
separate units; if designed as lodging rooms, one space for each four (4) lodgers, plus one
space for each two (2) people employed on the premises.
(d) Parking Reductions. Required parking for motels or hotels may be reduced
through approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(1) Criteria for Approval.
(a) Special conditions—including but not limited to proximity to frequent transit
service; transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or
because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management program—exist
that will reduce parking demand at the site;
(b) The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking; and
(c) Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have
a detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area.
(2) Parking Demand Study. In order to evaluate a proposed project’s compliance
with the above criteria, the Community Development Director may require submittal of a
parking demand study that substantiates the basis for granting a reduced number of spaces.
Division 2:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Division 3:
This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with
California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of
Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
3
_________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 17th day of September, 2018, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
Proposed Amendments
25.70.034 Requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, group residential facilities for
the elderly.
The following are parking requirements for rooming houses, motels, hotels, and group
residential facilities for the elderly:
(a) Lodging Houses, Rooming Houses. There shall be provided one parking space for each two (2)
lodging rooms plus one parking space for each two (2) persons employed on the premises, including
the owner or manager.
(b) Motels, Hotels. There shall be provided one parking space for each dwelling unit or lodging
room, except as provided in subsection 25.70.034 (d).
(c) Group Residential Facilities for Elderly People. There shall be provided one parking space for
each three (3) residential units where such facilities are designed as separate units; if designed as
lodging rooms, one space for each four (4) lodgers, plus one space for each two (2) people
employed on the premises. (Ord. 1586 § 49, (1998); Ord. 1863 § 12, (2011))
(d) Parking Reductions. Required parking for motels or hotels may be reduced through approval
of a Conditional Use Permit.
(1) Criteria for Approval.
(A) Special conditions—including but not limited to proximity to frequent transit service;
transportation characteristics of persons residing, working, or visiting the site; or
because the applicant has undertaken a transportation demand management
program—exist that will reduce parking demand at the site;
(B) The use will adequately be served by the proposed on-site parking; and
(C) Parking demand generated by the project will not exceed the capacity of or have a
detrimental impact on the supply of on-street parking in the surrounding area.
(2) Parking Demand Study. In order to evaluate a proposed project’s compliance with the above
criteria, the Community Development Director may require submittal of a parking demand
study that substantiates the basis for granting a reduced number of spaces.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 25, 2018
a.Consideration of amendments to Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking) of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to amend motel and hotel parking requirements.
Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Staff Report
Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Attachments
Attachments:
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>At least one hotel is interested in park -and-fly. Have other hotels expressed interest in other uses, or
expanding with more rooms without needing to provide more parking? (Gardiner: The hotels that we know
have expressed interest in expansion of existing park -and-fly program, and reduction in the parking
requirement for a new hotel. This would provide the opportunity for hotels not interested in park -and-fly to
expand if they wanted to.)
>Does park-and-fly require a Conditional Use Permit? (Gardiner: Yes, currently. Depending on the
approach, hotels may request a separate Conditional Use Permit for park -and-fly in addition to a
Conditional Use Permit for parking reduction.)
>What other uses are permitted on those sites? Are restaurants permitted? (Gardiner: Offices,
restaurants, lodging, commercial recreation. For example, a hotel could expand its restaurant offerings .
There may be a wider range of uses that could be accommodated beyond just park-and-fly.)
>Does a Conditional Use Permit run with the property? (Gardiner: Yes, provided that the characteristics
documented with the issuance of the CUP remains, it would run with the property. If a hotel changed
ownership but the operations stayed the same, the CUP would still run with the hotel. It could be amended
over time if the hotel changes its business model, for instance.)
>Will not see the effect of this for years from now, but an alternative use to parking such as another
amenity like a restaurant would be a better utilization of the space. Would prefer a reduced parking ratio
or a Conditional Use Permit for parking reductions.
>Concerned with setting a lower ratio because it may go too far. The San Mateo 0.4 ratio seems low.
