HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-15 e-packet@6:00Wednesday, September 15, 2021
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING
September 15, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City
staff may participate via Teleconference.
Pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953, all votes shall be by roll call due to
council members participating by teleconference.
This meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Governor ’s Executive Orders N-29-20,
N-63-20 and N-08-21 allowing for deviation of Teleconference Rules required by the Brown Act & pursuant
to the order of San Mateo County Department of Public Health regarding gatherings during the coronavirus
(COVID-19) outbreak, and recommendations to follow social distancing procedures, the City of South San
Francisco will hold the meeting through a hybrid of in -person attendance with the City Council, designated staff,
and limited members of the public at the City Council Chambers and through the virtual platform, Zoom .
In-person attendance by members of the public will be subject to maximum capacity and current health and
safety protocols.
American Disability Act:
The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief
description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the
meeting.
Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the
City Clerk by email at all-cc@ssf.net, 24-hours before the meeting.
Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/29/2021
September 15, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED
Join Zoom meeting
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/87022528227
(Enter your email and name)
Join by One Tap Mobile :
US: +16699006833,,87022528227# or +13462487799,,87022528227#
Join by Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free)
Webinar ID: 870 2252 8227
How to observe the Meeting (no public comment):
1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting:
Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link: https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by
visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application
used by City Council and staff.
How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting:
1) By Phone: (669) 900-6833. Webinar ID is 870 2252 8227. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to
unmute when called.
By One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,87022528227# or +13462487799,,87022528227#
2) Online at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/87022528227
a. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your
turn to speak.
b. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified
shortly before they are called to speak.
c. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
IN-PERSON: Please complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s. Be
sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name
is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS
ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/29/2021
September 15, 2021Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Study session regarding renter protection measures for residential tenants in South San
Francisco. (Nell Selander, Deputy Director, Economic & Community Development
Department)
1.
Study Session regarding proposed Community Equity and Safety Advisory Board.
(Amy Ferguson, Management Fellow)
2.
Report regarding a Study Session on assessing a new Business License Tax fee
structure. (Heather Enders, Management Analyst II)
3.
Study session regarding Article 34 of the California Constitution’s voter approval
requirement for the City to develop, construct, or acquire certain types of “low rent
housing projects.” (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney)
4.
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/29/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-632 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Study session regarding renter protection measures for residential tenants in South San Francisco.(Nell
Selander, Deputy Director, Economic & Community Development Department)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on the proposed rental protection measures
described in this report.
BACKGROUND
Executive Summary
In 2019,City Council held study sessions to address displacement of South San Francisco residential tenants.
Staff introduced various types of renter protection policies for Council’s consideration and direction.At the
time,other Bay Area cities,including San Mateo and Redwood City,were also exploring new tenant protection
measures to mitigate housing displacement in their communities.
Given changes to State law since our last study session,the impact of COVID-19 on our renter population,and
recent Council requests,staff has prepared this study session on renter protections.Specifically,this study
session will cover rental registries, mediation, and rental assistance.
Past City Council Discussions & Actions
Below is a summary of Council’s recent renter protection efforts and related State laws that were adopted.
·First Study Session,January 9,2010.Staff provided an overview of existing programs in other
cities,including minimum lease terms,rent review boards and/or mediation,relocation assistance,and
voluntary rent programs.After discussing the different options available,the Council directed staff to
provide additional information on minimum lease terms,relocation assistance,and enhanced
notification for rent increases.
·Second Study Session,July 22,2019.Staff presented more information on minimum lease terms,
relocation assistance,and enhanced notification for rent increases.Council requested more information
on mediation and anti-rent gouging.
·Local Legislation,July 24,2019.City Council approved relocation assistance for tenants who are
displaced due to code violations caused by unsafe living conditions.
·State Legislation,Assembly Bill (AB)1482,October 8,2019.Prior to the pandemic,the state and
local municipalities focused on passing housing legislation addressing the housing crisis,which had
been exacerbated in recent years by wildfires.Prompted by price gouging in California’s overheated
housing market,the state passed AB 1482,the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.This legislation marked a
significant policy change in residential rental housing,limiting residential rent increases statewide to no
more than 5%plus consumer price index (CPI)and requiring just cause for evictions.Most single-
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-632 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
family homes are exempted from the legislation.
·Local Legislation,November 25,2019.In anticipation of the implementation of AB 1482 and to
prevent evictions between the Bill’s signing and effective date,City Council adopted an Urgency
Ordinance prohibiting evictions without just cause and establish the same rental protections in AB 1482
until it went into effect on January 1, 2020.
·AB 1482 goes into effect, January 1, 2020.
·COVID-19 rental protections,March 17,2020 to September 30,2021.The COVID-19 pandemic
created more instability and disruption in the housing market.Its effects halted business operations and
economic activity,in turn impacting renters,homeowners,and landlords.The County and state adopted
eviction moratoria to protect renters from evictions due to COVID.The COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act,
AB 832,protects tenants statewide affected by the pandemic through September 30,2021 and is
discussed in greater detail below.Also discussed below are the rental assistance dollars appropriated by
the City and made available through the state to assist those unable to pay past due rent as a result of the
pandemic.
Demographic Information
Since 2019,the demographics of the City have not drastically changed.In South San Francisco,61%of our
67,408 residents are homeowners and 39%are renters.Thirty seven percent of renter households live in
attached or detached single family homes,15%in developments with two to four units,47%in developments
with five or more units, and just 1% in mobile homes, RVs, or boats.
According to rentcafe.com,in July 2019,the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in South San Francisco
was $2,883,5%percent increase from the prior year.In August 2021,rentcafe.com reported an average rent of
$2,717, an 11% decrease from 2020.
Despite the dip in rental rates,affordability challenges persist.For a household to comfortably afford a one-
bedroom apartment in South San Francisco,the household must earn at least $97,800.The median household
income in South San Francisco is $105,459.
Over half of renter households are rent burdened,meaning they spend more than 30%of their household
income on rent.The most rent burdened residents are very low-income (earning less than $91,350 for a family
of four) and extremely low-income (earning less than $54,800 for a family of four).
Expiring Eviction Moratorium & Companion Rental Assistance
On June 28,2021,the Governor signed AB 832 extending residential eviction protections related to COVID-19
through September 30,2021.The new law doubles the cash assistance for rent relief to $5.2 billion dollars to
cover 100 percent of past due and future rent (March 2020 through March 2022).AB 832 also allows tenants to
access the rent relief program directly even if landlords choose not to participate.
A protection that lawmakers set up as part of AB 832 is a provision that bans landlords from evicting tenants
before they get a chance to apply for rent relief through March 2022.Additionally,the legislation prevents
municipalities from enacting local eviction moratoria until after the state’s protections expire on April 1, 2022.
Inextricably linked to the statewide eviction moratorium is the rental assistance available through Housing is
Key,the state-run COVID rental assistance program.As of August 25,2021,there were 95 Housing is Key
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-632 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Key,the state-run COVID rental assistance program.As of August 25,2021,there were 95 Housing is Key
applications in progress for South San Francisco households.In addition to these applications in progress,there
were 339 active applications totaling more than $4 million.Active cases have submitted applications that are in
review but have not yet been awarded funds.By comparison,just 91 South San Francisco households have
been awarded $1.5 million in assistance.What this data demonstrates is the process remains slow but is
resulting in award of funds to South San Francisco households to pay past due and future rent payments.
DISCUSSION
To follow-up on the renter protection study sessions held in 2019 and the more recent housing study session
held in April 2021,staff is presenting information on potential renter protection measures and actions the
Council may want to consider.These include consideration of a rental registry,mediation,and providing
additional funding for rental assistance.
Rental Registry
Recently,rental registries have become a more commonly used tool for rent-stabilized cities to enforce city
ordinances and gather information on rental units.South San Francisco is not a rent-stabilized city,nor is a rent
stabilization ordinance being proposed or considered.In the context of rent-stabilized jurisdictions,a registry
allows a city to collect data from landlords so that it can fine or enforce city codes,such as allowable annual
rent increases.
Beyond code enforcement,cities have implemented registries to collect data on rental conditions in their
jurisdictions. Some of the information gathered by cities include:
·property owner information,
·number of units owned in the city,
·number of bedrooms and bathrooms,
·history of capital improvements,
·rental history, tenant history, and
·and occupancy status.
The information gathered varies city to city,but in general,the data also provides cities with vacancy rates and
information on rate of turnover.Ultimately,though,for rental registries to be effective,there must be a high
percentage of landlords registered in the program.
Staff spoke to several small to medium sized Bay Area cities that recently adopted rental registries.For each,it
took roughly 9 to 12 months to develop their programs.Staff in these cities implemented their registries in
tandem with a rent stabilization program,except for El Cerrito.El Cerrito developed an Affordable Housing
Strategy,and the establishment of a rental registry was one component of this specific strategy and was not
accompanied by rent stabilization.These cities also already required most (if not all)landlords to have a
business license prior to implementing a rental registry,so they were building on an existing list of landlords.
South San Francisco does not currently require all landlords of rental properties to obtain a business license.
In addition,cities that have registries employ 1.5 to 6 staff members dedicated to developing,maintaining the
registry,and enforcing the rent ordinance.Registration fees and fines generally offset the cost of the program,
which cost roughly $1 million to $2 million to implement with approximately 40% going toward legal fees.
Given current administrative housing workload and other City housing priorities,existing staff could not
accommodate designing a rental registry program and implementing it in a timely manner.If Council would
like to move forward with designing and implementing a program,staff would return to Council with a project
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-632 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
like to move forward with designing and implementing a program,staff would return to Council with a project
plan and request for a budget appropriation to begin the program.
Mediation
Rental dispute resolution,or mediation,provides an opportunity for tenants and landlords to discuss issues
related to rent increases with a neutral third party.The goals of rent mediation generally are preventing
unreasonable rent increases and displacement,and promoting community accountability.Mediation programs
attempt to achieve these goals through a non-binding mediation process rather than legally binding regulatory
requirements.Mediation programs generally tend to be more permissive in establishing acceptable rent
increases.
Staff explored two mediation models -mandatory and voluntary.San Rafael has a mandatory mediation
program that only tenants can initiate upon a rent increase of 5%or more in a 12-month period.It was
established in 2019 and applies to all rental units.It is administered by Marin County’s Consumer Protection
Unit at no cost to the initiating tenant.Conversely,Palo Alto has a voluntary program that can be initiated by
tenants,property owners,and property managers to resolve disputes regarding rent increases,repairs,deposits,
and maintenance.The program was established in 2001 and applies to properties with two or more units.It is
administered by the Palo Alto Mediation Program at no cost to the initiating party.
If Council is interested in pursuing a local mandatory or voluntary mediation program,staff would proceed to
program design and then procurement of a qualified third party to administer the program.It is likely that such
a contract would cost roughly $35,000 to $70,000 annually.
Rental Assistance
In April 2020,in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,City Council appropriated funds for rental assistance
from the City’s Housing Successor Fund (Fund 241).Since then,YMCA has administered the City’s local
funds and has worked with South San Francisco households to apply for the state’s Housing is Key program,
which provides households with rental arrears going back to March of 2020.
For FY19-20 and FY20-21,South San Francisco committed $500,000 to rental assistance from Fund 241,with
$80,000 remaining.The County committed over $20 million county-wide,much of which was provided by
CARES and ARPA and is available to South San Francisco renters through YMCA and Housing is Key.
For FY21-22,the City has executed an agreement for $215,000 in State Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA)funding.This will allow the city to pay for future rental payments for tenants who know they will be
missing future rent,but cannot be used for past due rent.The City can also appropriate an additional $250,000
from Fund 241 for past due rental assistance if Council desires.
According to the YMCA,the City’s rental assistance administrator,over 30%of South San Francisco rental
assistance applications are from households in sublease arrangements.These vulnerable renters are the most
likely to get displaced because they are not often afforded the protections of renters on a lease.The City’s funds
have not been used to support sublease rental assistance in the past because there is risk the funds,once paid
and despite the City and YMCA’s best efforts, could be used for purposes other than paying the landlord.
Despite these risks,there is considerable need among households in subleases and so staff is seeking Council’s
direction on whether or not it would be comfortable appropriating funds for rental assistance and prioritizing
subleasing arrangements.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-632 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.Depending on Council direction,there could be
impacts to the General Fund and/or Housing Funds as described above.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Renter protection measures address the following Strategic Plan area:Strategic Plan Priority Area 2 Quality of
Life, Initiative 2.3 - Promote a balanced mix of housing options in South San Francisco.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on the rental protection measures described above.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
Renter
Protections
Study Session
South San Francisco City Council
September 15, 2021
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 9/15/2021 SP CC
Item #1
Background
Past Discussions & Legislation
January 9, 2019
Presentation of min lease terms, relocation
assistance, and enhanced notification; received
direction.
July 22, 2019
Council adopts a red tag ordinance.
July 24, 2019
State AB 1482 signed into law establishing statewide
rent cap and just cause eviction protections.
October 8, 2019
Council adopts an urgency ordinance immediately
implementing many of the AB 1482 provisions.
November 25, 2019
September 15, 20213
Overview of programs in other cities; received Council
direction.
AB 1482 goes into effect.
January 1, 2020
Host of pandemic-related legislation and financial
assistance goes into effect.
March 17, 2020 –September 30, 2021
Resident Profile
4 September 15, 2021
South San Francisco Population:
67,402 individuals
21,330 households
Homeowners,
61%
Renters,
39%
Own v. Rent
Resident Profile
5 September 15, 2021
37%
15%
47%
1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Single family home 2-4 Unit 5+ Unit Mobile Home, Boat, RV
Rental Unit Types Occupied by Renters in SSF
SSF Rent Profile
Average 1-Bedroom Rents Rent Burden
2019
•$2,883
•5% increase from prior year
2021
•$2,717
•11% decrease from prior year
More than half of renter households are rent
burdened, spending more than half of their income
on rent
September 15, 20216
Expiring State Eviction Moratorium
State AB 832 expires September 30, 2021
100% back rent and future rent for impacted, income-qualifying households
Renters can access funds without landlords participating
Bans landlords from evicting tenants before they are able to apply for the rent relief, through March 2022
Local jurisdictions may not enact local eviction moratoria until after April 1, 2022
September 15, 20217
State Rental Assistance
As of August 25, 2021:
95 applications in progress by SSF households
339 active applications totaling more than $4 million in requested assistance
91 households have been awarded $1.5 million in assistance
TO ACCESS THESE FUNDS, GO TO HOUSINGISKEY.COM
September 15, 20218
Renter
Protections
Rent registries allow cities to collect data, such as:
Property owner information
Property information, such as numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms
History of capital improvements
Rental/tenant history
Rental rates
Occupancy status
September 15, 202110
Rental Registry
Normally, rental registries are coupled with rent stabilization legislation and are part of a jurisdiction’s
enforcement mechanism.
El Cerrito is an exception to this rule –they have a stand-alone rental registry that is an extension of their
business license process.
September 15, 202111
Rental Registry
Rental Registry
Implementation could cost $1 million+ including launching and scaling the program:
At least 1.5 FTE dedicated to work on the effort
City Attorney time
New database and monitoring system, or adaptation of existing one
Fully designing the program and launching it would take roughly 6-9 months. Once launched, it would likely take 2-
3 years before program is fully-scaled to include most landlords.
September 15, 202112
Mediation
Mediation, or rental dispute resolution, provides landlords and tenants the opportunity to discuss issues and reach
mutual resolution under the guidance of a neutral third party.
Generally, there are two models –mandatory and voluntary.
September 15, 202113
Mediation
Voluntary Programs Mandatory Programs
Example: Palo Alto
Tenants, property owners, and property managers
can initiate
Reasons to initiate include rent increases, repairs,
deposits, and maintenance issues
Applies to properties with 2+ units
Example: San Rafael
Tenants can initiate upon rent increase of 5%+
Applies to all rental units
September 15, 202114
Mediation
Programs are generally offered free to participants.
Implementation would involve issuing an RFQ or RFP to solicit a mediation services, which would likely cost
$35,000 to $70,000 annually.
September 15, 202115
Rental Assistance
Council has appropriated $500,000 over the past two fiscal years and is set to receive an additional $215,000
from the State shortly.
$80,000 remaining to pay back rent
$215,000 may be used to pay future months of rent
September 15, 202116
Rental Assistance
YMCA estimates 30% of rental assistance applications are from households in sublease arrangements.
We have not served these households in the past, unless the landlord acknowledges the renter’s presence and
provides the YMCA/City with a W9
While there are risks associated with providing rental assistance to master tenants on behalf of a sublease tenant
household, staff believe it is worth considering at this point given the vulnerability of these households and lack of
other assistance for them.
September 15, 202117
Next Steps
Receive feedback from Council tonight on:
Rental registry
Mediation
Rental assistance
Proceed with program design and implementation, as directed.
September 15, 202118
Agenda Item
1. 21-632 Study session regarding renter protection measures for residential tenants in South San
Francisco. (Nell Selander, Deputy Director, Economic & Community Development Department)
Legislation Text SB 343 Item - 1. Renter Protections Study Session.pdf
4 Public Comments
Ethan Mizzi at September 15, 2021 at 2:47pm PDT
Support
Good evening Mayor Addiego and members of the Council. We are a City made up roughly 40% of
tenants, tenants who's rent can arbitrarily go up every year irregardless on if the unit they're living in has
had any upgrade or upkeep while property owners only have to worry about paying for their mortgage if
they still have one and the meager and vastly deflated prop 13 increase on property taxes. we must protect
our renters, they are part of this community and must be treated as such. we need a comprehensive rental
registry so we can have all the data full scope of increases in rent and how many residents of this city are
forced to leave every year due to rent increases. we need actual bare minimum rental protections like just
cause protections and a rent stabilization ordinance. those are the barest of bare minimums. it isn't much of
a burden on a landlord to ask them to fill out a form once a year, especially if it means the city has more
data that we can use to better govern our city in a more equitable way that doesn't unjustly disadvantage
some just because they aren't land owners. Thank you for your time.
Guest User at September 15, 2021 at 12:19pm PDT
Support
California's affordability crisis has worsened as local governments have chosen to deregulate the housing
market and allow developers and landlords to take advantage of renters. Modest programs like the renters’
rebate have been slashed, while property owners continue to get subsidies. Government agencies routinely
fail to enforce tenant protection laws.
South San Francisco needs to give renters more political power so that they can advocate for a safe and
decent place to call home, without having to shell out more than half their paycheck and work multiple
jobs just to make ends meet. Please consider creating a Renter's Board so that there is a permanent entity
that can hold landlords accountable. Without this, the information in a database will not be acted upon.
We also desperately need a city-level rent stabilization and rent control program. Wages have stagnated in
the last decades, while the cost of living has skyrocketed. Renters need protection against unreasonable
rent increases that are often arbitrary in nature and have nothing to do with the condition of the
house/apartment they are living in. This should include mobile homes as well. We can look to other towns
in the county that have done more to protect renters and follow their lead.
Roderick Bovee at September 15, 2021 at 8:19am PDT
Support
Because South San Francisco has underproduced housing for decades, our renters are being displaced.
Council should pass just-cause eviction protections, tenant buyout protections, and rent and demolition
controls to prevent this. At an absolute bare minimum, Council should also support a rental registry so we
can fully understand the scope of the problems renters face. If a landlord has time to cash a multi thousand
dollar check, they have time to e-submit a form with a few details about their investment once a year.
Guest User at September 15, 2021 at 7:55am PDT
Oppose
As a responsible landlords who has not and does not gouge their tenants, we are against the proposed
registry and mediation process. The cost of these programs will overburden landlords who will have to bear the cost of such programs
through licensing or taxation. For those of us who are already fair to our tenants and have already been limited in how much we can
increase rents, such legislation will overburden us.
Tenants are already protected as to rent increases by State legislation. A registry or mediation will not
enhance anything. It will only further burden landlords.
If we the responsible landlords exit the business, the sale of our properties would only negatively impact
tenants because new owners will have to be profitable. They will have to make the maximum rent
increases every single year.
Finally, you need to consider that landlords are already further burdened but the skyrocketing costs of
materials and labor. Buildings require maintenance! Our costs are rising at a rate more than 5% per year.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Study Session regarding proposed Community Equity and Safety Advisory Board.(Amy Ferguson,
Management Fellow)
RECOMMENDATION
City Staff request feedback from City Council on whether to pursue the establishment of a Community Equity
and Safety Advisory Board and,if so,the composition and role of such a board.If directed to move forward,
City Staff will take direction from City Council,revise and finalize a proposal to create a new advisory board
and return to City Council at a future meeting for further debate and possible City Council action.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The death of George Floyd on May 25,2020 sparked nationwide protests demanding heightened police
accountability and also brought to the surface long-simmering issues of racial and social equity.The rallying
cry for reform has led to many communities making a long overdue examination of policies and practices and
advancing positive change.The South San Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity recently
concluded a yearlong,transformational process to learn about and recommend how to further equity in City
programs and practices.A Community Equity and Safety Advisory Board,focused on public safety departments
but also City government more broadly,is central to these efforts.An Equity and Safety Advisory Board can
recommend changes to policies and procedures across City departments and continue to engage community
vision while furthering equitable practices in South San Francisco.
Many cities large and small have some type of police oversight or advisory agency,varying in duties and
responsibilities.Oversight agencies can address complaints of inequitable treatment and overreach by police,as
well as align civilian priorities with police departments.Note some of the most far-reaching oversight agencies
were not voluntarily established,but imposed by the federal government due to chronic and deeply imbedded
systemic failures within certain police departments.A survey of civilian oversight agencies for the 100 most
populous cities found that 16%were advisory,38%review,21%investigative,with only 7%audit.Cities with
larger populations are more likely to have bodies with investigative and review oversight capacity.Smaller or
less populated cities have review or advisory models that provide only oversight.In the advisory model,board
members may review and make recommendations on policy and operational strategies.
Community Safety Advisory Boards are multi-stakeholder bodies designed to facilitate communication
strategies that improve public confidence in police,promote and ensure transparency,foster accountability,and
aim to eliminate obstacles to citizen complaints and input.Advisory Boards can provide high-level policy
recommendations to a Police Department.Most Advisory Boards’oversight responsibilities are limited to
making recommendations,supporting community outreach,and supporting engagement focused on relationship
-building.
Community Safety Advisory Boards are highly influential in identifying and highlighting systemic racism
within public safety practices and procedures.They typically have the authority and ability to utilize
community voices not only to address concerns regarding law enforcement but also other public safety arenas
that impact quality of life and safeguard against disaster,crime,and other threats or danger to civilian
protections.Advisory Boards’advice and recommendations promote the opportunity for education within andCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 1 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
protections.Advisory Boards’advice and recommendations promote the opportunity for education within and
between local departments responsible for the safety of the public and the community.The scope can extend
beyond a police department to a review of all powers exercised by a city viewed through a racial and social
equity lens,including emergency management,fire departments,first responders,code enforcement,
transportation,etc.Community Safety Advisory Boards serve as positive advisory groups and liaisons to the
community by providing a safe space for addressing difficult issues of racial and social equity.
Role of Community Safety Advisory Boards Varies
Across the United States there are a wide range of community advisory boards tasked with making
recommendations to local departments regarding education,health care,policing,and social services.Many are
stand-alone while others work in tandem across local departments with varying composition,functions,
purpose,and jurisdiction/decision-making authority.A primary role of a Community Safety Advisory Board is
to advise and provide recommendation to the chief of police regarding community issues that impact safety,
security and the quality of life by proactively seeking the advice and counsel of diverse groups of community
members.Community Safety Advisory Boards prompt opportunities to listen,provide transparency and initiate
constructive dialogue on policy, procedure, and protocols within law enforcement.
Advisory boards can be useful in assisting law enforcement agencies with conducting research,providing
skilled volunteer services,and supporting community outreach efforts.Community Safety Advisory Boards are
partnerships or collaborations between the community and law enforcement agencies with a primary focus on
crime reduction,solution building,receiving citizen complaints,and disaster preparedness.Community Safety
Advisory Boards do not investigate claims of police misconduct and have little to no authority in making
administrative change (hiring or firing)within police departments.Particularly,law enforcement advisory
commissions,boards,or committees have been established to enhance community policing,increase public
awareness,strengthen police-community collaborations to build trust between police and the community,and to
receive and review citizen complaints.
The following discussion explores models and challenges to police oversight bodies. This discussion includes:
•Limits of California Law on Forming Police Oversight Bodies
•Limitations to Forming a Community Safety Advisory Board Imposed by Public Employee Labor
Relations
•Oversight Models
•Barriers to Police Oversight
•Other National, State and Local Initiatives
•Proposed Model in South San Francisco
The first step in understanding how to create a police oversight body/Advisory Board in South San Francisco is
to understand what can and cannot be done legally under California law.The input below from Sky Woodruff,
City Attorney,and Leah Lockhart,Human Resources Director,sets the stage for what is possible in South San
Francisco.
Limits of California Law on Forming Police Oversight Bodies
(Sky Woodruff, City Attorney)
When considering options for South San Francisco,it is vitally important to have a clear understanding of the
limitations on forming a police oversight body imposed by California state law.There are four primary
constraints on the scope of the powers of a potential community safety advisory body,largely stemming from
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 2 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
constraints on the scope of the powers of a potential community safety advisory body,largely stemming from
different aspects of California law:
1.South San Francisco is organized as a General Law City.It only has the powers granted to it under State
law.Most cities that have well known community safety advisory bodies are Charter Cities,and as such have
greater power to shape and empower a police oversight body.
2.As a General Law City,South San Francisco operates under the City Manager form of government.
Most California cities,including South San Francisco,have adopted a "City Manager form of
government"(also called the “Council-Manager form of government”).The powers of the City Council and the
City Manager are separate.Control over most aspects of the administration of the City and its employees is
assigned to the City Manager.Under that form of government,the City Manager appoints all subordinate
employees,including the Chief of Police.That means that hiring,firing,and discipline of the Police Chief is a
power expressly assigned to the City Manager under State law.
3.State law expressly assigns control over the police department to the Police Chief.“Control”includes
the power to hire,fire,and discipline police officers,and to adopt administrative policies,procedures,and
practices.
4.State law treats public employee personnel records as private and confidential.Investigations of
allegations of public employee misconduct are confidential personnel records.Police personnel records have
heightened protections,with some recently adopted exceptions.The City Council does not have the authority to
access the personnel files of City employees.The City Council cannot delegate a power to an advisory body
that it does not possess,meaning that a Community Safety Advisory Board in South San Francisco cannot
access personnel files, and are subject to the same confidentiality limitations as the City Council has.
