Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2019.05.06City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final-revised BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, May 6, 2019 CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - 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 Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Designated Representatives: Timothy L. Davis, HR Director Sonya M. Morrison, City Manager Lisa K. Goldman, City Attorney Kathleen Kane, Finance Director Carol Augustine Employee Organizations: AFSCME Maintenance and Administrative Units d. Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS Proclamation Honoring Burlingame High School and San Mateo High School Combined Concert Choirs and Chamber Singers a. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019 May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised Proclamation Honoring Burlingame High School Iron Panthers Robotics Teamb. Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) Presentationc. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M . Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion . Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2019a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Interceptor Vehicles b. Staff Report Resolution Summary of Bids Attachments: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding the Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) During Building Demolition Projects c. Staff Report Ordinance April 15, 2019 Staff Report Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Issuance of up to $64,000,000 of Solid Waste Enterprise Bonds to Refinance Outstanding Bonds of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority and to Finance Certain Improvements to the Solid Waste Management Facilities of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority d. Staff Report Resolution Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019 May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised Adoption of Resolutions Initiating Proceedings to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 e. Staff Report Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Levy & Collection Resolution Approving Annual Report for FY 2019-20 Updated Engineer's Report for FY 2019-20 Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy & Collect Assessments Staff Report - April 2, 2012 Staff Report - May 21, 2012 Attachments: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Library Board of Trusteesf. Staff ReportAttachments: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending March 31, 2019g. Staff Report Portfolio Holdings CERBT Quarterly Statement PARS Monthly Statement Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2019-20 a. Staff Report Resolution Proposed Master Fee Schedule Attachments: Public Hearing and Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement Assessments for Fiscal Year 2019-20 b. Staff Report BID Expenditures Resolution Assessment Roll Attachments: Introduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking Complaintsc. Staff Report Proposed Ordinance Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019 May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the City Attorney ’s Employment Agreement to Provide a Salary Increase, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule) a. Staff Report Resolution Sixth Contract Amendment City Attorney Salary Schedules Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Governing Appeal Procedures for Massage Establishments and Practitioners b. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. Mayor Colson's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: Vice Mayor Beach's Committee Reportb. Committee ReportAttachments: 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Budget Study Session - Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting - Monday, May 20, 2019 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019 May 6, 2019City Council Meeting Agenda - Final-revised 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 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/6/2019 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on April 15, 2019 STUDY SESSION (6:00 P.M.) a. DISCUSSION OF 877 BURLWAY PROPOSAL A study session was held in Conference Room A discussing the 877 Burlway proposal. 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Jazz Mara. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION The closed session concerning the annual evaluation of the City Attorney (Government Code Section 54957) was held after adjournment of the regular meeting. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Colson reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 2 7. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Colson asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled item 8h. Vice Mayor Beach recused herself from item 8b due to financial interest. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8f, and 8g; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion was adopted unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. (The vote on item 8b was 4-0-1 as Vice Mayor Beach recused herself due to a financial interest.) a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 1, 2019 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for April 1, 2019. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORP. D/B/A/ VERIZON ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 36-2019. Vice Mayor Beach recused herself from this item due to a financial interest. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO P.C. INC., FOR THE POLICE STATION EMERGENCY GENERATOR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84640, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 37-2019. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2019 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 38-2019. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SHORELAND SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BY STOLOSKI AND GONZALES INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 83521 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 3 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 39-2019. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CAROLAN-ROLLINS EASEMENT SANITARY SEWER MAIN RELOCATION PROJECT BY CRATUS INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 84850 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 40-2019. g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS COMMUNITIES TO TAKE THE IDLE FREE PLEDGE Sustainability Coordinator Pappajohn requested Council adopt Resolution Number 41-2019. h. APPROVAL OF A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL AS AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH Councilmember Brownrigg requested Council approve a proclamation recognizing April as Autism Awareness Month. Councilmember Brownrigg stated this item was suggested by Burlingame resident Swathi Chettapally. He asked that Swathi and Uli Chettapally come forward and speak on this item. Mr. Chettapally stated that their 25-year old daughter has autism and functions at a 6-year old level. He explained that autism is a developmental disorder that can impair social, communication, and behavioral skills. He stated that there are more than 1.5 million people in the United States that have autism. He noted that the California Department of Developmental Services reports that diagnoses have risen from 3,262 in 1989 to over 80,000 today. Mr. Chettapally stated that one of the biggest challenges is that individuals with autism over 22 years old are aged out of the school system. Therefore, after school it is often left to the parents to find day-care programs, housing, and employment for their children. Mr. Chettapally stated that he appreciated the Council recognizing April as Autism Awareness Month. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the need for the community to be respectful of those with autism and to intervene if unethical behavior towards them is observed. Mayor Colson opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to recognize April as Autism Awareness Month; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 4 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25, CODE SECTIONS 25.32.030 (BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND 25.70.090 (OFF-STREET PARKING) TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RECREATION AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL (BAC) DISTRICT Mayor Colson opened this item by stating that on Wednesday the City will host a discussion called “Burlingame Talks Shop.” She noted that commercial recreation would be among the topics at the event and therefore wanted the Council to have a chance to discuss it prior to the event. Planning Manager Hurin explained that Burlingame Avenue has traditionally been focused on retail, restaurant, and service uses. However, he noted that given the evolving nature of all of those uses, in particular retail, many business and shopping districts are finding a need to introduce additional new uses in order to remain vibrant and competitive. He stated that some communities found that active commercial recreation uses can be an appropriate addition to their business and shopping districts. He explained that communities have found that commercial recreation can generate regular “foot traffic,” which benefits neighboring retailers, restaurants, and services. Planning Manager Hurin explained that commercial recreation was initially discussed by the City’s Economic Development Subcommittee last year. He stated that in November 2018, the City Council gave staff direction to proceed with preparation of amendments to the land use restrictions allowing commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (“BAC”) District. Planning Manager Hurin explained that the proposed ordinance includes amendments to the City’s existing BAC District regulations to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use. He noted that the proposed ordinance also includes amendments to the Off-Street Parking regulations to exempt commercial recreation uses from providing off-street parking, if located on the first floor and within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. He stated that this exemption is consistent with the exemption given to retail, personal service, and food establishments. Planning Manager Hurin stated that the proposed amendment establishes criteria for approval of commercial recreation conditional uses including: • Requiring active visible uses such as retail, waiting/reception, or lounge areas associated with the business along the business frontage abutting the sidewalk. The active area must measure at least 15 feet in depth; and • Maintaining a clear view into the business by not allowing storefront windows or doors to be obscured. Planning Manager Hurin explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and expressed support. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 5 Councilmember Brownrigg asked for a definition of commercial recreation. Planning Manager Hurin stated that commercial recreation includes fitness and athletic uses such as gyms, art and dance studios, and activity play centers for children. He noted that there is a broad range of uses. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if commercial recreation was distinct from spas. Planning Manager Hurin replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Keighran asked how staff came up with the requirement for a depth of 15 feet of active area. Planning Manager Hurin stated that staff reviewed different floor plans and felt that 15 feet was a comfortable zone to establish a retail presence. Councilmember Keighran questioned if 15 feet was enough. She noted that she liked the idea of having retail in the front. She asked how signage regulations differ on Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. Planning Manager Hurin stated that he believes the regulations are the same. He explained that he would get back to Council but thought the regulation allowed for a maximum of five signs totaling 60 square feet. Vice Mayor Beach stated that commercial recreation currently exists on off-shoots of Burlingame Avenue such as Basecamp and Barry’s Bootcamp. She explained that as much as she would like to believe that people would walk or ride their bike to these facilities, realistically many will be driving. She asked about the parking impact from commercial recreation facilities. She asked if it was mostly in the early morning and weekends. She asked how the Council should be thinking about this in terms of Burlingame Avenue. Planning Manager Hurin explained that based on the City’s experience, the impact is greatest in the mornings. He noted that staff is hearing that people are combining their trips to these facilities with other errands in the area. Councilmember Ortiz asked how parking and foot traffic have worked after the addition of the pilates studio on Broadway. Planning Manager Hurin stated that staff doesn’t have any data related to foot traffic and hasn’t received any traffic/parking complaints. Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the title. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. Row House representative Jazz Mara discussed his company’s desire to put their rowing studio on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Colson asked how many square feet Row House would need. Mr. Mara replied that it would need 2000 square feet. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 6 Mayor Colson asked about Row House’s operating hours. Mr. Mara stated that most people attend their 6:00 a.m. class and that the studio closes at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Colson asked how many people can enroll in a class. Mr. Mara stated that their classes accommodate 25 people. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Row House was a chain. Mr. Mara replied in the affirmative and discussed other Bay Area locations that Row House will be located in. Mayor Colson closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Beach stated that the Economic Development Subcommittee held several discussions concerning what experts believe is the future of retail. She explained that the goal of these discussions is to keep the downtown vibrant, thriving, and high foot traffic. She stated that from these discussions, the general advice the City received was that it needs to be more flexible and consider alternate uses. Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed that the City needed to broaden its horizons and look at a variety of uses for the downtown area. However, she thought that a vote on the proposed ordinance was premature. She stated that the Council should wait until after the Burlingame Talks Shop event, in order to obtain feedback from retail owners, the public, landowners, and developers. Councilmember Keighran stated that she liked the idea of requiring retail in the front of commercial recreation locations. She voiced concern about the signage allowances as she wanted to ensure that Burlingame Avenue remained charming. City Attorney Kane stated that the City can review signage requirements for the downtown area. Councilmember Ortiz discussed the dramatic change in retail and stated that many of the vacant storefronts were the result of online shopping. He noted that he believed this trend would continue and that the City should consider alternative uses. He stated that he thought the proposed ordinance was a great first step. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Mayor Colson for setting up the Burlingame Talks Shop event. He discussed the closure of the book shop on Burlingame Avenue and stated that the shop couldn’t afford the rental increase. He noted that the rent was increased to the market rate. He explained that there are two ways to resolve vacant store fronts: expand the allowed uses or decrease the rent. He voiced concern that he was unsure if changing retail is creating vacant lots or if the landowners’ rental increases are creating vacant lots. He explained that he would like the City to collect data on the rental prices in the community so that the Council would have a better understanding of the problem. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the importance of preventing “dead storefronts” where there is no visual interest. He suggested that if the City allows commercial recreation, that these studios have a line of sight from the street into the fitness area. He added that he approved of the parking exemption for street level commercial recreation studios. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 7 Mayor Colson asked if the City’s Economic Development Specialist Cleese Relihan was collecting data on the vacant store fronts. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He explained that information about the rental prices for the vacant store fronts is available but that it is difficult to get a fixed number. Mayor Colson asked staff to obtain the general market summary reports that are released by different companies. Councilmember Keighran asked if she was correct that the City could ask how much retailers were paying in rent but that the retailers weren’t required to tell the City. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Mayor Colson stated that there are often NDAs around property leases. Mayor Colson asked about basement retail and whether commercial recreation could be put in those spaces. CDD Gardiner stated that staff will be reviewing basement spaces after Burlingame Talks Shop. He added that he believed the City currently allowed personal trainers in those areas but not commercial recreation. Vice Mayor Beach agreed with Councilmember Keighran that the Council should obtain feedback from Burlingame Talks Shop prior to voting on the proposed ordinance. She noted that there may be amendments to the proposed ordinance based on the feedback they receive. Councilmember Ortiz concurred with Vice Mayor Beach. City Manager Goldman reviewed the Council’s discussion on the proposed ordinance’s requirement for 15 feet of retail at the front of the store. She stated that prior to bringing the proposed ordinance back for introduction, the Council should discuss what the appropriate amount of retail is for commercial recreation. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that his concern wasn’t about the 15 feet depth but about the width requirement for retail. He explained that he didn’t want to see retail stretch across the entire storefront. He stated that he wanted foot traffic to have line of sight from the street into the fitness area. Councilmember Keighran thought the depth requirement should be something that the Council discusses during Burlingame Talks Shop and at the Economic Development Subcommittee. Planning Manager Hurin stated that some of the fitness studios prefer not to have the public view their clients’ workouts. He referenced Barry’s Bootcamp and how the workout area is entirely enclosed. Councilmember Ortiz stated that less than 15 feet depth of retail would be too small. However, he noted that the Council should wait for feedback from the merchants. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed requiring the tenant to have a percentage of their space be retail versus the 15 feet in front of the studio. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 8 Mayor Colson stated that she liked Councilmember Brownrigg’s suggestion of basing retail on a percentage of the space. Councilmember Ortiz stated that it should be worded so that a portion of the retail needs to be in the front. Mayor Colson stated that the consensus she was hearing is that there should be retail in the front and the depth could be discussed at the Economic Development Subcommittee meeting. City Manager Goldman stated that based on the Economic Development Subcommittee meeting schedule, the earliest the proposed ordinance would come back to Council is May 20, 2019. b. PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.15 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH MANAGEMENT OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS DURING BUILDING DEMOLITION PROJECTS DPW Murtuza stated that the City is a member of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (“BASMAA”). He explained that over the past year, staff has collaborated with the other members to develop a unified and consistent approach to comply with the Water Board regulations regarding the PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) Building Demolition Program. Environmental Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Jennifer Lee gave a presentation on how the City will be managing PCBs during building demolition. Ms. Lee began by explaining that PCBs are oils to which chlorine has been added to keep them from breaking down in industrial applications. She noted that because PCBs are stable at high temperatures, beginning in the 1920s, PCBs were used for numerous industrial processes. However, after the harmful effects of PCBs were realized, Congress banned the manufacture of PCBs in 1979. Ms. Lee stated that PCBs are a problem in the San Francisco Bay because PCBS are toxic, persist in the environment, and accumulate in the tissues of fish, wildlife, and humans. She noted that PCBs have been found to cause cancer. Ms. Lee explained that much of the PCB pollution in the Bay happened decades ago, before the potential health and environmental effects of PCBs were widely known. However, although PCBs have been banned for 40 years, small amounts of PCBS still enter the Bay. Ms. Lee discussed what is being done to improve water quality in the San Francisco Bay including: • Industry and military are cleaning “hot spot” sites • Dredgers are testing San Francisco Bay for sediments and properly disposing of materials with high levels of PCBs • Municipalities are reducing PCBs in stormwater runoff by: identifying source properties for abatement; developing green infrastructure; and developing programs to manage PCBs in building materials during demolition. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 9 Ms. Lee discussed the regulation of water quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. She explained that under BASMAA, San Mateo County shares the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit with Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties. She stated that because all of these counties share a permit, they all have the same requirements that must be met. Mayor Colson asked if Marin County was part of this regional group. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative but stated that under this process, there are two phases. Phase 1 counties, including San Mateo County, have several separate storm drain systems because of their larger cities, and Phase 2 counties have fewer separate storm drain systems. Ms. Lee explained that the municipal permit requires that the City develop a protocol to manage PCBs- containing material during demolition by June 30, 2019. The protocol must include: 1. A method for identifying applicable buildings prior to their demolition; 2. A method for ensuring PCBs do not enter the storm drains when applicable buildings are demolished; and 3. The necessary authority to implement the program. Ms. Lee reviewed a few key terms that are included in the proposed ordinance including: 1. Applicable Structures – structures built or remodeled between 1950 and 1980, except wood framed structures and single family residential structures regardless of the age of the building. 2. Buildings – structures with a roof and walls standing more or less permanently in one place. Buildings are intended for human habitation or occupancy. 3. Demolition –the wrecking, razing, or tearing down of any structure. 4. Priority Building Materials – caulk, thermal or fiberglass insulation, adhesive mastics, and rubber window gaskets. Ms. Lee reviewed the process for administering the PCBs in the Building Demolition Program. She explained that it would start with an individual applying for a building permit. If the individual’s application includes demolition, the individual would need to complete the PCBs assessment form. Councilmember Keighran asked who would do the assessment. Ms. Lee stated that the individual would need to hire a third-party contractor. Councilmember Keighran asked how long the testing takes. Ms. Lee stated that it varies based on the size of the building. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that if the building is wood-frame, then the individual would not need to get a PCBs assessment. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative. Ms. Lee discussed the public outreach the City conducted. She stated that the City notified property owners, contractors, and industry groups that would be potentially affected by this ordinance. She explained that the City hosted a workshop concerning the requirements and the process on April 6, 2019. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 10 Mayor Colson asked how many people attended the April 6, 2019 meeting. Ms. Lee replied that two individuals attended. Mayor Colson wondered if the low turnout was because individuals didn’t know about the PCBs requirement or because the City doesn’t have many applicable buildings. She asked how many buildings would need a PCBs assessment. Ms. Lee stated that she had identified approximately 11 buildings. Mayor Colson asked if the City reached out to the 11 property owners. Ms. Lee replied in the affirmative. Ms. Lee stated that moving forward, staff will notify applicants regarding the new requirements as early as possible. She explained that all materials are available online at www.burlingame.org/stormwaterdevelopment. Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the title. Vice Mayor Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Colson opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Colson asked the City Clerk to notice the proposed ordinance at least five days before the Council considers adoption. 10. STAFF REPORTS There were no staff reports. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS a. MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Brownrigg asked staff to agendize a discussion of the regulation to require that all guns be locked up or have trigger guards. Councilmember Ortiz and Vice Mayor Beach agreed and therefore this item will be agendized. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 05/06/19 Burlingame City Council April 15, 2019 Unapproved Minutes 11 The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Colson adjourned meeting at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Vehicles for the Police Department RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the procurement of five public safety vehicles for a total of $226,195. BACKGROUND The Fleet Division is part of the Public Works Department and provides vehicle maintenance services for City-owned vehicles and equipment. The Fleet Division maintains approximately 115 vehicles and 137 pieces of equipment for various City departments, including Police, Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Library, City Attorney/Code Enforcement, and Community Development. The Fleet Division also provides vehicle maintenance services to the Town of Hillsborough Public Works Department. The services to the Town of Hillsborough consist of providing preventative maintenance to 35 vehicles and seven pieces of equipment. As part of providing fleet maintenance services, the Division is responsible for maintaining a sustainable Vehicle Replacement Program to ensure all City vehicles/equipment are in good working condition for staff to conduct City business and effectively deliver services to the community. On September 8, 2018, the City Council approved the procurement of five Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles via Resolution No. 111-2018. Unfortunately, when staff contacted the Ford Motor Company to place the order, staff was informed that the order bank closed earlier than originally projected. As a result, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 133-2018 on October 15, 2018 to cancel the procurement of the five public safety vehicles. Production on the Ford Motor Company’s Interceptor Utility Vehicle has started once again, and staff is requesting that the City Council approve the procurement. DISCUSSION The Fleet Division will purchase five Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles that will replace the current Ford Crowne Victorias, which have reached the end of their scheduled useful life. The Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicle was recently selected as one of the Police Department patrol replacement vehicles. Staff has been pleased with the performance of this vehicle and has had no maintenance problems with the vehicle. The Hybrid Interceptor is in its first year of production as a Resolution Approving the Procurement of Five Public Safety Vehicles May 6, 2019 2 pursuit vehicle. The Police Department feels comfortable purchasing one hybrid to test its functionality as a permanent replacement to the standard non-hybrid vehicles in an effort to reduce the Department’s carbon footprint. As with all first year production vehicles, there are likely to be unforeseen complications in the build quality. In order to minimize this impact, they are opting to purchase one hybrid as a test vehicle. The other four vehicles will be standard, non-hybrid vehicles. Staff solicited bids for the procurement of the five Ford Interceptor Utility Vehicles to local dealerships in Burlingame and within the Bay Area. The local dealerships declined to submit bids as they do not sell the requested vehicle. Staff has been able to secure the lowest responsible bid from National Auto Fleet Group in the total amount of $226,195 through Sourcewell (formerly known as the National Joint Powers Alliance or NJPA). Burlingame has been a member of Sourcewell since 2008. Sourcewell’s procurement is leveraged nationally by cities and public agencies, and it satisfies the City’s competitive bid requirements. These cooperative contract purchasing opportunities present both a time and monetary savings for their users by consolidating numerous individually prepared solicitations to one cooperatively shared process. Staff requests that the City Council approve the procurement of five public safety vehicles for a total amount of $226,195 from National Auto Fleet Group. FISCAL IMPACT Funds for the purchase of these replacement vehicles were approved as part of the FY 2018-19 mid-year budget appropriations by the City Council. Exhibits: • Resolution • Summary of Bids RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF FIVE PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES FOR THE CITY’S FLEET SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROCUREMENT WHEREAS, the Fleet Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for vehicle maintenance services of the City’s fleet and for managing the Vehicle Replacement Program in a sustainable and effective manner to ensure the City’s fleet is in good operating condition; and WHEREAS, the Fleet Division has identified five public safety vehicles for replacement; and WHEREAS, staff has been able to secure the lowest responsible bids for the procurement of five public safety vehicles through the Sourcewell contract from the National Auto Fleet Group as follows: - One Hybrid Ford Police Interceptor at the bid price of $48,754; and - Four Standard Ford Police Interceptors at the bid price of $177,441. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, and ORDERED, that the lowest responsible bids are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute the aforementioned procurement. 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 6th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding the Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) During Building Demolition Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND CHAPTER 15.15 REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF PCBs DURING BUILDING DEMOLITION PROJECTS UNDER THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE BACKGROUND PCBs are highly toxic industrial compounds and pose serious health risks to humans, even in small amounts. Although PCBs were banned from manufacture in the United States in 1979, PCBs are slow to break down and can persist in the environment at dangerous levels. PCBs have been observed in elevated levels in certain fish in the San Francisco Bay (Bay), which contributes to health risks to people who frequently eat contaminated fish. To make the fish safer to eat, sources of PCBs entering the Bay need to be identified and controlled. Urban stormwater runoff, airborne releases, and soil erosion are all pathways for PCBs to enter the Bay. Accordingly, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), which regulates water quality in the San Francisco Bay, is requiring that Bay Area municipalities develop and implement a protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition so that PCBs do not enter the storm drain system. Applicable structures include commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed or remodeled from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980 with building materials that contain PCB concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater. Single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are exempt. Local agencies are required to develop the protocols for PCBs by June 30, 2019 and include each of the following components, at a minimum: 1. Authority to ensure that PCBs do not enter the municipal storm drain systems from PCB- Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 of the BMC May 6, 2019 Regarding Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects 2 containing materials in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition; 2. Method for identifying applicable structures prior to their demolition; and 3. Method(s) for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to the storm drain from demolition of applicable structures. DISCUSSION The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting of April 15, 2019. No changes were requested, and the ordinance was scheduled for adoption. The proposed ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption at its regular meeting of May 6, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT Because single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are exempt, it is anticipated that the majority of demolition projects will not involve applicable structures. Staff will review applications of applicable structures and certify the results. It is estimated that an average of two hours of staff time will be required to review and approve these applications, which can be absorbed in the current budget. Exhibits: • Ordinance • April 15, 2019 Staff Report 1 ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND CHAPTER 15.15 REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF PCBs DURING BUILDING DEMOLITION PROJECTS UNDER THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are highly toxic industrial compounds and pose serious health risks to humans; and WHEREAS, PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until manufacturing was banned in the United States in 1979 but are slow to break down and can persist in the environment at dangerous levels; and WHEREAS, PCBs have been detected in elevated levels in fish and sediment in the San Francisco Bay (Bay) making fish unsafe to eat; and, WHEREAS, PCBs in caulk and other building materials that were used in building construction and remodeling projects between 1950 and 1980 have been found to have particularly high PCB concentrations; and, WHEREAS, during demolition these building materials may be released to the environment and transported to receiving waters by stormwater runoff; and WHEREAS, stormwater runoff into storm drain systems is considered a significant pathway for PCBs into the Bay; and, WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which regulates water quality in the Bay, adopted on November 19, 2015 the reissued Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that regulates discharges of stormwater runoff from municipal storm drain systems; and WHEREAS, the MRP requires permittees, including the City of Burlingame, to develop and implement a protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures; and WHEREAS, applicable structures to be screened for the presence of PCBs in priority building materials include commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed or remodeled from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980; and WHEREAS, single-family residential buildings and wood framed structures are exempt 2 from the screening for the presence of PCBs in priority building materials; and WHEREAS, the MRP requires that this protocol be developed by June 30, 2019. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. Chapter 15.15. – ‘Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects’ of the Burlingame Municipal Code shall be added to read as follows: 15.15.010 Purpose. (a) The provisions of this chapter shall be construed to accomplish the following purposes: (1) Require permit applicants (Applicants) for projects that include the complete demolition of an Applicable Structure to conduct a PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment and submit information documenting the results of the screening. Such documentation to include (1) the results of a determination whether the building proposed for demolition is high priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on the structure age, use, and construction, and (2) the concentration of PCBs in each Priority Building Material present and, (3) for each Priority Building Material present with a PCBs concentration equal to or greater than 50 ppm, the approximate amount (linear feet or square feet) of that material in the building. (2) Inform Applicants with PCBs present in one or more of the Priority Building Materials (based on the above screening assessment) that they must comply with all related applicable federal and state laws. This may include reporting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Additional sampling for and abatement of PCBs may be required. (3) Meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act, the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049. (b) The requirements of this ordinance do not replace or supplant the requirements of California or Federal law, including but not limited to the Toxic Substances Control Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 761, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22. 15.15.020 Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings when used in this chapter: (a) “Applicable Structure” means buildings constructed or remodeled from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980. Wood framed buildings and single- 3 family residential buildings are not applicable structures regardless of the age of the building. (b) “Applicant” means a person applying for a building permit as required by Chapter 25.20 Permits and Licenses, or a demolition permit as required by Chapter 18.07.065. (c) “Building” means a structure with a roof and walls standing more or less permanently in one place. Buildings are intended for human habitation or occupancy. (d) “Demolition” means the wrecking, razing, or tearing down of any structure. This definition is intended to be consistent with the demolition activities undertaken by contractors with a C-21 Building Moving/Demolition Contractor’s License. (e) “DTSC” means the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (f) “EPA” means The United States Environmental Protection Agency. (g) “PCBs” means polychlorinated biphenyls. (h) “PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment” means the two- step process used to 1) determine whether the building proposed for demolition is high priority for PCBs- containing building materials based on the structure age, use, and construction; and if so 2) determine the concentrations (if any) of PCBs in Priority Building Materials revealed through existing information or representative sampling and chemical analysis of the Priority Building Materials in the building. Directions for this process are provided in the PCBs in the Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment Applicant Package. (i) “PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment Applicant Package” (“Applicant Package”) means a document package that includes an overview of the screening process, Applicant instructions, a process flow chart, a screening assessment form, and the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (BASMAA 2018, prepared for the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, August 2018). (j) “Priority Building Materials” means the following: (1) Caulking: e.g., around windows and doors, at structure/walkway interfaces, and in expansion joints; (2) Thermal/Fiberglass Insulation: e.g., around HVAC systems, heaters, boilers, heated transfer piping, and inside walls or crawl spaces; (3) Adhesive/Mastic: e.g., below carpet and floor tiles, under roofing materials, and under flashing; and (4) Rubber Window Gaskets: e.g., used in lieu of caulking to seal around windows in steel-framed buildings. (k) “Public Works Director” means the Public Works Director or authorized 4 designee. (l) “Regional Water Board” means the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. (m) “Remodel” means to make significant finish and/or structural changes that increase utility and appeal through complete replacement and/or expansion. A removed area reflects fundamental changes that include multiple alterations. These alterations may include some or all of the following: replacement of a major component (cabinet(s), bathtub, or bathroom tile), relocation of plumbing/gas fixtures/appliances, significant structural alterations (relocating walls, and/or the addition of square footage). 15.15.030 Applicability. This chapter applies to Applicants for buildings constructed or remodeled from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980. 15.15.040 Exemptions. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt. 15.15.050 PCBs in priority building materials screening assessment. Every Applicant shall conduct a PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment, a two-step process used to: (a) determine whether the building proposed for demolition is high priority for PCBs containing building materials based on the structure age, use, and construction (i.e., whether the building is an Applicable Structure); and if so (b) demonstrate the presence or absence and concentration of PCBs in Priority Building Materials through existing information or representative sampling and chemical analysis of the Priority Building Materials in the building. Applicants shall follow the directions provided in the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment Applicant Package (Applicant Package), which includes an overview of the process, Applicant instructions, a process flow chart, a screening assessment form, and the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs- Containing Materials before Building Demolition. Per the Applicant Package, for certain types of buildings built within a specified date range, the Applicant must conduct further assessment to determine whether or not PCBs are present at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm. This determination is made via existing data on specific product formulations (if available), or more likely, via conducting representative sampling of the priority building materials and analyzing the samples for PCBs at a certified analytical laboratory. Any representative sampling and analysis must be conducted in accordance with the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition. The Applicant Package provides additional details. 