However the arguments are compelling with rideshare and other similar services.
>Open to reducing the ratio, and reducing it in half would not be unreasonable given the survey
findings. Was the South San Francisco example for parking reductions based on certain criteria?
(Gardiner: There are two different types of parking reductions - one specific to hotels and another that is
more general and applies to all land uses. Would opt for the more general option because the main
challenge is figuring out the right parking ratio. May better serve hotels if they could put forth their own
proposal based on their documented demand and intended use of the spaces.)
>Concerned that we reduce the ratio and something changes in the hotel industry where parking
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/9/2018
June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
demand increases. (Gardiner: Not aware of existing planning trends or dynamic that foresees an increased
demand for parking. Trends we are seeing with rideshare and possibility of self -driving cars in the future
would both reduce parking demand.)
>How would parking needs be met when hotels have large events such as weddings and conferences?
(Gardiner: It is something the hotel operator would need to take into account. Even with a reduced ratio,
they may still need to build in a buffer for such occasions. Hotels have mentioned one option for special
events is providing valet service which allows stacked parking. Some hotels may opt to retain more
parking even if it would be allowed to be reduced.)
>A Conditional Use Permit would allow for special circumstances. Letters submitted from the hotels
state that the circumstances for each hotel are unique. We should look at each circumstance on a case
by case basis. Allows the Commission to ask questions about special circumstances.
>Via a Conditional Use Permit, let the hotel propose their own parking ratio instead of setting one
parking ratio that tries to address each hotel's unique circumstances.
>The option of no parking requirement and leaving the applicant to decide is a slippery slope .
Applicants for apartment and condominium residential projects have just as much interest to say that they
should determine their own parking standards. There is community interest in the Planning Commission
being involved and there should still be control and review in what parking is required.
There was no action on this item since it was a Study Item.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/9/2018
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 27, 2018
e.Consideration of amendments to Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking) of the Burlingame
Municipal Code to amend motel and hotel parking requirements.
Staff Report.pdf
Draft June 25, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
(excerpt).pdf
Proposed Amendments.pdf
Resolution.pdf
Attachments.pdf
Attachments:
There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Would the parking demand study be required before the CUP application is submitted?
(Kolokihakaufisi: The demand study would be provided together with the CUP application to justify the
proposed reduction. The study would need to be submitted prior to granting the CUP.)
Chair Kelly opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Kelly closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
> Clear from data that many of the hotel parking lots are underutilized. If the businesses have a better
idea of how to use the space, they will know better what will make them more successful. It may allow
them to offer other amenities to hotel guests.
>The CUP application will provide insight to the Planning Commission on what the hotel proposes to do
with the space.
>Proposal is consistent with the previous study session discussion.
>Hotels are unique in parking demand. Can allow for special considerations for reduced number of
parking spaces because hotels are accommodating visitors, whereas residential uses are accommodating
permanent residents who might otherwise look for park on neighborhood streets if they can't find parking
on site. Hotel guests will expect to park at the hotel, not in surrounding neighborhoods, so it behooves
hotel operators and managers to provide adequate parking for their anticipated guests. It's in their best
interest to determine the right number of parking spaces required for their facilities.
>The Planning Commission will be able to vet the process through the Conditional Use permitting.
>There is a self-governing control among hotel operators that they will not want to compromise their
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 9/7/2018
August 27, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
facilities to the extent that their visitors will not be able to have a place to park. Will continue to want to
meet the needs of their clientele. They will bring forward proposals that work for them, but not to the
detriment of the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend for
approval of the ordinance to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse5 -
Absent:Comaroto, and Gaul2 -
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 9/7/2018
1
CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner
From:Halvorson, Mitzi <Mitzi.Halvorson@marriott.com>
Sent:Friday, June 22, 2018 12:22 PM
To:GRP-Planning Commissioners
Cc:Anne@smccvb.com
Subject:Proposed Amendments to Hotel/Motel Parking
June 22, 2018
Burlingame Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We are very pleased that the city is examining its parking requirements for hotels. With our airport
shuttles, shuttles to downtown Burlingame, and the advent of Uber and Lyft, we have seen drastic
reductions in the number of spaces needed by our guests and are very anxious to have the city revisit the
current regulations.