In terms of the role of the City Manager,Government Code section 34851 specifically authorizes cities to
establish a City Manager form of government.It allows a city to adopt an ordinance creating the position of
City Manager.The City Manager is the City's chief executive and the head of all City staff.The policy behind
the City Manager form of government is based on the principle of separation of powers,which ensures that the
council and manager can perform their duties without unnecessary interference between one another."More
importantly,the separation of powers provides staff with direction regarding to whom they are accountable.
This helps to avoid situations where a staff member employee feels that he or she has six bosses -the city
manager and the five members of council."
As discussed above,the City Council has implemented a City Manager form of government and expressly
enumerated specific powers and duties of the City Manager in Municipal Code section 2.36.040, including:
“(b)To appoint,discipline and dismiss all appointed officers and employees of the city,excepting the members
of council-appointed boards and commissions and the city attorney;
. . .
(d) To make such rules and regulations as deemed necessary for the administration of affairs of the city;
(k)To make investigations into the affairs of the city and each department and division thereof
. . .;
(l)To investigate all complaints in relation to all matters concerning the administration of the government
of the city ”
Additionally,the City Council has adopted section 2.36.050 of the Municipal Code,which expressly limits the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 3 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Additionally,the City Council has adopted section 2.36.050 of the Municipal Code,which expressly limits the
City Council’s role in the administration of the City. It states:
“Neither the city council nor any of its members shall interfere with the execution by the city manager of the
city manager’s powers and duties or directly or indirectly order the appointment or removal,by the city
manager or by any of the department heads,of any person to any position in the city service.Except for the
purpose of inquiry,the city council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through
the city manager,and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the
city manager,either publicly or privately.The city manager shall take orders and instructions from the city
council only when it is sitting in a lawfully held meeting.”
Of particular relevance to a potential Advisory Board,the City Council has made explicit that it does not have
the power to hire or fire (and thus to discipline)any City employee.The City Council cannot assign to an
advisory body a power that it does not possess.
State law includes an additional limitation on the City Council’s ability to control the police department,and
thus on the City Council’s ability to assign any aspect of control over the police department to another body
such as an Advisory Board.Government Code section 38630 states that “[t]he police department of a city is
under the control of the chief of police.”The City Council cannot create a community safety advisory body that
exerts “control”over the police department,as such a body would conflict with section 38630.Control includes
any actions related to discipline,or requiring the implementing of policies,procedures,or practices.Under the
City Manager form of government and as implemented by the City Council,the Police Chief is under the
control of the City Manager.Consequently,the City Manager’s power over the administration of the City also
applies to the Police Chief and the police department.Some aspects of the operation of the department are
under the control of the Police Chief because of State requirements related to policing practices,policies,and
procedures.
The final State law limitation on the potential scope of a police oversight body stems from the privacy rights of
public employees generally,and the particular protections for police officers.A citizen complaint regarding the
conduct of a police officer relates to an alleged violation of State law or the City’s administrative policies.An
investigation of such a complaint (except for criminal law violations)is a personnel matter.State law provides
substantial protections for police personnel records.
Under the Police Officers’Bill of Rights (“POBR”),police personnel records are “confidential and shall not be
disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding.”As confidential records,they can only be disclosed to those who
are expressly authorized to receive them.They may be disclosed to a criminal Grand Jury,District Attorney,or
Attorney General as part of an authorized investigation.They may also be disclosed pursuant to a court order
after a judge has determined that they are relevant to a particular case,often called a “Pitchess motion.”State
law was reformed in 2019 to make some records disclosable to the public.
Because of the general confidentiality of documents and investigative reports related to alleged police
misconduct,those records are generally only accessible by City employees and investigators who are
authorized to view the records.As discussed above,under the City Manager form of government and the
provision of State law that assigns control over the police department to the Chief of Police,members of the
City Council are not authorized to see confidential personnel records,including records related to an
investigation of alleged police misconduct.Because the City Council does not have the power to see those
confidential records itself, it cannot authorize a community safety advisory body to view them either.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 4 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
As a consequence of those intertwined provisions of State law,any investigatory role for an Advisory Board is
limited.Recognizing those limits,the Commission’s final recommendation to the Council did not include an
investigatory role for the Advisory Board.Instead,they recommended that the Advisory Board’s roles include
receiving complaints from the public that will be investigated by outside investigators retained by the Human
Resources Director or City Attorney.The Police Chief would necessarily have input on the investigation and
ultimately be responsible for any disciplinary action.The Commission also recommended that the Advisory
Board make statistical information about complaints filed available to the public and educate the public about
the methods available to make complaints.If the City Council were interested in exploring an advisory body
with a limited investigatory role,the City Attorney’s Office would need to undertake additional research to
define the contours of how such a program would work to ensure the protection of confidential information and
adherence to state law.In any such system,the Advisory Board members might be able to receive a report
about alleged misconduct,but the report could not include confidential information,and the members of the
Advisory Board would not be able to receive or review confidential information.Additionally,the Advisory
Board would be limited to making recommendations and would not itself be able to take any action based on
the report.
Limitations to Forming a Community Safety Advisory Board Imposed by Public Employee Labor
Relations
(Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director)
Labor relations with public employee unions in local government agencies are governed by the Meyers-Milias-
Brown Act (“MMBA”).Among the central requirements of the MMBA is that agencies must “meet and confer
in good faith”with public employee unions over wages,hours,and terms and conditions of employment.“Meet
and confer in good faith”means meeting to discuss proposals with the goal of reaching an agreement,
considering and evaluating all proposals,and allowing enough time to meet to discuss the proposals in order to
work towards agreement.Evidence of “good faith bargaining”generally includes,but is not limited to,making
movement on proposals and counterproposals that reflect an attempt to reach agreement,avoiding “regressive
bargaining”(withdrawing prior offers),and allowing sufficient time and frequency of meetings to occur prior to
declaring an impasse.Bargaining agreements are generally contained in Memorandum of Understanding
(“MOU”),however,meet and confer may still be required for other changes to policies or procedures,or
programs, to be implemented by the City.
Mandatory subjects of bargaining include wages,hours,and terms and conditions of employment.These
categories are interpreted broadly,including any changes that could negatively affect such areas.“Terms and
conditions of employment”include a broad range of subjects,including but not limited to safety,job
requirements,employment policies and work rules,and disciplinary procedures.The City is required to meet
and confer over changes to rules,policies,and practices insofar as they concern a change for employees that is
a mandatory subject of bargaining.Under the MMBA,the City is required to provide reasonable written notice
of such changes and the opportunity to meet and confer prior to implementing the change.
The MMBA excludes consideration of the merits,necessity,or organization of work from the scope of
mandatory bargaining,which are generally referred to as “management rights.”However,to the extent that
changes to services or the organization have an effect on wages,hours,or terms and conditions of employment,
the City is still required to meet and confer over the effects of such decisions.A common effect that decisions
may have is a reduction in the workforce.The City has the right to implement a reduction in the workforce,
however,the City must meet and confer with the union over how such changes are implemented.This may
include order of layoff,transfer rights,rehire rights,separation benefits,timing and content of notices,and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 5 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
include order of layoff,transfer rights,rehire rights,separation benefits,timing and content of notices,and
other factors associated with employment changes.Bargaining may also include impacts to the remaining
workforce due to reduced staffing levels.
In the event that the City and the Union are unable to reach agreement during meet and confer,either party may
declare impasse.At this stage,the City would issue a “last best and final offer.”Either party may request
mediation from the State Mediation office,but this is not required.The next stage in the process is a fact-
finding panel.This involves a panel including one panelist appointed by the City,one by the union,and one by
the State Mediation Office. The fact-finding
panel hears evidence on both sides and issues a non-binding recommendation to the City Council.Council may
implement the recommendations, or may impose the terms contained in the City’s last, best and final offer.
In terms of enforcement of the MMBA,either the City or a Union may bring a charge of an unfair labor
practice (violation of the MMBA) before the State Public Employee Relations Board
(“PERB”).Charges of unfair labor practices involving peace officer associations are not within the jurisdiction
of PERB, but disputes of this nature are typically brought before an Administrative Law Judge.
Labor Relations -Disciplinary Actions and Appeals:While most private employment in California is at-
will,federal,state and local government employees (except where explicitly exempted)have due process
protections for their employment and income.This means that disciplinary action involving termination or loss
of pay must be for “good cause,”and employees have a right to advance notice and a pre-disciplinary hearing
prior to the implementation of discipline.In South San Francisco,in accordance with our Personnel Rules and
Regulations,the Department Head issues the proposed discipline in consultation with the Human Resources
Director,and the Assistant City Manager serves as the pre-disciplinary hearing officer.The purpose of the
hearing is to determine whether good cause exists for discipline,which includes but is not limited to factors
such as the nature of the violation,employment history (including history of prior violations or lack thereof),
the degree to which the employee was put on notice of the policy,any mitigating factors or circumstances,and
consistency of penalty among similarly situated employees.
Under the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations,Employee-Employer Relations Resolution,and Union
MOUs,employees also have the right to post-disciplinary appeals.The Police Association MOU contains an
appeal process as follows:For discipline involving less than 40 hours of suspension or wage loss,the discipline
may be appealed to the City Manager,and the final step is an appeal to the City’s Personnel Board.For
discipline involving more than 40 hours (up to termination),the appeal is advanced to the City manager,
followed by binding arbitration.
In binding arbitration,an arbitrator is mutually selected by the parties or assigned by the California State and
Mediation office. The decision of the arbitrator is final and binding.
In addition to MOU provisions,the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights Act (POBR)stipulates procedural
requirements for investigating disciplinary cases,timelines and process for issuing discipline,and
administrative appeal rights.The City retains the right to select an investigator and determine the method of
investigation;however,procedural rules must be followed.Therefore,it is important that the City assigns an
investigator that is familiar with POBR requirements.
Labor Relations -Grievance Procedures:Under the Police Association MOU,binding arbitration is also the
final step to resolve grievances,brought by an employee or the union,alleging that the City has violated the
terms of an MOU.Prior to advancing to arbitration,the grievance is reviewed by the Police Chief,followed by
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 6 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
terms of an MOU.Prior to advancing to arbitration,the grievance is reviewed by the Police Chief,followed by
the City Manager.
Labor Relations -Implications for a Community Safety Advisory Board:The City’s duty to meet and
confer on anything that affects wages,hours and working conditions complicates any role for an Advisory
Board in making recommendations regarding changes to Police policies.When negotiating an MOU,the City
Council works through a negotiator (who may be the Human Resources Director or a consultant hired for this
purpose)and provides direction on bargaining parameters in closed session.If an Advisory Board’s scope
includes recommendations impacting an MOU,or wages,hours or working conditions,including processes for
investigations and appeals of discipline or termination by police officers--the Advisory Board would have to
make those recommendations to the City Council well in advance of the beginning of any bargaining.The City
Council would then decide whether to incorporate the recommendation into direction to the labor negotiator.
Given the time-intensive process of negotiations,it would likely not be feasible to have both Council and
Advisory Board review proposals at each stage of the process.In addition,this may create confusion over
which body has authority to provide direction to the negotiator on various types of proposals.
As noted in the discussion above from the City Attorney,any investigatory role for a community safety
advisory body would be limited because of State law and the processes described in this section,and the City
Attorney’s Office would need to undertake additional research to define the contours of how such a program
would work to ensure the protection of confidential information.
With respect to disciplinary appeals,inclusion of an Advisory Board hearing in this process must be negotiated
with the union and agreed to during MOU negotiations.
A copy of the South San Francisco Police Department’s policy concerning investigations of alleged police
misconduct is attached.
Labor Relations - Legal and Policy Resources
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) Gov. Code § 3500 et. seq.
Police Officers Bill of Rights Act (POBR) Government Code § 3300, et seq
Employee-Employer Relations Resolution City of SSF Municipal Code
City Personnel Rules and Regulations (Approved by City Council Resolution)
Police Association MOU - (Approved by City Council Resolution)
Review of Types of Police Oversight Agencies and Bodies in the United States
With an understanding of the legal limitations imposed by California law,below is a review of the various types
of police oversight agencies in the United States.Specific characteristics of oversight bodies include their size,
term length,member qualifications and ability to implement disciplinary action.Noting the organizational
structure,benchmarks,expert insight in the creation and maintenance of these models aid in the categorization
of high, medium, or low capacity of civilian oversight.
The National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement,(NACOLE)works nationally to build
police accountability and public trust.NACOLE is a non-profit organization that brings together individuals
and agencies working to establish or improve oversight of police officers in the United States.Established in
1995, NACOLE promotes the following:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 7 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
•increase the knowledge and skills of staff members and volunteers who work in oversight;
•act as a resource when considering the creation or revitalization of oversight bodies;
•identifying best practices as they emerge from the experiences of members;
•encouraging networking,communication and information-sharing to counter the isolation inherent in
the profession, and;
•furnishing information to government officials and community representatives that will support their
advocacy of oversight in their states, counties, cities and towns.
NACOLE notes the benefits of oversight include;the protection of civil rights,the support of effective policing,
greater accountability,building bridges,risk management,and increased confidence in police.A published
report in 2018 claims that there are more than 200 oversight boards across the nation but not every jurisdiction
has opted to implement an investigatory model.This is important to note in order to understand the
recommendation for South San Francisco.
Oversight Models
Civilian oversight models typically have three categories with clearly identified characteristics,responsibilities,
and opportunities for community investment.The oversight models include a scope focused on investigation,
review of investigations,and/or a process to auditor-monitor police conduct.There are additional models,such
as an advisory model,and agencies that use multiple models as well.All models may strengthen community
cohesion,promote transparency,and provide alternative spaces to receive,process,review and respond to
citizen complaints.NACOLE recommends selecting an oversight model based on the goals of the community,
level of authority granted to implement change,funding,as well as size and community relationships with the
police department.As a General Law city,South San Francisco’s police oversight body cannot have
investigatory power as Charter Law cities can.An advisory model,however,may be more relevant and
applicable to South San Francisco.To ensure broad understanding of all types of models,a few examples of
investigatory models are shared below for context, along with a discussion of an advisory model.
Investigative Model
Investigative oversight models operate independently of police departments and are proven effective in spaces
of heightened community distrust of local police departments.These oversight bodies are often assigned to
agencies that monitor or contract with outside investigators to address complaints against law enforcement.
This type of board or commission has authorization to investigate pre-identified classes of complaints and
allegations as set by the establishing body,for example,the City Council.Members/investigators within this
model must be trained to identify police policy with supporting evidence in which a complaint or allegation is
founded;conduct witness interviews of both civilian and police;gather evidence,prepare investigative reports,
and make recommendations of findings based on evidence reviewed.One strength of this model is the use of
full-time civilian investigators with highly specialized training,which may reduce bias in investigation into
citizen complaints and rebuild trust.
Identified weaknesses include cost and opposition from local police departments.Investigative models increase
costs to staff whether or not investigators are paid through the police department or oversight
board/commission.Though community trust is strengthened through this model there is a high level of
resistance from police personnel to partner with non-police investigators and the propensity of community
disillusionment due to slow process to make transformational change.It is also likely that the structure of the
investigative model to address specific individual complaints may not address larger systemic issues of policing
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 8 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
and community relations.
Review-focused Model
The review-focused model allows the community the opportunity to review the quality of completed police
internal affairs investigations.Variations of authority are based on the professional attainment of the staff;size
of the review agency and the time allotted to review and provide feedback on closed Internal Affairs
investigations.In a review-focused model,authority includes the ability to receive and forward complaints to
authorized investigators,return cases to internal affairs for further investigation,hear appeals,make
recommendations for disposition, discipline, policy or procedure revision.
The opportunity for community input into the complaint process and community outreach efforts is considered
a strength of review-focused models.Collecting community input and facilitating police-community
conversations addresses law enforcement transparency and involves a multi-stakeholder engagement to
improve communication strategies and rebuild trust.
Auditor/Monitor-Focused Model
The auditor/monitor-focused model is an attempt to advance systemic change in police policy and trend
analysis and was developed out of opposition to civilian or investigative review boards.
Auditor/monitor oversight models may encompass a director of an oversight program to perform ongoing
reviews of the overall complaint process.This ongoing engagement includes the complaint intake process
(received from multiple avenues to ensure equity and accessibility);classification of complaints (probable
misconduct),investigation (interviews and evidence gathering),report (timely,thorough,objective),and
analysis (fact-based,need of supervision or training,corrective measures or discipline);and assistance with
dispute resolution.The auditor-monitor model provides the most in depth and efficient engagement of
community complaints of police conduct.This model is recognized to promote broad organizational change by
conducting systematic reviews of police policies,practices or training and making recommendations for
improvement and while being less expensive than full investigate agencies,but more expensive than review-
focused agencies.
Strengths of the auditor/monitor model include their effectiveness in recognizing and identifying gaps in
handling complaints,areas of bias in investigations,recommending the necessary tools for capacity building,
technical support, and providing training on policy, supervision, and the consistency of fair discipline.
Challenges associated with this model include a high level of expertise required to conduct systematic policy
evaluations.Additionally,the primary focus on examining broad patterns rather than individual cases may be
treated with skepticism by the local community.Data collection is a time-consuming process and the trends that
come from the data are often grossly underreported by prioritized and vulnerable populations.This creates a
“gap”in the trends as unreported complaints of misconduct are not brought to the attention of the
auditor/monitor agency.This concern often results in calls for additional oversight that the model has not
accounted for, adding to the systemic maltreatment often experienced by marginalized communities.
Advisory Model
As a General Law city must keep personnel records and investigations confidential,the previous typical models
of investigative,review,and auditor would not be well-suited to South San Francisco.An advisory model is an
additional model that has features that would be better-suited to South City.In an advisory model,the oversight
body can make recommendations on policy and operational strategies.An advisory board may include
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 9 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
body can make recommendations on policy and operational strategies.An advisory board may include
members of the public and advocate for strategies to improve public safety.Some boards consider part of their
task to “reimagine community safety.” The following models provide further examples:
Mountain View, CA
The Mountain View Public Safety Advisory Board was formed recently to connect community members to the
City.The Board makes recommendations to the City Council,City Manager,and the Police Chief.This
includes recommendations around community policing and best practices.The Board provides a space for
community discussion and liaises between the community and Police Department.The Board is solely advisory
and does not investigate complaints.
Mountain View’s Advisory Board is also tasked with developing a work plan to be approved by City Council
based on 2020 discussions of the Ad-Hoc Council Subcommittee on Race,Equity,and Inclusion.Topics
discussed include mental health service calls,demographic data on Police Department contact,community
listening sessions, and others.
Walnut Creek, CA
The Walnut Creek Chief’s Community Advisory Board serves to connect community members to the Chief.
The Board receives data,develops community policing strategies,researches best practices,increases public
awareness,and ultimately aims to improve transparency for the Police Department and police-community
relations.It provides a space for community conversations and relays information to the Chief.The Board
functions solely in an advisory capacity and does not review or investigate complaints.
Hayward, CA
The Hayward Community Advisory Panel also serves to connect the community to the Chief.The Panel may
provide a sounding board for the Chief in addition to providing community perspectives,including flagging
certain policies or procedures.The panel may look into community policing,educate the community,liaise with
the community,and improve public awareness.The entity does not conduct police investigations,review
disciplinary actions,or set policy.The Panel serves to strengthen partnerships between the Police Department
and the community,including by increasing the Police Department’s “understanding of the perspectives of
community members who have not traditionally been engaged or included by the department.”
Hybrid Model
In response to community demands and with the aim of improving police accountability,oversight systems are
often merged with others,serve in conjunction with others,or are redesigned to strengthen capacity of existing
oversight models.Though the basic tenet of investigatory power in the typical models is not possible in a
General Law city,some of the associated functions,such as reviewing complaints,may be possible in South
San Francisco. A few examples of hybrid models with some functions possible in South City are listed below:
Anaheim, California
In 2014,Anaheim launched a two-year pilot program regarding civilian police oversight.The City created the
Public Safety Board in response to protests and civilian unrest that erupted following two fatal officer-involved
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 10 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Public Safety Board in response to protests and civilian unrest that erupted following two fatal officer-involved
shooting incidents.In 2018,the City formally established the new Police Review Board.According to its
website,the Board receives “real-time input on major police incidents,”reviews current and proposed police
department policies,and reports statistics on officer-involved shootings,uses of force,and complaints.
Anaheim also employs the Los Angeles-based Office of Independent Review as an external auditor for its
police department.
Sacramento, California
Civilian oversight was initiated in Sacramento in 1999 with the creation of the Office of Public Safety
Accountability,which tracks and monitors serious police-misconduct investigations.In 2016,the City added
the Community Police Review Commission to its oversight structure.The new entity was created to review and
recommend police department policies and practices and to “monitor the implementation,evaluation,and
sustainability of city policing initiatives and programs.
Buffalo, New York
In 2017,facing increasing community concerns regarding the conduct of Buffalo police officers,the City
agreed to form a community advisory board.At that time,the Buffalo Police Department was overseen by the
Buffalo Common Council’s Police Oversight Committee.In May 2018,the Buffalo Common Council
unanimously adopted a resolution that created the Community Advisory Board,made up of eleven residents,to
make recommendations to the Common Council and the Buffalo Police Department.The Board conducts
public meetings to hear community concerns and reports its findings and recommendations to the Common
Council’s Police Oversight Committee.The Community Advisory Board complements the oversight provided
by the Police Oversight Committee.
Details of other oversight agencies are attached in Appendix A.Additional models not covered include
adjudicative, appeals, and supervisory models.
Barriers to Police Oversight
Civilian oversight is most successful with full participation and adequate resource investment.Barriers to
effective oversight and accountability include the interdependence and close-knit relationships between police
commissions and police departments.“Police policing the police,”has been identified to lack true checks and
balances on misconduct and poor policing practices.Lack of resources contribute to unequal distribution of
power and responsibility to maintain community safety and ensure accountability. Additional barriers include:
•oversight teams that are not independent from police;
•police and police union-imposed restrictions on what information oversight teams’ access and release;
•politicians compromising rather than sufficiently empowering oversight teams;
•municipalities inadequately funding oversight teams so they cannot perform the full range of oversight
necessary;
•municipalities inadequately funding and supporting oversight teams to ensure that members are
perceived as lacking professionalism or expertise;
•communities lack the expertise of evaluation and review processes;
•lack of diverse selection of evaluators,investigators,auditors to support the racial and equitable change
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 11 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
•lack of diverse selection of evaluators,investigators,auditors to support the racial and equitable change
in oversight, and
•civilian oversight authority is subject to organized labor protections and city law provisions on boards
and commissions
An ill equipped and untrained oversight body is positioned to fail.Most effective oversight models are
independent from police departments making their recommendations more trusted from the community.
Strength in authority or capacity does not necessarily attest to a more effective body.The effectiveness of
civilian oversight is difficult to measure as no oversight model is the same.However,with true metrics in place
to monitor the number of complaints addressed,the time needed to address them,and the level of engagement
civilian review agencies have in administrative policy and practices,communities can be aided in the
achievement of a level of law enforcement accountability and reductions in police misconduct.
Other National, State and Local Initiatives
Outside of a community forming its own oversight agency,there are legislative and advocacy efforts to
influence and/or direct the activities and policies surrounding public safety.National and state laws have been
implemented to address law enforcement conduct.A few of these are included for context on the national
policing landscape, and examples include the following:
•Banning chokeholds: Assembly Bill -1196 Peace Officers: Use of Force
•Investigation of use of force: Assembly Bill 1506 Peace Officers: Use of Force
National laws in discussion include
1.George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021-passed the House March 3,2021 awaiting on the vote of
the Senate Fact Sheet: George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020
•comprehensive package to address police accountability,end racial profiling,support a culture shift
related to law enforcement that empowers communities and works to build trust
2.Justice for Breonna Taylor Act (S.3955)introduced June 11,2020 read in the Senate and referred to
Committee on the Judiciary :
•Prohibits no-knock warrants
•Unanimously passed by Louisville, Kentucky metro council
•Other states are adopting
South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD)had also adopted the Eight Can’t Wait framework and fully
complies with seven of the eight policy changes;while partially complying to one.SSFPD is consistent with
and aligned with state and national requirements and also participates in ongoing training which includes but is
not limited to:
•Bias- Based Policing - Remaining Fair & Impartial
•Crisis Intervention
•Defensive Tactics
•Domestic Violence
•First Aid/CPR
•Racial Profiling & Cultural Awareness
•Sexual Harassment
•Strategic and Tactical Communication
•Use of Force - Decision Making Simulators
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 12 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
•Use of Force - Totality of the Circumstances
•Workplace Violence
Proposed Model for South San Francisco:
Considering the various police oversight models around the country,and the legal limitations placed on South
San Francisco as a General Law city,a hybrid advisory community safety board is recommended for South San
Francisco.The proposed name is the Community Equity and Safety Advisory Board or VOICES -Vision of
Inclusive Community Equity and Safety.Though without investigatory or audit power,the board could have
some functions of a review board in that it can review and forward complaints.
Focusing on a holistic approach to community safety which includes housing,education,social services and
policing,the Equity and Safety Advisory Board aims to provide comprehensive overview of policies and
procedures throughout South San Francisco.The Equity and Safety Advisory Board may achieve not only
transparency and accountability but also a reduction in fear associated with law enforcement,while offering
enhanced safety nets that support communities previously harmed by isolation and systemic injustice.The
Equity and Safety Advisory Board also seeks to build trust and bolster community participation and decision
making.
The Equity and Safety Advisory Board will use an equity lens to reduce disparities in public safety and promote
fair treatment.This will include investment in arenas that promote and create safe,healthy,and thriving
communities, as well as strengthening partnerships that aid in crime reduction.
The Equity and Safety Advisory Board will implement data collection and track progress using measures that
are meaningful to the community.It will provide a safe space for residents to raise issues of racial and/or social
equity which impact all areas of our city,including public safety,and will provide an environment for making
recommendations for change.Final decision-making authority remains with the City Manager,City Council,
and/or Police Chief depending on the nature of the policy change or procedure requested.