5 15.15.060 Agency notification, abatement, and disposal for identified PCBs. When the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment identifies one or more Priority Building Materials with PCBs, the Applicant must comply with all related applicable federal and state laws, including potential notification of the appropriate regulatory agencies, including EPA, the Regional Water Board, and/or the DTSC. Agency contacts are provided in the Applicant Package. Additional sampling for and abatement of PCBs may be required. Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials containing PCBs, the Applicant may need to notify or seek advance approval from EPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to or approval from EPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal of PCBs waste is regulated under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Additionally, the disposal of PCBs waste is subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 Section 66262. Additional information is provided in the Applicant Package. 15.15.070 Compliance with California and federal PCBs laws and regulations. Applicants must comply with all f ederal and California laws and regulations, including but not limited to health, safety, and environmental laws and regulations, that relate to management and cleanup of any and all PCBs, including but not limited to PCBs in Priority Building Materials, other PCBs-contaminated materials, PCBs-contaminated liquids, and PCBs waste. 15.15.080 Information submission and applicant certification. (a) The Applicant shall conduct a PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment and submit the associated information and results as part of the building permit application, including the following (see Applicant Package for more details): (1) Owner and project information, including location, year building was built, description of building construction type, and anticipated demolition date. (2) Determination of whether the building proposed for demolition is high priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on the structure age, use, and construction. (3) If high priority for PCBs-containing building materials based on the structure age, use, and construction, the concentration of PCBs in each Priority Building Material present. If PCBs concentrations are determined via representative sampling and analysis, include a contractor’s report documenting the assessment which includes the 6 completed QA/QC checklist from the Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition and the analytical laboratory reports. (4) For each Priority Building Material present with a PCBs concentration equal to or greater than 50 ppm, the approximate amount (linear feet or square feet) of that material in the building (see Applicant Package for more details). (5) Applicant’s certification of the accuracy of the information submitted. (b) The Public Works Director may specify a format for the submission of the information. 15.15.090 Recordkeeping. Those Applicants conducting a building demolition project must maintain documentation of the results of the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Screening Assessment for a minimum of five years after submittal. 15.15.100 Obligation to notify City of Burlingame of changes. The Applicant shall submit written notifications documenting any changes in the information submitted in compliance with this chapter. The Applicant shall submit the revised information to the City of Burlingame when changes in project conditions affect the information submitted with the permit application. 15.15.110 Liability. The Applicant is responsible for safely and legally complying with the requirements of this chapter. Neither the issuance of a permit under the requirements of Chapter 25.20 Permits and Licenses or Chapter 18.07.065, nor the compliance with the requirements of this chapter or with any condition imposed by the issuing authority, shall relieve any person from responsibility for damage to persons or property resulting there from, or as otherwise imposed by law, nor impose any liability upon the City of Burlingame for damages to persons or property. 15.15.120 Enforcement. Failure to submit the information required in this chapter or submittal of false information will result in denial of the building permit. 15.15.130 Fees. In addition to the fees required under the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule, all Applicants subject to this chapter shall deposit funds with the City of Burlingame, pay a fee sufficient to reimburse City of Burlingame costs for staff time or consultant staff as applicable required to implement this chapter. 7 Section 3. The Public Works Department is directed to take necessary actions to implement this ordinance. Section 4. 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. Section 5. 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. ________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor 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 the 15th day of April, 2019, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of May, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: _____________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: April 15, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 15, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Establish Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls During Building Demolition Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing to introduce the attached ordinance amending Chapter 15.15 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to establish a program to manage Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) during building demolition projects by: 1. Requesting the City Clerk read the title of the attached ordinance. 2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance. 3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. 4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. 5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND PCBs are highly toxic industrial compounds that pose serious health risks to humans, even in small amounts. Although PCBs were banned from manufacture in the United States in 1979, they are slow to break down and can persist in the environment at dangerous levels. PCBs have been observed in elevated levels in certain fish in the San Francisco Bay, which contributes to health risks to people who frequently eat contaminated fish. To make the fish safer to eat, sources of PCBs entering the Bay need to be identified and controlled. Urban stormwater runoff, airborne releases, and soil erosion are all pathways for PCBs to enter the Bay. Accordingly, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), which regulates water quality in the San Francisco Bay, is requiring that Bay Area municipalities develop and implement a protocol for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition so that PCBs do not enter the storm drain system. Applicable structures include commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed or remodeled from January 1, 1950 to December 31, 1980 with building materials that contain PCB concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater. Single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the Burlingame Municipal Code April 15, 2019 for the Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects 2 exempt. Local agencies are required to develop the protocols for PCBs by June 30, 2019 and include each of the following components, at a minimum: 1. Authority to ensure that PCBs do not enter the municipal storm drain systems from PCB- containing materials in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition; 2. Method for identifying applicable structures prior to their demolition; and 3. Method(s) for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to the storm drain from demolition of applicable structures. DISCUSSION The City of Burlingame is a member of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). As such, staff has been collaborating with BASMAA agencies over the last year to develop a unified and consistent approach to comply with the Water Board regulations with regards to the PCBs Building Demolition Program. The BASMAA includes all the cities in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. The PCBs Building Demolition Program will focus on requiring sampling, prior to demolition, for these four building materials: caulks and sealants, thermal/fiberglass insulation and other insulating materials, adhesive/mastic, and rubber window seals/gaskets. These materials were identified from scientific research on known PCB- containing building materials and their concentrations. Sampling will be a requirement for applicable structures, including commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980. Single-family homes and wood-frame structures will be exempt. If PCBs are found to be greater than or equal to 50 ppm in any of the building materials, applicants will be required to follow all applicable federal and state requirements for notification and abatement prior to demolition, similar to abatement requirements for asbestos. This may include reporting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and/or the Water Board. Process for Implementing the Ordinance:  Building permit applicant submits an application for a project that involves demolition.  City of Burlingame staff will notify building permit applicant about the requirements of this ordinance including submittal of the PCBs Screening Assessment Form.  Applicant will complete the PCBs Screening Assessment Form, and determine whether or not the building is an applicable structure. If there are no applicable structures, applicant will only need to complete the initial screening questions and certify their response. (Note: It is anticipated that the majority of demolition projects have non-applicable structures.)  If the building is an applicable structure, the applicant must conduct further assessment to determine whether or not PCBs are present at concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm. This determination is made through existing data on specific product formulations (if available), or more likely, by conducting representative sampling of building materials and having the samples analyzed for PCBs at a certified analytical laboratory.  If the sampling result identifies one or more building materials with elevated PCBs, the applicant must comply with all applicable federal and state laws, including notification of regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Water Board, Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.15 to the Burlingame Municipal Code April 15, 2019 for the Management of PCBs During Building Demolition Projects 3 and/or the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Additional sampling and abatement of PCBs may be required. Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials containing PCBs, the applicant may need to notify or seek advance approval from USEPA before building demolition. Even in circumstances where advance notification to or approval from USEPA is not required before the demolition activity, the disposal of PCB waste is regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act and is subject to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66262. The focus of this regulation is to protect water quality by preventing PCBs from entering stormwater runoff. The regulation does not:  Ask for municipal oversight or enforcement of human health protection standards;  Ask for municipal oversight of PCB abatement or remediation of materials or lands contaminated by PCBs; or  Establish remediation standards. In order to educate the public and the construction community about the upcoming requirements for PCB abatement, staff held a public workshop on April 6, 2019 at the Main Library. Staff conducted extensive targeted notification to prospective builders, contractors, and applicants through the City’s eNews and direct mailing regarding the workshop. Additionally, staff plans to make the outreach and education materials available through the City website. FISCAL IMPACT Because single-family residential buildings and wood frame structures are exempt, it is anticipated that the majority of demolition projects will not involve applicable structures. Staff will review applications of applicable structures and certify the results. It is estimated that an average of two hours of staff time will be required to review and approve these applications, which can be absorbed in the current budget. Exhibits:  Proposed Ordinance  PCBs Demolition Program Applicant Package 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Issuance of up to $64,000,000 of Solid Waste Enterprise Bonds to Refinance Outstanding Bonds of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority and to Finance Certain Improvements to the Solid Waste Management Facilities of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the issuance of up to $64 million of Solid Waste Enterprise Bonds to refinance outstanding Series 2009A bonds of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority and to finance certain improvements to the Authority- owned Solid Waste Facilities of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority. BACKGROUND In August 2009, the SBWMA issued $53,500,000 tax-exempt Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue Bonds, Series 2009A to fund improvements to the Shoreway Environmental Center. Currently, $44,685,000 of the 2009A Bonds remains outstanding. The 2009A Bonds were issued during a high interest rate period, and currently SBWMA is paying interest on the 2009A Bonds ranging from 5% to 6.25%. Given the current level of tax-exempt interest rates, a refunding of the 2009A Bonds produces strong present value savings as current borrowing rates, inclusive of transaction expenses, are significantly lower than when the 2009A Bonds were originally issued. Tax law stipulates that the 2009A Bonds must be refunded on a “current” basis (on or after 90 days before the September 1, 2019 call date). As such, the first possible date that the 2009A Bonds can be refunded is June 1, 2019. If refunded on June 1, 2019 as proposed, the outstanding 2009A Bonds would be redeemed with the proceeds of the proposed 2019 Refunding Bonds at their first optional redemption date, September 1, 2019. DISCUSSION Based on current market interest rates, a refunding of the 2009A Bonds is estimated to generate approximately $10 million in present value savings. In addition, accessing the capital markets to execute this refunding transaction creates a one-time, unique opportunity for SBWMA to raise additional new money proceeds for needed capital projects. SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019 2 The SBWMA Board approved a Bond Refunding Work Plan on September 27, 2018. Table 1 below illustrates the subsequent equipment and financing project review milestones, culminating in the SBWMA Board’s approval of the Plan of Finance Approach, as presented at its March 28, 2019 Board Meeting. Table 1 2019 Bond Issuance Milestones Date/Meeting Action Item / Approval September 27, 2018: Board Meeting • Approval – Bond Refunding Work Plan October 3 & 10, 2018: Zero Landfill Committee Meeting • Presentation and Discussion – Organics to Energy (O2E) Project and AB1383 November 2, 2018 • Municipal Advisor RFQ Issued November 5, 2018: Finance Committee Meeting • Discussion – Capital Improvement Projects November 15, 2018: Board Meeting • Approval – Organics to Energy Pilot Project • Approval – Executive Director to Execute Contract for Municipal Advisor Services January 4, 2019 • Contracted with KNN Public Finance to serve as Municipal Advisor. January 10: Finance Committee Meeting • Discussion – Capital Funding Plan • Presentation – MRF Equipment Upgrades January 24: Board Meeting • Presentation – Financing Objectives and Alternatives February 14: Finance Committee Meeting • Discussion – Plan of Finance • Study Session – MRF Equipment Upgrades February 28: Zero Landfill Committee Meeting • Study Session – MRF Equipment Upgrades February 28: BOD Meeting • Presentation – Financing Alternatives • Presentation – MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades • Favorable Straw Pole on Capital Improvements, Bond Refunding and New Money Issuance • Approval – Bond & Disclosure Counsel and Underwriter Appointment March 28: Board Meeting • Approval – Plan of Finance Approach April 10 • Model staff report and resolution approving the issuance of 2019 Bonds to Member Agencies April 11: Finance Committee (pending) • Presentation - overview of financing documentation and issuance parameters April 25: Board Meeting (pending) • Adopt resolution recommending approval of the 2019 Bonds to Member Agencies During the early planning stages for the 2009 bond refinancing, capital upgrades to the SBWMA’s facilities in San Carlos were being proposed to address changes and provide cost-effective efficiencies in the processing of recyclable materials at the Materials Recovery Facility. In addition, capital funds would be needed for the future implementation of the Organics-to-Energy Project. Both projects are described in this staff report. SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019 3 Rather than plan for a separate revenue bond financing for these capital needs, the Board approved a 2019 Bond issuance that would include proceeds in addition to the anticipated savings from the 2009 bond refinancing. Therefore, the proposed bonds would be issued to (i) refund the SBWMA’s Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue Bonds (Shoreway Environmental Center), Series 2009A (the “2019 Refunding Bonds”) and (ii) pay the cost of certain improvements to the SBWMA’s solid waste management facilities (the “2019 Revenue Bonds” and, together with the 2019 Refunding Bonds, the “2019 Bonds”). The 2019 Bonds will also fund a deposit to the Reserve Account and pay costs of issuance on the 2019 Bonds. The refunding savings of approximately $10 million, plus the new money capital of approximately $10 million, will fund priority capital projects of the SBWMA with minimal impact to the SBWMA’s current annual debt service payment obligations. Overall, the objective of the issuance of the 2019 Bonds is to maintain an aggregate average annual debt service payment near SBWMA’s current annual obligation on the 2009A Bonds ($4.1M annually). The final maturity of the combined issuance will be extended by six years (from September 1, 2036 to September 1, 2042) to allow for the additional new money capital. This issuance approach is supported by the SBWMA Finance Committee and SBWMA Board. See Exhibit A – Bond Plan of Finance Slides. SBWMA Capital Projects to be Financed with the 2019 Bonds Table 2: Capital Projects and Source of Funds Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) Equipment Upgrades ($15.6M). The proposed equipment upgrades, consisting of Phase I and Phase II, provide strong operational enhancements that will financially benefit the SBWMA for the next 12 years. The Phase I Upgrades include three projects: 1) Optical Sort of Small Fiber ($4.3M); 2) Robotic Sorting of Residue/QC System ($1.6M); and 3) Enhanced Glass Cleanup System ($684K) – providing financial, commodity market, and operational enhancements. With contingencies, Phase I requires a budget of nearly $7.4 million. The Phase II Upgrades consist of six-optical sorters to be installed to partially replace sort labor, and significantly upgrade the facility’s paper commodity product, and recover additional BOD Action Project Agency Cost Payback (w/interest) 2019 MRF Sort System Upgrades $15.6M 6.3 years 2021 O2E Full-Scale Project $10.0M Cost Neutral Capital Projects Estimated Costs $25.6M Agency Source of Funds Amount Status Capital Reserve $5.5M Mid-Year 18/19 Budget projected balance Bond Refunding Savings $10.0M Pending refunding of 2009A Bonds New Money Issuance $10.0M Pending issuance with 2019 Refunding Bonds Total Estimated Funds $25.5M Capital Projects and Source of Funds SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019 4 recyclables. Phase I Upgrades are designed to be installed prior to Phase II ($8.2 million), so that the improvements in commodity quality can be assessed in the final design of Phase II Upgrades. The financial benefit over the 12-year useful life of the equipment is estimated to be $29.6M, resulting in an estimated net financial benefit of $14.1 million (including equipment interest expense). See Table 3 below. Again, the financial benefit is achieved through increased commodity capture (new revenue) and reduced labor expense. New revenue will be increased by improving commodity material sorting efficiency and accuracy, resulting in higher grade material that can be marketed at its maximum value. Manual sort labor expense will also be reduced by installing high efficiency optical and robotics sorting systems. In addition, the equipment will increase the plant’s throughput of materials, achieve increased fire risk mitigation, and reduce the amount of paper to be landfilled. Table 3 indicates the most recent projection of revenue and cost- avoidance benefits for the project over the equipment’s 12 year useful life. A detailed description of the MRF Equipment Upgrades, associated benefits, and third-party justification can be found in Exhibit B – February 2019 BOD Presentation on MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades. Table 3: MRF Estimated Financial Benefit Organics-to-Energy – Full-Scale Project At its November 2018 Board Meeting, the Board approved the Organics-to-Energy (O2E) Pilot Project and recommended funding the full scale O2E project ($10.0 million) after the O2E pilot project’s proof-of-concept is (presumably) achieved. The O2E Full Scale Project is estimated to be cost-neutral: reduced transportation and tip fee costs are expected to be offset by Shoreway processing and equipment costs. Project benefits include an estimated 25-30% reduction in landfill waste (to achieve compliance with SB 1383); significant greenhouse gas emissions reduction as a result of reduced transportation; and reduced commercial organics processing costs. FISCAL IMPACT The 2019 Bonds will be structured to achieve minimal annual rate payer impact over the current tip fee rates. Current annual debt service on the 2009A Bonds is approximately $4.1 million. The 2019 Bonds will be structured such that annual debt service payments will not exceed $4.3 million, and the maturity will be extended six years (to September 1, 2042). Capital Improvement Cost 15,579,944$ Revenue Benefit *23,112,044$ Cost Avoidance Benefit 6,529,164$ Estimated Revenue & Cost Benefit (through 12 year useful life)29,641,209$ Cumulative Financial Benefit 14,061,265$ MRF Enhancement Cumulative Financial Benefit Summary SBWMA Bond Refinancing and Capital Bond Financing May 6, 2019 5 Exhibits: • Resolution • Exhibit A – Bond Plan of Finance Presentation to the SBWMA Board • Exhibit B – Presentation on MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades • Exhibit C – Capital Project Schedule RESOLUTION NO. ___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $64 MILLION OF SOLID WASTE ENTERPRISE BONDS TO REFINANCE OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND TO FINANCE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OF THE SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is one of twelve equity members of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (herein referred to as the “Authority”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has proposed the issuance of solid waste enterprise revenue bonds in one or more series to (i) refund the Authority’s Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue Bonds (Shoreway Environmental Center), Series 2009A, currently outstanding in the principal amount of $44,685,000; (ii) pay the cost of certain improvements to the Authority’s solid waste management facilities, located in the City of San Carlos; (iii) fund a deposit to the reserve account; and (iv) pay costs of issuance of the bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Burlingame approves the issuance by the Authority of solid waste enterprise revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $64,000,000. ___________________________ 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 at the 6th of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________ City Clerk 1300 Clay Street, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612phone 510-839-8200 fax 510-208-8282A Limited Liability CompanySouth BaysideWaste Management AuthorityOverview of the 2019 Bonds: Refunding of Series 2009A Bonds and Financing Capital ImprovementsExhibit A 1.002.003.004.005.006.007.00Revenue Bond Index*10-year TreasuryRevenue Bond Index at Series 2009A Pricing (8/20/2009)Percent (%)Market Rates Continue to Support a Refunding of the Series 2009A Bonds South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 1*The Bond Buyer Revenue Bond Index consists of 25 various revenue bonds that mature in 30 years. The average rating is roughly equivalent to Moody’s “A1” and S&P’s “A+”. Source: Bond Buyer Index: Bond Buyer. 10-year Treasury Yield Curve: The Department of the Treasury.Maximum (10-Year Historical) 5.78% 3.91%Minimum (10-Year Historical) 2.98% 1.40%2009A Issuance (8/20/2009) 5.62% 3.42%January Board Meeting 4.67% 2.74%February Board Meeting 4.71% 2.66%Current (3/28/2019) 4.26% 2.39%Revenue Bond Index*10-Tear U.S. Treasury Overview of the 2019 Bonds South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 2Plan of Finance Objective: Execute Bond Refunding and Raise $20M New Money Proceeds through Savings and Additional DebtRefunds outstanding 2009A Bonds to achieve debt service savingsIssues additional “new money” bonds in addition to redeploying savings for capitalExtends term of refunding bonds to achieve a short-term “window” to structure new money debt service with shorter average life restrictionsMaintains annual payments approximately equal to $4.1MM butextends bond term another six years to September 1, 2042 (from September 1, 2036) Key Assumptions for the 2019 BondsSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 3Offering Type: Fixed rate, public issuanceSecurity Type: Solid Waste Enterprise Revenue Bonds (consistent with Series 2009A Bonds) Ratings: A1 (Moody’s) / A+ (S&P); 2019 Bonds transaction ratings to be confirmedInterest Rates: Current rates as of April 4, 2019 plus 0.25% interest rate cushionClosing Date: June 26, 2019Call Date: September 1, 2029 (10-year par call)Final Maturity: September 1, 2042 (extended from September 1, 2036)Issuance Expenses: COI of $300,000 and UW Discount of $3.50 per bond Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF): Contribution of cash DSRF associated with the Series 2009A Bonds at current amount New cash DSRF sized for the 2019 Bonds 2019 Bonds Sources and Uses of Funds*South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 4*Assumes current Authority credit ratings and market conditions as of 4/4/2019, plus 25 bps. Preliminary and subject to change based on tax-exempt interest rate movements.1Estimated Cost of Issuance includes fees for bond counsel, disclosure counsel, rating, municipal advisor, trustee printing, etc. Cost of issuance also includes bond rounding. Series 2019A: RefundingSeries 2019B: New MoneySeries 2019:Total Sources:Bond Proceeds:Par Amount 36,505,000$ 18,850,000$ 55,355,000$ Premium 5,792,867 2,717,778 8,510,644Total Bond Proceeds 42,297,867 21,567,778 63,865,6442009A Bonds Funds on Hand 6,567,395 - 6,567,395Total Sources 48,865,262$ 21,567,778$ 70,433,040$ Uses:Project Fund Deposit - 20,000,000 20,000,000Refunding Escrow 45,796,867 - 45,796,867Debt Service Reserve Fund 2,731,846 1,410,637 4,142,483Cost of Issuance1195,964 100,714 296,678Underwriter's Discount 140,584 56,427 197,011Total Uses 48,865,262$ 21,567,778$ 70,433,040$ 1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,0002020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042Annual Debt Service Payments2009A Debt Service2019 Bonds Debt ServiceDebt Service Schedules: Status Quo (2009A Bonds) and 2019 BondsSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 5$ Annual Debt ServiceBond Year Detailed Debt Service SchedulesSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 6*Assumes current Authority credit ratings and market conditions as of 4/1/2019, plus 25 bps. Preliminary and subject to change based on tax-exempt interest rate movements.September 1, Principal Interest Total Debt Service September 1, Principal Interest Total Debt ServiceDebt Service Difference from Status Quo2020 1,570,000 2,554,750 4,124,750 2020 875,000 3,267,483 4,142,48317,7332021 1,650,000 2,472,325 4,122,325 2021 1,415,000 2,724,000 4,139,00016,6752022 1,735,000 2,385,700 4,120,700 2022 1,485,000 2,653,250 4,138,25017,5502023 1,830,000 2,294,613 4,124,613 2023 1,560,000 2,579,000 4,139,00014,3882024 1,925,000 2,198,538 4,123,538 2024 1,640,000 2,501,000 4,141,00017,4632025 2,025,000 2,097,475 4,122,475 2025 1,720,000 2,419,000 4,139,00016,5252026 2,150,000 1,970,913 4,120,913 2026 1,805,000 2,333,000 4,138,00017,0882027 2,285,000 1,836,538 4,121,538 2027 1,895,000 2,242,750 4,137,75016,2132028 2,430,000 1,693,725 4,123,725 2028 1,990,000 2,148,000 4,138,00014,2752029 2,580,000 1,541,850 4,121,850 2029 2,090,000 2,048,500 4,138,50016,6502030 2,740,000 1,380,600 4,120,600 2030 2,195,000 1,944,000 4,139,00018,4002031 2,905,000 1,216,200 4,121,200 2031 2,305,000 1,834,250 4,139,25018,0502032 3,080,000 1,041,900 4,121,900 2032 2,420,000 1,719,000 4,139,00017,1002033 3,265,000 857,100 4,122,100 2033 2,540,000 1,598,000 4,138,00015,9002034 3,460,000 661,200 4,121,200 2034 2,670,000 1,471,000 4,141,00019,8002035 3,670,000 453,600 4,123,600 2035 2,800,000 1,337,500 4,137,50013,9002036 3,890,000 233,400 4,123,400 2036 2,940,000 1,197,500 4,137,50014,1002037 3,090,000 1,050,500 4,140,5004,140,5002038 3,245,000 896,000 4,141,0004,141,0002039 3,405,000 733,750 4,138,7504,138,7502040 3,575,000 563,500 4,138,5004,138,5002041 3,755,000 384,750 4,139,7504,139,7502042 3,940,000 197,000 4,137,0004,137,00043,190,000 26,890,425 70,080,425 55,355,000 39,842,733 95,197,73325,117,308Status Quo (Series 2009A Bonds)2019 Bonds* Financing Results versus the Status Quo*South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 7*Assumes current Authority credit ratings and market conditions as of 4/1/2019, plus 25 bps. Preliminary and subject to change based on tax-exempt interest rate movements.1Assuming a refunding of only the 2009 Series A Bonds, estimated Net PV Savings would be $10,794,614 or 24.16% savings of Refunded Bonds. The lower Net PV Savings values reflects structuring refinements to incorporate the new money issuance and required short-term amortization given average life restrictions.Status Quo:Series 2009A Bonds2019 Bonds: Refunding$20MM CapitalPar Amount of Refunded Bonds: -- $44,685,000 -- 14.307%Net PV Savings1: -- $6,393,095 Total Obligations and Debt Service Payments:Total Capital Proceeds Raised:--$20,000,000 Estimated Par Amount Outstanding after 2019 Bond Issuance$44,685,000 $55,355,000 Total Debt Service: $70,080,425 $95,197,733 Difference from the Status Quo: $25,117,308 Average Annual Debt Service: $4,122,378 $4,139,032 Difference from the Status Quo: $16,654 Final Debt Term: 9/1/2036 9/1/2042Refunding Present Value Savings:Percentage Savings of Refunded Bonds1: Important Next Steps and Financing ApprovalsSouth Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 8Targeted Date/Meeting Action Item / ApprovalApril 11SBWMA Finance CommitteeReceive overview of financing documentation and issuance parametersApril 5Model staff report and resolution approving the issuance of 2019 Bonds to Member AgenciesApril 25SBWMA Board MeetingAdopt resolution recommending approval of 2019 Bonds to Member AgenciesAdopt Reimbursement ResolutionWeek of May 6Member Agency MeetingsAdopt resolution to approve the issuance of 2019 BondsWeek of May 13Member Agency MeetingsAdopt resolution to approve the issuance of 2019 BondsMay 13City of San Carlos MeetingHold public hearing as host City and for TEFRA*Approve JPA financing as host CityAdopt TEFRA* approvalAdopt resolution to approve the issuance of 2019 BondsMay 23SBWMA Board MeetingAdopt resolution authorizing the issuance of 2019 Bonds (subject to not-to-exceed parameters) and approving financing documents (resolution, bond indenture, official statement, purchase contract)* A public hearing required by the IRS to be held before the Board can approve the issuance by SBWMA of tax-exempt private activity debt. Financing Timeline South Bayside Waste Management Authority | page 9Targeted Date Action ItemJanuary 2019Assemble financing team (SBWMA, KNN, Bond/Disclosure Counsel, Underwriter, and other parties)February 2019 – May 2019SBWMA Board engagements on Plan of Finance approachDevelop legal and disclosure documents necessary for issuanceWeek of May 13Rating Agency meetingsWeek of May 27Receive Bond credit ratingsPost Preliminary Official StatementMarket 2019 Bonds Week of June 10Price 2019 BondsWeek of June 24Close 2019 Bonds ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM 10B - p1 10B STAFF REPORT To: SBWMA Board Members From: Hilary Gans, Senior Contracts & Operations Manager Date: February 28, 2019 Board of Directors Meeting Subject: Presentation on MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades Recommendation: This staff report is for discussion purposes only and no formal action is requested of the Board of Directors. Summary In the wake of the commodity market challenges and the need to improve fiber commodity quality to ensure market outlets, SBWMA and SBR staff have analyzed many options to improve material quality. Automation of MRF sorting has emerged as a key strategy towards this goal. The Bond Refunding process provides a unique window to access capital for these future capital projects. MRF Phase I - Sort System Upgrade Cost: $7.3M (firm quote) Equip. Useful Life: 12 Years; ROI Payback: 7.6-year payback (see attachment A) Net Agency Benefit: 4.4 years Designs have been completed and a quote for Phase I MRF Upgrade has been obtained from BHS. The Phase I Upgrades includes three projects with financial, commodity market, and operational enhancements that benefits the agency for the next decade. Phase I Upgrades are designed to be installed prior to Phase II so that the improvements in commodity quality can be assessed in the final design of Phase II Upgrades. 1.Optical Sort of Small Fiber ($4.2M) Description – BHS optical sort systems are used at Shoreway for high-speed separation of containers. This same optical sorting technology will be applied to sorting contamination out of mixed paper to capture more commodity revenues. Benefits – Optical sorting will capture cardboard and containers that can be sold at a $1.3M/year in additional revenues (these materials are currently lost to mixed paper), 2) mixed paper will be cleaned up to High-Grade paper that sells at a $70 per ton premium (see attachment B). 2.Robotic Sorting of Residue/QC System ($1.6M) Description - BHS manufactures a robotic sorting system (Max-AI AQC) that utilize advanced recognition and AI technology to identify and sort a wide variety of materials. Applying this robotic system to the MRF residue will result in a reduction in sort labor expense and the capture of more recyclable materials that are currently “lost” to residue/disposal. Additionally, this recognition system will be installed at the end of Exhibit B SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B - p2 all fiber sort lines to identify, record, and report the fiber composition and quality so that the Phase II optical sort system will meet the fiber commodity quality standard for high grade paper. Benefits - Robotic sort and quality control system benefits include: 1) reduced sorting expense of $204K/year, increase capture of recyclables currently lost to residue, 3) data collection for used in design of Phase II fiber sort, and 4) ability to issue fiber-quality reports to buyers. 3. Enhanced Glass Cleanup System ($684,158) Description - The MRF glass commodity is created by breaking all the glass fed into the sorting system and then sifting fine material/glass out of the stream of recyclables. Currently this glass mix is contaminated with shredded paper, batteries, and small metals and plastic contaminates. The glass clean-up system will remove contaminates through a combination of magnets, screening and air. A key aspect of the project is to remove batteries and to reduce exposure to fires caused by batteries. Benefits – 1) Reduced fire risk by removing batteries early in the sort line, 2) improved glass commodity sale price of $4/ton, 3) other commodity revenue from metals and CRV recovery, 4) operational improvement from removal of shredded paper that is plugging the system causing plant stoppages. MRF Phase II – Sort System Upgrades Cost: $8.2 M (firm quote) Equip. Useful Life: 12 Years; ROI Payback: 5-year payback (see attachment A) Net Benefit: 7 years Description: In response to the China mixed paper import ban, the recycling industry is transitioning to highspeed optical sorting technology to remove contamination and meet new paper quality standards. Six-optical sorters will be installed inplace of sort labor to upgrade mixed paper to High-Grade paper and recover additional recyclables. Benefits: 1) High-Grade paper sells at a $70 per ton premium over mixed paper (see attachment B - letters from SBR and Potential Industries) providing the SBWMA $1.5M/year in additional revenues, 2) commodities currently lost to mixed paper will be sold at a premium, 3) reductions in sort labor will save $487K/year. Organics to Energy – Full-Scale Project ($10M, Cost Neutral) Description: In November 2018 the Board approved the O2E Pilot project and recommended funding the Full Scale O2E Project after proof-of-concept is achieved. Equipment design and layout has confirmed the cost of the project at ~$10M. Board consideration of the O2E Full Scales is anticipated in 2021. Benefits: 1) 25-30% reduction in waste to landfill, 2) significant GHG emissions reduction, 3) reduced commercial collection organics costs (estimated at over $2M per year). Attachments: Attachment A: MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades Financials Attachment B: Letters from SBR and Potential in support of MRF Upgrades to improve commodity revenues SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT A – p1 Attachment A - MRF Processing Equipment Upgrades Financials SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT A – p2 SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p1 Attachment B – Letters from SBR & Potential Industries SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p2 SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p3 SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p4 SBWMA BOD PACKET 02/28/2019 AGENDA ITEM: 10B ATTACHMENT B – p5 _________________________________________________ SBWMA BOD PACKET 03/28/2019____________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM: 5A ATTACHMENT C - p1Exhibit C 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of Resolutions Initiating Proceedings to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions to initiate proceedings to renew the levy and collection of assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1 for fiscal year 2019-20 as follows: a. Initiate proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 2019-20; b. Approve the Annual Engineer’s Report for fiscal year 2019-20; and c. Declare the intention to levy and collect assessments for fiscal year 2019-20. BACKGROUND At its April 2, 2012 meeting, the City Council initiated the proceedings to form the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Assessment District No. 2012-1. The proceedings were conducted under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (Act). Weighted ballots were sent via certified mail to the property owners on April 5, 2012. At the May 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to tabulate ballots for the Assessment District. The results of the ballot showed no “majority protest”, thereby allowing the City Council to order improvements, form the Assessment District, and levy assessments totaling $335,787 annually for 30 years to the downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners. Property owners were given the option to pre-pay their assessments to avoid paying annually. Five property owners have exercised this option. DISCUSSION The Engineer’s Report is updated annually to reflect any changes that may have occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District. The Act requires an annual Public Hearing to confirm and levy the assessment. The Public Hearing will be held on May 20, 2019. Levy and Collection of Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue May 6, 2019 Streetscape Improvement Project for Fiscal Year 2019-20 2 FISCAL IMPACT The total assessment for fiscal year 2019-20 is $310,156, which reflects pre-payments by property owners. There are no changes to the annual assessment from the last year. Funds collected through assessments will be used as part of the debt payment for Burlingame Avenue Streetscape bonds. Exhibits: • Resolution Initiating Proceedings for Levy & Collections • Resolution Approving Annual Report for FY 2019-20 • Resolution Declaring Intention to Levy & Collect Assessments • Updated Engineer’s Report for FY 2019-20 • Staff Report – April 2, 2012 • Staff Report – May 21, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the “Act”) to establish the City’s Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the “Assessment District”); and WHEREAS, the Engineer’s Report is updated annually (“Annual Report”) to reflect any changes that may have occurred to property configuration in the Assessment District. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Annual Report: The Council orders staff to prepare and file with the Clerk the Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. 2. New Improvements or Changes to Existing Improvements: There are no changes to existing improvements nor are there any items being added to the list of improvements previously approved at the formation of the Assessment District. Donna Colson, 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 6th day of May, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) finds as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the “Act”) to establish the City’s Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the “Assessment District”); and WHEREAS, the Council has, by previous resolution, ordered staff to prepare and file the Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared and filed such Annual Report with the Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Annual Report. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Approval of Report: The Council approves the Annual Report concerning the levy of assessments as submitted for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. Donna Colson, 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 6th day of May, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1, Dow ntow n Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Engineer’s Report City of Burlingame Fiscal Year 2019/20 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2-1 2.1. Background of District ................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Reason for the Assessment..........................................................................2-1 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment .................................................................2-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3-1 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District ................................................. 3-1 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project ............................................ 3-1 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project ............................................................. 3-1 4. ESTIM ATE OF COSTS 4-1 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs .............................................................. 