Since each hotel’s circumstances are unique, we would like to see the city allow each hotel/motel to
determine its own parking needs. It is in our best interest to make our guests happy, so we may
absolutely be trusted to ensure that these guests have adequate parking. When prospective visitors are
booking rooms here and learn that we offer complimentary shuttle rides to downtown Burlingame, as
well as bike rentals, many realize they won’t need to rent a car. This benefits Burlingame, as more people
visit downtown and support local businesses.
Thank you for considering our views.
Respectfully,
Lisa Kershner| General Manager
SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MARRIOTT WATERFRONT
1800 Old Bayshore Highway | Burlingame, CA 94010
Direct Line: 650.259.6604 | email: lisa.kershner@marriott.com
This communication contains information from Marriott International, Inc., that may be confidential. Except for personal use by the intended recipient, or as
expressly authorized by the sender, any person who receives this information is prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing and/or using it. If you have received
2
this communication in error, please immediately delete it and all copies and promptly notify the sender. Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
electronic signature under applicable law.
Thank you for participating in our survey. Your feedback is important as it will provide the
information needed for evaluation and potential modification of parking standards for hotel uses.
For questions about the survey, please contact Associate Planner, 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi at
ameliak@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7216.
Welcome
Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey
General Information
Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey
Main Contact Person
Hotel Name
Address
Email Address
Phone Number
1. Hotel Contact Information*
2. Total number of hotel employees:*
3. Total number of hotel rooms:*
4. Total number of parking spaces on-site:*
1
Other (please specify)
5. Please select the alternate transportation options available at your hotel. Check all that apply.*
Airport shuttle
Shuttle service around town
Rideshare (e.g. Uber, Lyft)
Bikeshare (e.g. LimeBike)
Carpool/Vanpool
None of the above
These questions relate to the types of parking and parking program/s available on-site at your
hotel.
Parking Types and Programs
Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey
6. Total number of parking spaces designated for employees only:*
7. Total number of free parking spaces:*
8. Total number of paid parking spaces:*
9. Does your hotel offer valet parking?*
Yes
No
10. How many parking spaces are designated for valet parking? Skip this question if not applicable.
11. Does your hotel have a Park and Fly Program?*
Yes
No, but we are interested in having one.
No, we are not interested in having one.
2
12. How many parking spaces are designated for Park and Fly? Skip this question if not applicable.
It is important that we have supporting data to evaluate existing hotel parking trends. This data
should include parking vacancy and parking occupancy for all parking types (employee parking,
free parking, paid parking, valet parking, Park & Fly). If you are unable to provide this data or if the
file size is too big to upload, please contact ameliak@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7216.
Parking Trends
Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey
No file chosen
13. Please upload here parking data for the year 2017.*
Choose File
No file chosen
14. If available, please upload here parking data for 2016.
Choose File
Answers to these questions help to evaluate hotel parking trend/s in correlation to trends in hotel
occupancy.
Hotel Occupancy
Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey
15. What was the weekly (weekday and weekend) hotel occupancy rate for the year of 2017?*
16. What was the weekly (weekday and weekend) hotel occupancy rate for the year 2016?
No file chosen
17. Please upload here any available hotel occupancy data for the year 2017.
Choose File
No file chosen
18. Please upload here any available hotel occupancy data for the year 2016.
Choose File
3
19. Does your hotel provide any special promotions for flight crews?*
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
20. What is the average length of stay for flight crews?*
1-3 days
4-7 days
8-14 days
more than 14 days
4
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to
consider amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning
Ordinance, to amend motel and hotel parking regulations.