The Equity and Safety Advisory Board would function with an emphasis on promoting racial and social equity
in South San Francisco with authority to do the following:
•Make recommendations which are publicly available,that will assist in identifying areas to improve
equity, diversity and inclusion in all areas, including public safety;
•Initiate and lead courageous and honest conversations that increase employee and community awareness
and accountability to issues of race, privilege and inequity;
•Act as a liaison between the community,law enforcement,City Council,and other Boards and
Commissions;
•Promote and adhere to transparency models and periodically share its efforts externally to encourage
equity and inclusion among the community and officials;
•Keep the Police Chief apprised of the community’s need for police services,and assist in informing the
community’s need for police services, disaster preparedness, and function and role of the SSFPD;
•Review policies and practices,and advocate for early intervention strategies that minimize involvement
of youth in the criminal justice system;
•Promote positive police-community relations in an effort to provide better services and expectations
from the community and police;
•Receive and forward complaints regarding police personnel for alleged misconduct,designing an
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 13 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
•Receive and forward complaints regarding police personnel for alleged misconduct,designing an
alternative way for members of the public to make a complaint.The resulting investigation would be
conducted by an outside investigator retained by Human Resources or the City Attorney’s Office.
The complaint and investigation process would be designed to respect the rights of both
complainants and the officer who is the subject of the complaint.It would also and maintain
consistency with applicable State and Federal law,the General City Law framework,and Bargaining
Agreements between the unions representing police officers and the City;
•Receive,collect,and publish data on police interactions and other aspects of public safety and equity,
including data on types of complaints,though these will be aggregated so as to not show
confidential information;
•Recommend appropriate changes of public safety policies and procedures toward the goals of
safeguarding the rights of persons and promoting higher standards of competency,efficiency and
justice in the provision of community public safety services;
•Work within national,state and local law,and collective bargaining agreements to build a collaborative
process to maintain community safety and equity;
•Provide intentional and effective community outreach to stay apprised of community concerns, and;
Establish rules of conduct,bylaws,etc.with a racial and social equity lens.Composition of the South
San Francisco Community Equity Safety Advisory Board:
•Refer to the South San Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity Action Plan for specific
guidance and recommended criteria for the selection of advisory board members
•Volunteer advisory board with nine members plus one alternate,with staggered four-year teams,
appointed by the City Council following the standard model used for other South San Francisco
Boards and Commissions; or
•Alternatively,each Councilmember appoint one advisory board member from their respective district,
with the remaining four members and the alternate appointed by the City Council following the
standard model used for other South San Francisco Boards and Commissions
•Board members must be residents of South San Francisco;
•If City Council decides to follow the model of each Councilmember appointing a member from his or
her district,the appointing Councilmember will retain the option of replacing the appointed board
member without cause at any time;
•Alternatively,members may be removed by a Council vote for any or no reason,as applies to other
Boards and as may be updated in the Municipal Code
•Applications, interviews and appointments are conducted when vacancies occur;
•City Council is encouraged to consider appointment of members that represent or demonstrate
knowledge of the experiences of limited-English speakers,people who are unhoused,and/or people
living with mental illness and/or substance use disorders.Council is also encouraged to consider a
diverse membership along race,gender,sexuality,age,national origin,and other characteristics,and
to include diverse communities such as those that have been impacted by the justice system (e.g.,
people who have been arrested,youth whose parents were incarcerated),faith communities,and
small business owners.If possible,it would be ideal to include at least one member with some level
of expertise in law and/or labor relations.
CONCLUSION
The formation of a Community Equity and Safety Advisory Board can further the goals of the South San
Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity,providing a community forum to address issues of public
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 14 of 15
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-640 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity,providing a community forum to address issues of public
safety and a permanent body to continue the work of the Commission in the arena of racial and social equity.
Considering the limitations imposed by California law,and tailoring an Advisory Board model to meet the
needs in South San Francisco,the formation of a formal,permanent advisory body addressing public safety and
equity concerns is recommended,to be named the Community Equity and Safety Advisory Board or Vision of
Inclusive Community Equity and Safety - VOICES.
City Staff request feedback from City Council on whether to pursue the establishment of an equity and safety
advisory board and,if so,the composition and role of such a board.If directed to move forward,City Staff will
take direction from City Council,revise and finalize a proposal to create a new advisory board and return to
City Council at a future meeting for further consideration and possible City Council action.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 15 of 15
powered by Legistar™
1
September 15, 2021
SSF VOICES:
SSF Vision of Inclusive
Community Equity and Safety
2
Agenda
Share CRSE Context
Share Main Recommendation
Review Limits of California Law on Forming Police Oversight Bodies
Review Limitations Imposed by Public Employee Labor Relations
Provide Overview of Existing Models
Review the Advisory Board Model
Make Recommendations for SSF
Recommended Responsibilities
Recommended Composition of a Board
3
SSF Commission on Racial and Social Equity
The CRSE developed a Final Report and Action Plan
Main components:
1 -DEI staff position
2 -Criminal justice system
CWCRT
Equity Advisory Board
Community engagement
3 -Target resources
Promotores
Community Resource Center
Housing insecurity
Educational resources
4 -Land use planning
Equity Board is:
•Central to Action Plan
•Able to further equity
across City
4
Advisory powers +
complaint review
Focuses on a
holistic approach to
community safety
which includes
housing, education,
social services and
policing
Recommendation for SSF: Hybrid Advisory Board
Commissioners have expressed support for a SSF
Community Equity & Safety Advisory Board that will:
Review data on equity and public safety
Make recommendations
Receive citizen complaints regarding law
enforcement misconduct
Foster community trust
Address institutional and structural racism
5
•SSF is organized as a General Law City,
which means it only has the powers
granted to it under State law.
•State law expressly assigns control over the
police department to the Police Chief.
•State law treats public employee personnel
records as private and confidential.
Under state law, police personnel
records have heightened protections.
General Law City Overview Voters
City Council
City Manager
City Administration
Department Heads and Staff
6
Per State law and Municipal Code, the City Manager has authority over:
•Hiring, firing, and discipline for all City employees
•Policies and procedures for the administration of the City
Per State law and case law:
•Police Chief has authority over policies and
procedures for some aspects of policing
•Police officer personnel records—including
investigation reports—are required to be
confidential
General Law City: Roles + Responsibilities
An Advisory Board can:
Review and recommend changes
to policies and procedures
Gather community input on
policies and procedures to inform
their recommendations
7
Public Employees: Labor Relations
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (“MMBA”)”:
Requires public agencies to “meet and confer in good
faith” over wages, hours, and terms and conditions
of employment with represented labor groups.
Does not require the agencies to bargain over the
“merits, necessity or organization of work.”
However, agencies have the duty to bargain over the effects of such decisions on the
represented workforce, including any policy decisions.
An Advisory Board
can identify policies
and procedures to
consider in the
bargaining process
8
Public Employees: Discipline + Appeals Process
“Due process” rights for employment and income
Disciplinary action involving termination or loss
of pay must be for “good cause” or “just cause”.
Entitlement to a pre-disciplinary hearing and
post-disciplinary appeals process.
Police Officer’s Bill of Rights requires an administrative
appeals process for punitive action.
Final step of the appeal process includes
the Personnel Board or Binding Arbitration
An Advisory Board can
educate community about
complaint process, receive
complaints, refer
complaints to investigation
process, and track trends
around complaints
9
Recap: What’s possible?
An oversight body in SSF can:
Review and recommend changes to policies and procedures in all areas
Can look at policy in the bargaining process
Gather community input on policies and procedures to inform their
recommendations
Field and refer complaints, track trends around complaints, educate community
about complaint process
10
Questions for SSF HR or City Attorney?
Overview of Existing Models
12
Police Oversight Models
Investigative
Review-focused
Auditor/Monitor-focused
Advisory
Hybrid
Common Types of Accountability + Oversight Bodies
13
Summary of Police Oversight Models
•Operate independently of
police departments
•Address complaints against
law enforcement
•Has authorization to
investigate certain
complaints
•Atlanta, GA
•Chicago, IL
•Long Beach, CA
•Review the quality of
completed police internal
affairs investigations
•Receive and forward
complaints
•Hear appeals
•Make recommendations for
discipline, policy or procedure
revision
•Baltimore, MD
•San Diego, CA
•Las Vegas, NV
•Perform ongoing reviews of
complaint process
•Promote organizational
change by conducting
systematic review of police
policies, practices, or trainings
•Fresno, CA
•County of Los Angeles
•Wichita, KS
Investigative Review Auditor/Monitor
14
•Provide recommendations regarding community issues
•Seek input from diverse groups of community members
•Collaborate between the community, community safety
departments, law enforcement agencies
•Conduct research
•Provide skilled volunteer services
•Focus on solution building, receiving citizen complaints, crime reduction, and disaster
preparedness
Community Safety Advisory Boards
Places with Community
Safety Advisory Boards
•Mountain View
•Walnut Creek
•Hayward
15
Examples: Advisory Board
Walnut Creek, CA
•Solely advisory
•Collects data
•Resource for the
Chief, formation of
strategies and
transparency
Mountain View, CA
•Proposing a work
plan for City
Council
•Provides
community
informed input
and
recommendations
on public safety
Hayward, CA
•Sounding board and
feedback to Chief of Police
•Strengthens relationship
with community
16
Examples: Hybrid Board
National City, CA
•Members appointed
by mayor and
residents
•Provides forum for
citizens to voice their
concerns about police
conduct and
practices, receive and
review complaints
regarding the police
department
Portland, OR
•Members are
public officials
•Provides
community input
to the Equity and
Inclusion Office,
advises on the
Racial Equity Plan
Anaheim, CA
•Provides real-time input on
major police incidents
•Review current and
proposed police
department policies
•Reports statistics on
officer-involved shootings,
use of force, complaints
17
Why this recommendation?
•Based on a review of
research
•Based on the legal and
HR specific
considerations in SSF
•Advisory Board +
complaint review
Recommendation for SSF: Hybrid Advisory Board
Goals for Advisory Board in SSF
•Make recommendations to policy and
procedures
•Enhance safety nets that support
communities previously harmed by isolation
and systemic injustice
•Achieve transparency and accountability
•Bolster community participation and decision
making
•Build trust
18
Role: Liaison between the community, community safety departments, City Council, and
commissions
Initiate and lead conversations to increase employee and community awareness related to race +
inequities
Provide effective community outreach, host community forums and listening sessions, stay apprised
of community concerns
Inform the community of public safety services and promote positive police-community relations
Keep the Police Chief apprised of community’s needs for police services, disaster preparedness, and
assist in informing the community about the function and role of SSFPD
Review and publish data on racial and social disparities, utilization of health and social services, public
safety, police complaints, and other equity information
Recommended Responsibilities (1 of 2)
19
Role: Make recommendations related to equity and community safety
Make recommendations to improve equity, diversity, and inclusion in all areas and related
to public safety, including through changes of public safety policies and procedures
Review policies and practices and advocate for early intervention strategies that minimize
involvement of youth in criminal justice system
Establish rules of conduct, bylaws, etc. with a racial and social equity lens
Design an alternative way through which community members may submit complaints
about alleged misconduct
Recommended Responsibilities (2 of 2)
20
Volunteer advisory board
9 members and 1 alternate member
Members appointed by City Council
One per district, 4 at large
Or by standard model, where Council appoints all 9
Council will be able to replace an appointee at any time
Four-year terms
Recommended Composition for SSF Community Safety + Equity Advisory Board
21
Recommended Composition for SSF Community Safety + Equity Advisory Board
Board should reflect SSF’s demographics
Members must be residents of SSF
The body is encouraged to have a diverse membership
Consider:
•Limited-English speakers
•People who are unhoused
•People living with mental illness and/or substance use disorders
•Justice-impacted individuals
•Members of faith communities
•Small business owners
•People with expertise in law and/or public administration
22
Questions?
Appendix A:
A. Community Safety Advisory Board models
1. Walnut Creek, California: Chief's Community Advisory Board
Population: 70,812
Composition:
The Chief’s Community Advisory Board (CAB) is established under the direction of the Chief of
Police.
The Board will be comprised of 10-15 stakeholders, featuring a diverse cross-section of active
community members throughout the City of Walnut Creek. These members will represent a
range of interests and experience, such as business owners, education, non- profits, public
relations, faith community, youth representation, and more.
Members must be Walnut Creek residents or Walnut Creek business owners and are selected
from the pool of applicants by the Chief of Police, a community representative and the City’s
Communications and Outreach Manager. Members are chosen to serve on the board for their
professionalism, integrity and commitment to their community.
The term for board members is limited to two years to allow for greater participation by all
interested parties.
Extensions for sitting on the board will be considered on an individual basis at the discretion of
the Chief of Police. Members may be removed prior to the end of their term at the discretion of
the Chief of Police
Primary function
The Board is created to act as a resource for the Chief in the formation of strategies, development
of community policing concepts, increasing public awareness, furthering engagement and
transparency efforts and identifying best practices. The Board is intended to provide a forum for
discussions concerning community issues and the goal is to have a broad spectrum of viewpoints
represented. The Walnut Creek Police Department is committed to community engagement and
providing exceptional and transparent police services.
The committee will be provided with an annual summary of statistics such the number of police
uses of force, the number of police pursuits, crime rates, and the number of citizen complaints
received.
The CAB meets on the third Thursday of every month, currently in a virtual setting. It is
expected that each board member will contribute and provide input on the topics the board and
Chief of Police deem appropriate and timely.
Capacity
The CAB acts solely in an advisory capacity and will be driven by the active participation,
creativity and vision of its members. It will not receive or review complaints initiated against
personnel of the Walnut Creek Police Department, nor play any role in civil or criminal
litigation.
Although the CAB is expected to be proactive, it will not have power or authority to investigate,
review or otherwise participate in matters involving specific police personnel or specific police-
related incidents.
Purpose:
To carry out its purpose, the Board will address issues associated with police-community
relations, the improvement of the Walnut Creek Police Department’s operations, and public
safety issues in order to further enhance the quality of life in our community. The CAB will act
as a sounding board for the Chief regarding community needs and concerns, keep the Chief
apprised of the community’s need for police services, and assist in informing the community at
large about the function and role of the Walnut Creek Police Department. The Board will focus
on contemporary challenges that impact the community and its Police Department. Examples of
topics include, but are not limited to, the following: Use of Force Mental Health Response
Criminal activity and trends Transparency Homelessness Technology.
Media:
Mental health issue shouldn’t be a death sentence
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Family-of-mentally-ill-man-shot-dead-by-Walnut-
15579414.php
2. Mountain View, California: Public Safety Advisory Board
Population: 81,656
Composition:
The City of Mountain View Public Safety Advisory Board was established in 2020. The PSAB
includes up to seven members.
Appointments to the first PSAB will include three positions serving 2-year terms expiring in
2023 and four positions serving 4-year terms expiring in 2025. Subsequent appointments to the
PSAB will all be for 4-year terms.
To bring diverse representation to the PSAB, the City Council strives to appoint members from
different neighborhoods, of varying ages, races, professions and cultures.
The PSAB will have a staff liaison and receive support from both the City Manager’s Office and
Police Department.
Melvin Gaines, Principal Management Analyst from the City Manager’s Office, serves as the
lead staff liaison. The lead liaison is responsible for developing the agenda and overseeing the
information and recommendations presented to the PSAB. Captain Michael Canfield serves as a
support liaison from the Police Department.
Primary function:
Advise and make recommendations to the City Council, City Manager and Police Chief on
public safety matters.
The PSAB will review topics discussed at the Ad-Hoc Council Subcommittee on Race, Equity,
and Inclusion meetings in 2020 and propose a work plan for City Council approval. Potential
work plan items include review of MVPD contact data demographics, exploration of alternative
responses to mental health related calls for service, and review of community input from the
Human Relations Commissions 2020 community listening forums on local policing, MVPD x
Partnering for the Future participants and other sources.
Capacity:
The Public Safety Advisory Board serves solely in an advisory capacity.
Purpose:
Providing the City Council, City Manager and Police Chief with community informed input and
recommendations on public safety matters
Serving as a forum for public discussion of public safety matters, including community policing
concepts, furthering MVPD engagement and transparency efforts, and identifying best practices
Acting as a liaison between the community and Police Department
Resource:
City of Mountain View Race, Equity and Inclusion Action Plan
Media:
Mountain View’s Commitment On Race, Equity And Inclusion
https://patch.com/california/mountainview/mountain-views-commitment-race-equity-inclusion
3. Hayward, California: Hayward Police Department Community Advisory Panel
Population: 158, 089
Composition:
Members of the Community Advisory Panel (C.A.P.) are selected from a pool of Hayward
community members recommended by members of the City Council. At its inception, each City
Council Member will recommend two to three community members for consideration.
Members will be selected following the approval of a majority of the Chief of Police, the City
Manager, and the Mayor.
The Chief of Police, City Manager, and Mayor will hold equal stakes in the decision- making
process and no one member will be able to override another.
The Chief of Police, City Manager, and Mayor may involve additional staff, City commissioners,
or other City officials in the selection process but will retain their decision-making power.
The C. A. P. will be led by the Chief of Police or his/her chosen Chairperson. Members will serve
a renewable two-year term. At its inception, half of the original members will serve an initial two-
year term and half will serve an initial one-year term. This is solely to establish rotating terms.
Panel members may serve a maximum of three (3) terms. The number of panel members selected
to represent the community shall be at least eight (8) and a maximum of twelve (12).
Primary function:
The C.A.P. was created to provide the Chief of Police and Hayward Police Department with
direct community input and provide community members with direct access to the Chief about
perceived issues related to the department, the formation of strategies and concepts around
community policing, increase public awareness and provide neutral, third-party insight that
supports a productive and inclusive exchange of ideas to be considered in the department’s
decision-making process.
Acting as a sounding board for the Chief of Police regarding community needs and concerns; as
well as provide community feedback about proposed police programs and priorities.
Assisting in educating the community at large about the function and role of the Hayward Police
Department.
Connecting with community members, particularly persons or communities who may be
reluctant to approach the department on their own, to better understand the needs of the
community and how the Hayward Police Department can support meeting those needs.
Advising the Chief of Police directly about the public perception or perceived image of the
Hayward Police Department or any specific aspect of it.
Capacity:
The scope of the panel does not include participation in departmental disciplinary actions, legal
issues, ongoing criminal or internal investigations, or active critical incidents. The panel does not
make or dictate department policy and is not a policy-making body
Purpose:
The purpose of the C.A.P. is to strengthen the relationship between HPD and Hayward
community members by creating a structured and intentional vehicle for dialogue between
community members and the Hayward Police Department. In strengthening this relationship,
HPD aims to advance the following ideals:
Ensure that the Chief and HPD personnel receive timely information and feedback about
community concerns, crime, policing practices, and policies directly from community members
that will be incorporated into the decision-making process;
Build stronger partnerships between the department and the Hayward community to reduce
crime and improve safety for all community members; and
Develop a pathway for increasing HPD’s understanding of the perspectives of community
members who have not traditionally been engaged or included by the department and including
those perspectives in policy development.
Resource:
Hayward Police Department Community Advisory Panel Roles and Responsibilities
Media:
Hayward police shooting: Body cam footage released
B. Investigative Model Cities
1. Atlanta, Georgia: The Atlanta Citizen Review Board (ACRB)
Population: 6 million +, Metropolitan area
Composition:
ACRB Appointment Structure (Code Section: 2-2202)
One (1) member shall be appointed by the Mayor
One (1) member shall be appointed by the City Council
One (1) member shall be appointed by the President of Council with previous experience as a
law enforcement professional.
One (1) member shall be appointed by Neighborhood Planning Unit (NPU) Group A – F
One (1) member shall be appointed by NPU Group G – L
One (1) member shall be appointed by NPU Group M – R
One (1) member shall be appointed by NPU Group S – Z
One (1) member shall be appointed from the Gate City Bar Association
One (1) member shall be appointed from the Atlanta Bar Association
One (1) member shall be appointed by the League of Women Voters
One (1) member shall be appointed by the Atlanta Business League
*Note: The members of the ACRB may make recommendations to the Mayor, President of
Council and Council members of prospective members to be appointed by the Board.
ACRB Composition of Board (Code Section: 2-2203)
For the purpose of section 2-2202(A)(4), experience as a law enforcement professional shall
include experience as a police officer, criminal investigator, special agent or managerial or
supervisory employee who exercised substantial policy discretion on law enforcement matters in
a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, other than experience as an attorney in a
prosecutorial agency.
Other selected shall have skills and experience in areas relevant to the work of the Board. Areas
that should be represented are: civil rights work and litigation; community and business
leadership; and relevant academic expertise.
No member of the Board shall hold any other public office or hold employment with the City of
Atlanta
The chair of the Board will be elected by the Board from among its members. At the first
meeting of the Board it shall, by majority vote of all of its members, adopt rules governing the
conduct of its meetings, proceedings and other procedural matters.
To enable the Board to conduct its work, the Board is authorized to hire its own Director and
appropriate investigative and clerical staff. Additional staff support to the Board shall be
provided by the Office of the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Department and Corrections upon
the request of the Board.
Primary function:
“The Atlanta Citizen Review Board investigates and mediates cases of alleged police misconduct
by sworn officers of the Atlanta Police Department (APD) and the Atlanta Department of
Corrections (ADC).”
An explanation of the ACRB’s complaint procedures shall be made to all police and corrections
officers in a general order to be included in the manual of rules and procedures of a law
enforcement unit and be included in the training program for new corrections and police officers.
Each member of the ACRB receives training on the issues of abusive language, false
imprisonment, harassment, use of excessive force, serious bodily injury, death which is alleged
to be the result of the actions of an employee of the Department of Corrections or Police.
Capacity:
The Board shall advise the Mayor, the President of Council, Council members and the Chief of
Police and the Chief of Corrections on policies and actions of the Police and Corrections
Department with the purpose of improving the ability of police personnel to carry out their duties
and to improve the relationship between the Department, Corrections and the community.
The Board shall have the power to conduct investigations and public hearings.
The Board shall have full discretion to select appropriate individual incidents to review and
broader issues to study which may be of concern to the community, the Police and Corrections;
provided, however, that the Board shall, to the best extent possible, minimize duplication of
effort between the Board and any other existing agencies which have jurisdiction over the same
matter. The Mayor, the President of Council, Council members and the Chiefs of Police and
Corrections, and other responsible officials shall ensure that all such agencies cooperate to the
greatest extent possible in the performance of their respective activities, studies and operations.
The Board may initiate studies upon request to the Board by any member of the public or the
Police Department and the Department of Corrections or at the Board’s own discretion. The
Board may review specific complaints or incidents of misconduct against individual police
officers; including those involving language related to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual
orientation or disability.
In order to accomplish its goals as set forth above, the Board shall, have full access to relevant
Police Department and Corrections personnel for interview and to relevant documents.
All employees of Atlanta City government are hereby directed to fully cooperate with the Board
by promptly producing documents, records, files and any other information that the Board may
request. In addition, employees on request of the Board, shall be available to meet with and be
available to meet with and be interviewed by, the Board or its representatives and/or to testify
before the Board.
Purpose:
This impartial body of citizens serves to help ensure the highest level of equality under the law
for all people by providing a voice to citizens of the Atlanta community at large.
Resource:
(Ordinance and bylaws attached) https://acrbgov.org/service/ordinance-bylaws/
Media:
Executive Director for The Atlanta Citizen Review Board Calls for More Community
Involvement
How police killing of Rayshard Brooks could empower Atlanta’s Citizen Review Board.
2. Chicago, Illinois: Civilian Office of Police Accountability
Population: 9.5 Million, Metro Area
Composition:
COPA is comprised of a diverse staff with many years of investigative and legal experience.
COPA’s Chief Administrator is required to be an experienced attorney in criminal, civil rights,
labor law, corporate and/or governmental investigations.
As of October 31, 2019, there are 145 budgeted positions (COPA Team )
All investigators (60) completed a weeks-long training program called COPA Academy, which
provides our investigative and legal staff training on investigative processes, practices and
principles. The hands-on-training is taught by subject matter experts and COPA senior
leadership, and covers a variety of subjects, including implicit bias, complaint intake, procedural
justice, investigative strategies and tactics, and legal concepts.
Primary function:
COPA receives complaints from residents and individual police officers, as well as incident
notifications from the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Some of these complaints fall within
COPA’s jurisdiction, whereas others fall within CPD’s Bureau of Internal Affair’s (BIA)
jurisdiction. These complaints are sorted and classified based on which investigative body has
jurisdiction over the matter
Capacity:
On October 5, 2016, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance to establish the COPA, which
replaced the Independent Police Review Authority as the civilian oversight agency of the Chicago
Police Department. Under the direction of the Chief Administrator, COPA is directly responsible
for:
conducting investigations into allegations of the use of excessive force, domestic violence, verbal
abuse, coercion, improper search or seizure, and unlawful denial of access to counsel.
investigating all incidents, including those in which no allegation of misconduct is made,
involving an officer’s discharge of a firearm, an officer’s discharge of a stun gun or taser in a
manner that results in death or serious bodily injury, where a person has died or sustained serious
bodily injury while in police custody, and all incidents of an “officer-
involved death.”
COPA also has the power to investigate patterns and practices of misconduct in any form.
Effective April 13, 2018 - based on information obtained through such investigations, to make
policy recommendations to improve the Chicago Police Department and thereby reduce incidents
of police misconduct within its jurisdiction with integrity, transparency, independence, and
timeliness.
Purpose:
It is COPA’s vision to contribute to the public safety of all Chicagoans by promoting quality and
fair policing and police accountability. COPA performs the intake function for all allegations of
misconduct made against members of the Chicago Police Department. The goal of every COPA
investigation is to determine whether allegations of misconduct are well-founded, applying a
preponderance of the evidence standard; to identify and address patterns of police misconduct;
Civilian Office of Police Accountability Rules and Regulations.
COPA strives to conduct investigations with the highest level of integrity and independence in
order to make findings based on a thorough review of the evidence and accurate legal analysis,
without regard for political influence
Resource:
COPA Investigative Procedures
COPA Ordinance in Relation to Police Oversight
Media:
Appeals court tosses $44.7 million verdict by off duty Chicago cop
3. Long Beach, California: The Citizen Police Complaint Commission
Population: 463, 218
Composition:
The Citizen Police Complaint Commission shall be composed of eleven (11) members who are
broadly representative of the racial, ethnic, religious, labor, business, age, gender, sexual
orientation, and disabled members of the general public, and who reside in the City of Long
Beach.
Each member shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council.
There shall be one Commission member appointed to represent each of the nine City Council
districts, and two members appointed at large.
Each member of the City Council shall nominate an individual to the Mayor to represent each
respective Council district.
The term of each member of the Commission shall be for two years; provided, however, that of
the eleven members first appointed after the effective date of the Article, a drawing will be held
at the first meeting to determine who serves for two years and three years; six shall serve for
three years, and five shall serve for two years. No person shall serve more than two full terms.
Serving any portion of an unexpired term shall not be counted as service of one term.