4-1 5. SPECI AL AND GENER AL BENEFIT 5-1 5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................5-1 5.2. Identif ication of Benefit .................................................................................. 5-1 5.3. Separation of General Benefit ......................................................................5-3 5.4. Quantif ication of General Benefit ..................................................................5-4 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit.....................................................................5-5 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6-1 6.1. Assessment Budget ....................................................................................... 6-1 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread.....................................................................6-2 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing................................................. 6-2 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula ................................................................. 6-3 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGR AM 7-1 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL 8-1 Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 3-1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T he City Council of the City of Burlingame (“City Council”), pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (“1972 Act”), previously form ed the assessm ent district k nown and designated as “Assessment District No. 2012-1, Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvem ent Project”, (hereafter referred to as the “District”). T he City Council has initiated proceedings directing the preparation and filing of a report for Fiscal Year 2019/20 presenting the improvem ents, an estim ated cost, including debt financing, of the improvem ents, annual administrative costs, and a diagram showing the area and properties to be assessed. T he following assessm ent is authorized in order to pay the estim ated costs, including debt financing of the improvements and annual administrative costs to be paid by the assessable real property within the boundaries of the District in proportion to the special benefit received. The following table summarizes the assessm ent: Description Amount District Im provem ent Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: Allocation to General Benefit(1) (3,238,994) Subtotal: Allocation to Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and W ater Enterprise Fund Contribution(2) ($922,000) Less: T LC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Park ing Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) T otal Amount to be Specially Assessed $5,962,394 T otal Amount Pre-Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Pa ym ent(3) $310,156 T otal Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1)See Section 5.4. (2)Contemporaneously with the District Improvement Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingame Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects is $15,443,660). A portion of the money for that project was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalks. Since the District Improvement Project eliminates the need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the District Improvement Project. (3)See Section 6.3. This annual report represents no changes to the Fiscal Year 2018/19 annual report. ____________________________ Art Morimoto Assistant Public Works Director City of Burlingame Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 4-1 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. Background of District The City of Burlingam e (“Cit y”) has com pleted, in coordination with planned utility im provem ents, the Downtown Burlingam e Avenue Streetscape Im provem ent Project (“District Im provem ent Project”). The District Im provem ent Project provided an opportunit y for comm unity stak eholders to plan and im plem ent streetscaping and sidewalk im provem ents that com plem ent the evolving vision and needs of the Burlingam e Avenue property owners, m erchants and comm unity. The District Im provem ent Project im proves the public infrastructure that fronts propert y along Burlingam e Avenue (and portions of certain side streets at intersections with Burlingam e Avenue) between El Cam ino Real and California Drive. Further, the District Im provem ent Project enhances the overall experience of m erchants and visitors by creating a m em orable Burlingam e Avenue for shopping, dining, and strolling. 2.2. Reason for the Assessment T he assessm ent covered by this Engineer’s Report will generate the assessment revenue necessary to provide for a portion of the public im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project and further described in Section 3.2 of this Engineer’s Report. The District im provem ents m ay include but are not lim ited to, all of the following: streetscape im provem ents, sidewalk im provem ents, District financing costs, and adm inistrative costs as sociated with the ongoing annual adm inistration of the District. 2.3. Establishment of the Assessment The Cit y form ed the Distric t and established assessments b y com plying with the procedures specified in Article XIIID and the Proposition 218 Om nibus Im plem entation Act (“Proposition 218”). In Novem ber 1996, the voters in the State of California added Article XIIID to the California Constitution im posing, am ong other requirem ents, the necessity for the Cit y to conduct an assessm ent ballot procedure to enable the owners of each propert y on which assessm ents are proposed to be enacted, the opportunity to express their support for, or opposition to the proposed assessm ent. The basic steps of the assessm ent ballot procedure are outlined below. The City prepared a Notic e of Public Hearing (“Notice”), which describes, along with other m andated inform ation, the reason for the proposed assessm ents and provided a date, tim e, and location of a public hearing to be held on the matter. The City prepared an assessm ent ballot, which clearl y gave the propert y owner the abilit y to sign and execute their assessm ent ballot either in favor of, or in opposition to, the assessm ent. T he Notice and assessm ent ballots were m ailed to each affected property owner within the District a m inim um of 45 days prior to the public hearing date as shown in the Notice. The City held comm unity m eetings with the propert y owners to dis cuss the issues f acing the District and to answer propert y owner questions directl y. After the Notice and asses sm ent ballots were m ailed, propert y owners were given until the close of the public hearing, as stated in the Notice, to return their signed and executed assessm ent ballot. During the public hearing, propert y owners were given the opportunit y to address the Cit y Council and ask questions or voice their concerns. After the public hearing, the returned assessm ent ballots received prior to the close of the public hearing were tabulated, weighted b y the proposed assessm ent am ount on each propert y and the results were announced b y the City Council. Article XIIID provides that if, as a result of the assessment ballot proceeding, a m ajority protest is found to exist, the City Council shall not have the authorit y to enact the assessm ents as proposed. A majority protest Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 2-2 exists if the assessm ents represented b y ballots subm itted in opposition exceed those subm itted in favor of the assessm ent. All returned ballots were tabulated and weighted according to the financial obligation of each particular parcel. T here wasn’t a m ajority protest as described above and the Cit y Council approved the District form ation and assessm ents. T he City Council will annuall y declare its intention to levy and collect the assessm ents within the District and hold a public hearing concerning such lev y of assessm ents. At such tim e all interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 3-1 3. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The District provides for various Burlingam e Avenue streetscape and sidewalk improvem ents located within the public right-of-wa y and dedicated easem ents within the boundaries of the District. 3.1. Description of the Boundaries of the District The boundaries of the District include properties located along Burlingam e Avenue within the Cit y. The District runs along Burlingam e Avenue and is bounded on the east b y California Drive and on the west b y El Cam ino Real. T he City will not provide public im provem ents from the District Im provem ent Project to any area located outside of the District boundaries. Section 7 of this Engineer’s Report provides an assessm ent diagram that m ore fully provides a description of the District’s boundaries and the parcels within thos e boundaries. 3.2. Description of the District Improvement Project The District Im provem ent Project includes streetscape item s such as sidewalk, street and pedestrian lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage, k iosks, gatewa y treatm ents, site furnishings, and other park ing im provem ents, appurtenant facilities, and soft costs. The District Im provem ent Project provides for public im provem ents to be distributed throughout the entire District, and as such, are of direct and specia l benefit to the parcels within the District. The District Im provem ent Project consists of a classic design style with touches of traditional and contem porary design. This desired design style creates a structured, tim eless design with patter ned, elegant m aterials consistent throughout the Burlingam e Avenue area. Not only does the District Im provem ent Project provide necessary street im provem ents, but it allows for an increase in pedestrian space along Burlingam e Avenue. To allow for this additional pedestrian space, parallel park ing replaced the existing angled park ing. The change from angled parking to parallel parking will allow for an expanded 16 foot width of sidewalk area on both sides of Burlingam e Avenue. This additional sidewalk area can provide sufficient space for seating, art features, landscaping, and lighting. Burlingam e Avenue will be m aintained with two-wa y traffic and 10 foot wide travel lanes. The parallel park ing stalls, with a park ing assist zone, will have a width of nine feet. The park ing assist zone allows for car door openings and lim ited bik e through lanes along Burlingam e Avenue. At the intersection corners along Burlingam e Avenue bulb-outs are proposed to allow for additional pedestrian areas. In addition to providing an enhanced pedestrian area, the corner intersection bulb-outs will reduce pedestrian crossing distances. As an additional safety feature, the crosswalk s will be of a different construction m aterial than the street surface to provide a warning for traffic to slow down. The District Im provem ent Project includes asphalt paving in the roadwa y and colored concrete for the park ing and park ing assist zones. The sidewalk s, corner intersection bulb-outs and cross walk s will be constructed of concrete pavers. Trees, street lights with lim ited features, and other public furnishings are also included throughout the District. 3.3. Map of District Improvement Project The following m ap provides the approxim ate location (for reference only – m ay not include all) of the im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project throughout the District. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 4-1 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS The estim ated cost of the District Im provem ent Project as m ore fully described in Section 3 of this Engineer’s Report is outlined below. 4.1. District Improvement Project Costs T he following table provides the costs for the District Im provem ent Project. Refer to Section 6 for m ore detail on the financing plan and the annual assessm ent budget. Description Amount District Improvement Project Costs Construction $9,709,355 Construction Managem ent 825,660 Construction Engineering 332,000 Engineering Adm inistration 360,000 T otal District Improvement Project Costs $11,227,015 Contem poraneousl y with the District Im provem ent Project, the City, using sewer and water enterprise funds, replaced the sewer and water lines under Burlingam e Avenue (the overall total cost for all projects was $15,443,660). B y c om pleting the District Im provem ent Project in coordination with the utility im provem ents, it saved significant project costs and m inim ize the construction im pacts to property and businesses along Burlingam e Avenue. A portion of the planned utility im provem ent budget, $922,000, was allocated for patching the streets and sidewalk s. Since the District Im provem ent Project elim inates that need for patching, the $922,000 is being contributed to the streetscape project from the sewer and water enterprise funds and thus will not be specially assessed. Thus, overall, the District Im provem ent Project was funded by state gas tax, Measure A funds, grant funds, sewer and water enterprise funds, the parking enterprise fund, and revenues from District special assessm ents. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-1 5. SPECIAL AND GENERAL BENEFIT 5.1. Introduction Pursuant to Article XIIID, all parcels that receive a special benefit conferred upon them as a result of the im provem ents shall be identified, and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determ ined in relationship to the entire costs of the im provem ents. Division 12 of the Streets and Highwa ys Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, perm its the establishm ent of assessm ent districts b y local agencies for the purpose of providing certain public im provem ents necessary or convenient for providing certain public services. Section 22573 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that assessm ents m ust be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." Article XIIID, Section 4(a) of the California Constitution lim its the am ount of any assessm ent to the proportional special benefit conferred on the property. Article XIIID also provides that publicly owned properties m ust be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no spec ial benefit from the assessm ent. Exam ples of parcels exem pted from the assessm ent would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easem ents and rights-of-wa ys, public greenbelts, and public park ways. Furtherm ore, Proposition 218 requires that the Cit y separate the general benefit from special benefit, so onl y spec ial benefit m ay be assessed. 5.2. Identification of Benefit The District Im provem ent Project will provide benefits to both those properties within the District boundaries and to the comm unity as a whole. The benefit conferred to propert y within the District can be grouped into three prim ary benefit categories; aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and econom ic activity benefit. The three District benefit categories are further expanded upon in each section below. Aesthetic Benefit The aesthetic benefit relates to the increase in the overall aesthetics as a result of the District Im provem ent Project. T he District Im provem ent Project will provide public street and sidewalk infrastructure beautification throughout the District, that will enhance the overall im age and desirabilit y of the properties within the District. Burlingam e Avenue streetscape im provem ents within the District were last com pleted back in the early 1960s. Since that tim e, the public facilities have deteriorated. The following aesthetic benefits will be provided as a result of the District Im provem ent Project:  The District Im provem ent Project enhances the comm unity identit y of the Burlingam e Avenue area, which will lead to a stronger and healthier street corridor. The im age of the Burlingam e Avenue area will be increased b y correcting the visual clutter such as trash containers and news racks that currently encroach on the pedestrian area.  Uniform and up to date streetscape and sidewalk im provem ents creates cohesion throughout the District from El Cam ino Real to California Drive. This District cohesion enhances the retail experience as well as encourage m axim um use of space. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-2  Upgraded streetscaping and sidewalk am enities provided by the District Im provem ent Project enhances the appearanc e, des irabilit y, and “livability” of the property directly fronting the im provem ents provided throughout the District. As a result of the District Im provem ent Project, the overall “livability” of the District increases. “Livability” encom passes several qualities and characteristics that are unique to a specific area. The Victoria Transport Polic y Institute (www.vtpi.org) expands on the concept of “livability” and the various benefits associated with that designation: “The livability of an area increases property des irability and business activity. Livability is largely affected by conditions in the public realm, places where people naturally interact with each other and their community, including streets, parks, transportation terminals and other public facilities. Livability also refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by employees, customers and visitors. This includes local environmental conditions, the quality of social interactions, opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics, and existence of unique cultural and environmental resources.” Safety Benefit The District Im provem ent Project provides an increased level of safety to the property, businesses, and visitors to the District. Additionally, the District Im provem ent Project help m itigate potential crim inal activit y throughout the District area. The f ollowing safety benefits are provided as a result of the District Im provem ent Project:  The District Im provem ent Project repaired uneven and deteriorating sidewalks within the District. Im provem ents to the existing sidewalk infrastructure will reduce the num ber of future trip and fall occurrences potentially occurring in front of District property.  The District Im provem ent Project provides better lighting throughout the Burlingam e Avenue area. The im proved lighting ensures that sidewalk s, streets, and propert y fronts are m ore visible. This increased level of visibilit y reduces the opportunities for vandalism to propert y within the District.  W ider sidewalk s provide additional space between vehicle and propert y as well as vehicle and pedestrian, which provides a safety benefit for both property and pedestrian.  Traffic calm ing im provem ents can reduce autom obile traffic and speeds, which in turn, increases the safety for vehicular passengers, pedestrians, and other non-m otorized travels. The streetscaping strategies utilized in the developm ent of the District Im provem ent Project provide num erous safety benefits to propert y and people throughout the District. Again, the Victoria Transport Polic y Institute (www.vtpi.org) notes the safet y benefit attributable to streetscaping im provem ents: “Several studies indicate that common streetscaping strategies, such as landscaping and narrowing traffic lanes, tend to increase traffic safety. Streetscaping that reduces traffic speeds and improves pedestrian crossing conditions can significantly reduce collisions. Research by the U.S. Highway Safety Research System concludes that road diets (arterial street traffic calming) typically reduce crash rates by 47% on major highways through small urban areas, by 19% on corridors in larger city suburban areas, and 29% overall.” Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-3 Econom ic Activit y Benefit The econom ic activit y benefit relates to the increase in the District’s econom ic activit y and further potential as a result of the District Im provem ent Project. The econom ic activity for property within the District can best be described as the abilit y for the propert y within the District to develop and operate at the property’s highest and best use. Properties within the District receive the following econom ic activit y benefits as a result of the District Im provem ent Project:  The District Im provem ent Project revitalizes the Burlingam e Avenue area. This revitalization will encourage new business developm ent and existing business expansion which will reduce vacanc y rates and increase lease rates for propert y within the District.  The streetscaping im provem ents encourages an increase in comm erce throughout the District. The Burlingam e Avenue area will becom e m ore pedestrian friendly, thus im proving custom er activit y for stores and restaurants. The streetscaping im provem ents not onl y add econom ic value to property adjacent to the im provem ents, but the im provem ents m ake the propert y appear more stable and prosperous. The National Com plete Streets Coalition (www.com pletestreets.org) notes that: “Street design that is inc lus ive of all modes of transportation, where appropriate, not only improves conditions for existing businesses, but also is a proven method for revitalizing an area and attracting new development. W ashington, DC’s Barracks Row was experiencing a steady decline of commercial activity due to uninviting sidewalks, lack of streetlights, and speeding traffic. After many design improvements, which included new patterned sidewalks, more efficient public parking, and new traffic signals, Barrack ’s Row attracted 44 new businesses and 200 new jobs. Economic activity on this three-quarter mile strip (measured by sales, employees, and number of pedestrians) has more than tripled since the inception of the project.” 5.3. Separation of General Benefit Section 4 of Artic le XIIID of the California Constitution provides that once a local agency which proposes to im pose assessm ents on propert y has identified those parcels that will have special benefits conferred upon them and upon which an assessm ent will be im posed, the local agenc y m ust next “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred,” and onl y the special benefits can be included in the am ount of the assessm ents im posed. General benefit is an overall and sim ilar benefit to the public at large resulting from the im provem ents to be provided b y the assessm ents levied. T he District im provem ents, which are m ore fully presented in Section 3.2 of this Engineer’s Report, will be constructed and provided within the District boundaries only. There will be no im provem ents from the District Im provem ent Project constructed outside of the District boundaries. The District Im provem ent Project provide aesthetic, safety, and econom ic benefits to the propert y within the District, but it is recognized that the District Im provem ent Project also provides a level of benefit to some propert y and bus inesses within proxim ity to the District, as well as visitors and individuals passing through the District. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic from propert y within and outside of the District as well as individual passing through the downtown Burlingam e Avenue area are able to utilize the im provem ents to not onl y access property and businesses located within a close proxim ity to the District, but also roadwa ys located outside of the District. Therefore, the general benefit created as a result of the District Im provem ent Project has been considered. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-4 5.4. Quantification of General Benefit In order for propert y within the District to be assessed onl y for that portion of special benefit received from the District Im provem ent Project, the general benefit provided b y the District Im provem ent Project needs to be quantified. T he am ount of general benefit provided from the District Im provem ent Project can not be assessed to the benefitting properties within the District. To quantif y the general benefit provided to the variet y of traffic that pass es through the District for the general benefit of enjoying the surrounding atm osphere, observing the level of econom ic activit y, or accessing adjacent property or arterial streets in a m ore efficient and safe m anner, both vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows have been incorporated in the quantification of general benefit. Vehicular Traffic Activity Access to the Burlingam e Avenue comm ercial core area is provided b y m ajor north-south arterials. Those m ajor arterials are El Cam ino Real to the west of the District and California Drive to the east of the District. Collector streets feed traffic to these and other arterials throughout the City. As such, Burlingam e Avenue is considered a collector street within the City. In 2010, the Cit y adopted the Burlingam e Downtown Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). The Specific Plan included a Traffic Im pact Analysis Technical Mem orandum (“T raffic Analysis”) prepared by W ilbur Sm ith Associates. This Traffic Anal ysis evaluated existing traffic conditions at various points throughout the project area. One point evaluated by the consultants was existing travel conditions at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road. The Traffic Analysis evaluated, am ong other characteristics, traffic counts, turning m ovem ent data, vehicle dela y, and level of service for each intersection. Existing conditions for the project area intersections, including the Burlingam e Avenue intersection, were evaluated during a week day, evening peak hour tim efram e. There were 664 observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road. Park Road term inates at Burlingam e Avenue requiring traffic to either turn left or right onto Burlingam e Avenue. In addition to the Traffic Analysis, inform ation related to vehicle trips by purpose was used from the Summ ary of Travel Trends 2009 National Household Travel Survey (“2009 NHTS”) sponsored by the U.S. Departm ent of Transportation Federal Highwa y Adm inistration. Of the observed 2,171 vehicle trips in the 2009 NHTS survey, 643 trips represented social, recreational and other travel purposes; the rem aining 1,425 vehicle trips represented work , shopping and other errands. Appl ying this vehicle trip break down to the observed traffic counts at the intersection of Burlingam e Avenue and Park Road, 207 of the traffic counts represent social, recreational, and other travel purposes not directly related to District activities but m ore lik ely utilizing Burlingam e Avenue as a collector street to feed to one of the adjacent arterial streets. This non-District related traffic count represents approxim ately 31.20% of the total observed traffic counts and is considered to be general benefit from the District Im provem ent Project. Pedestrian Traffic Activity As result of the sidewalk im provem ents and beautification provided b y the District Im provem ent Project, there is a level of benefit to those pedestrians not involved with an y of the shopping, dining, or other comm erce activities provided b y the District properties. People walk for a variety of reasons; work , errands, shopping, recreation, health, and m any others. Further, pedestrians will seek out and utilize sidewalk facilities that provide a safe place to walk as well as an environm ent that provides a certain am ount of visual interest. Again, the 2009 NHTS analyzed the annual num ber of walking trips and the purpose of the walk ing trips m ade by individuals surve yed. Of the annual total 40,962 (in m illions) walk ing trips, 30,129 of those walk ing trips were for travel, work , shopping, errands, business obligations, and m eals; the rem aining 10,833 walk ing trips were for social, recreational, and other purposes. The social, recreational, and other purpose walk ing trips represented 26.5% of the total walk ing trips reported. Therefore, to account for that portion of the Burlingam e Avenue pedestrian activit y utilizing the im provem ents provided b y the District Im provem ent Project for non-District related activities, 26.50% of pedestrian traffic activit y is considered to be of general benefit. Since the District Im provem ent Project provides a blend of both vehicular and pedestrian activit y the two categories m ust be addressed in a collective form rather than independently. Therefore, to appropriately quantify the overall level of general benefit provided b y the District Im provem ent Project the arithmetic m ean Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-5 of the general benefit percentages from the vehicular traffic activit y and the pedestrian traffic activit y has been calculated. T his general benefit result is provided in the table below. Description Percentage General Benefit 28.85% Accordingl y, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Improvem ent Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessm ent therein. 5.5. Apportioning of Special Benefit As outlined above, each of the parcels within the District is deem ed to receive special benefit from the District Im provem ent Project. Each parcel that has a special benefit conferred upon it as a result of the District Im provem ent Project is identified and the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel is determ ined in relationship to the entire cost of the District Im provem ent Project. Benefit Point Assignment Aesthetic Benefit Points Aesthetic benefit points are assigned based upon not only the propert y’s location to the District Im provem ent Project, but also the propert y’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent Project. Therefore, the aes thetic benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. Each propert y within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the aesthetic benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project. Safety Benefit Points T he safety benefit points are assigned based upon not onl y the property’s location to the District Im provem ent Project, but also the property’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent Project. T herefore, the safety benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. Each propert y within the District is assigned one (1.00) benefit point for the safety benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project. Econom ic Activit y Benefit Points The econom ic activity benefit points are assigned based upon not onl y the property’s location to the District Im provem ent Project, but also the property’s zoning designation. All District parcels are located within the Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District, which has a comm ercial zoning designation. Additionally, since the District Im provem ent Project is provided uniform ly throughout the District all properties within the District are within the sam e proxim ity to the location of the infrastructure provided by the District Im provem ent Project. Therefore, the econom ic activit y benefit to each parcel in the District is deem ed to be the sam e. The Burlingam e Avenue Commercial District is already a well-established comm ercial district with a strong econom ic activity presence. The Burlingam e Avenue area features a m ixture of restaurants, national retail stores, and m any locall y based retailers. Mark eting and prom otional efforts to increase the econom ic presence of an expanded area that includes the District boundaries is currently being funded b y the Burlingam e Avenue Downtown Business Im provem ent District (“DBID”). In an effort to increase the econom ic presence, business owners within the DBID pay an annual assessm ent to fund various activities that aid in the prom otion, advertising and im age building of the businesses within the DBID boundaries. Existing m ark eting and prom otional activities throughout the District area have resulted in higher tenant lease rates. According to Loopnet.com on March 23, 2012, the average lease rate along Burlingam e Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-6 Avenue was approx im ately 45% higher than the average lease rate along the City’s Broadwa y Avenue, another comm ercial area. Retail sales are also strong within the District, according to Cit y Econom ic Developm ent data, with s ales per square foot generall y ranging from $300 to $800+ per square foot. Further, there were a few new buildings constructed in the downtown around the tim e of form ation of the District and several m ajor rem odels of existing buildings to accomm odate new retail uses generall y lim ited to tenant im provem ents. Given this alread y existing strong econom ic activity presence throughout the District, as well as the potential for propert y to further develop and enhance their econom ic presence, each propert y within the District is assigned one-half (0.50) benefit point for the econom ic activit y benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project. The following table provides a summ ary of the special benefit points assigned to each parcel within the District. Parcel L and Use Classification Aesthetic Benefit Point Assignment Safety Benefit Point Assignment Economic Activity Benefit Point Assignment All District Parcels 1.00 1.00 0.50 Parcel Factors T he m ethod of apportioning the benefit to the parcels within the District reflects the proportional special benefit assigned to each propert y from the District Im provem ent Project based upon the various propert y characteristics for each parcel as com pared to other properties within the District. As part of the special benefit analys is, various propert y characteristics were analyzed including parcel size, street frontage, building size, land use, trip generation etc. Given that the special benefits provided b y the District Im provem ent Project focuses on aesthetic benefit, safety benefit, and econom ic activity benefits it was determ ined that linear frontage and lot s quare footage are the m ost appropriate parcel factors. Each parcel’s linear frontage and lot square footage have been used as the prim ary assessm ent variables for the calculation and assignm ent of parcel factors. By adjusting the assigned s pecial benefit points set forth above b y parcel factors, a m ore com plete picture of the proportional special benefits received b y each parcel from the District Im provem ent Project is presented. T herefore, linear and lot parcel factors were calculated for each parcel in the District according to the form ulas below: Linear Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City’s Zoning Code for the Burlingam e Avenue Comm ercial District, each lot shall have a street frontage of at least 50 feet. Utilizing the prescribed street frontage as set forth in the City’s Zoning code, a linear factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned linear frontage for the parcel divided b y 50.00: Linear Factor = Parcel’s Assigned Linear Street Frontage / 50.00 There are several parcels located at street intersections within the District. The District Im provem ent Project partiall y extends along the side streets at these intersections with Burlingam e Avenue. To account for the partial extension of the District Im provem ent Project at each street intersec tion, the side street linear frontage of the im provem ent has been added to eac h corner parcel to account for this increased linear frontage adjacent to the District Im provem ent Project. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-7 Lot Factor Pursuant to Section 25.32.050 of the City’s Zoning Code for the Burlingam e Avenue Comm ercial District, each lot shall have an area of at least 5,000 square feet. Utilizing the prescribed lot square footage as set forth in the City’s Zoning code, a lot factor is calculated for each parcel based upon the assigned lot square footage for the parcel divided b y 5,000: Lot Factor = Parcel’s Assigned Lot Square Footage / 5,000 Total Special Benefit Point Calculation Parcel’s T otal Special Benefit Points = Parcel’s Total Aesthetics Points + Parcel’s Total Safety Points + Parcel’s Total Economic Activit y Points Parcel’s T otal Aesthetic Points The District Im provem ent Project, as well as the store and property fronts that are adjacent to those linear im provem ents provide an enhanced level of interest and “curb appeal” that add to the overall experience along Burlingam e Avenue. Since the im provem ents and furnishings are uniform throughout the District, the “curb appeal” is consis tent for the front of each parcel located within the District. Additionall y, the uniform landscaping aids in softening the surrounding edges of each parcel’s front exposure to the District Im provem ent Project b y adding life, color, and texture to the property’s appearance, and overall pedestrian experience. Given the linear nature of the aesthetic benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project, the aesthetic benefit that each propert y receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign the aesthetic benefit received b y each parcel within the District, the aesthetic benefit point is further adjusted according to the form ula below: Parcel’s Total Aesthetic Points = Aesthetic Benefit Points Assigned x Linear Factor Parcel’s T otal Safety Points The District Im provem ent Project provides enhanced lines of travel and sight along Burlingam e Avenue, which increases the level of safety by m itigating potential accidents and crim e by having the additional exposure to property and tr affic. The lighting im provem ents also increase the visual sight line b y providing additional exposure to property fronts, espec iall y during the evening hours. This additional exposure reduces the potential for crim e and vandalism to the front of propert y throughout the District. Further, the sidewalk and park ing zone along Burlingam e Avenue provides a buffer for traffic and the property frontage. Again, given the linear nature of the safet y benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project, the safet y benefit that each propert y receives is also perceived on a linear basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign the safety benefit received by each parcel within the District, the safet y benefit point is further adjusted according to the form ula below: Parcel’s Total Safety Points = Safety Benefit Points Assigned x Linear Factor Parcel’s T otal Econom ic Activit y Points The District Im provem ent Project creates a m ore pedestrian friendly and inviting Burlingam e Avenue environm ent that supports and encourages additional comm erce activity throughout the District. The im provem ents allow parcels within the District to develop and redevelop to their highest and best use in accordance with City zoning and developm ent regulations. However, the one lim iting propert y characteristic that constrains a parcel from developing to the highest and best use is the size of the parcel itself. T he size of a parcel lim its the am ount of developm ent and redevelopm ent that m ay occur on the footprint of the parcel. Lar ger parcels allow for greater area to develop and redevelop than do sm aller Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-8 parcels, which corresponds to larger parcels receiving proportionally greater econom ic activity benefit when com pared to sm aller parcels within the District. Therefore, the econom ic activit y benefit for parcels in the District is in direct proportion to the size of the parcel. Since the econom ic activity benefits are in direct relation to the size of a parcel, then the econom ic activit y benefits provided by the District Im provem ent Project is also perceived on a parcel size basis. To appropriately quantif y and assign the econom ic activity benefit received by each parcel within the District, the econom ic activit y benefit point is further adjusted according to the form ula below: Parcel’s T otal Econom ic Activit y Points = Econom ic Activity Benefit Points Assigned x Lot Factor Data Considerations and Parcel Changes The use of the latest San Mateo Count y Assessor’s Secured Roll inform ation served as the basis in determ ining each parcel’s linear frontage and lot square footage, unless better data was available to the Cit y. In addition, if any parcel within the District is identified by the San Mateo Count y Auditor/Controller to be an invalid parcel num ber, the linear frontage and lot square footage of the subsequent valid parcel shall be the basis for assigning the future total special benefit points. If a single parcel subdivides into m ultiple parcels, the total special benefit points shall be apportioned based on the linear frontage and lot square footage of the newl y created parcels. Total Special Benefit Points The total special benefit points assigned to the parcels at form ation of the District were 183.28. The following table provides a break down of the total special benefit point assignm ent for each parcel in the District: Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – City of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-9 Assessor’s Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activit y Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activit y Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-122-190 1* 1.00 1.00 0.50 70.00 1.40 2,123 0.42 1.40 1.40 0.21 3.01 029-122-220 2 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.50 1.01 10,776 2.16 1.01 1.01 1.08 3.10 029-122-230 3 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 10,286 2.06 1.00 1.00 1.03 3.03 029-122-240 4 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,791 1.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 2.98 029-122-250 5 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 9,971 1.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 029-122-260 6 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.10 1.00 6,195 1.24 1.00 1.00 0.62 2.62 029-122-270 7 1.00 1.00 0.50 49.90 1.00 13,897 2.78 1.00 1.00 1.39 3.39 029-122-280 8 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 10,879 2.18 1.10 1.10 1.09 3.29 029-122-330 9 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,829 1.37 1.00 1.00 0.69 2.69 029-122-360 10 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.00 2.32 16,786 3.36 2.32 2.32 1.68 6.32 029-122-999 11 1.00 1.00 0.50 147.00 2.94 28,296 5.66 2.94 2.94 2.83 8.71 029-152-110 12 1.00 1.00 0.50 80.00 1.60 5,748 1.15 1.60 1.60 0.58 3.78 029-152-120 13 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,853 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.29 1.29 029-152-160 14 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 9,596 1.92 1.20 1.20 0.96 3.36 029-152-190 15* 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 8,134 1.63 1.30 1.30 0.82 3.42 029-152-200 16 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.82 1.32 8,237 1.65 1.32 1.32 0.83 3.47 029-152-210 17 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,200 1.44 1.20 1.20 0.72 3.12 029-152-220 18 1.00 1.00 0.50 41.57 0.83 4,988 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.50 2.16 029-152-230 19 1.00 1.00 0.50 65.00 1.30 6,000 1.20 1.30 1.30 0.60 3.20 029-152-270 20 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 7,508 1.50 1.20 1.20 0.75 3.15 029-152-310 21* 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.00 1.20 8,322 1.66 1.20 1.20 0.83 3.23 029-152-320 22 1.00 1.00 0.50 104.58 2.09 27,590 5.52 2.09 2.09 2.76 6.94 029-152-330 23 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.00 1.50 8,572 1.71 1.50 1.50 0.86 3.86 029-153-090 24 1.00 1.00 0.50 91.50 1.83 3,726 0.75 1.83 1.83 0.38 4.04 029-153-120 25 1.00 1.00 0.50 88.33 1.77 3,781 0.76 1.77 1.77 0.38 3.92 029-153-150 26 1.00 1.00 0.50 95.50 1.91 10,347 2.07 1.91 1.91 1.04 4.86 029-201-030 27 1.00 1.00 0.50 40.00 0.80 5,000 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.50 2.10 029-201-040 28 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 6,250 1.25 1.00 1.00 0.63 2.63 029-201-060 29 1.00 1.00 0.50 108.08 2.16 14,823 2.96 2.16 2.16 1.48 5.80 029-201-070 30* 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.00 1.08 9,069 1.81 1.08 1.08 0.91 3.07 029-201-080 31 1.00 1.00 0.50 54.08 1.08 9,643 1.93 1.08 1.08 0.97 3.13 029-201-100 32 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.00 1.00 3,750 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.38 2.38 029-201-110 33 1.00 1.00 0.50 86.00 1.72 3,750 0.75 1.72 1.72 0.38 3.82 029-201-320 34 1.00 1.00 0.50 159.39 3.19 13,316 2.66 3.19 3.19 1.33 7.71 029-201-360 35 1.00 1.00 0.50 100.00 2.00 18,000 3.60 2.00 2.00 1.80 5.80 029-201-370 36 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-201-380 37 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 3,125 0.63 0.50 0.50 0.32 1.32 029-202-010 38 1.00 1.00 0.50 136.00 2.72 12,675 2.54 2.72 2.72 1.27 6.71 029-202-020 39 1.00 1.00 0.50 60.50 1.21 7,086 1.42 1.21 1.21 0.71 3.13 Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – City of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 5-10 Assessor’s Parcel Number ID Aesthetic Benefit Points Safety Benefit Points Economic Activit y Benefit Points Linear Frontage Linear Factor Lot Square Footage Lot Factor Total Aesthetic Benefit Points Total Safety Benefit Points Total Economic Activit y Benefit Points Total Special Benefit Points 029-202-030 40* 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,552 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.26 1.26 029-202-040 41 1.00 1.00 0.50 25.00 0.50 2,403 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.24 1.24 029-202-080 42 1.00 1.00 0.50 75.06 1.50 4,453 0.89 1.50 1.50 0.45 3.45 029-202-090 43 1.00 1.00 0.50 51.24 1.02 4,770 0.95 1.02 1.02 0.48 2.52 029-204-030 44 1.00 1.00 0.50 55.00 1.10 5,500 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.55 2.75 029-204-040 45 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-050 46 1.00 1.00 0.50 45.00 0.90 4,500 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.45 2.25 029-204-060 47 1.00 1.00 0.50 94.00 1.88 5,850 1.17 1.88 1.88 0.59 4.35 029-204-270 48 1.00 1.00 0.50 116.50 2.33 8,100 1.62 2.33 2.33 0.81 5.47 029-211-010 49 1.00 1.00 0.50 103.33 2.07 4,417 0.88 2.07 2.07 0.44 4.58 029-211-260 50 1.00 1.00 0.50 169.00 3.38 15,400 3.08 3.38 3.38 1.54 8.30 Totals: 50.00 50.00 25.00 3,527.93 70.56 420,488 84.13 70.56 70.56 42.16 183.28 * Indicates assessm ent has been prepaid. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-1 6. METHOD ASSESSMENT 6.1. Assessment Budget In order to assess the parcels within the District for the special benefits received from the District Im provem ent Project, the general and special benefits m ust be separated. As previously quantified in Section 5.4 of this Engineer’s Report, the general benefit received from the District Im provem ent Project is 28.85%. Accordingl y, 71.15% of the benefits from the District Im provem ent Project are considered to provide special benefits to the properties within the District and thus could be subject to assessment therein. However, as shown below, because of contributions from various funds available to the City, including the sewer, water, and park ing enterprise funds, Measure A funds, and grant funds, only 53.11% of the District Im provem ent Project c osts are being speciall y assessed. Reducing the District Im provem ent Project costs by thes e contributions, the total District Im provem ent Project costs to be specially assessed are as follows: Description Amount T otal Net District Im provem ent Project Costs $11,227,015 Less: General Benefit Contribution (28.85%) (3,238,994) Subtotal – Portion of Budget Assessable for Special Benefit $7,988,021 Less: Sewer and W ater Enterprise Fund Contribution ($922,000) Less: T LC Grant (301,000) Less: Additional Contribution from Park ing Enterprise Fund (782,432) Less: Additional City Contribution (20,195) T otal District Improvement Project Costs Assessed for Special Benefit(1) $5,962,394 T otal Amount Pre-Paid During 30 Day Collection Period $341,582 Annual Assessable Budget: Average Annual Debt Service Pa ym ent for District Im provem ent Project Costs $310,156 T otal Annual Assessable Budget $310,156 (1) $5,620,812 of the District Improvement Project c osts have been financed over a period of 30 years. T he City issued bonds for the total District Im provem ent Project costs assessed for special benefit and will use the assessm ent revenues to repa y the bonds, over a period of 30 years, for the District’s portion of that cost, $5,620,812, plus the Cit y’s estim ated financing and interest costs. Section 6.3 of this Engineer’s Report provides the basis of the average annual debt service pa ym ent used to establish the annual assessm ents. Assessm ent Rate per Spec ial Benefit Point The assessment rate per special benefit point is calculated b y dividing the total annual assessable budget by the total special benefit points assigned to the parc els in the District. The following form ula provides the assessm ent rate per special benefit point calculation: Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-2 (A) (B) (C) = Parcel’s Total + Parcel’s Total + Parcel’s Total Econom ic Aesthetics Points Safety Points Activit y Points Total Annual Assessable Budget / Total Special Benefit Points = Assessment Rate per Special Benefit Point $310,156 / 169.29 = $1,832.10 T he total am ount of financed District Im provem ent Project costs, which has been determ ined to provide special benefit to parcels within the District, will be assessed over a period of 30 years. The individual assessm ents are shown on the assessm ent roll in Section 8 of this Engineer’s Report. 6.2. Method of Assessment Spread The m ethod of assessm ent is based upon a form ula that assigns the special benefit to each parcel, with special benefit points being adjusted b y parcel linear and lot factors. The form ulas below provide a summ ary of the annual ass essm ent calculation for eac h parcel in the District. (A) Parcel’s T otal Aesthetic Points (B) Parcel’s T otal Safety Points = Parcel’s Assigned Aesthetic Benefit Points (1.00) = Parcel’s Assigned Safety Benefit Points (1.00) x (D) Linear Factor x (D) Linear Factor (C) Parcel’s Total Economic Activit y Points = Parcel’s Assigned Econom ic Activit y Benefit Points (0.50) x (E) Lot Factor (D) Linear Factor = (E) Lot Factor = Parcel’s Assigned Linear Frontage / 50.00 Parcel’s Assigned Lot Square Footage / 5,000 (F) Parcel’s Total Special Benefit Points Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent = Assessm ent Rate: $1,832.10 x (F) Parcel’s Total Special Benefit Points 6.3. District Improvement Project Debt Financing The $5,620,812 portion of District Im provem ent Project costs assessed to property within the District has been financed over a period of 30 years. In addition to the am ount of financed District Im provem ent Project costs, an y financing costs related to the issuance of debt such as the cost of issuance, original issue discount, and contingencies were included as part of the total am ount financed. The Cit y has calculated the annual assessm ent based on its costs of financing the District’s portion of the District Im provem ent Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-3 ( Project assessed for special benefit costs over a 30 year period, and has determ ined that it requires an annual assessm ent am ount of $310,156 from the District. The difference between the original estim ated financing costs and the actual financing costs will not affect the annual assessm ents shown in this Engineer’s Report. 6.4. Assessment Prepayment Formula Assessment Prepayment Formula During the 30 Days Following District Formation In the 30 days after the form ation of the District, property owners had the option to prepa y and perm anently satisf y their portion of the total District Im provem ent Project costs assessed for special benefit, without interest, and without financing costs, according to the following form ula: Parcel’s 30 Da y Prepa ym ent Am ount = Total District Im provem ent Project Costs Assessed for Special Benefit Parcel’s Total x ( Special ÷ Benefit Points District’s Total Special ) Benefit Points Parcel’s 30 Da y Prepa ym ent Am ount = $4,475,000 x Parcel’s T otal Special Benefit Points ÷ 183.28 ) Assessment Prepayment Formula After the 30 Day Period Following District Formation Propert y owners within the District m ay prepay and perm anently satisf y their entire portion (no partial prepa ym ents) of the total annual assessm ent of an assessor’s parcel, provided that a prepa ym ent m ay be m ade only if there are no delinquent assessm ents with respect to such assessor’s parcel at the tim e of prepa ym ent. An owner of an assessor’s parcel intending to prepa y the ongoing annual assessm ent obligation shall provide the City with written notice of intent to prepay. W ithin 30 da ys of receipt of such written notice, the Cit y shall notif y suc h owner of the prepa ym ent am ount of such assessor’s parcel. The assessm ent prepa ym ent am ount shall be calculated by the following steps: Step 1: Com pute the special benefit points that could be assigned to the assessor’s parcel prepaying the annual assessm ent obligation in the fiscal year in which the prepaym ent would be received by the City. Step 2: Divide the special benefit points com puted pursuant to Step 1 for such assessor’s parcel b y the total special benefit points that could be assigned in that fiscal year to property in the entire District. Step 3: Multiply the quotient com puted pursuant to Step 2 b y the total annual assessm ent to com pute that portion of the total annual assessm ent to be prepaid (“Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent Am ount”). Step 4: Calculate the revenue stream produced b y the Parcel’s Annual Assessm ent Am ount from the date of prepa ym ent up to and including the m aturity date of the District, June 30, 2042, except that this assum ed final m aturity date m ay be am ended b y the Cit y no later than the tim e of the calculation of the prepa ym ent. Step 5: Calculate the present value of the annual revenue stream determ ined in Step 4. The present value shall be calculated using that discount rate which, when the prepa ym ent is invested in Cit y approved available investm ents earning a rate of interest equal to the discount rate, would produce annual revenues equal to the am ount calculated in Step 4. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 6-4 Step 6: Determ ine the prepaym ent am ount by adding to the present value calculated in Step 5 any fees or expenses incurred b y the Cit y in connection with the prepaym ent calculation or the application of the proceeds of the prepaym ent. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e Fiscal Year 2019/20 7-1 7. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM An Assessm ent Diagram for the District is shown on the following page. The lines and dim ensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dim ensions shown on the m aps of the Count y Assessor of the Count y of San Mateo, at the tim e this report was prepared, and are incorporated b y reference herein and m ade part of this Engineer’s Report. 8. ASSESSMENT ROLL The assessm ent roll is a listing of the assessm ent apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the Count y of San Mateo. The following table summ arizes the assessm ents for the District for Fiscal Year 2019/20: Propert y Land Use T yp e Parcel Count Total Special Benefit Points Allow able Annual Assessment Total Annual Assessment All Parcels 45 169.29 $1,832.10 per special benefit point $310,156 T otal 45 169.29 $310,156 The assessm ent roll is a listing of the District assessment apportioned to each lot or parcel, as shown on the last equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of San Mateo. The assessm ent roll for the District is listed on the following page. Assessm ent District No. 2012-1 – Cit y of Burlingam e 8-1 Fiscal Year 2019/20 City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Assessment District No. 2012-1 Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project Fiscal Year 2019/20 Assessment Roll Assessor's Parcel Number Assessment ID Site Address Total Special Benefit Points Annual Assessment(1) 029-122-220 2 1420 BURLINGAME AVE 3.10 $5,679.51 029-122-230 3 1426 BURLINGAME AVE 3.03 5,551.26 029-122-240 4 1436 BURLINGAME AVE 2.98 5,459.66 029-122-250 5 1442 BURLINGAME AVE 3.00 5,496.30 029-122-260 6 1448 BURLINGAME AVE 2.62 4,800.10 029-122-270 7 1460 BURLINGAME AVE 3.39 6,210.82 029-122-280 8 1462 BURLINGAME AVE 3.29 6,027.61 029-122-330 9 1408 BURLINGAME AVE 2.69 4,928.35 029-122-360 10 1490 BURLINGAME AVE 6.32 11,578.87 029-122-999 11 1476-80 BURLINGAME AVE 8.71 15,957.59 029-152-110 12 1200 BURLINGAME AVE 3.78 6,925.34 029-152-120 13 1208 BURLINGAME AVE 1.29 2,363.41 029-152-160 14 1232 BURLINGAME AVE 3.36 6,155.86 029-152-200 16 1316 BURLINGAME AVE 3.47 6,357.39 029-152-210 17 1348 BURLINGAME AVE 3.12 5,716.15 029-152-220 18 1354 BURLINGAME AVE 2.16 3,957.34 029-152-230 19 1380 BURLINGAME AVE 3.20 5,862.72 029-152-270 20 1300 BURLINGAME AVE 3.15 5,771.12 029-152-320 22 1218 BURLINGAME AVE 6.94 12,714.77 029-152-330 23 1210 BURLINGAME AVE 3.86 7,071.91 029-153-090 24 1100 BURLINGAME AVE 4.04 7,401.68 029-153-120 25 1150-60 BURLINGAME AVE 3.92 7,181.83 029-153-150 26 1108-18 BURLINGAME AVE 4.86 8,904.01 029-201-030 27 1471 BURLINGAME AVE 2.10 3,847.41 029-201-040 28 1461 BURLINGAME AVE 2.63 4,818.42 029-201-060 29 1435 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-080 31 1423 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-201-100 32 1407 BURLINGAME AVE 2.38 4,360.40 029-201-110 33 1401 BURLINGAME AVE 3.82 6,998.62 029-201-320 34 1479-91 BURLINGAME AVE 7.71 14,125.49 029-201-360 35 1417 BURLINGAME AVE 5.80 10,626.18 029-201-370 36 1453 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-201-380 37 1451 BURLINGAME AVE 1.32 2,418.37 029-202-010 38 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 6.71 12,293.39 029-202-020 39 1325 BURLINGAME AVE 3.13 5,734.47 029-202-040 41 1315 BURLINGAME AVE 1.24 2,271.80 029-202-080 42 1301 BURLINGAME AVE 3.45 6,375.71 029-202-090 43 1309 BURLINGAME AVE 2.52 4,561.93 029-204-030 44 1221 BURLINGAME AVE 2.75 5,038.28 029-204-040 45 1213 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-050 46 1207 BURLINGAME AVE 2.25 4,122.23 029-204-060 47 1205 BURLINGAME AVE 4.35 7,969.64 029-204-270 48 1227 BURLINGAME AVE 5.47 10,021.59 029-211-010 49 1101 BURLINGAME AVE 4.58 8,391.02 029-211-260 50 1111 BURLINGAME AVE 8.30 15,206.43 TOTALS: 169.29 $310,156.23 (1) Difference due to rounding. Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Burlingame (the “City”) resolves as follows: WHEREAS, the Council previously completed its proceedings in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the “Act”) to establish the City’s Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvement Project (the “Assessment District”); and WHEREAS, there have been no changes to the previous Annual Report concerning the levy and collection of assessments within the Assessment District. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Intention: The Council declares its intention to levy and collect assessments within the Assessment District to pay the costs of the Improvements for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2020. The Council finds that the public’s best interest requires such action. 2. Improvements: The Improvements include, but are not limited to: streetscape items such as sidewalks, street and pedestrian lighting, trees and landscaping, seating, signage, kiosks, gateway treatments, site furnishings, and other parking improvements, appurtenant facilities, and soft costs. 3. Assessment District Boundaries: The boundaries of the Assessment District are as shown by the assessment diagram filed in the office of the City Clerk, which is incorporated by this reference. 4. Annual Report: Reference is made to the Annual Report, on file with the Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District and the zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the Assessment District. 5. Notice of Public Hearing: The Council declares its intention to conduct a Public Hearing concerning the levy of assessments in accordance with Section 22629 of the Act. All objections to the assessment, if any, will be considered by the Council. The Public Hearing will be held on Monday, May 20, 2019 at 7:00 pm or as soon thereafter as is feasible in the Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. The Council orders the Clerk to publish notice of this resolution in accordance with Section 22626 of the Act. 6. Increase of Assessment: The maximum assessment is not proposed to increase from the previous year above that was previously approved by the property owners (as “increased assessment” is defined in Section 54954.6 of the Government Code). Donna Colson, 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 6th day of May, 2019 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Library Board of Trustees RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two vacancies on the Library Board. The pending vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Board members Andrew Blanco and Lisa Rosenthal. Both Board members have informed the City Librarian that they do not intend to reapply. The recommended deadline is Friday, May 24, 2019. This will allow applicants an opportunity to attend the May 21, 2019 Library Board meeting. BACKGROUND The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two- year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8g MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending March 31, 2019 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City’s investment report for the quarter ended March 31, 2019. BACKGROUND This report represents the City’s investment portfolio as of March 31, 2019. The report includes all invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds, the City’s account with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree medical obligations, and the §115 trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program. All other investments are covered by and in compliance with the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy. DISCUSSION The City’s investments are guided by the Statement of Investment Policy (the “Policy”), which is reviewed and approved by the Council annually. The Policy was last approved by the City Council on June 18, 2018. The Policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety, liquidity, and return. This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also allowing the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of investments managed by the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFM), and also maintains funds invested in the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP) to achieve its investment goals. CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS Political and policy developments dominated the markets during the first quarter, including the longest federal government shutdown to date; the Federal Reserve (Fed) changing their stance on the future of rate increases; and the ongoing wranglings that have thus far characterized the U.S. /China trade war. Continued global growth concerns also weighed heavily on investor psyche. On the positive side, all three major U.S. equity indices rebounded strongly from their fourth quarter declines and made up much of their losses. The S&P 500 returned 13.6% in the first quarter, the Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 2 strongest start to a year in over 20 years, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 11.8%, and the Nasdaq gained 16.8%. Overall, the U.S. economy is still growing, albeit at a relatively slow rate, supported by a robust labor market, near-record lows in unemployment, increases in the average hourly earnings, and strong consumer confidence, all of which has bolstered healthy consumer spending levels. In sharp contrast to the theme of slow, steady rate increases that defined the Federal Reserve’s policy throughout 2017 and 2018, the Fed changed its stance during the f irst quarter, effectively putting future rate hikes “on hold” for the time being. In its post-meeting statement on March 20th, the Fed indicated that it “forecasts the Fed Funds Rate to remain at current levels through 2019.” Recent core inflation measures have been just below the targeted 2%, and investors are now pricing in a 39% chance of a cut to the Fed Funds Rate by the end of 2019*. Real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. for the fourth quarter of 2018 slowed to an annualized rate of 2.2%. This indicator came on the heels of strong readings for the second and third quarters of 2018, which marked the best six-month stretch of growth since 2014. These high GDP readings earlier in 2018 are largely attributed to the tax cut that significantly increased personal consumption. The U.S. labor market faltered slightly in the first quarter but finished strong. In January, the economy added 312,000 jobs, bringing the 12-month moving average to 213,000. By contrast, the economy added just 33,000 jobs in February. However, labor statistics tend to be more meaningful when viewed as a moving average of several months, and the March data reverted closer to recent averages, as the economy added 196,000 new jobs during March, and the unemployment rate held steady at just 3.8%. Also encouraging, wage growth, which had remained stubbornly low throughout most of this economic recovery, has finally begun to trend upward, increasing by a 3.4% annual pace in February, its highest reading since 2009. March’s reading came in just slightly lower at 3.2%, but was still viewed positively. As investors weighed the possibility of an end to rate increases (and even a possible rate cut) by the Federal Reserve, coupled with concerns over slowing economic growth in the U.S. and abroad, yields on all but the shortest U.S. Treasury maturities declined during the quarter. At quarter-end, the yield curve remained inverted between 1- and 5- year maturities. Also of note, the yield curve briefly inverted between 3-month and 10-year maturities during March. This particular inversion is a closely watched recession indicator and has preceded every recession since the 1960s (with just one false positive), with an average lead time of 19 months. Despite this warning sign, other measures of market and economic conditions – such as jobless claims and manufacturing activity – do not portend a recession in the near term. ______________________ *Based on Federal Funds Futures readings as of April 18, 2019. Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 3 Yield Curve History Source: Bloomberg The City’s cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of March 31, 2019, invested funds totaled $181,082,031.45. These investments are assets of the City of Burlingame, and include the General Fund, the enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste), as well as various non-major funds. Note that the City’s account with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree medical obligations, is not included in the City’s managed portfolio. Similarly, funds held within the City’s §115 Trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program are not part of the City’s investment portfolio. City’s Investments Market Value as of March 31, 2019 Main Investment Portfolio $115,770,703.31 Main Investment Portfolio - Cash Balance in Custody Account $172,503.85 CAMP Balance $35,572,229.88 LAIF Balance $29,566,594.41 $181,082,031.45 PFM has recently shifted its duration strategy for the City’s main investment portfolio. When interest rates were increasing throughout most of 2017 and 2018, PFM’s strategy was to slightly shorten the portfolio’s duration relative to that of the benchmark in order to protect against the negative impacts of rising interest rates. Now that the Fed has effectively put future rate hikes on pause for Maturity 3/31/19 12/31/18 Change 3-Mo. 2.38% 2.35% +0.03% 6-Mo. 2.38% 2.48% -0.10% 1-Yr. 2.39% 2.60% -0.21% 2-Yr. 2.26% 2.49% -0.23% 3-Yr. 2.20% 2.46% -0.26% 5-Yr. 2.23% 2.51% -0.28% 10-Yr. 2.41% 2.68% -0.27% 30-Yr. 2.81% 3.01% -0.20% Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 4 the time being, PFM has shifted to a neutral duration stance relative to the benchmark, allowing for a 1 – 2% variance. At the end of the quarter, the main portfolio’s duration was 2.55 years, in line with the benchmark’s duration of 2.56 years. Factoring in liquid investments, such as LAIF and CAMP, the effective duration of the City’s aggregate investments was 1.63 years. The City continues to benefit from a strategy of broad diversification. On the heels of the fourth quarter’s market volatility, wide credit spreads (the difference between yields on corporate and U.S. Treasury notes) created attractive buying opportunities. Additionally, the positively sloped corporate yield curve offered incremental income on longer-dated corporate notes. In total, PFM recommended the purchase of $4.2 million of high-quality corporate notes during the quarter. In one instance, PFM recommended the purchase of a AA-rated Pfizer, Inc. corporate note at a yield of 2.63%, which represented an attractive yield pick-up of 45 basis points (0.45%) over comparable- maturity U.S. Treasury notes. With federal agency spreads (the difference between yields on federal agency and U.S. Treasury notes) near historic lows, U.S. Treasury obligations generally continue to be the preferred outlet for government exposure. However, occasionally, newly-issued federal agency obligations will come to the market at attractive levels. For example, in early January, PFM recommended the purchase of a newly-issued FNMA note with three years to maturity at a yield of 2.65%. This purchase enabled the City to take advantage of one of the widest spread levels (12 basis points or 0.12%) observed in a year for that maturity. Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended March 31, 2019: Trade Date Settlement Date Transaction CUSIP Issuer Term (Mths) Yield Principal 1/3/2019 1/8/2019 Purchase 89236TFQ3 Toyota Motor Corp. Note 24 3.08% 375,000 1/3/2019 1/8/2019 Sale 94974BFQ8 Wells Fargo & Co. Notes <1 2.99% 375,000 1/7/2019 1/9/2019 Purchase 3137EAEN5 FHLMC Notes 54 2.58% 2,085,000 1/7/2019 1/9/2019 Sale 3137EAEE5 FHLMC Notes 12 2.59% 1,000,000 1/7/2019 1/9/2019 Sale 912828UV0 US Treasury Notes 15 2.60% 1,000,000 1/9/2019 1/11/2019 Purchase 3135G0U92 FNMA Notes 36 2.65% 945,000 1/9/2019 1/11/2019 Sale 912828P87 US Treasury Notes 26 2.59% 975,000 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 Maturity 94974BFQ8 Wells Fargo & Co. Notes - - 1,395,000 1/15/2019 1/15/2019 Purchase 17275RBJ0 Cisco Systems Notes 32 2.84% 1,425,000 1/30/19 1/31/19 Purchase 3130A0F70 FHLB Notes 58 2.72% 1,400,000 Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 5 Trade Date Settlement Date Transaction CUSIP Issuer Term (Mths) Yield Principal 1/30/19 1/31/19 Purchase 912828U57 US Treasury Notes 58 2.57% 1,515,000 1/30/19 1/31/19 Sale 46625HHL7 JP Morgan Notes 3 2.64% 1,000,000 1/30/19 1/31/19 Sale 91159HHH6 US Bank Notes 2 2.61% 1,760,000 2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Purchase 912828Q29 US Treasury Notes 50 2.44% 2,175,000 2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Purchase 912828S92 US Treasury Notes 54 2.44% 2,100,000 2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 3130ACE26 FHLB Notes 20 2.51% 625,000 2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 3135G0T60 FNMA Notes 18 2.50% 1,515,000 2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 3137EAEJ4 FHLMC Notes 20 2.51% 1,670,000 2/8/2019 2/12/2019 Sale 912828ND8 US Treasury Notes 15 2.52% 200,000 2/27/2019 2/28/2019 Purchase 55379WZT6 MUFG Bank CD 24 3.04% 930,000 2/26/2019 2/28/2019 Sale 06539RGM3 MUFG Bank CD 7 2.66% 930,000 3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Purchase 912828WE6 US Treasury Notes 56 2.52% 2,225,000 3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 3137EAEK1 FHLMC Notes 20 2.58% 1,000,000 3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 912828A83 US Treasury Notes 22 2.56% 840,000 3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 912828M98 US Treasury Notes 21 2.56% 140,000 3/6/2019 3/8/2019 Sale 912828N48 US Treasury Notes 22 2.55% 150,000 3/25/19 3/26/19 Purchase 3135G0T94 FNMA Notes 46 2.25% 1,500,000 3/25/19 3/26/19 Purchase 912828V80 US Treasury Notes 58 2.23% 1,050,000 3/25/19 3/26/19 Purchase 912828X47 US Treasury Notes 37 2.20% 1,050,000 3/25/19 3/27/19 Purchase 717081ES8 Pfizer Inc. Notes 60 2.63% 1,500,000 While the path of future Fed rate decisions is less clear than in recent years (with many investors expecting a rate cut rather than a rate hike as the next move), PFM recommends neutral duration Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 6 positioning and a continued strategy of broad diversification across the high-quality sectors permitted by California Government Code and the City’s Statement of Investment Policy. PFM continues to monitor the markets and recommend relative-value trades as appropriate in order to safely enhance the City’s portfolio earnings. However, the priority will always be to maintain the safety and liquidity of the City’s investments. As noted in the following pie charts, the City’s investment portfolio, as of March 31, 2019, was heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the AAAm-rated CAMP Fund, and high-quality (AA+ rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity. * The “BBB+” category comprises securities rated in the category of A or better by Moody’s and/or Fitch, which meets the credit rating criteria established in the City’s Statement of Investment Policy. ** The NR (Aaa) category comprises asset-backed securities that are not rated by S&P but are rated Aaa by Moody’s. Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 7 As of March 31, 2019, 36% of the City’s funds were invested in very short-term liquid investments, 19% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years, and 45% of the investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution gives the City the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while maximizing returns on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City’s aggregate investments maintain an effective duration of 1.63 years and currently generate annual income of 2.45% before investment expenses. The City’s funds are invested in high credit quality investments and continue to meet the City’s goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return. As of March 31, 2019, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 2.38%. Including additional investments such as LAIF and CAMP, the average yield to maturity** on the City’s aggregate investments was 2.45%. During the quarter, the main portfolio generated amortized cost basis earnings (which includes interest earnings and realized gains and losses) of $511,072. City's Investments Statistical Information Market Value $181,082,031.45 Effective Duration 1.63 Years Average Credit Quality* AA Yield to Maturity** 2.45% * Ratings by Standard & Poor’s. Average excludes ‘Not Rated’ securities. ** Yield to maturity at cost. Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 8 The chart below compares the yield of the City’s managed portfolio to the yields on the 2-year U.S. Treasury note, LAIF, and the San Mateo County Pool. As of March 31, 2019, the gross yield on the City’s managed portfolio was 2.38%; net of PFM’s investment advisory fees, the yield on the City’s managed portfolio was 2.30%. On the following page is a summary of Burlingame’s cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of March 31, 2019, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid) accounts, the City’s main checking account, and other operating funds: Cash holdings in the General Fund increased by nearly $4.6 million in the third quarter of the 2018- 19 fiscal year, despite a $2.7 million midyear transfer out to the Capital Projects Fund to initiate Phase 1 of the Community Center Project at Washington Park. Although there were no major property tax receipts in the quarter (these are received in December and April), quarterly sales taxes of $3.9 million, other property taxes of $2.0 million, and an ERAF Refund of $2.2 million were received during the quarter. In addition to the midyear capital projects funding from the General Fund, a $2.9 million drawdown of Storm Drain Bond Proceeds (held in the debt service fund) also helped offset regular spending in the Capital Projects Fund. The decrease in the Water Fund reflects not only debt service payments due in the quarter, but a high level of progress payments on capital projects: of the $782,000 spent on water capital projects, $620,000 was for the Shoreland Subdivision Water Main Improvement project (South Rollins Road, Phase 2). Conversely, payments for capital imrovements of the sanitary sewer system were relatively subdued for the quarter. 2.41% 2.55% %% 2.38% 2.26% Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 9 As for performance of the City’s trust funds, which adhere to different strategies than reflected in the City’s Investment Policy for its main portfolio, the most recent statements are attached to this staff report. Because the City’s funding of its retiree medical obligations is relatively low (<20%), the City’s trust account is invested in the most aggressive (Strategy 1) portfolio available with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund. The net return for the portfolio for the year ended March 31st was 3.84%. The PARS §115 trust account for funding the City’s pension liabilities was more recently established (October 2017), and the March 2019 statement attached reflects a 4.94% return for the past year. CONCLUSION All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of Investment Policy with an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City’s investment strategy of balancing the investment portfolio between short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and longer-term maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate, given current market conditions. Due to the ease of access of the City’s funds in liquid accounts such as LAIF and CAMP, the City has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next six months. Staff and the City’s investment advisor will continue to closely monitor the City’s investments to ensure the mitigation of risk and ability to meet the City’s investment goals while being able to respond to changes in market conditions. As of 03/31/19 As of 12/31/18 Change $ General Fund 29,792,398$ 25,201,062$ 4,591,336$ Capital Project Funds 60,258,108 57,318,451 2,939,657 Internal Service Funds 19,390,243 19,999,768 (609,525) Water Fund 17,565,128 17,894,026 (328,899) Sewer Fund 20,239,273 18,859,507 1,379,767 Solid Waste Fund 4,732,143 4,681,611 50,532 Parking Fund 9,779,415 9,581,059 198,356 Building Fund 11,139,607 10,895,961 243,645 Landfill Fund 1,713,928 1,640,452 73,476 Debt Service Fund 11,456,769 14,331,679 (2,874,911) Subtotal, Operating Funds 186,067,011 180,403,576 5,663,435 Other Funds 12,892,454 11,858,749 1,033,705 Total Cash and Investments 198,959,465$ 192,262,325$ 6,697,140$ Cash and Investments by Fund Investment Report, March 31, 2019 May 6, 2019 10 FISCAL IMPACT Quarterly reporting of the City’s Investment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City resources. Exhibits: • Portfolio Holdings as of March 31, 2019 • CERBT Quarterly Statement for March 31, 2019 • PARS Monthly Statement for March 31, 2019 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/29/2016 1.125% 02/28/2021 933,997.64 944,543.02 934.24 936,608.79 10/04/1710/03/17AaaAA+ 955,000.00 912828P87 1.71 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/28/2014 2.000% 02/28/2021 1,118,584.13 1,140,690.75 1,956.52 1,163,803.71 05/06/1605/03/16AaaAA+ 1,125,000.00 912828B90 1.26 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/31/2016 1.375% 05/31/2021 608,254.10 614,475.03 2,857.28 610,215.63 07/10/1707/07/17AaaAA+ 620,000.00 912828R77 1.80 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2014 2.250% 07/31/2021 524,733.30 537,687.96 1,957.87 550,819.34 10/05/1610/03/16AaaAA+ 525,000.00 912828WY2 1.20 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/02/2014 2.000% 08/31/2021 1,455,786.62 1,466,976.97 2,547.83 1,468,776.95 12/05/1612/01/16AaaAA+ 1,465,000.00 912828D72 1.94 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2014 2.000% 10/31/2021 998,561.97 1,009,088.04 8,439.78 1,012,105.66 04/05/1704/03/17AaaAA+ 1,005,000.00 912828F96 1.84 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 989,922.00 994,230.63 51.23 991,796.88 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828W89 2.07 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 1,138,410.30 1,118,815.63 58.91 1,112,265.63 08/03/1808/01/18AaaAA+ 1,150,000.00 912828W89 2.82 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 2,167,929.18 2,135,303.96 112.19 2,125,412.11 09/06/1809/04/18AaaAA+ 2,190,000.00 912828W89 2.75 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 2,672,789.40 2,676,356.51 138.32 2,666,988.28 01/04/1801/03/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828W89 2.18 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/01/2017 1.875% 04/30/2022 1,038,679.95 1,039,882.20 8,266.57 1,039,828.13 03/26/1903/25/19AaaAA+ 1,050,000.00 912828X47 2.20 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2017 1.875% 07/31/2022 1,210,787.55 1,219,927.70 3,806.98 1,217,870.12 11/03/1711/01/17AaaAA+ 1,225,000.00 9128282P4 2.00 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2015 2.000% 07/31/2022 2,431,625.00 2,471,401.36 8,121.55 2,481,103.52 09/01/1708/31/17AaaAA+ 2,450,000.00 912828XQ8 1.73 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 1,475,508.00 1,449,862.73 71.72 1,438,769.53 06/06/1806/04/18AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 912828L57 2.76 Page 1 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 1,657,487.32 1,671,361.90 80.57 1,666,175.39 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,685,000.00 912828L57 1.99 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 2,213,262.00 2,219,681.43 107.58 2,208,779.30 12/05/1712/04/17AaaAA+ 2,250,000.00 912828L57 2.15 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/01/2016 1.750% 01/31/2023 1,964,296.00 1,914,781.76 5,801.10 1,904,531.25 10/04/1810/02/18AaaAA+ 2,000,000.00 912828P38 2.93 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023 1,838,025.00 1,803,340.85 2,465.22 1,787,895.70 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,890,000.00 912828P79 2.74 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023 2,625,750.00 2,570,626.26 3,521.74 2,542,113.28 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828P79 2.80 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2016 1.500% 03/31/2023 2,113,658.48 2,097,336.71 89.14 2,094,881.84 02/12/1902/08/19AaaAA+ 2,175,000.00 912828Q29 2.44 US TREASURY N/B NOTES DTD 05/02/2016 1.625% 04/30/2023 1,839,790.16 1,803,644.98 12,861.74 1,789,792.77 07/05/1807/02/18AaaAA+ 1,885,000.00 912828R28 2.75 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 08/01/2016 1.250% 07/31/2023 2,014,359.90 1,997,889.47 4,350.83 1,994,917.97 02/12/1902/08/19AaaAA+ 2,100,000.00 912828S92 2.44 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/15/2013 2.750% 11/15/2023 2,273,585.10 2,247,225.26 23,156.60 2,247,510.74 03/08/1903/06/19AaaAA+ 2,225,000.00 912828WE6 2.52 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/30/2016 2.125% 11/30/2023 1,506,773.55 1,485,572.02 10,790.21 1,484,581.64 01/31/1901/30/19AaaAA+ 1,515,000.00 912828U57 2.57 US TREASURY N/B NOTES DTD 01/31/2017 2.250% 01/31/2024 1,049,918.10 1,050,940.89 3,915.75 1,050,943.36 03/26/1903/25/19AaaAA+ 1,050,000.00 912828V80 2.23 106,461.47 39,862,474.75 39,681,644.02 2.33 39,588,487.52 40,435,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV NOTE DTD 09/19/2017 1.561% 09/12/2020 1,845,996.68 1,867,792.67 1,540.62 1,865,512.00 09/19/1709/12/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 45905UP32 1.64 Page 2 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK DTD 11/08/2013 2.125% 11/09/2020 1,860,909.93 1,879,158.47 15,674.24 1,887,333.22 10/10/1710/02/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 4581X0CD8 1.81 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION NOTE DTD 01/25/2018 2.250% 01/25/2021 793,155.60 793,565.63 3,279.38 792,662.70 01/25/1801/18/18AaaAAA 795,000.00 45950KCM0 2.35 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION NOTE DTD 03/16/2018 2.635% 03/09/2021 1,549,679.15 1,549,230.25 2,495.93 1,548,837.50 03/16/1803/09/18AaaAAA 1,550,000.00 45950VLQ7 2.66 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK NOTE DTD 04/19/2018 2.625% 04/19/2021 899,430.25 893,637.65 10,572.19 893,031.00 04/19/1804/12/18AaaAAA 895,000.00 4581X0DB1 2.70 INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV NOTE DTD 07/25/2018 2.750% 07/23/2021 1,221,699.49 1,207,793.66 6,285.28 1,207,168.60 07/25/1807/18/18AaaAAA 1,210,000.00 459058GH0 2.83 39,847.64 8,170,871.10 8,191,178.33 2.24 8,194,545.02 8,190,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation FNA 2018-M5 A2 DTD 04/01/2018 3.560% 09/25/2021 512,783.84 513,754.07 1,502.32 516,473.39 04/30/1804/11/18AaaAA+ 506,400.56 3136B1XP4 2.27 1,502.32 512,783.84 513,754.07 2.27 516,473.39 506,400.56 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Bond / Note FREDDIE MAC NOTES DTD 02/16/2018 2.375% 02/16/2021 600,580.20 596,587.38 1,781.25 595,518.00 08/23/1808/22/18AaaAA+ 600,000.00 3137EAEL9 2.69 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 229,252.84 234,610.69 359.03 234,196.07 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 235,000.00 3135G0N82 1.32 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 746,291.16 763,499.41 1,168.75 761,901.75 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 765,000.00 3135G0N82 1.33 Page 3 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Federal Agency Bond / Note FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 1,536,481.80 1,570,297.21 2,406.25 1,565,361.00 09/02/1609/01/16AaaAA+ 1,575,000.00 3135G0N82 1.38 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 1,572,705.16 1,591,291.48 7,572.78 1,595,128.15 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,585,000.00 3135G0S38 1.85 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 2,480,607.50 2,501,535.23 11,944.44 2,502,650.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0S38 1.98 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/11/2019 2.625% 01/11/2022 953,553.20 944,368.35 5,512.50 944,319.60 01/11/1901/09/19AaaAA+ 945,000.00 3135G0U92 2.65 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 1,587,370.68 1,604,855.34 14,712.50 1,604,759.25 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,605,000.00 3135G0T45 1.88 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 2,472,540.00 2,490,721.50 22,916.67 2,485,150.00 05/09/1705/08/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0T45 2.00 FANNIE MAE AGENCY NOTES DTD 10/06/2017 2.000% 10/05/2022 2,610,151.95 2,560,528.44 25,764.44 2,542,195.30 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,635,000.00 3135G0T78 2.85 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/23/2018 2.375% 01/19/2023 1,504,039.50 1,507,026.27 7,125.00 1,507,050.00 03/26/1903/25/19AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 3135G0T94 2.25 FREDDIE MAC NOTES DTD 06/11/2018 2.750% 06/19/2023 2,121,368.66 2,098,932.87 16,245.63 2,099,636.70 01/09/1901/07/19AaaAA+ 2,085,000.00 3137EAEN5 2.58 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 09/14/2018 2.875% 09/12/2023 3,633,080.65 3,543,361.86 5,386.63 3,542,829.00 12/06/1812/03/18AaaAA+ 3,550,000.00 3135G0U43 2.92 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS NOTES DTD 12/09/2013 3.375% 12/08/2023 1,463,676.20 1,439,933.95 14,831.25 1,441,263.45 01/31/1901/30/19AaaAA+ 1,400,000.00 3130A0F70 2.72 137,727.12 23,511,699.50 23,447,549.98 2.31 23,421,958.27 23,480,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Corporate Note BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON NT (CALLABLE) DTD 09/11/2014 2.300% 09/11/2019 1,782,326.07 1,785,657.34 2,280.83 1,793,353.80 10/16/1410/10/14A1A 1,785,000.00 06406HCW7 2.20 Page 4 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Corporate Note AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 03/03/2017 2.200% 03/03/2020 1,293,965.40 1,304,146.90 2,224.44 1,311,765.00 09/07/1709/05/17A2A- 1,300,000.00 0258M0EE5 1.83 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES DTD 06/22/2017 1.950% 06/22/2020 218,287.30 219,944.27 1,179.75 219,865.80 06/22/1706/19/17A2A 220,000.00 24422ETS8 1.97 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 06/23/2015 2.750% 06/23/2020 965,497.94 974,204.19 7,224.10 994,432.50 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 46625HLW8 1.92 WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE DTD 10/20/2017 1.900% 12/15/2020 1,834,008.60 1,848,519.13 10,349.72 1,847,317.50 10/20/1710/11/17Aa2AA 1,850,000.00 931142EA7 1.95 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP CORP NOTES DTD 01/08/2019 3.050% 01/08/2021 378,390.75 374,800.35 2,636.98 374,775.00 01/08/1901/03/19Aa3AA- 375,000.00 89236TFQ3 3.08 WELLS FARGO CORP NOTES DTD 03/04/2016 2.500% 03/04/2021 960,321.68 975,162.41 1,809.38 988,343.35 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 949746RS2 1.94 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTES DTD 04/13/2018 2.950% 04/13/2021 931,284.45 924,745.70 12,734.17 924,630.00 04/13/1804/10/18Aa3AA- 925,000.00 89236TEU5 2.96 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021 1,995,140.00 2,019,524.90 23,055.56 2,034,600.00 09/07/1709/05/17A1A 2,000,000.00 06406FAA1 2.