The City Council will review the proposed amendments to Section 25.70.034 of
the Municipal Code.
The hearing will be held on Monday, September 17, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the
City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
The staff report for this item and copies of the proposed amendments may be
reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department,
Planning Division, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and on
the City's website at www.burlingame.org. For additional information please call
the Planning Division at (650) 558-7250.
To be published by Friday, September 7, 2018.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Review of Solid Waste Rate Options for Calendar Year 2019
RECOMMENDATION
This item is for information purposes only. Staff requests that the City Council review the various
options presented in this report and give direction as to the recommended rate increases for solid
waste services for the three calendar years beginning January 1, 2019.
BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint
Powers Agreement (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Use of Powers Agreement, each member
agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 12
SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for
residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling, and residential green waste
collections. The franchise agreements began January 1, 2011 and expire December 31, 2020. In
addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway
Environmental Center, which is owed by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional
solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling, and transfer of refuse, recyclable, and
organic materials.
Each year, staff reviews the various cost components attributable to its solid waste services, which
in turn determine the revenue required from its customers for the subsequent rate year. Each
member of the SBWMA is responsible for establishing the rates in their respective jurisdictions.
The rates are then applied based on the garbage cart/bin size of the customer and frequency of
collection services. Within Burlingame, Recology is responsible for the billing of solid waste
services at the rates prescribed by the City Council.
Prior to the new franchise agreement in 2011, Allied Waste held the franchise agreements with
SBWMA member agencies based on a “cost plus profit” compensation model. After stabilizing in
2005, moderate rate increases (shown in the table below) were sufficient to cover annual increases
in solid waste expenses. However, in 2009, commercial revenue began to diminish as the area’s
business activity slowed with the economy. Because approximately 70% of solid waste revenue is
derived from commercial accounts, the decrease in commercial activity created a deficit that had
to be financed by rate increases each subsequent year. Despite these increases, the City held a
deficit position of over $700,000 at the end of the franchise agreement with Allied in 2010.
Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018
2
Due to this deficit position, the rising costs of solid waste collection and disposal, and variations in
customer service subscriptions (migration to smaller bin sizes based on higher recycling rates),
rates were greatly increased in 2011 and again in 2012. In addition, transfers from the General
Fund, a decrease in reimbursements for City costs (agency fees), and use of the Solid Waste Fund
reserves, enabled the City to pay off the deficit position with Allied. Through calendar/rate year
2014, revenues from rates alone were adequate to generate surpluses within the Solid Waste Fund
account, and in 2015 through 2017, the deficits were small enough to be covered by other revenues
in the fund (mainly construction/demolition permit revenue and interest earnings). An approximate
$1.2 million surplus had been accumulated from the City’s solid waste operations by the end of
2017. However, a deficit of approximately $288,000 from Solid Waste operations is expected in
2018, as shown in the chart below.
DISCUSSION
At a study session on City Solid Waste Services held in January of this year, the Council reviewed
the various cost components attributable to these services, which in turn determine the revenue
required from solid waste customers. In essence, solid waste rates are determined by three major
factors. First and foremost is the annual cost of collecting and disposing of garbage and
recyclables. Residential and commercial solid waste recyclable and organic materials are collected
by Recology and taken to the Shoreway facility for processing, staging, and shipment. The
franchise agreement with Recology is a “fixed cost” contract where future costs are adjusted based
Rate Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Adjustment 3%5%5%8%6%17%25%0%0%0%0%0%0%
Historical Solid Waste Rate Adjustments - City of Burlingame
-$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$7,000,000
$9,000,000
$11,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (proj)
Annual Cost Analysis
Revenue Expenses Surplus/Shortfall
Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018
3
on contractually approved indices. The second largest factor in the costs of Solid Waste services
is in the form of disposal fees (tipping fees at the Shoreway facility and the landfill). Tipping fees
are approved by the SBWMA Board and then passed through to the SBWMA agencies to be added
to rates.