The City Manager shall appoint an Independent Investigator, as needed, who shall serve at the
pleasure of the City Manager. The investigator shall have the authority to receive, administer and
investigate, at the direction of the Commission, allegations of police misconduct, with emphasis
on excessive force, false arrest and complaints with racial or sexual overtones. The investigator
shall thereafter report the results of said investigations to the Commission.
The office of the investigator shall be located outside of the Public Safety Building.
Primary function:
Established April 10, 1990 through a City Charter amendment with authority to receive,
administer and investigate, through an Independent Investigator, allegations of police misconduct
with emphasis on excessive force, false arrest, and complaints with racial or sexual overtones
The Citizen Police Complaint Commission (CPCC) is one of six chartered commissions
established to provide feedback and input to the City Manager, Mayor, and City Council on
specified matters.
To receive, and in its discretion to administer and investigate, through the Independent
Investigator, allegations of police misconduct, with emphasis on excessive force, false arrest, and
complaints with racial or sexual overtones.
To conduct a hearing into allegations of police misconduct, when such hearing, in the discretion
of the Commission, will facilitate the fact-finding process
To subpoena and require the attendance of witnesses, and the production of books and papers
pertinent to the investigation and to administer oaths to such witnesses to the extent permissible
by law.
To thereafter make recommendations concerning allegations of misconduct to the City Manager,
who shall have final disciplinary authority.
To recommend to the City Council the provision of such staff as is necessary to carry out its
powers and duties under this Article. Upon authorization by the City Council the City Manager
shall select staff members, who shall serve at the pleasure of the City Manager.
The Commission shall advise the City Manager of the performance of said staff, and the City
Manager shall thereafter take such steps as he deems necessary to assure their satisfactory
performance.
Capacity:
The CPCC investigates allegations of police misconduct and reviews the service provided by
members of the Long Beach Police Department
The Commission cannot, however, recommend discipline or penalty. While the Commission
does not set policy, its findings have resulted in policies being changed or clarified to best serve
the community.
The CPCC is neither an advocate for the complainant nor for the police personnel.
Their findings can result in the accused personnel being disciplined, trained or exonerated.
Purpose:
To establish guidelines for the receipt and processing of allegations of police employee
misconduct
Commissioners provide a valuable insight into the community’s perception of and experience
with members of the Long Beach Police Department.
Resource:
Long Beach City Charter and Bylaws
Media:
Long Beach Police Commission to Access Officer Statements
C. Review Model Cities
1. Baltimore, Maryland: Civilian Review Board, (CRB)
Population: Metro area 2.3 Million
Composition:
Board members are composed of a member of the public from each of the nine police districts in
Baltimore City.
Members of the Board are selected by the Mayor and subject to the advice and consent of the
City Council.
On the Commission as nonvoting members, are one representative of the Fraternal Order of
Police, one representative of the Vanguard Justice Society, the Baltimore City Police
Commissioner or the Commissioner's designee, one representative of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Maryland (ACLU), and one representative of the Baltimore City Branch of
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Primary function
The Civilian Review Board of Baltimore City is an independent agency in the city through which
members of the public can issue a complaint against officers of various law enforcement units.
The Civilian Review Board takes complaints that allege the use of excessive force, abusive
language, harassment, false arrest, and false imprisonment.
The law enforcement units that the Civilian Review Board handles complaints for are: the
Baltimore City Police Department, the Baltimore City School Police, the Baltimore City Sheriff's
Office, the Baltimore Environmental Police, the Police Force of the Baltimore City Community
College, and the Police Force of Morgan State. The Civilian Review Board also reviews Police
Department Procedures and makes recommendations to the Commissioner.
Capacity:
The Civilian Review Board is also empowered to review policies of a law enforcement agency
and make recommendations.
The Civilian Review Board of Baltimore City is the only independent City agency authorized to
investigate complaints of police misconduct
Purpose:
Civilian Review Board is established as a permanent independent agency through which
members of the community can lodge complaints regarding abusive language, false arrest, false
imprisonment, harassment, or excessive force by police officers of a law enforcement unit.
Resource:
Baltimore City Civilian Review Board Bylaws Baltimore City Civilian Review Board Statement,
2020
Media
CRB Enabling Statute
Misconduct complaints against police drop 40%
2. San Diego, California Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB)
Population: 3.2 million, Metro area
Composition:
The Review Board is composed of eleven volunteers from the County's five Supervisory
Districts.
Members are not affiliated with the Sheriff's Department, Probation Department, or the County
of San Diego.
Review Board members are nominated by the County's Chief Administrative Officer and
appointed by the Board of Supervisors.
The Review Board currently is supported by three County employees: an executive officer, an
investigator, and an administrative assistant.
Primary function:
Prepare reports, including at least the Sheriff or the Chief Probation Officer as recipients, on the
results of any investigations conducted by CLERB in respect to the activities of peace officers or
custodial officers, including recommendations relating to any trends in regard to employees
involved in Complaints.
Prepare an annual report to the Board of Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Officer, the
Sheriff and the Chief Probation Officer summarizing the activities and recommendations of
CLERB including the tracking and identification of trends in respect to all Complaints received
and investigated during the reporting period and present the annual report to the Board of
Supervisors within 60 days of its adoption by CLERB.
The Review Board also investigates deaths that arise out of, or in connection with, the actions of
these peace officers, regardless of whether a complaint is filed. The Review Board makes
advisory findings on complaints and recommendations for policy and procedure changes to the
Sheriff, Chief Probation Officer, and the Board of Supervisors.
The focus of the Review Board is fact-finding, not advocacy for complainants or peace officers.
The Review Board also publishes meeting agendas, minutes, summary and statistical reports and
provides "early warning reports" to the Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer.
Capacity:
CLERB shall have authority to receive, review, investigate, and report on Complaints filed
against peace officers or custodial officers employed by the County in the Sheriff’s Department
or the Probation Department that allege: (a) Use of excessive force; (b) Discrimination or sexual
harassment in respect to members of the public; (c) The improper discharge of firearms; (d)
Illegal search or seizure; (e) False arrest; (f) False reporting: (g)Criminal conduct; and/or (h)
Misconduct.
CLERB shall have jurisdiction in respect to all Complaints arising out of incidents occurring on
or after November 7, 1990. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CLERB shall not have jurisdiction to
take any action in respect to Complaints received more than one year after the date of the
incident giving rise to the Complaint, except that if the person filing the Complaint was
incarcerated or physically or mentally incapacitated from filing a Complaint following the
incident giving rise to the Complaint, the time duration of such incarceration or incapacity shall
not be counted in determining whether the one year period for filing the Complaint has expired.
CLERB shall have authority to review, investigate, and report on the following categories of
incidents, regardless of whether a Complaint has been filed: (a) The death of any individual
arising out of or in connection with actions of peace officers or custodial officers employed by
the County in the Sheriff’s Department or the Probation Department, arising out of the
performance of official duties. CLERB shall have jurisdiction in respect to all deaths of
individuals coming within the provisions of this subsection occurring on or after November 7,
1990.
The Review Board’s decisions on complaints and any related recommendations are advisory and
non-binding. This means the Review Board does not have authority to compel the Sheriff’s
Department or the Probation Department to adopt its decisions, act on policy recommendations,
or impose discipline on a deputy or probation officer for a sustained misconduct finding.
CLERB is not established to determine criminal guilt or innocence.
Purpose:
To increase public confidence in government and the accountability of law enforcement by
conducting impartial and independent investigations of citizen complaints of misconduct
concerning Sheriff's Deputies and Probation Officers employed by the County of San Diego.
The County's Charter Section 606 charges the Review Board with receiving, reviewing, and
investigating complaints about the conduct of peace officers performing their duties while
employed by the Sheriff's Department or the Probation Department.
Resource:
San Diego City Charter CLERB Rules and Regulations
Media
Review board reverses an earlier decision
3. Las Vegas, Nevada Citizen Review Board, (CRB)
Population: 2.2 million, Metro area
Composition:
In response to the 1997 fatal shooting of Daniel Mendoza by off duty Metro police officers,
minority communities from the city joined in efforts to establish an independent citizen police
review board with subpoena power and the authority to recommend sanctions for officer
misconduct.
Panel members will be randomly selected by the director, who shall notify the members of their
selection. No more than one former peace officer may be selected to serve on any panel.
Members must reside within unincorporated Clark County or the City of Las Vegas to qualify for
appointment to the Board; may not be an elected official or a current or former employee of the
LVMPD.
Participation in a mandatory training that is required for all new members including over forty
hours of classes, ride-a-longs and jail tours.
If a panel member is selected but is unavailable to serve, the director shall randomly select
another member until the panel is filled.
Eligible review board members who decline appointments to serve on a panel or who fail to attend
meetings of a panel are subject to removal from the review board pursuant to the provisions of
Section 2.62.040(k).
The CRB is composed of twenty-five citizens who are appointed by two members of the Las
Vegas City Council and two members of the Clark County Board of County Commissioners.
Primary function:
L.V.M.P.D. Citizen Review Board is to serve as an independent civilian oversight agency to
review complaints of misconduct against Metro peace officers and to review internal
investigations done by the L.V.M.P.D.
Capacity
The Review Board shall have jurisdiction to receive and review all citizen complaints or requests
for review of an internal investigation concerning peace officers employed by the Metropolitan
Police Department.
Purpose:
The Citizen Review Board was established for the purpose of providing civilian review of the
investigations of alleged police misconduct of peace officers employed by the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department. The Board reviews complaints of misconduct filed by citizens,
and makes recommendations to the sheriff for discipline, as well as, advising on departmental
policies and practices. The goal of the Board is to ensure the integrity of investigations of police
misconduct and to enhance community confidence in METRO.
Resource:
Complaint Process Flow Chart
Media:
Back log of complaints
D. Auditor Model Cities
1. Fresno, California: Office of Independent Review
Population: 777,000, Metro area
Composition:
Independent Police Reviewer for the Office of Independent Review, which provides a neutral,
third-party review of police policies, procedures, strategies, and internal investigations.
The Independent Auditor is tasked with the establishment and implementation of an inspection
process for the FPD, focusing primarily on individual units and their adherence to the policy
manual of the FPD. The Independent Auditor examines each unit for compliance, rates of
compliance and advises the department on any issues.
Primary function:
OIR analyzes complaints filed by citizens with the Police Department Internal Affairs Division
to ensure they have been investigated fairly and thoroughly.
The OIR also provides an objective analysis of individual units within the police department to
ensure compliance with policy and procedure, best practices and the law. This includes
recommendations on findings to increase thoroughness, quality and accuracy of each police unit
reviewed.
Capacity:
Each OIR audit will focus on evaluating the adequacy, thoroughness, quality, and accuracy of
the Police Department’s investigation report. The OIR also reviews Police Department Inquiry
and Complaint logs, identifies and monitors trends within the Police Department, provides
guidance to police officers and police managers when requested; and serves as an informational
resource for the community.
Purpose:
The Office of Independent Review (OIR) works to strengthen community trust in the Fresno Police
Department by providing neutral, third-party review of police policies, procedures, strategies, and
internal investigations.
OIR works independently of the Fresno Police Department (part of the City Manager’s Office),
and provides the City’s leaders and the public with objective analysis of policing data, actions, and
outcomes.
The work of the OIR is guided by the following principles: Independence, Fairness, Integrity and
Honesty, Transparency, Participation of Stakeholders, Acceptance, Cooperation and Access,
Obedience to Legal Constraints
Resource:
Office of Independent Review Quarterly Report
Media
Excessive force case
2. Los Angeles County, California: The Los Angeles County Civilian Oversight Commission
Population: 10 million
Composition:
The Commission is comprised of nine members representing the Board, with four members of
the Commission recommended by community and other affiliated groups.
Each shall be a resident of the County of Los Angeles.
Five members shall be appointed by the Board, one nominated by each Supervisorial District.
The following individuals cannot serve as members of the Commission; (a) A current employee
of the County of Los Angeles; (b) A current employee of any law enforcement agency, including
a police or prosecutorial agency for a government entity, or any individual who has been an
employee of such an agency within the previous year.
Each member shall serve for a three-year term. No member may serve on the Commission for
more than two full consecutive terms unless such limitation is waived by the Board of
Supervisors. The term for all members shall begin on July 1st and end on June 30th. However,
the first term of all members who are the initial appointees to the Commission, shall be deemed
to commence on the date their appointment is approved by the Board of Supervisors and will end
on June 30th of a succeeding year
Each commission member must successfully complete a comprehensive training and orientation
program within six months of appointment. Failure to complete the training may result in
disqualification.
The training program shall be robust and cover constitutional policing including such topics as
use of force, firearms, custody, mental health issues, juvenile justice and patrol.
Each commission member shall actively participate in the ongoing training program.
Primary function
The cornerstone of the Commission’s work is community engagement and such engagement is
encouraged and valued.
Capacity:
Review, analyze, and where appropriate solicit input, and make recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors and the Sheriff on the Sheriff's Department's operational policies and procedures
that affect the community or make recommendations to create additional operational policies and
procedures affecting the community and request a response from the Sheriff
Investigate through the Office of Inspector General (OIG), or through its own staff, analyze,
solicit input and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff on systemic
Sheriff - related issues or complaints affecting the community.
Review policy recommendations made by outside entities at the request of the Board of
Supervisors or the Sheriff or recommendations made in other reports that in the judgment of the
Commission merit its analysis, and report to the Board of Supervisors or the Sheriff whether or
not the recommendation(s) should be implemented by the Board of Supervisors or the Sheriff or,
if the recommendation(s) is being implemented, the status of implementation.
Only at the request of the Board of Supervisors and/or the Sheriff, serve, either collectively or
through one or more of its members, as the monitor of the implementation of settlement
provisions in litigated matters.
Function as a liaison, or at the request of the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff, and/or
community groups or organizations involved, serve as a mediator to help resolve ongoing
disputes between the Sheriff's Department and members of the community, or organizations
within the County of Los Angeles
Obtain community input and feedback on specific incidents involving the use of force, detention
conditions, or other civil rights concerns regarding the Sheriff's Department, convey to the Board
of Supervisors and the Sheriff community complaints, concerns or positive feedback received by
the Commission, and where appropriate, make recommendations
Commendations or complaints concerning the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department will be handled
by the Office of the Inspector General.
Purpose:
The purpose of the Commission is to improve public transparency and accountability with
respect to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, by providing robust opportunities for
community engagement, ongoing analysis and oversight of the department's policies, practices,
procedures, and advice to the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff's Department and the public.
Four community members shall be appointed by the Board upon recommendation by the
Executive Officer of the Board of Supervisors, in consultation with County Counsel. Subsequent
appointments shall follow a process set forth in the Commission's Handbook.
Resource:
County of Los Angeles Ordinance: Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission COC Meetings and
Agendas
Media
Atty. Gen. investigation, Sheriff accused of blocking commission investigations
3. Wichita, Kansas: Wichita Citizen’s Review Board
Population: 389,000
Composition:
There are no more than thirteen (13) members who serve on the board. The thirteen members are
appointed by the City Manager;
Be at least eighteen (18) years of age;
Be a resident of the City of Wichita;
Not be employed by the City of Wichita or be the immediate family member of an employee of
the City of Wichita;
Not be a member of or the immediate family member of any member of the Wichita City
Council;
Be a citizen of the United States;
Have no pending criminal charges in any local, state, or federal jurisdiction or court of law;
May not currently be on probation, parole, or participating in a diversion or deferred judgment
agreement for any misdemeanor conviction for the following offenses:
Is not registered as a sex offender with any state, county, or local government;
May not have been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor domestic violence offense as defined
by Section 1.06.010 of the Code of the City of Wichita or the statutes of the State of Kansas;
Is not an elected local, state, or federal public official or a candidate for any such office;
Is not a party or representative of a party making a claim against the City of Wichita for any
action or inaction of an employee of the City of Wichita;
Not a present law enforcement officer or the immediate family member of any such law
enforcement officer;
Once appointed: Submit to a criminal background check
Be enrolled in the Wichita Police Department's Citizens' Police Academy within the third
available academy session beginning after his or her appointment;
Complete racial profiling training presented by the Kansas Attorney General within six (6)
months of appointment;
Participate in KOMA/KORA training provided by the City of Wichita within a reasonable time
after appointment.
Sign a confidentiality agreement that information reviewed and discussed regarding the post
discipline review of a Professional Standards investigation will be kept confidential and not be
disclosed to the public. (Ord. No. 50-603, § 6, 10-17-17; Ord. No. 50-912, § 2, 1-8-19)
Primary function:
The Wichita Citizen's Review Board assists the Wichita Police Department with community
outreach and advises the Police Department about community concerns;
The Board also will conduct reviews of post discipline findings of the Professional Standards
Bureau in alleged officer misconduct matters upon the request of the Chief of Police.
Capacity:
The Board may review, at the request of the Chief of Police or the Board, cases of misconduct of
Wichita Police Department personnel investigated by Professional Standards Bureau;
Only cases which are post discipline may be reviewed. Review shall not be heard until all
pending case(s) and any applicable appeals, grievances or other review of the incident have been
concluded. A request by the Board to review post discipline findings must be made no later than
one year from the date the discipline was imposed or completion of the investigation by
Professional Standards;
Review of post discipline or administrative matters heard by the Board shall be considered to be
the review of personnel matters. Disciplinary action is a confidential personnel matter and will
not be revealed to the public. Pursuant to K.S.A 75-4319(b)(1), the review of these matters will
not be open to the public;
The Board shall establish all necessary procedures to implement the review of post discipline
matters brought before them. Including within these procedures will be notification to applicable
police personnel involved in the review in accordance with the Police Department Procedure
Manual;
All police reports, videos, interviews or other investigative files submitted to the Board for
review shall have the personal identifiers of all involved citizens, witnesses and officers
redacted;
The Board's review will be for the purpose of reviewing any applicable administrative
regulations and advising the Chief of Police on practices and training relevant to issues or
concerns uncovered as part of the investigation;
All deliberations and recommendations of the Board will be confidential;
The Chief of Police, Professional Standards Bureau, City Manager and any involved personnel
will be notified in writing of the Board's decision;
Members of the Board shall serve a term of four years. In order to establish staggered terms,
appointments shall begin January 1, 2018 and will include five members for a four- year term,
four members for a three-year term, and four members for a two-year term. Thereafter, all
members shall be appointed for a four-year term. No member shall serve more than two
consecutive terms.
Purpose:
The Board serves to aid in policy development, education and communications related to racial
and other biased-based policing.
Resource
Wichita, Kansas Citizen's Review Board Ordinance
Media
Questions and controversy
Wichita police will soon have citizen review
E. Additional Examples Hybrid City Models
1. National City, CA The National City Community and Police Relations Commission
Population: 61,638
Composition:
The Commission shall be comprised of eight individuals appointed by the Mayor with the
approval of the City Council.
Of the eight members, seven shall be voting members, and one shall be non-voting members. Of
the seven voting members, five shall be residents of the City of National City.
The non-voting members shall be a member of the National City Police Officers’ Association.
The terms of the members shall be for three years.
The community and police relations commission shall annually elect its chair from among the
appointed members and, subject to the provisions of law, may create and fill such other offices as
it deems necessary.
The city council shall provide such staff assistance to the commission as the council deems
appropriate.
Primary function:
The commission will provide a forum for citizens to voice their concerns about police conduct,
practices, and policies;
Examine police practices and policies as they pertain to conduct issues; and
Identify opportunities to ameliorate adversity between the National City Police Department and
citizen complainants.
Capacity:
The National City Community and Police Relations Commission is empowered to receive and
review complaints regarding National City Police Department personnel for alleged misconduct,
and to recommend appropriate changes of Police Department policies and procedures toward the
goals of safeguarding the rights of persons and promoting higher standards of competency,
efficiency and justice in the provision of community policing services;
Determine the order of business for the conduct of its meetings, and hold regular meetings once
every three months, and such special meetings as are necessary on call of the chair or a majority
of the members of the commission after at least twenty-four hours' notice in writing has been
served upon the members;
Receive and monitor or investigate citizen complaints regarding police conduct, but without
interfering with the administration of the police department;
Request and receive supplemental information from the police department regarding citizen
complaints and such other matters as the commission may request.
Allow parties the opportunity to mediate their disputes;
Make recommendations to the city council regarding additional duties that the commission may
perform;
Make an annual report of its activities, findings and recommendations to the city council.
Advise on police department operations, and make recommendations on police policy issues;
Conduct investigations and hold public hearings. The commission has the power to examine
witnesses under oath and compel their attendance or production of evidence by subpoena issued
in the name of the city and attested by the city clerk. It shall be the duty of the chief of police to
cause all such subpoenas to be served, and refusal of a person to attend or testify in answer to
such a subpoena shall subject the person to prosecution in the same manner as set forth by law
for failure to appear before the city council in response to a subpoena issued by the city council.
Each member of the commission shall have the power to administer oaths to witnesses;
Keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations, which record shall be
a public record unless the city attorney determines otherwise.
Purpose:
The National City Community and Police Relations Commission serves as an independent,
unbiased and impartial Commission that is readily available to the public. It is a Commission for
the improvement of police and community relations and the facilitation of disputes whenever
possible. It provides a forum for citizens to voice their concerns and comments about police
conduct, practices and policies and improves communication between residents and the National
City Police Department;
It is the intent of the mayor and city council that because of the commission's actions, the
relations between the citizens of this city and the police department will improve, and positive
communications and cooperation between the police department and the community will be
facilitated.
Resource:
National City Ordinance
National City Bylaws
Media:
Man dies after police use taser
2. Portland, Oregon: Portland Police Bureau Equity and Inclusion Office
Population: 645,291
Composition:
The members of advisory bodies are public officials. They must become familiar with rules and
responsibilities described at the “Oregon Government Ethics Law- A Guide for Public Officials”
(Oregon Government Ethics Commission);
The Board will comprise 11 seats; six seats for one year; and five seats for two years;
Members must be skilled at communicating effectively in the moment and knowledgeable when
it comes to the communities most identified with i.e. connected to community wants, needs and
able to give voice to community desires;
Members may serve any number of terms not to exceed eight years of total consecutive service.
Completion of an unexpired term does not apply toward the eight-year cumulative;
At the completion of each term, regardless of term length, incumbents are required to complete
notice of intent to continue to serve and discuss mutual benefits of continuing on the Body with
the designated bureau staff liaison.
Primary function
The body exists to provide community input on both the special projects worked on by the
Equity and Inclusion Office (EIO) as well as advising on EIO’s progress on the Racial Equity
Plan more generally;
Its members are expected to give advice around how EIO can best advocate for vulnerable
communities including but not limited to communities of color, people with disabilities, the
LGBTQ+ community and individuals experiencing homelessness.
The committee initiates and champions courageous conversations that increase employee
awareness and sensitivity to issues of race, privilege and inequity;
The committee will create transparency, the committee will periodically share its efforts
externally to promote equity and inclusion among the community and officials;
The Body shall meet at least five times each year and as otherwise necessary to conduct is
business. Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the operating procedures specified
herein.
Capacity
It will not receive or review complaints initiated against personnel of the Portland Police
Department, nor play any role in civil or criminal litigation.
Purpose:
To carry out its purpose, this committee is charged with holding PPB accountable for achieving
the objectives of our REP. To achieve this purpose, members are requested to assist with the
following tasks and other things that organically develop from these tasks:
Provide EIO level feedback on the REP implementation and rollout to include but not limited to
the willingness and ability to: connect EIO with stakeholders in the community, hold EIO
accountable for plan benchmarks serve as a thinking partner for EIO
Media:
Portland committee recommends new department to promote racial equity
3. San Francisco, California: Police Commission
Population: 882,519
Composition:
The Chief’s Community Advisory Board (CAB) is established under the direction of the Chief of
Police.
The Board will comprise seven members; four of the commissioners are the Mayor’s choice and
the remaining three are the Board of Supervisor’s choice.
Commissioners have a term of four years with the vote taking place in April.
Commission members receive a $100 per month stipend.
Primary function
The mission of the Police Commission is to set policy for the Police Department and to conduct
disciplinary hearings on charges of police misconduct filed by the Chief of Police or Director of
the Office of Citizen Complaints, impose discipline in such cases as warranted, and hear police
officers’ appeals from discipline imposed by the Chief of Police.
The Police Commission regular meeting shall be held at 5:30p.m. every Wednesday of the month
in Room 400 at the San Francisco City Hall.
Capacity
The Commission appoints and regulates Patrol Special Officers and may suspend or dismiss
Patrol Special Officers after a hearing on charges filed.
The Commission’s powers are limited to just policy and cannot interfere with day to day
operations.
Purpose:
The mission of the Police Commission is to set policy for the Police Department and to conduct
disciplinary hearings on charges of police misconduct gilded by the Chief of Police or Director
of the Office of Citizen Complaints, impose discipline in such cases as warranted, and hear
police officers’ appeals from discipline imposed by Chief of Police.
Media:
SF Police Commission rejects police budget and layoffs. Will it matter?
Damali Taylor the vice President of the San Francisco Police Commission Resigns
San Francisco Police Commission votes to put Black Lives Matter signs in every police station
Gaps in SFPD discipline ‘alarming’ to Police Commission
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding a Study Session on assessing a new Business License Tax fee structure.(Heather Enders,
Management Analyst II)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council receive a Study Session on assessing a new Business License Tax and
provide feedback on implementing proposed changes.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
All businesses conducting business within the city limits of South San Francisco are required to obtain a
business license.Annual business license fees are collected by the City’s Finance Department and are due by
January 31st of the calendar year.The purpose of business license taxes is to raise revenue for general
municipal purposes.Since 1976,the City of South San Francisco has required that all persons operating or
doing business within the city limits of South San Francisco obtain a business license and pay the applicable tax
per the Municipal Code,including businesses that operate from home.Chapter Six (6)of the Municipal Code
outlines business license tax,which is charged by the type of business conducted.Chapter Six (6)of the
Municipal Code was last updated in 2008 and has not been modified since then,other than to increase the tax
rates based upon the annual consumer price index factor (CPI-W).
When the current form of the City’s business license model was approved,it did not anticipate the changing
business landscape of South San Francisco,nor the rise of the “gig”economy,making the current per-employee
based assessment of business license tax outdated and less relevant.City staff is unable to audit businesses and
relies on a business’self-reporting to validate the number of employees.With the shift in South San Francisco’s
economy,there have been considerable changes to the business community with the rise of biotech companies
and the vast number of construction companies operating within City limits since the business license tax was
first enacted.In 2008,the City placed a maximum “cap”on the business license tax,which has increased only
based upon the annual consumer price index factor (CPI-W).The business license tax cap for 2021 is
$132,883.25.