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTE DTD 04/19/2016 2.625% 04/19/2021 917,707.36 924,113.71 10,867.50 926,826.40 11/03/1711/01/17A2A- 920,000.00 06051GFW4 2.40 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021 914,016.32 921,448.67 10,222.22 922,392.00 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 61746BEA0 2.42 GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 04/25/2016 2.625% 04/25/2021 916,239.96 922,768.74 10,465.00 924,636.80 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 38141GVU5 2.47 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 05/10/2016 2.050% 05/10/2021 1,479,564.00 1,499,047.13 12,043.75 1,497,810.00 05/16/1605/12/16A2A- 1,500,000.00 05531FAV5 2.08 Page 5 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Corporate Note CISCO SYSTEMS INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTES DTD 09/20/2016 1.850% 09/20/2021 1,398,211.43 1,391,124.29 805.52 1,388,349.00 01/16/1901/14/19A1AA- 1,425,000.00 17275RBJ0 2.85 CITIGROUP INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 12/08/2016 2.900% 12/08/2021 919,756.20 924,211.89 8,374.56 926,283.60 11/22/1711/20/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 172967LC3 2.72 IBM CORP BONDS DTD 01/27/2017 2.500% 01/27/2022 1,982,630.00 2,007,982.92 8,888.89 2,013,700.00 02/09/1702/06/17A1A 2,000,000.00 459200JQ5 2.35 WALT DISNEY COMPANY/THE CORP NOTES DTD 11/30/2012 2.350% 12/01/2022 1,063,123.40 1,048,248.17 8,420.83 1,041,503.00 04/05/1804/03/18A2A 1,075,000.00 25468PCW4 3.07 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES DTD 04/05/2013 2.700% 04/01/2023 1,080,307.28 1,058,466.98 14,512.50 1,054,682.50 04/05/1804/03/18A2A 1,075,000.00 437076AZ5 3.11 PFIZER INC DTD 03/11/2019 2.950% 03/15/2024 1,518,645.00 1,522,437.92 2,458.33 1,522,485.00 03/27/1903/25/19A1AA 1,500,000.00 717081ES8 2.63 150,554.03 22,549,423.14 22,646,555.61 2.37 22,707,751.25 22,640,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Certificate of Deposit SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD DTD 05/04/2017 2.050% 05/03/2019 1,699,223.10 1,700,000.00 14,230.42 1,700,000.00 05/04/1705/03/17P-1A-1 1,700,000.00 86563YVN0 2.05 SKANDINAVISKA ENSKILDA BANKEN NY CD DTD 08/04/2017 1.840% 08/02/2019 1,795,267.80 1,799,881.40 5,336.00 1,799,298.00 08/04/1708/03/17P-1A-1 1,800,000.00 83050FXT3 1.85 CREDIT SUISSE NEW YORK CERT DEPOS DTD 02/08/2018 2.670% 02/07/2020 1,031,163.90 1,030,000.00 31,549.76 1,030,000.00 02/08/1802/07/18P-1A-1 1,030,000.00 22549LFR1 2.67 NORDEA BANK AB NY CD DTD 02/22/2018 2.720% 02/20/2020 1,503,325.50 1,500,000.00 4,646.67 1,500,000.00 02/22/1802/20/18P-1A-1+ 1,500,000.00 65590ASN7 2.72 UBS AG STAMFORD CT LT CD DTD 03/06/2018 2.900% 03/02/2020 1,504,831.50 1,500,000.00 3,383.33 1,500,000.00 03/06/1803/02/18P-1A-1 1,500,000.00 90275DHG8 2.93 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY FLT CERT DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 3.253% 04/10/2020 901,917.00 900,000.00 6,586.31 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18A1A+ 900,000.00 22532XHT8 2.85 Page 6 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Certificate of Deposit CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT CERT DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 3.183% 04/10/2020 902,258.10 900,000.00 6,444.56 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18Aa2A+ 900,000.00 13606BVF0 2.78 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD DTD 06/07/2018 3.080% 06/05/2020 1,711,900.00 1,699,612.71 16,871.56 1,699,354.00 06/07/1806/05/18Aa2A+ 1,700,000.00 06417GU22 3.10 WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020 1,605,941.47 1,615,000.00 4,966.13 1,615,000.00 08/07/1708/03/17Aa3AA- 1,615,000.00 96121T4A3 2.05 BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS DTD 08/03/2018 3.190% 08/03/2020 1,808,550.00 1,800,000.00 38,439.50 1,800,000.00 08/03/1808/01/18Aa2A+ 1,800,000.00 06370REU9 3.23 SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020 1,845,451.08 1,860,000.00 15,950.53 1,860,000.00 11/17/1711/16/17Aa2AA- 1,860,000.00 87019U6D6 2.30 MUFG BANK LTD/NY CERT DEPOS DTD 02/28/2019 2.970% 02/26/2021 936,972.21 930,000.00 2,455.20 930,000.00 02/28/1902/27/19A1A 930,000.00 55379WZT6 2.99 150,859.97 17,246,801.66 17,234,494.11 2.59 17,233,652.00 17,235,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Asset-Backed Security NAROT 2017-C A3 DTD 12/13/2017 2.120% 04/15/2022 338,199.63 339,965.10 320.36 339,942.51 12/13/1712/06/17AaaNR 340,000.00 65478HAD0 2.13 HART 2018-A A3 DTD 04/18/2018 2.790% 07/15/2022 330,825.00 329,961.07 409.20 329,950.30 04/18/1804/10/18AaaAAA 330,000.00 44891KAD7 2.80 TAOT 2018-B A3 DTD 05/16/2018 2.960% 09/15/2022 916,745.65 909,989.14 1,197.16 909,986.44 05/16/1805/09/18AaaAAA 910,000.00 89238TAD5 2.96 MBART 2018-1 A3 DTD 07/25/2018 3.030% 01/15/2023 644,893.70 639,979.31 861.87 639,975.42 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 640,000.00 58772RAD6 3.03 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 DTD 06/27/2018 3.000% 01/15/2023 1,080,830.80 1,074,938.57 1,433.33 1,074,926.47 06/27/1806/19/18AaaAAA 1,075,000.00 02007JAC1 3.09 NAROT 2018-B A3 DTD 07/25/2018 3.060% 03/15/2023 605,154.54 599,983.60 816.00 599,980.56 07/25/1807/17/18AaaAAA 600,000.00 65479GAD1 3.06 Page 7 For the Month Ending March 31, 2019Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par 5,037.92 3,916,649.32 3,894,816.79 2.94 3,894,761.70 3,895,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 116,381,400.56 115,557,629.15 2.38 591,990.47 115,609,992.91 115,770,703.31 Managed Account Sub-Total $116,381,400.56 $115,557,629.15 $591,990.47 $115,609,992.91 $115,770,703.31 2.38% $116,362,693.78 $591,990.47 Total Investments Accrued Interest Securities Sub-Total Page 8 $9,230,755,044. California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) CERBT Strategy 1 March 31, 2019 Objective The objective of the CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is to seek returns that reflect the broad investment performance of the financial markets through capital appreciation and investment income. There is no guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objective. Strategy The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is invested in various asset classes in percentages approved by the CalPERS Board. The specific percentages of portfolio assets allocated to each asset class are shown under “Composition.” Generally, equities are intended to help build the value of the employer’s portfolio over the long term while bonds are intended to help provide income and stability of principal. Also, strategies invested in a higher percentage of equities seek higher investment returns (but assume more risk) compared with strategies invested in a higher percentage of bonds. Compared with CERBT Strategy 2 and Strategy 3, this portfolio consists of a higher percentage of equities than bonds and other assets. Historically, equities have displayed greater price volatility and therefore this portfolio may experience greater fluctuation of value. Employers that seek higher investment returns, and are able to accept greater risk and tolerate more fluctuation in returns, may wish to consider this portfolio. CalPERS Board may change the list of approved asset classes, in composition as well as targeted allocation percentages and ranges at any time. Assets Under Management As of the specified reporting month-end, the aggregate total of assets under management for all CERBT Strategies was Composition Asset Class Allocations and Benchmarks The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of the following asset classes and corresponding benchmarks: Portfolio Benchmark The CERBT Strategy 1 benchmark is a composite of underlying asset class market indices, each assigned the target weight for the asset class it represents. Target vs. Actual Asset Class Allocations The following chart shows policy target allocations compared with actual asset allocations as of the specified reporting month-end. CalPERS may overweight or underweight an allocation to a particular asset class based on market, economic, or CalPERS policy considerations. 1 Allocations approved by the Board at the May 2018 Investment Committee meeting 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Global Equity Fixed Income TIPS REITs Commodities Cash Target Actual Asset Class Target Allocation1 Target Range Benchmark Global Equity 59%± 5%MSCI All Country World Index IMI (net) Fixed Income 25%±5%Bloomberg Barclays Long Liability Index Treasury Inflation- Protected Securities ("TIPS") 5%± 3%Bloomberg Barclays US TIPS Index Real Estate Investment Trusts ("REITs")8%± 5%FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Liquid Index (net) Commodities 3%± 3%S&P GSCI Total Return Index Cash -+2%91 Day Treasury Bill 1 Month 3 Months Fiscal YTD 1 Year 3 Years*5 Years*10 Years*Since Inception* (June 1, 2007) Gross Return1,3 1.79%10.19%2.87%3.93%8.01%5.38%10.94%4.74% Net Return2,3 1.79%10.16%2.81%3.84%7.92%5.29%10.85%4.67% Benchmark returns 1.79%10.13%2.61%3.63%7.50%4.95%10.57%4.29% Standard Deviation4 ----7.14%7.71%10.43%12.65% Performance quoted represents past performance, which is no guarantee of future results that may be achieved by the fund. * Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized. 1 Gross performance figures are provided net of SSGA operating expenses. 2 Net Performance figures deduct all expenses to the fund, including investment management, administrative and recordkeeping fees. 3 See the Expense section of this document. 4 Standard Deviation is from gross return. CERBT Strategy 1 Performance as of March 31, 2019 1 Since June 2018 SSGA has managed passively all CERBT asset classes. Previously Fixed Income, TIPS and Commodity asset classes were internally managed. California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) CERBT Strategy 1 March 31, 2019 General Information Information Accessibility The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of assets managed internally by CalPERS and/or external advisors. Since it is not a mutual fund, a prospectus is not available nor is information available from a newspaper source. This summary is designed to provide descriptive information. CalPERS provides a quarterly statement of the employer’s account and other information about the CERBT. For total market value, detailed asset allocation, investment policy and current performance information, including performance to the most recent month-end, please visit our website at: www.calpers.ca.gov. Portfolio Manager Information The CalPERS Investment Committee and Board of Administration directs the investment strategy and investments of the CERBT. State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) manages all asset classes for CERBT, which includes: Global Equity, Fixed Income, Real Estate Investment Trusts, Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, and Commodities.1 Custodian and Record Keeper State Street Bank serves as custodian for the CERBT. Northeast Retirement Services serves as record keeper. Expenses CERBT is a self-funded trust in which participating employers pay for all administrative and investment expenses. Expenses reduce the gross investment return by the fee amount. The larger the fee, the greater the reduction of investment return. Currently, CERBT expenses are 0.10% which consist of administrative expenses borne by CalPERS to administer and oversee the Trust assets, investment management and administrative fees paid to SSGA to manage all asset classes, and recordkeeping fees paid to Northeast Retirement Services to administer individual employer accounts. The expenses described herein are reflected in the net asset value per share. CERBT’s actual expenses may differ from the amount currently being accrued due to factors such as changes in average fund assets or market conditions. The expense accrual rate may change without notice in order to reflect changes in average portfolio assets or in expense amounts. The CalPERS Board annually reviews the operating expenses and changes may be made as appropriate. Even if the portfolio loses money during a period, the fee is still charged. What Employers Own Each employer choosing CERBT Strategy 1 owns a percentage of this portfolio, which invests in pooled asset classes managed by CalPERS and/or external advisors. Employers do not have direct ownership of the securities in the portfolio. Price The value of the portfolio changes daily, based upon the market value of the underlying securities. Just as prices of individual securities fluctuate, the portfolio’s value also changes with market conditions. Principal Risks of the Portfolio The CalPERS CERBT Fund provides California government employers with a trust through which they may prefund retiree medical costs and other post- employment benefits. CERBT is not, however, a defined benefit plan. There is no guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objectives nor provide sufficient funding to meet these employer obligations. Further, CalPERS will not make up the difference between the employer's CERBT assets and the actual cost of Other Post Employment Benefits provided to employer's plan members. An investment in the portfolio is not a bank deposit, and it is not insured nor guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), CalPERS, the State of California or any other government agency. There are risks associated with investing, including possible loss of principal. The portfolio’s risk depends in part on the portfolio’s asset class allocations and the selection, weighting and risks of the underlying investments. For more information about investment risks, please see the document entitled “CERBT Principal Investment Risks” located at www.calpers.ca.gov. Fund Performance Performance data shown on page 1 represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an employer’s units, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be higher or lower than historical performance data shown. For current performance information, please visit www.calpers.ca.gov and follow the links to California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust. CERBT Strategy Risk Levels CalPERS offers employers the choice of one of three investment strategies. Risk levels among strategies vary, depending upon the target asset class allocations. Generally, equities carry more risk than fixed income securities. Asset Class Target Allocations Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Global Equity 59%40%22% Fixed Income 25%43%49% Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities 5%5%16% Real Estate Investment Trusts 8%8%8% Commodities 3%4%5% CITY OF BURLINGAME PARS Post-Employment Benefits Trust 3/1/2019 to 3/31/2019 Carol Augustine Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd., 1st Floor Burlingame, CA 94010 Source 3/1/2019 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 3/31/2019 PENSION 1002 $8,355,103.18 $0.00 $95,542.87 $1,740.65 $0.00 $0.00 $8,448,905.40 Totals $8,355,103.18 $0.00 $95,542.87 $1,740.65 $0.00 $0.00 $8,448,905.40 Source PENSION Source PENSION Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years PENSION 1.14%8.23%4.94%---10/3/2017 Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees Annualized Return Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change. Investment Return Account Report for the Period Beginning Balance as of Investment Selection Account Summary Moderate HighMark PLUS Ending Balance as of The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between equity and fixed income investments. Plan's Inception Date Investment Objective 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2019-20 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Hold a public hearing in connection with updates to the City’s Master Fee Schedule, and 2) Adopt a resolution approving the Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2019-20. BACKGROUND The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget process. Fee adjustments are not automatic; they require an annual review and approval by the City Council. An annual review and update ensures that fees reflect current costs to provide services, allows the addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provides for the elimination of fees for discontinued services. California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for governmental services when an individual’s use of the City service is voluntary, and the fee charged is reasonable to the level of service and the cost of providing the service. Last year, the City adopted a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy that established guidelines for the amount of cost recovery that is appropriate for the various services for which a fee is charged. Staff recommendations for fees were developed in accordance with these guidelines. The proposed fees were reviewed by the Council on April 1, 2019. In compliance with California Government Code § 66016, the Council established a public hearing for May 6, 2019; notice of the public hearing was duly provided; and the proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2019-20 was posted to the City’s web page at: https://www.burlingame.org/Proposed%20FY2019-20%20Master%20Fee%20Schedule.pdf. DISCUSSION Although most fees will be effective July 1, pursuant to State law, certain fees associated with development projects (to be charged by the Community Development Department, as well as the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department), cannot become effective until 60 days after adoption of the adjusted fees as delineated in the attached Master Fee Schedule. These fees will be effective July 8, 2019. Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2019-20 May 6, 2019 2 FISCAL IMPACT Changes to the City’s Master Fee schedule should result in some additional revenue in the new fiscal year. However, the actual amounts are difficult to calculate because the use of some services is voluntary, and the volume/demand of each activity varies. Exhibits: • A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Master Fee Schedule for City Services • City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE 2019-20 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame regularly reviews the fees that the City charges persons or entities for the use of City facilities, or the provision of City services; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the fees for services and facility use to ensure that the fees charged reflect the actual costs to the City and the City’s taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, in 2015, the City engaged the services of Wohlford Consulting to conduct an update of the City’s Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) and a comprehensive review of the City’s schedule of fees to ensure that the fees charged by the City to the users of City services and facilities do not exceed the actual costs of providing the services or facilities; and WHEREAS, these studies have informed the annual review of the City fee schedule, resulting in numerous adjustments to ensure that the City recovers the full cost of providing services and facilities while at the same time not exceeding the cost of providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to keep some fees below the level of full cost recovery to make the related services more readily available to citizens; and WHEREAS, notice of the City’s proposed fee schedule and of the May 6, 2019 public hearing in connection therewith, has been duly provided pursuant to the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, certain fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions of the Community Development Department and the development fees to be charged by the Fire Department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department cannot become effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Government Code section 66017; and WHEREAS, all other adjusted fees as delineated in the Master Fee Schedule shall become effective July 1, 2019; and WHEREAS, despite every effort to ensure that all City fees for services are contained in the 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule, there may be some existing fees provided for in the Municipal Code, administrative procedures, or elsewhere that have been omitted from the Master Fee Schedule and nothing in this resolution or Council action is intended to repeal those fees nor is this resolution or Council action intended to affect in any way any taxes or assessments of any kind. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report, and in supporting documentation are true and correct, and the Council relies upon them in adopting the Master Fee Schedule. 2. The City Council approves the 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule, attached and incorporated as if fully set forth. 3. The 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on July 1, 2019, except for development related fees pursuant to Government Code section 66017, which cannot become effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution. ____________________________________ Donna Colson, Mayor I, Meagan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 6th day of May, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ___________________________________ Meagan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2019 Updated fees charged in connection with the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving or issuance of an application, permit or entitlement will be effective on July 5, 2019. Proposed Master Fee Schedule CITY-WIDE FEES Page 1 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 $30.00 No Change Copying of Routine Document (Copies of sizes other than 8- ½" by 11" or 8 - ½" by 14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at cost) To be paid in advance Gov’t Code § 6253(b) $0.25 per page No Change Copies of Reports/Statements filed pursuant to Political Reform Act Gov’t Code § 81008 $0.10 per page No Change Audio tape copies (except for Police) If blank tape supplied If no tape supplied Resolution No. 32-2009 Resolution No. 32-2009 $18.00 per tape $18.00 per tape plus purchase costs of tape No Change No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 2 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $500.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $37.00 No Change $501.00 to $2,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $37.00 for the first $500.00 plus $5.28 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $2,000.00 No Change $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $116.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $22.15 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $25,000.00 No Change $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $625.00 for the first $25,000.00 plus $16.30 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $50,000.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 3 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,032.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $11.07 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $100,000.00 No Change $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,585.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $9.40 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $500,000.00 No Change $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 Resolution No 27-2011 $5,345.00 for the first $500,000.00 plus $8.57 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof up to and including $1,000,000.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 4 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE More than $1,000,000.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $9,630.00 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $5.80 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof No Change OTHER BUILDING PERMIT FEES Building inspections outside normal business hours Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours) $248.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours Re-inspection fees (minimum – one hour) Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour $248.00 per hour Energy Upgrade California Basic Package Advanced Package Resolution No. 27-2011 $238.00 $476.00 No Change No Change General fire inspections for new building and tenant remodels limited to building permits of commercial or multi- family residential Resolution No. 27-2011 Determined by CCFD – pass- through costs No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 5 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PLAN REVIEW FEES Basic Fee – Building Division Resolution No. 104-2002 65% of Building Permit Fee No Change Energy Plan Check Fee (where applicable; includes review of Green Points Checklist) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Building Permit Fee No Change Disabled Access Plan Check Fee (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 35% of Building Permit Fee No Change Review of Request for Alternate Materials and Methods Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per hour $303.00 per hour Review of Unreasonable Hardship Request Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per hour $303.00 per hour Planning Department Plan Check Fee (where applicable) Minimum fee of $80.00 Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Building Permit Fee No Change Plan Revisions for Planning Department Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per hour $303.00 per hour Plan Revisions Subsequent to Permit Issuance Resolution No. 27-2011 $293.00 per hour plus cost of any additional review $303.00 per hour plus cost of any additional review Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 6 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Engineering Division Plan Review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Building Permit Fee No Change Imaging Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of Building Permit Fee with minimum fee of $5.00 No Change Arborist Review Resolution No. 33-2008 $238.00 $246.00 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies. For issuance of each plumbing permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 No Change **The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Building - including all plumbing fixtures, connections and gas outlets for new single- and multi-family buildings Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.13 per square foot of habitable area No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 7 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Fixtures and vents For each plumbing fixture or trap (including water and waste piping and backflow prevention) Resolution No. 27-2011 $20.00 No Change Sewer and interceptors For each building sewer For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor (except kitchen-type grease traps) Resolution No 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $71.00 $60.00 No Change No Change Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation alteration or repair of water piping or water-treatment equipment For each water heater including vent Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 $60.00 No Change No Change Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five outlets For each additional outlet over five Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 33-2008 $39.00 $8.00 No Change No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 8 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices Irrigation systems including backflow device(s) Other backflow prevention devices: 2 inches (50.8 mm) and smaller Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 No Change No Change No Change Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing: Public pool Public spa Private pool Private spa Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $242.00 $182.00 $242.00 $182.00 No Change No Change No Change No Change Miscellaneous For each appliance or fixture for which no fee is listed Resolution No. 27-2011 $39.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 9 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Inspections outside normal business hours Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours) $248.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours) Re-inspection fees (minimum – one hour) Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour $248.00 per hour Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge is one- half hour) Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour $248.00 per hour Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of plumbing permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 No Change Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of plumbing permit fee No Change MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies Basic Permit Issuance Fee For issuance of each mechanical permit** Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 10 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE **The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Building including all mechanical work including appliances, exhaust fans, ducts, and flues Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.11 per square foot of habitable area No Change Furnaces To and including 100 MBTU Over 100 MBTU Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 $60.00 No Change No Change Boilers, compressors, absorption systems To and including 100 MBTU or 3HP Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 $60.00 No Change No Change Air Conditioners Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 No Change Air Handlers To 10,000 CFM including ducting Over 10,000 CFM Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $39.00 each $60.00 each No Change No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 11 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan attached to a single duct Each hood including ducts Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $20.00 each $31.00 each No Change No Change Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment not specifically listed above Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 each No Change Inspections outside normal business hours Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours) $248.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours) Re-inspection fees (minimum charge is one hour) Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour $248.00 per hour Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge is one- half hour) Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour $248.00 per hour Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of mechanical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 12 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of mechanical permit fee No Change ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES *These fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies **The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: For issuance of each electrical permit** Resolution No. 27-2011 $46.00 No Change New Residential Building - including all wiring and electrical devices in or on each building, including service Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.11 per square foot of habitable area No Change SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Swimming Pools Public swimming pools and spas including all wiring and electrical equipment Private pools for single- family residences Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 $185.00 No Change No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 13 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Temporary Power Temporary service pole including all attached receptacles Temporary power pole and wiring for construction sites, Christmas tree lots, etc. Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 $60.00 No Change No Change UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Receptacle, switch and light outlets First 20 units Each additional Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 32-2009 $59.00 $4.00 No Change No Change Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliances including cook tops, ovens, air conditioning, garbage disposals, and similar devices not exceeding 1 HP in rating (For other types of air conditioners or other motor-driven appliances having larger ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Resolution No. 32-2009 $10.00 each No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 14 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Nonresidential Appliances Self-contained factory- wired non-residential appliances not exceeding 1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage and ice cream cabinets; illuminated showcases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; etc. (For other types of devices having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Resolution No. 32-2009 $10.00 each No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 15 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Power Apparatus For motors, generators, air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial cooking devices as follows (ratings in horsepower, kilowatts, kilovolt- amperes, or kilovolt- amperes-reactive): Up to 10 Over 10 to and including 100 Over 100 Notes: For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays, and other related control equipment. Resolution No 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 $60.00 $120.00 No Change No Change No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 16 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Photo voltaic systems Residential systems Permit Plan Check Commercial Systems Permit Plan Check Resolution No. 32-2009 Resolution No. 32-2009 Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 No Charge No Charge $385.00 $293.00 per hour No Change No Change No Change $303.00 per hour Busways For trolleys and plug-in type busways Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 for each 100 feet (30,500 mm) or fraction thereof No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 17 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees Permits Signs, outline lighting, or marquees supplied from one circuit For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting, or marquee Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 32-2009 $60.00 each $20.00 each No Change No Change Services 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating 600 volts or less, over 200 amperes to 1,000 amperes Over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No. 27-2011 Resolution No 27-2011 $60.00 each $91.00 each $121.00 each No Change No Change No Change Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth Resolution No. 27-2011 $39.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule BUILDING Page 18 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Inspections outside normal business hours Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours) $248.00 per hour (minimum charge of 2 hours) Re-inspection fees (minimum charge is one hour) Resolution No. 27-2011 $240.00 per hour $248.00 per hour Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge is one- half hour) Resolution No 27-2011 $240.00 per hour $248.00 per hour Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of electrical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 No Change Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of electrical permit fee No Change GENERAL FEES Building Moving Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 18.07.030) $361.00 $373.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS Page 19 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Video recording of City Council meeting or other proceeding that has been video recorded — to be paid in advance of copying recording Resolution No. 32-2009 Resolution No. 32-2009 $88.00 per VHS tape plus photo service charge $88.00 per DVD plus photo service charge No Change Audiotape of City Council meeting or other City proceeding that has been taped — to be paid in advance of copying tape Resolution No. 32-2009 Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape if tape is supplied by requestor $17.00 per tape if tape is not supplied plus purchase cost of tape No Change No Change All Certifications Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 each No Change Filing of Nomination Papers Burlingame Municipal Code section 2.20.020 (Ordinance No. 1703 (2003) $25.00 per candidate No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 20 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Minor (no excavation involved) $230.00 $238.00 Sewer Lateral Test Resolution No. 32- 2009 $423.00 $438.00 Sewer Lateral Replacement (with Sidewalk Add No. 5) Resolution No. 32- 2009 $423.00 $438.00 Water Service Connection (with Sidewalk Add No. 5) Resolution No. 32- 2009 $553.00 $572.00 Fire System Connection (with Sidewalk Add No. 5) Resolution No. 32- 2009 $191.00 $198.00 Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 S.F. (Includes Curb Drain) Resolution No. 32- 2009 Sections 12.10.030/12.08.020/ 12.04.030 $398.00 plus $0.36 for each square foot over 200 * *Fee waived for owner who undertake stand- alone sidewalk trip hazard repairs (Section 12.12.070) $412.00 plus $1.00 for each square foot over 200 * *Fee waived for owners who undertake stand-alone sidewalk trip hazard repairs (Section 12.12.070) Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Protection Resolution No. 32- 2009 $397.00 $411.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 21 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Traffic Control Resolution No. 33- 2008 $324.00 $335.00 Block Party (includes up to 6 barricades) Resolution No. 27- 2006 $54.00 plus $5.00 for each add’l barricade over 6 $56.00 plus $5.00 for each add’l barricade over 6 Commercial Areas and Construction Purposes (i.e. Dumpsters/Containers) Moving Only Purposes (Residential Areas) $206.00 plus $10.00 space per day or meter rates $33.00 processing fee plus $10.00 per space per day $213.00 plus $10.00 space per day or meter rates $34.00 processing fee plus $10.00 per space per day Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 22 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE GENERAL FEES Demolition Permit (in addition to any Building Department- issued Demolition or Construction Permit) Includes sewer, water and sidewalk replacement Add fire line Add curb drain Add sidewalk closure Add PG&E Resolution No. 32- 2009 Resolution No. 32- 2009 Resolution No. 32- 2009 Resolution No. 32- 2009 Resolution No. 32- 2009 $1,518.00 $81.00 $217.00 $217.00 $217.00 $1,571.00 $84.00 $225.00 $225.00 $225.00 Address Change Resolution No. 32- 2009 $316.00 $327.00 Single Trip -Transportation Fee (Fixed rate set by Caltrans) Senate Bill SB 372 $16.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 23 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Leaf Blower Testing Certification Fee Ord. No. 1871 (2012) $32.00 for up to 5 leaf blowers $5.00 for certification decal if certified by manufacturer $33.00 for up to 5 leaf blowers $5.00 for certification decal if certified by manufacturer Creek Enclosures Resolution No. 32- 2009 Section 18.24.020 $2,943.00 $3,046.00 Abandonment of Public Utility Easement $4,826.00 $4,995.00 Hauling Permit Section 13.60.080 $236.00 application fee plus 1 cent per ton per mile $244.00 application fee plus 1 cent per ton per mile Inspection/Investigation Fee Section 12.10.070 $230.00 per hour $238.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 24 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Subsurface Shoring Systems that encroach into the public right- of-way • Per 10’-20’ deep tieback • Per >20’ deep tieback • For permanent area used (i.e. shoring wall) $2,000.00 each $1,000.00 each 50% of appraised land value per square foot (sf) multiplied by the area (sf) of encroachment No Change Permanent structures, such as retaining walls, fences Resolution No. 32- 2009 Section 12.10.020 $2,561.00 $2,651.00 Non-permanent installations, such as tables, chairs, planters Resolution No. 32- 2009 Section 12.10.020 $1,600.00 No Change DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK Openings in Public Right-of-Way (not in sidewalk or street) Resolution No. 33- 2007 $1,000.00 Minimum (in easement area) $10.00/sf in sidewalk $1,000.00 Minimum (in easement area) $10.00/sf for area excavated Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 25 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Openings in Public Right-of-Way in sidewalk (not in street) Resolution No. 33- 2007 $10.00 per square foot in sidewalk area, $1,000.00 minimum $25.00 per square foot in sidewalk area, $1,000.00 minimum Street Roadway Opening (AC Pavement Restoration) Resolution No. 33- 2007 Section 12.10.025 $10.00 per square foot in paved area, $2,500.00 minimum including curb replacement No Change Water Main Modification (refundable bond) Resolution No. 33- 2007 $10,000.00 per connection No Change Sewer Main & Storm Drain Modification (refundable bond) Resolution No. 33- 2007 $10,000.00 per connection No Change SUBDIVISION MAPS Lot Line Adjustment Resolution No. 32- 2009 (Section 26.24.090) $2,584.00 $2,674.00 (application fee) + actual City consultant costs Lot Combination Resolution No. 32- 2009 Section 26.24.090 $2,584.00 $2,674.00 (application fee) + actual City consultant costs Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 26 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Subdivision Map Resolution No. 32- 2009 Sections 26.24.090/ 26.16.151 $3,836.00 plus deposit, plus $234.00 for each additional lot in excess of 5 lots; plus actual City consultant costs $3,970.00 plus deposit, plus $242.00 for each additional lot in excess of 5 lots; plus actual City consultant costs Condominium Map Resolution No. 32- 2009 Sections 26.24.090/ 26.16.151 $3,119.00, plus $587.00 for each additional unit over 4 units, plus actual City consultant costs $3,228.00, plus $608.00 for each additional unit over 4 units, plus actual City consultant costs STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit Type 1 Project: Single family dwellings with 1st or 2nd floor additions on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller $177.00 plus $1,500.00 security deposit $183.00 plus $1,500.00 security deposit Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 27 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Type 2 Project: Multi-family dwellings or commercial additions (excluding tenant improvements) that are on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller $353.00 plus $3,000.00 security deposit $365.00 plus $3,000.00 security deposit Type 3 Project: Any project 10,000 sf up to an acre lot $707.00 plus $5,000.00 security deposit $732.00 plus $5,000.00 security deposit Type 4 Project: Any project greater than one acre in size $1,414.00 plus $10,000 security deposit $1,463.00 plus $10,000 security deposit PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEWS Single Family Dwelling (Addition) $459.00 $475.00 Single Family Dwelling (New) $917.00 $949.00 Multi-family $1,834.00 $1,898.00 Commercial/Industrial $1,834.00 $1,898.00 Environmental Review $1,477.00 $1,529.00 Traffic and Parking Studies $3,485.00 $3,607.00 GRADING PERMIT 1 – 100 cubic yards $1,238.00 $1,281.00 101 – 1,000 cubic yards $1,869.00 $1,934.