Finally, City fees and eligible solid-waste related costs, which the City finances through solid waste
rates, must be considered in establishing rates. These are referred to as “agency fees”, collected
by Recology with the customer billings and remitted to the City monthly. These costs include an
8% franchise fee charged to Recology for their use of City right-of-ways to conduct private
business. Franchise fees are General Fund revenues. Rates also include the costs of monitoring
and testing the City’s former landfill and reducing the post-closure liability associated with the
landfill; the cost of City-sponsored waste reduction programs; street sweeping; and the periodic
steam cleaning of public trash receptacles.
Since the deficit due to Allied Waste was paid in 2012, rates have adequately covered all these
costs. The higher rates ended the need for General Fund transfers to support activities of the Solid
Waste Fund, and provided surplus funding of a Solid Waste Rate Stabilization Reserve. Reserve
levels have allowed the City to stave off further rate increases for many years. But as costs have
increased, the rate stabilization reserve has levelled off. Revenues collected from rates are no
longer sufficient to meet the current costs of solid waste services in the City, and annual operating
deficits are increasing.
To insure that the City’s Solid Waste Fund is in good fiscal position when the current franchise
agreement with Recology terminates at the end of 2020, rates should be increased to cover current
operating costs. At current rates, 2019 revenues for solid waste services are estimated to be $11.1
million, with a shortfall of $788,000 after all costs (including agency franchise and other fees) are
accounted for. This would indicate a 7.1 percent increase in rates just to break even (requiring no
draw on the rate stabilization reserve). The new contract negotiated with Recology to begin in 2021
$5,727,000$3,737,000
$738,000
$460,000 $609,000
Solid Waste Program Charges
(est. 2018)
Contractor
Compensation
Disposal &
Processing
Franchise Fees
Landfill Postclosure
Other City Expenses
Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018
4
will require the costs of collection, increasing only 2.4% in 2020, to increase approximately 10.2%
in 2021. Due to disruptions in the global commodity markets for recycled materials and an increase
in the costs of landfill contracts, disposal and processing fees are expected to increase over 12%
in 2019. As the industry faces further challenges in the coming years, these costs are assumed to
increase 5% in both 2020 and 2021. As shown below, foregoing a solid waste rate increase for
2019 would basically wipe out the current rate stabilization reserve, and require double-digit rate
increases for two subsequent years.
Various rate scenarios are attached as an Exhibit to this staff report. Balancing the need for a rate
stabilization reserve to buffer rate-payers against volatile rate hikes in the future, the preference to
cover current operating costs largely with current rate revenues, and to provide for the on-going
sustainability of the Solid Waste Fund, staff recommends that solid waste rates for Burlingame
customers be increased 6% in each of the next three years, beginning January 1, 2019.
Although annual increases in service rates are never well received, it should be noted again that
solid waste rates have not changed in Burlingame for seven years. As a result, 2018 residential
rates for solid waste services in Burlingame are significantly below the average for SBWMA
agencies ($34.23 average monthly fee for a 32 gallon cart; Burlingame’s fee is $28.40), and
commercial rates are in line with rates charged in other jurisdictions.
Rates are set by each agency in accordance with Proposition 218, which requires that all property
owners be given a 45-day written notice of the City’s intent to adjust rates. After receiving Council
direction on the proposed rate increases, staff will prepare and mail notices to each property owner,
informing them of the rate increases, the reason for the increases, and the public hearing schedule
to discuss the proposed increases.