DISCUSSION
Given the outdated business license model,staff issued a request for proposal on December 1,2020,for a
business license consultant to help the City modernize its approach to business license taxes.City Council
authorized the City Manager to engage Matrix Consulting Group (“Matrix”)in January of 2021 for the business
license tax study.
Over the past several months,Matrix met with City staff to evaluate the business license tax data and to
understand existing methodologies used in calculating the business license tax.Matrix conducted a
comparative survey comparing the City’s current approach with other local jurisdictions.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
In 2020,the City collected $1.7 million in business taxes from 2,993 registered businesses.Matrix found that
about one-third of licensed businesses were located outside of the City.
Almost 65% of businesses in the City have two or fewer employees.
Size Category
Number of
Business es
0
15
1
1,617
2
305
3 –
5
351
6 –
10
260
11 –
25
240
26 –
50
102
51 –
100
44
101 –
250
23
251 –
999
7
1000+
1
Unspecified
28
Total
2,993
The majority of the City’s business license tax revenue comes from six categories of businesses.Professional
services produced the greatest overall revenue,while cannabis delivery businesses produced the most on a per-
business basis.
Business
Type
Count
Tot al Revenue
PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI PROF SERVICES
379
$611,243
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
69
$189,443
BUSINESS
SERVICES
450
$139,757
CANNABIS DELIVERY
2
$129,077
SUB CONTRACTOR CLASS C
573
$116,367
WHOLESALE SALES AND DISTRIBUTOR
226
$101,922
GENERAL CONTRACTOR CLASS A OR B
357
$88,899
PERSONAL SERVICES
308
$69,109
RETAIL EATING OR DRINKING PLACE
144
$58,743
RETAIL GENERAL MERCHANDISE
149
$49,943
ALL OTHERS
336
$172,497
TOTAL
2,993
$1,727,000
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
Business
Type
Count
Tot al Revenue
PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI PROF SERVICES
379
$611,243
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
69
$189,443
BUSINESS
SERVICES
450
$139,757
CANNABIS DELIVERY
2
$129,077
SUB CONTRACTOR CLASS C
573
$116,367
WHOLESALE SALES AND DISTRIBUTOR
226
$101,922
GENERAL CONTRACTOR CLASS A OR B
357
$88,899
PERSONAL SERVICES
308
$69,109
RETAIL EATING OR DRINKING PLACE
144
$58,743
RETAIL GENERAL MERCHANDISE
149
$49,943
ALL OTHERS
336
$172,497
TOTAL
2,993
$1,727,000
Another important consideration revolves around the way that the City handles contractors and subcontractors.
Contractors and subcontractors accounted for 930 businesses in total,equivalent to about 31%of all registered
businesses.The following table shows the count of general contractor and subcontractor licensed businesses by
business license fee amount (2018-2020):
BLT Fee
2018
2019
2020
% of Total
$0 -
$99
22
30
12
1.29%
$100 -
$199
327
311
385
41.40%
$200 -
$299
94
187
395
42.47%
$300 -
$499
130
116
135
14.52%
$500 -
$999
0
7
3
0.32%
$1000 -
$2499
1
0
0
0.00%
Total
574
651
930
100%
Approximately 84%of general contractors and subcontractors paid a rate between $100 and $300.This is
representative of the base rate that is charged to the subcontractors.In 2021 the base rate for a general
contractor is $199.25 and subcontractor is $165.75.When assessing a minimum rate for all businesses,the City
should also consider reviewing the minimum tax rate for contractors and subcontractors.In consideration for
potential future business license tax structures,different base rates have been used to illustrate the impacts this
might have.The City’s current methodology is consistent with San Bruno,San Mateo,and Redwood City.San
Mateo currently charges $100 for general contractors and $40 for subcontractors,Redwood City charges $70
for both,and San Bruno charges $75 for both.The City’s current fees are higher than the surrounding
jurisdictions.
The City received approximately $205,000 in revenue from contractors and subcontractors.Since the City
recorded about $909 million in work value for permitted projects over the last fiscal year,with about $42
million in permitting fees assessed, this $205,000 equates to 0.02% of work value and 0.49% of permit fees.
Based upon the comparative survey,the following table shows the estimated business license revenue and the
revenue as a percentage of the general fund.The responses have been sorted based upon greatest to least
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
revenue as a percentage of the general fund.The responses have been sorted based upon greatest to least
revenue.
City
FY 2020 Business license
Revenue Estimate
FY 2020 Revenue as %
of General Fund
FY 2020
Revenue per
Business
Berkeley
$19,584,000
9.9%
$1,503
San Leandro
$6,500,000
5.6%
$594
San Mateo
$5,939,518
4.5%
$814
Daly City
$5,798,000
6.6%
$757
Redwood City
$3,061,509
1.9%
$356
San Bruno
$1,908,000
4.0%
$667
Menlo Park
$1,778,000
2.5%
$324
Sunnyvale
$1,749,343
1.0%
$233
South San Francisco
$1,727,000
1.5%
$577
Santa Clara
$959,500
0.4%
$75
Burlingame
$865,000
1.3%
$111
Millbrae
$350,000
1.1%
$106
Vacaville
$295,668
0.3%
$58
Average (Excl. SSF)
$4,065,712
3.3%
$467
Based upon the jurisdictions surveyed,excluding large metropolitan cities such as Oakland,San Francisco,and
San Jose,the highest proportion of general fund for business license tax revenue is Berkeley (9.9%),and the
lowest proportion at 0.3%is Vacaville.The City’s current revenue of $1.7 million is approximately $2.3 million
below the regional average of $4.1 million and its 1.5%of the general fund is also below the regional average
of 3.3%.
In evaluating the 2020 revenue estimated per business,the City of Berkeley also has the largest revenue per
business at approximately $1,503 per business.The City’s current average revenue per business of $577 is in
line with San Leandro’s $594 per business and slightly above the average of the $467 included in the region.
Matrix collected and analyzed the State Economic Development Department (EDD)data on businesses within
the City of South San Francisco.This data has many uses,one of which is comparing it to the City’s own
licensed business inventory for 2020 to determine the degree to which the City is capturing the businesses
operating within its jurisdiction,and how much business license tax revenue might be realized from licensing
currently unlicensed businesses.
Matrix determined that there are nearly 400 businesses in the EDD database which are not licensed in the City’s
records.The City is likely to recover close to $450,000 in business license tax revenue by locating and
licensing the missing businesses shown in the EDD data set.The classifications used by the EDD follow the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)codes,while the City’s data is classified by business
license subtype.Matrix recommends the City streamline its ordinance to eliminate references to outdated
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
license subtype.Matrix recommends the City streamline its ordinance to eliminate references to outdated
business types and group them together into a larger business license category.The City should also strive to
make its business license categories match the NAICS codes, for ease of tracking and auditing.
Business
Category
# of
EDD
Firms
# of
SSF
Firms
Difference
Business
Services
162
381
-219
Construction/Contractors
204
122
82
Manufacturing
115
68
47
Warehousing and Transportation/Freight
189
145
44
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
17
13
4
Hotels and Accommodations
30
35
-5
Food Services and Drinking Places
166
148
18
Repair and Maintenance
70
77
-7
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
259
337
-78
Retail and Trade
174
176
-2
Personal and Social Assistance
737
281
456
Wholesale Sales and Distribution
0
212
-212
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation
119
0
119
Ambulance and Nursing Care
135
0
135
Educational Services
19
0
19
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
3
0
3
Charter Busses, Taxis, Limousine
0
4
-4
Misc. Other (Fortune Tellers, Massage, Security Guards, Trailer Parks)
0
4
-4
Total
2399
2003
396
The following points address key considerations related to recommendations made by Matrix,specific to the
City of South San Francisco.
Recommendations:
1.The City should use a per-employee basis to assess most business license taxes.
2.The City should consider a different business license tax assessment structure for contractors and
subcontractors.
3.The City should consider a different business license tax assessment structure for businesses outside the
City limits.
4.The City should streamline its ordinance to eliminate references to outdated business types and group
them together into a larger business license category.
5.The City should strive to make its business license categories match the NAICS codes.
ANALYSIS
There are several possible business tax rate methodologies to consider.Flat rate-based fees are assessed based
on the business type regardless of its size /revenue.Per-employee based fees are assessed based on the
business’number of employees.Millbrae,Oakland,Redwood City,San Bruno,San Jose,San Leandro,San
Mateo,Santa Clara,and Sunnyvale are all examples of cities which base their business license rates on a per-
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
Mateo,Santa Clara,and Sunnyvale are all examples of cities which base their business license rates on a per-
employee basis.Gross receipts-based fees are based on a percentage amount of the business’gross receipts for
the year is assessed.Daly City,Millbrae,Oakland,Redwood City,San Bruno,San Francisco,San Leandro,San
Mateo are examples of cities which base their business license rates on a gross-receipts basis.Per-unit based
fees are assessed based on the number of units or vehicles owned by a business,or their square footage or total
rooms.Business costs base fees are based on a percentage of payroll or the cost of operations.Attachment 1
describes the various fee types in greater detail.
A number of scenarios for a revised business license tax assessment methodology were identified by Matrix for
City Council consideration.Each of the options suggested eliminates the maximum fee,or the cap,implements
a per employee base fee and adopts business license categories that matches the NAICS codes used by the
EDD.The least progressive option (#1)offers no change to the base rate and maintains the $20 per-employee
rate.The most progressive option (#5)offers a base rate of $150 and a per-employee rate of $30.The per-
employee rates are all stacked,so the first four staff are $20 per-employee and increase successively to $100
per employee for any staff beyond the 1,000th employee.Staff would like to direct the Council’s attention to
comparing the baseline fees to options #1 and #4 in more detail, below.
Option Category
Total Projected
Revenue
Projected Revenue
Increase
Average Tax Per
Firm
Baseline *
$1,649,720
$0
$551.19
Option #1 -
No Change, Missing
Businesses + No Max Fee
$2,145,952
$496,232
$633.77
Option #2 -
Double current per employee
rate + Cont / Subcontract ($500) + No
Max Fee
$3,056,024
$1,406,303
$902.55
Option #3 -
Progressive Tax Rate ($20 -
$100 per empl) + Cont / Subcontract
($750) + No Max Fee
$3,831,039
$2,181,319
$1,131.44
Option #4 -
Progressive Tax Rate ($25 -
$100 per empl) + Cont / Subcontract
($750) + No Max Fee
$3,974,966
$2,325,246
$1,173.94
Option #5 -
Progressive Tax Rate (Base
Fee -
$150; $30 -$150 per empl) + Cont /
Subcontract ($1,000) + No Max Fee
$4,870,298
$3,220,578
$1,438.36
*The model’s revenue is calculated based upon the City’s existing fee schedule and employee count and
therefore does not match total revenue received because it does not include miscellaneous charges such as
delinquencies.The actual revenue received in 2020 was $1,727,000 (or $577 average per business)and the
calculated revenue used in the model is $1,649,720 (or $551 average per business).
Baseline/Current State
In evaluating the 2020 revenue estimated per business in comparable cities,the City of Berkeley has the largest
revenue per business at approximately $1,503 per business.The City’s current average revenue per business of
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
$551 is in line with San Leandro’s $594 per business and above the average of the $467 included in the region.
Baseline: Current Business License Structure
Revenue Current: $1,649,720
# of Firms 2,993
Avg Tax per Business $551
Option #1
Under this option,the City would maintain the existing business license tax rates but eliminate the cap that is in
place that limits the amount of a business license tax.The currently unregistered businesses (as identified from
the EDD data)have been included into the revenue estimates under the assumption that they become registered
and pay the required fee.
Option 1: No Change in Fee Structure - Capture Missing Businesses
Only & Remove CAP
Projected Revenue 2,145,952$
Projected Revenue Increase 418,952$
# of Firms 3,386
Avg Tax per Business 634$
Option #4
The following table shows the base rates and per employee rates of business license tax for businesses of
various size categories under a scenario with a minimum tax of $100,a progressive per employee rate ranging
from $25 to $100 per employee based on business size,elimination of the maximum business license tax rate,
and establishing a contractor and subcontractor rate of $750.
Option 4: Progressive Tax Rate (starting $25 per employee) &
General / Subcontractor Rate - No Max
Revenue Current Businesses 3,259,827$
Revenue Missing Businesses 715,139$
Total Projected Revenue $ 3,974,966
Projected Revenue Increase 2,325,246$
# of Firms 3,386
Avg Tax per Business 1,174
RECOMENDATION
Staff is recommending Option #4 because it modernizes the business license tax and positions the City to
capitalize on development growth in the future.By implementing a per employee based fee,the City could
adopt business license categories that matches the NAICS codes used by the EDD for ease of tracking and
auditing.The per employee rate is graduated meaning employers with less employees would pay less.The
impact to small businesses is minor increasing by $5 per employee.However,the new business tax structure
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-578 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
impact to small businesses is minor increasing by $5 per employee.However,the new business tax structure
would primarily impact large employers by charging $25 to $100 per employee based on business size and the
elimination of the maximum fee cap.Contractors and subcontractors would be charged $750 to better align the
work value of permitted projects within the City.
City leadership met with one of the largest employers in the City to receive initial feedback on the proposed
changes.Initial feedback was positive on the rate proposed for a large business.Should City Council direct staff
to continue working on a possible revision to the business license tax,City Staff will meet with leadership of
the Chamber of Commerce,and host additional community outreach meetings with businesses to get their
feedback on the proposed business license tax.
FISCAL IMPACT
Under Option #4 revenue from businesses within the City is projected at $3,974,966,an increase of
$2,325,246 from the baseline scenario of $1,649,720.The average tax per business would be
approximately $1,174 (currently the average rate is $577).Based upon the jurisdictions surveyed,excluding
large metropolitan cities such as Oakland,San Francisco,and San Jose,the highest proportion of general fund
for business license tax revenue is Berkeley (9.9%),and the lowest proportion at 0.3%is Vacaville.The City’s
baseline revenue of $1.6 million is approximately $2.5 million below the regional average of $4.1 million
and its 1.5% of general fund is also below the regional average of 3.3%.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The City’s business license tax program revenue supports Priority Area 3, Financial Stability.
CONCLUSION
Staff is looking for feedback from City Council on the options presented in the attached report.If Council
would like to move forward with an update to the business license tax,it would need to go to voters on the June
2022 ballot. A simple majority of voters would be required to approve the business license tax update.
Attachments:
1.Business license Tax Program Initial Assessment - report by Matrix Consulting Group
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™
Business License Tax Program Initial Assessment
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
September 9, 2021
Attachment 1
Table of Contents
Section Page
1. Background and Considerations for Business
License Tax Assessment
1
2. Comparison With State EDD Data and Potential
Unrealized Revenue
11
3. Potential Future BLT Scenarios 16
Appendix A – Current State Description 22
Appendix B – Comparative Survey 36
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 1
1. Background and Considerations for Business
License Tax Assessment
All businesses conducting business within the city limits of South San Francisco,
including businesses that operate from home, are required to obtain a business license.
Annual business license fees are collected by the City’s Finance Department and are due
by January 31 of the calendar year.
A business license must be obtained for every new business that is located within the
City or doing business within the city limits, and every active business within the City must
renew their business licenses every year. All business licenses are due for renewal on
January 1st of each year.
The ordinance governing business licenses can be found in Title 6 of the Municipal Code.
It outlines the scope and administration of the program, along with the fee schedule for
business licenses of various types issued by the City. Most types of businesses have their
business license tax assessed on a per-employee basis, with a few categories assessed
using other methods; these are discussed later.
1. Summary of 2020 Business License Program
The following tables summarize key figures illustrating the scope of the City’s business
license tax program in 2020.
1.1 About Two-Thirds of Licensed Businesses Are Located Inside the City.
The following table shows the number of licensed businesses in 2020 and whether they
are located inside or outside the City.
Location
Number of
Businesses
Inside SSF 2,004
Outside SSF 987
Unspecified 2
Total 2,993
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 2
1.2 Almost 65% of Businesses in the City Have 2 or Fewer Employees.
The following table shows the number of licensed businesses in 2020 by employee size
category. Since employee count is the method used to calculate business license tax for
most business types, these figures are highly correlated to BLT revenue.
Size Category Number of
Businesses
0 15
1 1,617
2 305
3 - 5 351
6 - 10 260
11 - 25 240
26 - 50 102
51 - 100 44
101 - 250 23
251 - 999 7
1000+ 1
Unspecified 28
Total 2,993
1.3 The Majority of the City’s Business License Tax Revenue Comes from 6
Categories of Businesses.
The following table shows the ten business categories which produce the most business
license tax revenue. Professional services produce the greatest overall revenue, while
cannabis delivery businesses produce the most on a per-business basis.
Business Type Count Total Revenue
PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI PROF SERVICES 379 $611,243
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 69 $189,443
BUSINESS SERVICES 450 $139,757
CANNABIS DELIVERY 2 $129,077
SUB CONTRACTOR CLASS C 573 $116,367
WHOLESALE SALES AND DISTRIBUTOR 226 $101,922
GENERAL CONTRACTOR CLASS A OR B 357 $88,899
PERSONAL SERVICES 308 $69,109
RETAIL EATING OR DRINKING PLACE 144 $58,743
RETAIL GENERAL MERCHANDISE 149 $49,943
ALL OTHERS 336 $172,497
TOTAL 2,993 $1,727,000
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 3
Larger businesses provide the bulk of business license tax revenue; the top category
alone (Professional Services) accounts for more than a third of total BLT revenue, while
the top six categories together account for 75% of the total business tax revenue. Some
of these categories have hundreds of businesses, and others have fewer, showing that
per-business revenue varies widely by category.
2. Possible Bases for Business Tax Rates
The following table discusses various business license tax methodologies, examples of
comparable cities where they are used, the impact on specific types of businesses, and
variations which can be considered during program development.
Tax Basis Examples Uses Variations
Flat Rate
A dollar amount is
assessed based on the
business type
regardless of its size /
revenue.
Burlingame,
Redwood City,
San Bruno, San
Leandro, San
Mateo
May be used for all
business types, but more
often for contractors or
specific industries like auto
lots, pawn shops, card
readers, etc.
Different rates may be
used for different
business types.
Per Employee
A dollar amount is
assessed based on the
business’ number of
employees.
Millbrae, Oakland,
Redwood City,
San Bruno, San
Jose, San
Leandro, San
Mateo, Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale
Used in some cases for all
business types, or for
specific categories like
retail, professional and
administrative services,
sales, manufacturing, or
transportation.
A cap may be used, and
a graduated rate may be
used to apply a different
fee to the first employee
than to the 100th one.
Different rates may be
used for different
business types.
Gross Receipts
A percentage amount
of the business’ gross
receipts for the year is
assessed.
Daly City, Millbrae,
Oakland,
Redwood City,
San Bruno, San
Francisco, San
Leandro, San
Mateo
Used in many cases for all
business types, or as a
default for businesses not
assessed using another
basis. Can also be used for
specific types like
contractors, tow lots,
firearms dealers, etc.
A cap may be used, and
a progressive rate may
be applied to taxing
gross receipts. A
minimum gross receipts
amount may also be
used. Different rates
may be used for
different business types.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 4
Tax Basis Examples Uses Variations
Per Unit
A dollar amount is
assessed based on the
number of units or
vehicles owned by a
business, or their
square footage or total
rooms.
Millbrae, Oakland,
Redwood City,
San Bruno, San
Jose, San
Leandro, Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale
Typically used for rental
properties, hotel rooms, and
businesses like taxi or limo
companies which use a
fleet of vehicles.
A cap may be used, and
a graduated rate may be
used to apply a different
fee to the first unit than
to the 100th one.
Business Costs
Percentage of payroll or
the cost of operations
Millbrae
Can be used for companies
with large financial
footprint but comparatively
few employees or receipts,
such as startups or
research and development
firms.
A cap or a minimum may
be applied, and a
progressive rate can be
used. Different rates
may be used for
different business types.
Per Day
Businesses are charged
a flat rate for each day
they operate.
Redwood City,
San Leandro
Usually used for temporary
business ventures like
carnivals, pumpkin patches,
auctioneers, and outdoor
markets.
Different rates may be
used based on size of
space used, or for
different business types.
Hybrid
A business may be
assessed based on a
weighted average or the
“greater of” multiple
methodologies.
Millbrae,
Sunnyvale
Can be used to assess
business categories which
may vary widely in other
assessment bases, ensure
capture of appropriate tax
rate.
There are a variety of tax rate bases that can be used, and are used by many of South San
Francisco’s peers, to assess business license taxes. Some of the tax rate bases are
specific to the types of businesses, such as carnivals being charged per day, or hotels
being charged per unit, whereas others are more overarching – flat rate, number of
employees, or gross receipts.
2. Advantages and Disadvantages for Different Tax Rate Bases
The following table shows by tax basis, the key advantages and disadvantages (from the
City’s perspective) for the methodologies outlined in the prior subsection:
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 5
Tax Basis Advantages Disadvantages
Flat Rate
Easy to administer, requires little to no
gathering of data.
Inflexible and does not reflect the varying
size or scope of businesses.
Per
Employee
Reflects varying business sizes and rates
can be capped or molded to specific
parameters (i.e., lower rates for smaller
businesses (less employees).
Requires companies to self-report employee
count, which would then require auditing
using data from State Employment
Development Department (EDD).
Does not accurately reflect businesses with
comparatively small employee counts or
large numbers of contract staff.
Gross
Receipts
Reflects varying business sizes and rates
can be capped or molded to specific
parameters (i.e., identifying small
businesses based upon revenue
generated).
Requires companies to self-report gross
receipts, and submit tax filings, which would
then require auditing and verification using
the tax filing information.
Does not accurately reflect businesses like
startups with large footprint but small
revenues.
Per Unit
Reflects a metric which is specific to, and
accurately captures the scope of,
particular business types.
Requires companies to self-report unit
counts. Auditing may be difficult as a result
Business
Costs
Accurately captures the scope of certain
business types which may not be reflected
in their gross receipts or employee counts.
Requires self-reporting of business
expenses, which would then require auditing
and verification using tax filings.
Hybrid
Ensures a more complete capture of
business size and scope for license tax
purposes.
More complicated to administer, requires
collection of multiple data types.
All of the different tax rate bases have key advantages and disadvantages. For ease of
administration, the flat fee is the simplest, but all other bases would require the City to
conduct auditing (in-house or outsourced) to ensure that the tax rate basis is being
reported accurately. Additionally, with per employee and gross receipts there can be
further nuances regarding if it is referencing only employees located within the city or
total employees or similarly gross receipts generated within the city or overall gross
receipts.
Ultimately, a per-employee business license tax will provide the most utility to the City. It
corresponds with the size of businesses and their use of City services, it can be adjusted
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 6
to be more progressive or regressive, or capped or molded to specific parameters, and it
can be audited with payroll tax filings or data from the State EDD. For this reason, a per-
employee basis for business license tax has been used in future projections later in this
report.
Recommendation: The City should use a per-employee basis to assess most business
license taxes.
3. Other Considerations Based on Current Business Environment
The following points address key considerations related to establishing a BLT
methodology specific to the City of South San Francisco.
3.1 Minimum Business License Tax
One important factor in determining the City’s approach to business license taxes is the
establishment of a minimum business tax. Businesses which have few employees, small
revenue, or are otherwise considered small by the metrics chosen would still be required
to pay a minimum fee. The following table shows the count of licenses businesses by
Business License Fee Amount (2018-2020) excluding general contractors and
subcontractors 1:
BLT Fee 2018 2019 2020
% of Total
(2020)
$0 - $99 29 27 39 1.89%
$100 - $199 534 526 714 34.61%
$200 - $299 376 410 628 30.44%
$300 - $499 293 326 312 15.12%
$500 - $999 152 172 185 8.97%
$1000 - $2499 99 112 107 5.19%
$2500 - $4999 32 31 44 2.13%
$5000 - $9999 15 22 20 0.97%
$10000 - $24999 5 12 7 0.34%
$25000 - $49999 1 1 4 0.19%
$50000 - $99999 1 2 0.10%
$100000 - $249999 1 1 1 0.05%
Total 1,537 1,641 2,063 100.0%
1 General Contractors and Subcontractors typically play a flat rate and were excluded so as to not skew the results to a lower
minimum threshold. This allows the City to better understand the minimum fees paid by non-flat fee businesses.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 7
Approximately two-thirds (67%) of businesses paid less than $299. Of the 39 businesses
who paid less than $100, only 7 were charged any amount, with the remaining 32
businesses considered exempt.
Based upon the City’s current rate, the minimum fee that any business would typically pay
would be $99.75; with the exception of $66.50 for bowling alleys and temporary vendors.
Therefore, the City’s current minimum rate is less than $100. Increasing the City’s
minimum tax rate would impact approximately 1,870 out of 2,993 (62% of the
businesses).
• A minimum tax rate of $150 would represent an increase over 2020 rates for just
85 businesses (excluding contractors, subcontractors, and exempt businesses) or
just under 3% of all registered businesses. This minimum has been used as the
base rate in one option later in this report.
• A minimum tax rate of $200 would represent an increase over 2020 rates for 721
businesses (excluding contractors, subcontractors, and exempt businesses) or
about 24% of all registered businesses.
Establishing a minimum tax rate would enable the City to establish a minimum threshold
that it is comfortable charging all businesses including small businesses. Based upon
the comparative survey conducted, the minimum threshold in nearby jurisdictions varies
from $15 (Santa Clara) to a high of $205 (San Jose).
3.2 Small Businesses
Many of the City’s businesses are also have a very small number of employees. The
following table shows based upon ranges of employees (excluding general contractors
and subcontractors 2), the 2020 businesses licenses, and the associated revenue
collected for those businesses.
Employees 2020 Count 2020 Revenue
1 816 $201,767
2 285 $107,488
3 - 5 327 $192,048
6 - 10 244 $121,450
11 - 25 221 $200,366
26 - 50 98 $152,208
2 Similar to the business license fee charged, general contractors and subcontractors were excluded from small
business calculation as they generally do not have to report their number of employees and the information may not
accurately represent the number of employees.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 8
Employees 2020 Count 2020 Revenue
51 - 100 43 $140,689
101 - 250 21 $166,780
251 - 999 7 $104,926
1000+ 1 $132,939
Total 2,063 $1,520,661
The following points highlight key information from this table:
• 1,101 (54%) of the City’s registered businesses (excluding general contractors and
subcontractors) have just 1 or 2 employees, and these account for 20% of
business license tax revenue.
