Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2022.04.04 Regular Session
City of Burlingame BURLINGAME F, Meeting Agenda - Final City Council Monday, April 4, 2022 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361 which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees On March 21, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 025-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency 2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners, in their meeting spaces Pursuant to Resolution Number 025-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the April 4, 2022 City Council meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting. Note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda. The length of the comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the City Council for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 4, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record, will be provided to the City Council after the meeting. Online City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 313112022 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 4, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Online To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 893 7542 5896 Passcode:566066 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 893 7542 5896 Passcode:566066 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. Proclamation Recognizing April 2022 as National Poetry Month 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. a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 16, 2022 Mid -Year Budget Study Session Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Approval of Clty Council Meeting Minutes for the March 21, 2022 Closed Session Attachments: Meeting Minutes City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 3/31/2022 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 4, 2022 C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 21, 2022 Regular Meeting Attachments: Meeting Minutes d. Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and 15061(B)(3) Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance March 21, 2022 Staff Report and Attachments e. Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a $1,413,978 Construction Contract to Radius Earthwork, Inc. for the 2022 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 86220, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Bid Summary Construction Contract Protect Location Map f. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the 2021 Street Resurfacing Program by G. Bortolotto & Co. Inc., City Project No. 85860 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Final Progress Payment Project Location Map g. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Sustainability Program Manager to Execute Documents to Implement and Secure CalRecycle Grant Payments Attachments: Staff Report Resolution h. Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Lew Broadwav Area Business Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and Setting a Public Hearing for May 2, 2022; and Approving the District's Annual Report for 2021-22 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution BABID Annual Report Notice City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 3/31/2022 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 4, 2022 L Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to Amend the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule For the 2022-23 Fiscal Year; Set the Public Hearing for Such Amendment for May 2, 2022 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution FY 2022-23 Proposed Master Fee Schedule DOL San Francisco Area - February 2022 CPI User Fee Cost Recovery Policy j. Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a $830,314 Construction Contract to JJR Construction, Inc. for the 2022 Sidewalk Repair Program, City Project No. 86250, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Contract Attachments: Staff Report Bid Summary Construction Contract Protect Location Map k. Adoption of a Resolution Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, and Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of Opposition Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Draft Letter to League of California Cities I. Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter in Support of AB 1814 (Grayson), Transportation Electrification: Community Choice Aggregators Attachments: Staff Report Draft AB 1814 Letter 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearina and Resolution of the Citv Council of the Citv of Burlinaame Adiustina the Storm Drainage Fee for Fiscal Year 2022-23 by 2.0% Based on the CPI - San Francisco Area as Published on March 10, 2022 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution February 2022 CPI 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Consideration of Three Appointments to the Planning Commission Attachments: Staff Report City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 313112022 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final April 4, 2022 b. Discussion and Direction on Potential Tax Measures Attachments: Staff Report Presentation Business License Tax Study - February 15, 2022 C. Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion Attachments: Staff Report Staff Report 1-18-2022 Staff Report 2-22-2022 Draft BPD ALPR Policy 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking & Recreation Commission, and the Library Board of Notice: Any attendees who require assistance, a disability related modification, or language assistance in order to participate in the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 4, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Any individual who wishes to request an alternate format for the agenda, meeting notice, or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 4, 2022 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 18, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE www.burlingame.org/video 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 via www.burlingame.org or by emailing City Clerk Meaghan Hassel -Shearer at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 3/31/2022 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 CITY O BURLINGAME 4 `�Awr ce JLkE � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Mid -Year Budget Study Session on March 16, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 6:31 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by City Manager Goldman. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Manito Velasco voiced concern about the City's paid consultants. He asked the City and Council to review consultant proposals more thoroughly prior to hiring them. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin am�e.org). 5. STAFF REPORTS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FY 2021-22 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS TO REFLECT THE RECOMMENDED MID -YEAR ADJUSTMENTS AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING POSITION AMENDMENTS AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED CITY OF BURLINGAME SALARY SCHEDULE City Manager Goldman stated that two years ago, the Council adopted an emergency declaration due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She discussed the effects of the pandemic on the City's budget. She explained that the City has tried to keep spending down. Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 City Manager Goldman thanked Finance Director Yu -Scott for all the hard work that the Finance Department put into preparing the mid -year budget. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated the purposed of the Mid -Year Budget Study Session is to inform the Council and the public as to the City's financial status and update the budget based on projections. Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the adopted FY 2021-22 City budget. She noted that on June 21, 2021, the City Council adopted the $117.69 million FY 2021-22 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget. She explained that with the uncertainties in the economy, the City's approach to the budget was to maintain City services while minimizing withdrawals from the General Fund Reserve. Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the FY 2021-22 General Fund: General Fund FY 2021-22 in millions) Total Resources $67.08 Total Requirements $70.63 Resources Under Requirements $3.55 Finance Director Yu -Scott explained that while the projected General Fund expenditures for FY 2021-22 are $63.82 million, the City also needs to transfer funds out of the General Fund to support capital improvements, debt service obligations, and contributions to the pension trust fund. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that revenues are projected to be 2.1 % higher ($1.4 million) than what was anticipated in the adopted budget. Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the projected revenues for property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax (TOT). She explained that property tax for FY 2021-22 is expected to be $1.9 million, or 7.4% higher than the adopted budget. She stated that this is due to several things including the ERAF refund being $960,000 better than budgeted and property tax in lieu of VLF being $890,000 more than budgeted. In regard to sales and use tax, she noted that the City captured $1.3 million more than expected. However, she explained that TOT is expected to be $3.5 million, or25.9%, less than what was anticipated in the adopted budget. Finance Director Yu -Scott showed a graph that depicted sales and use tax revenue for FY 2021-22. She noted that the fourth quarter numbers will not be available until mid -April. She explained that the graph displays the revenue numbers for the past three years and shows that in some categories, the current revenue is exceeding the 2019 level. She also utilized a bar chart to show the past three years of TOT revenue per month. She noted that as can be seen in the bar chart, the revenue is nowhere near the pre -pandemic levels. 2 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the proposed General Fund revenue amendments: General Fund FY 2021-22 Amendments Property Tax $1,850,000 Sales and Use Tax $1,327,000 Transient Occupancy Tax $3,500,000 Other Taxes - Franchise Tax $15,000 Other Taxes — Business Licenses $100,000 Other Taxes — Transfer Tax $300,000 Licenses and Permits $6,400 Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties $71,200 Charges for Services $788,540 Other Revenue $45,860 Federal COVID Relief Fund $795,000 Total $1,426,600 Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that in preparation for this session, each department was asked to review its year-to-date spending. She reviewed the proposed General Fund expenditure amendments: General Fund FY 2021-22 Amendments Human Resources $30,000 Police and Dispatch $142,000 Public Works — Engineering $80,000 Community Development $65,000 Parks $1,026,000 Library $17,600 Total $1,360,600 She explained that Parks' $1,026,000 expenditure amendment includes $276,000 for emergency Eucalyptus tree service and $750,000 to assist in funding the City's insurance and liability for the year. Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the impacts of the proposed amendments on the General Fund balance. She noted that the proposals would put the General Fund balance in a $2.4 million deficit. She showed a bar chart that depicted the City's General Fund revenues versus expenditures for the past five years. She explained that the while the City is currently projected to be in the red this year, she is hoping the numbers will balance out as they have in previous years. City Manager Goldman noted that the budgeted levels for each department are the maximum that each department can spend. She explained that it is rare that a department spends to that level. Moreover, she Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 discussed personnel vacancies that arise during the year and noted that this would likely lead to the City spending less than budgeted. Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the projected fund balances: FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2021-22 New Actuals Actuals Adopted Budget Projection Economic Stability $18,905,000 $14,356,000 $16,098,000 $16,441,000 Reserve Catastrophic $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Reserve Contingency $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Reserve Subtotal — $21,405,000 $16,856,000 $18,598,000 $18,941,000 Assigned Fund Balance Add: Restricted for $10,823,849 $15,723,356 $14,925,849 $17,575,356 Pension Trust Fund PARS Add: Investment $2,003,217 $794,122 $2,003,217 0 Mark -to -Market Add: Unassigned $10,660,343 $11,833,681 $1,760,929 $6,247,116 Fund Balance Total — Ending $44,892,409 $45,207,059 $37,287,995 $42,763,472 Fund Balance Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the other funds revenue amendments: Other Fund FY 2021-22 Amendments Gas Tax — Highway User's Tax $54,400 Gas Tax — Road Repair and Accountability Act $37,500 Parking Enterprise — Parkin Fees $362,200 Parking Enterprise — Monthly Parking Permits $67,000 Building Enterprise — Permit Fees $265,600 Building Enterprise — Building Plan Check Fees $72,800 General Liability Insurance Fund $750,000 Total $1,609,500 She noted that the increase is really only $860,000 and that is because the General Liability Insurance Fund is supplied by the General Fund. 4 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Finance Director Yu -Scott next reviewed the other funds expenditure amendments: Other Fund FY 2021-22 Amendments Water Enterprise Fund $83,500 Sewer Enterprise Fund $11,000 Parking Enterprise Fund $50,200 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund $12,000 Landfill Fund $10,000 Building Enterprise Fund $70,000 Facilities Services Fund $67,000 Fleet/Equipment Service Fund $56,400 General Liability Insurance Fund $750,000 Total $1,110,100 Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed proposed personnel classification and position changes. She noted that historically, the City only brings forth these changes during the Mid -Year Budget Study Session and the Budget Study Session. The changes include adding a Building Inspector PH position (not paid by the General Fund), revision of the Sustainability Coordinator classification, and reclassification of one Library Assistant II position to an Administrative Assistant I position. Additionally, she explained that staff was proposing a reorganization of the Finance Department: • Deletion of one vacant Deputy Finance Director position • Addition of one Financial Services Manager position • Reclassification of one Senior Management Analyst position to Financial Services Manager position • Reclassification of one Payroll Administrator position to Senior Accountant position • Reclassification of one Accounting Technician position to Customer Services Supervisor position • Addition of one Accounting Technician position • Revision of Accountant classification and adoption of Accountant I/II salary range Councilmember Colson discussed the zero number on the Investment Mark -to -Market for the year. She asked if the City sees a negative return, will there by a paper loss? Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that she didn't believe the City would be negative this year. Councilmember Colson discussed the Contingency Reserve. She noted that funding for the reserve is based on a percentage of the budget. She explained that the reserve will decline because of the budget declining. She suggested basing the contribution on a three-year rolling average in order to avoid drastic differences in funding. 5 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed departmental expenditures from the General Fund. He noted that there was a $6 million increase from what was spent in FY 2020-21 ($58.4 million) vs. the current budget for FY 2021-22 ($64.5 million). He stated that this was a large increase during an economic downturn. City Manager Goldman stated that the first number he is referring to is the actuals and not the budgeted number. She explained that she believed it was a higher number because it was prior to the City laying off part-time staffers. Finance Director Yu -Scott confirmed that the proposed budget for FY 2020-21 was $63.6 million. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if staff expects the actuals for this budget year to be lower than what was budgeted. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he has always been a bit puzzled about why the Capital Investment Reserves are not reported on General Fund balance assignments. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that the funds are transferred out of the General Fund into the Capital Investment Reserve. She noted that there is currently approximately $21 million in the reserve. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought it would be useful to look back at this economic downturn, to determine the appropriate level of reserves needed. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems likely that the City's costs are going to go up due to inflation. He asked how the Finance Director wanted the Council to consider inflation. Finance Director Yu -Scott noted that inflation has risen to 7.9%, and it is important the City review its expenses to account for this increase. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that it would take some time for hotels to fill up, and therefore the City's TOT will remain below pre -pandemic numbers. She asked if staff knows what the average reserve is for most cities. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that most cities are between 15% and 20%. City Manager Goldman stated that the City asked the Government Finance Officers Association to do an analysis and that is how the City ended up with its reserve targets. She added that the City has a conservative budget and does a good job saving money for a rainy day. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that the Council must diversify the City's revenues. She discussed the Council's prior study session on potential tax measures. She explained that the business license tax was established in 1978 and adjusted in 2001. She asked what the original amount was. Finance Director Yu - Scott stated that it was previously $50 and is currently $100. Councilmember Colson stated that inflation is likely to show up in the pensions. She asked if the cost -of - living index is capped or if it is open-ended. HR Director Morrison stated that it is capped by contract at 2% per year. 6 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Mayor Ortiz discussed the City's business license tax. He noted that the City anticipates $700,000 in business license tax revenues. He asked how many staff members are tasked with handling the business license tax. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that there is one staff member that works 75% of the time on business licenses and that the cost of the person is approximately $200,000 with benefits. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with Mayor Ortiz that the budget highlights the importance of diversifying the revenue base and the importance of continuing the business license tax conversation. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 020-2022; seconded by Councilmember O'Brien Keighran. Vice Mayor Brownrigg commented on the motion. He thanked the City Manager and City staff for continuing to provide the public with same services that they received pre -pandemic. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 021-2022; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Finance Director Yu -Scott next discussed the City's major General Fund revenue sources. She stated that for FY 2021-22 the General Fund is made up of the following: • Property Tax — 39.2% • Sales and Use Tax — 24.3% • Other Revenue — 22% • Transient Occupancy Tax — 14.6% She noted that TOT is no longer the City's largest source of revenues. She showed a bar chart that displayed how the different revenue sources contribute to the City's General Fund. Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed property tax assumptions going forward: • FY 2021-22 - $26,840,000 • FY 2022-23 - $27,937,000 • FY 2023-24 - $29,463,000 • FY 2024-25 - $31,081,000 • FY 2025-26 - $32,796,000 • FY 2026-27 - $34,614,000 Finance Director Yu -Scott next reviewed sales tax assumptions: 7 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 • FY 2021-22 - $16,623,000 • FY 2022-23 - $16,955,000 • FY 2023-24 - $17,294,000 • FY 2024-25 - $17,640,000 • FY 2025-26 - $17,993,000 • FY 2026-27 - $18,533,000 She noted that staff expects a 6.1 % growth for this fiscal year. Finance Director Yu -Scott discussed TOT assumptions. She noted that the hotel tax suffered a significant revenue loss due to COVID-19. She explained that it has been one of the last sectors to recover. She added that it is believed that this sector won't recover until 2025. She stated that business travel may never recover to previous levels. Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the TOT assumptions: • FY 2021-22 - $10,000,000 • FY 2022-23 - $12,975,000 • FY 2023-24 - $16,868,000 • FY 2024-25 - $20,242,000 • FY 2025-26 - $21,659,000 • FY 2026-27 - $22,742,000 Finance Director Yu -Scott reviewed the General Fund expenditure forecast for the next five years: FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 New Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Projection Expenditure Categories Salaries and $20,794,107 $21,418,000 $22,061,000 $22,722,000 $23,404,000 $24,106,000 Wages Benefits $13,880,828 $14,825,624 $15,487,624 $16,184,624 $16,774,624 $17,399,624 Operating $25,504,470 $26,447,000 $27,431,000 $28,457,000 $29,529,000 $30,647,000 Costs Internal $5,643,927 $5,094,000 $5,278,000 $5,469,000 $5,655,000 $5,849,000 Services Capital $35,000 $250,000 $258,000 $266,000 $274,000 $282,000 Outlay Total $65,858,332 $68,034,624 $70,515,624 $73,098,624 $75,636,624 $78,283,624 Expenditures Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that the City's cost requirements to maintain operations are growing faster than the City's resources for the next three years. She noted that staff hopes that the revenue projection will be better in May for the Budget Hearing. Finance Director Yu -Scott noted the longer -term priority projects including: • Broadway Grade Separation • Sea Level Rise Mitigations • El Camino Real Undergrounding • City Hall Finance Director Yu -Scott thanked the City Manager and department heads for their support and contributions to the report. Additionally, she thanked her department for all their hard work. Lastly, she thanked Council for their leadership and their foresight to act conservatively and put funds away for a rainy day. Councilmember Colson stated that the Parks Corp Yard should be added to the list of longer -term priority projects. Councilmember Colson asked if she was correct that the City would continue to fund the Pension 115 Trust. Finance Director Yu -Scott replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that in the forecast, the City was planning on losing $5 million a year. He explained that although the City has reserves for this situation, he wasn't sure that the City should operate in a deficit. City Manager Goldman stated that the departments are just putting together their budgets now, so the forecast for FY 2022-23 is not solid yet. She also noted that the City has added more money to the CIP reserves, and Council could choose to pull back on that in order to shrink the deficit. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn't want to focus too much on the five-year forecast as things could drastically change. Instead, he suggested having a base case and an upside case. He explained that this could help to advise the Council on how to fund CIP. City Manager Goldman stated that the five-year forecast isn't something for the Council to approve. Instead, it is something that staff uses to provide the Council with more information. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that the City may need to decrease CIP funding due to the deficit. She noted that she believed that the five-year forecast was helpful to the Council and the community to see the potential long=term issues the City is facing. She added that it also proves that the City needs to diversify its revenue sources. 9 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciates that staff gives Council an opportunity to review these numbers and see what's coming in the next fiscal year budget. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the increases and decreases in CIP spending over the next five years. DPW Murtuza stated that the numbers reflect the facilities needs assessment that was conducted several years ago. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Mayor Ortiz thanked staff for their hard work on this item. b. REVIEW OF DRAFT FY 2022-23 GENERAL FUND, MEASURE I, GAS TAX, MEASURE A, SENATE BILL (SB 1), PARKING ENTERPRISE FUNDS, PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES, AND SOLID WASTE FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DPW Murtuza stated that the proposed CIP for FY 2022-23 is what happens as a result of the downturn in economic conditions. He noted that staff looked at other sources for CIP funding. Assistant DPW Morimoto stated that staff is looking for Council feedback on proposed projects and funding. Assistant DPW Morimoto reviewed the proposed draft CIP funding: Funding Source FY 2022-23 Requests General Fund $3,185,000 Measure I ($1 million for sidewalks and $1 million for streets $2,000,000 Gas Tax, Measure A, and SB 1 $2,130,000 Parking Enterprise Fund $650,000 Impact Fees $1,130,000 Solid Waste Fund $200,000 Grants $3,400,000 Total $12,695,000 Assistant DPW Morimoto reviewed the General Fund CIP requests: Programs FY 2022-23 Requests Parks and Recreation Improvements $2,585,000 Bike, Pedestrian, and Traffic Improvements $600,000 Building Facilities Improvements $0 Total $3,185,000 10 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 He noted that a large portion of the Parks and Recreation Improvements funding is due to the obligation to the Burlingame High School in assisting with the Aquatic Center. Assistant DPW Morimoto reviewed the proposed Parks and Recreation Improvements for FY 2022-23: Project General Fund Impact Fees Grants Total Funding Description Recommendation Aquatic Facility— $1,310,000 $1,310,000 Pool Deck Replacement Resurfacing Burlingame Square $200,000 $500,000 $700,000 Transit Hub Alpine Park $190,000 $160,000 $350,000 Renovation and ADA Improvements Town Square $300,000 $300,000 Cuernavaca Field $250,000 $250,000 Renovation and ADA Improvements including Synthetic Turf Trash Receptacles $200,000 $200,000 per SB 1383 Pathways and $75,000 $75,000 Landscape Improvements Eucalyptus Tree $75,000 $75,000 Management City Parks Fencing $75,000 $75,000 Playground $50,000 $50,000 Replacement Fund Laguna Playground $50,000 $50,000 Renovation and ADA Improvements Annual Tree $10,000 $10,000 Replacement 11 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 BSD Synthetic Turf $0 Replacement Fund Picnic Tables, $0 Benches, and Fountains Murray Field $0 Synthetic Turf Replacement Fund Athletic Field $0 Renovations Fund Total $2,585,000 $360,000 $500,000 $3,445,000 Assistant DPW Morimoto reviewed the proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Traffic Improvements for FY 2022-23: Project General Measure I Measure Gas Impact Grants Total Funding Description Fund A Tax/ SB Fees Recommendations 1 Old Bayshore $150,000 $1,200,000 $1,350,000 Highway (Design Development and Environmental Clearance Sidewalk $200,000 $1,000,000 $100,000 $1,300,000 Repair Program Murchison, $600,000 $400,000 $1,000,000 Trousdale, and Davis Bike Lane Project Neighborhood $300,000 $500,000 $800,000 Bike Boulevard California $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 Drive Class I Bike Improvements 12 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 (Broadway to Murchison California $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 Drive Class I Bike Improvements (Oak Grove to Burlingame Ave California $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 Drive Bike Improvements (Burlingame Ave and Peninsula Ave MTC Quick $80,000 $200,000 $280,000 Strike Pedestrian Safety Grant Project Traffic and $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 Transportation Studies Citywide $50,000 $50,000 Pedestrian Safety Improvements Total $600,000 $1,000,000 $680,000 $100,000 $500,000 $2,900,000 $5,780,000 He noted that staff is hopeful that the City will receive grant funds for some of the projects. He discussed the increase in Federal funding for transportation/infrastructure projects. Assistant DPW Morimoto showed maps of the bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic improvement projects. Additionally, he showed a map depicting the sidewalk repair program. Assistant DPW Morimoto reviewed the proposed Building Facility Improvements for FY 2022-23: 13 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Project General Fund Parking Fund Impact Fees Total Funding Description Recommendation Police Station ADA $200,000 $200,000 Improvements Donnelly Garage $200,000 $200,000 Elevator Improvements Fire Station 34 $170,000 $170,000 Renovations City Facilities Roof $100,000 $100,000 Replacement Total $0 $200,000 $470,000 $670,000 Assistant DPW Morimoto reviewed the proposed Parking and Garages projects for FY 2022-23: Project Description General Fund Parking Fund Total Funding Recommendation Public Parking Lot $300,000 $300,000 Resurfacing Parking Meters Upgrade $150,000 $150,000 Program Total 1 $0 $450,000 1 $450,000 Assistant DPW Morimoto reviewed the preliminary list of the street resurfacing projects for FY 2022-23. He noted that the cost of the proposed resurfacing is $2,350,000. The streets included in the street resurfacing project are: • Adeline Road from El Camino Real to Balboa Avenue • Airport Boulevard from Beach Road to San Mateo City limit • Bayshore Highway from Mitten Road to Mahler Road (digouts only) • Broadway from Vancouver Avenue to El Camino Real • Burlingame Avenue from Carolan avenue to Bloomfield Road • California Drive from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue • Donnelly Road from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue (digouts only) • Gilbreth Road from Cowan Road to Mahler Road (digouts only) • Guittard Road from Rollins Road to end • North Carolan Avenue from Edwards Court to Rollins Road Assistant DPW Morimoto provided a summary of the proposed CIP recommendations for FY 2022-23: 14 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Programs Draft FY 2022-23 Recommendations Parks and Recreation Improvements $3,445,000 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Traffic Improvements $5,780,000 Building Facilities Improvements $670,000 Parking and Garages $450,000 Street Resurfacing Projects $2,350,000 Total $12,695,000 Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated staff leveraging impact fees and grants to pay for some of the projects. She noted her support for the grant placeholders. She added that she believed there would be more County funds made available for bicycle and pedestrian projects in the coming fiscal year. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the impact fees. He noted that previously, the Council hadn't seen CIP projects funded by impact fees. DPW Murtuza stated that the City obtains impact fees primarily from private development. He explained that this was the first year that there was enough funds from impact fees to be useful. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought it was helpful to remind the public that developers are contributing to streets and parks projects. He added that he appreciated the emphasis on bicycle lanes and bicycle safety. Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced concern about pedestrian safety on El Camino Real. He added that while he knew that Caltrans was planning on upgrading the roadway, he had concerns about the crossing near McKinley Elementary School. He asked if the City should focus some funds on that issue or if it's under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. DPW Murtuza stated that the City is in negotiations with Caltrans to do some interim improvements at that location while waiting on final approval of their project. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. John Martos thanked Council and staff for their conservative approach to the budget. He asked about improvements at the Oak Grove and Carolan Avenue intersection. Assistant DPW Morimoto stated that staff is working on safety improvements for the Oak Grove and Carolan Avenue intersection. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Mayor Ortiz thanked staff for their hard work. 14. ADJOURNMENT 15 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 04/04/2022 Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 16 Burlingame City Council March 16, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 CITY 0 BURLINGAME °nnreo �uue e BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes City Council Closed Session on March 21, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed closed was held via Zoom at 6:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one spoke. 4. CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: HR DIRECTOR SONYA M. MORRISON, CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GUINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR HELEN YU-SCOTT EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS, TEAMSTERS, AFSCME BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MID -MANAGEMENT, AFSCME MAINTENANCE UNIT, AFSCME ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, DEPARTMENT HEAD/UNREPRESENTED UNIT City Attorney Guina stated that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. 1 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes March 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8b Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 March 21, 2022 CITY 0 BURLINGAME °nnreo �uue e BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular City Council Meeting on March 21, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:01 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by City Librarian McCulley. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6) CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: HR DIRECTOR SONYA M. MORRISON, CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GUINA, FINANCE DIRECTOR HELEN YU-SCOTT EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS, TEAMSTERS, AFSCME BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MID -MANAGEMENT, AFSCME MAINTENANCE UNIT, AFSCME ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, DEPARTMENT HEAD/UNREPRESENTED UNIT City Attorney Guina stated that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city. 1 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes March 21, 2022 Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 6. PRESENTATIONS a. BURLINGAME AND MILLBRAE SEA LEVEL RISE SHORELINE AREA PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT UPDATE OneShoreline CEO Len Materman explained that San Mateo County has a great vulnerability to sea level rise as reported by several studies including those done by Caltrans and the County. He noted that San Mateo County is the most vulnerable California county to three feet of sea level rise in terms of: • Population, including underrepresented population • Number of homes • Number of contaminated sites • Property value Mr. Materman explained that sea level rise matters directly to everyone in San Mateo County who: • Drives on Highway 101 or Highway 1 • Flushes a toilet, especially east of Skyline Boulevard • Depends on water from the Hetch Hetchy system • Depends on electricity and natural gas from PG&E's transmission system • Works, lives, or goes to school in most areas east of the Caltrain tracks • Values the Bay marshes and coastal beaches Mr. Materman showed photographs depicting sea level rise in the county. Mr. Materman reviewed OneShoreline's background. He stated that OneShoreline was established on January 1, 2020, as the first independent government agency in California focused on the water -related impacts of climate change. He noted that OneShoreline builds resilience to climate change impacts by taking a holistic approach to: • Geography — align and connect protection for multiple neighboring jurisdictions • Threats — more extreme storms and substantial sea level rise • Objectives — reduce threats; turn waterways and shorelines from liabilities into assets integrated into communities; utilize green infrastructure and public and private lands Mr. Materman reviewed OneShoreline's priorities for 2022-23: • Complete first construction project — a long -planned effort to protect five mobile home parks and many businesses from frequent flooding near the Bayfront Canal • Advance new multi jurisdictional projects that connect and align substantial protection for neighboring jurisdictions, and protect and enhance three long-standing flood zones • Work with cities and developers so public and private infrastructure and development can function for decades as the impacts of climate change grow substantially • Develop a source of long-term stable funding to build resilience to climate risks related to: 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes March 21, 2022 Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 o Water (sea level rise, flooding, erosion, regional stormwater capture, drought) o Wildfire (vegetation/forest management; detection, alerts, and evacuations; planning education, and outreach; and home hardening) Mr. Materman showed a map that displayed projects that OneShoreline is working on over the next two years. Mr. Materman reviewed Burlingame's shoreline. He noted that Burlingame brought together three key ingredients to enable progress: • City leadership eager to maximize opportunities for long-term adaptation planning • Opportunities for major new developments to contribute to adaptation solutions • Regional project to analyze and guide those solutions Mr. Materman discussed the Millbrae and Burlingame Shoreline Area Protection and Enhancement Project. He explained that SFO has been working on a shoreline protection program for many years. He noted that last year, the airport began working on its CEQA documents for this project. He stated that there are many different reaches (different lengths of the shoreline) that are connected to the project. Mr. Materman stated that one of the reaches is along Highway 101 and that SFO has two options on how to deal with this area: • Tie it into adjacent protections in Millbrae or • Develop westside protection along the highway Mr. Materman explained that while SFO was working on this project, Burlingame and Millbrae were working on their own studies. He stated that when OneShoreline was created in 2020, the cities began discussing the idea of a unified project that would tie into SFO's project. Mr. Materman reviewed what the project partners would share by creating a unified approach: • Establish common objectives and assumptions • Share technical information • Share environmental mitigations • Share costs • Utilize public and private lands to meet objectives He noted that the objectives are FEMA 100 years and six-foot sea -level rise, which equals 10 feet above today's high tide. Mr. Materman reviewed the status of the project: • FY 2021-22 State budget included $8 million for OneShoreline • January 2022 — One Shoreline Board voted to use half of the funds ($4 million) to develop a shovel - ready project along the shoreline and affected creeks of Burlingame and Millbrae 3 Burlingame City Council March 21, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 • January 2022 - OneShoreline released an RFP for a consultant team to complete data collection, design, CEQA/NEPA, and permit applications by January 31, 2026 • March 2022 — OneShoreline, Burlingame, and Millbrae staff interviewed consultant teams; and on March 29, the OneShoreline Board will consider a consultant contract Mr. Materman stated that over the next four years, OneShoreline and the cities will: • Identify the total cost to complete design, CEQA, and permitting • Close funding gaps through cost -sharing with local agencies and grants • Develop a plan to finance construction of the project • Conduct outreach to the public, developers, and key stakeholders • Update the City Councils and OneShoreline Board Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked OneShoreline for the great work. He explained that he understood that the design/construction timeline would be long, but he wondered how it would match up with the cost -sharing timeline. Specifically, he discussed new projects that are coming online on the Bayfront and wondered how the two timelines would match up. Mr. Materman stated that it is highly complex. He noted that OneShoreline has been meeting with some of the developers to discuss how their work could and should match up with the regional project. Councilmember Beach thanked Mr. Materman for his presentation. She noted that it is great to see regional coordination on this important project. She explained that she thought a key component would be public outreach to make sure that residents understand the importance of the project. Councilmember Colson discussed the enhanced zoning of the Bayfront under the updated General Plan. She explained that she believed developers understood that if they began their project ahead of OneShoreline's timeline, they would need to use their own capital to protect against sea level rise. Councilmember Colson discussed the funds that would be needed to complete the OneShoreline project. She noted that OneShoreline would need to consider grants and a potential countywide parcel tax measure. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran thanked Mr. Materman for his presentation. She emphasized the importance of educating the public throughout the county on the project. Mayor Ortiz stated that the project is a regional effort, and communication on the project's importance would be important. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. John Martos thanked Council for their efforts on sea level rise. He noted that he would be interested in the design elements of the project. 4 Burlingame City Council March 21, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 Mr. Materman stated that aesthetics and connectivity of the Bayshore are key to the project. He noted that OneShoreline would do what they could to not only protect the communities from sea level rise but also enhance the Bayshore. Sandra Lang thanked Mr. Materman for his presentation. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City has to protect against a much higher sea level rise, and sooner, than experts had projected a decade ago. He explained that it is too bad that climate change policies aren't moving more quickly. Councilmember Colson stated that when tackling sea level rise, the City is looking at an issue that isn't yet evident but is something that will affect future generations. She noted that the City has to look at policies to protect the Bayshore and decrease carbon. Mayor Ortiz thanked Mr. Materman for the presentation. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Sandra Lang discussed California's wildfire season and urged the Council to educate the public on home hardening and the importance of clearing vegetation. Davis Turner discussed SB 917, the Seamless Transit Transformation Act, and urged the Council to voice their support for the bill. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were removed. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember O'Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 7, 2022 STUDY SESSION COUNCIL MEETING City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 7, 2022 Study Session. b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 7, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 5 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes March 21, 2022 Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 7, 2022 Regular Meeting. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS IN ALAMEDA COUNTY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MODIFIED AMENDED AND RESTATED WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENT, AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINIMUM PURCHASE TRANSFER FROM THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TO THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 022-2022 and Resolution Number 023-2022. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 024-2022. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS REMOTELY DUE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 025-2022. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY; CEOA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEOA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND 15061(B)(3) DPW Murtuza stated that the proposed ordinance was to add stop signs at the following intersections: • Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (multi -way stop) • Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (multi -way stop) • Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (multi -way stop) • Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (multi -way stop) • Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (one-way stop) DPW Murtuza stated that the City periodically receives request for stop signs to be installed at different intersections. He explained that in order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis 6 Burlingame City Council March 21, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 and associated traffic studies are conducted by staff as required by State law. He noted that the stop sign warrant analysis includes review of traffic counts and reported accident data of the affected intersections. Additionally, staff takes into consideration the proximity of the location to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, and right-of-way assignments. DPW Murtuza stated that staff presented the above proposed locations for stop signs to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at their February 10, 2022 meeting. He explained that based on the Commission's discussion and public input received at the meeting, the TSPC concurred with staff s recommendations to install permanent stops signs. DPW Murtuza reviewed the need for stop signs at each of the proposed locations. Mayor Ortiz asked if the intersections were studied and discussed at TSPC and if public comment was sought on the locations. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz asked if the meetings were well attended. DPW Murtuza stated that the individuals affected by the intersections were informed of the stop signs. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if a recommendation for whether a stop sign should be installed at Ray Drive and Marco Polo was delayed. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He added that TSPC was not unanimous over whether to go forward with a stop sign there because BIS has a traffic circulation plan that may change the need. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked why the City wasn't adding a stop sign at Ray Drive and Quesada Way. DPW Murtuza stated that he would need to review that intersection. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg that the Ray Drive and Quesada Way intersection should be studied. She asked if BIS is keeping the City informed about their traffic circulation plan. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Mayor Ortiz asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title. Councilmember O'Brien Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. Manito Velasco stated that he was in favor of stop signs at Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue and Oak Grove Road Avenue and Ansel Road. He noted that he has asked for these stop signs to be installed for several years. (comment submitted via publiccomment(a),burlin ag me.org). 7 Burlingame City Council March 21, 2022 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 John Martos talked about TSPC's review of the stations and their collaboration with BIS. Mayor Ortiz closed the public hearing. Councilmember Colson stated that she supported installing stop signs at the proposed locations. She noted that staff often gets requests for stop signs and traffic changes. She explained that it takes time for staff to review intersections and take into consideration public feedback. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the time and research that TSPC and staff put into recommending new stop signs. He added that he thought a stricter standard should be established for pedestrian and bike safety that would require additional stop signs. Mayor Ortiz stated that he looked forward to seeing BIS' traffic circulation plan. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. b. PROPOSITION 218 PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION INCREASING SOLID WASTE RATE BY 5% FOR ALL ACCOUNTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing to consider increasing the solid waste rate by 5% for all accounts for 2022. She noted that as of the start of the meeting, the City had received 202 protests. She confirmed this with City Clerk Hassel -Shearer. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that the City has 7,948 accounts. She added that the City mailed out 9,550 notices to cover both the property owners and tenants on file. She noted that the protests do not constitute a majority. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Josh asked if the City could get smaller bins like those offered in other cities. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the cost of picking up any bin is the same. He noted that the reason there was such a difference in pricing when the smaller bins were first introduced was to encourage people to create less waste. However, he explained that in reality this didn't work, and people overfilled the smaller bins and things fell out. He noted that this was the thought process for why smaller bins weren't offered in Burlingame. He added that this notion could be revisited at a later date. Mayor Ortiz closed public comment. 8 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes March 21, 2022 Agenda Item: 8c Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 Councilmember Colson stated that new State laws about composting are going to require the City to recycle and compost more. She noted that the size of the trash bin wouldn't matter. She added that the City could ask for observations from Recology about whether or not the residents' cans are being filled or not. Councilmember Beach stated that she would welcome revisiting the topic of the smaller bins in the future. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 026-2022; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Councilmember Beach thanked staff for their presentations on the topic and research that was done. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS There were no staff reports. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no reports. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no 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.burlin-ag me.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. in memory of Kevin Kielty. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 0 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes March 21, 2022 Agenda Item: 8d Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 BiFRLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Michael Tsai, Transportation Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and 15061(B)(3) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add stop signs at the following locations in the City: • Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop); • Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop); and • Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop). In its action, the City Council should, by motion: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and discussed the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting on March 21, 2022. No changes to the proposed ordinance were requested; therefore, the ordinance is presented to the City Council for adoption at its regular meeting of April 4, 2022. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is 1 Ordinance Adoption for Various Stop Signs April4, 2022 subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with the installation of stop signs and roadway stop markings are minimal and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operations budget. Exhibits: • Ordinance • March 21, 2022 Staff Report and Attachments 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND 15061(B)(3) WHEREAS, the City periodically receives requests for new stop signs to address traffic safety needs; and WHEREAS, in order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis and associated traffic studies are conducted by staff as required by State laws. The stop sign warrant analysis includes review of traffic counts and reported accident data of the affected intersections. Other factors taken into consideration are the proximity to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as right-of-way assignment; and WHEREAS, staff presented permanent stop sign installation recommendations to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at their February 10, 2022 meeting. Based on the Commission's discussion and public input received, the TSPC recommended installation of permanent stop signs at the following intersections: • Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop); • Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop); • Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop); and WHEREAS, Section 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) provides for a list of all stop signs in the City, and thus in order to add the recommended stop controls, BMC Section 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code must be amended. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest. Section 3. The proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 5. Subsections in 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code are amended as follows. Additions are reflected by underlined text. Provisions of the Section 13.20.010 not listed below remain unchanged. (a) Alcazar Drive approaching Hunt Drive; (a) Ansel Road approaching Oak Grove Avenue; (c) Corbitt Drive approaching Winchester Drive; (h) Howard Avenue approaching Victoria Road; (h) Hunt Drive approaching Alcazar Drive; (o) Oak Grove Avenue approaching Ansel Road; (p) Paloma Avenue approaching Sanchez Avenue; (s) Sanchez Avenue approaching Paloma Avenue; (v) Victoria Road approaching Howard Avenue; Section 6. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in a manner required by law. Section 8. Section 5 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Burlingame Municipal Code. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 shall not be so codified. Ricardo Ortiz, 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 21st day of March, 2022, and adopted thereafter on the 4t" day of April, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM NO: rV LINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: March 21, 2022 even To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: March 21, 2022 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Michael Tsai, Transportation Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City; CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and 15061(B)(3) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce the attached Ordinance amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to add stop signs at the following intersections: • Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop); • Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop); and • Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop). To introduce the Ordinance, staff recommends taking the following actions: 1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed 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 by motion determining whether to bring it back for a second reading and adoption; and 5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the Ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND Section 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides that drivers entering designated intersections must first bring their vehicle to a full stop. The City periodically receives requests for new stop signs to address traffic safety needs. In order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis and associated traffic studies are conducted by staff as required by State laws. The stop sign warrant analysis includes review of traffic counts and reported accident 1 Ordinance Introduction for Various Stop Signs March 21, 2022 data of the affected intersections. Other factors taken into consideration are the proximity to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as right-of-way assignment. Staff originally received requests to add stops signs at five street intersections, as listed below: • Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop); • Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop); and • Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop). Staff presented the recommendations to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at their February 10, 2022 meeting. Based on the Commission's discussion and public input received at the meeting, the TSPC concurred with staff's recommendation to install the permanent stop signs as mentioned above. In addition, the TSPC requested that a multiway stop be revisited at Marco Polo Way and Davis Drive at the conclusion of the Burlingame Intermediate School circulation plan. The proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. DISCUSSION Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop) Sanchez Avenue is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, average daily traffic (ADT) of 1600 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and parking on both sides. Paloma Avenue is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 800 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a four-way intersection. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest eight -hour period for Sanchez Avenue was 100 vehicles per hour; it was 45 vehicles per hour for Paloma Avenue. Neither street meets the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidelines of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. However, Section 2B.04 in the MUTCD adds that the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or 2 Ordinance Introduction for Various Stop Signs March 21, 2022 C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right- of-way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a three-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a two- year period. Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue are both considered low volume local roads and have satisfied Criterion A for all approaches to the intersection to average more than 2,000 vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians per day. Neither road has existing traffic controls within 500 feet. Additionally, the combination of a narrow roadway width and parked cars provides limited visibility, which satisfies Criterion B. Although there was one reported correctible collision in a three-year period and signs of debris at the intersection, Criterion C has not been satisfied. This information was presented and discussed at a TPSC meeting on June 11, 2020, and a multi - way stop was implemented shortly thereafter for a one-year trial. After the trial period, observations at the intersection confirmed that the trial multi -way stop has improved overall traffic operations for all modes of travel, addressed sight distance issues, and resulted in no reported collisions. Staff recommends that the trial installation of a multi -way stop at Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue be made permanent and the change be reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop) Oak Grove Avenue is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, an ADT of 3,500 vehicles per day, roadway width of 40 feet, and parking on both sides. Ansel Road is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 1,200 vehicles per day, roadway width of 36 feet, and parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a three-way intersection with an existing one-way stop on Ansel Road. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest eight -hour period for Oak Grove was 300 vehicles per hour; it was 69 vehicles per hour for Ansel Road. Following the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline, Oak Grove Avenue met the 300 vehicles per hour threshold on the main street, but Ansel Road did not meet the 200 vehicles per hour threshold on the minor street. However, following guidance from MUTCD Section 2B.04 detailed in the prior section, Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road are both considered low volume local roads and have satisfied Criterion A for all approaches to the intersection to average more than 2,000 vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians per day. Neither road has existing traffic controls within 500 feet. In addition, the installation of a multi -way stop would improve visibility issues related to a slight vertical roadway curve and heavy tree growth overhead. Staff recommends that a multi -way stop be installed at Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road and the change be reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal code. Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi-Wav Sto Howard Avenue is residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 1,700 vehicles per day, a roadway width of 47 feet, and parking on both sides. Victoria Road is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 300 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and parking on 3 Ordinance Introduction for Various Stop Signs March 21, 2022 both sides. The two streets meet at a three-way intersection on the immediate corner of Victoria Park. This intersection was studied as a part of the Lyon -Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhoods Traffic Calming Study completed in May of 2020, and a multi -way stop was implemented upon the City Council's approval of the plan. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest eight -hour period for Howard Avenue was 127 vehicles per hour; it was 28 vehicles per hour for Victoria Road. Neither street met the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. However, following guidance from MUTCD Section 2B.04 detailed in the prior section, Howard Avenue and Victoria Road both satisfied Criterion A for all approaches to the intersection to average more than 2,000 vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians per day. An existing multi -way stop exists on Humboldt Street, but both intersections are directly contiguous to a major pedestrian generator in Victoria Park. The installation of a multi -way stop will improve traffic operations and improve walkability for pedestrians accessing the park. Staff recommends that the Burlingame Municipal Code be updated to reflect the multi -way stop installed at the intersection of Howard Avenue and Victoria Road. Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop) Hunt Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 350 vehicles per day, roadway width of 38 feet, and parking on both sides. Alcazar Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 210 vehicles per day, roadway width of 34 feet, and parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a three-way intersection on the immediate corner of Cuernavaca Park, at the crest of two vertical curves in the roadway. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest eight -hour period for Hunt Drive was 28 vehicles per hour; it was 10 vehicles per hour for Alcazar Drive. Neither street met the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. However, following guidance from MUTCD Section 2B.04 detailed in the prior section, Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive both satisfied Criterion B where the ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right- of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary. The intersection is at the top of the hill, and the existence of vertical curves may present visibility issues for vehicles on all approaches to the intersection. The installation of a multi -way stop will improve traffic operations, sight lines, and walkability for pedestrians accessing the park. Staff recommends that a multi -way stop be installed at the intersection of Alcazar Drive and Hunt Drive and the change be reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. M Ordinance Introduction for Various Stop Signs March 21, 2022 Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop) Winchester Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 550 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and parking on both sides. Corbitt Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 270 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a three-way intersection with an angle of 50 degrees. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest eight- hour period for Winchester Drive was 39 vehicles per hour; it was 17 vehicles per hour for Corbitt Drive. Neither street met the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. A one-way stop sign installed on the side street will inform motorists to come to a complete stop and gain a better line of sight before entering the main street. Staff recommends that a one-way stop be installed on Corbitt Drive at the intersection of Corbitt Drive and Winchester Drive and the change be reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with the installation of stop signs and roadway stop markings are minimal and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operations budget. Exhibits: • Proposed Ordinance • February 10, 2022 TSPC Staff Report and Presentation 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND 15061(B)(3) WHEREAS, the City periodically receives requests for new stop signs to address traffic safety needs; and WHEREAS, in order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis and associated traffic studies are conducted by staff as required by State laws. The stop sign warrant analysis includes review of traffic counts and reported accident data of the affected intersections. Other factors taken into consideration are the proximity to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as right-of-way assignment; and WHEREAS, staff presented permanent stop sign installation recommendations to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at their February 10, 2022 meeting. Based on the Commission's discussion and public input received, the TSPC recommended installation of permanent stop signs at the following intersections: • Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop); • Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop); • Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop); • Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop); and WHEREAS, Section 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) provides for a list of all stop signs in the City, and thus in order to add the recommended stop controls, BMC Section 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code must be amended. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest. Section 3. The proposed Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 5. Subsections in 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code are amended as follows. Additions are reflected by underlined text. Provisions of the Section 13.20.010 not listed below remain unchanged. (a) Alcazar Drive approaching Hunt Drive; (a) Ansel Road approaching Oak Grove Avenue; (c) Corbitt Drive approaching Winchester Drive; (h) Howard Avenue approaching Victoria Road; (h) Hunt Drive approaching Alcazar Drive; (o) Oak Grove Avenue approaching Ansel Road; (p) Paloma Avenue approaching Sanchez Avenue; (s) Sanchez Avenue approaching Paloma Avenue; (v) Victoria Road approaching Howard Avenue; Section 6. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption. Section 7. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in a manner required by law. Section 8. Section 5 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Burlingame Municipal Code. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 shall not be so codified. Ricardo Ortiz, 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 215t day of March, 2022, and adopted thereafter on the day of , 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk BiFRLINGAME STAFF REPORT even To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: February 10, 2022 AGENDA ITEM NO: 6.b MEETING DATE: February 10, 2022 From: Michael Tsai, Transportation Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Multi -Way and One -Way Stop Recommendations at Various Locations RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) review and support the installation of stop signs at the following locations: 1. Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop); 2. Davis Drive and Marco Polo Way (Multi -Way Stop); 3. Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop); 4. Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop); 5. Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop); and 6. Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop). BACKGROUND The City periodically receives requests for stop signs. In order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis is conducted. Vehicular traffic from all approaches is counted and the reported collision data for the intersection is reviewed. Other factors may be included into the analysis including proximity to a school, park, or pedestrian generator, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as right-of-way assignment. Based on Section 2B.07 Guidance Criteria of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2014, the minimum warrants considered for multi -way stops are: WARRANT 1: Traffic Warrant — Traffic signal warranted urgent pending installation of a traffic signal. WARRANT 2: Accident History Warrant — Five (5) or more reported accidents within a 12- month period of a type susceptible of correction by a multi -way stop installation. Such accidents include right-angle, right and left -turn collisions. WARRANT 3: Minimum Volume Warrant — (1) Total vehicular volume from both approaches on the major street averages more than 300 vehicles per hour 1 Item 6.b — Multi -Way and One -Way Stop Recommendations at Various Locations February 10, 2022 for any eight (8) hours of an average day; and (2) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street must average at least 200 vehicles, bikes and pedestrians per hour for the same eight (8) hours as Condition A, with an average delay to minor street traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour. If the 85t"-percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 65km/hr or exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. ANAI YSIS Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop) Sanchez Avenue is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, average daily traffic (ADT) of 1,600 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and has parking on both sides. Paloma Avenue is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 800 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and has parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a 4-way intersection. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest 8 hour period for Sanchez was 100 vehicles per hour and for Paloma was 45 vehicles per hour. Both streets do not meet the MUTCD guidelines of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. However, Section 213.04 of the MUTCD adds that in addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue are both considered low volume local roads and have satisfied criterion A for all approaches to the intersection to average more than 2,000 vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians per day. Neither road has existing traffic controls within 500 feet. Additionally, the combination of a narrow roadway width and parked cars provides limited visibility which satisfies criterion B. There was 1 reported correctible collision in a 3-year period and signs of debris at the intersection, but did not satisfy criterion C. The information was presented and discussed at a TPSC public hearing on June 11, 2020 and a multi -way stop was implemented shortly after for a one-year trial. 2 Item 6.b — Multi -Way and One -Way Stop Recommendations at Various Locations February 10, 2022 After the trial period, observations at the intersection confirm that the trial multi -way stop has improved overall traffic operations for all modes of travel, addressed sight distance issues, and resulted in no reported collisions. Staff recommends that the trial installation of a multi -way stop at Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue be made permanent and the change reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Davis Drive and Marco Polo Way (Multi -Way Stop) Davis Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, average daily traffic (ADT) of 1,500 vehicles per day, roadway width of 36 feet, and has parking on both sides. Marco Polo Way is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 1,500 vehicles per day, roadway width of 34 feet, and has parking on both sides. The intersection of these two streets are offset by 40 feet which may create sight line issues and right-of-way priority between vehicles. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest 8 hour period for Davis Drive was 152 vehicles per hour and for Marco Polo Way was 116 vehicles per hour. Both streets did not meet the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. However, following guidance from MUTCD Section 2B.04 detailed in the prior section, Davis Drive and Marco Polo Way are both considered low volume local roads and have satisfied criterion A for all approaches to the intersection to average more than 2,000 vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians per day. Neither road has existing traffic controls within 500 feet. In addition, the installation of a multi -way stop would improve sightline and right-of-way priority issues related to the offset intersection. Staff recommends that a multi -way stop be installed at Davis Drive and Marco Polo Way and the change reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop) Oak Grove Avenue is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, average daily traffic (ADT) of 3,500 vehicles per day, roadway width of 40 feet, and has parking on both sides. Ansel Road is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 1,200 vehicles per day, roadway width of 36 feet, and has parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a 3-way intersection. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest 8 hour period for Oak Grove was 300 vehicles per hour and for Ansel Road was 69 vehicles per hour. Following the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline, Oak Grove Avenue met the 300 vehicles per hour threshold on the main street but Ansel Road did not meet the 200 vehicles per hour threshold on the minor street. However, following guidance from MUTCD Section 2B.04 detailed in the prior section, Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road are both considered low volume local roads and have satisfied criterion A for all approaches to the intersection to average more than 2,000 vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians per day. Neither road has existing traffic controls within 500 feet. In addition, the installation of a multi -way stop would improve visibility issues related to a slight vertical roadway curve and heavy tree growth overhead. 3 Item 6.b — Multi -Way and One -Way Stop Recommendations at Various Locations February 10, 2022 Staff recommends that a multi -way stop be installed at Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road and the change reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi-Wav Sto Howard Avenue is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, average daily traffic (ADT) of 1,700 vehicles per day, roadway width of 47 feet, and has parking on both sides. Victoria Road is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 300 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and has parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a 3-way intersection on the immediate corner of Victoria Park. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest 8 hour period for Howard Avenue was 127 vehicles per hour and for Victoria Road was 28 vehicles per hour. Both streets did not meet the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. However, following guidance from MUTCD Section 2B.04 detailed in the prior section, Howard Avenue and Victoria Road both satisfied criterion A for all approaches to the intersection to average more than 2,000 vehicles, bikes, or pedestrians per day. An existing multi -way stop exists on Humboldt Street but both intersections are directly contiguous to a major pedestrian generator in Victoria Park. The installation of a multi -way stop will improve traffic operations and improve walkability for pedestrians accessing the park. This intersection was studied as a part of the Lyon -Hoag and Adjacent Neighborhood Traffic Calming Study completed in May of 2020 and a multi -way stop was implemented upon approval of the plan by City Council. Staff recommends that the Burlingame Municipal Code be updated to reflect the multi -way stop installed at the intersection of Howard Avenue and Victoria Road. Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop) Hunt Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, average daily traffic (ADT) of 350 vehicles per day, roadway width of 38 feet, and has parking on both sides. Alcazar Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 210 vehicles per day, roadway width of 34 feet, and has parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a 3-way intersection on the immediate corner of Cuernavaca Park and is at the crest of two vertical curves in the roadway. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest 8 hour period for Hunt Drive was 28 vehicles per hour and for Alcazar Drive was 10 vehicles per hour. Both streets did not meet the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. However, following guidance from MUTCD Section 2B.04 detailed in the prior section, Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive both satisfied criterion B where the ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right- of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary. The intersection is at the top of the hill and the existence of vertical curves may present visibility issues for vehicles on all approaches to the 0 Item 6.b — Multi -Way and One -Way Stop Recommendations at Various Locations February 10, 2022 intersection. The installation of a multi -way stop will improve traffic operations, sight lines, and walkability for pedestrians accessing the park. Staff recommends that a multi -way stop be installed at the intersection of Alcazar Drive and Hunt Drive and the change reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop) Winchester Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, average daily traffic (ADT) of 550 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet and has parking on both sides. Corbitt Drive is a residential street with a speed limit of 25 mph, ADT of 270 vehicles per day, roadway width of 30 feet, and has parking on both sides. The two streets meet at a 3-way intersection with an angle of 50 degrees. The total average hourly vehicular volume for the highest 8 hour period for Winchester Drive was 39 vehicles per hour and for Corbitt Drive was 17 vehicles per hour. Both streets did not meet the MUTCD Section 2B.07 guideline of 300 vehicles per hour on the main street and 200 vehicles per hour on the minor street. A one-way stop sign installed on the side street will inform motorists to come to a complete stop and gain a better line of sight before entering the main street. Staff recommends that a one-way stop be installed on Corbitt Drive at the intersection of Corbitt Drive and Winchester Drive and the change reflected in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. 5 All -Way Stop Recommendations (Various Locations) err... TSPC Meeting I February 10, 2022 All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Proposed locations 1. Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop) 2. Davis Drive and Marco Polo Way (Multi -Way Stop) 3. Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road (Multi -Way Stop) 4. Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop) 5. Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop) 6. Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop) All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Methodology California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi - way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi - way stop installation. Such crashes include right -turn and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Methodology California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Continued) C1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and C2. The combined vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours C3. If the 85th-percentile speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants may be reduced to 70 percent. All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Methodology California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 213.04 The use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day, All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Methodology California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Section 2B.04 (Continued) 2. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or 3. Five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way at the intersection have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Methodology California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Additional Criteria Considered A. The need to control left -turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; a n d All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Methodology California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Additional Criteria Considered D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi -way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Sanchez Avenue and Paloma Avenue (Multi -Way Stop one year trial result) r Origin: Neighborhood Petition '9h wu� dw -11 Y_ 1 Main Street: ADT- 1600 veh/day 8 hour avg- 100 veh/hour Minor Street: ADT- 800 veh/day 8 hour avg- 45 veh/hour Additional Considerations: - 1 reported collision - Debris in roadway - Limited visibility - Bike route All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Davis Drive and Marco Polo Way (Multi -Way Stop recommendation) A Origin: BIS School Walk Audit g r. Main Street: ADT- 1500 veh/day 8 hour avg- 152 veh/hour Minor Street: ADT- 1500 veh/day 8 hour avg- 116 veh/hour Additional Considerations: - Visibility issues due to offset intersection - Bike Master Plan route - Proximity to school . } - 1 reported collision with vehicle and bike All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Oak Grove Avenue and Ansel Road Main Street: (Multi -Way Stop recommendation) ADT- 3500 veh/day 8 hour avg- 300 veh/hour I rr ji; 0 F�� I rw Origin: Resident Request I Minor Street: ADT- 300 veh/day 8 hour avg- 69 veh/hour Additional Considerations: - Visibility issues due to roadway curvature - Highly used Crosswalk - Multiple complaints of vehicles failing to yield at crosswalk All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Howard Avenue and Victoria Road (Multi -Way Stop Muni Code Update) a7r mot AW Origin: Lyon Hoag Traffic Calming Project 4.. Main Street: ADT- 1700 veh/day 8 hour avg- 127 veh/hour w Minor Street: ADT- 300 veh/day J 8 hour avg- 28 veh/hour Additional Considerations: - Victoria Park Bike Master Plan Route - Walkability and access for pedestrians to the �' park All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive (Multi -Way Stop Recommendation) Origin: Resident Request Main Street: ADT- 350 veh/day 8 hour avg- 28 veh/hour Minor Street: ADT- 210 veh/day 8 hour avg- 10 veh/hour Additional Considerations: - Visibility Issues due to severe roadway cu ravatu re - Cuernavaca Park - Walkability and access for pedestrians to the 4 GITY O park ; �j' �� All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive Visibility Issues (Multi -Way Stop Recommendation) fth'. All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Hunt Drive and Alcazar Drive Visibility Issues (Multi -Way Stop Recommendation) All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Locations Winchester Drive and Corbitt Drive (One -Way Stop Recommendation) 1-7 � - 44 I Origin: Resident Request Main Street: ADT- 550 veh/day 8 hour avg- 39 veh/hour Minor Street: ADT- 270 veh/day 8 hour avg- 17 veh/hour Additional Considerations: - Visibility Issues due to angled intersection All -Way Stop Recommendations (various locations) Questions Q & A Session BURLINGAME AGENDA NO: 8e STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Kevin Okada, Senior Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a $1,413,978 Construction Contract to Radius Earthwork, Inc. for the 2022 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 86220, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to Radius Earthwork, Inc. for the 2022 Street Resurfacing Program, in the amount of $1,413,978, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. BACKGROUND The Fiscal Year 2021-22 Street Resurfacing Project scope consists of performing asphalt concrete "dig -out" repairs, surface milling, asphalt concrete overlay, traffic markings, traffic striping, concrete improvements, and other related work on the following streets: • Bernal Avenue — Devereux Drive to Adeline Drive • Easton Drive — Vancouver Avenue to Alvarado Avenue • Edwards Court — Rollins Road to end • Hillview Court — Burlingview Drive to end • Hunt Drive — Trousdale Drive to Rivera Drive • Jackling Drive — Vancouver Avenue to Hillsborough City limit • Laguna Avenue — Lincoln Avenue to Broadway • Linden Avenue — Morrell Avenue to Larkspur Drive • Sebastian Drive — Trousdale Drive to Frontera Way • Summit Drive — El Prado to Belvedere Court • Valdivia Way — Hayward Drive to Davis Drive • Vancouver Avenue — Easton Drive to Broadway • Airport Boulevard — Lang Road to Beach Road (pavement section repairs) • Escalante Way — Rivera Drive to end (pavement section repairs) • Pinion Avenue — Ashton Avenue to Millbrae City limit (pavement section repairs) 1 Resolution Awarding a Contract to Radius Earthwork, Inc. for the April 4, 2022 2022 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project 86220 DISCUSSION The City received six bid proposals, which were opened on March 15, 2022 and ranged from $1,414,158 to $1,864,147. Radius Earthwork, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $1,414,158, which is 11% lower than the engineer's estimate of $1,589,281. Staff reviewed the bid proposals and discovered a calculation error on the bid schedule. Bid Item 25 "Remove and Replace Concrete Apron on Existing Inlet" is listed as a lump sum unit price of $1,800, but the item total is $1,980, which is a difference of $180. As described in the instruction to bidders, in the case of a discrepancy, unit prices shall prevail. Therefore, the award of construction contract amount is $1,413,978. The contractor has met all the project requirements and has a past history of successful construction work for other public agencies in the Bay Area. Summit Drive is a shared street with the Town of Hillsborough, and the total project costs for this street will be shared. This work will be performed pending execution of a cost sharing agreement. The City of Burlingame will receive approximately $80,000 from the Town of Hillsborough. However, Hillsborough and Burlingame understand and agree that this estimate is not final, and Hillsborough will reimburse Burlingame one half of the total actual cost to complete the shared work. The project construction is scheduled to begin in June 2022 and is expected to be completed by December 2022. Staff will send construction notices to the residents in the affected areas and work with the contractor to minimize the construction inconvenience to the residents as much as possible. FISCAL IMPACT Estimated Project Expenditures: The following are the estimated project construction expenditures: Construction $1,413,978 Construction Contingency (15%) $212,097 Construction Inspection and Testing $96,894 Engineering Staff Time and Public Relations $77,031 Total $1,800,000 Funding Availability: There are adequate funds available in the Street Resurfacing Program to complete the project. Exhibits: • Resolution • Bid Summary • Construction Contract • Project Location Map 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2022 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM TO RADIUS EARTHWORK, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CITY PROJECT NO. 86220 WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, the City issued notice inviting bid proposals for the 2022 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 86220; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Radius Earthwork, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $1,413,977.75. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of Radius Earthwork, Inc. for said project in the amount of $1,413,977.75 and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Ricardo, Ortiz, 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 4t" day of April, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk Bid Opening: 3/15/2022 BID SUMMARY 2022 STREET RESURFACING PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 86220 BASE BID SCHEDULE: 2022 STREET RESURFACING I Ergineer'e Estimate Radius Earthwork Ine. Interstate Gradirg 8 PaWrg Ine. G. Bortolotto 8 Company, Inc. O'Grady P.Arg Ine. Azel Worke, Inc. Granite Roek Company ITEM DESCRIPTION OF ITEM ESTI-TED I UNIT I QUANTITY I UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNITPRICE I TOTAL COST UNITPRICE I TOTAL COST I UNITPRICE I TOTAL COST U.TPRICE I TOTAL COST I UNITPRICE I TOTAL COST UNITPRICE I TOTAL COST BASE BID SCHEDULE: 1 Mobilization and Demobilization (@5%) 1 L.S. $]],604,71 $ ]],604,71 $ 50,000,00 $ 50,000.00 $ 47,000,00 $ 47,00000 $ 31,000,00 $ 31,000,00 $ 30,000,00 $ 30,00000 $ 80,000,00 $ 80,000.00 $ 811000.00 $ 81,000.00 2 Traffic Control and Construction Siqns 1 L.S. $65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $102,000.00 $ 102,000.00 $115,000.00 $ 115,000.00 $ 80000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 3 Water Pollution Prevention Control 1 L.S. $ 5.000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 7.000.00 $ 7.000.00 $ 4.000.00 $ 4'Dp0..0 $ 5,000,00 $ 5,000.0. $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 10,W0.00 4 A.C. Dinout Repair (+250 tons allowance) 1,674 Ton $ 240.00 $ 401,760.00 $ 234.00 $ 391,716.00 $ 184.00 $ 308,016.00 $ 226.00 $ 378,324.00 $ 275.00 $ 160,350.00 $ 320.00 $ 535,680.00 $ 225.00 $ 376,650.00 5 Concrete Removal 10 C.Y. $ 215.00 $ 15.050.00 $ 209.30 $ 14,651.00 $ 340.00 $ 23.800.00 $ 215.00 $ 15,050.00 $ 200.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 360.00 $ 25,200.00 $ 600.00 $ 42,000.00 6 Aggregate Base 25 Ton $ 100.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 153.60 $ 3,840.00 $ 150.00 $ 3,750.00 $ 93.00 $ 2,325.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 124.00 $ 3.100.00 $ 200.00 $ 5,000.00 7 A.0 01 4,100 Ton $ 142.00 $ 582,200.00 $ 123.25 $ 505,325.00 $ 130.00 $ 03.000.00 $ 138.00 $ 565,800.00 $ 149.00 $ 610,900.00 $ 160.00 $ 656,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 615,000.00 8 Cold Plane A.0 2,030 C.Y. $ loom $ 203,000.00 $ 52.80 $ 107,184.00 $ 80.00 $ 162,400.00 $ 89.00 $ 180,670.00 $ 105.00 $ 213,150.00 $ 110.00 $ 223,300.00 $ 130.00 $ 263,900.00 9 Adlust Manholes & ufilily boxes 18 Each $ 900.00 $ 16.200.00 $ 2,420.00 $ 43,560.00 $ 985.00 $ 17.730.00 $ 800.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 19,800.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 24,300.00 10 Ad'lust Valves 118 Each $ 500.00 $ 59,000.00 $ 990.00 $ 116,820.00 $ 950.00 $ 112,100.00 $ 600.00 $ 70,800.00 $ 600.00 $ 70,800.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 118.000.00 $ 900.00 $ 106,200.00 11 Fire Hydrant Pevement Markers Blue 19 Each $ 10.00 $ 190.00 $ 27.50 $ 522.50 $ 25.00 $ 475.00 $ 30.00 $ 570.00 $ 30.00 $ 570.00 $ 32.00 $ 608.00 $ 25.00 $ 475.00 12 Thernoplastic - 12" Solid Line 1,86] L.F. $ 8.00 $ 14,936.00 $ 6.05 $ 11,295.35 $ 6.00 $ 11,202.00 $ 6.60 $ 12,322.20 $ 6.00 $ 11,202.00 $ 6.00 $ 11,202.00 $ 5.50 $ 10,268.50 13 Thermoplastic - 8" Solid Line and Pavement Markers - Detail 38 240 L.F. $ 6.00 $ 1,440.00 $ 2.75 $ 660.00 $ 2.60 $ 624.00 $ 5.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 3.00 $ 720.00 $ 4.00 $ 960.00 $ 2.50 $ 600.00 14 6" Dashed Line (Thermoplastic) and Pavement Markers - Detail 2 168 L.F. $ 4.00 $ 672.00 $ 1.95 $ 327.60 $ 1.80 $ 302.40 $ 5.00 $ 840.00 $ 2.00 $ 336.00 $ 2.40 $ 403.20 $ 1.75 $ 294.00 15 6" Solid Line (Thermoplastic) and Pavement Markers - Detail 21, 22, & 28 0 L.F. $ 4.00 $ - $ 3.30 $ - $ 10.0 $ $ 2.50 $ $ 4.00 $ - $ 6.00 $ $ 3.00 $ 16 Thermoplastic Legends and Arrows 976 S.F. $ 8.00 $ 7,808.00 $ 8.25 $ 8,052.00 $ 8.00 $ 7,808.00 $ 6.00 $ 5,856.00 $ 8.00 $ 7,808.00 $ 8.00 $ 7,808.00 $ 7.50 $ ],320.00 17 Grind Existinq Thermoplaslic/Painl and Pavement Markers 1 L.S. $ 5.000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 192.50 $ 192.50 $ 1.900.00 $ 1.900.00 $ 1.500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,]50.00 18 Remove & Replace Concrete Pavement 523 S.F. $ 45.00 $ 23,535.00 $ 22.90 $ 11,976.70 $ 45.00 $ 23,535.00 $ 35.00 $ 18,305.00 $ 40.00 $ 20,920.00 $ 20.00 $ 10,460.00 $ 36.00 $ 18,828.00 19 Remove & Replace Curb, Gutter, and Concrete pavement 47 L.F. $ 215.00 $ 10.105.00 $ 52.80 $ 2,481.60 $ 240.00 $ 11.280.00 $ 202.00 $ 9,494.00 $ 225.00 $ 10,575.00 $ 300.00 $ 14,100.00 $ 204.00 $ 9,588.00 20 Remove & Replace Curb and Gutter 15 L.F. $ 150.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 21.45 $ 321.75 $ 155.00 $ 2,325.00 $ 455.00 $ 6,825.00 $ 150.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 137.00 $ 2,055.00 21 Remove & Replace Gutter 10 L.F. $ 100.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 52.80 $ 3,696.00 $ 100.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 91.00 $ 6,860,00 $ 95.00 $ 6.650.00 $ 86.00 $ 6,020.00 $ 90.00 $ 6,300.00 22 Remove & Replace 4' Valley Gutter 28 L.F. $ 200.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 31.80 $ 890.40 $ 420.00 $ 11,]60.00 $ 380.00 $ 10,640.00 $ 415.00 $ 11,620.00 $ 200.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 385.00 $ 10,780.00 23 Remove & Replace 6' Valley Gutter 155 L.F. $ 300.00 $ 46.500.00 $ 31.80 $ 4,929.00 $ 450.00 $ 69.750.00 $ 120.00 $ 18,600.00 $ 450.00 $ 69,750.00 $ 264.00 $ 40,920.00 $ 410.00 $ 63,550.00 24 Remove & Replace Concrete Sidewalk 56 S.F. $ 40.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 21.45 $ 1,201.20 $ 35.00 $ 1,960.00 $ 87.00 $ 4,872.00 $ 30.00 $ 1,680.00 $ 40.00 $ 2,240.00 $ 25.00 $ 1,400.00 25 Install (N) Concrete Apron 1 S.F. $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 2.200.00 $ 2.200.00 $ 3.100.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 4,600.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 26 Bike Proof Grates 8 Each $ 1,600.00 $ 12,800.00 $ 1,680.00 $ 13.440.00 $ 1,230.00 $ 9,840.00 $ 710.00 $ 5,680.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 10400.00 $ 750.00 $ 6,000.00 27 Install (N) Loops 1 Each $ 1.000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 11650.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 1,5p0.00 $ 11.00 $ 1.500.00 $ 2.000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 10.50 $ 1,500.00 $ 12,484.50 28 Engineered Geosynthetic Paving Mat 1,189 S.Y. $ 10.00 $ 11,890.00 $ 11.35 $ 13,495.15 $ 13,079.00 $ 11.31 $ 13.447.59 $ 12.60 $ 14,981.40 $ 14.00 $ 16,646.00 29 Protect Existinq Monument 1 IF- $ ],000.00 $ ],000.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 550.00 $ 550.00 $ ]00.00 $ ]00.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ g50.00 $ 450.00 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 2022 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO.86220 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2022 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Radius Earthwork, Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2021, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: 2022 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NUMBER 86220 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled 2022 Street Resurfacing Program; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the AGREEMENT- above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of one million, four hundred thirteen thousand, nine -hundred and seventy-seven dollars and seventy-five cents ($1,413,977.75), called the "Contract Price". This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor's persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor's disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor's disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor's violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the City, after giving Contractor and Contractor's sureties seven calendar days written notice of the intent to terminate Contractor's services, may initiate termination procedures. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. At the City's sole discretion, Contractor's services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City's convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance AGREEMENT-2 with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Kevin Okada Senior Engineer 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Janamjit S. Gondara, President Radius Earthwork, Inc 197 E Hamilton Avenue, Suite 204 Campbell, CA 95008 7. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. AGREEMENT-3 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. I I. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. AGREEMENT-4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney — Michael Guina ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" Print Name: Company Name: Radius Earthwork, Inc. AGREEMENT-5 Pavement Section Repairs only only CITY PROJECT 86220 2022 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM PROJECT MAP d , \I SAN FRANCISCO BAY 40 9 & J 2eety�yE \ Jackling Drive TOWN OF HILLBOROUGH LEGEND 2022 PROJECT STREETS Pavement �ecfion Repair on � N aN e QY Gi�� O N.T.S. BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Kevin Okada, Senior Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the 2021 Street Resurfacing Program by G. Bortolotto & Co. Inc., City Project No. 85860 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the 2021 Street Resurfacing Program by G. Bortolotto & Co. Inc., City Project No. 85860, in the amount of $1,059,705. BACKGROUND On April 19, 2021, the City Council awarded the 2021 Street Resurfacing Program to G. Bortolotto & Co. Inc., in the amount of $978,069. The 2021 Street Resurfacing Program consisted of resurfacing 14 residential streets and pavement section repairs on a minor arterial and six residential streets. The project consisted of performing asphalt concrete pavement section repairs "digouts", surface milling, asphalt concrete overlay, traffic markings, traffic striping, concrete improvements, and other related work on the following streets: • Alpine Avenue; • Alturas Drive; • 100 block of Anza Boulevard; • Cananea Avenue; • Garden Drive; • Hayward Court; • Hayward Drive; • Loyola Drive; • 600 block of Plymouth Way; • 2300 block of Ray Drive; • Ray Court • Valdivia Court; • 2300 block of Valdivia Way; • 1500 block of Vancouver Avenue; 1 Resolution Accepting Construction Contract with G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. April 4, 2022 for the 2021 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project 85860 • Bayshore Highway (Digouts) • Edwards Court (Digouts); • 1500 block of Balboa Avenue (Digouts); • Cloverlly Lane (Digouts); • Hamilton Lane (Digouts); • Killarney Lane (Digouts); and • Meadow Lane (Digouts). DISCUSSION The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final project construction cost is $1,059,705, which is $81,636 higher than the original contract price but within the approved contingencies. The reason for the cost increase was due to adding Ray Drive and Ray Court, which had been included in next year's resurfacing project. In addition, pavement section repairs "digouts" were performed on Bayshore Highway to take advantage of favorable bid prices that are expected to increase next year with a rise in the consumer price index and oil prices. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated final project expenditures. Construction $1,059,705 Construction Inspection, Public Relations & Testing $62,827 Engineering Administration & Staff Time $27,468 Total $1,150,000 There are adequate funds available in the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Project budget to cover the estimated final costs. Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Progress Payment • Project Location Map 2 N4*01ILIA IIC010[0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS — 2021 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM BY G. BORTOLOTTO & CO., INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 85860 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated May 7, 2021, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 85860. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Ricardo, Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 41" day of April, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk CONTRACTORG. Sortoictlo 8 Company. Inc CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE ADDRESS' 582 Wagato Road, San Carl", CA 9407D PAYMENT FOUR -FINAL FOR THE MONTH OF FE6-MANCH 2O22 R021 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM PURCHASE ORDER a TELEPHONE 1650) 595-2591 ...,.................................................................................................. ..................................................... CITY PROJECT NO. ..................................................... ......................... ........................... ....................................... ITEM BID UNIT UNIT BID OUANTITY % AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT X ...... ITEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... QUANTITY ..................................................... SIZE PRICE ..................................................... AMOUNT TO DATE PAID ......................... TO DATE ........................... PAID ....................................... THIS PMT BASE SCHEDULE I Mobilization and Demobilization (Q50b) 1 L.S. $ 25.000,00 S 25.000-00 1.00 70 00% $ 251000 00 $ 26,000.00 S 2 Traffic Control and Constriction Signs 1 L.S. $ 60.000.00 $ 60.000.D0 1.00 70.00% $ 80.000.00 $ 60.000.00 $ 3 Water Pollution Prevention Control 1 L.S. $ 5,000,OD S 5.00000 1 00 70 00-1. $ 5,000.00 $ 5.000.00 S - 4A A.C. Digeut Repair 1,394 Ton $ 180,00 - $ 250,920-00 1.474.72 105 79% S 265,449.60 S 265.449.60 S - 4B Allowance Additional Digouls 250 Ton $ 180, 00 $ 45A00.00 516.55 2L16.62 % $ 92,919.D0 S - $ 92.979,00 5 Concrete Removal 44 C.Y $ 190.00 S 6.360.00 0.00 0.00% $ - S $ - 6 Aqqreqate Base 25 Ton $ 80,00 S 2.000-00 25.00 1DO00% S 2,00000 $ 800.00 S 1.200.00 A Overlay 2,810 Ton S 126.00 S 354,OWH D0 3.175.00 112.99% $ 400,050.00 $ 400.050.00 S - 8 Cold PlaneA -C 1,410 C.Y S 87,00 S 122.670DO 1,28D00 90.78% $ 111,35000 $ 111,360.00 S 9 Adjust Manholes & utility boxes 17 Each S 700.00 $ 11.900 D0 9.00 52,94% . S 8,3D0.00 S 6,300.00 $ 10 Adjust Valves 59 Each S 450,00 $ 26,550,00 2C.00 33.90% S 9,000.00 3 9.000.OD S 11 Fire Hydrant Pavement Markers Blue 19 Each $ 25,00 $ 475.00 27,00 142.11 i. 5 675.00 $ 675.00 S 12A Thermoplastic - 12" Solid Lute 3.103 L-F. S 5,25 $ 16.290.75 1,"1,00 46A4% S T585.25 S 7.565.25 $ 12B Thermoplastic - B' Solid Line and Pavamenl Markers - Detail 38 72 L-F $ 7.00 S 504.00 931.00 1293.D61A S B,S17.Ix1 S 6,617.00 $ 13A 6' Dashed Line (Thermoplastic) and Pavement Markers - Detail 2 947 L_F $ 1.50 S 1,420,50 72.OD 7,60% $ 1D8.00 S 106.00 5 136 6" Solid Line (Thermoplastic) and Pavement Markers - Detail 21. 22, & 28 149 L-F 5 7,00 $ 1.D43,DO 163,00 109-40% S 1,141.00 S 1.141.OD $ 14 Thermoplastic Legends and Arrows 186 S.F. $ 7-00 S 1,302.00 1,868 00 1004.3G% S 13.07800 S 13,076.00 $ - 15 Grind ExisttN ThermoplasticlPaint and Pavement Markers 1 L.S 5 &M,00 $ 800,00 1.00 100,0M. S 800.00 S 60o OD S 16A Remove & Replace Curb and Gutter 102 L,F 5 147.00 S 14,994,00 58.00 56,88% S 11,526.00 S 852600 $ 168 Remove& Replace 6'ValleyGutter 26 Each S 350.00 $ 9,100,00 42.00 161,54% $ 14.700.00 S t4,700A0 S t8C Remove & Replace Concrete Sidewalk 120 S-F. S 40.00 $ 4,800,00 35.00 29.17% $ 1.400,CO $ 1A00.0o $ - 17 Bike Proof Grates 7 Each 5 1,500,00 $ 10,W000 7.00 100,00% S 10.5000 $ 10,500.00 $ - 15 Install (Ill Loops B Each S 595.00 $ 4.76000 8-00 100 001/1 $ 4,76000 S 4,760.00 $ 19 Install (N) G5 Christy Box 1 Each S 620.00 S 620,00 1.00 100.00% $ 620.00 $ 62000 $ Subtotal S 978,069.25 S 1.047.526,85 S 953.347,85 S 94.179.00 TOTAL 97�8089.25069.25 _()47526.6-5 953,347.35 _ ___.. 9 1179,00_ _$ CHANGE ORDERS Anza Blvd - wedge Gund and COntorm Cut 1 LS $ 3.928.DO $ 3,928-00 1 1U0 00% $3.928.00 $ 3,92640 S - Bayshore, Cowan, Mdlen Striping Restoration 1 LS S &250.DO S 8.250 DO 1 100.00% S8.250.00 S 8.250-00 DATE SUBTOTAL ' •".................. S OW.247.25 $ 1.069,704.85 $ 957.275,85 $ 102,429,DO PREPARED By: '�/ *"' � 3�� r az LESS FIVE (5%) PERCENTRETENTION '. S (52,985,241 $ (47.66379) $ (5.121.45) CHECK E0BY ��Vr/L dd4.14, , Z ..................................................... SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS .... «.. ............. ................ ......................... S ........................... 1,006.719,61 ........................................ S 909.412,06 S 97.307.55 APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER: v" Z__ �22. AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR ................. . ..................... ............................................................................................................................................... S - $ - $ - APPROVED BY TOTAL THIS PERIOD ... .....""'"'•"' "•"••••"•• """......•... $ 1,006,719.61 $ 909,412.06 S 97,307.55 INSPECTOR A PuMrc Work. O mov y.PROACT5183160 2013 Street R-udacinplProw". Peymsnt.Wrogre.a Payment 04_S&M xl.x 1/1412e22. v4i rki PAGE 1 Or 1 G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. Invoice City of Burlingame Attn: Kevin Okada 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 558-7213 Project: 2021 Street Resurfacing Program, City Project No. 85860 Total to Date: $1,059,704.85 Less 5% Retention: 52,985.24 Less Previous Invoice(s): 909,412.06 Total Payment Due: $ 97,307.55 TEIt,MS AND CONDITIONS 582 Bragato Road San Carlos, CA 94070 P:650.595.2591 F:650.595.0718 License No. 397341A I DIR No. 1000002795 Date: March 14, 2022 Invoice No.: 4964 Progress Billing No.: 4-FINAL Billing Period: Through 3/12/2022 G. Bortolotto Job No.: 21-862 1. No adjustment will be made on the foregoing invoice unless a written claim is filed within ten days from the date hereof. The customer agrees to pay this invoice in full at the office of its maker. 2. In the event payment is not so made, this invoice shall hereafter bear interest at the rate of 1.5% per month, and in the event an action be commenced for the collection of this amount, the customer agrees to pay a reasonable attorney's fee. 3. Since the contractor is covered by public liability insurance, the customer shall not be entitled to offset any claim for property damage or personal injuries against any indebtedness due contractor. CITY PROJECT 85860 2021 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM PROJECT MAP PAVEMENT SECTION LEGEND y REPAIRS ONLY � PROJECT STREETS PAVEMENT SECTION REPAIRS ONLY `5, BURi®NGAME AGENDA NO: 8g STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Helen Yu -Scott, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Sustainability Program Manager or Designee to Execute Documents to Implement and Secure CalRecycle Grant Pavments RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Sustainability Program Manager or his/her designee to be the signee to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure the CalRecycle Grant Program payment, including submission of application materials and other documents necessary to implement and secure payment. BACKGROUND The CalRecycle Grant Program provides State funds for community projects that increase beverage container collection and reduce the waste stream. Grants are awarded through a competitive process. The City has been awarded grants under this program since 2005-06. CalRecycle grant application procedures require the City Council to declare, by resolution, the authorization of a staff member to perform the administration of CalRecycle grants. Grant applications are due by June 1 each year. DISCUSSION The City of Burlingame will apply for the maximum grant award for fiscal year 2022-23 and beyond. The grant funds may be utilized to: ➢ Support AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling to increase recycling by businesses and multi -family residents ➢ Purchase new beverage recycling containers ➢ Purchase recycled content products such as compostable cups to reduce use of beverage containers ➢ Conduct outreach and education on recycling programs Although many of the City's recycling program efforts are provided by South Bayside Waste Management Authority staff, these grant funds have been used in the past largely to fund the purchase and installation of public recycling containers in Burlingame. Staff recommends the City 1 Signatory Authority— CalRecycle Grant Program April4, 2022 Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Sustainability Program Manager or his/her designee to submit a grant application for FY 2022-23 with CalRecycle and sign all grant -related documents necessary to implement and close-out the grant. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact since the grant does not require matching funds. Exhibit: • Resolution 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT PROGRAMS AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq., 14581, and 42023.1(g), the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has established various payment programs to make payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority, CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the payment programs; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle's procedures for administering payment programs require, among other things, an applicant's governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the payment program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City of Burlingame is authorized to submit an application to CalRecycle for any and all payment programs offered; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sustainability Program Manager, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized as Signature Authority to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this authorization is effective until rescinded by the Signature Authority or this governing body. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSELL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a special meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of April, 2022 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk BUR- INGA ME AGENDA NO: 8h STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Helen Yu -Scott, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Intention to Levy Broadway Area Business Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and Setting a Public Hearing for May 2, 2022; and Approving the District's Annual Report for 2021-22 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: (1) Approve the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22; (2) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and, (3) Set a public hearing for Monday, May 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND 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 in 1992 for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business district. The Broadway Area Business Improvement District (BABID) submitted its annual report to the City on March 15, 2022. A review of its financial activities through December 31, 2021 is included as part of the report. There are no recommended changes in the boundaries, assessments or classifications of businesses within the improvement district for the new fiscal year. The Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments notifies all businesses within the district of the City Council's intention to levy the assessments and collect the fees for the district. The public hearing associated with these actions gives the businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions, comments, suggestions and concerns directly to the City Council. The recommended date of the hearing is May 2, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. DISCUSSION Since the BABID was first established in the 1990s, the Broadway Area Business Improvement District has operated to promote the businesses in the district and provide for the area's physical attractiveness. Each year, the BABID files an annual report of the district's improvements and activities with the City. 1 Broadway Avenue BID April4, 2022 Upon approval of the annual report and subsequent to a public hearing on the matter, the City Council then levies assessments on the businesses in the district for the subsequent fiscal year, and collects the levies with the annual renewal of business licenses. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed assessment for fiscal year 2022-23 is $27,250 and will be collected with the City's annual business license renewal process. The funds are forwarded to the BABID for expenditures as authorized by the board of directors. The City will continue to cover the expenses associated with the renewal of the BABID. These expenses include staff time, postage, and supplies. Exhibits: • Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Declaring Its Intention to Renew the Broadway Area Business Improvement District, to Establish 2022-23 Assessments for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District, and Approving the District's 2021-22 Annual Report • Broadway Business Improvement District Annual Report • Notice of Proposed Assessments and Public Hearing for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for 2022-23 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23; AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2, 2022; AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT'S 2021-22 ANNUAL REPORT 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 (`RABID") in 1992 for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business district, and WHEREAS, the BABID Advisory Board has filed its 2021-22 annual report with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the BABID has provided important services in enhancing the Broadway business area, its businesses and properties; and WHEREAS, at the request of the BABID Advisory Board, the City Council desires to set and levy the assessments in connection with the BABID for Fiscal Year 2022-23. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council accepts and approves the 2021-22 annual report of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2022-23 fiscal year on businesses in the BABID, as the BABID is described in Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for improvements and activities of the BABID. 3. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference; these activities and improvements are without change from those previously established for the BABID. 4. The method and basis of levying the assessments on the businesses in the BABID and the amounts of those assessments are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference; the method, basis and amounts of the BABID assessments will remain the same as those levied in the pre -pandemic year. 1 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. 6. The annual report of the BABID is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, and is available for review during regular business hours, 9 am to 5pm, Monday through Friday. 7. A public hearing on the proposed BABID assessments and programs for 2022-23 is hereby set for May 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., before the City Council of the City of Burlingame. The meeting is scheduled to be held telephonically and via other electronic means pursuant to the provisions of AB 361. The City Clerk shall post various methods of accessing the public hearing. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting through the link published within the meeting agenda on the City's website, or by accessing the meeting by phone. Access information can be found at www.burlin ag me.org. In the event the City Council meeting may not be held electronically pursuant to AB 361, said meeting shall take place at City Hall, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010. 8. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 9. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written protests of this proposed assessment. In order for a person's protest to be counted in the majority protest against the proposed assessments or programs and services for 2022-23, the individual must submit the protest in writing to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on May 2, 2022. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the business and its address, include a description of the business and state the number of employees of the business. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 10. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the BABID which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire BABID, as to the proposed assessments for 2022-23, the City Council shall not levy any assessment for 2022-23. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the BABID which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a particular improvement or activity proposed, then that particular improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the 2022-23 fiscal year. 11. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and the procedures for filing 2 a written protest, may be obtained from the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 650-558-7203. 12. The City Council directs the City Clerk to provide notice of the May 2, 2022 public hearing by publishing notice as well as this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Codes and mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 4th day of April, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk EXHIBIT A TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Seasonal flags and banners. C. Sidewalk enhancement and maintenance. 2) Business Recruitment and Retention a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive b. Develop strategy to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 3) Commercial Marketing, Public Relations, and Advertising a. Organize special events throughout the year. 4) Shuttle a. Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district, to be funded on a cooperative cost sharing basis. 2 EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE RETAIL & RESTAURANT SERVICE PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT 4+ ---------------- $450 ----------------------- 1 - 3 $300 3+ ---------------- $250 ----------------------- 1 - 2 $150 3+ ---------------- $200 ----------------------- 1 - 2 $150 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. 5 BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BBID) 650-347-3400 March 12, 2022 chris@pot-pourri.com City Manager 1235 Broadway City of Burlingame Burlingame, CA Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: BBID 2021 Annual Report and 2022 Budget Dear City Manager: The BBID proposes to reinstate assessments for 2022 for our members now that economic conditions are improving. Budget outline for fiscal 2022 activities (in percent of total revenue): A) Advertising & BBID Events 30% B) Burlingame Shuttle 30% C) Streetscape Beautification 30% D) Website Design and Maintenance 10% Detail of Funds as of December 31 2021 (Funds on Hand) Income Received: Interest Income $ 3.05 BBID Assessment Collected $ 0.00 TOTAL INCOME RECEIVED: $ 3.05 Expenditures: Advertising $ 108.00 Bank Charges $ 0.00 Maintenance $ 3079.00 Postage $ 0.00 Supplies $ 1338.75 Insurance $ 500.00 Utilities $ 588.15 Website $ 265.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $ 5875.85 Status of Funds as of December 31 2021 (Funds on Hand): Saving Account - Wells Fargo Bank $ 30504.96 Checkin Account - Wells Fargo Bank $ 3195.96 TOTAL: $ 33700.64 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Christopher Diez at Pot-Pourri, 650-347-3400. Sincerely, wwMOM/ Christopher Diez Treasurer, BBID NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN MADE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., the Council meeting will be held telephonically and via other electronic means pursuant to the provisions of AB 361. The City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing to consider the following: 1. The adoption of a Resolution imposing proposed assessments on businesses in the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for the 2022-23 fiscal year, the amounts of those assessments, the types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the assessments, and the method and basis of levying the assessments. 2. Any and all written protests against said assessments. 3. Whether there are written protests to the proposed assessments by the owners of businesses within the Broadway Area Business Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District. 4. Whether there are written protests to a particular District improvement or activity by the owners of businesses within the Broadway Area Business Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District. The proposed basis for the 2022-2023 assessment is the same as that used for the 2019-20 fiscal year. The purposes, programs and activities to be supported by the proposed assessments are described in the Resolution of Intention, a copy of which is available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame California. The public hearing on the proposed Broadway Area Business Improvement District programs and the assessments for the 2022-23 fiscal year is set for May 2, 2022 at 7:00 p.m., before the City Council of the City of Burlingame. The meeting is scheduled to be held telephonically and via other electronic means pursuant to the provisions of AB 361. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting through the link published within the meeting agenda on the City's website, or by accessing the meeting by phone. Access information can be found at www.burlin ag me.org. At that time, the Council will hear from any interested person who wishes to submit written or oral testimony regarding the proposed assessments. Oral or written protests may be made before or at that public hearing, but no later than the close of the public hearing. See the Resolution of Intention for information on how protests are made and what effect protests have. Further information regarding the proposed assessments may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650-558-7203). Written comments and/or written protests may be directed to the City Council, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. rC7 AGENDA ITEM NO: 8i BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 be To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Helen Yu -Scott, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to Amend the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule for the 2022-23 Fiscal Year; Setting the Public Hearing for Such Amendment for Mav 2. 2022 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss staff recommendations for changes to the City's Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2022-23, and establish a Public Hearing for May 2, 2022 in connection with updates to the document. BACKGROUND The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget process so as to reflect the annual increase in costs that are anticipated in the upcoming fiscal year. The fee adjustments are not automatic. They require an annual review and approval by the City Council. An annual review and update ensure that fees reflect current costs to provide services, allow the addition of fees when applicable for new City services, and provide for the elimination of fees for discontinued services. A comprehensive cost allocation plan (CAP) and user fee study assists the City in determining the actual cost of providing City services and helps the departments establish appropriate user fees. The most recent CAP and updated Cost of Services study assisted departments in determining the actual cost of providing City services/programs paid for by user fees, based on the FY 2015-16 operating budget. At the time, the Cost of Services study revealed dramatic differences between actual costs and the fees charged to recover those costs. In order to allow more gradual increases to the fees charged for City services, and to fully incorporate Council input and comments on the establishment of user fees, the Master Fee Schedule has been adjusted in recent years to better align fees with a level of cost recovery appropriate for the various services being offered. The City Council's direction allowed staff to develop the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy adopted in June 2018. The policy provides values -based and data - driven guidance for setting fees relative to the cost of the various services offered by the City. As noted in the Cost of Services study, to raise all fees to achieve 100% full cost recovery is not feasible or desirable. In recognition that City services are funded through a combination of user 1 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23 April 4, 2022 fees, taxes, grants, and donations, the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy distinguishes between services that provide a high level of community benefit and those that provide benefit mostly to the individual receiving the service. Of course, many City services provide a blend of community and individual benefit, making it difficult to determine how each service should be funded. In establishing the appropriate level of cost recovery, the formal policy helps guide departments in establishing fees for all City services. City fees should therefore reflect varying rates of cost recovery amongst departments, and amongst programs within each department, due to the wide variety of services provided. For departments that provide social or public safety services, policy concerns and market factors (as opposed to actual costs) tend to influence fee levels more than for other types of services. DISCUSSION 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. In general, the City's Master Fee Schedule reflects user fees that are intended to represent 100% cost recovery of fully burdened rates, with the exception of user fees that are highly sensitive and promote citizen engagement. Fully burdened rates include the cost of direct labor (direct staff time spent on the service), indirect labor (administrative and supervisory time), and central services overhead (other budgetary support for the department providing the service). To reflect general cost increases, some fees were increased last year based on the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI), which increased 1.6% from February 2020 to February 2021. The CPI increased 5.2% as of February 28, 2022 as compared to the prior year. Because the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy documents an appropriate cost recovery level for all City services, the policy itself does not require an annual review. All fees in the Master Fee Schedule are reviewed annually to ensure that the cost factors associated with each service have not deviated significantly from the prior year. If significant changes have occurred, the departmental staff will reassess the cost factors and propose an adjusted fee in line with the appropriate cost recovery level. For all other services, an adjustment based on the current CPI should suffice to keep fees in line with the cost recovery level indicated in the policy. Pursuant to State law, certain fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions, the Fire Department, and 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. Staff is requesting that a Public Hearing for the update of the City of Burlingame's Master Fee Schedule be established for May 2, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. The Public Hearing will be held electronically and telephonically pursuant to AB 361. If the City Council is unable to conduct the Public Hearing remotely, then the meeting will take place at City Hall. The intent is for the new fees to become effective July 1, 2022. 2 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23 April 4, 2022 Proposed changes to the Master Fee Schedule for the upcoming fiscal year are summarized below, by department. Administration Administrative Services primarily provides support to other City departments, and therefore the fees were not reviewed in the 2015 user fee study. Staff recommendations for changes are based on staff's analysis of the cost of the service or activity. Although certain city-wide administrative fees and fees charged by Finance and the City Clerk's Office have been increased from time to time by CPI, certain fees that are established as a fixed dollar amount (such as Filing of Nomination Papers) cannot be increased. There are no fiscal year 2022-23 fee changes recommended for the City's administrative departments. Building As with many comparably -sized cities, Burlingame's building permit fees are largely based on a project's valuation, adjusted by criteria that define the scope of work. Specific services that are required beyond the actual permitting process are funded through "unit fees". For the most part, the Cost of Services Study in 2015 evaluated only the unit fees for services provided by the Building Division. Since the time of the study, staff has not proposed changes to those building permit fees based on total valuation, finding them to be consistent with other jurisdictions that use total valuation for setting these rates, and adequate in covering City costs. Note that all activities of the Building Division are accounted for in the City's Building Fund, a separate enterprise fund. This year, staff's recommended changes focused largely on fees based on per -hour charges for inspections and plan checks. These unit fees are proposed to be increased by the 5.2% CPI. There is one new fee proposed in the Building Division for a "General Plan and Title 25 Zoning Ordinance Maintenance Fee." It is intended to build up a reserve for updating the General Plan and Zoning Code in the future. Engineering The Engineering Division charges fees for development -related services including Improvement Planning Application Reviews; Encroachment Permits; Construction, Demolition and Grading Permits; and Subdivision Maps. Many of the fees were increased over the past few years to provide greater cost recovery. This year, most of the fees charged for engineering services are proposed to be increased by a CPI of 5.2%. Three new fees were added to the Public Work's Engineering section of the Master Fee Schedule. A Review of Wireless Permit Applications fee is proposed to cover staff time for permit review, processing and inspections, or consultant costs. A Wireless Permit Application Appeal Fee is also proposed. And finally, staff is adding a new encroachment permit deposit fee 3 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23 April 4, 2022 for developers that are conditioned to either remove, relocate, or add new street lighting. The deposit represents the current unit cost to add a new street light. In general, amounts needed to be held on deposit were not changed unless past experience indicated that these amounts were frequently not adequate. Library The City of Burlingame's Library is a member of the Peninsula Library System (PLS). Service rates and fines (which have largely been eliminated in past years) are largely coordinated throughout the system by the PLS Administrative Council. Passport intake fees are proposed to be removed from the Master Fee Schedule due to State Department security protocols and staff shortage. Parks and Recreation Most fees related to Parks and Recreation services have been adjusted by the CPI, to retain fees at the level of cost recovery provided in the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. Fees associated with the rental of spaces within the new Community Center are in the proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2022-23 in anticipation of the Center's grand opening in May or June 2022. In general, most Parks and Recreation outdoor facilities rentals and service fees were increased by CPI. Notable exceptions include annual fees for the Community Garden, an outdoor activity that has been accessible to the community throughout the pandemic, and class registration fees. These fees can be maintained at the current rates so as not to discourage participation. Security deposit amounts were not changed unless past experience indicated that these amounts were not adequate. Planning For many of the permits and services provided by the Planning Division, full cost recovery is justified, as these development activities are driven by an applicant or property owner who will benefit from the service. Therefore, the fees for most Planning services are recommended to be increased by the CPI of 5.2% for fiscal year 2022-23. One fee, Minor Modification, is proposed to match the Hillside Area Construction Permit rate since the review process is similar for both permits. Fees established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (collected and passed - through by the Planning Division) for CEQA Environmental Document Filings have been updated to reflect adjustments by that agency effective January 1, 2022. M Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23 April4, 2022 Planning — Development Impact Fees The Bayfront Development Fee and North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fees are both based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record (ENR) as of July 1st of each year and are therefore reviewed/updated on a different schedule than other Planning Division fees in the Master Fee Schedule. Only the Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Fee (per parking space) is recommended to be adjusted by CPI as of February 28, 2022. The establishing ordinance of the Public Facilities Impact Fee provides no annual escalator. Planning — Affordable Housing Impact Fees Commercial Linkage Fees, adopted in June 2017, and Residential Impact Fees, adopted on April 1, 2019, were established to address the community's need for workforce housing and were first added to the Master Fee Schedule for the 2019-20 fiscal year. Per the establishing ordinances, the Council may amend these fees through the public hearing process for the City's Master Fee Schedule. Staff is working on an updated feasibility study for the Commercial Linkage Fees and does not suggest an amendment to the fees at this time. Suggested amendments will be reviewed by the Economic Development Subcommittee (EDS) of the City Council, and a recommendation will be brought to the full Council later this summer or in early fall. Staff is not suggesting an amendment to the Residential Impact Fees at this time. The Housing Element of the General Plan is currently being updated, and as part of that process there may be consideration to alter the proportion of affordable housing units required of new developments in lieu of payment of the Residential Impact Fees. If any such changes are proposed, it would be prudent to prepare a feasibility analysis. The Housing Element is required to be updated by the end of the calendar year 2022, so implementation of any changes to impact fees or affordability requirements could be evaluated within that timeframe or shortly thereafter. Police The Cost of Services Study in 2015 revealed an overall cost -recovery rate of 17% for Police Department services. None of the fees had been set to recover the full cost of service, providing a significant subsidy to fee payers. This was a largely anticipated result in that police services are generally provided out of public funds for the benefit of the public at large. However, the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy does identify a limited range of activities where it is appropriate for the department to set charges to fully or partially recover costs. A CPI increase has been applied to those fees to retain the appropriate cost recovery in the policy. Public Works - Sewer and Water Utilities Water rates were last amended effective January 1, 2019, the last year of three annual rate increases based on a rate study by Bartle Wells Associates Consultants in 2016. The rate 47 Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23 April4, 2022 increases were necessary to cover the wholesale cost of water to the City, as well as capital improvements to the system. At its November 15, 2021 meeting, the City Council approved an overall composite sewer utility rate increase of approximately 9.0% annually in 2022, 2023, and 2024 to meet its operational and capital needs. Therefore, in the proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2022-23, changes were made for sewer services to reflect the increases that were approved and implemented in compliance with Proposition 218, and effective January 1, 2022. Effective October 07, 2021, the Sewer Connection fees were replaced by Sewer Capacity Charges, which are adjusted to conform to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco each year (3.918% increase from July 2021 to January 1, 2022). No changes were made for regular water services. Other Fees Fees for Fire services are established by the Central County Fire Department (CCFD). As a separate JPA that is funded by the City of Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and the City of Millbrae, CCFD fees are separately adopted by the CCFD Fire Board with the Department's operating budget. The City will amend the Master Fee Schedule once any adjustments to the CCFD fees have been approved by their board, and they will be effective July 1, 2022. Animal Control fees are set by the County of San Mateo. As the structuring of these fees, as well as the timing of fee updates, is not under the City's control, these fees were previously removed from the City's Master Fee Schedule. However, a link to these fees, provided at the County's Animal Control website, has been included. Review of the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy As part of the Master Fee Schedule Update each year, all departments reviewed the portions of the City's User Fee Cost Recovery Policy related to their activities for which a fee is charged. No changes are recommended to the policy at this time, but the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy is attached to this staff report. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendations presented by staff in this report ensure not only that charges keep pace with the costs of providing certain services, but that they are also competitive with comparable programs (where applicable) and are responsive to demands for the service within the community. The changes to the 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 of activity varies. Exhibits: • A Resolution of Intent of the City Council of the City of Burlingame to Amend the Master Fee Schedule for City Services ON Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23 April4, 2022 • City of Burlingame Proposed Master Fee Schedule for fiscal year 2022-23 • DOL Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2022 • User Fee Cost Recovery Policy FA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SAID AMENDMENTS FOR MAY 2, 2022 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, the fees reflected in the Master Fee Schedule will be carefully reviewed by each City department, and specific recommendations to amend fees will be provided to ensure that charges keep pace with the costs for providing City services, where appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Burlingame City Council intends to amend the Master Fee Schedule. 2. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2022-23, will be posted and available on-line at www.Burlingame.org with the staff report associated with the May 2, 2022 public hearing related to Amendment of the Master Fee Schedule. 3. The Master Fee Schedule, with proposed adjustments for fiscal year 2022-23, will also be posted and available on the City's website on the Finance Department page at https://www.burlingame.org/departments/finance/master_ fee_schedule.php. 4. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby schedules a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Master Fee Schedule for Monday, May 2, 2022, at 7:00 pm. The meeting will be held telephonically and via other electronic means pursuant to the provisions of AB361. The City Clerk shall post various methods of accessing the public hearing. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting through the link published within the meeting agenda on the City's website, or by accessing the meeting by phone. Access information can be found at www.burlingame.org. In the event the City Council meeting may not be held electronically pursuant to AB 361, said meeting shall take place at City Hall, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010. 5. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing by email, or such comments may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010. 6. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written comments of the proposed amendments. 7. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council will deliberate upon the proposed fees as outlined in the Master Fee Schedule and will consider further amendments and adoption of the 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule. 8. All of the facts recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are true and correct and the Council relies upon same. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 4t" day of April, 2022, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2022 BURUNGAME Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule CITY-WIDE FEES SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 $30.00 Copying of Routine Document Gov't Code § 6253(b) $0.25 per page (Copies of sizes other than 8- %" by 11" or 8 - %" by 14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at cost) To be paid in advance Copies of Reports/Statements Gov't Code § 81008 $0.10 per page filed pursuant to Political Reform Act Audio tape copies (except for Police) If blank tape supplied Resolution No. 32-2009 $18.00 per tape If no tape supplied Resolution No. 32-2009 $18.00 per tape plus purchase costs of tape Page 1 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $500.00 Resolution No. 27-2011 $37.00 $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 $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 $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 $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 Page 2 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE $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 $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 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 OTHER BUILDING PERMIT FEES Building inspections outside Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour normal business hours (minimum charge of 2 hours Re -inspection fees (minimum — one Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour hour) Page 3 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE General fire inspections for new Resolution No. 27-2011 Determined by CCFD — building and tenant remodels pass -through costs limited to building permits of commercial or multi -family residential PLAN REVIEW FEES Basic Fee — Building Division Resolution No. 104-2002 65% of Building Permit Fee Energy Plan Check Fee (where Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of applicable; includes review of Building Permit Fee Green Points Checklist) Disabled Access Plan Check Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 35% of (where applicable) Building Permit Fee Review of Request for Alternate Resolution No. 27-2011 $333.00 per hour Materials and Methods Review of Unreasonable Hardship Resolution No. 27-2011 $333.00 per hour Request Planning Department Plan Check Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Fee (where applicable) Building Permit Fee Minimum fee of $80.00 Plan Revisions for Planning Resolution No. 27-2011 $333.00 per hour Department Page 4 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Plan Revisions Subsequent to Resolution No. 27-2011 $333.00 per hour plus Permit Issuance cost of any additional review Engineering Division Plan Review Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of (where applicable) Building Permit Fee Imaging Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of Building Permit Fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Arborist Review Resolution No. 33-2008 $270.00 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 Resolution No. 27-2011 $47.00 permit **The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Building - Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.14 per square foot of including all plumbing fixtures, habitable area connections and gas outlets for new single- and multi -family buildings Page 5 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Fixtures and vents Resolution No. 27-2011 $20.00 For each plumbing fixture or trap (including water and waste piping and backflow prevention) Sewer and interceptors For each building sewer Resolution No 27-2011 $72.00 For each industrial waste Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 pretreatment interceptor (except kitchen -type grease traps) Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation alteration or repair of water piping or water -treatment Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 equipment For each water heater including vent Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one Resolution No. 27-2011 $40.00 to five outlets For each additional outlet over five Resolution No. 33-2008 $8.00 Page 6 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices Irrigation systems including backflow device(s) Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 Other backflow prevention devices: 2 inches (50.8 mm) and smaller Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) Resolution No. 27-2011 $64.00 Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing: Public pool Resolution No. 27-2011 $246.00 Public spa Resolution No. 27-2011 $185.00 Private pool Resolution No. 27-2011 $246.00 Private spa Resolution No. 27-2011 $185.00 Miscellaneous For each appliance or fixture for Resolution No. 27-2011 $40.00 which no fee is listed Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour business hours (minimum charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour (minimum — one hour) Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Page 7 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of plumbing permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of plumbing permit fee 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 Resolution No. 27-2011 $47.00 For issuance of each mechanical permit" **The following items are in addition to the Basic Permit Issuance Fee: New Residential Building including Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.14 per square foot of all mechanical work including habitable area appliances, exhaust fans, ducts, and flues Furnaces To and including 100 MBTU Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 Over 100 MBTU Resolution No. 27-2011 $64.00 Boilers, compressors, absorption systems To and including 100 MBTU or 3HP Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP Resolution No. 27-2011 $64.00 Page 8 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Air Conditioners Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 Air Handlers To 10,000 CFM including ducting Resolution No. 27-2011 $40.00 each Over 10,000 CFM Resolution No. 27-2011 $64.00 each Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan attached to a Resolution No. 27-2011 $20.00 each single duct Each hood including ducts Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 each Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of Resolution No. 27-2011 $31.00 each equipment not specifically listed above Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour business hours (minimum charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour (minimum charge is one hour) Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of mechanical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Page 9 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of mechanical permit fee 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 Resolution No. 27-2011 $47.00 permit" New Residential Building - Resolution No. 32-2009 $0.14 per square foot of including all wiring and electrical habitable area devices in or on each building, including service SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Swimming Pools Public swimming pools and spas Resolution No. 27-2011 $244.00 including all wiring and electrical equipment Private pools for single-family residences Resolution No. 27-2011 $188.00 Page 10 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Temporary Power Temporary service pole including Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 all attached receptacles Temporary power pole and wiring for construction sites, Christmas Resolution No. 27-2011 $64.00 tree lots, etc. UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Receptacle, switch and light outlets Resolution No. 27-2011 $60.00 First 20 units Each additional Resolution No. 32-2009 $4.00 Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliances Resolution No. 32-2009 $10.00 each 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) Page 11 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Nonresidential Appliances Self-contained factory -wired non- Resolution No. 32-2009 $10.00 each 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) Page 12 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE 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 Resolution No 27-2011 $31.00 Over 100 Resolution No. 27-2011 $61.00 Notes: For equipment or appliances Resolution No. 27-2011 $122.00 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. Page 13 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Photo voltaic systems Residential systems Permit Resolution No. 32-2009 No Charge Plan Check Resolution No. 32-2009 No Charge Commercial Systems Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $411.00 Plan Check Resolution No. 27-2011 $333.00 per hour Busways For trolleys and plug-in type Resolution No. 27-2011 $33.00 for each 100 feet busways (30,500 mm) or fraction thereof Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees Permits Signs, outline lighting, or marquees Resolution No. 27-2011 $64.00 each supplied from one circuit For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline Resolution No. 32-2009 $20.00 each lighting, or marquee Page 14 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Services 600 volts or less and not over 200 Resolution No. 27-2011 $64.00 each amperes in rating 600 volts or less, over 200 amperes Resolution No. 27-2011 $97.00 each to 1,000 amperes Over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes Resolution No 27-2011 $129.00 each Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, and Resolution No. 27-2011 $40.00 conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour business hours (minimum charge of 2 hours) Re -inspection fees Resolution No. 27-2011 $274.00 per hour (minimum charge is one hour) Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No 27-2011 $274.00 per hour specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 32-2009 Additional 5% of electrical permit fee with minimum fee of $5.00 Plan review (where applicable) Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of electrical permit fee Page 15 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule BUILDING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE GENERAL FEES Building Moving Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 18.07.030) $410.00 General Plan and Title 25 Zoning Ordinance Maintenance Fee Additional 0.005% of Building Valuation Page 16 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule CITY CLERK & ELECTIONS SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Video recording of City Council Resolution No. 32-2009 $88.00 per VHS tape plus meeting or other proceeding that photo service charge has been video recorded — to be paid in advance of copying Resolution No. 32-2009 $88.00 per DVD plus recording photo service charge Audiotape of City Council meeting Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape if tape is or other City proceeding that has supplied by requestor been taped — to be paid in advance of copying tape Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 per tape if tape is not supplied plus purchase cost of tape All Certifications Resolution No. 32-2009 $17.00 each Filing of Nomination Papers Burlingame Municipal $25.00 per candidate Code section 2.20.020 (Ordinance No. 1703 (2003) Page 17 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Work without the benefit of an Encroachment Permit will be double the permit fee. Minor (no excavation involved) $262.00 Sewer Lateral Test Resolution No. 32-2009 $468.00 — If fail, one time free retest Sewer Lateral Replacement (with Resolution No. 32-2009 $481.00 Sidewalk fee) Storm Service Connection (with $481.00 sidewalk fees) Water Service Connection (with Resolution No. 32-2009 $629.00 Sidewalk fee) Fire System Connection (with Resolution No. 32-2009 $629.00 Sidewalk Add No. 5) Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 S.F. Resolution No. 32-2009 $453.00 plus $10.00 for (Includes Curb Drain) Sections each square foot over 200 12.10.030/12.08.020/ 12.04.030 *Fee waived for owners who undertake stand-alone sidewalk trip hazard repairs (Section 12.12.070) Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Resolution No. 32-2009 $452.00 per review Protection Traffic Control Resolution No. 33-2008 $368.00 per review Block Party (includes up to 6 Resolution No. 27-2006 $61.00 plus $5.00 for each barricades) add'I barricade over 6 Page 18 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Commercial Areas and $234.00 plus $11.00 space Construction Purposes (i.e. per day or meter rates Dumpsters/Containers) Moving Only Purposes (Residential $37.00 processing fee plus Areas) $11.00 per space per day Page 19 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE GENERAL FEES Demolition Permit (in addition to Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,728.00 any Building Department -issued Demolition or Construction Permit) Includes sewer, water and sidewalk replacement Add fire line Resolution No. 32-2009 $92.00 Add curb drain Resolution No. 32-2009 $247.00 Add sidewalk closure Resolution No. 32-2009 $247.00 Add PG&E Resolution No. 32-2009 $247.00 Address Change Resolution No. 32-2009 $359.00 Single Trip -Transportation Fee Senate Bill SB 372 $16.00 (Fixed rate set by Caltrans) Leaf Blower Testing Certification Ord. No. 1871 (2012) $37.00 for up to 5 leaf Fee blowers $5.00 for certification decal if certified by manufacturer Page 20 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Creek Enclosures Resolution No. 32-2009 $3,350.00 Section 18.24.020 Abandonment of Public Utility $5,494.00 Easement Hauling Permit Section 13.60.120 $268.00 application fee plus $1.00 per ton per mile from project site to HWY Inspection/Investigation Fee Section 12.10.070 $262.00 per hour SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Subsurface Shoring Systems that encroach into the public right-of- way • Per 10'-20' deep tieback $2,000.00 each • Per >20' deep tieback $1,000.00 each • For permanent area used 50% of appraised land (i.e. shoring wall) value per square foot (sf) multiplied by the area (sf) of encroachment Permanent structures, such as Resolution No. 32-2009 $2,914.00 retaining walls, fences Section 12.10.020 Page 21 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Non -permanent installations, such Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,710.00 as tables, chairs, planters Section 12.10.020 DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK Openings in Public Right -of -Way Resolution No. 33-2007 $1,000.00 Minimum (in (not in sidewalk or street) easement area) $10.00/sf for area excavated Openings in Public Right -of -Way in Resolution No. 33-2007 $30.00 per square foot in sidewalk (not in street) sidewalk area, $1,000.00 minimum Street Roadway Opening (AC Resolution No. 33-2007 $15.00 per square foot in Pavement Restoration) Section 12.10.025 paved area, $2,500.00 minimum including curb replacement Water Main Modification Resolution No. 33-2007 $10,000.00 per connection (refundable bond) Sewer Main & Storm Drain Resolution No. 33-2007 $10,000.00 per connection Modification (refundable bond) Street Lighting $15,000.00 per street light Page 22 e4RL1NGA ME Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE SUBDIVISION MAPS Lot Line Adjustment Resolution No. 32-2009 $2,941.00 (application fee) (Section 26.24.090) + actual City consultant costs Lot Combination Resolution No. 32-2009 $2,941.00 (application fee) Section 26.24.090 + actual City consultant costs Subdivision Map Resolution No. 32-2009 $4,366.00 plus deposit, plus Sections 26.24.090/ $266.00 for each additional 26.16.151 lot in excess of 5 lots; plus, actual City consultant costs City Benchmark Maintenance Applies to development $3,000 per map action projects that require a (parcel or final map) map action by Council Condominium Map Resolution No. 32-2009 $3,551.00, plus $668.00 for Sections 26.24.090/ each additional unit over 4 26.16.151 units, plus actual City consultant costs Page 23 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ** The fees represent the labor cost to inspect and security deposit Type 1 Project: Single family $201.00 plus $1,500.00 dwellings with V or 2nd floor security deposit additions on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller Type 2 Project: Multi -family $402.00 plus $3,000.00 dwellings or commercial additions security deposit (excluding tenant improvements) that are on a 10,000 sf lot or smaller Type 3 Project: Any project 10,000 $805.00 plus $5,000.00 sf up to an acre lot security deposit Type 4 Project: Any project greater $1,610.00 plus $10,000 than one acre in size security deposit Page 24 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Review of Wireless Permit Resolution 092-2021 $1,000 deposit per location Applications Fee based on actual charges against the deposit. Charges will include staff time for permit review, processing and inspections calculated at hourly rates plus actual consultant costs, if any Wireless Permit Application Appeal Resolution 092-2021 $600.00 Fee PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEWS Single Family Dwelling (Addition) $523.00 Single Family Dwelling (New) $1,045.00 Multi -family $2,087.00 Commercial/Industrial $2,087.00 Environmental Review $1,681.00 Traffic and Parking Studies $3,967.00 Page 25 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE GRADING PERMIT 1-100 cubic yards $1,409.00 101— 1,000 cubic yards $2,127.00 1,001-10,000 cubic yards $2,487.00 Over 10,000 cubic yards $3,384.00 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Stormwater Inspection for Industrial/Commercial Facilities $154.00 per hour Page 26 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FINANCE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE Duplicate business license Section 6.04.120 $10.00 Application for first business Section 6.04.170 $35.00 license Submittal of surety bond for Resolution No. 27-2006 $150.00 for every 15 days transient occupancy after bond is late expiration of bond Special business license for long- Section 6.08.085 5% of gross receipts term parking Short Term Residential Rental Resolution 142-2020 Zoning Permit Application Fees: Section 6.56 Initial Short Term Residential $200.00 Rental Registration Fee Renewal Fee $100.00 Page 27 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 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 were adopted, and approved as of July 1, 2021. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION Pre -inspection of licensed community care facility Health & Safety Code § 13235 $173.00 per hour Residential Care Facility for Elderly serving 6 or fewer persons — fire inspection enforcement Health & Safety Code § 1569.84 No Charge Residential Care Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $358.00 Large Family Day Care Resolution No. 33-2008 $111.00 Skilled Nursing Facility Resolution No. 33-2008 $686.00 Hospital/Institution Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,658.00 RE -INSPECTIONS Second re -inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $133.00 per inspection Third and subsequent re -inspections Resolution No. 33-2008 $161.00 per inspection Page 28 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE CONSTRUCTION FEES General Fire & Life Safety Services 12% of Building Permit fees • Consultation & Research for Commercial and Multi- • Pre -application meetings & Family Residential Design Review • Property Survey • General Construction Inspections • Processing, Scheduling, and Record Keeping Building or Planning Plan Check Resolution No. 33-2008 $181.00 per hour Expedite Building or Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $362.00 per hour Check Fees (2 hour minimum) Consultation and Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 per hour Alternate Means of Protection Resolution No. 33-2008 $263.00 per hour Review Fire Alarm Systems Permit for Monitoring System Resolution No. 33-2008 $207.00 Permit for Manual System Resolution No. 33-2008 $207.00 Permit for Automatic System Resolution No. 33-2008 $371.00 Permit for Combination System Resolution No. 33-2008 $535.00 Page 29 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Multi -Residential or Commercial $125.00 Minor Fire Alarm Remodel or Repair (Device relocation/adjustment) Emergency Responder Radio §510, CFC $342.00 Coverage System Permit Title 24 Part 9 Fixed Fire Extinguishing System Resolution No. 33-2008 $289.00 Permit Standpipe System Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $371.00 Storage Tank (above or below Resolution No. 33-2008 $207.00 ground) Permit SPRINKLER SYSTEMS One or two Family Dwelling Fire Resolution No. 33-2008 $452.00 - flat fee including Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D) 2 inspections (additional inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the staff who actually perform each inspection) Page 30 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Fire Pump Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $207.00 Multi -Residential or Commercial Resolution No. 33-2008 $864.00 flat fee including 2 Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or inspections (additional 13R) inspections will be charged at the hourly rate of the Permit — Single Story (incl. T.I.) staff who actually perform each inspection) Permit - Multi -story Multi -Residential or Commercial Resolution No. 33-2008 $125.00 Fire sprinkler minor Remodel & Repair (Sprinkler Head relocation/adjustment only) Fire Flow Information Processing $39.00 plus individual city fees MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS Labor Rate for Mechanic Services $110.00 Community CPR/AED Class $40.00 Resident $50.00 Non -Resident Change of Use Inspection (usually Resolution No. 33-2008 $158.00 triggered by new business license) Accounts referred to Collection +47% of original invoice Agencies Photographs from investigations Resolution No. 61-2004 Cost of reproduction Page 31 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Fire Incident Reports (not including Resolution No. 33-2008 $10.00 photographs) Work without a construction Resolution No. 33-2008 Up to 10 times the permit permit fees Emergency Response Costs for Govt. Code §53150-58 Costs according to Driving under the Influence (Billing Personnel Schedule below upon conviction) plus apparatus cost of $140.00 per hour as set by State False Alarms Resolution No. 33-2007 $540.00 for 3 to 5 $1,080.00 for 6 or more Hazardous Materials Clean- Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to up/Response Personnel Schedule below plus apparatus costs of $140.00 per hour as set by State Page 32 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE STANDBY SERVICE Firefighter Resolution No. 33-2008 $116.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) Fire Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 $134.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) Battalion Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) Engine Company Resolution No. 33-2008 $480.00 per hour (minimum of 3 hours) plus apparatus costs of $140.00 per hour as set by State PERSONNEL COSTS Personnel Costs by Job Class Resolution No. 33-2008 Administration $ 67.00 per hour Firefighter $116.00 per hour Fire Captain $134.00 per hour Fire Prevention Specialist $ 82.00 per hour Fire Inspector $164.00 per hour Deputy Fire Marshal $173.00 per hour Battalion Chief $157.00 per hour Division Chief or Fire Marshal $198.00 per hour Deputy Fire Chief Fire Chief $238.00 per hour $272.00 per hour Page 33 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE GENERAL PERMITS Aerosol Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $193.00 Amusement Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels — 10 or less units Resolution No. 33-2008 $163.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels — 11 to 25 units Resolution No. 33-2008 $184.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels — 26 or more units Resolution No. 33-2008 $205.00 Apartments Assigned to Prevention $219.00 Aviation Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Battery System Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Carnivals and Fairs Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Christmas Tree Lot Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Combustible Fiber Storage Resolution No. 33-2007 $316.00 Combustible Material Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Commercial Occupancy Assigned to Prevention Resolution No. 33-2008 $200.00 Commercial Rubbish -Handling Operation Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Page 34 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Compressed Gases Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Cryogens Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Dry Cleaning Plants Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Dust -Producing Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display Booth Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — With Open Flame Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows — Display Fuel Powered Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Explosives or Blasting Agents Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves Resolution No. 33-2008 $313.00 Fireworks Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Flammable or Combustible Liquids Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Hazardous Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 High -Piled Combustible Storage — 20,000 square feet or less Resolution No. 33-2008 $572.00 High -Piled Combustible Storage — more than 20,000 square feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $654.00 Highrise H&S§13214(b) $449.00 Hot -Work Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Page 35 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Liquefied Petroleum Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Liquid- or gas -fueled Vehicles or Equipment in Assembly Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Live Audiences Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Lumber Yards storing in excess of 100,000 board Feet Resolution No. 33-2008 $440.00 Magnesium Working Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Motor Vehicle Fuel -Dispensing Stations Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Open Burning Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Organic Coating Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Ovens, Industrial Baking and Drying Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Parade Floats Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Places of Assembly Resolution No. 33-2008 $522.00 Production Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $522.00 Pyrotechnical and Special Effects Material Resolution No. 33-2008 $563.00 Radioactive Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Refrigeration Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $440.00 Repair Garage Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Page 36 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule FIRE FEES - CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Spraying and Dipping Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Tents, Canopies, and Temporary Membrane Structures Resolution No. 33-2008 $478.00 Tire Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 Wood Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $316.00 SERVICE REFERENCE FEE CITY OF BURLINGAME FEES Photocopies — Black and White $0.15 per page at vending machine Photocopies - Color $0.45 per page at vending machine Internet /Database copies or Resolution No. 27-2011 First 3 pages free printouts — Black and White $0.15 per page Internet /Database copies or Resolution No. 27-2011 First page free $0.45 per printouts — Color page Page 37 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule LIBRARY SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Facilities Rental Lane Community Room rental Resolution No. 32-2009 $130.00 Tech Media Lab rental $90.00 first 4 hours. $10.00 each additional hour Laptop set-up/breakdown $50.00 flat fee U.L. Meeting Room rental $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 Photo/filming fee (only for shoots $50.00/hour requiring staff oversight during closed hours) PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES Lost Book Replacement Fee Peninsula Library System Costs of replacement of item Page 38 e4RL1NGA ME Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION 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 & Board meetings 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. Page 39 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE INDOOR FACILTIES Burlingame Based Non -Profit Board Meeting $40.00 per hour Community Hall Sequoia Room - Whole Group A: Burlingame Residents No Charge Non -Residents No Charge Group B: (Monday — Thursday) Burlingame Residents $180.00 per hour Non -Residents $216.00 per hour (Friday — Sunday) (July 2022 — October 2022) Introductory Rate Only $126.00 per hour Burlingame Residents $151.00 per hour Non -Residents (Friday — Sunday) (November 2022 — June 2023) $252.00 per hour Burlingame Residents $302.00 per hour Non -Residents Page 40 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Group C: (Monday — Thursday) $300.00 per hour Burlingame Residents $360.00 per hour Non -Residents (Friday — Sunday) (July 2022 — October 2022) $210.00 per hour Introductory Rate Only $252.00 per hour Burlingame Residents Non -Residents (Friday — Sunday) $420.00 per hour (November 2022 — June 2023) $504.00 per hour Burlingame Residents Non -Residents Deposits: $500.00 per event / Burlingame Residents $1,000.00 if alcohol is served Non -Residents $500.00 per event / $1,000.00 if alcohol is served Page 41 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Large Rooms Elm Meeting Room (Whole), Maker's Space, Maple Meeting Room, Grand Oak Lounge, Sequoia A or B, STEAM Lab, Fine Arts Studio. Group A: Burlingame Residents No Charge Non -Residents No Charge Group B: Burlingame Residents $102.00 per hour Non -Residents $122.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents $170.00 per hour Non -Residents $204.00 per hour Deposits: Burlingame Residents $200.00 Non -Residents $200.00 Page 42 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Medium Rooms Magnolia Meeting Room, Dance/Fitness Studio, Kids Town, Kitchen, Teen Scene, Elm Meeting Room A or B, Musical Arts Room. Group A: Burlingame Residents No Charge Non -Residents No Charge Group B: Burlingame Residents $90.00 per hour Non -Residents $108.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents $150.00 per hour Non -Residents $180.00 per hour Deposits: Burlingame Residents $200.00 Non -Residents $200.00 Page 43 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE In conjunction with Community Hall/Sequoia Room Rental Additional Rental Charges: Tables/Chairs-up to 50 Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 Tables/Charis-51 to 100 Resolution No. 33-2008 $29.00 Tables/Chairs-over 100 Resolution No. 33-2008 $45.00 Dance Floor $100 per event Building Attendant* Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour Second Building Attendant $40.00 per hour (Over 150 guests) Custodian (3 hours) $130 per event Extra, Non -Scheduled Hours Resolution No. 27-2006 2x's the hourly room rental rate Page 44 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE OUTDOOR FACILITIES Field Attendant Resolution No. 41-2008 $43.00 per hour Large Special Event Deposit for Athletic Fields: Less than 100 in attendance $267.00 per event More than 100 in attendance $534.00 per event Group A-1: Field Use per Resolution No. 27-2011 $16.00 per Resident Season by Burlingame -based $86.00 per Non -Resident non-profit youth sports group. plus $3.00 per hour per field for Resident groups, $9.00 per hour per field for groups less than 50% Resident Fields used by Validated Security Deposit $500.00 Burlingame -based non-profit youth sports groups Bayside Ball Fields #1 and #2 Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $36.00 per hour Page 45 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $36.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $59.00 per hour Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24-2010 $41.00 per hour Bayside Ball Fields #3,#4 or #5 for Softball or Baseball Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $21.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $31.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $31.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $47.00 per hour Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24-2010 $41.00 per hour Bayside Soccer Fields Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group B: Page 46 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $36.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $36.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $59.00 per hour Bayside Field Lights Resolution No. 24-2010 $41.00 per hour Cuernavaca Park Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $36.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $36.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $59.00 per hour Murray Field Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group B: Page 47 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $63.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $85.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $85.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $108.00 per hour Murray Field Lights Resolution No. 24-2010 $41.00 per hour Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or #2 Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group A Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $36.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $36.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $59.00 per hour Washington Park Main Ball Field for Baseball Group A Resolution No. 41-2008 No Charge Page 48 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $36.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $59.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $59.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $82.00 per hour Washington Park Lights Resolution No. 24-2010 $41.00 per hour Grandstands $21.00 per hour + Field attendant $160.00 cleaning fee Washington Park Bullpen Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $19.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 33-2007 $36.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $47.00 per hour Page 49 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Washington Park Main Ball field Outfield for Soccer Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No Charge Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $36.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $59.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $59.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $83.00 per hour Washington Park Lights Resolution No. 24-2010 $41.00 per hour Washington Park Small Ball Field Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $19.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $31.00 per hour Group C: Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $31.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $47.00 per hour Page 50 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Washington Small Lights Resolution No. 24-2010 $41.00 per hour Tennis Courts USTA Tournaments Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $38.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $62.00 per hour For Profit Rental Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 103-2009 $23.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 103-2009 $27.00 per hour PICNIC PERMITS West -end of Washington Park Resolution No. 27-2011 $489.00 Permit Fee (for Burlingame residents and $500.00 Deposit non-profit groups only) Electrical Service Hook-up at Resolution No. 32-2009 $86.00 West -end of Washington Park Oak Tree Playground Picnic Area $182.00 Permit Fee Burlingame Residents No Deposit Non -Residents $218.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Page 51 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Redwood Grove Picnic Area Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 24-2010 $238.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non -Residents Resolution No. 24-2010 $299.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non-profit Group Picnic Fees: Resolution No. 103-2009 $114.00 Permit Fee Cuernavaca & Ray Parks No Deposit Both Washington Park Picnic Areas (Redwood Grove +Oak Tree) Burlingame Residents $337.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non -Residents $438.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Olive Tree Picnic Area Burlingame Residents $121.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non -Residents $161.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Washington Park Sports Court Washington Park Basketball $18.00 per hour Court Rental of Pickleball Net $100 fee if returned damaged Page 52 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE $200 fee if returned beyond repair Washington Park Bocce Ball Courts (reservations) Burlingame Residents Resolution 34-2013 $30.00/hour per court No Deposit Non -Residents $35.00/hour per court No Deposit Rental of Bocce Ball and Resolution 34-2013 $10.00 Flat Rate + $40.00 Horseshoes Refundable deposit Washington Park Horseshoe Pits (reservations) Burlingame Residents Resolution 34-2013 $30.00/hour per court No Deposit Non -Residents Resolution 34-2013 $35.00/hour per court No Deposit Rental of Park Space for Private Classes (Exercise Boot Camps, Stroller Exercise Classes & Other Private Uses) Burlingame residents Resolution No. 103-2009 $21.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 103-2009 $25.00 per hour Page 53 e4RL1NGA ME Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Village Park Picnic Fee (3 tables Burlingame residents Resolution 24-2010 $120.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Non-residents Resolution 24-2010 $161.00 Permit Fee No Deposit Offsite: Non -Profit Community Resolution No. 32-2009 $20.00 per table/per day Groups Equipment Rental Fees Collapsible Picnic Table Tables $6.00 per table/per day Chairs $3.00 per chair/per day Tents $25.00 per tent/per day Inflatable Jump House Washington Park Resolution No. 27-2011 $120.00 Permit Fee No Deposit (Must be done in conjunction with a picnic permit) Wedding Ceremony Washington Park Rose Garden Resolution No. 27-2011 Page 54 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 27-2011 $120.00 Non -Residents $180.00 Washington Park Anson Burlingame Portals Burlingame Residents $120.00 Non -Residents $180.00 With Facility Rental $60.00 $120.00 Photo Shoots in Parks Application Fee Resolution No. 27-2011 $59.00 non-refundable fee Rental Fee Per Day Resolution No. 27-2011 $149.00 per day Student Photo Shoot No Charge Film Shoot in Parks Application Fee $342.00 non-refundable fee Commercial or Corporate $478.00 per day Feature Film/Documentary $717.00 per day Page 55 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Community Garden Annual Fee Burlingame Residents $85/year per plot Non -Residents $100/year per plot Deposit $100 deposit Brochure Ads Resolution No. 27-2011 1 issue/4 issues (1 year - 20% Discount) 1/8 page $83.00/$267.00 1/4 page $166.00/$530.00 1/2 page $333.00/$1,067.00 Full page $666.00/$2,130.00 Full Page Inside Front Cover $897.00/$2,870.00 Full Page Inside Back Cover $837.00/$2,678.00 Full Page Back Cover $997.00/$3,191.00 Layout $85.00 per hour Discount for Non -Profits 25% resident groups 0% non-resident groups Page 56 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE CLASSES Class Fees Resolution No. 31-2003 To be set based on class provider and materials/facilities provided Registration Fees Resolution No. 24-2010 $12.00 Non-resident Fee on Classes Resolution No. 31-2003 Add 20% to class fee rounded to nearest dollar Senior discount — Burlingame Resolution No. 103-2009 25% off class fee on residents age 65 and over classes held at Temporary Facilities Senior discount — non-residents Resolution No. 31-2003 Waive non-resident fee age 65 and over Registration cancellation Resolution No. 33-2008 $8.00 per class or event charge TREE AND PARKS FEES Memorial tree plantings Resolution No. 33-2008 $325.00/$518.00 15 gallon/24" box size Memorial Bench Resolution No. 27-2011 $3,207.00 Additional street tree plantings Resolution No. 32-2009 $123.00/$280.00 15 gallon/24" box size Page 57 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Protected Tree Removal Resolution No. 33-2008 Application Fee $107.00 Failure to Meet Replanting $1,282.00 Requirements of Permit Arborist's plan review for Resolution No. 33-2008 $270.00 landscaping requirements on planning applications (See also planning fee schedule) Arborist check of construction Resolution No. 33-2008 $270.00 plans and inspection of landscape requirements on building permit submittals Appeal to City Council from Resolution No. 33-2008 $500.00 Beautification Commission decision (does not include noticing costs) Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33-2008 $114.00 Street Banner Hanger Resolution No. 24-2010 $214.00 Private Tree Emergency Work $85.00 per hour Business Hours (M-F; 7-3:30) After Hours (Weekends & $109.00 per hour Holidays) Page 58 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE PRE -APPLICATIONS Preliminary Plan Check, New Resolution No. 27-2011 $967.00 Construction* Preliminary Plan Check, Resolution No. 27-2011 $484.00 Addition/Remodel* Zoning Verification/Property Profile $114.00 Letter APPLICATIONS Ambiguity/Determination Hearing Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,616.00 before Planning Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building requests) Amendment/Extension of Permits Resolution No. 27-2011 $871.00 Appeal to Planning Commission of Resolution No. 33-2008 $631.00 administratively approved permits/appeal to City Council of Planning Commission decisions Noticing to be charged separately Legal Review -Substantive work by Resolution No. 48-2015 $213.00/hour *Fifty percent (50%) of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. Page 59 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE City Attorney for development projects requiring discretionary review before the Planning Commission under Title 25 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,143.00 Multi -Unit Residential, 10 Units or Resolution No. 33-2008 $3,816.00 Fewer Multi -Unit Residential, 11 Units to 25 Resolution No. 33-2008 $4,482.00 Units Multi -Unit Residential, 26 Units to 50 $5,260.00 Units Multi -Unit Residential, 51 Units to $6,176.00 100 Units Multi -Unit Residential, 101 Units and $7,252.00 Greater Design Review, Amendment Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,187.00 Design Review Deposit" Resolution No. 27-2006 $1,552.00 Design Review — Handling Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 $602.00 Minor "FYI" Amendment to $458.00 Approved Project —Applicant Initiated Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing until actual time paid. Page 60 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE As -Built "FYI" Variation from Approved Project $1,686.00 Design Review, Single -Unit Residential Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,373.00 Design Review, Multi -Unit Residential 25 Units or Fewer $2,209.00 Design Review, Multi -Unit Residential 26 Units or Greater $3,261.00 Design Review, 5,000 Gross Square Feet or Less $1,373.00 Design Review, 5,001-10,000 Gross Square Feet $2,209.00 Design Review, 10,001 Gross Square Feet or Greater $3,261.00 Design Review, Information Submittal to Planning Commission $1,324.00 Fence Variance Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,207.00 Minor Modification Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,527.00 Hillside Area Construction Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $2,527.00 Accessory Dwelling Unit Resolution No. 27-2011 $782.00 Reasonable Accommodation Resolution No. 27-2011 $492.00 General Plan Amendment/Re-zoning Resolution No. 27-2011 $8,218.00 Page 61 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Resolution No. 27-2011 $568.00 Permit, Building Official Inspection Deposit Special Use Permit Resolution No. 27-2011 $4,690.00 Variance Resolution No 27-2011 $4,902.00 Wireless Communications Municipal Code Section $2,179.00 Administrative Use Permit 25.48.300 Plan Recheck Fee More than two revisions to plans Resolution No. 32- 2009 $795.00 Major redesign of project plans Resolution No. 32- 2009 $957.00 Cannabis Operator Permit Municipal Code Section Application Fees 25.48.060 Delivery only, no fixed location $1,492.00 Fixed location, non -storefront retail delivery $5,967.00 Municipal Code Section Cannabis Operator Permit Renewal 25.48.060 $1,492.00 Page 62 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Fees Delivery only, no fixed location $373.00 Fixed location, non -storefront retail delivery ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental, Categorical Resolution No. 27-2011 $134.00 Exemption Environmental, Negative Declaration Resolution No. 27-2011 $6,908.00 (R-1 and R-2) Environmental, Initial Resolution No. 27-2011 Pass -through of actual Study/Mitigated Negative contractor cost, plus 10% of Declaration Checklist/Streamlining contract handling fee, Exemption and/or with a deposit to be determined by Responsible Agency Director of Community Development Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 31-2003 Pass -through of actual contractor cost, plus 20% of contract handling fee, deposit to be determined by Director of Community Development Environmental Posting Fee, Resolution No. 27-2011 $945.00 Mitigated Negative Declaration and EIR Page 63 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Fish & Wildlife Fee for Negative Fish & Game Code § $2,548.00 (Fish & Wildlife Declaration, whether mitigated or 711.4 Fee is updated annually on not (pass -through fee) January 1 by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife) Fish & Wildlife Fee for Fish & Game Code § $3,539.25 (Fish & Wildlife Environmental Impact Report (pass- 711.4 Fee is updated annually on through fee) January 1 by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife) County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish Fish & Game Code § $50.00 & Game (pass -through fee) 711.4 PARKS Arborist Review (when required) Resolution No. 33-2008 $270.00 NOTICING Noticing, All Other Resolution No. 27-2011 $729.00 Noticing, Design Review Resolution No. 27-2011 $1,013.00 Noticing, Minor Modifications, Resolution No. 27-2011 $847.00 Hillside Area Construction Permits Noticing, General Plan Amendment — Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,515.00 Re -zoning Noticing, Environmental Impact Code Section 25.48.300 $1,515.00 Report Noticing, City Council Appeal Code Section 25.48.300 $114.00 Page 64 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule PLANNING SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Noticing, Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permit Resolution No. 61-2004 $73.00 Noticing — Wireless Communications Municipal Code Chapter 25.48.300 $667.00 Noticing — Replacement of Design Review Sign $380.00 SIGNS 50 square feet or less Resolution No 27-2011 $284.00 Over 50 SF and less than 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $405.00 Over 200 square feet Resolution No. 27-2011 $466.00 Sign Variance Resolution No. 27-2011 $3,448.00 Removal of Illegal Sign Resolution No. 33-2008 $138.00 Page 65 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) 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 are included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2020. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Bayfront Development Fee Office Ord. No. 1739 (2004) $2,905.00/TSF Restaurant $11,699.00/TSF Hotel $952.00/room Hotel, Extended Stay $926.00/room Office, Warehouse, $4,405.00/TSF Manufacturing Retail — Commercial $10,695.00/TSF Car Rental $67,875.00/acre Commercial Recreation $21,065.00/acre All Other $2,341.00 per p.m. peak hour trip as detailed by traffic study Page 66 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) 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 are included in the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule based on any change in the construction cost index as of July 1, 2020. SERVICE REFERENCE FEE North Burlingame & Rollins Road Development Fee Rollins Road Area of Benefit Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.66 per square foot of building El Camino North Area of Benefit Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.66 per square foot of Multiple family dwelling or duplex building Any use other than multiple family Ord. No. 1751 (2005) $0.83 per square foot of dwelling or duplex building Page 67 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) 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 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 The establishing ordinance provides no annual escalator for the Public Facilities Impact Fee. Page 68 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) 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 FEE Burlingame Avenue Parking in Lieu Resolution 48-2000 $61,764.00 Fees Page 69 e4RL1NGA ME Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES (PLANNING) Commercial Affordable Housing Linkage Fees were adopted by the City Council in 2017 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) Residential Impact Fees were adopted by the City Council in 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. Page 70 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Vehicle Release Resolution No.32-2009 $160.00 Police Reports Resolution No.32-2009 $0.25 per page Report Copies Gov't Code § 6253(b) Fingerprint Rolling Fee Live scan Fee Set by State $35.00 plus appropriate State of California Department of Dept. of Justice and/or Federal Justice processing fee CD's/DVD's Containing Resolution No.32-2009 $106.00 per CD/DVD Digital Files Clearance Letter Resolution No. 32-2009 $31.00 Repossessed Vehicle Gov't Code § 41612 $15.00 Preferential Parking Permits (Residential Permit Parking Program) Resolution No. 22-2008 $63.00 Issuance (up to 2 permits (Section 13.36.070) for same address) Resolution No. 22-2008 $63.00 Annual renewal (up to 2 (Section 13.36.070) permits for same address) Resolution No. 22-2008 $63.00 (Section 13.36.070) Charge for replacement of lost permit Page 71 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Burlingame Avenue Section 13.32.020 $63.00/month Downtown Area Parking Permits Driving Under Influence Resolution No. 32-2009 $254.00 per hour (DUI) Fees Resolution No. 33-2007 $147.00 per blood test $55.00 per breath or urine test Resolution No. 33-2007 $147.00 per refused blood test Resolution No. 33-2007 Security Service (Outside Resolution No. 33-2008 $159.00 per hour Detail) (minimum charge of four hours) Alarm Permit Application Resolution No. 116-2003 $18.00 Fee (Section 10.10.110) Resolution No. 116-2003 $32.00 per year Alarm Permits (Annual (Section 10.10.110) Renewal) Page 72 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE False Alarm Charge 1 to 2 false alarms No Charge 3 to 5 false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $50.00 each (Section 10.10.090) 6 or more false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $100.00 each Any false alarm for which (Section 10.10.090) $50.00 (includes cost of alarm no alarm permit has Resolution No. 28-2006 permit plus $18.00 initial been issued application fee) Live Entertainment Resolution No. 32-2009 $660.00 Permit (Sections 6.16.030) Single Event (Section 6.16.090) $114.00 Entertainment Permit Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. 41-2008 $702.00 for investigation plus (Section 6.24.030) fingerprinting fees Curb Painting Resolution No. 33-2007 $64.00 for investigation Tanning Salon Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $1,074.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.42.060) $984.00 plus fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.42.120) $736.00 plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.42.160) Page 73 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Massage Operator Application Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,389.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.40.060) $1,389.00 plus fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 6.40.120) $871.00 plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 32-2009 (Section 6.40.160) Model/Escort Service Resolution No. 41-2008 $1,178.00 plus fingerprinting fees Application (Section 6.41.040) $1,075.00 plus fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.41.100) $736.00 plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.41.130) Private Patrol Company Resolution No. 41-2008 $396.00 plus fingerprinting fees Application (Section 6.44.050) $198.00 plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 (Section 6.44.080) Taxi Operator Application Section 6.36.050 Business license fee plus fingerprinting fees Business license fee plus Renewal Section 6.36.190 fingerprinting fees Page 74 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule POLICE SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Taxi Driver Application Section 6.36.050 $80.00 plus fingerprinting fees $70.00 plus fingerprinting fees Renewal Section 6.36.190 Taxicab Annual Section 6.36.120 $90.00 per vehicle Inspection Valet Parking Resolution No. 41-2008 $762.