Estimated
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Contractor Compensation 5,729,318 5,780,604 5,504,141 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000
Disposal & Processing 2,939,412 3,147,616 3,624,973 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000
698,684 712,045 729,997 738,000 738,000 738,000 738,000
436,678 445,028 456,248 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000
829,858 869,246 791,749 609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000
10,633,950 10,954,539 11,107,108 11,271,000 11,768,000 12,134,750 12,974,000
10,690,190 10,887,975 11,096,592 11,100,000 11,100,000 11,100,000 11,100,000
Unscheduled Services Billed 102,721 110,666 117,404 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000
Shortfall (46,481)(177,230)(127,920)(288,000)(788,000)(1,156,750)(1,999,000)
Rate Stabilization Reserve 1,512,000 1,334,770 1,206,850 918,850 130,850 -1,025,900 -3,024,900
*Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve
Notes:
2019 deficit severly diminishes rate stabilization reserve.
Necessitates a +10% increase in both 2020 and 2021
Actual Projected
Franchise Fees
Landfill Postclosure
Other City Expenses*
Total Expenses
Revenues from Rates
ASSUMES NO RATE INCREASES
Solid Waste Rates for 2019 September 17, 2018
5
FISCAL IMPACT
Current rates that have been in place since 2012 are no longer adequate to fully cover the costs of
providing solid waste services in calendar year 2019, without requiring significant draws on the
City’s Solid Waste Fund reserves. In order to prevent depletion of the fund’s rate stabilization
reserves and double digit increases in each of the following two years, rates will need to be
increased to all solid waste customers for the year beginning January 1, 2019. Rate increases are
also indicated in the following two years to cover increased operating and capital costs of providing
solid waste services. To the extent that the rate stabilization reserve is drawn down, rate-payers
may be subject to significant increases in future rates.
Exhibit: Solid Waste Rate Scenarios
Recommended Rate Scenario
6%6%6%
Estimated
2018 2019 2020 2021
Contractor Compensation 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000
Disposal & Processing 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000
738,000 782,280 829,200 879,000
460,000 487,600 516,900 547,900
609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000
11,271,000 11,839,880 12,282,850 13,202,900
11,100,000 11,766,000 12,471,960 13,220,280
Unscheduled Services Billed 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000
Shortfall (288,000)(193,880)67,110 (107,620)
Rate Stabilization Reserve 918,850 724,970 792,080 684,460
*Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve
Notes:
Consistent across 3-year window
Significantly restores rate stabilization reserve
Minimizes potential rate increases in 2022
2019 - 2021 Rate Scenarios
Revenues from Rates
Projected
Franchise Fees
Landfill Postclosure
Other City Expenses*
Total Expenses
Other Rate Scenarios
0 10%10%
Estimated
2018 2019 2020 2021
Contractor Compensation 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000
Disposal & Processing 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000
738,000 738,000 811,800 892,980
460,000 460,000 506,000 556,600
609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000
11,271,000 11,768,000 12,254,550 13,225,580
11,100,000 11,100,000 12,210,000 13,431,000
Unscheduled Services Billed 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000
Shortfall (288,000)(788,000)(166,550)80,420
Rate Stabilization Reserve 918,850 130,850 -35,700 44,720
*Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve
Notes:
2019 deficit severly diminishes rate stabilization reserve.
Necessitates a +10% increase in both 2020 and 2021
With no reserves remaining, probable rate increases in 2022
5%5%5%
Estimated
2018 2019 2020 2021
Contractor Compensation 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000
Disposal & Processing 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000
738,000 774,900 813,645 854,327
460,000 483,000 507,150 532,508
609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000
11,271,000 11,827,900 12,257,545 13,162,834
11,100,000 11,655,000 12,237,750 12,849,638
Unscheduled Services Billed 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000
Shortfall (288,000)(292,900)(141,795)(438,197)
Rate Stabilization Reserve 918,850 625,950 484,155 45,958
*Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve
Notes:
Nearly eliminates reserve.
Necessitates +3.4% increase in 2022
Total Expenses
Revenues from Rates
Projected
Franchise Fees
Landfill Postclosure
Other City Expenses*
Revenues from Rates
Projected
Franchise Fees
Landfill Postclosure
Other City Expenses*
Total Expenses
Other Rate Scenarios (cont.)