• 1,672 (81%) of registered businesses (excluding general contractors and
subcontractors) have 10 or fewer employees, and these account for 41% of
revenue.
These factors should be considered in establishing a new rate structure. The knowledge
that most businesses in the City have less than 2 employees can help shape the approach
to per-employee taxes or the use of other assessment methodologies.
3.3 Contractors, Subcontractors, and Businesses Outside the City
Another important consideration revolves around the way that the City will handle
contractors and subcontractors. Contractors and subcontractors accounted for 930
businesses in total, equivalent to about 31% of all registered businesses. The following
table shows the count of general contractor and subcontractor licensed businesses by
Business License Fee Amount (2018-2020):
BLT Fee 2018 2019 2020 % of Total
$0 - $99 22 30 12 1.29%
$100 - $199 327 311 385 41.40%
$200 - $299 94 187 395 42.47%
$300 - $499 130 116 135 14.52%
$500 - $999 7 3 0.32%
$1000 - $2499 1
Total 574 651 930 100%
Approximately 84% of general contractors and subcontractors paid a rate between $100
and $300. This is representative of the base rate that is charged to the subcontractors.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 9
In 2021 the base rate for a general contractor is $199.25 and subcontractor is $165.75.
When assessing a minimum rate for all businesses, the City should also consider
reviewing the minimum tax rate for contractors and subcontractors. In projections for
potential future BLT structures later in this document, different base rates have been used
to illustrate the impacts this might have. The City’s current methodology is consistent
with San Bruno, San Mateo, and Redwood City. San Mateo currently charges $100 for
general contractors and $40, Redwood City charges $70 for both, and San Bruno charges
$75. The City’s current fees are higher than the surrounding jurisdictions.
The City received approximately $205,000 in revenue from contractors and
subcontractors. Since the City recorded about $909 million in work value for permitted
projects over the last fiscal year, with about $42 million in permitting fees assessed, this
$205,000 equates to .02% of work value and .49% of permit fees.
Recommendation: The City should consider a different business license tax assessment
structure for contractors and subcontractors.
4. Business License Revenue
The last major consideration for South San Francisco is overall revenue goal. The
following table shows based upon the comparative survey the estimated business
license revenue and that revenue as portion of the general fund.
City FY 2020 Business License
Revenue Estimate
FY 2020 Revenue as %
of General Fund
FY 2020 Revenue per
Business
Berkeley $19,584,000 9.9% $1,503
San Leandro $6,500,000 5.6% $594
San Mateo $5,939,518 4.5% $814
Daly City $5,798,000 6.6% $757
Redwood City $3,061,509 1.9% $356
San Bruno $1,908,000 4.0% $667
Menlo Park $1,778,000 2.5% $324
Sunnyvale $1,749,343 1.0% $233
South San Francisco $1,727,000 1.5% $577
Santa Clara $959,500 0.4% $75
Burlingame $865,000 1.3% $111
Millbrae $350,000 1.1% $106
Vacaville $295,668 0.3% $58
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 10
City FY 2020 Business License
Revenue Estimate
FY 2020 Revenue as %
of General Fund
FY 2020 Revenue per
Business
Average (Excl. SSF) $4,065,712 3.3% $467
Based upon the jurisdictions surveyed, excluding large metropolitan cities such as
Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose, the highest proportion of general fund for
business license tax revenue is Berkeley (9.9%), and the lowest proportion at 0.3% is
Vacaville. The City’s current revenue of $1.7 million is approximately $2.3 million below
the regional average of $4.1 million and its 1.5% is also below the regional average of
3.3%.
In evaluating the FY2020 Revenue estimated per business, the City of Berkeley also has
the largest revenue per business at approximately $1,503 per business. The City’s current
average revenue per business of $577 is in line with San Leandro’s $594 per business
and above the average of the $467 included in the region.
The potential future business license tax assessment structures outlined later in this
document are analyzed for their total impact on revenue, and the model developed by the
project team is designed to project the impact of various per-employee BLT
methodologies on revenue.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 11
2. Comparison With State EDD Data and Potential
Unrealized Revenue
As part of the project team’s analysis, the project team collected State Economic
Development Department (EDD) data on businesses within the City of South San
Francisco. This data has many uses, one of which is comparing it to the City’s own
licensed business inventory for 2020 to determine the degree to which the City is
capturing the businesses operating within its jurisdiction, and how much BLT revenue
might be realized from licensing currently unlicensed businesses.
1. Findings of Comparison with EDD Data
The City’s data for businesses located within the City in 2020 was compared to those
from the State EDD. The classifications used by the EDD follow the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, while the City’s data is classified by
business license subtype. The number of firms within each classification were reconciled
to the degree possible in order to determine, within each type of business, how many
firms were in each data set. The following table summarizes these results.
Business Category
# of
EDD
Firms
# of
SSF
Firms Difference
Business Services 162 381 -219
Construction/Contractors 204 122 82
Manufacturing 115 68 47
Warehousing and Transportation/Freight 189 145 44
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 17 13 4
Hotels and Accommodations 30 35 -5
Food Services and Drinking Places 166 148 18
Repair and Maintenance 70 77 -7
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 259 337 -78
Retail and Trade 174 176 -2
Personal and Social Assistance 737 281 456
Wholesale Sales and Distribution 0 212 -212
Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation 119 0 119
Ambulance and Nursing Care 135 0 135
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 12
Business Category
# of
EDD
Firms
# of
SSF
Firms Difference
Educational Services 19 0 19
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 3 0 3
Charter Busses, Taxis, Limousine 0 4 -4
Misc. Other (Fortune Tellers, Massage, Security Guards, Trailer Parks) 0 4 -4
Total 2399 2003 396
In total, there are nearly 400 businesses in the EDD database which are not licensed in
the City’s records, suggesting that the City may be able to recover BLT revenue by
licensing and taxing those businesses. The following chart illustrates:
Comparison of State EDD and City of SSF Licensed Business Inventory (2020)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Business Services
Construction/Contractors
Manufacturing
Warehousing and Transportation/Freight
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Hotels and Accommodations
Food Services and Drinking Places
Repair and Maintenance
Professional, Scientific, and Technical…
Retail and Trade
Personal and Social Assistance
Wholesale Sales and Distribution
Administrative and Support and Waste…
Ambulance and Nursing Care
Educational Services
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
Charter Busses, Taxis, Limousine
Misc. Other (Fortune Tellers, Massage,…
State EDD
City of SSF
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 13
It is important to note that the City classifies businesses very differently from the EDD’s
NAICS codes, and there were several City classifications with no NAICS equivalent, and
vice versa. For example, there is no NAICS “wholesale” classification to match with the
City’s wholesale classification. This means that in many cases, the number of firms
recorded for one database or the other is zero, when in reality they may simply be
categorized in another classification.
Finding: There are nearly 400 businesses in the EDD database which are not licensed in
the City’s records.
2. Potential for Recovery of Unrealized Revenue
Both the City’s data and the State EDD data show the number of businesses within each
classification, by size category. This, along with knowing the average BLT revenue that
the City received from businesses in each size category, allows a rough calculation of the
missing revenue which could be realized by licensing and taxing those businesses. The
following table shows this:
Size Category Approx. Revenue Loss
0-4 -$72,858
5-9 -$27,423
10-19 $7,472
20-49 -$28,418
50-99 -$37,622
100-249 -$276,992
250-499 $8,395
500-999 -$25,192
Total -$452,637
The City is likely to recover close to $450,000 in business license tax revenue by locating
and licensing the missing businesses shown in the EDD data set.
Finding: The City is likely to recover close to $450,000 in business license tax revenue
by locating and licensing the missing businesses shown in the EDD data set.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 14
3. Ordinance and Business Category Streamlining
An evaluation of the business license tax ordinance and the data maintained by the City
reveals some opportunities for alignment. The classifications of business licenses do not
all match the various classifications of businesses in the ordinance. For example:
• The ordinance describes coin-operated machines, but the closest license category
is “Miscellaneous Vending Machines”.
• The ordinance describes junk collectors and recyclers, but the closest license
category is “Scrap and Waste Materials”.
• The ordinance describes mediums, but the closest license category is “Fortune
Teller”.
Additionally, many categories described in the ordinance have only a handful of licensed
businesses. The following table shows categories from the ordinance which appear to
have 5 or fewer licensed businesses in the category as of 2020.
Business Classification Number
Auctioneer 0
Cannabis Businesses 2
Coin Operated Machines 5
Commercial Parking Facility 1
Junk Collector or Recycler 2
Medium 1
Pawnbroker 1
Peddler or Solicitor 0
Peddler – Single Perishable Product 0
Peddler – Catering Truck 0
Peddler – All Others 0
Public Utilities 2
Bowling Alley 1
Circus/Carnival/Exhibition 0
Temporary Vendors 0
Transportation of Persons 4
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 15
Additionally, a review of the comparison with the NAICS codes used by the EDD shows
that the classifications used in the City are very different. This makes it difficult to audit
the City’s business license inventory against the State’s data, which is important for
determining the degree to which BLT revenue is being captured, as well as for potentially
auditing individual businesses.
Many jurisdictions who have not updated their business license tax ordinances and rates
recently have similar types of business categories in their ordinances. For example, the
City of Mountain View, which updated their tax ordinance in 2019, does not reference any
specific types of businesses in their ordinance. Rather the ordinance focuses on key
provisions such as the collection of taxes, enforcement, tax rate, increases, etc.
The City should streamline its ordinance to eliminate references to outdated business
types and group them together into a larger business license category. The City should
also strive to make its business license categories match the NAICS codes, for ease of
tracking and auditing.
Recommendation: The City should streamline its ordinance to eliminate references to
outdated business types and group them together into a larger business license
category.
Recommendation: The City should strive to make its business license categories match
the NAICS codes.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 16
3. Potential Future BLT Scenarios
The following section outlines a number of scenarios for a revised business license tax
assessment methodology, the reasoning behind each, and their likely impacts. The
project team has developed a model which can show the impacts on revenue for various
business types and sizes based on the assessment criteria selected. This model uses
the City’s business license data 3 (which has actual employee counts) to make projections
with supplemental revenue included that represents the missing businesses identified
from the EDD data to accurately reflect the total revenue the City should be receiving by
licensing all businesses within the City, exclusive of additional revenue from businesses
outside the City. The following table summarizes the criteria of each scenario and
provides an explanation for the illustrative value of each.
Base Per Employee Fee
Maximum Fee? Notes
1 $99.75 No change in base rate
from present rates.
Maintains $20/per
employee.
Eliminates the
maximum fee for a
business license.
Revenue estimate of
unregistered businesses
included in projections.
2 $100 Per employee rate
increased from $20 to $40
per employee, $500
registration fee for
contractors /
subcontractors,
No maximum Fee Revenue estimate of
unregistered businesses
included in projections.
3 $100 Progressive per employee
rate ranges from $20 to
$100. Contractor /
subcontractor fee at $750
No maximum fee Revenue estimate of
unregistered businesses
included in projections.
4 $100 Progressive per employee
rate ranges from $25 to
$100. Contractor /
subcontractor fee at $750
No maximum fee Revenue estimate of
unregistered businesses
included in projections.
5 $150 Progressive per employee
rate ranges from $30 to
$150. Contractor /
subcontractor fee at $1,000
No maximum fee Revenue estimate of
unregistered businesses
included in projections.
3 The model’s revenue is calculated based upon the City’s existing fee schedule and employee count and
therefore does not match total revenue received because it does not include miscellaneous charges such
as delinquencies. The actual revenue received in 2020 was $1,727,000 (or $577 average per business)
and the calculated revenue used in the model is $1,649,720 (or $551 average per business).
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 17
The subsections below show a more detailed explanation of criteria for each scenario,
the likely overall impact on revenue for businesses within the City, and the impact for
particular types of businesses compared to peer cities.
1. Option 1 – Eliminate Maximum Business License Tax.
Under this option, the City would maintain the existing business license tax rates but
eliminate the cap that is in place that limits the amount of a business license tax. The
currently unregistered businesses (as identified from the EDD data) have been included
into the revenue estimates under the assumption that they become registered and pay
the required fee.
BLT Revenue Impact: Under this scenario, BLT revenue from businesses within the City
is projected at $2,145,952, an increase of $496,232 or 30% from the current level of
$1,649,720. The average tax per business would be approximately $634 (currently the
average rate is $551).
2. Option 2 – Eliminate Maximum Business License Tax and increase per employee
rate from $20 per employee to $40 per employee and implement a $500 per
contractor fee.
Under this option, the City would increase the per employee tax rate from $20 to $40 and
eliminate the cap that is in place that limits the amount of a business license tax. The
currently unregistered businesses (as identified from the EDD data) have been included
into the revenue estimates under the assumption that they become registered and pay
the required fee.
BLT Revenue Impact: Under this scenario, BLT revenue from businesses within the City
is projected at $3,056,024, an increase of $1,406,303 from the current level of $1,649,720
or an 85% increase in revenue. The average tax per business would be approximately
$903 (currently the average rate is $551).
3. Option 3 – Eliminate Maximum Business License Tax and implement a
progressively increasing per employee rate ($20 – $100) based upon business
size and establish contractor fee at $750.
The following table shows the base rates and per employee rates of business license tax
for businesses of various size categories under a scenario with a minimum tax of $100,
a progressive per employee rate ranging from $20 to $100 per employee based on
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 18
business size, elimination of the maximum business license tax rate, and establishing a
contractor rate of $750.
Range of Employees Base Rate Per Employee Rate
0-4 $100 $20
5-9 $180 $25
10-19 $305 $35
20-49 $655 $45
50-99 $2,005 $55
100-249 $4,755 $65
250-499 $14,505 $75
500-999 $33,255 $90
1000+ $78,255 $100
BLT Revenue Impact: Under this scenario, BLT revenue from businesses within the City
is projected at $3,831,039, an increase of $2,181,319 or 132% from the current level of
$1,649,720. The average tax per business would be approximately $1,131 (currently the
average rate is $551).
4. Option 4 – Eliminate Maximum Business License Tax and implement a
progressively increasing per employee rate ($25 - $100) based upon business
size and establish contractor fee at $750.
The following table shows the base rates and per employee rates of business license tax
for businesses of various size categories under a scenario with a minimum tax of $100,
a progressive per employee rate ranging from $25 to $100 per employee based on
business size, elimination of the maximum business license tax rate, and establishing a
contractor rate of $750.
Range of Employees Base Rate Per Employee Rate
0-4 $100 $25
5-9 $200 $30
10-19 $350 $45
20-49 $800 $50
50-99 $2,300 $60
100-249 $5,300 $75
250-499 $16,550 $80
500-999 $36,550 $90
1000+ $81,550 $100
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 19
BLT Revenue Impact: Under this scenario, BLT revenue from businesses within the City
is projected at $3,974,966, an increase of $2,325,246 or 141% from the current level of
$1,649,720. The average tax per business would be approximately $1,174 (currently the
average rate is $551).
5. Option 5 – Eliminate Maximum Business License Tax and implement a
progressively increasing per employee rate ($30 - $150) based upon business
size and establish contractor fee at $1,000
The following table shows the base rates and per employee rates of business license tax
for businesses of various size categories under a scenario with a minimum tax of $150,
a progressive per employee rate ranging from $30 to $150 per employee based on
business size, elimination of the maximum business license tax rate, and establishing a
contractor rate of $1,000.
Range of Employees Base Rate Per Employee Rate
0-4 $150 $30
5-9 $270 $35
10-19 $445 $50
20-49 $945 $60
50-99 $2,745 $75
100-249 $6,495 $80
250-499 $18,495 $90
500-999 $40,995 $100
1000+ $90,995 $150
BLT Revenue Impact: Under this scenario, BLT revenue from businesses within the City
is projected at $4,870,298, an increase of $3,220,578 or 195% from the current level of
$1,649,720. The average tax per business would be approximately $1,438 (currently the
average rate is $551).
6. Summary of Revenue Generation Under Various Options.
The following table summarizes the revenue generation potential under the options just
discussed:
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 20
Option Category
Total Projected
Revenue
Projected Revenue
Increase
Average Tax
Per Firm
Baseline $1,649,720 $0 $551.19
Option #1 - No Change, Missing
Businesses + No Max Fee $2,145,952 $496,232 $633.77
Option #2 - Double current per
employee rate + Cont / Subcontract
($500) + No Max Fee $3,056,024 $1,406,303 $902.55
Option #3 - Progressive Tax Rate ($20-
$100 per empl) + Cont / Subcontract
($750) + No Max Fee $3,831,039 $2,181,319 $1,131.44
Option #4 - Progressive Tax Rate ($25-
$100 per empl) + Cont / Subcontract
($750) + No Max Fee $3,974,966 $2,325,246 $1,173.94
Option #5 - Progressive Tax Rate
(Base Fee - $150; $30-$150 per empl)
+ Cont / Subcontract ($1,000) + No
Max Fee $4,870,298 $3,220,578 $1,438.36
7. Potential Impacts on Top 20 Business License Holders.
The following table summarizes the impact on the twenty businesses that pay the most
in business license taxes under the scenarios modeled.
Company
Number of
Employees
Current
Tax
Revenue Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
GENENTECH, INC 8632 $132,883 $172,744 $345,384 $841,459 $844,754 $1,235,799
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 622 $12,544 $12,544 $24,984 $44,239 $47,534 $53,199
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC 392 $7,944 $7,944 $15,784 $25,159 $27,914 $31,279
COSTCO WHOLESALE #475 322 $6,544 $6,544 $12,984 $19,909 $22,314 $24,979
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 314 $6,384 $6,384 $12,664 $19,309 $21,674 $24,259
COSTCO WHOLESALE #422 290 $5,904 $5,904 $11,704 $17,509 $19,754 $22,099
SEE'S CANDIES INC 206 $4,224 $4,224 $8,344 $11,649 $13,254 $14,979
SBM MANAGEMENT SERVICES LP 204 $4,184 $4,184 $8,264 $11,519 $13,104 $14,819
OROWEAT/ENTENMANN'S 186 $3,824 $3,824 $7,544 $10,349 $11,754 $13,379
ACTELION PHARMACEUTICALS US,
INC 184 $3,784 $3,784 $7,464 $10,219 $11,604 $13,219
RINAT LABORATORIES 157 $3,244 $3,244 $6,384 $8,464 $9,579 $11,059
ACERTA PHARMA LLC 150 $3,104 $3,104 $6,104 $8,009 $9,054 $10,499
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES
LP DBA ALL 150 $3,104 $3,104 $6,104 $8,009 $9,054 $10,499
TWO FIFTY 143 $2,964 $2,964 $5,824 $7,554 $8,529 $9,939
SAFEWAY INC #3116 129 $2,684 $2,684 $5,264 $6,644 $7,479 $8,819
MONOGRAM BIOSCIENCES INC. 128 $2,664 $2,664 $5,224 $6,579 $7,404 $8,739
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 21
Company
Number of
Employees
Current
Tax
Revenue Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 127 $2,644 $2,644 $5,184 $6,514 $7,329 $8,659
SUCCESSFACTORS, INC. 114 $2,384 $2,384 $4,664 $5,669 $6,354 $7,619
ABBVIE STEMCENTRX LLC 110 $2,304 $2,304 $4,504 $5,409 $6,054 $7,299
COSTCO BUSINESS CENTER #654 99 $2,084 $2,084 $4,064 $4,704 $5,244 $6,424
TOTAL $215,395 $255,255 $508,440 $1,078,875 $1,109,740 $1,537,565
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 22
Appendix A – Current State Description
The current state assessment outlines the existing business license tax assessment
program in the City of South San Francisco. The information contained in this document
has been developed by reviewing and analyzing program data and interviews of City staff
involved in the administration of the program.
The primary objective of the current state assessment is to document the existing
business license program, its statutory basis in the municipal code, the revenue trends
over the last three years associated with business license taxes, and an assessment of
the number and types of businesses who have acquired business tax licenses over the
last three years. This effort enables us to confirm our understanding of these important
facts and compare recommendations subsequently developed to the current state to
demonstrate the impact of the proposed changes.
1. Business License Tax Overview
All businesses operating or doing business within the city limits of South San Francisco,
including businesses that operate from home, are required to obtain a business license.
Annual business license fees are collected by the City’s Finance Department and are due
by January 31 of the calendar year. The City’s current business license program is
managed in-house by a single staff position (Accounting Assistant), with support from
an external vendor for online business license processing and printing (eTRAKiT).
There are two distinct processes that exist for the business license process - new and
renewal licenses. The following subsections discuss each of these distinct processes.
1.1 New Businesses
For every new business that is located within the City or doing business within the city
limits, a business license must be obtained. In order to obtain a business license, the
business must submit a completed business license application, proof of business name
registration, payment of business license taxes. Additionally, depending upon the type of
business, there might be other requirements such as disability access, home occupation
permit, proof of state license, and environmental health reports.
The most complex component of this process is for the City to calculate the business
license taxes associated with the new business. The Accounting Assistant must review
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 23
the initial information submitted regarding the type of business to determine the
appropriate business category and calculate the fee. Fees are established for each
specific business type category and may be based upon a flat rate, the number of
employees, or the business’ gross receipts.
The business license application can be submitted via email, mail or in-person. Due to
COVID-19 restrictions, currently all new business license applications are only being
accepted via email or mail. If a business is located within the City of South San Francisco,
it needs to receive site clearance from the Planning Division and the Fire Department
(other city divisions / departments may also require review / approval depending on the
type of business). Businesses can check the status of their business license application
on the City’s eTRAKiT website by logging into the website and seeing their business
license application linked or through the “license category” option by searching based
upon their business license number. There is currently a 4 - 6 week timeframe established
within which the business license must be issued.
If a business is not physically located in the City, the Finance department reviews the
applicant’s information and ensures all appropriate licensing fees have been paid and
then issues the business license. There is no review required from the City’s Planning
Division or other City departments and Finance is responsible for the entire process.
1.2 Business License Renewal
Every active business within the City must renew their business licenses every year. All
business licenses are due for renewal on January 1st of each year. All payments must be
made by January 31st. If payments are not paid when due, a 10% penalty is added on the
thirtieth day after the due date and an additional 15% penalty is added on the sixtieth day
after the due date. All business license renewal notices are mailed out in December and
businesses have the ability to renew business licenses in person, online or via mail. Due
to COVID-19 restrictions, currently all business license renewals have been extended to
March 31st, 2021 and are only able to be conducted online or via mail.
If conducting business license renewals online, the business must develop a log-in to the
city’s eTRAKiT system and go into licenses, find their license, and make the payment. The
renewal notices mailed by the City provide detailed instructions on how to remit the
annual license payment online. The notices also provide information indicating that if
there are any changes to the business (such as number of employees or professionals,
change in gross receipts, or a change in the services being provided), the business should
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 24
contact the City so that the information can be updated to ensure either an accurate
business license classification or that the amount calculated is correct.
1.3 Business License Changes
Business license changes, such as transfer of ownership or change of address, must be
communicated to the City with a new business license application. The City’s municipal
code specifies that all business licenses are non-transferable. There is a $10 fee for
processing the change of information in the system. However, depending upon the
change submitted there may be a need for additional verification. For example, if there is
a location / address change, the business may need site clearance at the new address
before the business license can be reissued.
2. Business License Tax Ordinance
The ordinance governing business licenses can be found in Title 6 of the Municipal Code.
Due to the size of the ordinance, a full copy has not been included in this document. In
general, the ordinance covers the following:
• The scope and purpose of the business licensing program is to raise municipal
revenues for the general fund.
• There are no specifically identified local exemptions in the code, other than those
made on a case-by-case basis for either physical or economic disability and for
non-profits recognized by the IRS and the State of California. Additionally, the
ordinance specifically exempts individuals or entities conducting business that are
exempt due to statutes of the United States or the state of California.
• The enforcement and collection of business license taxes are the responsibility
of the collector and any designated positions.
• The classification of businesses is the responsibility of the collector. The business
has the right to appeal not only the classification but any fees calculated
associated with that classification to the City Manager. The City Manager is the
final authority on the appeal of the business license decision.
• There is a general business license rate that is applicable to all businesses not
specifically identified in the ordinance, as well as a maximum rate that can be
charged to all businesses. The maximum rate is identified in the business license
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 25
rate schedule every year and is only applicable to certain business categories. The
maximum rate for 2021 is $132,883.25.
• All business licenses are effective January 1st of each calendar year. Businesses
that apply for a license during the year have their license prorated quarterly.
• All business license rates, including the maximum fee, are increased annually
based upon the CPI-W (or relatable cost factor if that is discontinued). The CPI-W
is calculated as the difference between June of each year.
• Any excess payments are refunded based upon written request to the collector.
• Penalties are imposed for late payment of the business license fee. These
penalties start at 10% on the 30th day and additional 15% on the 60th day (2
months). The Collector has the authority to waive penalties and extend due dates
(30 days at a time).
• All new business licenses require specific information to be provided such as
scope of the business services provided, business owner information, and site
clearance as required by city departments.
• Any changes in business activity, number of employees, or other factors should be
provided to the city upon renewals.
• No business license can be issued if there are delinquent payments on other
licenses.
• Specific provisions and language regarding the scope of each type of regulated
business in the city and the tax rate assigned to that business.
As the points indicate, Title 6 of the Municipal Code is fairly comprehensive and includes
a significant amount of detail regarding covered businesses, business license
procedures, and provisions regarding how the annual licensing fees are calculated and
administered. The code was last updated in 2008 and has not been modified since then,
other than to increase the tax rates based upon the annual increase factor (CPI-W).
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 26
3. Current Businesses Subject to a Business License Tax and Fee Schedule
The following table summarizes the 2021 fee schedule for business licenses of various
types issued by the City.
Business Classification 2021 Tax Rates/Fees
Auctioneer $132.50 per auction day
Business and Personal Services
Manufacturer
Warehousing
Wholesale/Retail Sales
Distributor and Other Services
Repair and Other Services
$99.75 per year + $20.00 per employee (including owner),
up to $132,883.25 total.