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Section 6.30.040) Concealed Weapon Resolution No. 32-2009 $1,286.00 for investigation Fortune Teller Resolution No. 41-2008 $762.00 plus fingerprinting fees (Set by Section 6.38.060) Unruly Gathering Section 10.70.070 Cost of Hours of Officer Response Special Events & Street Resolution No. 32-2009 Closing: Application and Permit $114.00 Sidewalk Closure $114.00 per parcel/per day $226.00 per parcel/per day Road Closure Verification of non- Resolution No. 90-2009 No Charge resident "proof -of - correction" citations Page 75 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE SEWER CAPACITY CHARGES Single-family Section 15.08.020 $10,219.00/ dwelling unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Multi -family, Two or Section 15.08.020 $7,075.00/ dwelling unit More Bedrooms Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Multi -family, Studio and Section 15.08.020 $4,804.00/ dwelling unit One Bedroom Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Detached Accessory Section 15.08.020 $4.26/ square foot Dwelling Unit (ADU) > Fee updated based on Engineering 150 square feet News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Non -Residential, water Section 15.08.020 $19,653.00/ connection meter size = %-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Non -Residential, water Section 15.08.020 $32,756.00/ connection meter size = 1-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Page 76 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Non -Residential, water Section 15.08.020 $65,511.00/ connection meter size = 1%-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Non -Residential, water Section 15.08.020 $104,818.00/connection meter size = 2-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Non -Residential, water Section 15.08.020 $196,534.00/ connection meter size = 3-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 Non -Residential, water Section 15.08.020 $327,557.00/connection meter size = 4-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/2022 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 Moderate Discharger, Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $1,660.00 Annual Heavy Discharger, Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $2,318.00 Annual Page 77 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Non -Conventional Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $1,239.00 Discharger, Annual Groundwater Discharger Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Non -conventional Fee plus $6.98 per 1000 gallons discharged Application Processing Ord. No. 1786 (2006) $160.00 Fee ANALYTICAL FEES In-house Testing Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Cost Contract Lab Testing Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Cost plus 15% BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Minimum Bi-Monthly Resolution No. 144-2021 $27.16 Charges (Effective 1/1/2022) Applies only when volumetric sewer rates result in a charge that is lower than the minimum. Single-family or duplex Resolution No. 144-2021 $13.58 per thousand gallons. (Effective 1/1/2022) Multi -Unit residential Resolution No. 144-2021 $13.05 per thousand gallons (Effective 1/1/2022) Food Related: Resolution No. 144-2021 $34.14 per thousand gallons Restaurant, other (Effective 1/1/2022) commercial food -related uses Page 78 e4RL1NGA ME Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule SEWER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Moderate/Heavy Resolution No. 144-2021 $23.80 per thousand gallons commercial (Effective 1/1/2022) Light commercial Resolution No. 144-2021 $14.44 per thousand gallons (Effective 1/1/2022) Institutional/ Schools/ Resolution No. 144-2021 $6.71 per thousand gallons Churches (Effective 1/1/2022) Page 79 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule SEWER NEW CUSTOMERS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX CLASSIFICATION — Resolution No. 144-2021 (Effective 1/1/2022) Number of Bedrooms Bi-Monthly Fee 1 Bedroom or Studio $54.32 2 Bedrooms $81.48 3 Bedrooms $108.64 4 Bedrooms $135.80 5 or More Bedrooms $162.96 Page 80 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE WATER CAPACITY CHARGES Single-family Section 15.04.020 $6,699.00/ dwelling unit Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Multi -family, Two or Section 15.04.020 $4,164.00/ dwelling unit More Bedrooms Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Multi -family, Studio and Section 15.04.020 $2,715.00/ dwelling unit One Bedroom Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Detached Accessory Section 15.04.020 $2.80/ square foot Dwelling Unit (ADU), > Fee updated based on Engineering 150 square feet News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Non -Residential, water Section 15.04.020 $10,138.00/ connection meter size= 4-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Non -Residential, water Section 15.04.020 $16,910.00/ connection meter size=1-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Page 81 e4RL1NGA ME Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Non -Residential, water Section 15.04.020 $33,784.00/ connection meter size= 1 % -inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Non -Residential, water Section 15.04.020 $54,061.00/ connection meter size=2-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Non -Residential, water Section 15.04.020 $101,387.00/ connection meter size=3-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Non -Residential, water Section 15.04.020 $168,991.00/ connection meter size=4-inch Fee updated based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as of 1/1/22 Page 82 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule WATER 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 FEE BI-MONTHLY CHARGE FOR METERS 5/8" and 3/4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $84.03 1" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $140.05 1 - %" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $280.10 2" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $448.16 3" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $840.30 4" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $1,400.50 6" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $2,801.00 8" meter Ord. No. 1880 (2017) $41481.60 Page 83 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE 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 Commercial/Multi- Ord. No. 1880 (2017) Effective January 1, 2019: $11.46 Family/Duplex/Other per thousand gallons Water Service Turn -On Ord. No. 1880 (2012) 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday No Charge thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday $20.00 thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., Monday $60.00 thru Friday Saturday/Sunday/Holiday $60.00 Page 84 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Penalty Fee (Past Due) Not paid within 30 days of Ord. No. 1880 (2012) 1.5% penalty billing Service Renewal 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $35.00 thru Friday 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $45.00 thru Friday 3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., Monday Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $60.00 thru Friday After normal operating hours $150.00 Maintenance of Water in Fire Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $1.00 per month per inch of pipe Protection System diameter, with $2.00 minimum charge Flow Test 5/8" through 1" Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 1 - %" and 2" $80.00 Over 2" $100.00 minimum (if over $100.00, cost of testing plus 15%) Page 85 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule WATER SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Temporary Water Service Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $750.00 deposit Meter charges (does not $43.00 per month for 1-inch meter include water consumption) $85.00 per month for three-inch meters Water Service Turn -on Deposit Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $50.00 or 2 months estimated if Delinquent on City Water consumption, whichever is greater Account in Previous 12 months Work on City Water System Ord. No. 1880 (2012) $60.00 permit $1,500.00 bond or deposit Fire Flow Test Section 15.04.030 $242.00 per hydrant SERVICE REFERENCE FEE Page 86 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule WATER Water Line Installation 5/8" bypass meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $350.00 3/4" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $4,100.00 1" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $4,135.00 1 - % " service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $5,280.00 2" service with meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $5,420.00 If larger than 2" or a length of Ord. No. 1805 (2006) Cost plus 15% more than 60 feet Meter Upgrade To 3/4" meter or 1" meter Ord. No. 1805 (2007) $254.00 (meter only) Page 87 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule COUNTY FEES - ANIMAL CONTROL 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.0 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://Iibrary.municode.com/ca/san mateo county/codes/code of ordinances?node ld=TIT6AN#! Page 88 N EWS RELEASE Q��4�ENT°Frq�� BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Q U. S. D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R BLS TES For Release: Thursday, March 10, 2022 22-436-SAN WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif. Technical information: (415) 625-2270 BLSinfoSF@bls.gov www.bls.gov/regions/west Media contact: (415) 625-2270 Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2022 Area prices were up 1.4 percent over the past two months, up 5.2 percent from a year ago Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), advanced 1.4 percent for the two months ending in February 2022, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (See table A.) Regional Commissioner Chris Rosenlund noted that the February increase was influenced by higher prices for shelter and food. (Data in this report are not seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, month -to -month changes may reflect seasonal influences.) Over the last 12 months, the CPI-U rose 5.2 percent. (See chart 1 and table A.) Food prices increased 9.0 percent. Energy prices jumped 26.9 percent, largely the result of an increase in the price of gasoline. The index for all items less food and energy rose 3.4 percent over the year. (See table 1.) Chart 1. Over -the -gear percent change in CPI-U, San Franciscoaidand-Hayward, A, February 2419-February 2422 Percent change I�I II II Feb 2019 - All ite ms All items less food andenergy *F f voo_�__ %% I i_ it � Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb 2020 24211 2022 Source: U__ Bureau of Labor Statistics_ Food Food prices increased 3.2 percent for the two months ending in February. (See table 1.) Prices for food at home advanced 3.6 percent, strongly influenced by higher prices within the other food at home category (9.8 percent). Prices for food away from home increased 2.7 percent for the same period. Over the year, food prices increased 9.0 percent. Prices for food at home jumped 12.1 percent since a year ago. Increases across food at home expenditure categories ranged from 6.1 percent for nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials to 19.6 percent for other food at home. Prices for food away from home rose 5.7 percent. Energy The energy index advanced 3.3 percent for the two months ending in February. The increase was mainly due to higher prices for electricity (7.8 percent). Prices for natural gas service increased 4.7 percent, and prices for gasoline rose 0.3 percent for the same period. Energy prices jumped 26.9 percent over the year, largely due to higher prices for gasoline (35.4 percent). Prices paid for natural gas service jumped 32.6 percent, and prices for electricity moved up 15.4 percent during the past year. All items less food and energy The index for all items less food and energy rose 1.0 percent in the latest two -month period. Higher prices for apparel (4.8 percent), medical care (1.1 percent), and shelter (0.9 percent) were partially offset by lower prices for education and communication (-0.2 percent). Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy rose 3.4 percent. Components contributing to the increase included used cars and trucks (39.7 percent), recreation (8.9 percent), apparel (7.2 percent), and shelter (1.4 percent). Table A. San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA, CPI-U 2-month and 12-month percent changes, all items index, not seasonally adjusted Month 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 12- 12- 12- 12- 12- 2-month month 2-month month 2-month month 2-month month 2-month month February .................................................. 1.4 3.6 0.5 3.5 0.9 2.9 0.5 1.6 1.4 5.2 April......................................................... 0.8 3.2 1.2 4.0 -0.5 1.1 1.7 3.8 June ......................................................... 0.9 3.9 0.2 3.2 0.7 1.6 0.0 3.2 August ..................................................... 0.6 4.3 0.1 2.7 0.0 1.6 0.5 3.7 October .................................................... 0.7 4.4 1.0 3.0 0.5 1.1 0.7 3.8 December ................................................ 1 0.11 4.5 -0.51 2.51 0.41 2.0 0.8 4.2 The April 2022 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco area is scheduled to be released on May 11, 2022. Technical Note The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measures of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 93 percent of the total U.S. population and (2) a CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) which covers approximately 29 percent of the total U.S. population. The CPI-U includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, and retirees and others not in the labor force. The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and dentists' services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Each month, prices are collected in 75 urban areas across the country from about 6,000 housing units and approximately 22,000 retail establishments —department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and other types of stores and service establishments. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. The index measures price changes from a designated reference date; for most of the CPI-U the reference base is 1982-84 equals 100. An increase of 7 percent from the reference base, for example, is shown as 107.000. Alternatively, that relationship can also be expressed as the price of a base period market basket of goods and services rising from $100 to $107. For further details see the CPI home page on the internet at www.bls.gov/ cpi and the CPI section of the BLS Handbook of Methods available on the internet at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ cpi/. In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with weights that represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are then combined to obtain a U.S. city average. Because the sample size of a local area is smaller, the local area index is subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. In addition, local indexes are not adjusted for seasonal influences. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. NOTE: Area indexes do not measure differences in the level of prices between cities; they only measure the average change in prices for each area since the base period. The San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA. metropolitan area covered in this release is comprised of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo Counties in the State of California. Information in this release will be made available to individuals with sensory impairments upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; Telecommunications Relay Service: 7-1-1. CK Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) Item and Group Indexes Percent change from - Historical Dec. Jan. Feb. Feb. Dec. Jan. data 2021 2022 2022 2021 2021 2022 Expenditure category All items............................................................. 315.805 320.195 5.2 1.4 All items (1967=100)......................................... 0 970.872 984.369 - - Food and beverages ...................................... 324.575 334.605 8.4 3.1 Food........................................................... nt❑ 325.866 336.402 9.0 3.2 Food at home ......................................... 0 294.986 295.373 305.485 12.1 3.6 3.4 Cereals and bakery products .............. 0 302.276 - 308.332 13.7 2.0 - Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .............. 0 331.492 333.698 10.7 0.7 Dairy and related products .................. 0 294.216 302.103 8.5 2.7 Fruits and vegetables .......................... 389.201 397.584 7.1 2.2 Nonalcoholic beverages and 218.251 216.230 6.1 0.9 beverage materials(1) ......................... Other food at home ............................. 0 240.545 264.150 19.6 9.8 Food away from home ............................ 360.146 370.023 5.7 2.7 Alcoholic beverages ................................... 0 312.260 315.737 1.3 1.1 Housing.......................................................... 0 366.364 370.763 2.4 1.2 - Shelter........................................................ 411.972 412.937 415.760 1.4 0.9 0.7 Rent of primary residence(2).................. 467.588 468.496 469.286 0.1 0.4 0.2 Owners' equiv. rent of residences(2)(3).. 443.052 444.237 444.617 1.3 0.4 0.1 Owners' equiv. rent of primary 0 443.052 444.237 444.617 1.3 0.4 0.1 residence(1)(2) .................................... Fuels and utilities ........................................ 492.167 - 514.971 13.1 4.6 - Household energy .................................. 0 439.008 469.548 469.032 18.4 6.8 -0.1 Energy services(2) .............................. 440.057 471.320 470.615 18.4 6.9 -0.1 Electricity(2)..................................... 458.389 494.214 494.214 15.4 7.8 0.0 Utility (piped) gas service(2)............ 404.609 426.105 423.823 32.6 4.7 -0.5 Household furnishings and operations....... .�❑ 158.186 - 160.063 3.9 1.2 - Apparel........................................................... 0 107.828 113.006 7.2 4.8 Transportation................................................ 0 236.457 238.498 16.5 0.9 Private transportation ................................. 240.566 241.233 18.5 0.3 New and used motor vehicles(4)................ 115.888 - - - New vehicles(1)...................................... 187.999 - - - - Used cars and trucks(1) ......................... 368.270 376.607 39.7 2.3 - Motor fuel ............................................... 342.260 340.187 343.538 35.5 0.4 1.0 Gasoline (all types) .............................. 341.048 338.985 342.218 35.4 0.3 1.0 Gasoline, unleaded regular(4)......... 341.411 339.350 342.591 36.0 0.3 1.0 Gasoline, unleaded midgrade(4)(5). 317.984 316.149 319.134 34.5 0.4 0.9 Gasoline, unleaded premium(4)...... 321.924 319.953 322.988 33.4 0.3 0.9 Medical care ................................................... 561.352 - 567.774 2.3 1.1 - Recreation(6).................................................. 0 136.386 137.237 8.9 0.6 Education and communication(6)................... .�❑ 155.817 155.546 3.1 -0.2 Tuition, other school fees, and child care(1)........................................................ Other goods and services .............................. 533.001 540.581 3.0 1.4 Commodity and service group All items............................................................. .�❑ 315.805 320.195 5.2 1.4 Commodities .................................................. .�❑ 217.808 222.186 11.5 2.0 Commodities less food & beverages.......... „❑ 160.582 162.426 14.9 1.1 Nondurables less food & beverages ...... 208.754 212.593 15.0 1.8 Durables ................................................. 113.292 - - - Services.......................................................... 398.306 402.721 2.7 1.1 Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) - Continued Item and Group Indexes Percent change from - Historical Dec. Jan. Feb. Feb. Dec. Jan. data 2021 2022 2022 2021 2021 2022 Special aggregate indexes All items less medical care ................................ 305.667 309.967 5.4 1.4 All items less shelter .......................................... 0 277.666 282.565 8.3 1.8 Commodities less food ...................................... 0 167.436 169.355 13.9 1.1 Nondurables...................................................... .�❑ 268.041 275.005 10.8 2.6 Nondurables less food ....................................... .�❑ 216.969 220.811 13.4 1.8 Services less rent of shelter(3).......................... .�❑ 400.231 405.976 4.8 1.4 Services less medical care services .................. .�❑ 387.032 391.232 2.8 1.1 Energy............................................................... 0 382.822 393.801 395.621 26.9 3.3 0.5 All items less energy ......................................... 316.469 - 320.537 4.2 1.3 - AII items less food and energy ....................... 315.864 - 318.955 3.4 1.0 Footnotes (1) Indexes on a December 1977=100 base. (2) This index series was calculated using a Laspeyres estimator. All other item stratum index series were calculated using a geometric means estimator. (3) Indexes on a December 1982=100 base. (4) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample. (5) Indexes on a December 1993=100 base. (6) Indexes on a December 1997=100 base. - Data not available NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date. City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Purpose: A clear User Fee Cost Recovery Policy will allow the City of Burlingame to provide an ongoing, sound basis for setting fees that allows charges and fees to be periodically reviewed and updated based on predetermined, researched and supportable criteria that can be made available to the public. Background• The City Council has traditionally approved a Master Fee Schedule as part of the budget process. City user fees are adjusted to reflect the annual increase in costs that are adopted for the ensuing budget year. The 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. A City-wide Cost Allocation Plan provides a methodology for data -based distribution of administrative and other overhead charges to programs and services. A Cost of Services Study allows the determination of the full cost of providing each service for which a fee is charged, and lays the final groundwork needed for development of a values -based and data -driven User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. The most recent Cost Allocation Plan and Cost of Services Study was completed in March, 2016. Comments and direction from the Master Fee Schedule Updates subsequent to the study were used to prepare this Fiscal Policy. Policy: The policy has three main components: • Provision for ongoing review • Process of establishing cost recovery levels o Factors to be Considered Target Cost Recovery Levels o Parks and Recreation Programs o Development Review Programs o Public Works Services o Public Safety Services o Library o Administrative Services Provision for ongoing review Fees will be reviewed at least annually in order to keep pace with changes in the cost of living and methods or levels of service delivery. In order to facilitate a fact -based approach to this review, a comprehensive analysis of the city's costs and fees should be made every three to five years. In the interim, fees will be adjusted by annual cost factors reflected in the appropriate program's operating budget. Process of establishing user fee cost recovery levels The following factors will be considered when setting service fees and cost recovery levels: Community -wide vs. special benefit • The use of general purpose revenue is appropriate for community -wide services while user fees are appropriate for services that are of special benefit to individuals or groups. Full cost recovery is not always appropriate. Page 1 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery 2. Service Recipient Versus Service Driver • Particularly for services associated with regulated activities (development review, code enforcement), from which the community eventually benefits, cost recovery from the "driver" of the need for the service (applicant, violator) is appropriate. Consistency with City public policies and objectives • City policies and Council goals focused on long-term improvements to community quality of life may also impact desired fee levels, as fees can be used to change community behaviors, promote certain activities or provide funding for pursuit of specific community goals, for example: health and safety, environmental stewardship. 4. Impact on demand (elasticity) • Pricing of services can significantly impact demand. At full cost recovery, for example, the City is providing services for which there is a genuine market not over -stimulated by artificially low prices. Conversely, high cost recovery may negatively impact lower income groups and this can work against public policy outcomes, especially if the services are specifically designed to serve particular groups. 5. Discounted Rates and Surcharges • Rates may be discounted to accommodate lower income groups or groups who are the target of the service, such as senior citizens or residents. • Higher rates are considered appropriate for non-residents to further reduce general fund subsidization of services. 6. Feasibility of Collection It may be impractical or too costly to establish a system to appropriately identify and charge each user for the specific services received. The method of assessing and collecting fees should be as simple as possible in order to reduce the administrative cost of collection. Target cost recovery levels 1. Low cost recovery levels (0% - 30%) are appropriate if: • There is no intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received • Collecting fees is not cost-effective • There is no intent to limit use of the service • The service is non -recurring • Collecting fees would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements • The public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service High cost recovery levels (81% - 100%) are appropriate if: • The individual user or participant receives the benefit of the service • Other private or public sector alternatives could or do provide the service • For equity or demand management purposes, it is intended that there be a direct relationship between the amount paid and the level and cost of the service received • The use of the service is specifically discouraged • The service is regulatory in nature Page 2 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery 3. Services having factors associated with both cost recovery levels would be subsidized at a mid- level of cost recovery (31% - 80%). General categories of services tend to fall logically into the three levels of cost recovery above and can be classified according to the factors favoring those classifications for consistent and appropriate fees. Primary categories of services include: • Parks and Recreation Programs • Development Review Programs - Planning and Building • Public Works Department - Engineering, Utilities, and Maintenance • Public Safety • Library • Administrative Services Parks and Recreation Proarams Cost analyses of Parks and Recreation activities do not follow a typical unit -based approach, as the unit costs for these types of programs are largely affected by the participation numbers, which can vary significantly. Instead, the cost analysis for the Parks and Recreation Department consists of a comparison of the overall full cost and revenue of each program area. The individual activities are grouped into the nine different program areas shown below. General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and Facilities Low Cost Recovery (0-30%) Mid Cost Recovery (31-80%) High Cost Recovery (81-100%) Parks Park and Playground Maintenance Tennis Courts Dog Park Street Banner Hanging Landscape Maintenance X X X X X Arborist Services Tree Plantings Protected Tree Removal Permits X X Recreation Programs: Senior Services Senior Activities Bingo-N-Bag Lunch X X Page 3 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Recreation Programs: Youth Services Pre -School and Enrichment Youth Camps/Trips X X Recreation Programs: Teen Services Youth Advisory Committee X Recreation Programs: Leisure Classes Performing Arts Art Language Culinary Fitness Special Interest Miscellaneous X X X X X X Recreation Programs: Sports School Age Sports Tennis Lesson/Camps Softball Miscellaneous Sports/Camps X X X X Events/ Celebration City Sponsored City -Wide Movies/Music in the Park Pet Parade Other Events X X X X X Facility Usage City Functions (e.g. commissions) Co -Sponsored Organization Non -Profit Fields (Youth: Non -Profit) Fields (Adult: Non -Profit) Tennis Courts Picnic Rentals (Private Party) Private Rentals Fields (For Profit) Contracted Venues (For Profit) X X X X X X X X X X It should be noted that discussions regarding the potential (or desirability) for full cost recovery do not apply to Parks and Recreation Services as a whole. Park and recreation programs occupy a unique service niche in local government. A breadth of recreation and park services provides a general community benefit that warrants a significant measure of subsidization. Normally, market/economic and social/political pressures will dictate or heavily influence the fee levels for these discretionary programs. Page 4 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Low Recovery Expectations Low to zero recovery is expected for programs in this category as the community benefits from the service. Non-resident fees (if allowed) may provide medium cost recovery. In general, low cost programs or activities in this group provide a community wide benefit. These programs and activities are generally programs or activities enhancing the health, safety and livability of the community and therefore require the removal of a cost barrier for optimum participation. For example: • Parks - As long as collecting fees at City parks is not cost-effective, there should be no fees collected for general use of parks and playgrounds. Costs associated with maintaining the City's parks represent a large cost for which there is no significant opportunity for recovery - these facilities are public domains and are an essential service of Citygovernment. • Senior Classes/Events - The primary purpose of senior classes and events is to encourage participation. The seniors served in these classes may not have the means of paying for the classes. The classes should continue to be offered in collaboration with outside agencies when possible. • Pilot Programs - In any program year, certain classes or activities may be offered on a "pilot" basis at subsidized levels to determine initial interest and how favorably the program would be received overall. • Events/Celebrations - Community Services events provide opportunities for neighborhoods to come together as a community and integrate people of various ages, economic and cultural backgrounds. Events also foster pride in the community and provide opportunities for volunteers to give back. As such, the benefits are community -wide. In addition, collection of fees are not always cost effective. • Facility Usage - Safe and secure facilities for neighborhood problem -solving and provision of other general services support an engaged community and should be encouraged with low or no fees. Medium Recovery Expectation Recovery of most program costs incurred in the delivery of the service, but without recovery of any of the costs which would have been incurred by the department without the service. Both community and individuals benefit from these services. Non-resident fees if allowed may provide higher cost recovery. • Youth Sports / Camps — Programs that encourage outdoor fitness for youth should be offered at moderate fees to encourage use of City facilities and help defray the cost of their maintenance. • Field Usage and Tennis Courts — Cost should be kept low for local non-profit organizations providing sports leagues open to residents and students in Burlingame Schools that encourage healthy lifestyles and lifelong fitness. Opportunities exist to collect a reasonable fee for use to defray citywide expenses for tennis facilities and fields. High Recovery Expectations Present when user fees charged are sufficient to support direct program costs plus up to 100% of department administration and city overhead associated with the activity. Individual benefit foremost and minimal community benefit exists. Activities promote the full utilization of parks and recreation facilities. • Programs - Activities in this area benefit the individual user. Programs, classes, and sports leagues are often offered to keep pace with current recreational trends and provide the Page 5 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery opportunity to learn new skills, improve health, and develop social competency. The services are made available to maximize the use of the facilities, increase the variety of offerings to the community as a whole, and spread department administration and city-wide overhead costs to many activities. In some instances offering these activities helps defray expenses of services with no viable means of collecting revenue e.g. parks, playgrounds, etc. Facility Usage — Facility use is set at a higher rate for the private use of the public facility for meetings, parties, and programs charging fees for services and celebrations. Contracted Venues -(for profit)- Longterm arrangements where a facility is rented or contracted out to reduce general funding expense in orderto provide specialized servicesto residents. Page 6 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Development Review Services • Planning (planned development permits, tentative tract and parcel maps, re -zonings, general plan amendments, variances, use permits) • Building and safety (building permits, structural plan checks, inspections) General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and Facilities Low Cost Recovery (0-3051.) Mid Cost Recovery (31-8094.) High Cost Recovery (81-1009,.) Pre -Applications Preliminary Plan Check (New Construction*) Preliminary Plan Check (Remodel*) Zoning Verification/ Property Profile Letter X X X Applications Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before Planning Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building requests) X Amendment/Extension of Permits X Antenna Exception Fee X Appeal to Planning Commission of administratively approved permits/appeal to City Council of Planning Commission decisions X Legal Review -Substantive work by City Attorney for development projects requiring discretionary review before the Planning Commission under Title 25 X Conditional Use Permit X Condominium Permit (4-10 Units or Fewer) X Condominium Permit (11 Units-25 Units) X Condominium Permit (26 Units-50 Units) X Condominium Permit (51 Units-100 Units) X Condominium Permit (101 Units and Greater) X Design Review, Addition X Design Review, Amendment X Design Review —Handling Fee X Minor Amendment to Approved Project X As -Built Variation from Approved Project X Design Review, New Construction X Fence Exception X Minor Modification X Hillside Area Construction Permit X Secondary Dwelling Unit X Reasonable Accommodation X Page 7 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Re -zoning X Second Unit Amnesty Permit Building Official Inspection Deposit X Special Use Permit X Variance X Wireless Communications Administrative Use Permit X Plan Recheck Fee More than two revisions to plans Major redesign of project plans X X Environmental Categorical Exemption Negative Declaration Mitigated Declaration and/orwith a Responsible Agency Impact Report Posting Fee, Negative Declaration and EIR X X X X X Parks Arborist Review (when required) X Noticing R-1 and R-2 All Other Districts R-1 Design Review, Residential R-1 Design Study, Residential Design Review, all other districts Minor Modifications or Hillside Area Construction Permits General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report City Council Appeal Second Unit Amnesty Wireless Communications Replacement of Posted Sign Design Review Yard Sign X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sign 50 square feet or less Over 50 SF and less than 200 square feet Over 200 square feet Sign Variance Removal of Illegal Sign X X X X X Publications Zoning Map X Page 8 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Building Fees General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and Facilities Low Cost Recovery (0-30%) Mid Cost Recovery (31-80%) High Cost Recovery (81-100%) Building Permit Fees Not Based on Total Valuation All inspections outside normal business hours (minimum charge is for 2 hours) All reinspection fees (minimum 1 hour) X X Energy Upgrade California Basic Package Advanced Package X X Plan Review Fees Review request for alternate materials and methods Review of unreasonable hardship request Plan revisions for planning department Plan revisions subsequent to permit issuance Arborist Review Fee X X X X X Plumbing Permit Fees Fixtures and Vents (each fixture) Sewer and Interceptors (each) Water Piping and Water Heaters X X X Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five outlets For each additional outletover five X X Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices X Swimming Pools Public or Private Pool Public or Private Spa X X For each appliance orfixture which no fee is listed X Mechanical Permit Fees Furnaces Boilers, Compressors, Absorption Systems Air Handlers X X X Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan attached to a single duct Each hood including ducts X X Page 9 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Miscellaneous appliance or piece of equipment not specifically listed above X Electrical Permit Fees System Fee Schedule Public Swimming Pools and Spas Private Pools and Spas Temporary Service Pole X X X Unit Fee Schedule Receptacle, Switch and Light Outlets Residential Appliances Power Apparatus X X X Photo Voltaic Systems Residential Systems X Commercial Systems X Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees X Services 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating 600 volts or less, over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes Over 600volts or over 1000 amperes X X X Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth X General Fees Building Moving X Low Recovery Expectations Low to zero recovery is expected for services in this category to maintain open and accessible government processes for the public, encourage environmental sustainability and encourage compliance with regulatory requirements. Example of Low Recovery items: • Planning — The fee for Zoning Maps is set well below full cost recovery as the map assists the public without excessive use of staff time. • Planning — Fees associated with Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Permits are kept at low cost recovery levels to encourage the maintenance of legal accessory dwelling units. Building- The elimination or reduction of building permits for residential solar array installations is consistent with California Government Code Section 65850.5, which calls on local agencies to encourage the installation of solar energy systems by removing obstacles to, and minimizing costs of, permitting for such systems. Building — Unit fees established as for additional fixtures, outlets, appliances, etc. are set at low cost recovery so as not to burden the cost of improvements to existing buildings. Page 10 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Medium Recovery Expectations Recovery in the range of 31% to 80% of the costs incurred in the delivery of the service reflects the private benefit that is received while not discouraging compliance with the regulation requirements. • Planning — While the preparation of Zoning Verification/Property Profile provides a benefit to the public by confirming applicable zoning restrictions and indicates any existing zoning inconsistencies or outstanding code violations for a particular property, this service requires a significant amount of staff time. A cost recovery level of 50% is appropriate. • Planning - The fees for applicants who wish to appeal a Staff Decision or for a Burlingame resident or neighbor who wishes to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission is purposefully lower than full cost recovery to allow for accessibility to government processes. Similarly, Ambiguity/Determination Hearings before the Planning Commission are set to recover some of the significant staff time entailed without discouraging rational appeals. • Planning — Application fees for smaller condominium projects (< 50 units) are set at mid -cost recovery levels to encourage the development of such housing projects. • Planning — Design Review fees are largely set at mid cost recovery levels in recognition of the significant public benefit derived from a consistent review of project plans. Minor modifications and amendments are permitted at less than full cost recovery levels as well. • Planning - Administrative permits for fences are set at mid -level to encourage compliance. • Planning — The fee for a Categorical Exemption (Environmental) is set at less than full cost recovery to reduce hardship on small development projects. • Planning — Fees for Reasonable Accommodation applications are kept at mid cost recovery levels to encourage compliance with ADA regulations and general accessibility standards. High Recovery Expectations Cost recovery for most development review services should generally be high. In most instances, the City's cost recovery goal should be 100%. • Planning - Most Development Pre -Application and Application fees, including plan recheck, rezoning, variance and special use fees are set at full/high cost recovery levels, as the cost of these services should be borne mainly by the applicant. • Planning - Most noticing costs associated with Development Applications should be borne by the applicant; these fees are established at a high range of cost recovery. • Building - Building Plan review fees are set at high cost recovery levels as benefits accrue to the applicant only. • Building —The fees established for inspections outside of normal business hour and all re -inspections are costly, and only the applicant receives the benefit of such services; these fees are intended to fully recover the City's costs. Page 11 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost R Public Works Department - Enaineerina Engineering (public improvement plan checks, inspections, subdivision requirements, encroachments) General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and Facilities Low Cost Recovery (0-30%) Mid Cost Recovery (31-80%) High Cost Recovery (81-100%) Encroachment Permits Minor (no excavation involved) Sewer Lateral Test Sewer Lateral Replacement Water Service Connection (with Sidewalk Add No. Fire System Connection (with Sidewalk Add No. 5) Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 S.F. (includes Curb Sidewalk Closure/ Pedestrian Protection Traffic Control Block Party (includes up to 6 barricades) X X X X X X X X X Parking Permit (temporary encroachment permit) Commercial Areas and Construction Purposes Moving Only Purposes (Residential Area) X X Special Encroachment Permits Subsurface Shoring Systems: • Per 10'-20' deep tieback • Per >20' deep tieback • For permanent space used Permanent structures, such as retaining walls, fences Non -permanent installations, such as tables, chairs, planters X X X X X General Fees Demolition Permit (in addition to any Building Department -issued Demolition or Construction Permit): Includes sewer, water and sidewalk Add fire line Add curb drain Add sidewalk closure Add PG&E Address Change X X X X X X Page 12 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Single Trip - Transportation Fee (Fixed rate set Per Caltrans) Leaf Blower Testing Certification Fee Creek Enclosures Abandonment of Public Utility Easement Hauling Permit X X X X X Deposits or Bonds for Encroachment Permit Work Openings in Public Right -of -Way (not in sidewalk or street) Openings in Public Right -of -Way in sidewalk (not in street) Street Roadway Opening (AC Pavement Water Main Modification Sewer Main & Storm Drain Modification X X X X X Subdivision Maps Lot Line Adjustment Lot Combination Subdivision Map Condominium Map X X X X 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 Type 2 Project: Multi -family dwellings of commercial additions (excluding tenant improvements) that are on a 10,OOOsf lot or smaller Type 3 Project: Any project 10,000 sf up to an acre lot Type 4 Project: Any project greater than one acre in size X X X X Planning Application Reviews Single Family Dwelling (Addition) Single Family Dwelling (New) Multi -Family Commercial/Industrial Environmental Review Traffic and Parking Studies X X X X X X Grading Permit 1-100 cubic yards 101-1,OOOcubic yards 1,001-10,OOOcubic yards Over 10,000 cubic yards X X X X Page 13 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Low Recovery Expectations Low to zero recovery is expected only for services that provide a community -wide benefit. However, the nature of most of the Public Works services provided for a fee are intended to enhance a private property or land use specific to a particular development application. Low cost recovery expectations are generally limited to those services required to maintain the livability of the community. Examples of Low Recovery items: • Encroachment Permits — issued to allow for parking privileges in an area typically controlled by metered parking in residential areas for a temporary period (moving purposes), this permit is set at a low cost recovery level. • Fees associated with Fire system connection or Fire Line access are generally set at low cost recovery levels as these services provide a general public safety benefit. • Truck Route Permits Fees -maximum fee set by State Law. • Planning Application Reviews for Single Family Dwelling (additions or new constructions) are set at a low cost recovery level to encourage compliance without adding undue costs to the project. • Fees for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permits are set at low cost recovery to ensure compliance for small single family home additions (projects of low impact to Stormwater system). • Single Trip Transportation Fee — this fee is set by Caltrans. Medium Recovery Expectations Recovery in the range of 31% to 80% of the costs incurred in the delivery of the service. Typically both the community and individuals benefit from these services. • Encroachment permit fees to provide barricades for small block parties are established at medium cost recovery to ensure compliance with regulations intended to improve safety for the participants of the community event. • Fees for Creek Enclosures are set at mid -cost recovery to help ensure compliance to regulations that protect land and property in the vicinity of the project area. • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Construction Permits for medium to large projects are set at mid -cost recovery levels to ensure compliance with Stormwater regulations that benefit the entire community. • Planning Application reviews for multi -family or commercial/industrial projects are provided at a fee that will recover some of the City's costs without discouraging development. High Recovery Expectations Recovery in the range of 81% to 100% when user fees charged are sufficient to fully recover costs of providing the service. Individual benefit is foremost and minimal community benefit exists. Most services provided by the Public Works Department fall in this area. • For Encroachment Permits where the public right of way is used or impacted on a temporary or permanent basis for the benefit of the permittee, full cost recovery is appropriate. • Development Permit applications, including construction and demolition permits, subdivision maps, environmental review, traffic and parking studies and grading permits, are for services that benefit only the applicant (with few exceptions), and command higher cost recovery levels. Page 14 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Public Safety - Police Services (Police Reports, False Alarms, Parking Permits, Abatements, Emergency Response, Background Investigations) General Categorization of Programs, Services, Activity, and Facilities Low Cost Recovery (0-30%) Mid Cost Recovery (31-80%) High Cost Recovery (81-100%) Vehicle Release X Police Reports Copies X Fingerprint Rolling Fee X Videotapes/CD's/DVD's X Clearance Letter X Repossessed Vehicle X 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 X X X Driving Under Influence (DUI) Fees X Security Service (Outside Detail - minimum charge of four hours) X Alarm Permits X 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 X X X X Live Entertainment Permit X Peddlers and Solicitors X Curb Painting X Tanning Salon Application Sale or Transfer Renewal X X X Massage Operator Application Sale or Transfer Renewal X X X Model/Escort Service Application Sale or Transfer Renewal X X X Page 15 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery Private Patrol Company Application Renewal X X Taxi Driver Application Renewal X X Taxicab Annual Inspection X Valet Parking X Concealed Weapon X Fortune Teller X Unruly Gathering X Special Events & Street Closing Permit Application Sidewalk Closure Road Closure X X X Verification of non-resident "proof -of -correction" citations X Low Recovery Expectations Low to zero recovery is expected for services in this category as the community generally benefits from the regulation of the activity. The regulation of these activities is intended to enhance or maintain the livability of the community. However, in some instances the maximum fee that can be charged is regulated at the County or State level and therefore the City fee is not determined by City costs (repossessed vehicle, fingerprint rolling fee). • Fingerprint Rolling Fee — Because this activity is required for many of the City -issued permits, the cost of this activity should remain low to the recipient to ensure the proper permits are obtained. • Alarm Permits/False Alarms - primarily residential. Because alarm permits/registration provides updated contact information so that public safety personnel can communicate directly with the property owner, lower cost recovery is appropriate. Property owners with current alarm permits can experience 2 false alarms with no assessment of additional fees. • Clearance Letters and Proof -of -Correction citations are issued at low or no cost to the recipient. These routine services are considered available to all members of the community. • Permits for Private Patrol Company and Taxi Driver services are offered at low cost recovery levels to encourage compliance. • Street and Sidewalk Closures allow for safer community/neighborhood events, and should therefore be provided at low cost recovery levels. • Curb Painting - permits for this low -risk activity should be offered at low cost recovery levels because the service enhances public safety efforts and convenience for the community at large. Medium Recovery Expectation Recovery in the range of 31% to 80% of the costs of providing the service. Both community and individuals benefit from these services. • Alarm Permits/False Alarms - Although prompt alarm response provides a disincentive to Page 16 of 17 City of Burlingame Financial Policy Document User Fee Cost Recovery crime activity, excessive false alarms negatively impact the ability of timely police response to legitimate alarms. • Preferential Parking Permits are provided to allow vehicles to be parked without restriction in the permit area of the vehicle's registered address. The public benefits from having parking available in certain neighborhoods, but because residents are impacted by the lack of parking close to their homes, full cost recovery of these permits is not appropriate. • The use of Security Service Detail services actually complements the City's existing Public Safety efforts by providing extra coverage of non -recurring private events. Full cost recovery would be prohibitive, discouraging use of these available resources, and stressing regular shift coverage. • Peddlers and Solicitors, Fortune Teller — permits are issued for these low -impact, low incident activities to provide a layer of security to the community who may wish to utilize such services. Fees are set at moderate cost recovery levels to increase probability of compliance. • Valet Parking permits are offered below full cost recovery levels as the service provides a level of convenience to the community by providing parking at less crowded locations • Taxicab Annual Inspections are required and offered a medium cost recovery as there is a benefit of having secure taxi/ transportation services available in the community. High Recovery Expectations Recovery in the range of 81% to 100% when user fees charged are sufficient to recover costs of the service provided. Individual benefit is foremost and minimal community benefit exists. Items such as DUI Emergency Response, Vehicle Releases, and Unruly Gathering are punitive in nature and the costs should not be funded by the community. Other services for which 100% of the cost for services is recovered include: • Applications/Sale or Transfer/Renewal of Permits for Tanning Salon, Massage Operators, Model/Escort Services - the fee charged for these required permits are set at high levels of cost recovery as they allow adult -oriented services to be offered by the business at a profit for the benefit of customers. No community benefit is afforded. • Live Entertainment Permits are issued solely for the benefit of the business providing the entertainment, and should not be subsidized by the general public. • Concealed Weapon Permits require intense background checks. Because such permits are issued solely for the benefit of the applicant, a 100% cost recovery is appropriate. Library (Library Cards, Overdue Fines, etc.) - fees are primarily established by the Peninsula Library Service. Certain medias/supplies for purchase may be made available as a service to patrons at the City's cost. Fees for Passport services are set by the US State Department. Administrative Services — City Clerk and Elections, Finance (Copying Charges, Postage, etc.) -fees are primarily set by regulations and are generally high cost recovery or pass-thru charges. Page 17 of 17 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8j MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Victor Voong, Associate Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a $830,314 Construction Contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for the 2022 Sidewalk Repair Program, City Project No. 86250, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Contract RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for the 2022 Sidewalk Repair Program in the amount of $830,314 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. BACKGROUND This year's sidewalk repairs program will concentrate in the area bound by Coronado Avenue, Davis Drive, Marco Polo Way, Trousdale Drive, Quesada Way, Valdivia Way, and Ray Drive, and the area bound by Burlingame Avenue, Humboldt Road, Peninsula Avenue, and California Drive. Work locations also include David Road and Laguna Avenue in conjunction with the annual Street Resurfacing Program. DISCUSSION The project was advertised for bids on February 23, 2022, and staff opened the bids on March 16, 2022. The City received five bids ranging from $830,314 to $1,658,693. JJR Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid in the amount of $830,314, which is 17.0% lower than the engineer's estimate of $1,000,000. J.J.R. Construction, Inc. has met the project requirements and has successfully completed similar projects for the City and other agencies. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. Due to favorable pricing, staff requests authorization to issue contract change orders up to 25% of the contract amount to perform additional sidewalk repairs, install curb and gutters, and install Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramps. 1 Award of 2022 Sidewalk Repair Program, City Project No. 86250 April4, 2022 FISCAL IMPACT Estimated Project Expenditures: The following are the estimated project construction expenditures: Construction $ 830,314 Construction Contingency $ 207,578 Engineering Administration $ 72,108 Total $1,110,000 Funding Availability: The project is funded by a combination of revenues from the General Fund, Measure I, and gas tax. There are adequate funds available in the Council -approved Capital Improvement Program budget for sidewalk, curb ramps, and curb and gutter to complete the project. Exhibits: • Resolution • Bid Summary • Construction Contract • Project Location Map 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2022 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM TO J.J.R. CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $830,314, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT III III VA U:Zeal x01 9 1, low-f wil WHEREAS, on February 23, 2022, the City issued notice inviting bid proposals for the 2022 Sidewalk Repair Program, City Project No. 86250; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2022, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, J.J.R. Construction, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $830,314. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for said project in the amount of $830,314 (25% contingency) and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Ricardo, Ortiz, 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 41" day of April, 2022, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel Shearer, City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAHE 2022 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO. 86250 BID SUMMARY J. J.R Construotion, Inn. Speneon Construction, Inn. Golden Bay Construction, Inn. Ce Contracting, Inc. FBD Vanguard Construction, Inn. ITEM NO . ITEM DESCRIPTION OMIT PRICE AREA QUANTITY UNIT SIEE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT UNIT PRICE BID AlAUNT UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT UNIT PRICE BID AMOUNT 1 BEHOVE AND REPLACE SIDEWALK $16.00 31,000 S. F. $496,000.00 $14.20 $440,200.00 $17.50 $542,500.00 $19.00 $589,000.00 $25.00 $775,000.00 $33.00 $1,023,000.00 2 BEHOVE AND REPLACE DRIVEWAY $20.00 2,400 S. F. $48,000.00 $20.62 $49,488.00 $20.00 $48,000.00 $23.00 $55,200.00 $30.00 $72,000.00 $40.00 $96,000.00 3 REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER $70.00 2,500 L. F. $175,000.00 $59.85 $149,625.00 $90.00 $225,000.00 $76.00 $190,000.00 $84.00 $210,000.00 $75.00 $187,500.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB $45.00 300 L. F. $13,500.00 $36.65 $10,995.00 $50.00 $15,000.00 $65.00 $19,500.00 $68.00 $20,400.00 $40.00 $12,000.00 5 CROSS GUTTER $40.00 500 3. F. $20,000.00 $27.50 $13,750.00 $35.00 $17,500.00 $31.00 $15,500.00 $28.00 $14,000.00 $50.00 $25,000.00 6 CONSTRUCT CURE RAMP $5,000.00 20 EACH $100,000.00 $3,656.50 $73,130.00 $5,000.00 $300,000.00 $5,293.00 $105,860.00 $3,840.00 $76,800.00 $7,817.00 $156,340.00 7 INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE ON EXISTING RAID? $750.00 20 EACH $15,000.00 $480.00 $9,600.00 $750.00 $15,000.00 $687.00 $13,740.00 $896.00 $17,920.00 $650.00 $13,000.00 8 BEHOVE SIDEWALK AND REPLACE WITH TOP SOIL $10.00 500 S.F. $5,000.00 $5.65 $2,825.00 $1.00 $500.00 $6.25 $3,125.00 $9.80 $4,900.00 $5.00 $2,500.00 9 AGGREGATE BASE $100.00 25 TONS $2,500.00 $185.00 $4,625.00 $180.00 $4,500.00 $330.00 $8,250.00 $200.00 $5,000.00 $30.00 $750.00 10 BEHOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE AND CONCRETE BASE $10.00 2,500 S. F. $25,000.00 $5.65 $14,125.00 $30.00 $25,000.00 $4.50 $11,250.00 $8.00 $20,000.00 $7.00 $17,500.00 11 BEHOVE ASPHALT CONCRETE ONLY $10.00 1,000 S.F. $10,000.00 $5.65 $5,650.00 $30.00 $10,0U0.00 $4.50 $4,500.00 $6.00 $6,000.00 $5.00 $5,000.00 12 HER ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING $400.00 100 TONS $40,000.00 $300.00 $30,000.00 $350.00 $35,000.00 $585.00 $58,500.00 $350.00 $35,000.00 $790.00 $79,000.00 13 REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM $4,100.00 1 L.S. $4,100.00 $1.00 $1.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $30,206.00 $30,206.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 14 BEHOVE TREE AND GRIND STUWP ( 524" DIAMETER) $3,000.00 4 EACH $12,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $4,200.00 $16,800.00 $3,969.00 $15,876.00 $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $2,240.00 $8,960.00 15 REMOVE TREE AND GRIND STUMP (124" DIAMETER) $5,000.00 6 EACH $30,000.00 $2,500.00 $15,000.00 $5,200.00 $31,200.00 $5,793.00 $34,758.00 $3,500.00 $21,000.00 $3,000.00 $18,000.00 16 HER SEWER CLEAN -OUT FRAME AND COVER $300.00 1 EACH $300.00 $300.00 $300.00 $250.00 $250.00 $225.00 $225.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,840.00 $1,840.00 17 REPAIR / REPLACE WATERLINE (30' WAX.) $2,000.00 1 EACH $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,230.00 $1,230.00 18 ADJUST HANHOLES TO GRADE $1,000.00 1 EACH $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 19 SIGN POST $300.00 1 EACH $300.00 $500.00 $500.00 $250.00 $250.00 $275.00 $275.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $693.00 $693.00 20 NEW PARKING METER POSTS $300.00 1 EACH $300.00 $500.00 $500.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $680.00 $680.00 TOTAL= $1,000,000.00 TOTAL: $830,314.00 TOTAL: $1,092,750.00 TOTAL: $1,137,715.00 TOTAL: $1,307,120.00 TOTAL: $1,658,693.00 u unau un u4mua-� 2022 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO.86250 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2022 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and J.J.R. Construction, Inc., a California Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2021, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: 2022 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NUMBER 86250 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled 2022 Sidewalk Repair Program; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the AGREEMENT- above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of eight hundred thirty thousand, three hundred and fourteen dollars ($830,314), called the "Contract Price". This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor's persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor's disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor's disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor's violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the City, after giving Contractor and Contractor's sureties seven calendar days written notice of the intent to terminate Contractor's services, may initiate termination procedures. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. At the City's sole discretion, Contractor's services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City's convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance AGREEMENT-2 with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Martin Quan Senior Engineer 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Carlos Raposo J.J.R. Construction, Inc. 1120 North Avenue San Mateo, CA 94402 7. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. AGREEMENT-3 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. I L Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. AGREEMENT-4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney — Michael Guina ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" By Print Name: Company Name: J.J.R. Construction, Inc. AGREEMENT-5 BURi®NGAME AGENDA NO: 8k 1... STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Jeremy Kirshner, Assistant to the City Manager — (650) 558-7229 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, and Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of ODoosition RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: • Adopt the attached resolution opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act • Authorize the Mayor to send a letter in opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1 to Bismarck Obando, Director of Public Affairs for the League of California Cities BACKGROUND Initiative 21-0042A1, also known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable and is opposed by the League of California Cities (Cal Cities). Cal Cities has requested that all member jurisdictions adopt resolutions opposing Initiative 21-0042A1 and send letters to Bismarck Obando, the League's Director of Public Affairs, authorizing the organization to add the jurisdiction to a list of those in formal opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1. ni-qrri is_qinm I. Summary The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Measure), which the Attorney General has cleared for signature gathering, would amend the California Constitution to limit the ability of voters and city governments to adopt new taxes and fees, while making it more difficult for cities to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws. Cal Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor and public safety leaders, infrastructure advocates, and businesses, strongly opposes the Measure. Local government revenue -raising authority is already substantially restricted by statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter -approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Measure adds and expands restrictions 1 Opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1 April4, 2022 on voters and local government tax and fee authority, putting billions of dollars of local government tax and existing fee revenues at risk statewide. This would have significant negative impacts on the City of Burlingame's operations and core service delivery. II. Major Provisions of the Measure a. Fees and Charges • Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the "actual cost" of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. "Actual cost" is the "minimum amount necessary". The burden to prove the fee or charge does not exceed the "actual cost" is changed to "clear and convincing" evidence. • The Measure sets a new standard for fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property (e.g., franchise fees). Under existing law, fees and charges are allowed to be market -based. Under the Measure, the rental and sale of local government property must be "reasonable," which must be proved by "clear and convincing evidence". This may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property. b. Taxes • Taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules are void unless reenacted. • The Measure invalidates the Upland decision, which allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. The Measure specifies that taxes proposed by Initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a City Council. • The Measure expressly prohibits local advisory measures, which allow local voters to provide direction as to how local tax dollars should be spent. • It also requires voter approval in order to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) and in order to expand the base (e.g., new utility service). • New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period (does not limit years). • City charters may not be amended to include taxes or fees. • All state taxes require majority voter approval. • The Measure prohibits any surcharge on the property tax rate and allocation of property tax to the State. c. Fines and Penalties • The Measure requires voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties. 2 Opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1 April4, 2022 d. Other • No fee, charge, or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed as a condition of property development or occupancy. III. Impact a. Fees and Taxes Local governments levy a variety of fees, taxes, and other charges to provide core public services, including the following: • Nuisance abatement charges • Commercial franchise fees • Emergency response fees • Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges • Document processing and duplication fees • Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, public airport fees, and harbor use fees • Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies and increases in those fees simply to accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue placed at risk is approximately $1 billion per year, including those fees and charges adopted since Jan. 1, 2022. In 2020, voters in California approved 293 local tax and bond measures for cities, counties, special districts, and schools (95 in March and 198 in November). Based on a historical review of tax measure results, Cal Cities estimates at least $1.5 billion of the annualized tax revenues estimated to be approved by voters in 2022 will be at risk, including $1 billion from cities and $500 million from counties and special districts. Reductions of local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services. b. Fines and Penalties Under existing law, a city is required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code. Cities must provide the following protections: • Administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time to correct or remedy a violation • Notice to the violating party before imposing the penalty and an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments • Fines may not be "excessive" 3 Opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1 April4, 2022 The Measure classifies administratively imposed fines and penalties as taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous "adjudicatory due process" is followed. This provision puts at risk a city's authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law. FISCAL IMPACT The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would result in reduced local government tax and fee revenues statewide and in the City of Burlingame. Exhibits: • Resolution • Draft Letter • Text of Initiative 21-0042A1 !r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OPPOSING INITIATIVE 21-0042A1, THE TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION WHEREAS, an association representing California's wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot; and WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on communities, including local infrastructure, the environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources; and WHEREAS, the measure makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect the environment, public health and safety, and neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more; and WHEREAS, the measure would also reduce funding for critical infrastructure like streets and roads, public transportation, drinking water, new schools, sanitation, utilities, and more. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Burlingame opposes Initiative 21-0042A1. 2. The City of Burlingame will join the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state. 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to send a letter in opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1 to Bismarck Obando, Director of Public Affairs for the League of California Cities. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of April, 2022 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RICARDO ORTIZ, MAYOR MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, VICE MAYOR DONNA COLSON EMILY BEACH ANN O'BRIEN KEIGHRAN April 5, 2022 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Mr. Bismarck Obando Director of Public Affairs, League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Opposition to Initiative 21-0042A1 (via Email) TEL: (650) 558-7201 www.burlingame.org On April 4, 2022, the Burlingame City Council voted to oppose Initiative 21-0042A1, a deceptive, developer -sponsored proposition aimed for the November 2022 statewide ballot that would significantly jeopardize cities' ability to provide essential services and infrastructure for our residents. The measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent. Furthermore, this measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including impacts on local infrastructure, our environment, water quality, air quality, and natural resources. This measure also makes it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods. Unless defeated, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to state and local services at risk, and could force cuts to public schools, fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more. In short, the measure benefits wealthy corporations and real estate developers while decimating our local communities and neighborhoods. You may list the City of Burlingame in formal opposition to Initiative #21-0042A1 and include our City as part of the growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state opposed to this deceptive proposition. Sincerely, Ricardo Ortiz Mayor Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.burlingame.org/enews. F- BUR- IN�A AGENDA NO: 81 1... STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Jeremy Kirshner, Assistant to the City Manager — (650) 558-7229 Subject: Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter in Support of AB 1814 (Grayson), Transportation Electrification: Community Choice Aggregators RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Assemblymember Garcia and members of the Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee in support of AB 1814 (Grayson), Transportation electrification: community choice aggregators. BACKGROUND AB 1814 is sponsored by the California Community Choice Association and supported by Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE). PCE has requested that all member jurisdictions send letters to Assemblymember Garcia in support of this legislation. DISCUSSION California has established a goal of putting five million zero -emission vehicles on the road by 2030, which will require the installation of 1.2 million electric vehicle chargers. In furtherance of the State's goal, customers of both Investor -Owned Utilities and Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs), including PCE, pay transportation electrification fees. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) distributes the funds for transportation electrification, but pursuant to existing law, only IOUs may apply for the funding. Although the more than 11 million CCA customers pay transportation electrification fees, CCAs do not receive any of the benefits. AB 1814 would help the State meet its zero -emission vehicles goal by explicitly authorizing CCAs to apply for CPUC transportation electrification funding. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with sending this letter. Exhibit: Draft letter 1 RICARDO ORTIZ, MAYOR MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, VICE MAYOR DONNA COLSON EMILY BEACH ANN O'BRIEN KEIGHRAN April 4, 2022 The City of Burlingame The Honorable Eduardo Garcia Chair, Assembly Utilities & Energy Committee 10210 Street, Room 8120 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 1814 (Grayson) — Support Dear Assemblymember Garcia, CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 (via Email) TEL: (650) 558-7201 www.burlingame.org On behalf of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, I write in support of AB 1814 (Grayson), a bill that would authorize Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) to submit applications to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and receive funding to administer transportation electrification programs in their service areas. The City of Burlingame is a member of Peninsula Clean Energy Authority, a not -for -profit joint powers authority. Peninsula Clean Energy delivers 50 percent renewable and 100 percent clean electricity to all its customers. A locally governed public entity, Peninsula Clean Energy enhances the communities it serves by reinvesting its revenues locally. Peninsula Clean Energy has developed and administers local programs to expand electric vehicle adoption for all residents in its service area. It has also improved and advanced the resiliency of the local electricity sector. A major element of California's stringent air quality and climate change initiatives is the accelerated growth and development of zero - emission vehicle use and the associated network of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. To build out the needed statewide system of EV charging stations, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is holding a proceeding to authorize the Investor -Owned Utilities (IOUs) to file applications to receive ratepayer funded transportation electrification program funding. Although our ratepayers also contribute to these funds, CCAs like Peninsula Clean Energy are not explicitly authorized in existing law to access these funds. For several years Peninsula Clean Energy has been administering and implementing a local EV charging program. Peninsula Clean Energy has financed the program by leveraging its own funds and a state grant provided by the California Energy Commission's California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program (CALeVIP). Through this work, Peninsula Clean Energy has gained expertise on the EV infrastructure needs of our local communities. Peninsula Clean Energy has also been able to deliver this EV infrastructure at significant cost savings compared to the IOUs. For these reasons, we believe it would be beneficial to our community and to the state to provide Peninsula Clean Energy with the opportunity to apply to the CPUC for the ratepayer funds the IOUs collect from our customers for EV infrastructure purposes. AB 1814 seeks to enable CCA access to that funding. AB 1814 is a narrowly tailored, straightforward bill. It would explicitly authorize CCAs to file applications with the CPUC to administer funds for the purpose of implementing programs and investments that would accelerate widespread transportation electrification. CCAs that receive funding would adhere to all the same requirements that IOUs are currently required to meet. The Honorable Eduardo Garcia April 4, 2022 Page 2 For these reasons, we support AB 1814 and thank Assemblymember Grayson for his leadership. We respectfully request your "Aye" vote when the bill is heard in committee. Sincerely, Ricardo Ortiz Mayor cc: The Honorable Josh Becker The Honorable Scott Wiener The Honorable Marc Berman The Honorable Kevin Mullin The Honorable Phil Ting Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.burlingame.org/enews. F- BURL— iN�Amrm AGENDA NO: 9a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Helen Yu -Scott, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Public Hearing and Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Adjusting the Storm Drainage Fee for Fiscal Year 2022-23 By 2.0% Based on the CPI — San Francisco Area as Published on March 10. 2022 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed CPI increase of 2.0% for the annual storm drainage fee, and, following the public hearing, adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame Ordinance (as approved by the voters) determines the methodology for adjusting the annual storm drainage fee. The ordinance language is as follows (emphasis added): 4.30.030 Setting the fee. (a) Commencing with fiscal year 2010-11, the city council, following a public hearing, shall determine the storm drainage fee. In no event shall the square footage rate for impervious area be increased beyond that rate approved by a majority vote of the property owners subject to the storm drainage fee without further approval by a majority vote of the property owners subject to the storm drainage fee; provided, however, that, without approval by a majority vote of the property owners subject to the storm drainage fee, the maximum per square foot rate for impervious area, commencing fiscal year 2010-2011, may be increased by an amount equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the area including San Mateo County (the "CPI"), including all items as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 1st of each year, not to exceed a maximum increase of two (2) percent per year. (b) The storm drainage fee shall not be deemed to be increased in the event the actual fee upon a parcel in any given year is higher due to an increase in the amount of the impervious area of the subject parcel. (c) In any year in which the city council does not change the rate per square foot of impervious area, the previously adopted fee shall continue in full force and effect for the next 1 Storm Drainage Fee Adjustment April 4, 2022 fiscal year. Property owners whose storm drainage is increased/decreased as a result a change in impervious area have appeal rights under Section 4.30.050. (d) The city council shall not be required to enact an inflation increase in each year but may accumulate the inflationary increases and enact the cumulative amount. (Ord. 1836 § 2, (2009)) DISCUSSION U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) data for the San Francisco area is published bimonthly in even -numbered months: February, April, June, August, October, and December. Due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on both residential and commercial business, Council chose not to increase the fee for fiscal year 2020-21 even though the CPI published for February 2020 was 2.9%. In April 2021, the City Council approved a 3.6% adjustment to regain the 2% increase not applied in the prior year, as well as the allowed 1.6% for fiscal year 2021-22 to recognize that regular inflationary fee increases are critical to maintaining the reliability of the storm drain fee revenues. The report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of March 10, 2022 was the CPI report for February 2022, which indicated a CPI increase of 5.2%. The ordinance caps the annual increase at 2.0%. CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA ADJUSTMENTS TO STORM DRAINAGE FEE Fiscal %Increase $ Increase Rate Per Year CPI Amount Square R. CPI FY09-10 N/A N/A $ 0.04192 FY 10-11 2.0% $ 0.00084 $ 0.04276 2.600 FY 11-12 1.5% $ 0.00064 $ 0.04340 1.500 FY 12-13 2.0% $ 0.00087 $ 0.04427 2.900 FY 13-14 2.0% $ 0.00089 $ 0.04516 2.400 FY 14-15 2.0% $ 0.00090 $ 0.04606 2.400 FY 15-16 2.0% $ 0.00092 $ 0.04698 2.500 FY 16-17 2.0% $ 0.00094 $ 0.04792 3.000 FY 17-18 2.0% $ 0.00096 $ 0.04888 3.400 FY 18-19 2.0% $ 0.00098 $ 0.04986 3.600 FY 19-20 2.0% $ 0.00100 $ 0.05086 3.500 FY20-21 0.0% $ - $ 0.05086 2.900 FY21-22 3.6% $ 0.00183 $ 0.05269 1.600 FY22-23 2.0% $ 0.00105 $ 0.05374 5.200 2 Storm Drainage Fee Adjustment April4, 2022 These revenues should provide amounts adequate to pay the debt service on the bonds that provide funding for identified storm drain capital projects. FISCAL IMPACT The increase of 2.0% in the storm drainage fee raises the rate charged per square foot of impervious area from 5.269 cents to 5.374 cents effective July 1, 2022. The increase is estimated to produce an additional $62,520, for estimated revenue of approximately $3.2 million in fiscal year 2022-23. The additional revenue will be included in the City budget for fiscal year 2022-23. Exhibits: • Resolution • US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Western Information Office, Consumer Price Index - San Francisco Area, February 2022 (dated March 10, 2022) 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME LEVYING A STORM DRAINAGE FEE ON ALL PARCELS IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022- 23 AND DIRECTING THAT A LIST OF THE STORM DRAINAGE FEES FOR BURLINGAME PARCELS BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR PLACEMENT ON THE 2022-23 TAX BILLS RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, pursuant to, and in accordance with the provisions of, Article XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) the City of Burlingame held a mail ballot election on May 5, 2009 to consider the enactment of an annual storm drainage fee; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk certified the results to the City Council; the City Council declared the storm drainage fee to be approved and codified said fee in Chapter 4.30 of Title 4 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; and the City Council levied the storm drainage fee on all parcels in Burlingame for fiscal year 2009-2010; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 4.30.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the City Council is required each fiscal year to determine the storm drainage fee for parcels in the city, not to exceed the fee rate established by the electorate; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the electorate in the May 2009 election, the City Council may increase the storm drainage fee each fiscal year by the annual CPI index for all urban consumers, San Francisco region, but not to exceed 2%; and WHEREAS, the City Council is not required to enact an inflation increase in each year but may accumulate the inflationary increases and enact the cumulative amount, (Ord. 1836 § 2, (2009)); and WHEREAS, the City Council chose not to enact an inflation increase in Fiscal Year 2020-21 due to the uncertainty and general economic hardships associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, but wishes to reestablish the fee increase for subsequent fiscal years; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.30.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code the storm drainage fee is to be collected through the County tax bills. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS DETERMINED and ORDERED that: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 4.30 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the City Council determines that the storm drainage fee for all parcels in the City of Burlingame for fiscal year 2022-23 shall be capped at 2.0%, or $0.05269 plus an increase of 2.0% for the annual CPI adjustment, for a total rate of $0.05374. 2. The City Manager, the Finance Director or designee, shall provide to the County of San Mateo a list of storm drainage fees for all Burlingame parcels for fiscal year 2022-23, for collection through the property tax bills. For those properties whose fees have been modified pursuant to the appeal provisions of Chapter 4.30 prior to providing the County the list of properties and fees, the approved modified fee shall be provided to the County and shall be certified as correct by the Director of Public Works. 3. The City Manager is authorized to execute such documents as may be required by the County of San Mateo to place the storm drainage fee on the tax bills Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of April, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk K NEWS RELEASE ENT BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS U. S. D E P A R T M E N T O F L A B O R = BLS�¢- i STATES For Release: Thursday, March 10, 2022 22-436-SAN WESTERN INFORMATION OFFICE: San Francisco, Calif. Technical information: (415) 625-2270 BLSinfoSF@bls.gov www.bls.gov/regions/west Media contact: (415) 625-2270 Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area — February 2022 Area prices were up 1.4 percent over the past two months, up 5.2 percent from a year ago Prices in the San Francisco area, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), advanced 1.4 percent for the two months ending in February 2022, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. (See table A.) Regional Commissioner Chris Rosenlund noted that the February increase was influenced by higher prices for shelter and food. (Data in this report are not seasonally adjusted. Accordingly, month -to -month changes may reflect seasonal influences.) Over the last 12 months, the CPI-U rose 5.2 percent. (See chart 1 and table A.) Food prices increased 9.0 percent. Energy prices jumped 26.9 percent, largely the result of an increase in the price of gasoline. The index for all items less food and energy rose 3.4 percent over the year. (See table 1.) Chart 1. Over -the -year percent change in CPI-U, San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, A, February 2019—February 2022 Percent change 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Feb 2019 AI I ite ms All items less fcFod and energy Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb 2020 2021202-2 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Food Food prices increased 3.2 percent for the two months ending in February. (See table 1.) Prices for food at home advanced 3.6 percent, strongly influenced by higher prices within the other food at home category (9.8 percent). Prices for food away from home increased 2.7 percent for the same period. Over the year, food prices increased 9.0 percent. Prices for food at home jumped 12.1 percent since a year ago. Increases across food at home expenditure categories ranged from 6.1 percent for nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials to 19.6 percent for other food at home. Prices for food away from home rose 5.7 percent. Energy The energy index advanced 3.3 percent for the two months ending in February. The increase was mainly due to higher prices for electricity (7.8 percent). Prices for natural gas service increased 4.7 percent, and prices for gasoline rose 0.3 percent for the same period. Energy prices jumped 26.9 percent over the year, largely due to higher prices for gasoline (35.4 percent). Prices paid for natural gas service jumped 32.6 percent, and prices for electricity moved up 15.4 percent during the past year. All items less food and energy The index for all items less food and energy rose 1.0 percent in the latest two -month period. Higher prices for apparel (4.8 percent), medical care (1.1 percent), and shelter (0.9 percent) were partially offset by lower prices for education and communication (-0.2 percent). Over the year, the index for all items less food and energy rose 3.4 percent. Components contributing to the increase included used cars and trucks (39.7 percent), recreation (8.9 percent), apparel (7.2 percent), and shelter (1.4 percent). Table A. San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA, CPI-U 2-month and 12-month percent changes, all items index, not seasonally adjusted Month 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 12- 12- 12- 12- 12- 2-month month 2-month month 2-month month 2-month month 2 month month February .................................................. 1.4 3.6 0.5 3.5 0.9 2.9 0.5 1.6 1.4 5.2 April......................................................... 0.8 3.2 1.2 4.0 -0.5 1.1 1.7 3.8 June ......................................................... 0.9 3.9 0.2 3.2 0.7 1.6 0.0 3.2 August ..................................................... 0.6 4.3 0.1 2.7 0.0 1.6 0.5 3.7 October .................................................... 0.7 4.4 1.0 3.0 0.5 1.1 0.7 3.8 December ................................................ 0.1 4.5 -0.5 2.5 0.4 2.0 0.8 4.2 The April 2022 Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco area is scheduled to be released on May 11, 2022. Technical Note The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measures of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market basket of goods and services. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes CPIs for two population groups: (1) a CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) which covers approximately 93 percent of the total U.S. population and (2) a CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) which covers approximately 29 percent of the total U.S. population. The CPI-U includes, in addition to wage earners and clerical workers, groups such as professional, managerial, and technical workers, the self-employed, short-term workers, the unemployed, and retirees and others not in the labor force. The CPI is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors' and dentists' services, drugs, and the other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. Each month, prices are collected in 75 urban areas across the country from about 6,000 housing units and approximately 22,000 retail establishments —department stores, supermarkets, hospitals, filling stations, and other types of stores and service establishments. All taxes directly associated with the purchase and use of items are included in the index. The index measures price changes from a designated reference date; for most of the CPI-U the reference base is 1982-84 equals 100. An increase of 7 percent from the reference base, for example, is shown as 107.000. Alternatively, that relationship can also be expressed as the price of a base period market basket of goods and services rising from $100 to $107. For further details see the CPI home page on the internet at www.bls.gov/ cpi and the CPI section of the BLS Handbook of Methods available on the internet at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/ cpi/. In calculating the index, price changes for the various items in each location are averaged together with weights that represent their importance in the spending of the appropriate population group. Local data are then combined to obtain a U.S. city average. Because the sample size of a local area is smaller, the local area index is subject to substantially more sampling and other measurement error than the national index. In addition, local indexes are not adjusted for seasonal influences. As a result, local area indexes show greater volatility than the national index, although their long-term trends are quite similar. NOTE: Area indexes do not measure differences in the level of prices between cities; they only measure the average change in prices for each area since the base period. The San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA. metropolitan area covered in this release is comprised of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo Counties in the State of California. Information in this release will be made available to individuals with sensory impairments upon request. Voice phone: 202-691-5200; Telecommunications Relay Service: 7-1-1. C Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) Item and Group Indexes Percent change from - Historical Dec. Jan. Feb. Feb. Dec. Jan. data 2021 2022 2022 2021 2021 2022 Expenditure category All items............................................................. 0 315.805 320.195 5.2 1.4 Al items (1967=100)......................................... 0 970.872 984.369 - - Food and beverages ...................................... .❑ 324.575 334.605 8.4 3.1 Food........................................................... n�❑ 325.866 - 336.402 9.0 3.2 Food at home ......................................... 0 294.986 295.373 305.485 12.1 3.6 3.4 Cereals and bakery products .............. J 302.276 - 308.332 13.7 2.0 - Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs .............. „�❑ 331.492 333.698 10.7 0.7 Dairy and related products .................. „�❑ 294.216 302.103 8.5 2.7 Fruits and vegetables .......................... 389.201 397.584 7.1 2.2 Nonalcoholic beverages and 218.251 216.230 6.1 0.9 beverage materials(1) ......................... Other food at home ............................. 0 240.545 264.150 19.6 9.8 Food away from home ............................ .❑ 360.146 370.023 5.7 2.7 Alcoholic beverages ................................... ..❑ 312.260 315.737 1.3 1.1 Housing.......................................................... 0 366.364 370.763 2.4 1.2 - Shelter........................................................ .�❑ 411.972 412.937 415.760 1.4 0.9 0.7 Rent of primary residence(2).................. 467.588 468.496 469.286 0.1 0.4 0.2 Owners' equiv. rent of residences(2)(3).. 0 443.052 444.237 444.617 1.3 0.4 0.1 Owners' equiv. rent of primary 443.052 444.237 444.617 1.3 0.4 0.1 residence(1)(2)❑ .................................... Fuels and utilities ........................................ 0 492.167 - 514.971 13.1 4.6 - Household energy .................................. 0 439.008 469.548 469.032 18.4 6.8 -0.1 Energy services(2) .............................. 440.057 471.320 470.615 18.4 6.9 -0.1 Electricity(2)..................................... 458.389 494.214 494.214 15.4 7.8 0.0 Utility (piped) gas service(2)............ 404.609 426.105 423.823 32.6 4.7 -0.5 Household furnishings and operations....... .�❑ 158.186 - 160.063 3.9 1.2 - Apparel...........................................................❑ 107.828 - 113.006 7.2 4.8 Transportation................................................ 0 236.457 - 238.498 16.5 0.9 Private transportation ................................. 240.566 - 241.233 18.5 0.3 New and used motor vehicles(4)................ 115.888 - - - - New vehicles(1)...................................... 187.999 - - - - Used cars and trucks(1) ......................... 368.270 - 376.607 39.7 2.3 - Motor fuel ............................................... 342.260 340.187 343.538 35.5 0.4 1.0 Gasoline (all types) .............................. 341.048 338.985 342.218 35.4 0.3 1.0 Gasoline, unleaded regular(4)......... 341.411 339.350 342.591 36.0 0.3 1.0 Gasoline, unleaded midgrade(4)(5). 317.984 316.149 319.134 34.5 0.4 0.9 Gasoline, unleaded premium(4)...... 321.924 319.953 322.988 33.4 0.3 0.9 Medical care ................................................... 0 561.352 - 567.774 2.3 1.1 - Recreation(6).................................................. ..❑ 136.386 137.237 8.9 0.6 Education and communication(6)................... ..❑ 155.817 155.546 3.1 -0.2 Tuition, other school fees, and child care(1)........................................................ Other goods and services .............................. 533.001 540.581 3.0 1.4 Commodity and service group All items............................................................. U 315.805 320.195 5.2 1.4 Commodities .................................................. 217.808 222.186 11.5 2.0 Commodities less food & beverages.......... 0 160.582 162.426 14.9 1.1 Nondurables less food & beverages ...... 208.754 212.593 15.0 1.8 Durables ................................................. 113.292 - - - Services.......................................................... 398.306 402.721 2.7 1.1 Note: See footnotes at end of table. Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Indexes and percent changes for selected periods San Francisco -Oakland -Hayward, CA (1982-84=100 unless otherwise noted) - Continued Item and Group Indexes Percent change from - Historical Dec. Jan. Feb. Feb. Dec. Jan. data 2021 2022 2022 2021 2021 2022 Special aggregate indexes All items less medical care ................................ 0 305.667 309.967 5.4 1.4 All items less shelter .......................................... 0 277.666 282.565 8.3 1.8 Commodities less food ...................................... ..❑ 167.436 169.355 13.9 1.1 Nondurables...................................................... 0 268.041 275.005 10.8 2.6 Nondurables less food ....................................... 0 216.969 220.811 13.4 1.8 Services less rent of shelter(3).......................... .�❑ 400.231 - 405.976 4.8 1.4 Services less medical care services .................. „�❑ 387.032 - 391.232 2.8 1.1 Energy............................................................... 0 382.822 393.801 395.621 26.9 3.3 0.5 All items less energy ......................................... 316.469 - 320.537 4.2 1.3 - AII items less food and energy ....................... 315.864 - 318.955 3.4 1.0 Footnotes (1) Indexes on a December 1977=100 base. (2) This index series was calculated using a Laspeyres estimator. All other item stratum index series were calculated using a geometric means estimator. (3) Indexes on a December 1982=100 base. (4) Special index based on a substantially smaller sample. (5) Indexes on a December 1993=100 base. (6) Indexes on a December 1997=100 base. - Data not available NOTE: Index applies to a month as a whole, not to any specific date. BURLINGASTAFF R • Avovwi To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Lisa Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7204 MOO A►1DL'V 167 11F1 MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 Subject: Consideration of Three Appointments to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council make appointments to fill three impending vacancies on the Planning Commission or take other action. BACKGROUND The impending vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners William Loftis, Richard Terrones and Audrey Tse. Staff publicized the vacancies and sent notification letters to past Commission applicants. The City received seven applications as of the deadline of March 4, 2022. As Commissioners Loftis and Terrones elected not to reapply, the deadline was extended an additional two weeks. The City subsequently received three additional applications as of the extended deadline of March 18, 2022. The City Council interviewed the following nine applicants (one of the original seven applicants withdrew from the process) via Zoom on March 30, 2022: Victor Aenlle, Chris Horan, Uma Krishan, Sean Lowenthal, Patrick Martin, Charlotte Payton, Zachary Rozlen, Audrey Tse, and Bobba Venkatadri. The appointee terms will be for four years, ending on April 7, 2026. BUR— INGA AGENDA NO: 10b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Helen Yu -Scott, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Discussion and Direction on Potential Tax Measures RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council discuss potential tax measures and provide direction. BACKGROUND California cities do not have an inherent power to tax. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 created a distinction between "general" and "special" taxes. • A general tax is a tax imposed for general governmental purposes, the proceeds of which are deposited into the General Fund. A majority vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend, or increase any general tax. An election for a general tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election of City Councilmembers. • A special tax is a tax that is collected and earmarked for a specific purpose and deposited into a separate account of the General Fund. A two-thirds vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend, or increase any special tax. Special taxes do not need to be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election of City Councilmembers. DISCUSSION On September 20, 2021, the Council held a study session on potential tax measures, with an eye toward the possible placement of one or more measures on the November 2022 ballot. The City Council directed staff to explore a few of the options discussed at the study session and return to the Council with additional information. The potential tax measures include a business license tax, a cannabis tax, and a tax measure similar in structure to the City of East Palo Alto's Measure HH to address sea level rise, the Broadway Grade Separation project, or another large infrastructure project. Unless the revenues are pledged to a specific purpose, a business license tax and a cannabis tax would be general taxes and would have to be placed on the November 2022 or November 2024 ballot. A Measure HH-like tax would be a special tax and could go on any ballot. 1 Potential Tax Measures April4, 2022 Business License Tax The City levies a flat rate business tax on all businesses. That means that a small mom-and-pop business pays the same amount ($100) as a large business such as an auto dealer, the Apple store, or Facebook. Many of the City's neighboring jurisdictions, in contrast, levy a gross receipts tax. City Name Population Est # of Businesses in FY 18-19 Tax Type Est. Revenue FY 18-19 Last Revision Belmont 26,941 3,074 Employee & Flat Rate $880,000 1993 Burlingame 30,889 5,897 Flat Rate $589,737 2001 Foster City 33,693 3,714 Gross Receipts $1,764,875 2013 Menlo Park 34,138 5,491 Gross Receipts $2,295,367 1975 Millbrae 22,394 2,385 Employee & Gross Receipts $381,177 2004 Redwood City 85,319 16,175 Employee $2,697,658 2018 San Bruno 42,807 4,060 Gross Receipts $2,176,473 2019 San Carlos 30,185 4,245 Employee $1,020,000 2003 San Mateo 104,570 21,337 Gross Receipts $6,265,284 1984 South San Francisco 67789 5,590 Employee & Flat Rate $1,805,595 2008 Source: HdL Study dated February 15, 2022 In order to determine a more equitable way of levying the business license tax, staff engaged the services of HdL Companies, the City's sales tax and business license tax consultant, to conduct a study of the City's business license tax and determine other methodologies for levying the tax. At the February 22, 2022 study session, HdL Companies presented the Council with three alternate business license tax structures: one flat rate model and two gross receipts models. Although all of the models would have increased the City's business license revenue to a greater or lesser degree, the flat rate model would not have addressed the City's existing equity issue. The two gross receipts models would have injected more fairness into the City's business license tax structure, but the Council was concerned that Model 3, in particular, would have had too great an impact on many of the City's businesses. HdL's February study is attached to this staff report. After the February 22 study session, staff and HdL met to brainstorm alternate models that would address some of the Council's concerns about the initial models. The attached presentation, which HdL staff will review at the Council meeting, includes four new models for the Council's consideration. All of the models will result in varying levels of increased revenues to the City. The first model contains two options, both of which represent simple rate increases. In the first, the flat rate business tax would rise to either $125, $150, or $175 across the board. In the second option, the tax would rise to $150, $200, or $300, with the amount levied based on gross receipts. 2 Potential Tax Measures April 4, 2022 Models 2, 3, and 4 are all variations of gross receipts -based models. Model 2 includes classification -based rates, which spread the burden of an increase across multiple business types. Model 2 is similar to some of the models reviewed at the last study session, but the rates are lower than those included in the prior study. Models 3 and 4 are both single gross receipts rates, with Model 4 capping the maximum payment at various levels. Cannabis Retail Delivery Tax In February 2021, the City Council adopted an ordinance allowing cannabis retail delivery from businesses located within the city limits. During that meeting, as well as an earlier discussion of cannabis retail delivery, the Council expressed its interest in levying a cannabis delivery tax, which a representative for one company noted could bring in approximately $1 million annually from his company alone. According to HdL, one way to address the cannabis tax is to include it as a sub- section under the business license tax Ordinance. This would avoid the need for a separate tax measure. City of East Palo Alto's Measure HH Parcel Tax On November 6, 2018, the residents of East Palo Alto voted in favor of enacting Measure HH, a parcel tax on commercial office space of 25,000 square feet or more at the rate of $2.50 per square foot. The measure was estimated at the time to raise $1.675 million annually for housing and career programs. As a parcel tax, the measure required a two-thirds vote of the electorate for passage, and the monies can only be spent on housing and career programs. During the September study session, some Councilmembers expressed an interest in pursuing a measure similar to Measure HH and using the funds to help with sea level rise work or to pay the City's share of the Broadway Grade Separation project. HdL's presentation includes a slide showing the estimated revenue from levying such a tax in Burlingame on commercial office buildings 25,000 square feet and above, 50,000 square feet and above, and 100,000 square feet and above. A measure similar to Measure HH could appear on the November 2022 ballot or any other ballot. Other Upcoming Tax Measures During the February 22 study session, Councilmember O'Brien requested that staff research other tax measures that may appear on the November 2022 ballot. At this time, there are four initiatives cleared for signature gathering at the State level. One of the initiatives would increase the tax on personal income over $2 million to fund programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Another initiative would increase the tax on personal income over $5 million to fund pandemic detection and prevention activities. The final two initiatives are very similar and would increase taxes on high - value properties over $4 million in order to increase the portion of a homeowner's property value that is exempt from property tax from $7,000 to $200,000 and provide up to a $2,000 supplemental income tax credit for renters. None of these initiatives has qualified for the November ballot as of the writing of this staff report. 3 Potential Tax Measures April 4, 2022 The only measure staff is aware of at the County level is a possible parcel tax measure to help address climate resiliency, wildfire risks, and emergency preparedness. At this time, the County is exploring a per square foot tax on all residential and commercial properties in the county. Reports indicate the range may be three to five cents per square foot, but staff hasn't seen anything official from the County yet. Next Steps Staff requests that the City Council provide direction on whether it wishes to pursue one or more tax measures for the November 2022 election. Should the Council choose to move forward, then staff will engage the services of a professional polling firm and a public information consultant to assist with next steps. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with tonight's discussion. The amount of revenue raised by a future ballot measure will depend on the measure pursued and its associated tax rate. Exhibits: • Presentation • Business License Tax Study — February 15, 2022 !r CITY LAjP RAYED City of Burlingame Business Tax Analysis Ordinance Review (Addendum) As indicated in these models, a simple rate increase or a rate increase dependent on business size would resemble the current structures in place while yielding higher revenues to the City. However, we do not recommend these models for adoption. Model 1 A) — By Rate Amount Model 1 B) — By Business Type ReceiptsGross .- of Businesses Annual Rate Total Est. Projected Revenue Small Business (Less than $250,000) 3,712 $150 $556,800 Medium Business (Over $250,000 - $1,000,000) 1,769 $200 $353,800 Large Business (Over $1,000,000) 355 $300 $106,500 TOTAL $ 1,017,100 Comparing the Impact On Certain Business Types ..Business/EmployeeReceipt J6 Auto Service Business / 5 employees / $400K in gross receipts Rates $ 100 Model Increase 50. $ 150 ..- Rate Increase Business ,. $ 200 Causal Dining Restaurant / 10 employees / $350K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 150 $ 200 Contractor / 3 employees / $200K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 150 $ 150 Boutique Retail Store / 12 employees / $2 million in gross receipts $100 $ 150 $300 Fine Dining Restaurant / 8 employees / $850K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 150 $ 200 Retail Goods & Clothing Store/ 10 employees / $600K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 150 $ 200 This option has the benefit of spreading the burden of an increase across multiple business types. The gross receipts is a much smaller reduced version of what has been previously introduced. General Commerce/Retail Rental (Commercial and Residential) Service Professional Administration/Research & Development Contractors $50 Flat Rate per Business (first $50,000 in Gross) 0.0005 X Gross 0.001 X Gross 0.001 X Gross 0.0015 X Gross 0.0015 X Gross 0.001 X Gross Business .- CONTRACTORS Number of Accts 1,377 Est. Taxable $ 146,205,301 0 per business $ 68,850 $ 77,355 GENERAL COMMERCE/RETAIL 712 $ 669,835,011 $ 35,600 $ 317,118 SERVICE 2,004 $ 862,416,375 $ 100,200 $ 762,216 ADMINISTRATION/RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 77 $ 63,364,633 $ 3,850 $ 89,272 RENTAL (COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL) 70 $ 36,338,070 $ 3,500 $ 32,838 PROFESSIONAL 1,596 $ 594,920,527 $ 79,800 $ 772,681 5,836 $2.3 billion $291,800 $ 2,051,480 TOTAL $ 2,343,280 Comparing the Impact On Certain Business Types Business/Employee Count/Annual Gross Receipt TotlallIF ir Auto Service Business / 5 employees / $400K in gross receipts Current Rates ModelHypothetical Gross Receipt . Based — First 0,000 $ 100 $ 400 Causal Dining Restaurant / 10 employees / $350K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 200 Contractor / 3 employees / $200K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 200 Boutique Retail Store / 12 employees / $2 million in gross receipts $ 100 $ 1,025 Fine Dining Restaurant / 8 employees / $850K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 450 Retail Goods & Clothing Store/ 10 employees / $600K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 325 This option illustrates the impact of increasing both the rate and the threshold for the base rate. Model 3 A) — Gross Receipts Total Over $25,000 Model 3 B) — Gross Receipts Total Over $50,000 Model 3 C) — Gross Receipts Total Over $75,000 Comparing the Impact On Certain Business Types Business Tax Model 4e. Gross Receipts Rate — Reduced Rates — Maximum Payment Cap Tax Amount Tax Amount Tax Amount Number of Taxable Gross Base Rate @ $50 $0.50 / thousand $0.50 / thousand $0.50 / thousand Accts Receipts per Account -Over $25,000- maximum -Over $25,000- maximumped -Over $25,000- maximum payment cap payment capped @ $750 @ payment cap payment capped @ $2,000 Tax Amount Tax Amount Tax Amount Number of Taxable Gross Base Rate @ $50 $0.75 / thousand $0.75 / thousand $0.75 / thousand Accts Receipts per Account -Over $25,000- maximum -Over $25,000- maximum payment -Over $25,000- maximum payment capped @ $750 capped @ $1,000 payment capped @ $2,000 Comparing the Impact On Certain Business Types Forecasting the potential size of the City's Cannabis market is beyond the scope of the business license tax study. But preliminary numbers indicate that if the City were to capture significant market share, which may be a challenge given the expansion of delivery and retail services in the area, at a rate of 4% the City could stand to gain between $300,000 - $500,000 per year in revenue from the four Cannabis delivery services businesses recently authorized by Council. This opportunity for revenue generation can be done through creation of a separate classification or class for cannabis businesses within the existent business license ordinance provisions. $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 2023* 2024* 2025* 2026* *These are revenue estimates and should not be relied upon for budgeting purposes. In addition to a general revenue structure, there is a regulatory structure which separate cannabis ordinances follow. These are the common regulatory components that comprise a separate cannabis ordinance: • The "purpose and intent" of the ordinance is clearly stated in the municipal code. • There is a detailed listed of cannabis -related words and phrases that are defined, to avoid any legal ambiguity. • A regulatory body, such as the city council or possibly City Manager, is designated the power to change the necessary administrative rules or regulations. • There is a section dedicated to the permit and application procedures in its entirety, along with the appeals process, as there would be with a general business license. • Operational regulations and requirements are detailed, to prevent negative impacts on the public, either directly or indirectly. • There is a section that details the license fees and taxes for the cannabis -related businesses. • Enforcement of these rules and regulations is extensively detailed, including consequences of failure to comply with the stated municipal code. Based on a preliminary review, implementing a tax of $2.50 per square foot on commercial offices in Burlingame (excluding government buildings and other buildings exempt from property tax) would yield approximately: Thresholldr�,s Greater than 25,000 sqft "Owr- - or 34 $ 5,400,000.00 50,000 sqft 18 $ 4,000,000.00 100,000 sqft 7 $ 2,300,000.00 h 1wj a 0 SUBMITTED BY CONTACT HdL Companies Josh Davis 120 S. State College Blvd., Ste 200 T: (714) 879-5000 Ext. 383 Brea, CA 92821 E:jdavis@hdlcompanies.com hdlcompanies.com Table Of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 SECTION 1— CITY OF BURLINGAME & COMPARATIVE JURISDICTIONS 5 BUSINESS TAX - ANALYSIS 5 BUSINESS TAX - AVERAGE EFFECTIVE TAX RATES 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME: BUSINESS TAX - RATE SCHEDULE SUMMARY 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME: SIMILAR AND SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS 7 COMPARISON CITIES SUMMARY TABLE (USING FY 18-19 DATA) 7 RATE COMPARISON - CITY OF BURLINGAME VS. NEIGHBORS 11 SECTION 2 — CATEGORY & TAX ANALYSIS 13 LICENSE CLASSIFICATION AND RATE TYPES 13 POTENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCIES 14 MODEL 1: EXISTING CATEGORIES WITH SIMPLE INCREASES 15 GROSS RECEIPTS TAX — REPLACE ALL CATEGORIES WITH GROSS RECEIPTS TAX 15 MODEL 2: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX — SINGLE GROSS RECEIPTS RATE 16 MODEL 3: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX — CLASSIFICATION -BASED RATES 18 PROPOSED RATES COMPARISON 20 APPENDICES 22 CITY DETAIL RATES 22 HdL© Companies 2 1 P a g e Executive Summary Background The City of Burlingame (City) requires all businesses operating within the City to obtain a business license and pay business license tax per section 6.04.040 of the City's Municipal Code (Code). This revenue is locally controlled and funds essential services. Therefore, the City commissioned the HdL Companies ("HA" or "we", "us", "our", or similar terms) to prepare this tax study to identify methods of generating additional local funds and potential efficiencies from modernizing the City's business license code. This tax study provides a guided exploration of different tax structures while evaluating how closely each structure aligns with the City's goals and values. Two of the most pervasive goals of a modernization project are "tax simplification" and "equitability." To put it another way, the proposed changes should not only modernize the code and increase revenue but, ideally, also move a city's business license structure up and to the right in the four quadrants presented below in Chart 1. Chart 1: Key attributes of modern business tax structures Tax Structure Simplification a m x v ~ ♦ rD ♦ m v m w ♦ n w ♦ ♦ �. O X C � � fl/ N Complex Tax Implementation Recommendation We recommend that the City consider adopting a gross receipt tax structure similar to Model 3 on page 18. Model 3's gross receipts tax structure allows the City to charge different rates based on business activity while improving equitability and increasing business tax revenue. The basic structure of Model 3 should be fine-tuned to fit the City's unique structure, particularly the large number of outside service firms providing personal services in the City. Report Structure & Key Findings This report is divided into two major sections. Below is a roadmap that will help the reader navigate this report. Section 1 - Pages: 5 to 12 In the first section, we review the City's current revenue and tax structures to establish fundamental facts about the City used throughout the analysis and to give context to the analysis. We also show how the City's structure compares to other cities of interest. The City's flat -rate structure presents two challenges. While it does protect somewhat against downturns in the economy, it fails to capture up -turns in the economy. And, while it is simple to administer, it presents a much higher effective tax rate on small businesses than on large ones. Additionally, a comparison of the City and its neighbors indicates that the City might capture additional business tax revenue on a per business basis, particularly from larger businesses who are benefitting from their access to the City's markets. HdP Companies 31.-' a g e Section 2 - Pages: 13 — 19 In this section, we review three possible models for a tax structure. Models 2 and 3 are based on gross receipts, and both would result in potentially significant increases in revenue. Model 2 is as simple as the current flat fee with potentially three times as much revenue. Ultimately, we recommend model 3 because of its ability to impose variable rates without too much additional complexity while potentially yielding $4 million to $5 million a year in business tax revenue. HdP Companies 41 P a g e SECTION 1 — City of Burlingame & Comparative Jurisdictions Business Tax - Analysis The City currently issues over 5,800 business licenses annually and, over the last five fiscal years, has generated an average of $586,000 in business license tax revenues per fiscal year. For the purpose of this study, comparisons are based on the sample data provided by the City, which consists of 5,836 businesses with a total potential business tax revenue for FY21-22 of $583,600. The current tax is levied at a flat rate of $100 per business per year. As you can see in Chart 2, the City's business tax revenue peaked in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018. The revenues have been relatively flat (with small declines). That said, the potential revenues for FY 21-22 appear to be rebounding, though not to pre -pandemic levels. $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 Chart 2: 5-year revenue trend City of Burlingame Business Tax Revenue Recent Trend FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 Chart 3, which compares the percentage change in business tax revenue to the percentage change in sales tax, is also telling. As you can see, sales tax was growing in 2019 and rebounding in 2021. But, because of the City's flat -fee structure, the City was unable to capture any of that growth to fund services for the community. 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% -10.00% -20.00% -30.00% Chart 3: Comparing retail growth against the broader economy Business Tax and Sales Tax Percent Change Year to Year (YTY) FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 —•--Bus Tax % Change YTY —•—Sales Tax % Change YTY *FY 2021 is based on an estimate for sales tax since reporting may not yet have been completed. HW Companies 51 P a g e Business Tax - Average Effective Tax Rates The City's flat -rate structure has the advantage of simplicity and certainty —every business knows what it will pay. But by their nature, flat fees impose a higher effective tax rate on small businesses than on larger businesses. Given that the City's flat rate is a reasonable $100, the impact on smaller businesses may be tempered. The gap, however, between the effective tax rate paid by small businesses (see the green bars in Chart 4) and large businesses (the red bars in Chart 4) is significant. (Gross receipts were estimated to calculate the effective tax rates.) Chart 4: Examples of effective tax rates with the $100 flat rate Sample of Current Effective Tax Rates Contractor Genera I/Reta i I/H ote I Rental(Comm & Resid) Service/Professional 0.000% 0.050% 0.100% 0.150% 0.200% 0.250% ■S ■M ■L City of Burlingame: Business Tax - Rate Schedule Summary The City's economy is stratified in an interesting way (See Chart 5 below). Based on the available data, it appears that the City's largest tax base is contractors and service providers that are outside the City. This can make enforcement challenging since these contractors generally lack a permanent place of business in the City. Chart 5: Top five rate types in the City's current tax structure ■ CONTRACTOR - OUTSIDE CITY ■ GENERAL - WITHIN CITY ■ GENERAL - OUTSIDE CITY HOME OCCUPATION ■ All Others HdP Companies 61 ' a g e City of Burlingame: Similar and Surrounding Jurisdictions The City appears to have room to grow its revenue. While the City has one of the larger license counts, the $100 flat fee means that its per business revenues are among the lowest of the comparison jurisdictions. Below is a summary table of the comparisons, which highlights population, the estimated number of licensed businesses, and estimated annual revenue. Below the table are some key graphics showing how the City compares to otherjurisdictions of interest regionally. (The Comparison Details for the neighboring jurisdictions can all be found in the Appendices.) For purposes of comparison we use the fiscal year 18-19 data. We do so for two key reasons. First, that is the year with publicly available data for comparison. Second, it is pre-COVID and so avoids the 'noise' in the data caused by the impact of the pandemic on the City. Comparison Cities Summary Table (Using FY 18-19 data) Table 1: Comparison Data Est. • Est. &evenue : • . Jurisdiction Name Businesses Tax Type Population Revision Belmont 26,941 3,074 Employee and Flat $ 880,000Rate 1993 Burlingame 30,889 5,836 Flat Rate $ 589,737 2001 Foster City 33,693 3,714 Gross Receipts $ 1,764,875 2013 Menlo Park 34,138 5,491 Gross Receipts $ 2,295,367 1975 Millbrae 22,394 2,385 Employee & Gross $ 381,177 2004 Receipts Redwood City 85,319 16,175 Employee $ 2,697,658 2018 San Bruno 42,807 4,060 Gross Receipts $ 2,176,473 2019 San Carlos 30,185 4,245 Employee $ 1,020,000 2003 San Mateo 104,570 21,337 Gross Receipts $ 6,265,284 1984 South San Francisco 67,789 5,590 Employee & Flat Rate $ 1,805,595 2008 HdL* Companies 7 1 P a g e Chart 6: Population comp Est. Population During FY18/19 by Jurisdiction San Mateo 104,570 Redwood City 85,319 South San Francisco 67,789 San Bruno 42,807 Menlo Park 34,138 Foster City 33,693 Burlingame T 30,889 - San Carlos T 30,185 Belmont 26,941 Millbrae 22,394 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 c.nart 1: License count comparison Est. Count of Businesses FY18/19 by Jurisdiction San Mateo 21,337 _ Redwood City 16,175 _ Burlingame 5,897 South San Francisco 5,590 Menlo Park T 5,491 San Carlos T 4,245 San Bruno 4,060 W Foster City 3,714 W' Belmont 3,074 ■l Millbrae 2,385 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 HdP Companies 81 1 a g e \I IOIL U. oua111c2� I ail I cvcINuc a.an I NVOINwl Approx. FY18/19 Business Tax Revenue by Jurisdiction (in thousands $) San Mateo $6,265 Redwood City $2,698 Menlo Park $2,295 -I San Bruno $2,176� South San Francisco $1,806 Foster City $1,765 San Carlos $1,020 Belmont $880 Burlingame _ $590 Millbrae $381 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 Thousands $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 Chart 9: Business Tax per capita comparison Est. FY 18/19 Business Tax Revenue Per Capita Menlo Park $67 San Mateo $60 Foster City $52 San Bruno $51 San Carlos $34 Belmont $33 Redwood City 1 $32 4 South San... $27 Burlingame $19 Millbrae $17 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 HdL* Companies 91 P a g e Chart 10: Business Tax per business comparison Est. FY 18/19 Business Tax Revenue Per Business San Bruno 1 $536 Foster City 1 $475 Menlo Park 1 $418 South San... $323 Md San Mateo j $294 Belmont $286 San Carlos 1 $240 Redwood City 1 $167 Millbrae 1 $160 Burlingame 1 $100 MM $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 HdL* Companies 101 P a g e Rate Comparison - City of Burlingame vs. Neighbors Current Rate Comparison (Table 2) Small Craft Business with 1 employee and less than $20K in gross receipts Restaurant with 8 Employees and $350K in gross receipts Hair Salon with 15 Employees and $600K in gross receipts Repair Service Business with 2 Employees and $150K in gross receipts Doctors Office with 20 Employees (4 doctors) and $2 million in gross receipts Professional Firm with 15 employees (8 professional) and $1.1 million in gross receipts Small Contractor with 1 Employee and $75K in gross receipts Technology Research Firm with 5 Employees and $800K in gross receipts Commercial Rental with 1 Employee, 2 units, and $1.5 million in gross receipts Car Dealership with 10 employees and $10 million in gross receipts **Redwood City utilizes a cap of $5,966. $ 100.00 $ 376.00 $ 100.00 $ 68.25 $ 169.00 $ 148.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 263.00 $ 68.00 $ 362.00 $ 326.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 450.00 $ 127.75 $ 628.00 $ 619.00 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 $ 113.00 $ 72.50 $ 134.00 $ 164.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,041.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,577.75 $ 1,214.00 $ 1,214.00 $ 100.00 $ 866.00 $ 825.00 $ 1,376.50 $ 939.00 $ 939.00 $ 100.00 $ 341.00 $ 100.00 $ 80.00 $ 114.00 $ 128.00 $ 100.00 $ 750.00 $ 600.00 $ 272.00 $ 248.00 $ 269.00 $ 100.00 $ 165.00 $ 1,125.00 $ 106.40 $ 168.00 $ 1,223.50 $ 100.00 $ 300.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 2,606.50 $ 664.00 $ 7,343.50 Current Rate Comparison (Table 3) Small Craft Business with 1 employee and less than $20K in gross receipts Restaurant with 8 Employees and $350K in gross receipts Hair Salon with 15 Employees and $600K in gross receipts Repair Service Business with 2 Employees and $150K in gross receipts Doctors Office with 20 Employees (4 doctors) and $2 million in gross receipts Professional Firm with 15 employees (8 professional) and $1.1 million in gross receipts Small Contractor with 1 Employee and $75K in gross receipts Technology Research Firm with 5 Employees and $800K in gross receipts Commercial Rental with 1 Employee, 2 units, and $1.5 million in gross receipts Car dealership with 10 employees and $10 million in gross receipts $ 100.00 $ 50.00 $ 31.00 $ 119.75 $ 100.00 $ 240.00 $ 315.00 $ 195.00 $ 100.00 $ 310.00 $ 457.00 $ 115.00 $ 100.00 $ 160.00 $ 201.00 $ 85.00 $ 100.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,511.50 $ 996.25 $ 100.00 $ 750.00 $ 863.50 $ 1,793.25 $ 100.00 $ 125.00 $ 53.00 $ 199.25 $ 100.00 $ 390.00 $ 571.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 750.00 $ 970.00 $ 119.75 $ 100.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 75.00 $ 299.75 $ 75.00 $ 1,948.00 $ 2,930.00 $ 3,260.00 $ 1,480.00 $ 985.00 $ 100.00 $ 4,730.00 $ 90.00 $ 75.00 Current Rate Comparison Chart (Select Jurisdictions & Examples) $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $ 0 ........ Big Retailer ■ Burlingame Chart 11: Comparing rates across cities Hotel/Rental Property Doctor's Office Professional Firm Commercial Rental ■ San Mateo San Bruno Redwood City San Carlos Menlo Park ■ Foster City ■ Belmont Car Dealership HdE° Companies 121 SECTION 2 — Category & Tax Analysis The City requested that HdL conduct an analysis of the current tax structures as they relate to business licenses and explore options for modifying the rates and categories. In Section 1, HdL prepared summaries of each classification and, to the extent data were available, provided a breakout of the number of businesses and their contribution to the local funding for essential City services. We also provided comparisons to neighboring jurisdictions to give an idea of how the various tax structures and markets in nearby municipalities are creating different revenue outcomes. In this section, we provide options for modifying the City's business tax rates and classifications. Using the data compiled in section 1 of this report on current license revenues, we developed models to estimate potential fiscal impacts to the City from the different models. You can find a summary chart on page 17 that provides a quick look at each proposed model's impact on the City revenues and the business community. License Classification and Rate Types The City currently has a simple, flat -rate structure. We propose that the City adopt six basic categories that are more reflective of Burlingame's economic makeup. The definitions below are general and not meant to be complete definitions that would appear in the municipal code. General Commerce/Retail: These are retailers, wholesalers, hoteliers, restaurateurs, and manufacturers. All these businesses are likely to contribute to your tax base in other ways (i.e., property tax and sales tax) and often have lower profit margins. Rental (Commercial & Residential): This category includes any business that leases, rents, or provides use of real property to another individual or entity for compensation. Examples include but are not limited to commercial leasing, residential rental, parcel leasing, etc. Service: This is the offering of services that require minimal to no higher education training. This is also the default category for any business that is not specifically defined in one of the other five categories. Examples include but are not limited to hair stylists, gardeners, nail salons, etc. Administration/Research and Development: This category includes any business that operates in purely an administrative basis and/or explores or develops new products/services for governmental or market application such as research firms or tech start-ups. Professional: This is the offering of services that require a rigorous amount of training through any type or trade, higher education, or vocational institutions that exclusively certifies, complete obtainment of skills and the ability to offer such professional services. Examples include but are not limited to doctors' office, law office, consultant firm, etc. Contractor: These are persons or firms that are carrying on the business of contractor, subcontractor, or builder particularly the construction or repair of any buildings. Examples include but are not limited to construction, plumbing, HVAC, etc. Table 4: Approximate grouping of City's Businesses by the proposed categories CONTRACTOR 1,377 $ 137,700 SERVICE 2,004 $ 200,400 GENERAL COMMERCE/RETAIL 712 $ 71,200 ADMINISTRATION/RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 77 $ 7,700 RENTAL (COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL) 70 $ 7,000 PROFESSIONAL 1,596 $ 159,600 TOTALS 5,836* $ 583,600 *We have excluded exempt businesses 131 HdL© Companies Potential Administrative Efficiencies We have conducted a preliminary review of the City's administrative provisions in its Business Tax ordinance. Below are some suggestions about administrative efficiencies. We will conduct a more complete review if the City decides it wants to implement changes to its tax structure. We commend the City for having a clear statement of intent that this is a revenue measure. (sect. 6.04.010) This statement of intent is important for separating revenue measures and regulatory measures. Section 6.04.060 requires taxes to be paid "...at the office of the license collector." The City may want to consider updating this language to allow telephonic and online renewals and applications. Paragraph 6.04.070(c) imposes stiffer penalties on two specific types of businesses, commercial parking facilities and close out sales. The City may want to confirm with legal counsel that there remains a reasonable basis for the stiffer penalties on these two business types. Paragraph 6.04.070(d) has good language allowing the City to recapture costs when enforcement steps are taken. The City could strengthen this language by expressly including collection costs as being one of the necessary categories of costs that can be recouped. Section 6.04.080 includes the following clause: The date of commencement of business shall be deemed the date of application whenever an application is filed after the commencement of business. (Ord. 1725 § 2, (7978)) The City may want to change or remove this clause. Read literally, this clause may prevent the City from pursuing back year liability since it effectively sets the start date of the business on the date of the application and no earlier. Section 6.04.120 applies a charge of $10.00 for a duplicate license. Given the ease of producing copies these days, the cost to collect and track this charge may exceed the charge itself. We recommend removing the charge. Section 6.04.130 refers to amending a license to allow for a change of address. Section 6.04.230 then requires that new approvals be obtained for the new location. It may be simpler from an administrative position to not allow a transfer on the basis of a change of address and just require a new application for a license at the new location. Section 6.04.160 requires an application on a sworn, signed form. This adds administrative burden (since paper copies must be tracked and stored and neither telephonic nor online applications would be allowed) and, arguably adds no real benefit, given that section 6.04.180 rightly indicates that nothing in the application is conclusive. In section 6.04.210 the first appeal is to the same person who made the decision, the license collector. A better practice may be to have the appeal be to the Finance Department so that the person making the decision is not the first recourse for appeal. Section 6.04.280 addresses revocation hearings. We recommend that the revocation hearing first be heard before the City Manager with an appeal to the City Council. This minimizes certain difficulties with public disclosure of confidential matters and allows another opportunity to resolve the matter before it becomes a matter for the Council to resolve. In section 6.04.160 the business license applicant is required to "set forth such information as may be necessary properly to determine the amount of the license tax to be paid by applicant." The City may want to expand this to require the applicant to report additional information like gross -receipts or number of employees that are important for City administration but not necessary for determining the amount of tax to be paid. 141 HdL© Companies Additional General Comments from the Preliminary Review Record keeping. The City may also want to require businesses to retain records for four years since the statute of limitation may reach back that far. "License" vs "Certificate". The use of "license", and ultimately the standard usage and interpretation as an authorization, can create confusion for the City and the business community. The City may wish to consider eliminating all references and concepts of "license" and replace with a more appropriate "certificate" or "registration" based language. Rules and Regulations The City may want to consider additional enforcement authority language. For example: "The collector may adopt rules and regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, as may be necessary or desirable to supplement or clarify such provisions or aid in their enforcement." Model 1: Existing Categories with Simple Increases The City may elect to retain the existing structure while modifying the tax amounts for each category. Keeping the current structure in place would eliminate the need to create different categories and allow for a much simpler implementation for the City and the business community. It would not avoid the need for an election since it would entail an increased tax rate. Table 5: Estimated revenue from a simple flat -fee increase Model 1 — Highlights and Impact Review As indicated in the model above, a simple increase could keep the existing structures in place while yielding higher revenues to the City. The City could apply rate increases across the board (as shown in the table) or only apply the increases to specific categories by, for example, increasing the rates on professionals and residential property rental by 60% while increasing other rates by 20%. The drawback of model 1 is that the tax remains regressive. In fact, because it is a flat fee, it becomes more regressive the higher the flat fee. Gross Receipts Tax — Replace All Categories with Gross Receipts Tax We now turn to consider two models that are variations on the theme of a gross -receipts -based tax. Over 60% of California cities use some form of gross receipts tax structure. Many of those cities use a standard rate multiplier to determine the tax amount owed, setting the rate for each business category. For example, a city may choose to charge $1 per thousand dollars of gross receipts (0.001 x Gross) for a retail business while charging a rate of $2.50 per thousand dollars of gross receipts (0.0025 x Gross) for service or professional businesses. 15� HdL© Companies The benefits of gross receipts -based taxes are the equity of their effective tax rate, ease of calculation, and potential for capturing revenue from growth in the economy. The drawback is that it exposes city revenues to the fluctuations of gross receipts in the economy. Gross Receipts Tax — Estimates Since we did not have complete information on gross receipts for the City's current businesses, we used estimates gleaned from other data sources. It is important to note that HdL has used multiple assumptions as outlined in the options below, which are meant to provide a baseline of the possible impact and should not be relied upon for precise budgeting. The following information was used as a basis for the tax tables and models in the options below. Table 6: Key estimates used in the gross -receipts models Model 2: Gross Receipts Tax — Single Gross Receipts Rate Model 2 reflects the potential revenues for converting the City tax to a single -rate -type gross -receipts model. This model is simple to administer —everyone is charged the same rate —but it allows the City to increase revenue. Table 7: Model 1—Potential Tax Structure Base Rate $25 Flat Rate (first $25,000 Gross Receipts) Gross Receipts Tax + $1 per thousand dollars of Gross Receipts (0.001 x Gross Receipts) The table below indicates the potential revenues from implementing a gross receipts tax with two options, $1 per thousand and $1.25 per thousand. Information for the estimates comes from the data in the section above. Table 8: Model 1 — Rough Estimates from a simple gross receipts structure 5,836 1 $2.313 1 $145,900 TOTAL $2,230,767 $2,376,667 $2,788,458 $2,934,358 161 HdL© Companies Model 2 — Highlights and Impact Review The "single rate" method of taxing on gross receipts provides an even distribution of the effective tax rate because all businesses subject to the tax will pay the same rate. Under this method, no cap is put in place, and therefore most of the revenues are received from the highest -grossing businesses. Model 2 expands revenue while keeping the tax structure simple and easy to understand for businesses and helping to decrease the effective tax rate on smaller businesses while asking larger businesses to pay their fair share too. Chart 12: Estimated Effective Tax Rates under a simple gross receipt model Current vs. New Effective Tax Rates 0.15% Small Business 0.125% 0.10% ■Current Tax Structure 0.02% Medium Business 0.125% $1.25/Thousand-Over $25,000 P 0.00 0 ■ $1.00/Thousand-Over $25,0000 Large Business 0.125% 0.10% 0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% HdLP Companies Model 3: Gross Receipts Tax — Classification -Based Rates Model 3, as indicated below, would create different rates for different business classifications. The City may, for example, choose to implement a rate for the general commerce/retail business activities at a base rate of .001, recognizing the higher costs of goods sold and lower profit margins for these types of business as well as their contribution to other City revenues such as sales tax. Conversely, the City could consider implementing a higher rate for professionals and property rental. This model affords the most flexibility for increasing revenues while accommodating certain business categories. Model 3 utilizes the same base rate as the previous model. Tax Structure and Estimated Revenue The following table illustrates how gross receipts rates can vary by categories giving flexibility to the tax structure. The structure provided is just one example of how the City might utilize a gross receipt model. Should the City decide to update the Business Tax using a gross receipts tax model, HdL will work with the staff to finalize a structure that best serves the City's goals. Table 9: Basic tax structure for classification -based gross receipts categories General Commerce/Retail 0.001 X Gross Rental (Commercial and Residential) 0.002 X Gross Service $25 Flat Rate per 0.002 X Gross Professional Business (first $25,000 in 0.003 X Gross Gross) Administration/Research & 0.003 X Gross Development Contractors 0.002 X Gross Table 10: Estimated revenue from classification -based gross receipts CONTRACTORS 1,377 $ 146,205,301 $ 34,425 $ 223,561 GENERAL COMMERCE/RETAIL 712 $ 669,835,011 $ 17,800 $ 1,304,070 SERVICE 2,004 $ 862,416,375 $ 50,100 $ 1,621,633 ADMINISTRATION/RESEARCH & 77 $ 63,364,633 $ 1,925 $ 184,319 DEVELOPMENT RENTAL (COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL) 70 $ 36,338,070 $ 1,750 $ 69,176 PROFESSIONAL 1,596 $ 594,920,527 $ 39,900 $ 1,665,062 5,836 TOTAL $ 5,216,720 181 HdL© Companies Model 3 — Highlights and Impact Review This option has the benefit of spreading the burden of an increase across multiple business types. The City has the option of modifying the rates and reassigning business types to different categories to account for concerns about impacts on different parts of the economy. The model above includes basic rate increases for standard categories but can be further expanded or contracted to accommodate a different method of the City's choosing. As is depicted in this model, there exists a combination of a tax base that is diversified in industry category as well as in large number of businesses that exist within these categories. This will further solidify a long-term revenue source for the City and any long-term budgetary needs. Cannabis Forecasting the potential size of the City's Cannabis market is beyond the scope of the business license tax study. But preliminary numbers indicate that if the City were to capture significant market share, which may be a challenge given the expansion of delivery and retail services in the area, at a rate of 4% the City could stand to gain as much as $500,000 per year in revenue from the four Cannabis delivery services businesses recently authorized by Council. The opportunity for revenue generation can be done through creation of a separate classification or class for cannabis businesses within the existent business license ordinance provisions. 