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING Page 28 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE 1,001 – 10,000 cubic yards $2,185.00 $2,261.00 Over 10,000 cubic yards $2,973.00 $3,077.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Stormwater Inspection for Industrial/Commercial Facilities $135.00 per hour $140.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule FINANCE Page 29 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Duplicate business license Section 6.04.120 $10.00 No Change Application for first business license Section 6.04.170 $35.00 No Change Submittal of surety bond for transient occupancy after expiration of bond Resolution No. 27-2006 $150.00 for every 15 days bond is late No Change Special business license for long-term parking Section 6.08.085 5% of gross receipts No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 30 The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) is governed by the Fire Board, and as such, its fees are enacted via a process that is separate from that of the City of Burlingame. The following fees have been approved, to be effective as of July 1, 2019. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION Pre-inspection of licensed community care facility Health & Safety Code § 13235 $160.00 per hour $146.00 per hour Residential Care Facility for Elderly serving 6 or fewer persons – fire inspection enforcement Health & Safety Code § 1569.84 No Charge No Change Residential Care Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $309.00 $301.00 Large Family Day Care Resolution No. 33-2008 $161.00 $163.00 Skilled Nursing Facility Resolution No. 33-2008 $570.00 $577.00 Hospital/Institution Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,208.00 $2,230.00 RE-INSPECTIONS Second re-inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $146.00 per inspection $114.00 per inspection Third and subsequent re-inspections Resolution No. 33-2008 $350.00 per inspection $207.00 per inspection Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 31 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE CONSTRUCTION FEES General Fire & Life Safety Services • Consultation & Research • Pre-application meetings & Design Review • Property Survey • General Construction Inspections • Processing, Scheduling, and Record Keeping 12% of Building Permit fees for Commercial and Multi-Family Residential No Change Building or Planning Plan Check Resolution No. 33-2008 $166.00 per hour $157.00 per hour Expedite Building or Planning Check Fees (2 hour minimum) Resolution No. 33-2008 $332.00 per hour $314.00 per hour Consultation and Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $189.00 per hour $229.00 per hour Alternate Means of Protection Review Resolution No. 33-2008 $189.00 per hour $229.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 32 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Fire Alarm Systems Permit for Monitoring System Permit for Manual System Permit for Automatic System Permit for Combination System Resolution No. 33-2008 Resolution No. 33-2008 Resolution No. 33-2008 Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $173.00 $310.00 $446.00 $176.00 $176.00 $313.00 $452.00 Multi-Residential or Commercial Fire Alarm Remodel or Repair (Device relocation/adjustment) $105.00 $107.00 Fixed Fire Extinguishing System Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $241.00 $245.00 Standpipe System Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $310.00 $313.00 Storage Tank (above or below ground) Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $176.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 33 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS One or two Family Dwelling Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D) Resolution No. 33-2008 $446.00 - flat fee including 2 inspections (additional inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) $452.00 - flat fee including 2 inspections (additional inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) Fire Pump Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $176.00 Multi-Residential or Commercial Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or 13R) Permit – Single Story (incl. T.I.) Permit - Multi-story Resolution No. 33-2008 $719.00 flat fee including 2 inspections (additional inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) $727.00 flat fee including 2 inspections (additional inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) Multi-Residential or Commercial Fire sprinkler Remodel & Repair (Sprinkler Head relocation/adjustment only) Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $107.00 Fire Service Line Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 $176.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 34 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System Permit §510, CFC Title 24 Part 9 $370.00 $335.00 MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS Labor Rate for Mechanic Services $110.00 No Change Vegetation Management Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 plus 50% of contractor’s fee $108.00 plus 50% of contractor’s fee Change of Use Inspection (usually triggered by new business license) Resolution No. 33-2008 $105.00 $108.00 Accounts referred to Collection Agencies +47% of original invoice No Change Photographs from investigations Resolution No. 61-2004 Cost of reproduction No Change Fire Incident Reports (not including photographs) Resolution No. 33-2008 $10.00 No Change Work without a construction permit Resolution No. 33-2008 Up to 10 times the permit fees No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 35 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Emergency Response Costs for Driving under the Influence (Billing upon conviction) Govt. Code §53150-58 Costs according to Personnel Schedule below plus apparatus cost of $91.00 per hour as set by State No Change False Alarms Resolution No. 33-2007 $315.00 for 3 to 5 $630.00 for 6 or more $441.00 for 3 to 5 $630.00 for 6 or more Hazardous Materials Clean- up/Response Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to Personnel Schedule below plus apparatus costs of $91.00 per hour as set by State No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 36 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE STANDBY SERVICE Firefighter Fire Captain Battalion Chief Engine Company Resolution No. 33-2008 Resolution No. 33-2008 Resolution No. 33-2008 Resolution No. 33-2008 $87.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) $141.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) $170.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) $315.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) plus apparatus costs of $91.00 per hour as set by State $88.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) $103.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) $117.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 37 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PERSONNEL COSTS Personnel Costs by Job Class Administration Firefighter Fire Captain Fire Administrative Captain Fire Prevention Specialist Fire Inspector Deputy Fire Marshal Battalion Chief Division Chief or Fire Marshal Deputy Fire Chief Fire Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $ 57.00 per hour $ 87.00 per hour $141.00 per hour $141.00 per hour $ 80.00 per hour $137.00 per hour $146.00 per hour $170.00 per hour $186.00 per hour $189.00 per hour $208.00 per hour $ 61.00 per hour $ 88.00 per hour $103.00 per hour $103.00 per hour $ 82.00 per hour $138.00 per hour $144.00 per hour $117.00 per hour $177.00 per hour $188.00 per hour $205.00 per hour GENERAL PERMITS Aerosol Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $163.00 Amusement Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $297.00 $267.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels – 10 or less units Resolution No. 33-2008 $177.00 $140.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels – 11 to 25 units Resolution No. 33-2008 $212.00 $166.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels – 26 or more units Resolution No. 33-2008 $247.00 $192.00 Apartments Assigned to Prevention $236.00 $219.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 38 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Aviation Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Battery System Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Carnivals and Fairs Resolution No. 33-2008 $433.00 $267.00 Christmas Tree Lot Resolution No. 33-2008 $161.00 $267.00 Combustible Fiber Storage Resolution No. 33-2007 $263.00 $267.00 Combustible Material Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Commercial Occupancy Assigned to Prevention Resolution No. 33-2008 $97.00 $200.00 Commercial Rubbish- Handling Operation Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Compressed Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Cryogens Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Dry Cleaning Plants Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Dust-Producing Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows – Display Booth Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows – With Open Flame Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows – Display Fuel Powered Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 39 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Explosives or Blasting Agents Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves Resolution No. 33-2008 $261.00 $265.00 Fireworks Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Flammable or Combustible Liquids Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Hazardous Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 High-Piled Combustible Storage – 20,000 square feet or less Resolution No. 33-2008 $475.00 $481.00 High-Piled Combustible Storage – more than 20,000 square feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $578.00 $549.00 Highrise H&S§13214(b) $444.00 $316.00 Hot-Work Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Liquefied Petroleum Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Liquid- or gas-fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Live Audiences Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Lumber Yards storing in excess of 100,000 board Feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $366.00 $370.00 Magnesium Working Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Page 40 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Motor Vehicle Fuel- Dispensing Stations Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Open Burning Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Organic Coating Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Ovens, Industrial Baking and Drying Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Parade Floats Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Places of Assembly Resolution No. 33-2008 $434.00 $439.00 Production Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $434.00 $439.00 Pyrotechnical and Special Effects Material Resolution No. 33-2008 $468.00 $473.00 Radioactive Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $281.00 $267.00 Refrigeration Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $391.00 $370.00 Repair Garage Resolution No. 33-2008 $297.00 $267.00 Spraying and Dipping Resolution No. 33-2008 $297.00 $267.00 Tents, Canopies, and Temporary Membrane Structures Resolution No. 33-2008 $398.00 $402.00 Tire Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Wood Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 $267.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY Page 41 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE CITY OF BURLINGAME FEES Photocopies – Black and White $0.15 per page at vending machine No Change Photocopies - Color $0.45 per page at vending machine No Change Internet /Database copies or printouts – Black and White Resolution No. 27-2011 First 3 pages free $0.15 per page No Change Internet /Database copies or printouts – Color Resolution No. 27-2011 First page free $0.45 per page No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY Page 42 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Facilities Rental Lane Community Room rental Use of Audio Visual Equipment Tech Media Lab rental Use of Audio Visual Equipment Computer Laptop set- up/breakdown Upper Level U.L. Meeting Room rental Use of Audio Visual Equipment Resolution No. 32-2009 Resolution No. 27-2011 $100.00 $30.00 flat fee $60.00 first 4 hours $30.00 flat fee $50.00 flat fee $40.00 first 4 hours. $10.00 each additional hour $30.00 Flat fee $130.00 $90.00 first 4 hours. $10.00 each additional hour No Change $70.00 first 4 hours. $10.00 each additional hour Outside System Book Loan Resolution No. 27-2011 $5.00 + additional fee from lending library if applicable No Change Photo/filming fee (only for shoots requiring staff oversight during closed hours) $50.00/hour No Change USB Flash Drive $10.00 each Ear-Bud Headphones $2.00 each Cloth Shopping Bag $5.00 each Proposed Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY Page 43 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Passport: Acceptance/US State Department Fee Passport Photo Fee Express Mail Service to Passport Processing Center Set by US State Department $35.00 (as of April 2, 2018) $15.00 $19.99 or current postal rate No Change No Change Current USPS Priority Mail Express Rate PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES Overdue Fee for Adult Peninsula Library System $0.25 per item, per day No Change Maximum Fee Peninsula Library System $8.00 Adult No Change Lost Book Replacement Fee Peninsula Library System $5.00 per item plus costs of replacement of item No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 44 Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks & Recreation Facilities Usage: Group A: City of Burlingame, Burlingame School District Group A-1: Recognized Burlingame based non-profit youth sports groups (for field use only) Group B: Non-profit groups or organizations with IRS Section 501c(3) tax exempt status Group C: Private parties, commercial, business, and profit-making organizations School District Fees: Fees shall be applied to the district and affiliated organizations (examples: PTA, Boosters, Foundations) as follows: A. San Mateo Union High School District a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the SMUHSD fee schedule as it pertains to City use of similar SMUHSD facilities. b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to SMUHSD shall be at the rates described in other sections of the fee schedule. B. Burlingame School District a. Unless otherwise specified in an adopted facility use agreement, indoor and athletic facility fees shall be calculated administratively to be comparable to the BSD fee schedule as it pertains to City use of similar BSD facilities. b. Picnic and special park facility fees, and staffing fees charged to BSD shall be at the rates described in other sections of the fee schedule. Pool fees for BSD use shall be charged at the non-profit rate. Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 45 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE INDOOR FACILITIES Recreation Center Auditorium Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-Residents Burlingame Non-Profit Meetings Non Resident Non-Profit Meetings Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-Residents Auditorium Deposit Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 No Charge $152.00 1st hour $78.00 /add’l hour $165.00 1st hour $83.00/add’l hour $42.00 per hour $46.00 per hour $262.00 1st hour $132.00/ add’l hour $303.00 1st hour $149.00/ add’l hour $500.00 No Change $157.00 1st hour $81.00 /add’l hour $171.00 1st hour $86.00/add’l hour $43.00 per hour $48.00 per hour $271.00 1st hour $137.00/ add’l hour $314.00 1st hour $154.00/ add’l hour No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 46 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Other Recreation Center Rooms Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-Residents Burlingame Non-Profit Meetings Non Resident Non-Profit Meetings Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-Residents No Charge $117.00 1st hour $59.00 /add’l hour $128.00 1st hour $63.00/add’l hour $23.00 per hour $25.00 per hour $152.00 1st hour $78.00/add’l hour $165.00 1st hour $83.00/add’l hour No Change $121.00 1st hour $61.00 /add’l hour $132.00 1st hour $65.00/add’l hour $24.00 per hour $26.00 per hour $157.00 1st hour $81.00/add’l hour $171.00 1st hour $86.00/add’l hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 47 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Facility Room Deposit Kitchen Group A: Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-Residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-Residents $200.00 Per Room 50% discount on deposit of lounge if 2nd lounge is rented at the same time 50% discount on deposit of kitchen if rented with another room No Charge $19.00 per hour $23.00 per hour $35.00 per hour $41.00 per hour No Change No Change No Change $20.00 per hour $24.00 per hour $36.00 per hour $42.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 48 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Additional Rental Charges: Tables/Chairs-up to 50 Tables/Charis-51 to 100 Tables/Chairs-over 100 Coffee Pots Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 $19.00 $28.00 $43.00 $15.00 per pot $20.00 $29.00 $45.00 No Change Building Attendant * Resolution No. 33- 2008 $40.00 per hour No Change Field Attendant Resolution No. 41- 2008 $40.00 per hour No Change Weekend Custodian Resolution No. 27- 2006 $102.00 per event No Change Weekday Custodian Resolution No. 31- 2003 $32.00 per hour No Change Extra, Non-Scheduled Hours Resolution No. 27- 2006 $268.00 per hour No Change Wine/beer to be served Resolution No. 31- 2003 $33.00 additional No Change *Building Attendant will be on duty 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 49 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE OUTDOOR FACILITIES Large Special Event Deposit for Athletic Fields: Less than 100 in attendance More than 100 in attendance Group A-1: Field Use per Season by Burlingame-based non-profit youth sports group. Fields used by Accredited Burlingame-based non-profit youth sports groups Resolution No. 27- 2011 $250.00 per event $500.00 per event $16.00 per Resident $85.00 per Non- Resident plus $3.00 per hour per field for Resident groups, $9.00 per hour per field for groups less than 50% Resident Security Deposit $500.00 No Change No Change No Change No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 50 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayside Ball Fields #1 and #2 Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $22.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $52.00 per hour $36.00 per hour No Change $23.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $54.00 per hour $37.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 51 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayside Ball Fields #3,#4 or #5 for Softball or Baseball Group A Group B Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C Burlingame Residents Non-residents Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $17.00 per hour $27.00 per hour $27.00 per hour $42.00 per hour $36.00 per hour No Change $18.00 per hour $28.00 per hour $28.00 per hour $43.00 per hour $37.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 52 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayside Soccer Fields Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $22.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $52.00 per hour $36.00 per hour No Change $23.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $54.00 per hour $37.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 53 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Cuernavaca Park Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 33- 2008 No Charge $22.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $52.00 per hour No Change $23.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $54.00 per hour Murray Field Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Murray Field Lights Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $55.00 per hour $75.00 per hour $75.00 per hour $95.00 per hour $36.00 per hour No Change $57.00 per hour $78.00 per hour $78.00 per hour $98.00 per hour $37.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 54 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or #2 Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 33- 2008 No Charge $22.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $52.00 per hour No Change $23.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $54.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 55 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Main Ball Field for Baseball Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Washington Park Lights Resolution No. 41- 2008 Resolution No. 41- 2008 Resolution No. 41- 2008 Resolution No. 41- 2008 Resolution No. 41- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $32.00 per hour + field attendant $52.00 per hour + field attendant $52.00 per hour + field attendant $72.00 per hour + field attendant $36.00 per hour No Change $33.00 per hour + field attendant $54.00 per hour + field attendant $54.00 per hour + field attendant $75.00 per hour + field attendant $37.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 56 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Bullpen Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2007 Resolution No. 33- 2008 No Charge $17.00 per hour $22.00 per hour $32.00 per hour $42.00 per hour No Change $18.00 per hour $23.00 per hour $33.00 per hour $43.00 per hour Washington Park Main Ball field Outfield for Soccer Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Washington Park Lights Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $32.00 per hour $52.00 per hour $52.00 per hour $72.00 per hour $36.00 per hour No Change $33.00 per hour $54.00 per hour $54.00 per hour $75.00 per hour $37.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 57 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Small Ball Field Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Group C: Burlingame Residents Non-residents Washington Small Lights Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 24- 2010 No Charge $17.00 per hour $27.00 per hour $27.00 per hour $42.00 per hour $36.00 per hour No Change $18.00 per hour $28.00 per hour $28.00 per hour $43.00 per hour $37.00 per hour Tennis Courts Burlingame Residents Non-residents For Profit Rental Burlingame Residents Non-residents Resolution No. 31- 2003 Resolution No. 61- 2006 Resolution No. 103- 2009 Resolution No. 103- 2009 $34.00 for 4 hours/per court $54.00 for 4 hours/per court $20.00 per hour/per court $24.00 per hour/per court $35.00 for 4 hours/per court $56.00 for 4 hours/per court $21.00 per hour/per court $25.00 per hour/per court Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 58 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PICNIC PERMITS West-end of Washington Park (for Burlingame non-profit groups only) Resolution No. 27- 2011 $445.00 Permit Fee No Deposit No Change Electrical Service Hook-up at West-end of Washington Park Resolution No. 32- 2009 $79.00 No Change Small Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Non-residents Resolution No. 33- 2008 Resolution No. 33- 2008 $105.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $142.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $109.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $147.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Large Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Non-Residents Resolution No. 24- 2010 Resolution No. 24- 2010 $210.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $263.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $217.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $272.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non-profit Group Picnic Fees: Cuernavaca & Ray Parks Resolution No. 103- 2009 $100.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $103.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 59 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Both Washington Park Picnic Areas Burlingame Residents Non-Residents $288.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $368.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $298.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $381.00 Permit Fee No Deposit West End Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Non-Residents New Fee New Fee $110.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $147.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Washington Park Bocce Ball Courts (reservations) Burlingame Residents Non-Residents Rental of Bocce Ball and Horseshoes Resolution 34-2013 Resolution 34-2013 $26.00/hour per court No Deposit $31.00/hour per court No Deposit $10.00 Flat Rate + $40.00 Refundable deposit $27.00/hour per court No Deposit $32.00/hour per court No Deposit No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 60 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Horseshoe Pits (reservations) Burlingame Residents Non-Residents Resolution 34-2013 Resolution 34-2013 $26.00/hour per court No Deposit $31.00/hour per court No Deposit $27.00/hour per court No Deposit $32.00/hour per court No Deposit Rental of Park Space for Private Classes (Exercise Boot Camps, Stroller Exercise Classes & Other Private Uses) Burlingame residents Non-residents Resolution No. 103- 2009 Resolution No. 103- 2009 $18.00 per hour $22.00 per hour $19.00 per hour $23.00 per hour Village Park Picnic Fee (3 tables) Burlingame residents Non-residents Resolution 24-2010 Resolution 24-2010 $105.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $142.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $109.00 Permit Fee No Deposit $147.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 61 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Non-Profit Community Groups Equipment Rental Fees Collapsible Picnic Table Tables Chairs Tents Risers – without wheels Risers – with wheels Resolution No. 32- 2009 $15.00 per table/per day $4.00 per table/per day $2.00 per chair/per day $20.00 per tent/per day $30.00 per riser/per day $50.00 per riser/per day $16.00 per table/per day $4.00 per table/per day $2.00 per chair/per day $21.00 per tent/per day $31.00 per riser/per day $52.00 per riser/per day Inflatable Jump House Washington Park Recreation Center Patio Resolution No. 27- 2011 Resolution No. 27- 2011 $105.00 Permit Fee No Deposit (Must be done in conjunction with a picnic permit) $105.00 Permit Fee No Deposit (Must be in conjunction with rental of Lounge II) $109.00 Permit Fee No Deposit (Must be done in conjunction with a picnic permit) $109.00 Permit Fee No Deposit (Must be in conjunction with rental of Lounge II) Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 62 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Wedding Ceremony Washington Park Rose Garden With Recreation Center Rental Resolution No. 27- 2011 Resolution No. 27- 2011 $105.00 residents $158.00 non- residents $53.00 residents $105.00 non- residents $109.00 residents $164.00 non- residents $55.00 residents $109.00 non- residents Photo Shoots in Parks Application Fee Rental Fee Per Day Student Photo Shoot Film Shoot in Parks Application Fee Commercial or Corporate Feature Film/Documentary Resolution No. 27- 2011 Resolution No. 27- 2011 $53.00 non- refundable fee $132.00 per day No Charge or application fee $309.00 non- refundable fee $420.00 per day $630.00 per day $55.00 non- refundable fee $137.00 per day No Change $320.00 non- refundable fee $435.00 per day $652.00 per day Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 63 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Brochure Ads 1/8 page 1/4 page 1/2 page Full page Full Page Inside Front Cover Full Page Inside Back Cover Full Page Back Cover Layout Discount for Non-Profits Resolution No. 27- 2011 1 issue/4 issues (1 year - 20% Discount) $73.00/$234.00 $146.00/$467.00 $293.00/$938.00 $585.00/$1,872.00 $788.00/$2,521.00 $735.00/$2,352.00 $876.00/$2,803.00 $75.00 per hour 25% resident groups 0% non-resident groups No Change $76.00/$242.00 $151.00/$483.00 $303.00/$971.00 $605.00/$1,938.00 $816.00/$2,609.00 $761.00/$2,434.00 $907.00/$2,901.00 $78.00 per hour No Change CLASSES Class Fees Resolution No. 31- 2003 To be set based on class provider and materials/facilities provided No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 64 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Registration Fees Resolution No. 24- 2010 $12.00 No Change Non-resident Fee on Classes Resolution No. 31- 2003 Add 20% to class fee rounded to nearest dollar No Change Senior discount – Burlingame residents age 65 and over Resolution No. 103- 2009 25% off class fee on classes held at Recreation Center No Change Senior discount – non-residents age 65 and over Resolution No. 31- 2003 Waive non- resident fee No Change Registration cancellation charge Resolution No. 33- 2008 $8.00 per class or event No Change TREE AND PARKS FEES Memorial tree plantings 15 gallon/24” box size Resolution No. 33- 2008 $200.00/$400.00 No Change Memorial Bench – Washington Park Memorial Bench – Bayside Park Resolution No. 27- 2011 $2,000.00 $2,200.00 $3,000.00 Additional street tree plantings 15 gallon/24” box size Resolution No. 32- 2009 $95.00/$250.00 $98.00/$258.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION Page 65 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Protected Tree Removal Application Fee Failure to Meet Replanting Requirements of Permit Resolution No. 33- 2008 $75.00 $1,200.00 No Change No Change Arborist’s plan review for landscaping requirements on planning applications (See also planning fee schedule) Resolution No. 33- 2008 $238.00 No Change Arborist check of construction plans and inspection of landscape requirements on building permit submittals Resolution No. 33- 2008 $238.00 No Change Appeal to City Council from Beautification Commission decision (does not include noticing costs) Resolution No. 33- 2008 $455.00 No Change Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33- 2008 $96.00 No Change Street Banner Hanger Resolution No. 24- 2010 $125.00 No Change Private Tree Emergency Work Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30) After Hours (Weekends & Holidays) $78.00 per hour $99.00 per hour No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule PLANNING Page 66 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PRE-APPLICATIONS Preliminary Plan Check, New Construction* Resolution No. 27-2011 $850.00 $880.00 Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel* Resolution No. 27-2011 $425.00 $440.00 Zoning Verification/Property Profile Letter $100.00 $103.00 APPLICATIONS Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before Planning Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building requests) Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,420.00 $1,470.00 Amendment/Extension of Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 $765.00 $792.00 Antenna Exception Fee Section 18.18.040 $3,000.00 $3,105.00 Appeal to Planning Commission of administratively approved permits/appeal to City Council of Planning Commission decisions Noticing to be charged separately Resolution No. 33-2008 $910.00 $942.00 *Fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. Proposed Master Fee Schedule PLANNING Page 67 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Legal Review-Substantive work by City Attorney for development projects requiring discretionary review before the Planning Commission under Title 25 Resolution No. 48-2015 $186.00/hour $193.00/hour Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,883.00 $1,949.00 Condominium Permit, 10 Units or Fewer Resolution No. 33-2008 $3,352.00 $3,469.00 Condominium Permit, 11 Units to 25 Units Resolution No. 33-2008 $3,937.00 $4,075.00 Condominium Permit, 26 Units to 50 Units $4,621.00 $4,783.00 Condominium Permit, 51 Units to 100 Units $5,426.00 $5,616.00 Condominium Permit, 101 Units and Greater $6,371.00 $6,594.00 Design Review, Addition Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,207.00 $1,249.00 Design Review, Amendment Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,042.00 $1,078.00 Design Review Deposit** Resolution No. 27-2006 $1,360.00 $1,408.00 Design Review – Handling Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 $529.00 $548.00 **Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing until actual time paid. Proposed Master Fee Schedule PLANNING Page 68 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Minor “FYI” Amendment to Approved Project – Applicant Initiated $402.00 $416.00 As-Built “FYI” Variation from Approved Project $1,482.00 $1,534.00 Design Review, New Construction – Single Family Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,206.00 $1,248.00 Design Review, New Construction – Multifamily Family Residential 25 Units or Fewer New Fee $1,872.00 Design Review, New Construction – Multifamily Family Residential 26 Units or Greater New Fee $2,496.00 Design Review, New Construction – Commercial, 5,000 Gross Square Feet or Less New Fee $1,248.00 Design Review, New Construction – Commercial, 5,001-10,000 Gross Square Feet New Fee $1,872.00 Design Review, New Construction – Commercial, 10,001 Gross Square Feet or Greater New Fee $2,496.00 Fence Exception Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,060.00 $1,097.00 Minor Modification Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,350.00 $1,397.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule PLANNING Page 69 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Hillside Area Construction Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,220.00 $2,298.00 Accessory Dwelling Unit Resolution No. 27-2011 $686.00 $710.00 Reasonable Accommodation Resolution No. 27-2011 $433.00 $448.00 General Plan Amendment/Re- zoning Resolution No. 27-2011 $7,220.00 $7,473.00 Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permit, Building Official Inspection Deposit Resolution No. 27-2011 $500.00 $517.00 Special Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $4,120.00 $4,264.00 Variance Resolution No 27-2011 $4,307.00 $4,458.00 Wireless Communications Administrative Use Permit Municipal Code Chapter 25.77 $1,914.00 $1,981.00 Plan Recheck Fee More than two revisions to plans Major redesign of project plans Resolution No. 32- 2009 Resolution No. 32- 2009 $699.00 $841.00 $723.00 $870.00 ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental, Categorical Exemption Resolution No. 27-2011 $117.00 $121.00 Environmental, Negative Declaration (R-1 and R-2) Resolution No. 27-2011 $6,069.00 $6,281.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule PLANNING Page 70 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Environmental, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or with a Responsible Agency Resolution No. 27-2011 Pass-through of actual contractor cost Pass-through of actual contractor cost, plus 10% of contract handling fee, deposit to be determined by Director of Community Development Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 31-2003 20% of contract, deposit to be determined by Director of Community Development Pass-through of actual contractor cost, plus 20% of contract handling fee, deposit to be determined by Director of Community Development Environmental Posting Fee, Mitigated Negative Declaration and EIR Resolution No. 27-2011 $830.00 $859.00 Fish & Game Fee for Negative Declaration, whether mitigated or not (pass-through fee) Fish & Game Code § 711.4 $2,280.75 $2,361.00 Fish & Game Fee for Environmental Impact Report (pass-through fee) Fish & Game Code § 711.4 $3,168.00 $3,279.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule PLANNING Page 71 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish & Game (pass-through fee) Fish & Game Code § 711.4 $50.00 $52.00 PARKS Arborist Review (when required) Resolution No. 33-2008 $238.00 $246.00 NOTICING Noticing, R-1 and R-2 Resolution No. 27-2011 $640.00 $662.00 Noticing, All Other Districts Resolution No. 27-2011 $640.00 $662.00 Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 $890.00 $921.00 Noticing, R-1 Design Study, Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 $890.00 $921.00 Noticing, Design Review, all other districts Resolution No. 27-2011 $890.00 $921.00 Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside Area Construction Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 $744.00 $770.00 Noticing, General Plan Amendment – Re-zoning Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,331.00 $1,378.00 Noticing, Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,331.00 $1,378.00 Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33-2008 $100.00 $103.00 Noticing, Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permit Resolution No. 61-2004 $64.00 $66.00 Proposed Master Fee Schedule PLANNING Page 72 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Noticing – Wireless Communications Municipal Code Chapter 25.77.120 $586.00 $607.00 Noticing – Replacement of Posted Sign $333.00 $345.00 Noticing – Design Review Yard Sign $546.00 $565.00 SIGNS 50 square feet or less Resolution No 27-2011 $250.00 $259.00 Over 50 SF and less than 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $356.00 $368.00 Over 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $410.00 $424.00 Sign Variance Resolution No. 27-2011 $3,029.00 $3,135.00 Removal of Illegal Sign Resolution No. 33-2008 $121.00 $125.00 PUBLICATIONS Zoning Map Resolution No. 32-2009 $5.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Page 73 The Bayfront Development Fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area on the east side of US 101. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1739 (2004), as amended, provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2019. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayfront Development Fee Office Restaurant Hotel Hotel, Extended Stay Office, Warehouse, Manufacturing Retail – Commercial Car Rental Commercial Recreation All Other Ord. No. 1739 (2004) $2,712.00/TSF $10,923.00/TSF $889.00/room $864.00/room $4,112.00/TSF $9,985.00/TSF $63,369.00/acre $19,666.00/acre $2,185.00 per p.m. peak hour trip as detailed by traffic study No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Page 74 North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fees are charged to all new construction and development within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1751 (2005) provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006, based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1 of each year. Adjustments to these fees will be included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2019. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fee Rollins Road Area of Benefit El Camino North Area of Benefit Multiple family dwelling or duplex Any use other than multiple family dwelling or duplex Ord. No. 1751 (2005) Ord. No. 1751 (2005) Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.62 per square foot of building $0.62 per square foot of building $0.78 per square foot of building No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Page 75 The Public Facilities Impact Fee is a general category of fees based on the uses, number of dwelling units and/or amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of a development project. The fees are committed to public improvement, public services, and community amenities affected by new development (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.80). The purpose of the fee is established upon approval of a permit for construction or reconstruction, and is intended for improvements in one or more of the following categories: • General Facilities & Equipment • Streets & Traffic • Libraries • Fire • Police • Storm Drainage • Parks & Recreation The establishing ordinance provides no annual escalator for the Public Facilities Impact Fee. Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per Dwelling Unit Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. of Building General $ 2,756 $ 1,636 $ 640 $ 930 $ 305 Library $ 2,383 $ 1,415 $ 478 $ 695 $ 228 Police $ 437 $ 259 $ 102 $ 147 $ 48 Parks $ 590 $ 350 $ 118 $ 172 $ 56 Traffic/Streets $ 1,573 $ 1,105 $ 1,810 $ 7,285 $ 1,146 Fire $ 642 $ 381 $ 248 $ 360 $ 118 Storm Drainage $ 781 $ 391 $ 442 $ 717 $ 628 Total Impact Fee: $ 9,162 $ 5,537 $3,838 $10,306 $2,529 Proposed Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Page 76 Commercial Development Impact Fees were adopted by the City Council in 2017-2018 to provide a dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. • Retail - $7.00 per square foot ($5.00 w/ prevailing wages) • Hotel - $12.00 per square foot ($10.00 w/ prevailing wages) • Office projects of 50,000 square feet or less - $18.00 per square foot ($15.00 w/ prevailing wages) • Office projects greater than 50,000 square feet - $25.00 per square foot ($20.00 w/ prevailing wages) Proposed Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Page 77 Residential Development Impact Fees are scheduled to be adopted by the City Council on April 1, to be effective June 1, 2019. The fees are to be used to increase, improve, and/or protect the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households. An “in-lieu” option is available where the developer chooses to provide an affordable unit or units on site. Impact Fee – Per Square Foot Base With Prevailing / Area Wage Rental Multifamily – 11 units and above Up to 50 du/ac $17.00 / sq ft $14.00 / sq ft 51-70 du/ac $20.00 / sq ft $17.00 / sq ft 71 du/ac and above $30.00 / sq ft $25.00 / sq ft For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) – 7 units and above $35.00 / sq ft $30.00 / sq ft Notes: 1. Rental Multifamily with total of 10 units or fewer are exempt. 2. For Sale Multifamily (Condominiums) with total of 6 units or fewer are exempt. 3. Rental projects that convert to condominiums within 10 years of completion of construction would be subject to the fee differential as a condition of conversion. The fee differential shall be based on the fee structure in place at the time of conversion to condominiums, minus the fees originally submitted at the time of construction. Proposed Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Page 78 Burlingame Avenue Parking In Lieu Fees are applicable only to commercial properties within Downtown Burlingame and are collected in those instances where a land-use requires additional parking, but the site cannot physically accommodate additional spaces. The fee is based upon a per- space, or portion thereof that is not being provided on the property. The funds are to remain in the City’s Parking fund to help defray the cost of building a City-owned and operated parking structure. The fees are updated annually based on the February Consumer Price Index – Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the San Francisco Area. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Fees Resolution 48-2000 $54,468.92 $56,258.68 Proposed Master Fee Schedule POLICE Page 79 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Vehicle Release Resolution No.32-2009 $150.00 $155.00 Police Reports Report Copies Resolution No.32-2009 Gov’t Code § 6253(b) $0.25 per page No Change Fingerprint Rolling Fee Live scan Fee Set by State of California Department of Justice $35.00 plus appropriate State Dept. of Justice and/or Federal processing fee No Change CD’s/DVD’s Containing Digital Files Resolution No.32-2009 $93.25 per CD/DVD $96.50 per CD/DVD Clearance Letter Resolution No. 32-2009 $27.00 $28.00 Repossessed Vehicle Gov’t Code § 41612 $15.