7%4%6%
Estimated
2018 2019 2020 2021
Contractor Compensation 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000
Disposal & Processing 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000
738,000 789,660 821,246 854,096
460,000 492,200 511,888 532,364
609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000
11,271,000 11,851,860 12,269,884 13,162,459
11,100,000 11,877,000 12,352,080 13,093,205
Unscheduled Services Billed 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000
Shortfall (288,000)(94,860)(39,804)(194,254)
Rate Stabilization Reserve 918,850 823,990 784,186 589,931
*Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve
Notes:
Somewhat restores rate stabilization reserve
More closely aligns to timing of cost increases
Probable rate increase in 2022 of+1.5%
6%5%5%
Estimated
2018 2019 2020 2021
Contractor Compensation 5,727,000 5,746,000 5,884,000 6,484,000
Disposal & Processing 3,737,000 4,215,000 4,425,750 4,647,000
738,000 782,280 821,394 862,464
460,000 487,600 511,980 537,579
609,000 609,000 627,000 645,000
11,271,000 11,839,880 12,270,124 13,176,042
11,100,000 11,766,000 12,354,300 12,972,015
Unscheduled Services Billed 117,000 120,000 122,000 125,000
Shortfall (288,000)(193,880)(37,824)(329,027)
Rate Stabilization Reserve 918,850 724,970 687,146 358,119
*Includes increases to City's Rate Stabilization Reserve
Notes:
Somewhat slows depletion of rate stabilization reserve
Continues shortfalls
Necessitates rate increase in 2022 + 2.5%
Revenues from Rates
Projected
Franchise Fees
Landfill Postclosure
Other City Expenses*
Total Expenses
Total Expenses
Revenues from Rates
Projected
Franchise Fees
Landfill Postclosure
Other City Expenses*
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
Wednesday & Thursday, 9/5 – 9/6: CALCCA Conference
• Attended Cal CCA Conference - Featured information around advancing local energy
choices.
• Updates on the launch of other CCAs including Monterey which went live earlier this year
and is offering slightly different programs compared to PCE.
• There are currently 18 CCAs in California
• Serving 2.5 million people
• Savings of over $90 million for customers
• Focus was on upcoming legislation and other policy issues that will impact the CCAs
coming from the state.
• Requesting Council update in 1Q 2019 from PCE.
Monday, 9/10: Opening of National Trust Site Cooper Molera Adobe
• Attended the opening of National Trust site Cooper Molera Adobe where a joint public
private partnership did a fabulous re-imagination of the 3 acre site.
• Brought in jobs, businesses, and revenue to the City of Monterey.
• A great model for what our USPO could be as well. Nominated for a Route 50 innovation
award and were notified yesterday we are a finalist.
Tuesday, 9/11: PCE Executive Committee and Finance Committee Meeting at PCE Offices.
• Reviewed current business issues and update on search for CFO - Have three solid
candidates.
Wednesday, 9/12: Interviewed first of three PCE CFO Candidates.
• Received update from Sustainability Coordinator regarding PCE work and also future
grants we may be able to consider.
Thursday – Monday, 9/13 – 9/17:
• Attending the Chamber mixer at Studio Shop in Burlingame
• Attending BCE celebration
1
Memorandum
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018
To: City Council
Date: September 17, 2018
From: Councilmember Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
Friday, 8/31: Council of Cities Dinner in Pacifica & Memorial Service for
Student/Community Member
Monday, 9/2/18: Burlingame Spirit Run to benefit BCE Foundation
• Congrats to BCE/BSD for another successful race; thanks for including Councilmembers
in the celebration
• Special thanks to our Police Department and Burlingame Staff for supporting this
community event with City resources
Tuesday, 9/3: City Council Meeting
Wednesday, 9/5: Met with Peninsula Health District (PHCD) Board Member Helen Galligan
• I’ve now met independently with all but one of PHCD Board Members within the past year
• Discussed status of Wellness Community project, estimated timelines, and parking
issues/requirements for senior living community
• Re-emphasized my opinion (stated during City Council’s discussion with PHCD reps on
7/2) regarding the need to maximize below market rate units on this public land for seniors
and for workforce = critical public benefit
• Discussed helicopter flight patterns in/out hospital
Thursday, 9/6: Developer Meeting
• Received presentation about a potential transit-oriented development in North Burlingame
• I learned that data from new transit oriented/workforce developments built recently in the
Bay Area (units with smaller square footage, urban/mixed use environments) yield
significantly fewer children per household (by orders of magnitude) than older/existing
multifamily units and single-family homes within the same cities. This matters because
youth population has significant impact on schools. Will connect with our Community
Development Director to learn more about case studies, and current best practices for how
numbers are projected.