Cannabis Businesses 1-5% of gross receipts depending upon type of cannabis
business
1-2.5% of gross receipts for testing operations
1-4% of gross receipts for cultivating operations
1-3% of gross receipts for distributing operations
1-5% of gross receipts for manufacturing and delivery
operations
1-5% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses
Coin Operated Machines 1% of gross receipts
Commercial Parking Facility 8% of gross receipts
Construction Contractor “A” or “B” $199.25 annually
Subcontractor or “C” Contractor $165.75 annually
Junk Collector or Recycler Higher of $266 or 4% gross receipts, due in quarterly
payments
Medium $664.75 annually
Pawnbroker $266 annually
Peddler or Solicitor $99.75 + $20.00 per employee/owner + $332.25 per
vehicle used
Peddler – Single Perishable Product $186.50 annually
Peddler – Catering Truck $372.50 per vehicle annually
Peddler – All Others $372.50 annually plus $13.50 per day in excess of 2
persons
Professional/Semi-professional $199.25 + $199.25 for each additional associate, partner
or member of the professional corporation
Public Utilities $6,644.50 annually
Bowling Alley $66.50 per alley annually
Circus or similar exhibition
Carnival or similar event
$664.75 for 1st day + $132.50 per additional day
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 27
Business Classification 2021 Tax Rates/Fees
Motion Pictures 4 -
Other Recreation/Entertainment
Businesses
$132.50
Hotels, Motels, or Apartment House
Trailer and Mobile Home Parks
$99.75 + $7.00 per unit/space annually (occupied or
vacant)
Temporary Vendors $66.50 per day
Transportation of Persons $332.25 per vehicle + $20.00 per employee annually
Other Fees
Changes made to License $10
State Mandated Fee $4
Database Fee $27
Alarm Registration Fee $25
Fees assessed for first time applicants are pro-rated by the quarter of the year. All
business licenses are valid for the current calendar year and expire December 31st of
each year per the municipal code.
4. Current Business License Holder Demographics
The following table shows the count and percentage of licensed businesses inside and
outside the City over the last three years.
Count and Percentage of Licensed Businesses
Inside and Outside the City (2018 – 2020)
2018 2019 2020
Count % Count % Count %
Inside SSF 1,498 71.0% 1,604 70.0% 2,004 67.0%
Outside SSF 610 28.9% 685 29.9% 987 33.0%
Unspecified 1 - 1 - 2 -
Total 2,109 2,290 2,993
As this table shows, the number of businesses inside and outside the City have grown
dramatically in the last three years. The percentage of businesses outside the City has
outpaced those within the City, taking about 4% of the share of total licensed businesses
(from 29% to 33%) between 2018 and 2020.
4 The Motion Pictures category used to have a business license fee. With the most recent update, the business license fee has been
removed from the code and only filming permits are required.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 28
The following table shows the count and percentage of licensed businesses over the last
three years by classification.
Count and Percentage of Licensed Businesses
by Classification (2018 – 2020)
2018 2019 2020
Count % Count % Count %
Cannabis 2 - 2 - 2 -
Commercial 1,238 58.7% 1,296 56.6% 1,614 53.9%
Home 263 12.5% 312 13.6% 393 13.1%
Other 606 28.7% 680 29.7% 984 32.9%
Total 2,109 2,290 2,993
The number of commercial businesses has grown more slowly than the other categories,
particularly the “Other” category. Home businesses have remained at about 12 - 13% of
all licensed businesses.
The following table shows the count of licensed businesses over the last three years, by
the size of the business license fee.
Count of Licensed Businesses
by Business License Fee Amount (2018 – 2020)
BLT Fee 2018 2019 2020
% of Total
(2020)
$0 - $99 51 57 51 1.7%
$100 - $199 861 837 1099 36.7%
$200 - $299 470 597 1023 34.2%
$300 - $499 423 442 447 14.9%
$500 - $999 152 179 188 6.3%
$1000 - $2499 100 112 107 3.6%
$2500 - $4999 32 31 44 1.5%
$5000 - $9999 15 22 20 0.7%
$10000 - $24999 5 12 7 0.2%
$25000 - $49999 1 1 4 0.1%
$50000 - $99999 1 2 0.1%
$100000 - $249999 1 1 1 0.0%
Total 2,111 2,292 2,993 100.0%
More than 70% of businesses pay between $100 - $299 and another 15% pay between
$300 - $499 per year. Overall, 87.5% of businesses last year had a BLT fee less than $500.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 29
The following table shows the count of licensed businesses over the last three years by
subtype.
Count of Licensed Businesses by Subtype
(2018 – 2020)
Business Subtype 2018 2019 2020
Total
Growth
% of Total
Growth
AMBULANCE SERVICE 1 2 2 1 0.1%
BUSINESS SERVICES 325 358 450 125 14.1%
CATERING AND LUNCH WAGONS 6 5 6 0 0.0%
CHARTER BUS COMPANIES - 1 1 1 0.1%
COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY 1 1 1 0 0.0%
DANCE HALLS AND BALLROOMS 3 2 4 1 0.1%
CANNABIS DELIVERY 2 2 2 0 0.0%
DIRECT SELLING ORGANIZATION 1 1 1 0 0.0%
FORTUNE TELLERS - - 1 1 0.1%
FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES 37 37 53 16 1.8%
GENERAL CONTRACTOR CLASS A OR B 208 235 357 149 16.9%
HOTELS 13 13 19 6 0.7%
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 58 57 69 11 1.2%
MASSAGE PARLORS OR STEAMBATHS - - 1 1 0.1%
MISCELLANEOUS VENDING MACHINES 5 5 5 0 0.0%
MOTELS AND MOTOR HOTELS 6 10 10 4 0.5%
MOVING VAN OR TRUCKS 2 2 2 0 0.0%
PAWNBROKER 1 1 1 0 0.0%
PERSONAL SERVICES 226 248 308 82 9.3%
PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI PROF SERVICES 242 293 379 137 15.5%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2 2 2 0 0.0%
RECREATION BOWLING ALLEYS - 1 1 1 0.1%
RECREATION GYM OR ATHLETIC CLUBS 5 4 8 3 0.3%
REPAIR SERVICE 63 68 78 15 1.7%
RETAIL AUTO OR MARINE OR AIRCRAFT 22 21 26 4 0.5%
RETAIL EATING OR DRINKING PLACE 120 115 144 24 2.7%
RETAIL GENERAL MERCHANDISE 122 121 149 27 3.1%
ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSES 3 4 6 3 0.3%
SCRAP AND WASTE MATERIALS 1 2 2 1 0.1%
SECURITY GUARD SERVICES 6 4 6 0 0.0%
SUB CONTRACTOR CLASS C 366 416 573 207 23.4%
TAXICAB TRANS. AND LIMO SERVICE 3 4 4 1 0.1%
TRAILER CTS AND MOBILE HOME PARK - 1 1 1 0.1%
TRUCKING 15 14 19 4 0.5%
WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE 55 51 76 21 2.4%
WHOLESALE SALES AND DISTRIBUTOR 189 189 226 37 4.2%
TOTAL 2,109 2,290 2,993 884 100.0%
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 30
Over the last three years, there has been an increase of 884 new businesses licensed by
the City of South San Francisco which is equivalent to a 41.9% increase. The business
subtypes accounting for the greatest proportions of growth are: subcontractors (23.4%),
general contractors (16.9%), professional services (15.5%), and business services
(14.1%). These four categories account for 69.9% (618) of the new businesses licensed
over the last three years.
The following table shows the number of licensed businesses over the last three years
by employee count.
Number of Licensed Businesses by Employee Count and Location
(2018 – 2020)
Employee Count 2018 2019 2020
Change
18 - 20
% Change
18 - 20
% of Total
(2020)
Inside SSF
0 0 0 1 1 - 0.05%
1 576 638 786 210 36.5% 39.22%
2 202 218 263 61 30.2% 13.12%
3 - 5 240 253 317 77 32.1% 15.82%
6 - 10 183 174 240 57 31.1% 11.98%
11 - 25 173 191 229 56 32.4% 11.43%
26 - 50 65 68 94 29 44.6% 4.69%
51 - 100 38 38 43 5 13.2% 2.15%
101 - 250 16 18 19 3 18.8% 0.95%
251 - 999 3 4 7 4 133.3% 0.35%
1000+ 1 1 1 0 0.0% 0.05%
Unspecified 3 3 4 1 33.3% 0.20%
Subtotal 1,500 1,606 2,004 504 33.6% 100.00%
Outside SSF
0 11 9 14 3 27.3% 1.42%
1 502 568 831 329 65.5% 84.02%
2 32 32 42 10 31.3% 4.25%
3 - 5 25 28 34 9 36.0% 3.44%
6 - 10 15 14 20 5 33.3% 2.02%
11 - 25 9 8 11 2 22.2% 1.11%
26 - 50 7 8 8 1 14.3% 0.81%
51 - 100 1 1 1 0 0.0% 0.10%
101 - 250 2 3 4 2 100.0% 0.40%
251 - 999 0 0 0 0 - 0.00%
1000+ 0 0 0 0 - 0.00%
Unspecified 7 15 24 17 242.9% 2.43%
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 31
Employee Count 2018 2019 2020
Change
18 - 20
% Change
18 - 20
% of Total
(2020)
Subtotal 611 686 989 378 61.9% 100.00%
All Businesses
0 11 9 15 4 36.4% 0.50%
1 1,078 1,206 1,617 539 50.0% 54.03%
2 234 250 305 71 30.3% 10.19%
3 - 5 265 281 351 86 32.5% 11.73%
6 - 10 198 188 260 62 31.3% 8.69%
11 - 25 182 199 240 58 31.9% 8.02%
26 - 50 72 76 102 30 41.7% 3.41%
51 - 100 39 39 44 5 12.8% 1.47%
101 - 250 18 21 23 5 27.8% 0.77%
251 - 999 3 4 7 4 133.3% 0.23%
1000+ 1 1 1 0 0.0% 0.03%
Unspecified 10 18 28 18 180.0% 0.94%
Total 2,111 2,292 2,993 882 41.8% 100.00%
Businesses with a single employee account for more than 54% of all licensed businesses
and 76.45% of all licensed business have 5 or fewer employees. Businesses with only 1
employee are the largest size category of businesses (39%) within the City and represent
84% of licensed businesses located outside of South San Francisco. Over the last three
years, employees with 1 employee represented 539 of the 882 new businesses (61%)
licensed by the City.
The businesses grouped in the “Unspecified” category do not have a count of employees
listed in the data provided by the City. These businesses paid an average of $212.55 in
2020 business license tax and all fall into one of four subtype categories, as shown in the
following table:
Licensed Businesses with an Unspecified Number of Employees
(2020)
Subtype Count
SUB CONTRACTOR CLASS C 6620 17
GENERAL CONTRACTOR CLASS A OR B 6610 8
PERSONAL SERVICES 6200 2
PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI PROF SERVICES 6500 1
TOTAL 28
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 32
5. Business License Tax Revenues
The following table shows the amount and percentage of business license tax revenue
from sources inside and outside the City over the last three years.
Total and Percentage of Businesses License Tax Fees
Inside and Outside the City (2018 – 2020)
2018 2019 2020 Change 18 - 20
Revenue % Revenue % Revenue % Revenue % Change
Inside SSF $1,074,681 87.2% $1,207,467 87.6% $1,491,114 86.3% $416,433 39%
Outside SSF $157,590 12.8% $170,390 12.4% $235,464 13.6% $77,873 49%
Unspecified $194 - $204 - $422 - $228 -
Total $1,232,465 100% $1,378,062 100% $1,727,000 100% $494,535 100%
Business license tax revenue has increased over the last three years by nearly $500,000.
The percentage of revenue derived from businesses inside and outside the City have both
grown with businesses outside the City somewhat outpacing those inside the City.
Businesses outside the City accounted for 13.6% of revenue in 2020, compared to the
12.8% of revenue accounted for by these businesses in 2018. Businesses inside the City
accounted for 86.3% of revenue in 2020, a slight decrease from the 87.2% of revenue they
produced for in 2018.
The following table shows the amount and percentage of business license tax revenue
from different business classifications over the last three years.
Total and Percentage of Businesses License Tax Assessed
by Classification (2018 – 2020)
2018 2019 2020 Change 18 - 20
Revenue % Revenue % Revenue % Revenue % Change
Cannabis $16,440 1.3% $9,726 0.7% $129,077 7.5% $112,637 685%
Commercial $1,016,957 82.5% $1,133,311 82.2% $1,299,438 75.2% $282,481 28%
Home $46,370 3.8% $61,012 4.4% $70,921 4.1% $24,551 53%
Other $152,698 12.4% $174,013 12.6% $227,563 13.2% $74,865 49%
Total $1,232,465 100% $1,378,062 100% $1,727,000 100% $494,535 100%
Revenue from all classifications increased, but the commercial classification grew more
slowly than the other classifications, while the cannabis delivery businesses produced
significant growth. Cannabis delivery businesses accounted for 7.5% of revenue in 2020,
compared to just 1.3% of revenue accounted for by these businesses in 2018.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 33
Commercial businesses accounted for 75.2% of revenue in 2020, a decrease from the
82.5% of revenue they produced for in 2018. Home-based businesses and those
classified as “other” each stayed fairly steady.
The following table shows the amount of business license tax revenue from different
business subtypes over the last three years.
Businesses License Tax Assessed
By Subtype (2018 – 2020)
Business Type 2018 2019 2020
Total
Growth
% of Total
Growth
AMBULANCE SERVICE $651 $1,809 $1,122 $472 0.1%
BUSINESS SERVICES $127,032 $142,615 $139,757 $12,725 2.6%
CATERING AND LUNCH WAGONS $2,188 $2,284 $2,523 $335 0.1%
CHARTER BUS COMPANIES - $741 $383 $383 0.1%
COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITY $44 $57 $57 $13 0.0%
DANCE HALLS AND BALLROOMS $2,731 $323 $566 -$2,166 -0.4%
CANNABIS DELIVERY $16,440 $9,726 $129,077 $112,637 22.8%
DIRECT SELLING ORGANIZATION $372 $384 $394 $22 0.0%
FORTUNE TELLERS - - $747 $747 0.2%
FREIGHT FORWARDING SERVICES $17,736 $19,090 $21,573 $3,837 0.8%
GENERAL CONTRACTOR CLASS A OR B $49,853 $55,783 $88,899 $39,046 7.9%
HOTELS $18,851 $12,703 $20,797 $1,946 0.4%
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES $302,676 $183,222 $189,443 -$113,233 -22.9%
MASSAGE PARLORS OR STEAMBATHS - - $186 $186 0.0%
MISCELLANEOUS VENDING MACHINES $12,125 $8,811 $8,227 -$3,897 -0.8%
MOTELS AND MOTOR HOTELS $3,128 $9,291 $5,601 $2,473 0.5%
MOVING VAN OR TRUCKS $667 $546 $391 -$277 -0.1%
PAWNBROKER $154 $1,415 $322 $169 0.0%
PERSONAL SERVICES $55,507 $68,541 $69,109 $13,602 2.8%
PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI PROF SVCS $247,865 $444,418 $611,243 $363,378 73.5%
PUBLIC UTILITY $21,823 $13,082 $13,401 -$8,422 -1.7%
RECREATION BOWLING ALLEYS - $552 $1,251 $1,251 0.3%
RECREATION GYM OR ATHLETIC CLUBS $1,173 $730 $1,663 $490 0.1%
REPAIR SERVICE $20,635 $18,390 $20,400 -$235 0.0%
RETAIL AUTO OR MARINE OR AIRCRAFT $7,165 $7,744 $8,038 $873 0.2%
RETAIL EATING OR DRINKING PLACE $55,898 $60,608 $58,743 $2,844 0.6%
RETAIL GENERAL MERCHANDISE $46,524 $50,861 $49,943 $3,419 0.7%
ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSES $3,579 $3,879 $3,718 $139 0.0%
SCRAP AND WASTE MATERIALS $298 $837 $599 $302 0.1%
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 34
Business Type 2018 2019 2020
Total
Growth
% of Total
Growth
SECURITY GUARD SERVICES $4,957 $4,998 $4,845 -$112 0.0%
SUB CONTRACTOR CLASS C $75,709 $85,558 $116,367 $40,658 8.2%
TAXICAB TRANS. AND LIMO SERVICE $2,052 $18,118 $8,741 $6,689 1.4%
TRAILER CTS AND MOBILE HOME PARK - $5,546 $2,830 $2,830 0.6%
TRUCKING $12,369 $7,933 $5,617 -$6,751 -1.4%
WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE $19,187 $26,642 $38,504 $19,317 3.9%
WHOLESALE SALES AND DISTRIBUTOR $98,177 $99,327 $101,922 $3,745 0.8%
Unspecified $4,900 $11,500 - - -
Total $1,232,465 $1,378,062 $1,727,000 $494,535
The majority of revenue is derived from a few business subtypes. Professional services
and cannabis delivery have accounted for the greatest proportion of BLT growth over the
past three years. Notably, there are only two cannabis delivery businesses, which together
paid $129,000 in fees for 2020. Other major business subtypes, meanwhile, such as
wholesalers, manufacturing, and business services, have produced fairly flat or declining
BLT revenues. The following table shows the 10 subtypes which accounted for the most
revenue collectively in 2020.
Business Type Count Total Revenue
PROFESSIONAL OR SEMI PROF SERVICES 379 $611,243
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES 69 $189,443
BUSINESS SERVICES 450 $139,757
CANNABIS DELIVERY 2 $129,077
SUB CONTRACTOR CLASS C 573 $116,367
WHOLESALE SALES AND DISTRIBUTOR 226 $101,922
GENERAL CONTRACTOR CLASS A OR B 357 $88,899
PERSONAL SERVICES 308 $69,109
RETAIL EATING OR DRINKING PLACE 144 $58,743
RETAIL GENERAL MERCHANDISE 149 $49,943
These top 10 revenue-generating business subtypes collectively accounted for 90% of
the City’s business license tax revenue in 2020.
The following table shows the amount of business license tax revenue from businesses
over the last three years by employee count.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 35
Businesses License Tax Assessed from Businesses Inside and
Outside the City by Employee Count (2018 – 2020)
Employee Count 2018 2019 2020
Avg Fee
(2020)
% of Total
(2020)
Inside SSF
0 $ - $ - $ - $0 0.0%
1 $157,241 $191,573 $188,555 $239 10.9%
2 $66,499 $66,258 $101,337 $385 5.9%
3-5 $77,163 $94,933 $188,567 $595 10.9%
6-10 $81,580 $97,043 $120,889 $504 7.0%
11-25 $137,438 $186,299 $203,275 $888 11.8%
26-50 $95,600 $140,621 $150,266 $1,599 8.7%
51-100 $97,203 $100,804 $140,689 $3,272 8.1%
101-250 $88,828 $113,957 $159,496 $8,395 9.2%
251-999 $23,902 $84,642 $104,926 $14,989 6.1%
1000+ $248,715 $130,825 $132,939 $132,939 7.7%
Unspecified $705 $719 $596 $149 0.0%
Subtotal (Inside SSF) $1,074,875 $1,207,672 $1,491,536 $744 100%
Outside SSF
0 $2,355 $1,511 $3,161 $226 1.3%
1 $122,442 $132,372 $188,502 $227 80.1%
2 $7,592 $9,055 $10,884 $259 4.6%
3-5 $6,735 $9,279 $9,228 $271 3.9%
6-10 $7,840 $3,979 $4,544 $227 1.9%
11-25 $2,180 $2,261 $2,575 $234 1.1%
26-50 $3,728 $5,187 $3,414 $427 1.4%
51-100 $318 $167 $173 $173 0.1%
101-250 $3,027 $3,311 $7,627 $1,907 3.2%
Unspecified $1,373 $3,268 $5,355 $223 2.3%
Subtotal (Outside SSF) $157,590 $170,390 $235,464 $239 100%
All Businesses
0 $ 2,355 $ 1,511 $ 3,161 $211 0.2%
1 $ 279,683 $ 323,945 $ 377,058 $233 21.8%
2 $ 74,091 $ 75,313 $ 112,221 $368 6.5%
3-5 $ 83,898 $ 104,212 $ 197,795 $564 11.5%
6-10 $ 89,421 $ 101,022 $ 125,433 $482 7.3%
11-25 $ 139,618 $ 188,559 $ 205,849 $858 11.9%
26-50 $ 99,328 $ 145,807 $ 153,680 $1,507 8.9%
51-100 $ 97,521 $ 100,971 $ 140,863 $3,201 8.2%
101-250 $ 91,855 $ 117,268 $ 167,123 $7,266 9.7%
251-999 $23,902 $84,642 $104,926 $14,989 6.1%
1000+ $248,715 $130,825 $132,939 $132,939 7.7%
Unspecified $705 $719 $596 $213 0.3%
Total $1,074,875 $1,207,672 $1,491,536 $577 100%
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 36
Business license revenues inside the City are generally evenly spread among businesses
of different sizes, with larger businesses fewer in number but paying a larger average fee.
The correlation between business size and business license fee does not correlate as
well on businesses located outside the City of South San Francisco. Most of these
businesses have a single employee or of a type that have a flat fee (rather than a per
employee rate); as such, businesses located outside the City tend to pay an average of
$200 - $300 in license tax regardless of their size.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 37
Appendix B – Comparative Survey
To gain insight into the prevailing practices for administering business license tax
programs, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other Bay Area
communities. The survey was designed to develop an understanding of common
practices and provisions, as well as revenue metrics, from peer agencies doing similar
work in other cities. The agencies asked to participate were determined by the team with
the input of the City, and survey contacts were made in March and August of 2021.
1. Comparable Communities and Basic Demographics
The following table presents the list of cities surveyed, as well as their population and the
number of licensed businesses they reported in response to the survey.
City Population
San Jose 1,021,786
San Francisco 881,549
Boston (MA) 692,600
Oakland 433,044
Sunnyvale 152,770
Santa Clara 127,721
Berkeley 121,363
Daly City 106,677
San Mateo 104,333
Vacaville 100,670
San Leandro 90,025
Redwood City 85,784
South San Francisco 67,781
San Bruno 43,083
Menlo Park 34,698
Burlingame 30,576
Millbrae 22,625
South San Francisco sits in the lower half of surveyed cities by population. Four cities
have smaller populations, and twelve have larger populations. The following table shows
the number of licensed business reported for each surveyed city.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 38
City
Licensed
Businesses
Businesses per
1,000 Population
San Francisco 104,333 118
Oakland 70,000 162
San Jose 58,000 57
Boston (MA) 25,000 36
Berkeley 13,029 107
Santa Clara 12,751 100
San Leandro 10,938 121
Redwood City 8,610 100
Daly City 7,900 74
Burlingame 7,800 255
Sunnyvale 7,500 49
San Mateo 7,300 70
Menlo Park 5,480 158
Vacaville 5,093 51
Millbrae 3,300 146
South San Francisco 2,993 44
San Bruno 2,862 66
Average 21,660 109
Only one city reported fewer licensed businesses than South San Francisco, while 14
others reported more. South San Francisco has fewer licensed businesses per 1,000
residents (44) than any other city surveyed except for Boston, which conducts business
registrations differently from the California cities included. The next closest California
city was Sunnyvale at 49 licensed businesses per 1,000 population. This suggests that
South San Francisco may not be capturing businesses in its license database with the
same degree of consistency that other cities are.
2. BLT Ordinance and Major Program Elements
The first section of the survey addresses the business license tax ordinance in each City
and compares their characteristics. Initial information about the ordinance and use of
funding is shown in the following table.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 39
City Date of
Ordinance Use of Funds Tax Basis
Annual
Escalator
Berkeley Adopted: 1977
Revised: 2018
General Fund Primarily gross
receipts
None
Boston (MA) Adopted: 1976
Revised: 2019
General Fund Primarily flat fee,
some gross sales
None
Burlingame Adopted: 1978
Revised: 2020
General Fund Flat fee None
Daly City Adopted: 1993
Revised: 2020
General Fund Gross receipts None
Menlo Park Adopted: 1975
Revised: 1978
General Fund Primarily gross
receipts, some per
employee
None
Millbrae Adopted: 1976
Revised: 1994
General Fund Gross receipts plus
per-employee and
square foot charges
None
Oakland Adopted: 2007
Revised: 2017
General Fund Primarily gross
receipts
None
Redwood City Adopted: 1990
Revised: 2017
General Fund Primarily per
employee, some per-
unit or flat fees
CPI
San Bruno Adopted: 1983
Revised: 2019
General Fund Primarily gross
receipts, some per
employee or square
foot
None
San Francisco Adopted: 2011
Revised: 2020
General Fund Gross receipts CPI
San Jose Adopted: 2016
Revised: 2021
General Fund Primarily per
employee, some per
unit or square foot
CPI
San Leandro Adopted: 1998
Revised: 2020
General Fund Primarily per
employee, some
square footage or
flat fees
CPI
San Mateo Adopted: 1971
Revised: 2021
General Fund Primarily gross
receipts
None
Santa Clara Adopted: 2000
Revised: 2017
General Fund Primarily per
employee
None
Sunnyvale Adopted: 1968
Revised: 2020
General Fund Per employee or
rental unit
CPI
Vacaville Adopted: 1977
Revised: 2000
General Fund Primarily per
employee, some per-
unit
CPI – if
triggered
South San Francisco Adopted: 1976
Revised: 2020
General Fund Varies by business
type
CPI
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 40
Like most cities, South San Francisco’s ordinance has been recently revised but
principally only to address the rates applied for the coming year, not for major program
modifications. All comparable cities surveyed are using the business license taxes for
general fund support. Of the 12 cities surveyed, five use CPI to annually adjust business
license tax rates and another (Vacaville) provides that option when CPI has increased by
10% since the last update but does not automatically trigger it.
The basis for assessing taxes is different from city to city. Two cities use a flat fee, and
seven use gross receipts as the primary assessment methodology. Three cities use a per-
employee tax, three others use a blend of per-employee and per-unit or square footage,
and one city uses both a gross receipts and per-employee basis. A more detailed outline
of the provisions in each city’s business license tax ordinance is shown below.
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
Berkeley Minimums:
$26 for home-based and nonprofits, $77 for rental property, $51 for all
others
Gross Receipts:
• Retail and Automotive, Wholesale, Administrative Headquarters: $1.20
per $1,000 gross receipts
• Business, Personal Repair, Contractors, Private Franchised
Haulers/Recycling: $1.80 per $1,000 gross receipts
• Groceries: $0.6 per $1,000 gross receipts
• Misc. Business: $2.40 per $1,000 gross receipts
• Professional/Semi-professional: $3.60 per $1,000 gross receipts
• Recreation and Entertainment: $4.50 per $1,000 gross receipts
• Property Rental:
- $10.81 per $1,000 gross receipts under 5 units
- $28.80 per $1,000 gross receipts 5 or more units
• Cannabis:
- $25 per $1,000 gross receipts medical
- $50 per $1,000 gross receipts non-medical
• Professional Sports: $100 per $1,000 gross receipts
• Firearms Dealers, Private Rubbish Haulers: $150 per $1,000 gross
receipts
• Manufacturing: $1.20 per $1,000 value added
• Taxis: $215 per vehicle
• Handbills & Peddlers:
- $309 and $258 respectively
- $206 or $168 for hand-made peddler wares
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 41
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
Boston (MA) • $65 to obtain business certificate, additional $35 if outside City. Renewed
every 4 years.