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule POLICE Page 80 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Preferential Parking Permits (Residential Permit Parking Program) Issuance (up to 2 permits for same address) Annual renewal (up to 2 permits for same address) Charge for replacement of lost permit Resolution No. 22-2008 (Section 13.36.070) Resolution No. 22-2008 (Section 13.36.070) Resolution No. 22-2008 (Section 13.36.070) $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $57.00 $57.00 $57.00 Burlingame Avenue Downtown Area Parking Permits Section 13.32.020 $60.00/month $60.00/month Driving Under Influence (DUI) Fees Resolution No. 32-2009 Resolution No. 33-2007 Resolution No. 33-2007 Resolution No. 33-2007 $223.00 per hour $130.00 per blood test $48.00 per breath or urine test $130.00 per refused blood test $231.00 per hour $136.00 per blood test $50.00 per breath or urine test $136.00 per refused blood test Security Service (Outside Detail) (minimum charge of four hours) Resolution No. 33-2008 $140.00 per hour $145.00 per hour Proposed Master Fee Schedule POLICE Page 81 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Alarm Permit Application Fee Alarm Permits (Annual Renewal) Resolution No. 116-2003 (Section 10.10.110) Resolution No. 116-2003 (Section 10.10.110) $18.00 $32.00 per year No Change No Change False Alarm Charge 1 to 2 false alarms 3 to 5 false alarms 6 or more false alarms Any false alarm for which no alarm permit has been issued Resolution No. 116-2003 (Section 10.10.090) Resolution No. 116-2003 (Section 10.10.090) Resolution No. 28-2006 No Charge $50.00 each $100.00 each $50.00 (includes cost of alarm permit plus $18.00 initial application fee) No Change No Change No Change No Change Live Entertainment Permit Resolution No. 32-2009 (Sections 6.16.090 6.16.030) $580.00 $600.00 Single Event Entertainment Permit (Section 6.16.090) New Fee $103.00 Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.24.030) $617.00 for investigation plus fingerprinting fees $639.00 for investigation plus fingerprinting fees Proposed Master Fee Schedule POLICE Page 82 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Curb Painting Resolution No. 33-2007 $57.00 for investigation $59.00 for investigation Tanning Salon Application Sale or Transfer Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.42.060) Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.42.120) Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.42.160) $944.00 plus fingerprinting fees $864.00 plus fingerprinting fees $648.00 plus fingerprinting fees $977.00 plus fingerprinting fees $894.00 plus fingerprinting fees $671.00 plus fingerprinting fees Massage Operator Application Sale or Transfer Renewal Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 6.40.060) Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 6.40.120) Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 6.40.160) $1,221.00 plus fingerprinting fees $1,221.00 plus fingerprinting fees $765.00 plus fingerprinting fees $1,264.00 plus fingerprinting fees $1,264.00 plus fingerprinting fees $792.00 plus fingerprinting fees Proposed Master Fee Schedule POLICE Page 83 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Model/Escort Service Application Sale or Transfer Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.41.040) Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.41.100) Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.41.130) $1,036.00 plus fingerprinting fees $945.00 plus fingerprinting fees $648.00 plus fingerprinting fees $1,072.00 plus fingerprinting fees $978.00 plus fingerprinting fees $671.00 plus fingerprinting fees Private Patrol Company Application Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.44.050) Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.44.080) $347.00 plus fingerprinting fees $174.00 plus fingerprinting fees $359.00 plus fingerprinting fees $180.00 plus fingerprinting fees Taxi Operator Application Renewal Section 6.36.050 Section 6.36.190 Business license fee plus fingerprinting fees Business license fee plus fingerprinting fees No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule POLICE Page 84 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Taxi Driver Application Renewal Section 6.36.050 Section 6.36.190 $70.00 plus fingerprinting fees $64.00 plus fingerprinting fees $72.00 plus fingerprinting fees $66.00 plus fingerprinting fees Taxicab Annual Inspection Section 6.36.120 $80.00 per vehicle $83.00 per vehicle Valet Parking Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.30.040) $670.00 plus fingerprinting fees $693.00 plus fingerprinting fees Concealed Weapon Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,130.00 for investigation $1,170.00 for investigation Fortune Teller Resolution No. 41-2008 (Set by Section 6.38.060) $670.00 plus fingerprinting fees $693.00 plus fingerprinting fees Unruly Gathering Section 10.70.070 Cost of Hours of Officer Response No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule POLICE Page 85 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Special Events & Street Closing: Application and Permit Sidewalk Closure Road Closure Resolution No. 32-2009 $100.00 $100.00 per parcel/per day $200.00 per parcel/per day $103.00 $103.00 per parcel/per day $207.00 per parcel/per day Verification of non-resident “proof-of-correction” citations Resolution No. 90-2009 No Charge No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule SEWER Page 86 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SEWER CONNECTION FEES Single-family and Duplex Section 15.08.020 $264.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $266.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Multi-family Section 15.08.020 $201.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $204.00/unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Commercial/Retail Section 15.08.020 $420.00/thousand square feet (TSF) Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $425.00/thousand square feet (TSF) Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Office Section 15.08.020 $91.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $92.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Proposed Master Fee Schedule SEWER Page 87 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Warehouse Section 15.08.020 $118.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $119.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $1,040.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $1,050.00/TSF Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Hotel with Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $663.00/room Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $670.00/room Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Hotel without Restaurant Section 15.08.020 $410.00/room Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/18 $414.00/room Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/19 Proposed Master Fee Schedule SEWER Page 88 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES The fee covers two (2) samples; additional samples charged according to the Analytical Processing Fee Schedule below. Light Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $606.00 No Change Moderate Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $1,660.00 No Change Heavy Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $2,318.00 No Change Non-Conventional Discharger, Annual Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $1,239.00 No Change Groundwater Discharger Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Non-conventional Fee plus $6.98 per 1000 gallons discharged No Change Application Processing Fee Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $160.00 No Change ANALYTICAL FEES In-house Testing Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Cost No Change Contract Lab Testing Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Cost plus 15% No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule SEWER Page 89 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Single-family or duplex Ord. No. 1844-2010 Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) $12.25 per thousand gallons. Minimum charge $24.50 No Change Multi-family residential Ord. No. 1844-2010 Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012 ) $11.45 per thousand gallons No Change Restaurant, other commercial food-related uses Ord. No. 1844-2010 Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) $32.59 per thousand gallons No Change Heavy strength commercial Ord. No. 1844-2010 Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) $21.97 per thousand gallons No Change Light strength commercial Ord. No. 1844-2010 Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) $13.53 per thousand gallons No Change Institutional Ord. No. 1844-2010 Section 15.08.070 (Effective 1/1/2012) $4.80 per thousand gallons No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule SEWER Page 90 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE NEW CUSTOMERS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX CLASSIFICATION Number of Residents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more Section 15.08.072 (Effective 1/1/2012) $47.63 $59.26 $72.52 $85.78 $97.94 $101.44 $110.30 $128.46 $150.60 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule WATER Page 91 Water fees are set via a three year rate-setting cycle with an effective date of January 1. The following rates are effective January 1, 2019. SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE BI-MONTHLY CHARGE FOR METERS 5/8" and 3/4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $84.03 No Change 1" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $140.05 No Change 1 - ½" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $280.10 No Change 2" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $448.16 No Change 3" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $840.30 No Change 4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $1,400.50 No Change 6" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $2,801.00 No Change 8" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $4,481.60 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule WATER Page 92 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE WATER CONSUMPTION Single Family Residential Tiers Ord. No. 1880 (2017) Rates per thousand gallons Tier 1 (0-4,000 gal): $9.79 Tier 2 (4,001-8,000 gal): $10.98 Tier 3 (8,001- 16,000 gal): $12.18 Tier 4 (16,001- 24,000 gal): $13.38 Tier 5 (24,001 gal & above): $14.58 No Change Commercial/Multi- Family/Duplex/Other Ord. No. 1880 (2017) Effective Jan 1, 2019: $11.46 per thousand gallons No Change Water Service Turn-On 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., Monday thru Friday Saturday/Sunday/Holiday Ord. No. 1880 (2012) No Charge $20.00 $60.00 $60.00 No Change SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Proposed Master Fee Schedule WATER Page 93 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Penalty Fee (Past Due) Not paid within 30 days of billing Ord. No. 1880 (2012) 1.5% penalty No Change Service Renewal 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., Monday thru Friday Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $35.00 $45.00 $60.00 No Change Maintenance of Water in Fire Protection System Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $1.00 per month per inch of pipe diameter, with $2.00 minimum charge No Change Flow Test 5/8" through 1" 1 - ½" and 2" Over 2" Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 $80.00 $100.00 minimum (if over $100.00, cost of testing plus 15%) No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule WATER Page 94 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Temporary Water Service Meter charges (does not include water consumption) Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $750.00 deposit $43.00 per month for 1-inch meter $85.00 per month for three-inch meters No Change Water Service Turn-on Deposit if Delinquent on City Water Account in Previous 12 months Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 or 2 months estimated consumption, whichever is greater No Change Work on City Water System Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $60.00 permit $1,500.00 bond or deposit No Change Fire Flow Test Section 15.04.030 $242.00 per hydrant No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule WATER Page 95 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Water Line Installation 5/8" bypass meter 3/4" service with meter 1" service with meter 1 - ½ “ service with meter 2" service with meter If larger than 2" or a length of more than 60 feet Ord. No. 1805 (2007) Ord. No. 1805 (2007) Ord. No. 1805 (2007) Ord. No. 1805 (2007) Ord. No. 1805 (2007) Ord. No. 1805 (2006) $350.00 $4,100.00 $4,135.00 $5,280.00 $5,420.00 Cost plus 15% No Change Meter Upgrade To 3/4" meter or 1" meter (meter only) Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $254.00 No Change Proposed Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL Page 96 The City’s agreement with San Mateo County requires that animal control fees reflect the fees adopted by the County Board of Supervisors (S.M.C Ordinance No. 04628, approved July 24, 2012). These fees are subject to changes based on any future action by the County of San Mateo, and are available on-line at https://library.municode.com/ca/san_mateo_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6AN#! 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: 9b MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement Assessments for Fiscal Year 2019-20 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Broadway Area BID assessments; 2. End the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City; and, 3. If protests do not represent the majority of the assessments, then adopt the resolution setting the 2019-20 fiscal year assessments. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2019-20 fiscal year Broadway Area BID assessments on April 1, 2019 and established May 6, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing date and time. Notice of the public hearing was sent to owners of all businesses within the district during the week of April 8th. DISCUSSION Subsequent to the presentation of the Broadway Area BID Annual Report to the Council on April 1st, the BID Board provided the City with further detail into the year’s expenditures. The Broadway Business Improvement District Expenditures information is attached to this staff report. No changes in the boundaries, assessments, or business classifications of the business district are proposed. 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 staff report, the City had not received any protests, although 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. Broadway Area Business Improvement District Assessments May 6, 2019 2 FISCAL IMPACT Up to $28,400 in assessments is collected annually with City business licenses. All of these funds are forwarded to the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for improvements as authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID. Exhibits: • Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2019-20 Fiscal Year Assessments for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District and Determining that No Majority Protest Has Been Made • Broadway Area BID Assessment Roll (showing weight of protest votes) 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING AND LEVYING 2019-20 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame established the Broadway Area Business Improvement District (“BABID”) for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business district, and WHEREAS, the BABID Advisory Board has filed its annual report with the City Clerk and has requested the Burlingame City Council to set and levy the BABID assessments for the 2019-20 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2019, the Burlingame City Council approved the BABID’s annual report and adopted a Resolution of Intention to levy BABID assessments for the 2019-20 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame City Council set a public hearing to consider its levy of assessments on the businesses in the BABID for May 6, 2019, at 7:00 p.m, at the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, and said public hearing was duly noticed as required by State law; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on May 6, 2019 the Burlingame City Council received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons and any and all written protests presented by businesses within the BABID; and WHEREAS, the current level of assessments on businesses in the BABID will continue to be levied for the fiscal year 2019-20 so that improvements and programs may continue in the BABID; and WHEREAS, the BABID’s proposed activities and improvements, the proposed assessments and the boundaries of the District for the 2019-20 fiscal year are without change from those currently in place for the BABID; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: 1. All of the facts and assertions recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are true and correct. 2. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at or before the close of the public hearing on May 6, 2019, that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following. 2 3. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2019-20 fiscal year on businesses in the BABID as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for improvements and activities of the BABID. 4. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 5. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the BABID are set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein. ______________________________ Donna Colson, 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 on the 6th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ______________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT A Improvements and Activities to be Funded by the Levy of Assessments on Businesses in the Broadway Area Business Improvement District • BID funding/contribution to Burlingame Trolley. • Burlingame Pet Parade - September. • Halloween Trick-or-Treat Event - October. • Broadway Cheer Holiday Toy Drive with Central County Fire Department - December. • Install and maintain string lights on mature trees throughout the year. • Revamp and maintain Broadway website and promote events. • Revamp and maintain Pet Parade website and promote event. • Grow and maintain social media presence of the Broadway merchants (Facebook, Google). • Promote new & existing businesses on Facebook. • Advertise Broadway Business District on Google. • New Neighbor postcard marketing. • Plan Hotel Concierge Tour. • Merchant communication efforts such as door-to-door, email, calling in regards to downtown updates, parking updates, upcoming events, construction, planned power outages, road closures etc. (New merchants welcomed by BID President.) • Assist new merchants during planning and building phase/process having difficulties with local, county and state agencies. • Maintenance of 32 well lights at street corner bulb-outs illuminating corner trees. • Work with Boys Scouts to set up and remove American flags to celebrate patriotic holidays. • Educate businesses in regards to encroachment permits and illegal “A-Frames”. • Update Broadway Business Directory brochure for Burlingame Trolley. • Work with BCE to promote Broadway businesses by donating gift certificates for the Gala Online Auction. • Shop Small Business Saturday - November. • “Bike to Shop Day” event by County of San Mateo. • Communicate with City and City departments in resolving any and all issues to beautify, clean, maintain and make Broadway a safe environment to shop. • Encourage business owners to renew their outdated/dilapidated awnings with up to $500 subsidy from BID. • Implement and maintain new & existing businesses on Google Map. • Design and custom-make 10 bike racks with the Broadway Arch logo. • Hotel Book full-page advertising with Explorer Publishing. 4 EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RETAIL & RESTAURANT 4+ $450 1 - 3 $300 SERVICE 3+ $250 1 - 2 $150 PROFESSIONAL 3+ $200 1 - 2 $150 FINANCIAL NA $500 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time equivalency) including owners, partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010): Retail ❏ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, etc. Restaurant ❏ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❏ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❏ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❏ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, etc. Page 1 of 3 BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 LICENSE FEE #EMP NAME CONTACT ADDRESS Weight 32134 450.00$ 10 CAPPO MGMT IX, INC DBA OCEAN HONDA OF BURLINGAME JEFFREY E CAPPO 1070 BROADWAY 1.58% 29996 450.00$ 4 YANGON FRANK CHUNG WEI WANG 1136 BROADWAY 1.58% 18813 450.00$ 22 WALGREENS #06655-LICENSING WALGREEN CO 1160 BROADWAY 1.58% 30198 450.00$ 8 ROYAL DONUT CAFE, INC.VAUNG CHHUO 1165 BROADWAY 1.58% 14722 450.00$ 10 PRESTON'S CANDY & ICE CREAM IRENE PRESTON 1170 BROADWAY 1.58% 17378 450.00$ 5 WEIMAX CORPORATION WEIMAX CORPORATION 1178 BROADWAY 1.58% 31797 450.00$ 4 BROADWAY IZAKAYA INC FREDA KONG 1190 BROADWAY 1.58% 32126 450.00$ 5 YAPRAK DONER SIHEM SAADALI & SALIH GULER 1199 BROADWAY #1 1.58% 33066 450.00$ 4 LARA MEDITERRANEAN CUISINE RAZIYE MITCHELL 1199 BROADWAY #1 1.58% 32070 450.00$ 4 DUO ENTOURAGE LLC LUN-YUN CHENG 1199 BROADWAY #2 1.58% 29855 450.00$ 5 YOUNG CAN WOK CHINESE BISTRO YONG WANG & LEANNA WANG 1200 BROADWAY 1.58% 30410 450.00$ 18 VILLAGE HOST 1201 BROADWAY 1.58% 07979 450.00$ 40 YAKINIKU HOUSE JUBAN VLADIMIR R. GRAVE 1204 BROADWAY 1.58% 21407 450.00$ 12 RISTORANTE ROCCA ROCCA KURT'S BROTHERS, INC.1205 BROADWAY 1.58% 07373 450.00$ 6 IL PICCOLO CAFFE D ARMANINO 1219 BROADWAY 1.58% 30407 450.00$ 19 COFFEE HOUSE HOLDINGS INC CLARICE TURNER 1230 BROADWAY 1.58% 22678 450.00$ 6 MIVAN RESTAURANT FIKRET DEMIRKOL 1232 BROADWAY 1.58% 25714 450.00$ 6 BURLINGAME FARMERS MARKET TOM & ASHRAF GHISHAN 1236 BROADWAY 1.58% 22102 450.00$ 12 BIG JOE'S CAFE BIG JOE'S FOOD, INC.1251 BROADWAY 1.58% 23782 450.00$ 6 SUBWAY SANDWICH FAMILY FOOD, INC.1308 BROADWAY 1.58% 17948 450.00$ 18 BROADWAY PRIME TIANMAR INC 1316 BROADWAY 1.58% 05991 450.00$ 9 CAFE FIGARO CIHAN AKKAYA 1318 BROADWAY 1.58% 33000 450.00$ 7 BROADWAY CENTRO PIZZA ELIO D'URZO 1326 BROADWAY 1.58% 20029 450.00$ 7 REBARTS INTERIORS/HUNTER-DOUGLAS GALL BART T SAN DIEGO III 1352 BROADWAY 1.58% 21656 450.00$ 4 BROADWAY GRILL BRODWAY GRILL INC 1400 BROADWAY 1.58% 30656 450.00$ 4 DANELI SHOE COMPANY DBA FOOTWEAR ETC.ELIE MONARCH 1405 BROADWAY 1.58% 32699 450.00$ 4 BONNE SANTE BROADWAY LYONS ANGELOS PARTNERSHIP 1431 BROADWAY 1.58% 23883 300.00$ 2 ANGEL DANAE LLC DBA VISITING ANGELS KAREN LAWSON 1126 BROADWAY #7 1.06% 25676 300.00$ 3 HANANI & BSHARA INC HANAMI & BSHARA INC 1130 BROADWAY 1.06% 32961 300.00$ 3 BAYROOT LEBANESE CUISINE GMG CUISINE INC 1130 BROADWAY 1.06% 30384 300.00$ 1 LE CROISSANT CAFE LEANGHOR BOU 1151 BROADWAY 1.06% 30004 300.00$ 1 SUTTERFIELD CONSIGNMENT GREGORY P. HOLTMANN 1174 BROADWAY 1.06% 32188 300.00$ 2 ISTANBUL MARKET SF EVSEM INC 1199 BROADWAY #3 1.06% 28059 300.00$ 1 BURLINGAME LAGUNA FLORIST & GIFTS RUTH DUL 1202 BROADWAY 1.06% CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA Page 2 of 3 BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 LICENSE FEE #EMP NAME CONTACT ADDRESS Weight CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA 26637 300.00$ 1 I WIRELESS INC I WIRELESS INC.1212 BROADWAY 1.06% 20651 300.00$ 1 BELLA BOTTEGA LYNN ENEA 1233 BROADWAY 1.06% 27642 300.00$ 2 POT-POURRI ANTHONY DIEZ 1235 BROADWAY 1.06% 11683 300.00$ 2 NUTS FOR CANDY NOURIJAN & NORA KEVRANIAN 1241 BROADWAY 1.06% 12486 300.00$ 2 MR. Z'S CAMINO COMPANY, LLC 1301 BROADWAY 1.06% 22412 300.00$ 3 CAMINO COMPANY CO.CAMINO COMPANY, LLC.1301 BROADWAY 1.06% 09905 300.00$ 1 WILLIAM WARMBOE ANTIQUES WILLIAM WARMBOE 1305 BROADWAY 1.06% 30427 300.00$ 3 BEHAN'S "AN IRISH PUB"GERARD MITCHELL 1327 BROADWAY 1.06% 31591 300.00$ 3 SESAME KOREAN CUISINE SOO YOUNG KIM 1355 BROADWAY 1.06% 28956 300.00$ 1 GIGI'S BOUTIQUE REGINA AND WILLIAM FRANCIS 1365 BROADWAY 1.06% 33182 300.00$ 2 ARCH IN BUZZ INC DBA BURLINGAME LIQUORS ARCH IN BUZZ INC.1408 BROADWAY 1.06% 13026 300.00$ 3 DOLAN'S WINDOWS AND DOORS DOLAN'S OF CONCORD INC 1410 BROADWAY 1.06% 27389 300.00$ 1 SHELTER DESIGN BUILD JEFFREY WONG 1433 BROADWAY 1.06% 31389 300.00$ 1 TRIBAL WEAVE STUDIO PARNIAN RAHMATI 1452 BROADWAY 1.06% 42339 300.00$ 1 ALL THAT GLITTERS ISABELLE DE PAZ 1454 BROADWAY 1.06% 29585 250.00$ 3 A&A GAS & MART GHULAM ALI 1100 BROADWAY 0.88% 07232 250.00$ 6 CHEVRON STATIONS INC. #1504 CHEVRON STATIONS INC 1101 BROADWAY 0.88% 32336 250.00$ 5 EPRINTS & DOCUMENT SERVICES S SHARABIANLOU 1120 BROADWAY 0.88% 17408 250.00$ 3 TUNISS COMPUTER OSAMA ABBOUSHI 1124 BROADWAY 0.88% 20765 250.00$ 3 TRENZ SALON L PUDLO-CORIC / D CHIOLO 1211 BROADWAY 0.88% 30272 250.00$ 4 MANI PEDI SPA HUONG T BUI 1224 BROADWAY 0.88% 33037 250.00$ 4 K SPA PAN ZHANG & QIONG ZHENG 1247 BROADWAY 0.88% 30348 250.00$ 5 PPW 1300 BROADWAY, LLC.PPW 1300 BROADWAY, LLC 1300 BROADWAY 0.88% 29478 250.00$ 4 SPA ELYSEE ANTHONY PHAM 1360 BROADWAY 0.88% 28773 250.00$ 3 NABI SALON, INC SU BLACKMUN 1361 BROADWAY 0.88% 28811 250.00$ 4 FOCUS-N-FLY, INC.THOMAS MCGLYNN 1425 BROADWAY #7 0.88% 31934 250.00$ 7 PAWSITIVELY GROOMED LLC CARLOS CHAVES 1427 BROADWAY 0.88% 22681 250.00$ 5 R & M BROADWAY 76 INC ROGER & MAHER ABUYAGHI 1480 BROADWAY 0.88% 22244 150.00$ 1 CHEVRON USA (PA) 91909 CHEVRON U.S.A.1101 BROADWAY 0.53% 06003 150.00$ 1 GATEWAYS TO THE WORLD D. & G. GROEBNER 1122 BROADWAY 0.53% 31649 150.00$ 1 DPPM, INC DBA ZEPHYR REAL ESTATE ZEPHYR REAL ESTATE 1126 BROADWAY #8 0.53% 32923 150.00$ 1 LUSH LYFE STUDIO THUY LAN THI CAO 1134 BROADWAY 0.53% 17348 150.00$ 1 ON BROADWAY ANOUSH HOVANESSIAN 1163 BROADWAY 0.53% 21324 150.00$ 2 BROADWAY REALTY GARBIS / MAIDA BEZDJIAN 1199 BROADWAY #5 0.53% Page 3 of 3 BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 LICENSE FEE #EMP NAME CONTACT ADDRESS Weight CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA 13277 150.00$ 1 BROADWAY CLEANERS PANDORA LAI 1234 BROADWAY 0.53% 13181 150.00$ 1 BRIAN FORNESI INSURANCE AGENT BRIAN FORNESI 1243 BROADWAY 0.53% 08621 150.00$ 1 CHIC AZITA FATEMI 1249 BROADWAY 0.53% 16449 150.00$ 1 BELLALUNA - AVON PRODUCTS LINDA BULLIS 1310 BROADWAY 0.53% 22587 150.00$ 2 YOUR CLEANERS SO YOUNG PAIK 1321 BROADWAY 0.53% 24114 150.00$ 1 BURLINGAME SHOES AND REPAIR SAL SULEYMAN KILIC 1323 BROADWAY 0.53% 09412 150.00$ 1 ADAMS FINE TAILORING ADEM ARPACI 1324 BROADWAY 0.53% 29603 150.00$ 1 COSMO NAIL & BEAUTY SPA TRAM HUYEN THI TRAN 1359 BROADWAY 0.53% 18408 150.00$ 1 ANNE H HINCKLE ANNE H HINCKLE 1425 BROADWAY #2 0.53% 22626 150.00$ 1 MARK PLANTE CONSULTING MARK PLANTE 1425 BROADWAY #3 0.53% 23462 150.00$ 1 ERIN PENSINGER ERIN PENSINGER 1425 BROADWAY #5 0.53% 08225 150.00$ 1 HJS PROP. & INVEST./ SECURED ASSET MGT HANK SAUER 1425 BROADWAY #12 0.53% 09760 150.00$ 2 JML AUTO REPAIR JOHNNY GARCIA 1480 BROADWAY 0.53% 32794 150.00$ 1 ECONOMY SMOG CHECK LLC JONATHAN JUSTICE 1480 BROADWAY 0.53% 33175 150.00$ 1 GROOMINGDALES ANTHONY MARK OLIVEIRA 1130 CHULA VISTA AVE 0.53% 24018 150.00$ 1 DYLAN SALON DYLAN PHAM 1199 CHULA VISTA AVE 0.53% 17316 200.00$ 3 BROADWAY EYE CENTER DR ANDREW SOSS 1159 BROADWAY 0.70% 14434 200.00$ 3 A.V.R. REALTY, INC.A V R REALTY 1169 BROADWAY 0.70% 13602 150.00$ 2 T C KITA, O.D.T C KITA, O.D.1322 BROADWAY 0.53% 22599 150.00$ 1 JIM RUTHERFORD CONSULTATION JIM RUTHERFORD 1425 BROADWAY #4 0.53% 17010 150.00$ 2 PENINSULA ACUPUNCTURE CENTER INC HUI LIN - HO WAI CHEUNG 1425 BROADWAY #8 0.53% 24282 150.00$ 1 FAMILY INVESTMENTS MAHMOUD OLOUMI 1425 BROADWAY STE 16 0.53% 10050 150.00$ 1 CELEBRITY CONNECTION WILLIAM LASKEY 1425 BROADWAY #19 0.53% 11918 150.00$ 1 TRIO CONSULTING SUZANNE GRILL 1425 BROADWAY #20 0.53% 23961 150.00$ 1 EMILY KOEL, PHD EMILY KOEL 1425 BROADWAY #22 0.53% 28243 150.00$ 1 FARMERS INSURANCE CRAIG DELLINGES 1425 BROADWAY #23 0.53% 08831 500.00$ 16 WELLS FARGO BANK NA 1145 BROADWAY 1.76% 17390 500.00$ 3 STERLING BANK & TRUST FSB SELIGMAN & ASSOCIATES 1210 BROADWAY 1.76% 25833 500.00$ 6 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.1188 EL CAMINO REAL 1.76% 28,400.00$ 100.00% 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9c MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Prohibiting Retaliation for Smoking Complaints RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider the introduction of an ordinance amending Section 8.18.090 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to broaden prohibitions on retaliation for persons making complaints of illegal smoking. In order to do so, the Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION Burlingame’s current smoking regulations, located in Chapter 8.18 of the Municipal Code, contain a prohibition on discrimination or retaliation by employers for making complaints regarding illegal smoking. Since that provision was enacted, the City Council has amended the Code to extend smoking prohibitions to multi-family housing and has increased the number of public locations where smoking is prohibited. Rental tenants, in particular, may be vulnerable to or afraid of retaliation in this tight rental market and may be reluctant to come forward with complaints. The proposed code amendment would prohibit retaliation and discrimination broadly, including in the housing context as well as in other circumstances where a manager or other person or entity in authority may retaliate for smoking complaints. The proposed amendment recognizes a carve-out for malicious prosecution and defamatory statements, in the rare circumstance where a complaint is made in bad faith in order to harass or defame another person. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City General Fund. Exhibit: • Proposed Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 8.18.090 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING COMPLAINTS OF ILLEGAL SMOKING WHEREAS, Chapter 8.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code contains numerous regulations regarding smoking, enacted to preserve the public health and welfare; and WHEREAS, existing Section 8.18.090 is designed to protect current and prospective employees from discrimination or retaliation for making complaints of illegal smoking , by stating “[n]o person shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant exercises any rights afforded by this chapter;” and WHEREAS, the City has a complaint-based code enforcement program, which relies on the public to indicate areas needing enforcement; and WHEREAS, good faith attempts to protect oneself or other members of the public from the negative health effects of prohibited smoking should not be discouraged; and WHEREAS, Section 8.18.090 can be broadened to provide greater protections for those complaining of illegal smoking; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Section 8.19.090 is amended as follows: Existing Section 8.18.090 is re-titled as follows: “8.18.090 Nondiscrimination and Prohibition on Retaliation.” The text of Section 8.18.090 is amended to add the following at the end of the existing statutory language: “Further, no landlord, property manager, homeowners’ association, business manager, or other person in authority shall discriminate or retaliate against any person for making a complaint to the person or entity in authority, the city’s code enforcement or police departments, or to the County Health Department, regarding alleged violations of this Chapter, unless such complaints have been determined by a competent court to be defamatory or malicious prosecution. Discrimination or retaliation against persons making complaints regarding alleged violations of this Chapter shall themselves be deemed a violation of the Municipal Code and shall be punishable and enforceable under its provisions.” 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. _________________________________ Donna Colson, 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 6th day of May, 2019, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10a MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the City Attorney’s Employment Agreement to Provide a Salary Increase, and Approving the City of Burlingame Pay Rates and Ranges (Salary Schedule) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to City Attorney Kathleen Kane’s employment agreement to increase her salary by 3% effective with her anniversary date with the City, and authorizing the City of Burlingame pay rates and ranges for employees (salary schedule). BACKGROUND City Attorney Kathleen Kane began her service with the City of Burlingame on April 1, 2013. On April 15, 2019, the City Council met with Ms. Kane in closed session to review her performance after her sixth year in office. Per Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, Ms. Kane receives the same benefits provided to City Department Heads. DISCUSSION Following their evaluation of her performance, Ms. Kane left the closed session, and the Council thereafter discussed her compensation. In recognition of Ms. Kane’s positive performance evaluation, the City Council discussed at the April 15 closed session a proposal to increase the City Attorney’s salary by 3%, the same percentage increase that the Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees received. In order to increase her salary, Section 5 of the employment agreement must be amended to increase the monthly salary from $18,812.48 per month to $19,376.88 per month effective with her anniversary date with the City. Per Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, Ms. Kane is provided the same benefits as the City Department Heads. The Department Head and Unrepresented Compensation and Benefit Plan adopted by the Council on December 3, 2018 provides for a 1% City contribution to a Post-Employment Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) account. Per Paragraph 7, Ms. Kane receives this same benefit. The language of Paragraph 7 needs to be City Attorney Employment Agreement Amendment May 6, 2019 2 amended, for clarity, to include Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) as one of the listed benefits. The proposed increase requires 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. FISCAL IMPACT The financial impact to the current fiscal year is approximately $2,300. The City Attorney’s Office budget can absorb this amount using existing funds. Exhibits: • Resolution • Sixth Amendment to City Attorney's Employment Agreement • City of Burlingame Salary Schedule RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A COST OF LIVING SALARY INCREASE OF 3%, AND REVISIONS TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SALARY SCHEDULE WHEREAS, City Attorney Kathleen Kane began her service with the City on April 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted performance evaluations for Ms. Kane upon completion of each year with the City, all of which have been positive; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined, following its evaluation on April 15, 2019, that a salary increase of 3% was warranted in recognition of Ms. Kane’s successful performance, effective with her anniversary date with the City; and WHEREAS, adjustments to the benefits provided to the City Department Heads, to add a 1% City contribution to a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), requires an adjustment to the benefits provided to Ms. Kane; and WHEREAS, all other terms and conditions of Ms. Kane’s employment are to remain as provided in her original employment agreement together with its applicable amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule has been revised in accordance with this action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame authorizes the Mayor to execute the attached Sixth Amendment to Ms. Kane’s City Attorney Employment Agreement, to increase Ms. Kane’s gross salary by 3%, effective with her anniversary date with the City, and to add Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) to Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, and leaving all other terms and conditions of employment as provided in the City Attorney Employment Agreement, and authorizes and adopts the City of Burlingame Salary Schedule. Donna Colson, 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 6th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND KATHLEEN KANE FOR EMPLOYMENT AS CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME This amendment is entered into this day of May, 2019, by and between the City of Burlingame, a Municipal Corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, herein called the "City," and Kathleen Kane ("Ms. Kane"), as follows: RECITALS: A. Ms. Kane is currently serving as City Attorney for the City of Burlingame pursuant to that contract denominated "Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and Kathleen Kane for Employment as City Attorney of the City of Burlingame" ("Employment Agreement"), entered into on March 4, 2013. B. Ms. Kane has successfully completed her sixth year with the City. Based on her successful completion of her sixth year, the City Council determined that her salary should be increased by 3.0%, from $18,812.48 per month to $19,376.88per month, effective with her anniversary date with the City. C. Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement, states that Ms. Kane shall be provided with the same benefits as the City Department Heads. The City has agreed to provide a contribution to a Post-Employment Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) account for the City Department Heads, effective the first pay period of January 2019. This contribution shall also be provided to Ms. Kane. D. Both parties are amenable to this change and desire that all other terms and conditions of the existing Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Paragraph 5, Monthly Compensation, of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to provide that the City shall pay Ms. Kane a salary of $19,376.88 per month. 2. Paragraph 7, Employment Benefits, of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to include Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). 