Beach Committee Report September 17, 2018
2
Thursday, 9/6: San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting
(SMCTA)
• Received briefing on Caltrain ridership statistics
o Caltrain ridership is increasing; significant demand for service
o I noted an increase in “local service” ridership numbers (boardings to/from smaller
cities like ours vs. major transit hubs like Millbrae and Redwood City)
• Received briefing on Commute.org program and approved TA funding for its program FY
2018-19
Saturday, 9/8: Attended AYSO Opening Day Parade with colleagues
• Vice Mayor Colson did a great job on her remarks representing the City
• Thanks to BHS students who supported the event with festive music & cheers
• Wonderful opportunity to celebrate all the kids, families, and AYSO volunteers who make
the league possible
Monday, 9/10: Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group Meeting/Webinar on Caltrain Business
Plan
• Valuable overview of the issues and process underway to create a long-term (20-year)
vision for Caltrain in the realm of service, infrastructure needs, financial sustainability,
interface/impact on local communities, and governance. I recommend anyone interested in
the future of Caltrain view the presentation here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Meetings/LPMG/Agen
da+Update.pdf
• I’m following up with Caltrain staff and our city staff about importance of:
o local service continuing to improve/grow in smaller communities like ours, not just
major transit hubs
o Critical station safety improvements in Burlingame within as more trains serve our
community when the fleet becomes fully electrified, and with potential blended
system including HSR
o Regional grade separation funding strategy for projects like Broadway and dozens
more along the corridor
o Communication with Caltrain about Burlingame’s General Plan vision and changes
Tuesday, 9/11: Met with BPAC (Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee) Chair, Lesley
Beatty and discussed:
• The City’s upcoming Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan development and BPAC’s valuable role;
best ways to engage and collaborate on this effort
• Need for bike safety education in our community (for cyclists, drivers, AND pedestrians)
as infrastructure improves, public spaces are shared in new ways, and people shift
transportation modes. There is a learning curve for all.
• California Drive improvements and observations
Beach Committee Report September 17, 2018
3
Tuesday, 9/11: BSD Board of Trustees Meeting
• Attended discussion between PHCD and BSD regarding possible property exchange
between Peninsula Health Care District and BSD. No action taken, but it was a thoughtful
discussion.
• BSD communicated willingness to consider the possible relocation of their District Office
on Trousdale, with an understanding it would be at no cost to the district (turn-key move,
with place to work/operate during a transition.)
• Challenges that must be addressed: if BSD moves to a different parcel outside the wellness
community on newly acquired land, significant cost to renovate any existing building or
construct a new one. PHCD likely does not have resources to fund both new land purchase
and construction costs. Another alternative is for BSD to reside within Wellness
Community parcel at a new location, but many complexities regarding how land/building
ownership might be structured.
• Take-away: two groups still working to see if a mutually beneficial resolution is possible.
PHCD needs to inform developer of any potential land deal by December. In the
meantime, BSD will seek their own land appraisal; PHCD will work on developing a
clearer proposal of land terms in preparation of a future meeting.
Wednesday, 9/12: Attending League of California Cities Annual Conference
• Ongoing at time of this committee report; will include notes in next meeting’s summary.