191Page HdL© Companies Proposed Rates Comparison Table 11: Comparison of Gross -Receipt Models of Hypothetical Businesses Small Craft Business with 1 employee and less $20K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 25 $ 25 Restaurant with 8 employees and $350K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 350 $ 350 Hair Salon with 15 employees and $600K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 600 $ 1,175 Repair Service Business with 2 Employees and $150K in gross $ 100 $ 150 $ 275 receipts Doctor's Office with 20 employees (4 doctors) and $2 million in $ 100 $ 2,000 $ 6,000 gross receipts Professional Firm with 15 employees (8 professional) and $1.1 $ 100 $ 1,100 $ 3,300 million in gross receipts Small Contractor with 1 Employee and $75K in gross receipts $ 100 $ 75 $ 125 Technology Research Firm with 5 Employees and $800K in gross $ 100 $ 800 $ 2,350 receipts Commercial Rental with 1 Employee, 2 units and $1.5 million in $ 100 $ 1,500 $ 3,000 gross receipts Car Dealership with 20 employees and $10 million in gross receipts $100 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Estimated Totals $1,000 $ 16,600 $ 26,600 20 HdLIP Companies Chart 13: Comparing the gross -receipts models $12, 000 $10,000 $ 8, 000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 di Small Craft Restaurant Business Hair Salon 11� oil Repair Service Doctor's Office Professional Business Firm ■ Model 2 ■ Model 3 Small Technology Commercial CarDealership Contractor Research Firm Rental 21 1 Page HdLIP Companies Appendices City Detail Rates Belmont, CA Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees - Renewal Cycles: 12-16 33,693 San Mateo County April 27, 1971 $129,733 19.84 square miles 8,685 people per square mile All annual licenses expire on the last day of the 12th month from which businesses started conducting business in the City. Rate Structures And Fees — Penalties: Sec.12-16 Whenever an initial license or annual license renewal is not paid within thirty (30) days after commencing business or within thirty (30) days of due date, then said license is declared delinquent and the collector shall thereupon add to said license and collect a penalty of twenty-five (25) per cent of the license so delinquent. Thereafter, for each thirty -day period that the license remains unpaid, an additional sum of twenty-five (25) per cent shall be added thereto and collected as a penalty. Said penalty shall not exceed one hundred (100) per cent of the license fee. City Of Belmont Business License Tax Rates & Fees: Sec 12-26 The below schedule of fees, including but not limited to the per employee fees, minimum tax, and license fees shall be adjusted annually pursuant to the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (BACPI) over the previous calendar year. The first such adjustment shall occur on July 1, 1991, based upon the 1990 calendar year BACPI. Category Employee Tax Rates General Business Tax $341 Plus Number of FT/PT Employees + $35 Per Full Time Employee + $11 Per Part Time Employee HW Companies 221 Category Prof. & Emp. Tax Rates Professional and Semi -Professional $341 per Pro/Semi + Employee Schedule Real Estate Brokers $112 per Agent + Employee Schedule *Rates on not included in current business tax fee schedule and are based on similar fees. Category Unit Tax Rates Automobile Parking or Storage $341 + $2.18 per Parking Space Service Stations $171 per Pump + Employee Schedule Taxicab $341 + $73 per Vehicle Category Tax Rates Advertising on Vehicles by Sign, Sound, Searchlight $341 Advertising by use of Signs $341 + $1.12 per Sqft (non -Luminous) Advertising by use of Signs $341 + $1.97 per Sqft (Illuminated) Advertising by Distribution of Samples Handbills $341 + Employee Schedule Advertising by use of vehicle $341 + $73 per Vehicle Category Gross Receipt Tax Rate Laundry Equipment and/or Coin -Op* 1.5% of first $21,755 of gross receipts: 0.75% of gross receipts in excess of $21,755 Video/Vending Machines* 15% of first $2,176 of gross receipts 5% of gross receipts in excess of $2,176 *But not less than the General Tax. Category Tax Rates Rental of residential property (4 or more units) $37 per unit but not less than $341 Commercial Rental $118 per building Or $0.59 per Sqft, whichever is greater and not less than general Tax HW Companies 231 Category Flat Tax Rates Auctioneer $341 Billiard parlor $1,130 Bowling alley $1,130 Christmas Trees $171 Contractors $341 Dance per Night* $50 Escort Service $4,514 Financing, including Savings and Loans —Loan Companies* $175 Hotel and Motel $341 Itinerant* $341 Junk dealer* $341 Massage Parlor $4,514 Shooting Gallery* $1,130 Vehicles, Delivery, not paying any other license* $341 HdL© Companies 241 Menlo Park, CA Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees - Renewal Cycles: 5.04.060 CITY OF MENLO . PARK, 34,138 San Mateo County November 23, 1927 $160,784 9.99 square miles 3,473 people per square mile There exist, a daily license, monthly license, quarterly license, semi-annual license, and annual license. All license taxes, under the provisions of vary in the day and time in which they are due. The license tax amount is entirely dependent on gross receipt amounts, and the license tax amount is reflective of this variability. License Type Due Date Specifications Daily License Due on effective date, delinquent at 5:00 p.m. on due date. Monthly License Due first day of each month, delinquent at 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day of the month. Due on the first day of January, April, October, Quarterly License and July, delinquent at 5:00 p.m. on the twentieth day of the first month in which the quarterly license is due. Due on the first day of January and July, Semi -Annual License delinquent at 5:00 p.m. on the twentieth day of the first month in which the semi-annual license is due. Annual License Due on the first day of January, delinquent at 5:00 p.m. on January 31. Rate Structures and Fees — Penalties: 5.04.060 Annual license All delinquent licenses shall be added a penalty of fifteen percent of the amount of the tax due for the period, and an additional fifteen percent for each month delinquent thereafter. The amount that is added to the penalty shall not exceed sixty percent of the total amount of the license tax due. HW Companies 251 City of Menlo Park Business License Tax Rates & Fees: 5.12.020 Every person that engages in or carrying on any profession, trade, calling, occupation, or business the City shall be an annual license fee in accordance with the amount of annual gross receipts generated. These rates are illustrated in the table below. When gross receipts exceed two million dollars, the license fee is seven hundred fifty dollars plus two hundred fifty dollars for each million or potion up to thirty million dollars. When gross receipts exceed thirty million dollars, the license rate is a maximum of eight thousand dollars. Annual Gross Receipts Annual License Fee Over But Not Exceeding Flat Tax Rates $0 $25,000 $50 $25,000 $50,000 $75 $50,000 $75,000 $100 $75,000 $100,000 $125 $100,000 $200,000 $160 $200,000 $300,000 $200 $300,000 $400,000 $240 $400,000 $500,000 $275 $500,000 $600,000 $310 $600,000 $700,000 $350 $700,000 $800,000 $390 $800,000 $900,000 $425 $900,000 $1,000,000 $460 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $750 HW Companies 261 { of FosrF9 Foster City, CA /yC0RPpRATE� Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees - Renewal Cycles: 5.20.010 33,693 San Mateo County April 27, 1971 $129,733 19.84 square miles 8,685 people per square mile All annual license taxes shall be due and payable in advance on the first day of January of each year based on gross receipts during the prior calendar year ending December 31; provided, that license taxes covering new operations commenced thereafter may be prorated for the balance of the license period based upon an estimate of the anticipated gross receipts for that year. Rate Structures And Fees — Penalties: 5.20.020 For failure to pay a license tax when due, the collector shall add a penalty of ten percent of the license tax at five p.m. on the sixtieth day after the due date thereof, and an additional ten percent at five p.m. on the last day of each month thereafter. The amount of such cumulative penalty to be added shall in no event exceed one hundred percent of the license tax due. City Of Foster City Business License Tax Rates & Fees: 5.24.010 Every person who engages in business at a fixed place of business within the city shall pay a license tax of seventy- five cents per one thousand dollars (or 0.075 percent) of gross receipts or part thereof subject to the following: Business Type Tax Rate Inside (Fixed Place) Businesses Gross Receipts X $0.75 per thousand Not less the $100 Not exceeding $25,731* General Contractors Gross Receipts X $0.75 per thousand Not less the $200 Not exceeding $25,731* Specialty or Solicitor Gross Receipts X $0.75 per thousand Not less the $100 Not exceeding $25,731* Ij *City tax cap is based on the year-to-year CPI adjustments. HW Companies 271 Millbrae, CA Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees - Renewal Cycles: 7.05.180 CM) MILLRRAE 23,154 San Mateo County January 14, 1948 $98,533 3.26 square miles 6,927 people per square mile Annual License: Each business shall, for purposes of paying the business license tax, be categorized by the tax collector as conducting business under one of the following: A. Fiscal Year Period. Fiscal year period shall commence on July 1 st and end on June 30th. Rate Structures And Fees — Penalties: 7.05.260 If a fiscal year business license tax is not paid in full by August 15th of each fiscal year or, in the case of newly established businesses, by the commencement of business in the city, the tax collector shall A. Impose a thirty percent penalty on the tax payment due and owing; and B. Impose an additional fifteen percent penalty per month of the license tax payment, or fraction thereof, that remains unpaid; and C. Impose an interest charge at the rate of one and one-half percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the license tax and penalties from the date on which the license tax was delinquent. City of Millbrae Business License Tax Rates & Fees: 7.05.120 Business license taxes for each business in the city shall be calculated in the manner described below; provided, however, that if gross receipts are the indicated tax measure but cannot be calculated or reasonably determined for any particular business, the tax shall be based upon its cost of operations. Gross Receipt Schedule Structure Tax Rate $750,000 - $5,000,000 $0.35 per thousand For those business classifications that are to pay a portion of their business license to based Over $5,000,001- $10,000,000 $0.25 per thousand on their gross receipt $750,000 of more. Over $10,000,000 $0.20 per thousand HW Companies 281 Business Type Tax Rate Administrative Headquarters $64 plus $4.25 per employee Contractors, General $160 Contractors, Specialty, and Subcontractors $80 Home Occupations $27 if gross receipts are less than $15,000 per year; otherwise based on applicable classification of business activity Manufacturing $64 plus $4.25 per employee, plus application of gross receipts schedule Massage Business Initial $370; renewal $210 Independent Massage Practitioner $105 Motel/Hotel $64 plus $4.25 per employee, plus application of gross receipts schedule Professionals $210 Real Estate Brokers $210 Real Estate Agents $53 Recreation and Entertainment $64 plus $4.25 per employee, plus application of gross receipts schedule Rental of Property, Commercial $64 plus $10.60 per 1,000 square feet Rental of Property, Residential $64 plus $5.30 per unit $64 plus $4.25 per employee, plus application of gross receipts Retailing schedule Seasonal Sales, Monthly $64 plus $120 per month Seasonal Sales, Yearly $64 plus $530 per year Services $64 plus $4.25 per room, plus application of gross receipts schedule Theaters $64 plus $.50 per seat Transportation of Persons and Goods $64 plus $64 per vehicle and driver Warehousing $64 plus $.32 per $1,000 cost of operations $64 plus $4.25 per employee, plus application of gross receipts Wholesaling schedule HdL° Companies 291 Redwood City, CA Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees - Renewal Cycles: Sec. 32.107 Redwood Cityl eal;,ania �dMieg qW 85,319 San Mateo County May 11, 1867 $90,461 34.67 square miles 3,955.0 people per square mile Annual License: All license taxes due hereunder shall be paid in advance in the lawful money of the United States at the office of the Director. All license taxes due hereunder shall be due and payable and delinquent as follows: Genera(: Except as provided in subdivision B hereinafter, all license taxes shall be due and payable on or before the first day of the period for which the license is issued and shall become delinquent thirty (30) calendar days thereafter. Rate Structures And Fees - Penalties Sec. 32.108 To all delinquent license taxes there shall be added a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the amount of the tax due plus an additional ten percent (10%) for each month delinquent thereafter providing that the amount of any penalty shall in no event exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the license tax due. City of Redwood Business Type General Business City Business License Tax Rates & Fees: Base Rate $114.00 Employee Rate $55 per employee Business Type Base Tax Unit Tax Residential Property Rental $68 $25 per unit of dwelling space in excess of 3 units Non-residential Property Rental $68 $25 per 1000 sq. ft. or fraction Real Estate Brokerage $68 $46 per salesperson or employee Dance Hall Operator $68 $678 flat annual Vehicle Wrecking Facility $68 $678 flat annual Christmas Tree Lot Sales Operation $68 $678 flat annual Commercial Advertising $68 $678 flat annual Fortunetelling $68 $678 flat annual HdE° Companies 301 Business Type Base Tax Unit Tax Junk Collector $68 $678 flat annual Pawnbroker $68 $678 flat annual Itinerant Vendor $68 $46 per week Solicitors/Hawkers $68 $46 per day Peddlers $68 $46 per person Curb Painters $68 $25 per day per person Carnival Operator $68 $564 per day Coin -Operated Device Activity $68 $13 per device Commercial Advertising Vehicle Operation $0 $68 Per Vehicle (Base Tax Not Applicable) Contracting (excluding any contracting business with gross receipts over $50,000.00) Business In $68 $46 flat annual Redwood City Sec. 32.155. — Maximum Tax Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Article, the annual business license tax payable for any one business shall not exceed: • $3,535.00 effective July 1, 2012; • $4,124 effective July 1, 2013; and • $4,811 effective July 1, 2014. HdE5 Companies 31 M. San Bruno., CA III r[Tr OF BAN BIR Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees - Renewal Cycles: 3.12.110 29,864 San Mateo County July 08, 1925 $135,220 5.51 square miles 5,368 people per square mile Annual Licenses. Unless otherwise specifically provided in this article, all annual license taxes shall be due and payable on the first day of August of each year and delinquent on the first day of September of each year. Rate Structures and Fees — Penalties: 3.12.120 If a person responsible for payment of a business license tax fails to pay such tax when due, there shall be added a penalty of twenty percent of such license tax on the last day of each month after the due date thereof. The amount of the penalty to be added shall not exceed one hundred percent of the amount of the license tax due. If, after a payment is made to the tax collector, the records of the taxpayer are examined, audited, or inspected and it is determined by the tax collector that the amount paid was, in fact, less than the amount due, the penalty applicable for failure to pay the tax when due shall begin to apply from the date the amount of the deficiency was delinquent rather than from the date of notice by the tax collector of the deficiency. City of San Bruno Business License Tax Rates & Fees: 3.16: business type cross Keceipts Hnnuai iax General Business Less than $75,000 $75 $75,000 or more, but less than $100,000 $100 Over $100,000 to $500,000 $110 + $5.25 per $5,000 Over $500,000 to $1,000,000 $530 + $4.00 per $5,000 Over $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 $930 + $2.75 per $5,000 Over $5,000,000 $3,130 + $1.65 per $5,000 HdL° Companies 321 uu.mn ic» i ypc ru ca Ui riaL-c Ui ouZIii icZ,.� vLLuNicu MI n ivai 1 an Central Administrative Offices— 999 square feet or less $150 Auxiliary units —Manufacturing. 1,000 — 2,499 square feet $250 2,500 — 4,999 square feet $350 5,000 — 9,999 square feet $550 10,000 square feet or more $850 business type Central Administrative Offices — Auxiliary units —Manufacturing (continued). ivumoer or tmpi 1-10 11 — 25 26 — 50 51 or more IGC� [� I ly [�] ail I.\ �1111 Fl ■ [:1:� $75 per employee $100 $110 + $5.25 per $5,000 $3,130 + $1.65 per $5,000 business I ype I ype of concession Quarterly I ax Amusement concessions Merry-go-round, Ferris wheel, dodgem, swing or other $75 mechanical device for the carrying of passengers Ball and ring throwing games, spin -the -wheel, mechanical and electrical games, shooting gallery, keno, lotto and similar $50 games of chance C. Sales of merchandise or foodstuffs, not in connection with $30 any game of chance business type Apartments and rooming houses Commercial property rental. Bowling alleys and similar games Boxing or wrestling exhibitions Carnivals and circuses Electrical musical devices Mechanical, electronic, and video amusement devices Nonresident Contractors and other businesses (Every person not having a fixed place of business in the city) Peddlers and solicitors Public Dances — Place of public dance > dancing is accompanied by mechanized music > dancing is accompanied by live or unmechanized music Shuffleboards Temporary Vendor Quarterly I ax $50 (base) + $1 per room (minimum 3 rooms) $50 (base) +$10 per 1,000 sgft $40 for each alley $200 for each exhibition $300 for the first day + $75 for each addl. day $25 per device $30 per device $40 per day + $10 per each addl. day $200 $450 $15 per game $40 per day + $10 per each addl. day HdE5 Companies 331 South San Francisco, CA Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees - Renewal Cycles: 6.12.140 29,864 San Mateo County July 08, 1925 $135,220 5.51 square miles 5,368 people per square mile Unless otherwise specifically provided, all annual license taxes, under the provisions of this chapter and Chapters 6.04, 6.08, and 6.16, shall be due and payable in advance on the first day of January of each year ... Rate Structures and Fees — Penalties: 6.12.150 For failure to pay a license tax when due, the collector shall add a penalty of ten percent of said license tax on the thirtieth day after the due date thereof and an additional fifteen percent on the sixtieth day after the due date thereof. City of South San Francisco Business License Tax Rates & Fees: 6.16: Business Type Auctioneer Business and Personal Services Manufacturer Warehousing Wholesale/Retail Sales Distributor & Other Services Repair & Other Services$132,883.25 max Freight Forwarding Services Trucking Moving Van/Trucks Coin Operated Machines (See Ordinance for details) Commercial Parking Facility (See Ordinance for details) Construction Contractor > General 'A' or 'B' > Subcontractor or Specialty'C' Junk Collector/Recycler Medium Pawnbroker Annual Tax $132.50 per "Auction Day" $99.75 + $20.00 per employee/owner $132,883.25 max 1% of Gross Receipts 8% of Gross Receipts $199.25 $165.75 Higher of $266.00 or 4% gross receipts $664.75 $266.00 ompanies 341Page Business Type Peddler or Solicitor Other Peddlers > Single Perishable Product > Catering Truck > All Others Professional/Semi-Professional Public Utilities Recreation and Entertainment *Bowling Alley *Circus or similar exhibition *Carnival or similar event Rental of Residential Property (Hotels, Motels or Apartment house) Temporary Vendors Trailer and Mobile Home Parks Transportation of Persons Annual Tax $99.75 + $20.00 per employee/owner + $332.25 per vehicle used $186.50 $372.50 per vehicle $372.50 plus $13.50 per day in excess of 2 persons $199.25 + $199.25 for each addl. associate, partner or member of the professional corporation $6,644.50 $66.50 per alley $664.75 for 1st day + $132.50 add'I day $664.75 for 1st day + $132.50 add'I day $99.75 + $7.00 per unit (occupied or vacant) $66.50 per day $99.75 + $7.00 per space $332.25 per vehicle + $20.00 per employee HdE5 Companies 35I *FO San Carlos, CA Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated Median Household Income: Land Area: Population Density: Rate structures and Fees- Renewal Cycles: 5.04 29,864 San Mateo County July 08, 1925 $135,220 5.51 square miles 5,368 people per square mile Annual Business Registration: All businesses in the manufacturing, wholesale and retail; services, contractors, property rental, entertainment and utilities; all businesses in the professions category shall pay an annual business. Every person or entity engaged in the business of conducting, managing or operating an apartment house consisting of a building or buildings in the same ownership, constructed upon one parcel or upon adjoining parcels of land and comprised of three or more units per building shall pay an annual registration fee. All businesses in the seasonal and specialized category shall pay an annual registration fee. Semi -Annual Business Registration: Contractors and mobile food facilities who are headquartered outside of San Carlos and wish to purchase a limited -term registration certificate can obtain a six-month registration. Rate Structures and Fees- Penalties: 5.04.170 A. Whenever a person, firm or corporation fails to pay a business registration fee within fifteen days after the same becomes due, there shall be added a twenty percent penalty to the business registration fee on the last day of each month after the due date thereof; provided, that the amount of the penalty to be added shall in no event exceed one hundred percent of the amount of the business registration fee due; such penalty to be collected in the same manner as the business registration fee. B. The City can collect business registration fees for up to three prior years if the business has been in operation and unregistered during that period of time. However, in no case will the penalty amount exceed one hundred percent of the amount of the business registration fee due. (Ord. 1188 § 1 (part), 1995) City of San Carlos Business License Tax Rates & Fees: All business registration taxes hereinafter referred to as business registration fees and charges, including base and unit charges and minimum and maximum charges in this chapter, shall be increased annually by four percent commencing January 1, 2003 HW Companies 361 San Mateo, CA Population: County: Incorporation: Estimated median household income: Land area: Population Density: Rate Structures And Fees- Renewal Cycles: 5.06.030 104,748 San Mateo County September 3, 1894 $64,279 15.88 square miles 8,013.8 people per square mile Annual License: Business Taxes. As established by resolution of the Council or, in the case of a new business, prior to its commencement. They shall be valid only for the period of the certificate issued. (Current Council resolution defines effective period of all annual licenses as expiring on December 31 of any given year). Rate Structures And Fees- Penalties: 5.27.010 Delinquency. If a tax certificate is not renewed by payment of the annual business tax by the 45th day after the tax becomes due, the Tax Collector shall add to the amount due, as a penalty, 5% thereof for each 30 days or fraction thereof after the 45th day that the tax is unpaid, provided that after 150 days from said 45th day, and after 7 days' notice from the Tax Collector, the penalty shall be 100% of the tax. Double Business Taxes. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, any person who has conducted any business in this city for which a tax payment is required, without first having paid the business tax due, and after having received seven days' notice from the collector in any year of the need to pay the tax, shall pay a business tax as follows: If such a tax is payable in advance for a certain period the tax shall be double the amount otherwise required for such purpose and period, or double the amount otherwise required for the period during which the business has been conducted without paying the tax, whichever is the greater. License Tax Imposed: 5.06.010 It is unlawful for any person, either for himself or for any person, to commence or carry on any business in the City, without first having paid the applicable business taxes and having obtained the tax certificate provided for in this title as proof of payment to the City, to do so, or without complying with any and all regulations of such business, contained in this title. HdL© Companies 371 City of San Mateo Business License Tax Rates & Fees: Business Type Annual Gross Receipts Tax Rate All Businesses Not Stated Below $30,000 and under $31.00 30,001 — 40,000 $37.50 40,001 — 45,000 $47.00 45,001 — 50,000 $56.50 50,001 — 55,000 $67.50 55,001 — 65,000 $77.00 65,001 — 70,000 $86.50 70,001 — 75,000 $97.50 75,001 — 80,000 $107.00 80,001 — 85,000 $116.50 85,001 — 90,000 $127.50 90,001- 95,000 $137.00 95,001 — 100,000 $143.50 $143.50 + $3.60 per $5,000 gross Over 100,000 receipts over $100,000 Business Type Classification Tax Rate Contractors General Contractor $128.00 Specialty Contractor $53.00 Business Type Classification Tax Rate Automotive Industry Automobile Sales $93.00 Automobile Repair $37.00 Gasoline Sales $106.00 Public Garage/ Parking Lot $30.00 Business Type Classification Tax Rate Minor Business Class Auctioneer $100 + $50 per day Carnival $30 per day Tree & pumpkin sale lots $50 per season Circus $150 + $30 per day Pawnbroker $30 annual Peddler $30 annual Newspaper/ magazine publishing $100 for daily publishers, $75 for non - daily publishers HdL° Companies Business Tvr)e Classification Tax Rate Minor Business Class Public dance $30 per night or $120 annual Real estate broker $50 + $5 per salesman Private school $50 annual Shows — exhibitions $200 annual or $50 per quarter Solicitor $75/ quarter + $5 per solicitor over 2 Street vendor $10 per day Temporary vendor $20 per day + $5 per employee over 3 Hauling, draying or moving $30 per vehicle, annual Water company 1.35% of gross receipts HdE5 Companies 391 I BURLINGAMESTAFF • R Avovw To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 4, 2022 From: Mike Matteucci, Chief of Police /_CelA\IDLE\C•�GZq MEETING DATE: April 4, 2022 Subject: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the additional information it requested on Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and provide direction on their deployment in Burlingame. BACKGROUND On January 18, 2022, and February 22, 2022, staff made presentations to the Burlingame City Council regarding ALPRs. The January 18th presentation summarized the benefits of ALPRs (e.g. success in solving crimes, locating missing persons and stolen vehicles, preventing criminal activity, etc.) and the concerns (e.g. privacy issues, large database creations, excessive retention lengths, potential data breaches and inappropriate use, monetary costs, etc.). The costs were estimated at $2,500 per ALPR, per year (which would include installation, maintenance, replacement, and 30 days of data storage). The February 22nd presentation summarized input obtained from the other San Mateo County cities currently using ALPRs. For example, 14 out of the 20 San Mateo County cities, including Burlingame's neighboring cities of San Mateo, Hillsborough, and Millbrae, currently utilize ALPRs. The average number of ALPRs in use per city is approximately 20; and the feedback from all of the cities was overwhelmingly positive. After discussions on both dates, the City Council requested staff gather additional information. DISCUSSION Notification of ALPR Presentation In order to ensure widespread awareness of tonight's agenda item, staff publicized this discussion as follows: • Notice in the San Mateo Daily Journal regarding tonight's discussion; • Noticed on the Burlingame Police Department's homepage with links to the previous discussions; 1 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion April 4, 2022 • Article in the Thursday, March 31, 2022 eNews; • Social Media outreach on the City's Twitter, Facebook, Simplicity, and Nextdoor accounts; • Social Media outreach about tonight's discussion on the Police Department's Facebook, Simplicity, and Nextdoor accounts. ALPR Use ALPRs are primarily used in two ways, as a "real-time" notification system and as an "after -the - fact" investigatory tool. The "real-time" notification system would alert the department's dispatch center immediately if a "wanted" vehicle passes by an ALPR. The dispatch center would then dispatch officers to the area, along with a description of the vehicle, in an attempt to locate and stop the vehicle in question. "Wanted" vehicles are typically stolen vehicles, vehicles associated with a missing person, or vehicles associated with a serious crime, such as a homicide or robbery. Arrest warrants are generally not attached to a vehicle, so a subject driving through Burlingame with an outstanding warrant would typically not trigger an ALPR notification. These types of stops (i.e. stops associated with outstanding warrants) were identified as an area of concern during prior discussions. It is important to note that all stops made as a result of an ALPR notification would also be subject to reporting as required by the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) The "after -the fact" investigatory tool would allow officers and inspectors to search specific time frames in the Police Department's database (for as long as the data is retained) when investigating "cold" crimes. For example, if a commercial burglary took place in the downtown business district during the early morning hours, officers and inspectors could search the databases of the ALPRs located in that area during that time frame in an attempt to identify potential suspect vehicles. Requirement for ALPR Usage and Privacy Policy California Civil Code section 1798.90.5 et seq. regulates the use of ALPRs. Agencies that operate or use ALPRs are required to maintain security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access or disclosure (CC section 1798.90.51(a)). In addition, an ALPR operator or user is required to implement a usage and privacy policy to ensure that collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of ALPR information respects individuals' privacy and civil liberties. A privacy and use policy must contain, at a minimum, the following (CC 1798.90.51(b)): • Authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR data; • Designation of employees and contractors authorized to use or access the ALPR system or collect ALPR data; identification of training requirements; • Description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure security of data and compliance with applicable privacy laws; • Purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing or transfer of ALPR data; 2 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion April4, 2022 • Identification of the official custodian of the ALPR system; • Description of reasonable measures used to ensure the accuracy of ALPR information; • Length of time for ALPR data retention, and process for determining if and when to destroy ALPR data. A draft ALPR policy is attached to this staff report. The policy was written by Lexipol, a firm that specializes in providing police policies. Lexipol policies are based on the latest statutory law, case law, and progressive best practices. A summary of the draft policy is as follows: • ALPRs shall be used for official and legitimate law enforcement business only; • Data shall be retained for a maximum of 30 days; • Data will be shared by request only; • Authorized department personnel shall receive proper training in ALPR use and policy; • System audits shall be conducted on a regular basis, etc. Optional Surveillance Technology Ordinance Although not required by state law, as a possible framework for evaluating ALPRs, and surveillance technology generally, the City Council may also consider adopting a Surveillance Technology Ordinance. Such an ordinance governs the procurement and oversight of surveillance technology. Prior to acquiring, using, or sharing data involving Surveillance Technology, the ordinance requires the City Council to first consider and adopt: 1) a Surveillance Impact Report; and 2) a Surveillance Use Policy (both described below) at a noticed public hearing. Thereafter, if the City wished to continue deploying the approved Surveillance Technology, the City Council must first consider and adopt an Annual Surveillance Report on the Surveillance Technology. Under a Surveillance Technology Ordinance, before deploying or sharing data involving Surveillance Technology, the City must first take the following steps: 1. Prepare a draft Surveillance Impact Report and a Surveillance Technology Use Policy. o A Surveillance Impact Report is a report that includes a description of: • the Surveillance Technology and how it works; • the proposed purpose of the Surveillance Technology; • the proposed location(s) for deployment of the Surveillance Technology and crime statistics for the location(s); • an assessment of any potential impact on civil liberties and civil rights, as well as any plans to safeguard rights of the public; • costs of the Surveillance Technology and sources of funding; • how and where the data collected will be stored and handled; • the experience, if any, of other governmental agencies who have used the same or similar technology, including an analysis of the effectiveness and any known adverse impacts, including unanticipated costs, civil rights or civil liberties impacts, and failures in the technology. 3 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion April4, 2022 o A Surveillance Use Policy is a report that includes a description of: • the purpose for the Surveillance Technology; • the authorized uses of the technology and the rules and procedures for the use of the technology; • data collection, data access, data protection, data sharing, and data retention; how the collected data may be accessed by members of the public • training required for users of the Surveillance Technology; • auditing and oversight for compliance with the Surveillance Use Policy. 2. Prior to considering the Surveillance Impact Report and Surveillance Use Policy, the City would provide Notice of the Public Hearing at which the reports would be reviewed. Ordinances adopted by other jurisdictions provide for a 30-day notice period. 3. The City Council would hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Surveillance Technology in relation to the Surveillance Impact Report and the Surveillance Use Policy. In order to authorize use of the Surveillance Technology, the City Council must make findings regarding the need for the Surveillance Technology weighed against the costs and potential impacts to civil rights and civil liberties. 4. Thereafter, if the City wished to continue using the Surveillance Technology, staff would be required to submit an Annual Surveillance Report and request continued permission to use the Surveillance Technology. In granting the continued use, the Council must make the above findings regarding the need for the Surveillance Technology weighed against the costs and potential impacts. The Cities of Davis, Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Diego; Santa Clara County; and BART have adopted a Surveillance Technology Ordinance. None of the cities in San Mateo County that currently deploy ALPRs has adopted a Surveillance Technology Ordinance. Adoption of a Surveillance Technology Ordinance is optional; such an ordinance is not a statutory requirement for implementation of an ALPR program. Potential ALPR Locations As mentioned in an earlier staff report, other cities chose their ALPR locations based on coverage at major entrances/exits to their cities, major thoroughfares, and/or major intersections. Should the Council wish to move forward, staff would propose installing ALPRs at 14 locations throughout Burlingame in order to obtain adequate coverage. These locations are: • Skyline Dr @ Margarita Ave • Skyline Dr @Trousdale Dr • ECR @Peninsula Ave • ECR @ Broadway • ECR @Murchison Dr • California Dr @Peninsula Ave • California Dr @Burlingame Ave • California Dr @Murchison Ave !r Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion April 4, 2022 • Rollins Rd @Humboldt Rd • Rollins Rd @ Broadway • Rollins Rd @ Murchison Dr • Airport Blvd @ Lang Rd • Airport Blvd @ Bayshore Hy • Bayshore Hy @ Cowan Rd Although this is listed as 14 locations, some of the larger intersections may require more than one ALPR for proper coverage, so the actual number of ALPRs needed to cover these 14 locations may actually be between 20 and 25 ALPRs. Alternatively, if a smaller "pilot -type" program is more desirable at this time, staff has identified a smaller six -location proposal. These locations are: • Skyline Dr @Trousdale Dr • ECR @Murchison Dr • California Dr @Burlingame Ave • Rollins Rd @ Broadway • Airport Blvd @ Lang Rd • Bayshore Hy @ Cowan Rd Similar to the 14-location proposal, some of these intersections may require more than one ALPR for proper coverage, so the actual number of ALPRs needed to cover these six locations may actually be between 10 and 12 ALPRs. Should the City Council wish to move forward with the deployment of ALPRs at an alternative number of locations, staff would work within those parameters to identify the most practical locations. Next Steps Staff requests that the City Council provide direction regarding the deployment of ALPRs in Burlingame. Should the Council wish to proceed, staff also requests direction on whether the Council wishes to consider a Surveillance Technology Ordinance, or to consider implementation of an ALPR program without such an ordinance. Based on Council's direction, staff can either prepare a proposed ordinance or develop an ALPR program for Council's approval that will include the number of ALPRs utilized, their locations, and finalized policies regarding data retention and data sharing. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Should the City Council choose to move forward with the deployment of ALPRs, then the cost would depend on the number of ALPRs utilized. 5 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion April4, 2022 Exhibits: • Staff Report from January 18, 2022 • Staff Report from February 22, 2022 • Draft Burlingame PD ALPR Policy M. �� CITV O �� `� STAFFME • R Avovw To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 18, 2022 From: Mike Matteucci, Chief of Police AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: January 18, 2022 Subject: Discussion of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council discuss whether it wishes to deploy Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in Burlingame. BACKGROUND ALPR systems are camera systems designed to read license plates with the use of optical character recognition. ALPR systems can be fixed or mobile. The most common ALPR systems people encounter are those at bridge toll crossings DISCUSSION In June 2015, the Burlingame City Council discussed ALPRs and opted not to utilize them in Burlingame. Since that time, however, some Councilmembers have heard from constituents about their interest in deploying this technology in Burlingame. For that reason, Councilmember O'Brien Keighran asked that a discussion of ALPRs be placed on a future Council agenda. Benefits of ALPRs Burlingame is one of four cities in San Mateo County not currently utilizing ALPRs. According to the cities that have deployed them, the technology has been successful in solving crimes, locating and apprehending wanted individuals, locating missing persons and stolen vehicles, and preventing criminal activity. For example, in regards to the recent "mob style" grab and run thefts plaguing Bay Area retail shopping areas, victim agencies are able to "flag" vehicle license plate numbers associated with these thefts in the ALPR system. Agencies with ALPRs can then be alerted if these vehicles enter their jurisdiction and can immediately send Officers to their retail areas in an effort to prevent thefts from occurring. ALPRs can also be configured to send alerts if multiple vehicles without a license plate pass a reader within a short time frame, as many of these thefts occur using multiple vehicles with covered or no license plates. 1 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion January 18, 2022 There are many other ways ALPRs can be used to combat crime and increase the quality of life in Burlingame. For example, ALPRs could be used to deter auto burglaries along "hotel -row" (Bayshore Highway and Airport Blvd). Those responsible often utilize stolen or embezzled rental vehicles to commit these crimes. ALPRs would send an alert if these vehicles entered Burlingame, and Officers could immediately respond to the area in an attempt to prevent these crimes from occurring or apprehend suspects. This same strategy can be utilized in residential neighborhoods to combat residential and auto burglaries. In addition, vehicles used by suspects arrested in other jurisdictions committing crimes similar in nature to those committed in Burlingame could be cross checked against Burlingame ALPR data, furnishing Investigators with a tool to help identify suspects and solve Burlingame crimes. Criminals are also becoming more aware of which cities utilize ALPRs, and may start targeting those which do not. Arguments against ALPRs There are a number of concerns with the deployment of ALPRs. These include: • License plate data reveals the travel histories of millions who have committed no crime. • Information captured by readers is pooled into regional sharing systems, resulting in an enormous database of innocent motorists. • The collected information may be retained for years with few or no restrictions to protect privacy. • Data breaches and inappropriate accessing of data by users with authorization codes are possible. • The monetary cost and privacy concerns outweigh the crime reduction benefits. Costs and Next Steps The cost to deploy ALPRs is approximately $2500 per ALPR, per year. This is a lease price that would cover installation, maintenance, replacement, and 30 days of data storage. The City would retain control of the data (retention schedules, sharing policies, etc.). Any data that the Police Department chose to share with neighboring jurisdictions would be restricted and protected by policies equivalent to the policies used to protect criminal history information. Officers and Investigators from any agency (including Burlingame) could not arbitrarily search the database without permission and cause. If the City Council were to authorize the use of ALPRs within Burlingame, staff would return to the City Council with recommendations as to the number of ALPRs utilized and their locations. Staff would also need to develop policies regarding data retention and data sharing. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Should the City Council choose to move forward with the deployment of ALPRs, then the cost would depend on the number of ALPRs utilized. 2 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion January 18, 2022 Exhibit: None �� CITV O �� `� STAFFME • R Avovw To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: February 22, 2022 From: Mike Matteucci, Chief of Police AGENDA NO: 10b MEETING DATE: February 22, 2022 Subject: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the additional information it requested on Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and provide direction on their possible deployment in Burlingame. BACKGROUND On January 18, 2022, staff made a presentation to the Burlingame City Council regarding ALPRs. After discussion, the City Council requested staff gather additional information. The Council was particularly interested in input from other San Mateo County cities currently using ALPRs. DISCUSSION Burlingame is one of six cities in San Mateo County not currently utilizing ALPRs. This is a correction from the original staff report dated January 18, 2022, which listed Burlingame as one of four. Staff contacted the 14 cities within San Mateo County currently utilizing ALPRs and obtained the following information: • The number of ALPRs utilized in each city ranges from one to 52 (with an average of approximately 20 per city). • Three out of the 14 cities utilize only mobile ALPRs (i.e. they have ALPRs on some or all of their police vehicles but no fixed ALPRs at the moment). • In selecting the locations for fixed ALPRs, all cities used methods such as covering major entrances/exits, covering major thoroughfares, crime trend maps, etc. None of the cities retained any outside consultants to assist with ALPR placement. • None of the cities implemented any unorthodox polices in relation to ALPR use (i.e. no restrictions on stopping vehicles for minor traffic or misdemeanor violations). • In regards to data retention, the cities are split, with approximately half retaining the data for 30 days and half retaining the data for one year. 1 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion February 22, 2022 • The cities vary the most in regards to data sharing. Some share their data by request only; some share within San Mateo County only; and some also share with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC). • Staff received overwhelmingly positive feedback regarding ALPR use. None of the cities reported any major issues with implementation, all believe ALPRs are helping to solve crimes and catch criminals, and all recommend their use. Some of the comments received from Police Chiefs and Captains surveyed included the following: • ALPR information has been instrumental as an investigative aid for criminal investigations as well as a factor in the return of some at -risk missing persons. • We have been able to prevent crimes by arresting wanted suspects or recovering stolen cars, and ALPRs have been credited in helping solve various cases including homicides and home invasion robberies. • We've had a number of success stories with other jurisdictions' cameras. We've apprehended armed robbery suspects, an attempted murder suspect, etc. • The cameras have been a huge help. Since July 2021, we dispatched patrol units 76 times on hits (recovering 3 firearms and 10 stolen vehicles through the system). • There is no doubt that these cameras have enabled us to: solve more crimes; catch more criminals; prosecute more cases; make arrests without having to catch suspects in the act; recover more stolen vehicles; assist outside agencies with apprehensions; deter criminal activity by alerting us to the presence of known crime vehicles in our city, etc. • It has been a great tool, but the ALPR system is limited in what it can do, so don't have the expectation that it will solve most problems. • I would definitely recommend the cameras, and having us all on the same system is extremely beneficial. • ALPRs also provide feedback as to how many vehicles travel on roadways equipped with ALPRs. This has been helpful for Public Works from time to time. Next Steps Staff requests that the City Council provide direction regarding the deployment of ALPRs in Burlingame. Should the Council wish to move forward, then staff will develop an ALPR program for Council's approval that will include the number of ALPRs utilized, their locations, and policies regarding data retention and data sharing. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Should the City Council choose to move forward with the deployment of ALPRs, then the cost would depend on the number of ALPRs utilized. 2 Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) Discussion February 22, 2022 Exhibit: • Staff Report from January 18, 2022 Burlingame Police Department Burlingame PD Policy Manual Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) 459.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the capture, storage and use of digital data obtained through the use of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. 459.2 ADMINISTRATION The ALPR technology, also known as License Plate Recognition (LPR), allows for the automated detection of license plates. It is used by the Burlingame Police Department to convert data associated with vehicle license plates for official law enforcement purposes, including identifying stolen or wanted vehicles, stolen license plates and missing persons. It may also be used to gather information related to active warrants, homeland security, electronic surveillance, suspect interdiction and stolen property recovery. All installation and maintenance of ALPR equipment, as well as ALPR data retention and access, shall be managed by the applicable Division Lieutenant and the Police Services Manager. When applicable, the Division Lieutenant will assign members under his/her command to administer the day-to-day operation of the ALPR equipment and data. 459.2.1 ALPR ADMINISTRATOR The Captain and Police Services Manager shall be responsible for developing guidelines and procedures to comply with the requirements of Civil Code § 1798.90.5 et seq. This includes, but is not limited to (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53): (a) A description of the job title or other designation of the members and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system or to collect ALPR information. (b) Training requirements for authorized users. (c) A description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws. (d) Procedures for system operators to maintain records of access in compliance with Civil Code § 1798.90.52. (e) The title and name of the current designee in overseeing the ALPR operation. (f) Working with the Custodian of Records on the retention and destruction of ALPR data. (g) Ensuring this policy and related procedures are conspicuously posted on the department's website. 459.3 OPERATIONS Use of an ALPR is restricted to the purposes outlined below. Department members shall not use, or allow others to use the equipment or database records for any unauthorized purpose (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53). (a) An ALPR shall only be used for official law enforcement business. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/14, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 1 Published with permission by Burlingame Police Department Burlingame Police Department Burlingame PD Policy Manual Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) (b) An ALPR may be used in conjunction with any routine patrol operation or criminal investigation. Reasonable suspicion or probable cause is not required before using an ALPR. (c) While an ALPR may be used to canvass license plates around any crime scene, particular consideration should be given to using ALPR-equipped cars to canvass areas around homicides, shootings and other major incidents. Partial license plates reported during major crimes should be entered into the ALPR system in an attempt to identify suspect vehicles. (d) No member of this department shall operate ALPR equipment or access ALPR data without first completing department -approved training. (e) No ALPR operator may access department, state or federal data unless otherwise authorized to do so. (f) If practicable, the officer should verify an ALPR response through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) before taking enforcement action that is based solely on an ALPR alert. 459.4 DATA COLLECTION AND RETENTION The Captain and Police Services Manager are responsible for ensuring systems and processes are in place for the proper collection and retention of ALPR data. Data will be transferred from vehicles to the designated storage in accordance with department procedures. All ALPR data downloaded to the server should be stored for a maximum of 30 days and in accordance with the established records retention schedule. Thereafter, ALPR data should be purged unless it has become, or it is reasonable to believe it will become, evidence in a criminal or civil action or is subject to a discovery request or other lawful action to produce records. In those circumstances the applicable data should be downloaded from the server onto portable media and booked into evidence. 459.5 ACCOUNTABILITY All data will be closely safeguarded and protected by both procedural and technological means. The Burlingame Police Department will observe the following safeguards regarding access to and use of stored data (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53): (a) All ALPR data downloaded to the mobile workstation and in storage shall be accessible only through a login/password-protected system capable of documenting all access of information by name, date and time (Civil Code § 1798.90.52). (b) Members approved to access ALPR data under these guidelines are permitted to access the data for legitimate law enforcement purposes only, such as when the data relate to a specific criminal investigation or department -related civil or administrative action. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/14, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 2 Published with permission by Burlingame Police Department Burlingame Police Department Burlingame PD Policy Manual Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) (c) ALPR system audits should be conducted on a regular basis. For security or data breaches, see the Records Release and Maintenance Policy. 459.6 POLICY The policy of the Burlingame Police Department is to utilize ALPR technology to capture and store digital license plate data and images while recognizing the established privacy rights of the public. All data and images gathered by the ALPR are for the official use of this department. Because such data may contain confidential information, it is not open to public review. 459.7 RELEASING ALPR DATA The ALPR data may be shared only with other law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies for official law enforcement purposes or as otherwise permitted by law, using the following procedures: (a) The agency makes a written request for the ALPR data that includes: 1. The name of the agency. 2. The name of the person requesting. 3. The intended purpose of obtaining the information. (b) The request is reviewed by the Captain and Police Services Manager or the authorized designee and approved before the request is fulfilled. (c) The approved request is retained on file. Requests for ALPR data by non -law enforcement or non -prosecutorial agencies will be processed as provided in the Records Maintenance and Release Policy (Civil Code § 1798.90.55). 459.8 TRAINING The Training Coordinator should ensure that members receive department -approved training for those authorized to use or access the ALPR system (Civil Code § 1798.90.51; Civil Code § 1798.90.53). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/14, All Rights Reserved. ***DRAFT*** Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) - 3 Published with permission by Burlingame Police Department