3. All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Ms. Kane have executed this Amendment as of the date indicated above. CITY OF BURLINGAME KATHLEEN KANE Donna Colson, Mayor Attest: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 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 $16,097.56 $16,899.35 BIWEEKLY $7,429.64 $7,799.70 HRLY.RATE $92.87 $97.50 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 D502 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $11,973.87 $12,572.56 $13,201.19 $13,861.25 $14,554.31 BIWEEKLY $5,526.40 $5,802.72 $6,092.86 $6,397.50 $6,717.37 HRLY.RATE $69.08 $72.53 $76.16 $79.97 $83.97 D106 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ ADMIN. SVCS. DIRECTOR MONTHLY $12,946.92 $13,579.01 $14,260.30 $14,966.19 $15,723.70 City of Burlingame Salary Schedule Amended 5/6/19 BIWEEKLY $5,975.50 $6,267.24 $6,581.68 $6,907.47 $7,257.09 HRLY.RATE $74.69 $78.34 $82.27 $86.34 $90.71 A605 ASSISTANT ENGINEER MONTHLY $7,555.45 $7,924.06 $8,299.63 $8,735.48 $9,178.28 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 $7,350.95 $7,718.52 $8,104.43 $8,509.65 $8,935.16 BIWEEKLY $3,392.75 $3,562.39 $3,740.51 $3,927.53 $4,123.92 HRLY.RATE $42.41 $44.53 $46.76 $49.09 $51.55 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 $12,671.59 $13,309.99 $13,950.92 $14,665.31 $15,399.97 BIWEEKLY $5,848.43 $6,143.07 $6,438.89 $6,768.61 $7,107.68 HRLY.RATE $73.11 $76.79 $80.49 $84.61 $88.85 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 $10,860.28 $11,399.87 $11,962.28 $12,550.00 $13,173.19 BIWEEKLY $5,012.44 $5,261.48 $5,521.05 $5,792.31 $6,079.93 HRLY.RATE $62.66 $65.77 $69.01 $72.40 $76.00 D102 CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $19,376.88 BIWEEKLY $8,943.17 HRLY.RATE $111.79 D109 CITY CLERK MONTHLY $8,886.84 $9,274.42 $9,730.44 $10,199.09 $10,700.68 BIWEEKLY $4,101.62 $4,280.50 $4,490.97 $4,707.27 $4,938.78 HRLY.RATE $51.27 $53.51 $56.14 $58.84 $61.73 B602 CITY ENGINEER MONTHLY $11,522.67 $12,107.19 $12,691.67 $13,343.98 $14,009.36 BIWEEKLY $5,318.16 $5,587.94 $5,857.69 $6,158.76 $6,465.86 HRLY.RATE $66.48 $69.85 $73.22 $76.98 $80.82 D801 CITY LIBRARIAN MONTHLY $13,388.54 $14,097.85 $14,809.70 $15,551.98 $16,309.41 BIWEEKLY $6,179.32 $6,506.70 $6,835.25 $7,177.84 $7,527.42 HRLY.RATE $77.24 $81.33 $85.44 $89.72 $94.09 D200 CITY MANAGER MONTHLY $20,721.55 BIWEEKLY $9,563.79 HRLY.RATE $119.55 B103 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,232.97 $7,593.10 $7,974.02 $8,370.64 $8,790.75 BIWEEKLY $3,338.29 $3,504.51 $3,680.32 $3,863.37 $4,057.27 HRLY.RATE $41.73 $43.81 $46.00 $48.29 $50.72 D110 CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER AND SENIOR RISK ANALYST MONTHLY $7,770.17 $8,125.97 $8,534.30 $8,956.95 $9,405.87 0.9 FTE (36 hours/week )BIWEEKLY $3,586.23 $3,750.45 $3,938.91 $4,133.98 $4,341.17 HRLY.RATE $44.83 $46.88 $49.24 $51.67 $54.26 T900 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER I MONTHLY $6,054.40 $6,327.07 $6,628.83 $6,938.59 $7,280.09 BIWEEKLY $2,794.33 $2,920.18 $3,059.46 $3,202.42 $3,360.04 HRLY.RATE $34.93 $36.50 $38.25 $40.03 $42.00 T901 COMMUNICATION DISPATCHER II MONTHLY $6,353.52 $6,631.50 $6,959.76 $7,280.09 $7,653.35 BIWEEKLY $2,932.40 $3,060.69 $3,212.19 $3,360.04 $3,532.31 HRLY.RATE $36.66 $38.26 $40.15 $42.00 $44.15 D108 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,500.00 $14,171.30 $14,883.17 $15,627.95 $16,405.69 BIWEEKLY $6,230.77 $6,540.60 $6,869.15 $7,212.90 $7,571.86 HRLY.RATE $77.88 $81.76 $85.86 $90.16 $94.65 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 $11,600.13 $12,182.68 $12,789.18 $13,432.86 $14,097.85 BIWEEKLY $5,353.91 $5,622.78 $5,902.70 $6,199.78 $6,506.70 HRLY.RATE $66.92 $70.28 $73.78 $77.50 $81.33 B107 DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR MONTHLY $10,320.69 $10,837.49 $11,379.61 $11,944.52 $12,544.94 BIWEEKLY $4,763.39 $5,001.92 $5,252.13 $5,512.85 $5,789.97 HRLY.RATE $59.54 $62.52 $65.65 $68.91 $72.37 D501 DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY MONTHLY $8,585.20 $9,014.46 $9,465.18 $9,938.44 $10,435.36 BIWEEKLY $3,962.40 $4,160.52 $4,368.55 $4,586.97 $4,816.32 HRLY.RATE $49.53 $52.01 $54.61 $57.34 $60.20 D600 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MONTHLY $14,275.18 $14,987.03 $15,739.42 $16,524.76 $17,353.17 BIWEEKLY $6,588.55 $6,917.09 $7,264.35 $7,626.81 $8,009.15 HRLY.RATE $82.36 $86.46 $90.80 $95.34 $100.11 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 $8,161.92 $8,532.42 $8,965.57 $9,406.54 $9,878.84 BIWEEKLY $3,767.04 $3,938.04 $4,137.96 $4,341.48 $4,559.46 HRLY.RATE $47.09 $49.23 $51.72 $54.27 $56.99 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 $6,500.47 $6,796.84 $7,146.45 $7,503.66 $7,881.10 BIWEEKLY $3,000.22 $3,137.00 $3,298.36 $3,463.23 $3,637.43 HRLY.RATE $37.50 $39.21 $41.23 $43.29 $45.47 B900 FACILITIES DIVISION MANAGER MONTHLY $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71 BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40 HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97 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 $14,145.98 $14,852.77 $15,589.96 $16,375.29 $17,191.02 BIWEEKLY $6,528.92 $6,855.13 $7,195.36 $7,557.83 $7,934.32 HRLY.RATE $81.61 $85.69 $89.94 $94.47 $99.18 B606 FLEET MANAGER MONTHLY $8,498.50 $8,929.04 $9,372.60 $9,839.68 $10,330.22 BIWEEKLY $3,922.38 $4,121.09 $4,325.82 $4,541.39 $4,767.79 HRLY.RATE $49.03 $51.51 $54.07 $56.77 $59.60 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 $7,612.57 $7,995.12 $8,377.65 $8,805.77 $9,249.11 BIWEEKLY $3,513.49 $3,690.06 $3,866.61 $4,064.20 $4,268.82 HRLY.RATE $43.92 $46.13 $48.33 $50.80 $53.36 D805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR MONTHLY $13,317.57 $14,024.36 $14,728.63 $15,465.81 $16,225.81 BIWEEKLY $6,146.57 $6,472.78 $6,797.83 $7,138.07 $7,488.83 HRLY.RATE $76.83 $80.91 $84.97 $89.23 $93.61 D400 HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN MONTHLY $5,792.17 $6,065.18 $6,362.78 $6,680.05 $7,029.30 BIWEEKLY $2,673.31 $2,799.31 $2,936.67 $3,083.10 $3,244.29 HRLY.RATE $33.42 $34.99 $36.71 $38.54 $40.55 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 $7,833.12 $8,224.54 $8,621.14 $9,067.35 $9,510.92 BIWEEKLY $3,615.28 $3,795.94 $3,978.99 $4,184.93 $4,389.65 HRLY.RATE $45.19 $47.45 $49.74 $52.31 $54.87 A804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I MONTHLY $4,319.06 $4,543.93 $4,766.49 $4,986.74 $5,248.71 BIWEEKLY $1,993.41 $2,097.20 $2,199.92 $2,301.57 $2,422.48 HRLY.RATE $24.92 $26.22 $27.50 $28.77 $30.28 A803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II MONTHLY $4,819.82 $5,033.10 $5,304.35 $5,543.14 $5,814.38 BIWEEKLY $2,224.53 $2,322.97 $2,448.16 $2,558.37 $2,683.56 HRLY.RATE $27.81 $29.04 $30.60 $31.98 $33.54 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 $6,178.85 $6,471.07 $6,776.35 $7,131.22 $7,459.98 BIWEEKLY $2,851.77 $2,986.65 $3,127.55 $3,291.33 $3,443.07 HRLY.RATE $35.65 $37.33 $39.10 $41.14 $43.04 B805 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $9,132.56 $9,599.62 $10,074.50 $10,580.73 $11,128.67 BIWEEKLY $4,215.03 $4,430.59 $4,649.77 $4,883.42 $5,136.31 HRLY.RATE $52.69 $55.38 $58.12 $61.04 $64.20 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 $7,770.50 $8,125.36 $8,535.04 $8,957.74 $9,406.54 BIWEEKLY $3,586.38 $3,750.17 $3,939.25 $4,134.34 $4,341.48 HRLY.RATE $44.83 $46.88 $49.24 $51.68 $54.27 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 $13,388.54 $14,097.85 $14,809.70 $15,551.98 $16,309.41 BIWEEKLY $6,179.32 $6,506.70 $6,835.25 $7,177.84 $7,527.42 HRLY.RATE $77.24 $81.33 $85.44 $89.72 $94.09 B410 PARKS SUPERINTENDENT/CITY ARBORIST MONTHLY $9,586.03 $10,082.55 $10,574.03 $11,108.55 $11,683.61 BIWEEKLY $4,424.32 $4,653.48 $4,880.32 $5,127.02 $5,392.44 HRLY.RATE $55.30 $58.17 $61.00 $64.09 $67.41 B420 PARKS SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,846.17 $8,245.38 $8,660.27 $9,096.05 $9,657.04 BIWEEKLY $3,621.31 $3,805.56 $3,997.05 $4,198.18 $4,457.10 HRLY.RATE $45.27 $47.57 $49.96 $52.48 $55.71 B430 PARKS SUPERVISOR/CITY ARBORIST MONTHLY $8,036.66 $8,451.55 $8,869.04 $9,310.01 $9,884.05 BIWEEKLY $3,709.23 $3,900.72 $4,093.40 $4,296.93 $4,561.87 HRLY.RATE $46.37 $48.76 $51.17 $53.71 $57.02 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 $13,249.21 $13,902.79 $14,607.03 $15,139.04 $16,091.57 BIWEEKLY $6,115.02 $6,416.67 $6,741.71 $6,987.25 $7,426.88 HRLY.RATE $76.44 $80.21 $84.27 $87.34 $92.84 B111 PLANNING MANAGER MONTHLY $10,498.02 $11,022.42 $11,569.60 $12,149.74 $12,760.25 BIWEEKLY $4,845.24 $5,087.27 $5,339.81 $5,607.57 $5,889.34 HRLY.RATE $60.57 $63.59 $66.75 $70.09 $73.62 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 $12,640.84 $13,254.43 $13,834.06 $14,515.57 $15,219.73 BIWEEKLY $5,834.24 $6,117.43 $6,384.95 $6,699.50 $7,024.49 HRLY.RATE $72.93 $76.47 $79.81 $83.74 $87.81 D201 POLICE CHIEF MONTHLY $15,424.59 $16,193.62 $17,001.38 $17,842.65 $18,740.75 BIWEEKLY $7,119.04 $7,473.98 $7,846.79 $8,235.07 $8,649.58 HRLY.RATE $88.99 $93.42 $98.08 $102.94 $108.12 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 $10,816.43 $11,354.89 $11,924.06 $12,519.20 $13,145.04 BIWEEKLY $4,992.20 $5,240.72 $5,503.41 $5,778.09 $6,066.94 HRLY.RATE $62.40 $65.51 $68.79 $72.23 $75.84 P200 POLICE OFFICER MONTHLY $7,474.68 $7,885.61 $8,242.22 $8,676.76 $9,090.06 BIWEEKLY $3,449.85 $3,639.51 $3,804.10 $4,004.66 $4,195.41 HRLY.RATE $43.12 $45.49 $47.55 $50.06 $52.44 P201 POLICE OFFICER TRAINEE MONTHLY $7,193.79 BIWEEKLY $3,320.21 HRLY.RATE $41.50 M201 POLICE SERGEANT MONTHLY $9,080.61 $9,510.43 $9,982.77 $10,490.52 $11,024.26 BIWEEKLY $4,191.05 $4,389.43 $4,607.43 $4,841.78 $5,088.12 HRLY.RATE $52.39 $54.87 $57.59 $60.52 $63.60 B201 POLICE SERVICES MANAGER MONTHLY $8,986.56 $9,435.89 $9,907.70 $10,403.08 $10,923.24 BIWEEKLY $4,147.64 $4,355.03 $4,572.78 $4,801.42 $5,041.50 HRLY.RATE $51.85 $54.44 $57.16 $60.02 $63.02 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 $9,132.56 $9,602.24 $10,074.50 $10,585.95 $11,131.29 BIWEEKLY $4,215.03 $4,431.80 $4,649.77 $4,885.82 $5,137.52 HRLY.RATE $52.69 $55.40 $58.12 $61.07 $64.22 B700 RECREATION SUPERVISOR MONTHLY $7,689.61 $8,088.83 $8,461.99 $8,905.55 $9,349.14 BIWEEKLY $3,549.05 $3,733.30 $3,905.53 $4,110.26 $4,314.99 HRLY.RATE $44.36 $46.67 $48.82 $51.38 $53.94 B106 SENIOR ACCOUNTANT MONTHLY $7,079.05 $7,449.57 $7,846.17 $8,255.84 $8,691.62 BIWEEKLY $3,267.26 $3,438.26 $3,621.31 $3,810.39 $4,011.52 HRLY.RATE $40.84 $42.98 $45.27 $47.63 $50.14 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 $10,972.12 $11,520.08 $12,099.34 $12,702.08 $13,341.36 BIWEEKLY $5,064.05 $5,316.96 $5,584.31 $5,862.50 $6,157.55 HRLY.RATE $63.30 $66.46 $69.80 $73.28 $76.97 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 $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71 BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40 HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97 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 $8,694.21 $9,129.94 $9,586.59 $10,066.69 $10,567.71 BIWEEKLY $4,012.71 $4,213.82 $4,424.58 $4,646.16 $4,877.40 HRLY.RATE $50.16 $52.67 $55.31 $58.08 $60.97 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 SUPERVIS 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 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 Amended 12/24/187 3% salary increase Department Head and Unrepresented Unit, AFSCME BAMM, 5% salary increase POA, Police Sergeants, Police Sergeants, Police Administrators Units, per applicable MOUs 4% salary increase City Manager, per employment agreement Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase Teamsters Unit, effective 12/24/2018 Amended 3/13/19 classification and compensation revisions Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E C100 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT $32.50 $34.08 $35.76 $37.45 $39.26 C500 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $51.85 $54.43 $57.16 $60.02 $63.02 C112 ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS $73.11 $76.79 $80.49 $84.61 $88.85 C601 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN $25.17 $26.42 $27.74 $19.13 $30.58 C705 BUILDING ATTENDANT $18.21 $19.10 $20.12 $21.10 $22.11 C102 BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER $27.81 $29.26 $30.50 $32.09 $33.67 C106 CUSTODIAN $22.37 $23.41 $24.55 $25.83 $27.18 C613 ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN II $32.02 $33.66 $35.36 $37.11 $38.93 C602 FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER $48.32 C615 FLEET MANAGER $49.03 $51.51 $54.07 $56.77 $59.60 C805 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR $76.83 $80.91 $84.97 $89.23 $93.61 C600 INTERN I $15.34 $16.10 $16.91 $17.76 $18.66 C608 INTERN II $26.52 $31.83 $37.13 $42.44 $47.74 C606 LABORER $25.83 $27.02 $28.51 $29.85 $31.29 C807 LIBRARIAN I $28.92 $30.32 $31.73 $33.36 $34.94 C806 LIBRARIAN II $31.85 $33.44 $35.05 $36.80 $38.68 C801 LIBRARY AIDE I $14.57 $15.17 $15.83 $16.55 $17.25 C808 LIBRARY AIDE II $16.03 $16.73 $17.46 $18.23 $19.04 C804 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $22.16 $23.32 $24.46 $25.58 $26.94 C803 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.72 $25.84 $27.22 $28.42 $29.83 C611 MANAGEMENT ANALYST $43.50 $45.50 $47.81 $50.16 $52.67 C107 OFFICE ASSISTANT I $21.70 $22.82 $23.93 $25.09 $26.44 C702 PARK AND RECREATION FIELD MONITOR $22.73 $23.86 $25.06 $26.31 $27.63 C211 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $27.29 $28.59 $30.00 $31.50 $33.09 C201 PARKING ENFORCEMENT TECHNICIAN $24.29 $25.43 $26.68 $28.01 $29.44 C409 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $27.67 $29.22 $30.57 $32.07 $33.66 C809 PASSPORT APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE AGENT $22.16 $23.32 $24.46 $25.58 $26.94 C900 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $18.17 $22.04 $36.33 $42.41 C199 POLICE SERVICE AIDE $13.73 $14.37 $15.07 $15.78 $16.43 C712 PRESCHOOL MUSIC SPECIALIST $63.65 C711 PRE-SCHOOL SITE COORDINATOR $21.10 $22.16 $23.27 $24.43 $25.65 C714 PRE-SCHOOL TEACHER $19.73 $20.72 $21.76 $22.85 $23.99 C612 PROGRAM MANAGER $48.87 $51.31 $53.86 $56.56 $59.42 C713 PROGRAM OUTREACH SPECIALIST $27.32 $28.68 $30.12 $31.62 $33.21 C700 RECREATION LEADER I $12.00 $12.60 $13.23 C701 RECREATION LEADER II $13.89 $14.58 $15.31 City of Burlingame Salary Schedule - Casual Positions (Non-PERS) Amended 1/21/19 C710 RECREATION SPECIALIST $17.47 $18.34 $19.26 $20.22 $21.23 C703 SENIOR RECREATION LEADER $16.08 $16.88 $17.73 C614 SIDEWALK PROGRAM COORDINATOR $33.36 $35.03 $36.78 $38.62 $40.55 C641 SUMMER CREW $12.00 $12.60 $13.23 $13.89 $14.58 C642 SUMMER CREW LEADER $15.30 $16.06 $16.86 $17.70 $18.58 NOTES All positions are hourly Effective 1/1/16 Amended 8/21/17 Amended 12/25/17 3% salary increase per approved salary and benefit memo for casual employees Amended 12/10/18 adding Library Aide II (Flexibly staffed with Library Aide I) Amended 12/24/18 min wage impacts, 3% COLA incr per approved salary and benefit memo for casual ees (except Comm Dispatchers) Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase for Per Diem Communications Dispatcher Amended XX Add Fleet Manager Class Title Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E CP50 ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY $38.24 $81.95 CP25 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER $51.85 $54.44 $57.16 $60.02 $63.04 CP61 AUTOMOTIVE TECHNICIAN $25.17 $26.42 $27.74 $29.13 $30.58 CP30 INTERN II $26.52 $31.83 $37.13 $42.44 $47.74 CP60 LABORER $25.83 $27.02 $28.51 $29.84 $31.29 CP87 LIBRARIAN I $28.92 $30.32 $31.73 $33.36 $34.94 CP86 LIBRARIAN II $31.85 $33.44 $35.05 $36.80 $38.68 CP80 LIBRARY AIDE I $14.57 $15.17 $15.83 $16.55 $17.25 CP81 LIBRARY AIDE II $16.03 $16.73 $17.46 $18.23 $19.04 CP10 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I $22.16 $23.31 $24.47 $25.58 $26.94 CP11 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II $24.72 $25.84 $27.22 $28.43 $29.83 CP21 PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER $27.29 $28.59 $30.00 $31.50 $33.09 CP40 PARKS AND TREE WORKER $27.52 $28.89 $30.34 $31.85 $33.45 CP15 PER DIEM COMM DISPATCHER $19.44 $23.58 $38.88 $45.37 CP71 RECREATION SPECIALIST $17.47 $18.34 $19.26 $20.22 $21.23 CP05 SENIOR PLANNER $48.42 $50.85 $53.37 $56.03 $58.86 CP20 SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR $45.77 $48.07 $50.47 $52.99 $55.64 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 Amended 12/10/2018 adding Automotive Technician and Library Aide II (Flexibly staffed with Library Aide I) Amended 12/24/18 min wage impacts, 3% COLA incr per approved salary and benefit memo for casual ees (except Comm Dispatchers) Amended 1/21/19 4.5% salary increase for Per Diem Communications Dispatcher City of Burlingame Salary Schedule - Casual Positions Amended 1/21/19 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Governing Appeal Procedures for Massage Establishments and Practitioners RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider and adopt a resolution setting procedures for hearing appeals from the denial of registration or renewal for massage establishments and practitioners. BACKGROUND Burlingame’s Municipal Code provisions relating to massage establishments have been amended numerous times in recent years in order to respond to shifting state legislative mandates. As part of those amendments, the City enacted a registration procedure for both individual practitioners and massage establishments that is consistent with state law. Grounds for denial of registration or renewal include failure to maintain the state-level California Massage Therapy Council certification; employment of practitioners who are not certified; misrepresentation in an application to the City; and commission of various offenses; among other reasons. If an application for registration or renewal is denied, the applicant has a right to an appeal hearing before Council under Municipal Code Section 6.39.070. DISCUSSION While the Municipal Code states that massage establishments may appeal denial of registration to the Council, it does not set forth the procedure for hearing such appeals. As with the Council’s adoption of a resolution for Planning Commission appeals, the Council should adopt a resolution that sets forth the mechanism for hearing massage appeals so that the parties have adequate notice about how their appeals will proceed. The goal of the resolution is to provide for due process, including adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard, while preserving the informal nature of proceedings before the Council. The attached proposed resolution, like that for Planning Commission appeals, provides that formal rules of evidence do not apply and sets forth the manner for conducting appeal hearings. Council should consider the resolution, provide any feedback, and adopt the proposed resolution (with any applicable changes). After adoption of the resolution, staff will work to schedule two pending appeals to come before Council in the near future. FISCAL IMPACT Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures May 6, 2019 2 There is no direct impact on the City General Fund from adopting the proposed resolution. However, it is likely that because the City Attorney oversees the code enforcement function, the City will need to retain outside counsel to advise the Council on procedural matters in order to avoid a potential conflict between the enforcement and advice roles. The amount required for that service will vary depending on the particulars of future appeals. Exhibit: • Proposed Resolution Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures 1 RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING PROCEDURES GOVERNING APPEAL HEARINGS HELD PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.39.070 WHEREAS, Municipal Code section 6.39.070 provides that applicants who have been denied registration or renewal for massage establishment certification under the Municipal Code may appeal to the City Council for review of that denial; and WHEREAS, appellants are entitled to notice and the opportunity to be heard in such appeals; and WHEREAS, such proceedings before the Council are administrative and informal in nature; and WHEREAS, guidance for future appeals is necessary in order to establish the manner in which such appeals shall be heard; and WHEREAS, the guidance contained in this resolution shall provide notice to appellants and the public about the procedure for such appeals; and WHEREAS, Council may amend such procedures within its discretion as deemed necessary and appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that: 1. Appeals under Municipal Code section 6.39.070 may be heard at a regular or special meeting of the City Council. 2. Such appeals shall be publicly noticed as required under the Brown Act and other applicable law. 3. Appellants shall be afforded 30 days’ notice prior to the scheduled hearing, to be sent via first class mail to the last known address for appellant or appellant’s counsel as applicable and postmarked at least 33 days prior to the scheduled meeting, unless an earlier date is scheduled within the City’s discretion at the appellant’s request. Because providing this notice may bring the appeal hearing date outside of the time frame anticipated in the ordinance, appellants are permitted to continue operation pending the appeal (unless independently enjoined through a court proceeding), and any delay occasioned in scheduling an appeal is deemed to be non-injurious to appellants. Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures 2 4. If the City Attorney or Deputy/Assistant City Attorney advised, oversaw, or was involved with the code enforcement or Police Department determination to refuse registration of a massage establishment or practitioner, the City Attorney or Deputy/Assistant City Attorney shall not advise Council in connection with the corresponding appeal hearing under section 6.39.070. Instead, outside counsel shall be retained to provide independent advice, or the Council may opt to hear the appeal without such advice of counsel. 5. Appellant and City staff may each submit any written materials in support of their respective positions to Council. In order to provide adequate time for review, such material must be submitted to the City Clerk by 5 pm on the day that is 10 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing. If that day falls on a weekend or City holiday, the written materials are due by 5 pm on the weekday prior to the 10-day period. The written materials submitted may include position statements, legal arguments, sworn or unsworn witness accounts, or any other information deemed relevant by the submitting party. Because these submissions will become part of the public record, they should not contain private information about individuals such as medical information. Parties to the appeal may submit redacted materials. 6. Appellant and City staff may but are not required to provide an up to 5-page rebuttal statement regarding any information submitted by the other party to the appeal. Such rebuttal should be submitted to the Clerk before 5 pm at least 5 calendar days prior to the Council hearing. If the 5th day falls on a weekend or City holiday, the rebuttal statement should be submitted by the weekday following the 5th day. 7. The hearing before the Council shall be informal, and is expected to take up to approximately one hour. The Mayor shall preside; in the Mayor’s absence, the Vice Mayor shall preside. Prior to the hearing, Council members shall disclose on the record any ex parte communications they have had with any persons interested in the appeal, including City staff involved in the decision to deny registration. The rules of evidence do not apply. The appellant may but is not required to make a statement to Council and may have one or more additional people speak on their behalf, including appellant’s counsel. Formal testimony will not be taken, and no witnesses shall be administered an oath (unless appellant wishes to do so themselves), but appellant may include any information or speakers s/he/they deem relevant to Council. Appellant shall be afforded 20 minutes for this initial presentation of the issues and information, which may be extended at the discretion of the presiding Council member. City staff shall then be afforded 20 minutes for their presentation. Council members may ask questions of appellant and staff during their presentations. 8. Following the initial presentations by appellant and City staff, members of the public shall be allowed to comment. Such comment shall be limited to three minutes per speaker, except that the presiding Council member may extend or shorten the time allotted to members of the public in light of the number of speakers. Massage Establishment Appeal Procedures 3 9. Appellant shall be provided an opportunity for a summation and/or rebuttal, limited to 5 minutes unless otherwise provided at the discretion of the presiding Council member. Council members may ask any final clarifying questions of appellant or staff, after which the hearing shall be closed and Council will deliberate. 10. Following its deliberation, Council may take one of the following actions: a. affirm the denial of registration/renewal; b. reverse denial of registration/renewal and order staff to issue a registration certificate; or c. suspend staff’s determination and order additional investigation or consideration of identified issues or information before staff reaches a final determination. Council may take these actions by oral motion, and may direct staff to prepare a resolution reflecting their direction for adoption at a subsequent meeting. Council should endeavor to reach a final determination of the appeal on the scheduled hearing date, unless a continuance is necessary because of the duration of presentations/public comment or because further investigation or elaboration is necessary on one or more specifically identified issues. If Council requires more time for deliberation, Council may continue their discussion after the close of the public hearing, but Council must not engage in ex parte discussions with anyone – including City staff – regarding the substance of the appeal prior to a decision being made at a later public meeting. If a continuance is necessary, the continued hearing should be scheduled as soon as practicable, given the purpose of the continuance and Council’s availability. City staff shall exercise a good faith effort to work with appellants to find an acceptable date for a continued hearing, but appellants shall not have the right to unilaterally dictate the date nor avoid final determination by making themselves unavailable for the continued hearing. 11. The decision of Council shall be final. The procedures contained in this resolution are designed to provide guidance to Council; any of these procedures may be waived by Council as deemed necessary, and failure to strictly adhere to the procedures set forth here shall not be deemed to invalidate Council’s action on any appeal. ____________________________ 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 6th day of May, 2019, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ City Clerk 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11a MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: City Council Date: May 6,2019 From: Mayor Donna Colson Subject: Committee Report Thursday, 4/18/19: Home for All  EPA first ever RV park for residents  San Carlos Update - Balancing 1/3 who do not want to see change with need for more affordable housing  Community Engagement - Continuing to work on engagement program that started with Burlingame, HMB, RWC and PV. Moving on to Brisbane, San Mateo, Pacifica, Foster City, Hill sborough  Partnerships - School District, C/CAG Compact Joint Workshop  Planning Commissioner Training: April 30 - new series to work with PC around housing - this one will focus on Housing and has already 60 people signed up Conversation for Future  Understanding the entire Peninsula and where/who has the jobs and where the housing is going to balance and looking at a more wholistic approach.  More data on each city and their Job/Housing ratios - who is providing housing and who is providing jobs?  Now the approach is NO MORE commercial - general consensus this is a very problematic approach - no one supported, but did want to understand the ratios in the county and look in more regional ways. Future of HFA  Move from workgroup to Task Force - standing committee with no end date, and change to an idea of shorter more tactical group meetings  Continue - Funding, Legislation, Housing and Mobility  New Task Forces - Second Unit, Housing and Climate Change, Tenant Protections  Hello Housing - Subsidized help for people wanting to use ADU and county is hoping for four cities that will participate AND idea is they keep the prices low. Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019 2 Thursday, 4/18/19: Housing Legislation SB3300  4 components - approval, certainty and legalizes new standards for occupied substandard buildings  HCD has a standardized form and after application is deemed complete and if project deems it complies with zoning = then 12 months and no more than 3 hearings  Concerns over the complexity and size of the project, one year is too tight  Concerns over shortage of staff time  Takes design standards back to 1/1/2018 and no option to update those standards  No historic or other type accommodation AB1487  Bill to create a regional housing agency HABA, comprised of ABAG/MTC  Very strong opposition by all members except SF  Concerns over excessive taxing  Concerns of draining local funds from small cities into big cities  Do not support the composition of the board - if it happens should fall under ABAG  Duplicates all the work that is done at the County levels - SMC has 7 CORE agencies in place and this would just duplicate  Support by all of the cities for a head count tax and authorizing counties to charge this and hope to incentive companies to move from dense areas out to the housing rich areas  Will move to review AB1279, AB1483, AB1484 for next meeting SB50, SB4 Thursday, 4/25/19: Home for All: Learning Network Meeting  HMB - Updated ADU units and also having conversations around how we can provide farm worker overlays and other zoning to update for more workforce housing  Portola Valley - ADU conversation started and how  RWC - having a small meeting with long-time building owners to work to keep their naturally affordable units still affordable. Working on ADU conversation and how to get out tha t information to community.  Burlingame - Work on Talks Shop initiative and using format. Created two new website features a Major Projects visual map, and then created a new updated housing website.  Overall, no great sense that local people understand the greater legal environment and vice-versa that our state legislature needs to learn what we are doing.  Key take always - 1. Continue through policy and project development. 2. Committing to sustaining responsive communications, keep activity shared values and helpful frames, keep assessing information 3. Keep expanding your network - how do we target smaller engagement.  Report Out - 1. Use social media, engage new residents, smaller workshops from the county, like the idea of holding a landlord convening to make sure we keep those units affordable and what can we do for them. Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019 3 Scott Weiner Meeting  Acknowledged shortage in construction workforce and high cost of building  Saying that half of the US housing deficit is in CA and we are second to last in homes per capita  Core foundational problem is we are short millions of homes and we designed a system that stifles housing production. CA downzoned and you could build an apartment building, then 1960 and 1980 downzoned in SF and LA and banned apartments in LA a nd SF - 70% of land cannot be build and in 80% of CA illegal to build anything other than a single family home.  This means in theory that you have banned affordable housing. Downzoning has happened in job centers and so he is saying that you have now made it impossible for people to have a small developer or non- profit developer. Need to do the following:  Rezoned Housing and we are overdue for a conversation on the topic.  Says need to streamline and accelerate housing.  Need to invest and subsidize affordable housing - Redevelopment pulled out.  SW Believes we must do more to protect tenants.  Gov Newsom has made this a top priority.  Lot of discussion on local control vs. state control and believes that if it local control does not deliver good results then he believes the state should take this back because local jurisdictions have failed. (But it was the State that defunded Redevelopment and the FEDS that also took away funding).  CEQA has gone way beyond what it was intended and has been used to stop trans portation and housing.  Supports prevailing wage for labor, but they are using CEQA to get Project Labor Agreement together and thinks we should just set a standard as to what labor is going to be paid, rather than enforcing them to sue. SB 35 streamlines the process.  97% of cities are not meeting low and extremely low-income housing, so SB 35 cuts off and reduces permitting. Kate Harley - SF Office Director of Mayors Office and Community Development  Barriers to housing gap, struggle with growing income inequality. Increasing incomes of SF that are driving up rents (only a few people) and so there is this imbalance in what housing costs and what the majority of people can actually afford in SF. Rising costs of constriction. 21 to 22 quarters of construction cost increases. Reduction of federal - Section 8 anti-poverty are gone.  $500 million housing bond going on the ballot this year .  500 units that are part of a modular pilot program. Ramon Kochavi - Marcus and Millichap - Large Real Estate Developer in SF  SF is NOT an inflow market in general in multi-family because we are heavily regulated (rent control), and there is a fear from investors as to how and why to invest in SF. Evelyn Stivers - ED HLC non-profit advocacy organization  Investment in affordable housing - San Mateo, we have the smallest percentage of affordable homes and white flight suburbs that discouraged affordable housing. Says we have no big city and need a bigger Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019 4 world view to recognize housing, and need to understand that the people NOT in the room matter and this is a difficult decision for City Councils (implied we are not doing this and used FB as an example in Menlo Park) and said easy to bring in $, but then deny housing. 1/2C sales tax, but does not make up for RA, but does go along way...2,000 homes in the county and have improved, but not quick enough and need 25,000 homes and as we expand it gets bigger. Kenneth Jones - Landis Real Estate Development - Advisor to cities and developers and focus on housing production  High construction and high land costs are making it hard to develop and when you go to lower levels of affordability, then the project will not pencil  Inefficient construction process is another issue - only 37% of labor on the site is efficient and the rest is wasted time. David Conklin - Lobbyist for commercial builders and trade association since 1901 and represent companies that build commercial development projects.  Governor laid out a big plan to develop housing in Burlingame  Hard costs to build a unit - $700K - $850K per unit of housing affordable, renovation is coming in at $900,000 per unit (deferred maintenance and upgrade). Construction cost is 60% and the rest are fees (but also land costs). Labor and materials shortage for both sides. Inland $400 -$500 SF to build, and some private developers balk at impact fees. Huge workforce skilled gap - every 5 retiring, there is 1 going into the trade.  Recent fires have exasperated housing conversation  (SW chimed in that regular housing is NOT necessarily luxury) $1.75 billion dollars of budget from Governor’s Office and have over 200 bills on housing and gambit of bills introduced in response to Governor’s call to action. Role of state vs. local perspective and that is the crux of the argument. Wednesday, 5/1/19: C/CAG and San Mateo County Housing: Housing Legislative Meeting  Exempt cities from SB50 if they have a General Plan and a Master Plan or Site Plan. Kevin Mullin is interested and the assembly is not on the same page as the Senate on the legislation. T here is money in the Governor’s budget and we need to support that allocation. Concerns over definition of “jobs -rich environment”. Problem is an economic problem created by jobs growth and we have moved in a positive direction in up-zoning. We are working to even out the balance of jobs and housing and working to get affordable. Concerns over regulatory exemptions that relate to size seems counterintuitive.  Rhonda Pashcal/Mark Tollefson of the Governor’s office and we will work to remove the barriers, but cannot hold them (cities) accountable to building - just zoning. Sonja Palladio - Deputy Director for Legislation - CA Dept HCD  Gov will NOT support taking transport funding for housing. League is moving toward the idea that alternative exemptions for working. Get information to Heather about the adverse impacts to a city like Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019 5 Burlingame - how they are not reaching their goals - example in Burlingame, is the Lyon Hoag neighborhood. ABAG-MTC Housing Legislative Work Group - Production Related Housing Bills Part 3  Meet with local officials in the AM to work on sending a what we are doing right and what might be a problem memo to staff who can consolidate and help get that information to lawmakers. AB1279 Bloom  Alternative to SB50 and advocated by progressive groups that are pushing for  By right housing development - high resource areas, area of high opportunity and low residential density that is not currently experiencing gentrification/displacement. Complicated up-zoning for both of these.  Affordability - 45 years rented, suggest 55, p.8. 55 years  No reimbursement for schools  Overrides single family development  >10 units, 10% at low income or 5% to very low income  Residential or commercial - 100 units up to 55 feet o 25% to lower income and and 25% to very low o Appreciate the exemption - we have hazardous waste site o Bill sponsors are concerning - mainly legal organizations  How would we fund this because this will not come out of the private market  Try to bring housing to “exclusive communities” and provide access to low-income areas. Could petition out. AB 1483 Grayson: Data Collection and Reporting  Asking for a chart of what we already get and what we want to get - need to simplify this and not overburden the staff.  Many jurisdictions already do this, but some smaller agencies may struggle with the manpower need to track and report this data. AB1485 Wicks: Housing Development Streamlining Provides for those rents at 80-120% of the AMI be at least 20% below FMV for the county  #31 Dictates 20% of total units be for households below 120% of area median income and 20% below the FMV for the county at the time  Requires prevailing wage  Another size cutoff - 225,000 and a coastal or bay county  Need more explanation 35 B = historical district - Why included for parking exemption  Produce sufficient housing to meet their RHNA numbers - aggregate, by income level how?  Author’s statement - for decades CA has failed to create enough housing at all income levels...not sure this is actually true. AB1486 Ting: Surplus Land  Expands definition of agencies applicable - sewer, water, and utility  Expand exempt land to include - land held for exchange Colson Committee Report May 6, 2019 6  Except property being held for exchange - clarity please?  Land that is subject to legal restrictions - that makes housing on the site prohibited or incompatible due to legal or other restrictions  FMV determined by appraisal or economic evaluation - conducted or approved by the department  Payment period for surplus land may exceed 20 years, but not more than the la nd is being used for housing (55 years).  Appreciate the call out of park and recreational land and designated in the general plan as use for that.  A site smaller than 1/2 acre shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate lower income housing need unless the locality can demonstrate sites of similar size were successfully developed during the prior planning period  E1 line 30 - A county, not including the City and County of SF, shall be considered suburban unless the county is in an MSA of 2mm or great in pop ulation, in which case the county shall be considered metropolitan?  Long list of Oppose unless amend - what are these groups’ concerns and requirements to agree? SB6 Beale and McGuire: Data Collection and Analysis  How does this work with Grayson 1483  Language expressing a person earning min wage must work three jobs on average to pay rent on a 2 BDRM apartment?  Rent burdened numbers - what is the goal for this - 10% of your income on rent. Most target 30% of income on rent, but many people pay over 50% of their incomes to purchase a home - with taxes and maintenance. AB11 Redevelopment Law  Brief mention of 100613 - impact on the amount that the state is required to apportion to local educational entities...what does this mean?  Question - what about development on school sites? In other words, could schools that build housing on their sites, capture the tax-increment created so as to support the housing costs?  What about impact on school sites? Do we quantify? Says that we would be required to pass through property tax to make other taxing entities whole, excluding the school’s portion? - Says the state would backfill to keep the schools whole with Prop 98 funding, but what happens if the state revenue declines? CTA does not support this bill. 1 Memorandum AGENDA NO: 11b MEETING DATE: May 6, 2019 To: City Council Date: May 6, 2019 From: Vice Mayor Emily Beach Subject: Committee Report Thursday, 3/28/19:  League of California Cities Environmental Quality Policy Committee Meeting, Costa Mesa (day trip)  Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group  C/CAG BPAC (Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee) Monday, 4/1/19: City Council Meeting Thursday, 4/4/19:  San Mateo County Transportation Authority Board Meeting  Annual Sexual Harassment Training Webinar  Sustainable San Mateo County Awards o Congratulations Burlingame Citizens Environmental Council for receiving award recognition! Friday, 4/5/19:  US 101 Managed Lane Ad Hoc Committee Meeting: unanimous recommendation for JPA staffing v ision achieved after months of discussion and negotiation.  Progress Seminar – Friday – Sunday) excellent speakers and breakout sessions regarding housing, transportation, regionalism, public safety, and sea level rise. Monday, 4/8/19:  League of California Cities Peninsula Division Board Meeting  Constituent meeting with leaders from UMC & Mercy Center; discussed affordable housing an d transportation infrastructure. Tuesday, 4/9/19:  Constituent meeting: affordable housing & transportation discussion  Connecting with Council: Youth Advisory Committee Meeting with Councilmember Keighran and members of the YAC leadership team. Inspiring and engaged students! Beach Committee Report May 6, 2019 2 Wednesday, 4/10/19:  Economic Development Subcommittee Meeting: discussed work plan for upcoming months, and communication strategy with owners of vacant storefronts regarding acceptable visual and maintenance standards. Thursday, 4/11/19:  League of California Cities Housing Legislation Webinar (in preparation for Legislative Action Day in Sacramento 4/24)  Transform Leadership & Impact Celebration, honoring founder and retiring Executive Director Stuart Cohen. TransForm’s mission is to promote walkable communities with excellent transportation choices to connect people of all incomes to opportunity, keep California affordable, and help solve our climate crisis. Learn more about them at Transfromca.org. Great event, great organization. Friday, 4/12/19:  Mayors, Vice Mayors, and City Managers’ North County Lunch: Burlingame invited for the first tim e.  Discussions focused around collaborative sharing of resources and current housing legislation. Monday, 4/15/19:  City Council Meeting Tuesday, 4/16/19:  Burlingame Employee Recognition Lunch: honored employees with 10, 15, 20-year anniversaries working for the City. Thanks for their loyal service!  Conference call with Transform regarding Measure W implementation and San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s Strategic Plan update  Webinar with League of California Cities Board regarding housing legi slation and upcoming Board meeting Wednesday, 4/17/19:  California Drive Roundabout Ribbon Cutting: great job Mayor Colson and staff during this celebration.  Constituent meeting: focused on housing legislation and affordability  Burlingame Talks Shop Retail Forum/Summit: great event; excellent planning by staff, Mayor Colson, and Councilmember Keighran Thursday, 4/18/19:  Commute.org Board of Directors Meeting  Meeting with Peninsula Health Care District Board Member regarding Wellness Community and affordab le housing component  League of California Cities CitiPAC event: represented City of Burlingame Beach Committee Report May 6, 2019 3 Wednesday, 4/24/19 – Thursday, 4/25/19:  League of California Cities Legislative Action Day in Sacramento o Attended Senator Weiner’s committee hearing on SB50 as it merged with SB4 o Led Peninsula Division delegation meetings with Senator Hill, Assemblymember Mullin, and the office of Assemblymember Karla. Discussions focused on current housing legislation.  League of California Cities Board of Directors Meeting in Sacramento o Approved all seven Policy Committee’s recommendations on legislation o Robust discussion about Housing Legislation and approved housing legislation strategy and provided staff direction regarding how the League should negotiate with the Governor and legislature on behalf of California Cities. Thursday, 4/25/19: CalMod (Caltrain Modernization) Local Policy Makers Group  Much important work being done at Caltrain with their Vision 2040 Business Plan. Anyone interested in learning more, our LPMG group’s meetings are now video recorded (prior audio recordings available) here: http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Local_Policy_Maker_Group.html Highlights:  Caltrain ridership predicted to increase significantly from today’s 65,000 daily weekday ridership to 161,000 - 207,000 daily riders depending on growth scenario. Data suggests there is sufficient ridership demand for its highest growth scenario. o Peak hour baseline growth = equivalent of building 2 new highway lanes o Moderate growth = equivalent of building 2.5 new highway lanes o High growth = equivalent of building 5.5 new highway lanes  Only in high growth scenario all ridership demand is served.  Moderate/Baseline growth scenario: at peak of peak hour commute, loss of capacity 35 -40% in baseline or moderate growth scenario; over course of day OK  Quad gates are required by Federal Law with trains passing at 110 MPH – all grade crossings will get them when/if HSR passes through (apx. by 2030?)  Estimated cost $9-11 billion to address 42 at-grade crossings on Caltrain corridor: some will be grade separated; others will need to close. This estimate in 2018 dollars. Will need mega -measure funding and/or massive infusion of Federal and State funding.  Perspective on cost: Caltrain Electrification total price tag = $2 billion (vs. $11 billion to address grade separations.)  Important note impacting service in Burlingame: o Currently in Caltrain’s draft proposed service plan, most communities benefit with additional Caltrain service from moderate and high growth scenarios. However, proposed Burlingame service remains stable with 2 trains per hour (once every 30 minutes) at both Broadway and Burlingame station. Beach Committee Report May 6, 2019 4 o In contrast, for example, San Mateo doubles their service (from 4 to 8 trains per hour, or 6 to 12 trains per hour, in one case quadruples service from 2 to 8 trains per hour) under the three different growth scenarios at San Mateo station, Hayward Park Station, Hillsdale Station. o I advocated strongly for Burlingame to receive additional service under moderate or high growth scenario to mitigate additional train volumes passing through our community. Reminded Caltrain that according to their data the highest crowding on trains along the entire corridor exists between Burlingame Station and Millbrae. Reminded them of Burlingame’s commitment to transit -oriented development in our General Plan update, which depends on robust Caltrain service. o I also encouraged all cities to look carefully at the proposed service levels for their communities. Only 3 stations along the Caltrain corridor have stagnant or reduced service levels. C/CAG BPAC (Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee)  Approved grant applications and score sheets for upcoming MTC bike/ped grants worth apx. $2 million. Friday, 4/26/19:  Meeting with members of Sierra Club; discussion of Burlingame and regional environmental issues  Council of Cities dinner: Assemblymember Phil Ting guest speaker; housing legislation key topic Saturday, 4/27/19:  Joint City Council & Planning Commission Annual Meeting Monday, 4/29/19:  C/CAG’s Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee o Discussed San Mateo’s “regionally specific project list” updated once every 4 years that focuses on key eligible projects for federal, state, and regional funding. Advocated strongly for Grade Separations to be included on this list. Am working with staff (C/CAG and Caltrain) to follow up on this issue. MTC resistant to including grade separations on this list. o Received presentation from Sustainable Silicon Valley about Dumbarton Corridor. Tuesday, 4/30/19:  San Mateo County Office of Education Safe Routes to School Advisory Committee  Developer meeting regarding Bayfront property  Home for All planning Meeting for 5/23 panel Wednesday, 5/1/19:  Attended Burlingame Rotary Club luncheon