• Various other flat fees due to individual commissions for different
business types; very numerous, such that the code has them in
alphabetized sections. Examples:
- Advertising permit: $50/month from Commissioner of Public Works
- License to manufacture or deal in alcohol: $3 from the Board of
Health and Hospitals
- License to sell ammunition: $225 from the Police Commissioner
- Assembly Permit: $160 - $6,500 depending on size, from Fire Chief
- Auction License: $50 from Police Commissioner
- Auctioneer’s License: $100 for resident, or $10/day with minimum of
$50 for non-resident, from Police Commissioner
- Automatic Amusement Device License: $140 from Licensing Board
- Automobile Wrecking Yard Permit: $750 from Fire Chief
- Bakery Permit: $100 from Dept. of Public Health
- Bath/Spa Permit: $200 from Board of Health and Hospitals
- Manufacturing of bottles or beverages: $400 from Board of Health
and Hospitals
- Bowling Alley Permit: $40 + $20/lane from Licensing Board
- Bowling Alley Refinishing Permit: $130 from Fire Chief
- Mechanic’s License: $50 + various renewal fees from Board of
Examiners
- Building Materials Yard Permit: $750 from Fire Chief
- Cemetery: $500 from Mayor and Council
- Club License: $100 from Licensing Board
- Dancing School License: $100 from Mayor’s Office
- Day Care License: $5 from Board of Health and Hospitals
Burlingame • Flat fee based on which quarter the business was started.
- Q1: $100
- Q2: $75
- Q3: $50
- Q4: $25
Daly City • Assessment for all businesses types is 1.1% of total gross receipts, with
a minimum fee of $110.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 42
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
Menlo Park Greatest of gross receipts or, if applicable, another methodology.
• Gross receipts schedule:
- $0-$25k = $50
- $25-50k = $75
- $50-$75 = $100
- $100-$200 = $160
- ...etc up to:
- $1-$2mil = $750
- $250 per $1mil thereafter
- Capped at $8,000
• Admin offices or warehouses:
- 1-5 employees = $50
- 6-15 employees = $200
- 16-25 employees = $350
- ...etc up to
- 201+ employees = $1,250
• Peddlers/Solicitors:
$300/year or $20/day
• Home Occupation < $7,500 in gross receipts:
$93 one-time fee plus $25 annually
Millbrae • Retail and Services: $64, plus $4.25 per employee, plus application of
gross receipts schedule (above $750,000 annual revenue).
• Rental Property - Residential: $64, plus $5.30 per unit.
• R&D: $64, plus $0.32 per $1000 cost of operations.
• Gross Receipts are applied in addition to the base fee and the per
employee charge as follows:
- Over $750,000 and under $5,000,000 = .03% of gross receipts.
- Over $5,000,000 and under $10,000,000 = .025% of gross receipts.
- Over $10,000,000 = .02% of gross receipts.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 43
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
Oakland • Most industries: gross receipts
- Business and personal, contractors, hotels, real estate development
or rehabbers: $60 + .18% of gross receipts above $33,335
- Cannabis: .12% of gross receipts above defined amount which varies
depending on business classification
- Groceries: $60 + .06% of gross receipts above $100,000
- Professional: $60 + .36% of gross receipts above $16,600
- Residential rentals: 1.395% of gross receipts
- Commercial/industrial rentals: 1.395% of gross receipts, some
exemptions
- Recreation / entertainment: $60 + .45% of gross receipts above
$13,335
- Public Utilities: $60 + .1% of gross receipts above $60,000
- Administrative headquarters, retail, manufacturers, wholesalers, and
all others: $60 + .12% of gross receipts above $50,000
• Transportation: per employee
- First person: $72
- Next 19 people: $18/employee
- Next 80 people: $9/employee
- Next 100 people: $7.50/employee
- All others: $4.50/employee
• Taxi/Limo/Ambulance
- $75 per ambulance or limousine
- $180 per taxicab
Redwood City • Most industries (default): $70 plus $46 per full-time employee and $23
per part-time employee.
• Real Estate Broker: $70 plus $48 per salesperson or employee
• Residential property rental: $70 plus $26 per unit
• Non-residential property rental: $70 plus $26 per 1,000 square feet
• Contractors with less than $50,000 gross receipts: $47 flat
• Dance halls, vehicle wreckers, junk collection, pawnbrokers, commercial
advertising, fortune tellers, Christmas tree lots: $698 flat
• Maximum tax for any business is $5,798
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 44
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
San Bruno • General tax rate based on gross receipts for most business types:
- Less than $75,000 = $75
- $75,000 - $100,000 = $100
- Up to $500,000 = $110 + $5.25 per $5,000
- Up to $1,000,000 = $530 + $4.00 per $5,000
- Up to $5,000,000 = $930 + $2.75 per $5,000
- Over $5,000,000 = $3,130 + $1.65 per $5,000
• Manufacturing and central administrative offices: based on employee
count and square footage.
Employee Count
- 1-10 = $7.50 per employee
- 11-25 = $75 + $5 per employee over 10
- 26-50 = $195 + $4 per employee over 25
- 51+ = $350 + $3 per employee over 50
Square Footage
- Under 1,000 square feet = $150
- 1,000 to 2,499 square feet = $250
- 2,500 to 4,999 square feet = $350
- 5,000 to 9,999 square feet = $550
- 10,000 or more square feet = $850
• Apartments: $50 + $1 per room
• Commercial property: $50 + $10/1,000 sq. ft.
• Vehicle vendors: $75/year
• Nonresident contractors: $75/year
San Francisco • Gross receipts tax based on business type.
- Brackets range from gross receipts of $0 - $100,000 (in which
Schedule A pays $103, Schedule B pays $86), up to a bracket of $2
million or greater (in which Schedule A pays $40,261, Schedule B pays
$34,510).
- Schedule A: default schedule, includes every business function not
listed in Schedule B.
- Schedule B: businesses consisting solely of the business activities of
Certain Services (e.g. Repair/Maintenance, Personal/Laundry, Civic
Orgs), Retail Trade, and/or Wholesale Trade).
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 45
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
San Jose • Default rate is based on employee count, unless stated otherwise.
- Base tax (1 - 2) employees = $203.85.
- Higher staffing numbers increases the per-employee cost based on
brackets; 3 - 35, 36 - 100, 101 - 500, 501+.
- Highest cost per employee is $65.45.
• Fees specific to businesses:
- Residential Rental: Same base tax, similar fee structure, but uses
property units instead. Caps at 501+ rental units, same maximum tax.
- Commercial Rental: Same base tax. Flat incremental tax of $0.0272
per square foot. Same maximum tax.
- Mobile Home Parks: Same base tax for 1 - 2 lots. Incremental tax of
$10.60 per unit for 3 or more lots. Same maximum tax.
- Water Meter Connections: Same base tax, flat tax of $1.09 per
connection.
• Tax cannot exceed $163,745.
San Leandro • Base tax either $732.70 (for automobile wrecking, commercial
advertising, tree lots and pumpkin patches, dance halls, pawn shops,
secondhand shops, and fortune tellers) or $146.20 (all others).
• Additional tax charged depending on type of business.
- Manufacturing, retail, peddlers, utilities, local wholesale/distribution,
and miscellaneous: $43.90 per employee
- Contractors, recreation, and “services”: $87.90 per employee
- Professional: $110 per employee
- Warehouses and general wholesale/distribution: $114.10 per 1,000
square feet
- Nonresidential property rental: $21.90 per 1,000 square feet
- Residential property rental: $13.20 per unit
- Towing and coin-operated devices: $1.30 per $1,000 of gross receipts
- Firearms dealer: $4.40 per $100 of gross receipts from concealable
weapons sold to private individuals or entities
- Parking lot: $100 per $1,000 of gross receipts
- Waste disposal: $1.97 per ton
- Carnival: $263.50 per day
- Merchant: $45.40 per week
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 46
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
San Mateo • Most professions and retailers taxed by gross receipts according to
established schedule:
- Under $30,000 = $25
- $30,000 to $40,000 = $30
- $40,000 to $45,000 = $38
- $45,000 to $50,000 = $46
- $50,000 to $55,000 = $54
- $55,000 to $65,000 = $62
- $65,000 to $70,000 = $70
- $70,000 to $75,000 = $78
- $75,000 to $80,000 = $86
- $80,000 to $85,000 = $94
- $85,000 to $90,000 = $102
- $90,000 to $95,000 = $110
- $95,000 to $100,000 = $115
- Over $100,000 = $115 + $2.85 per additional $5,000
• Real estate brokers: $50 + $5 per associate
• Automotive: various flat taxes depending on type of business
• Contractors: $100 general, $40 other/subcontractors
• Hotels: $30 + $2.50 per room
Santa Clara • Most businesses taxes based on number of employees, with a minimum
of $15 and a maximum of $500. Business classification determines the
number of employees at which the maximum is reached.
- Professional: $500 maximum reached at 56 employees.
- Manufacturing: $500 maximum reached at 401 employees.
- Commercial/Industrial and miscellaneous: $500 maximum reached at
101 employees.
• Residential rentals: $3 per unit
• Theaters: $23 to $45 depending on size
• Taxis: $15 per vehicle
• Various others according to schedule (see appendix)
• Businesses outside the city: $45 flat tax and $23 per vehicle
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 47
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
Sunnyvale • Business license tax based on number of employees or rental units,
whichever count is higher.
• Employee count
- First employee = $30
- 2-5 employees = $50
- 6+ employees = $50 per 5 employees
- Maximum $9,500
• Rental unit count
- First unit = $30
- 2-5 units = $50
- 6+ units = $50 per 5 employees
- Maximum $4,250
• All figures 2009 dollars. Initial value ($30 above) now $39.95 in 2020.
Vacaville • NAICS Sectors 52, 53, 54, 55, and 62: Fee of $75 + the following:
- 2-5 employees: $25/yr
- 6-12 employees: $50
- 13-25 employees: $125
- 26-50 employees: $150
- 51-100 employees: $250
- 101+ employees: $25 per 50 staff
- Max: $500 per location/branch
• Others: Fee of $50 + the following:
- 2-5 employees: $25/yr
- 6-12 employees: $50
- 13-25 employees: $100
- 26-50 employees: $125
- 51-100 employees: $225
- 101+ employees: $25 per 50 staff
• If $1k-$2.5k in gross receipts:
- $25 for 1 employee
- $40 for 2+
- Max: $500 per location/branch
• Apartments: $4/unit, max $350
• Hotels: $3/unit, max $350
• Trailer Parks: $2/unit, max $350
• Taxi: $50 + $5/vehicle annually and $10.25 + $1/vehicle quarterly
Special rates for bingo, cannabis, vending machines, jukeboxes.
South San Francisco Varies depending on business type:
Auctioneer $132.50 per auction day
Business and Personal Services
Manufacturer
Warehousing
Wholesale/Retail Sales
Distributor and Other Services
Repair and Other Services
$99.75 per year + $20.00 per employee
(including owner), up to $132,883.25
total.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 48
City Summary of Ordinance Provisions
Cannabis Businesses 1-5% of gross receipts depending upon
type of cannabis business
1-2.5% of gross receipts for testing
operations
1-4% of gross receipts for cultivating
operations
1-3% of gross receipts for distributing
operations
1-5% of gross receipts for
manufacturing and delivery operations
1-5% of gross receipts for all other
cannabis businesses
Coin Operated Machines 1% of gross receipts
Commercial Parking Facility 8% of gross receipts
Construction Contractor “A” or
“B”
$199.25 annually
Subcontractor or “C” Contractor $165.75 annually
Junk Collector or Recycler Higher of $266 or 4% gross receipts,
due in quarterly payments
Medium $664.75 annually
Pawnbroker $266 annually
Peddler or Solicitor $99.75 + $20.00 per employee/owner +
$332.25 per vehicle used
Peddler – Single Perishable
Product
$186.50 annually
Peddler – Catering Truck $372.50 per vehicle annually
Peddler – All Others $372.50 annually plus $13.50 per day in
excess of 2 persons
Professional/Semi-professional $199.25 + $199.25 for each additional
associate, partner or member of the
professional corporation
Public Utilities $6,644.50 annually
Bowling Alley $66.50 per alley annually
Circus or similar exhibition
Carnival or similar event
$664.75 for 1st day + $132.50 per
additional day
Other Recreation/Entertainment
Businesses
$132.50
Hotels, Motels, or Apartment
House
Trailer and Mobile Home Parks
$99.75 + $7.00 per unit/space annually
(occupied or vacant)
Temporary Vendors $66.50 per day
Transportation of Persons $332.25 per vehicle + $20.00 per
employee annually
Most cities have a business license tax based on either gross receipts or employee count,
with per-unit or square footage exceptions carved out for property rentals, along with
specific rates for some particular business types. South San Francisco is unique in
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 49
charging a flat rate to contractors while using a per-employee or gross receipts-based
rate for other business types.
The City of Boston’s model is different from any other city surveyed. The City administers
a “business registration” program rather than a business license tax program, using a flat
fee structure, and its revenue per business is minimal as a result (a fact which is noted in
the relevant financial comparison later in this document). The City does, however, require
permits for dozens of specific business types which can be obtained from the respective
departments and boards which administer them.
Every city surveyed which determines business license taxes on a per-employee basis
defines “employees” as only those employees which are located or operating within the
city limits.
3. BLT Exemptions and Provisions for Specific Business Types
There are some cities which also offer exemptions to businesses in addition to those
already exempt from business tax under California law. These exemptions, as well as any
special provisions for contractors headquartered outside the city and transportation
network companies (TNC’s) like Uber and Lyft, are shown in the following table. Cities not
offering any exemptions beyond those required under State law are shown as “Standard”.
These standard exemptions include 501(c)3 nonprofit and religious organizations,
federally chartered banks, insurers subject to the state gross premiums tax, low-income
housing, and license-exempt daycares.
City Exemptions
Provisions for
Contractors Outside
the City TNC Provisions
Berkeley Nonprofits, warehouses if
they serve another related
business location in the city,
infirm individuals, charitable
organizations.
Gross receipts
apportioned for work
done in city,
subcontractor
payments deductible
Drivers not required
to get a business
license.
$0.50 per ride
originating in the city,
minus $0.25 for
shared rides
Boston (MA) LLC's, C-Corps, S-Corps, etc.
They only register sole
proprietorships, franchises,
DBA's, etc, not entities
governed by the
Commonwealth.
$35 fee instead of
$65 for business
certificate
Drivers expected to
register as
independent
contractors.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 50
City Exemptions
Provisions for
Contractors Outside
the City TNC Provisions
Burlingame Standard Pro-rated based on
when work in the City
is conducted
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Daly City Standard No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Menlo Park Owners of less than five hotel,
motel or apartment units;
Owners of industrial,
commercial, professional or
other real property held out to
others for lease; home day
cares; standard other
categories.
Gross receipts
apportioned for work
done in city,
subcontractor
payments deductible
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Millbrae Standard No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Oakland Businesses grossing < $2,500
in 2010 dollars. Also certain
commercial and owner-
occupied properties, parking
lot operators, and other
identified businesses subject
to other taxes.
No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Redwood City Home occupations less than
$1,000, standard other
categories.
No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
San Bruno Auctioneers, people under 16,
moving companies.
Flat fee of $75/year Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
San Francisco Businesses grossing < $2
million or with no more than 4
rental units.
No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
3.25% per ride
originating in city
Minus 1.5% for
shared rides
Minus 1.5% for zero-
emission rides
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 51
City Exemptions
Provisions for
Contractors Outside
the City TNC Provisions
San Jose Farmers market vendors, off-
duty police officers, hand-
produced wares, senior
citizens, and at-home lessons,
along with standard
categories.
Pro-rated based on
when work in the City
is conducted
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Must have ground
transportation permit
to offer airport
service.
San Leandro Businesses grossing < $5,000 No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
San Mateo Standard No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Santa Clara Standard Flat fee of $45/year No licenses issued
for rideshare drivers.
Sunnyvale Standard No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
Vacaville Charities, nonprofits, at-home
teachers, minors under 16,
any gross receipts under $1k,
and peddlers who are blind or
veterans, standard others.
No special
provisions
Drivers expected to
become licensed as
independent
contractors.
South San Francisco Standard No
With the exception of San Francisco, exemptions are typically limited to small businesses
such as those showing minimal gross receipts, small private landlords, and home
occupations. Individual cities also exempt parking lot operators, business owners under
16 years of age, and veterans or disabled peddlers. Most cities which have separate
provisions for businesses outside city limits use a flat fee or pro-rate the business license
tax, lightening the tax burden on those businesses.
All but two cities surveyed require rideshare drivers to obtain a business license as an
independent contractor/sole proprietor. Per the text of California SB 182 from 2017,
drivers are required only to obtain a single local business license instead of a license from
each local jurisdiction.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 52
4. BLT Program Administration
The following section explores how the business license tax program is administered in
the cities surveyed. The administration of the program (whether internal or contracted),
the approximate number of assigned FTE’s for those internally administered, and the
extent of technology use for businesses to apply and renew their license, are shown in
the following table.
City Administration Assigned FTE’s
Application
Approach
San Jose Internal 10 Electronic
Oakland Internal 8 Electronic
Daly City Internal 1 Paper
Redwood City Internal 1 Electronic
Santa Clara Internal 1 Electronic
Boston Internal 8 PT Paper
Vacaville Internal 4 PT Electronic
Berkeley Internal 3 PT Paper
Sunnyvale Internal 2 PT Electronic
South San Francisco Internal 1 PT Electronic
Millbrae Internal 1 PT Paper
Menlo Park Internal 1 PT Electronic
San Bruno Internal 1 PT Paper
Burlingame Internal 1 PT Paper
San Leandro Contracted n/a Electronic
San Mateo Contracted n/a Electronic
San Francisco Internal No Response Electronic
Most cities administer their business license tax program internally, using either a single
staff member or partial contributions from more than one staff member. In many cities
where all business license renewals are due at the same time each year, staffing needs
for the function are defined by seasonal workload fluctuation.
The majority of cities offer online applications and renewal, requiring no in-person visits
or manual paper processes. There are six cities without this ability; they are still using a
paper-based process.
The following table shows the business license cycle for cities surveyed, the
requirements of the renewal process, and the means (if any) by which audits are
conducted to ensure accurate information and discourage unlicensed businesses from
operating.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 53
City Business License Cycle Renewal Process Auditing Resources
Berkeley Annual ending 12/31 Reminders mailed in
November, delinquent
notices at 30, 60 days
Revenue Development
division of the Finance
Dept conducts audits
Boston (MA) Every 4 years on
anniversary date
Reminders sent 30 days
prior, delinquent notices
at 30, 60, 90 days
Informal, using permit
and inspection records
Burlingame Annual ending 6/30 Courtesy notices mailed
prior to renewal
Informal, using permit
and inspection records
Daly City Annual ending 9/30 Courtesy notices mailed
month prior to renewal
Require tax documents
of gross receipts at
renewal
Menlo Park Annual ending 12/31 Reminders sent 1 and 2
months ahead of time
Informal, using permit
and inspection records
Millbrae Annual ending 6/30 Courtesy notices mailed
month prior, delinquent
notices follow.
None
Oakland Annual ending 3/1 Multiple notices via mail
and email prior to
renewal
City’s audit team
conducts separately
Redwood City Annual ending 6/30 Bills mailed prior to
deadline
Outsourced to
contractor
San Bruno Annual ending 6/30 Courtesy notices mailed
month prior, delinquent
notices follow.
Outsourced to
contractor
San Francisco Biennial ending 5/31 Bills mailed prior to
deadline
Internally search for
unlicensed businesses
and check tax filings
San Jose Annual ending on
anniversary month
Bills mailed prior to
deadline
Coordination with fire &
code inspectors, field
audits, and verification
of renewal information.
San Leandro Annual ending 12/31 Courtesy notices/forms
mailed and emailed prior
to deadline
Selected internal audits
of renewal information
and applications
San Mateo Annual Courtesy notices mailed
prior to renewal
Outsourced to
contractor
Santa Clara Annual ending on
anniversary
Courtesy notices mailed
month prior to renewal
Informal, using permit
and inspection records
Sunnyvale Biennial ending 12/31 Courtesy notices mailed
and emailed prior to
renewal
Internally review permit
and inspection records
Vacaville Annual ending 4/30 Reminders sent 60 days
ahead of time
Informal, using permit
and inspection records
South San Francisco Annual ending 12/31 Courtesy notices mailed
month prior
Informal, check
financial times notices
of new businesses
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 54
South San Francisco, like most cities, has an annual cycle and mails courtesy notices the
month prior to the renewal deadline each year. Unlike some other cities, however, there
is no program in place to audit business licenses; instead this is conducted informally by
reviewing notices of new businesses and checking to see if they are registered with the
City. The majority of others in the survey either contract compliance work out (3 cities),
audit businesses internally on a formal (4 cities) or informal (5 cities) basis, delegate
auditing to another department or division (2 cities), or coordinate with fire and code
enforcement inspectors (1 city) to prevent unlicensed businesses.
5. BLT Revenue Comparison
The following table shows the reported revenues from business license taxes for each
city in FY18 – FY21, either from their budget or from their survey response (with the
response taking priority). Responses are sorted according to FY2020 estimated revenue.
City
FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Estimate
FY 2021
Adopted
San Francisco 5 $899,142,553 $919,551,504 $833,931,202 $668,100,000
Oakland $86,107,189 $86,622,000 $99,673,792 $103,221,291
San Jose $74,902,578 $70,200,000 $70,900,000
Berkeley $19,878,912 $19,848,803 $19,584,000 $19,975,680
San Leandro $6,505,780 $6,644,000 $6,500,000 $6,400,000
San Mateo $6,628,331 $5,939,518 $5,968,611
Daly City $4,690,146 $4,928,602 $5,798,000 $5,917,200
Redwood City $2,697,321 $3,061,509 $2,861,657
San Bruno $2,563,854 $2,176,473 $1,908,000 $1,780,910
Menlo Park $1,735,000 $1,778,000 $1,600,000
Sunnyvale $1,837,527 $1,952,881 $1,749,343 $1,914,476
South San Francisco 6 $1,232,465 $1,378,062 $1,727,000 $1,595,015
Santa Clara $898,990 $915,000 $959,500 $969,095
Burlingame $1,039,154 $865,000 $730,000
Millbrae $366,040 $465,778 $350,000 $340,000
Vacaville $286,994 $286,920 $295,668 $295,668
Boston (MA)7 $404,905 $406,960 $256,260 $255,960
5 The payroll tax was eliminated in 2020 through Prop F, with gross receipts tax becoming the primary source of business license taxes effective
January 2021.
6 Figures from actual data provided by City, with exception of FY2021 which is from the adopted budget.
7 Because Boston runs a registration program rather than a business license tax program, its revenue is minimal and it cannot truly
be considered comparable to South San Francisco.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 55
The following table shows, for comparison purposes, the total General Fund revenue of
each city from FY19 – FY21.
City
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Estimate
FY 2021
Adopted
San Francisco $4,855,272,000 $5,678,691,000 $5,231,593,000
Boston (MA) $3,371,150,000 $3,493,540,000 $3,612,460,000
San Jose $1,289,145,017 $1,087,661,634 $1,042,445,727
Oakland $601,272,730 $651,012,857 $675,810,691
Santa Clara $236,016,927 $249,885,658 $255,804,650
Berkeley $208,462,620 $197,008,883 $201,732,998
Sunnyvale $185,522,514 $174,783,103 $163,880,428
Redwood City $161,084,468 $162,139,459 $149,035,341
San Mateo $139,872,195 $132,144,900 $126,495,889
San Leandro $135,254,970 $116,866,845 $118,045,460
South San Francisco $109,068,054 $112,621,224 $114,394,508
Vacaville $111,864,000 $111,225,000 $107,960,000
Daly City $85,785,145 $90,292,870 $90,292,8708
Menlo Park $66,770,000 $70,610,000 $56,567,125
Burlingame $84,537,352 $69,165,100 $61,428,400
San Bruno $47,762,265 $47,522,730 $48,761,458
Millbrae $32,470,239 $32,139,687 $29,873,319
Based on these figures and the total count of businesses, the following table shows each
city sorted by per-license revenue in FY2020, as well as each city’s business license tax
as a percentage of all general fund revenues in that year.
City
Licensed
Businesses
FY 2020 Revenue
per Business
FY 2020 Revenue as
% of General Fund
San Francisco 9 104,333 $7,993 14.7%
Berkeley 13,029 $1,503 9.9%
Oakland 70,000 $1,424 15.3%
San Jose 58,000 $1,210 6.5%
San Mateo 7,300 $814 4.5%
Daly City 7,900 $757 6.6%
San Bruno 2,862 $667 4.0%
San Leandro 10,938 $594 5.6%
South San Francisco 2,993 $577 1.5%
8 Rollover budget used in Daly City for FY21 due to pandemic, see link.
9 San Francisco’s projected BLT revenue in 2021 represents a 20% decrease from 2020. Accordingly, the expected per-business
revenue would fall to $6,404, and BLT revenue as a percentage of the General Fund would fall to 11.8%.
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 56
City
Licensed
Businesses
FY 2020 Revenue
per Business
FY 2020 Revenue as
% of General Fund
Redwood City 8,610 $356 1.9%
Menlo Park 5,480 $324 2.5%
Sunnyvale 7,500 $233 1.0%
Burlingame 7,800 $111 1.3%
Millbrae 3,300 $106 1.1%
Santa Clara 12,751 $75 0.4%
Vacaville 5,093 $58 0.3%
Boston (MA) 10 25,000 $10 0.0%
Average (All Cities Surveyed) 21,660 $1,082 5.0%
Average (Minus Major Cities) 7,714 $467 3.3%
The per-license revenue, as well as the percentage of GF revenue accounted for by
business license taxes, vary widely from city to city, reflecting differences in philosophy
and approach. South San Francisco tends to fall near the middle of this range. At $577,
the City’s per-license revenue sits just slightly below the median ($594) of the 15
California cities with available data, while the 1.5% of general fund revenue received from
business license taxes in South San Francisco is lower than 10 of 15 California cities.
10 Because Boston runs a registration program rather than a business license tax program, its revenue is minimal. The revenue
from business registrations as a percentage of the general fund is 0.007%
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 57
Appendix – Fee Schedules
For cities with a published schedule of fees available online, those schedules have been
collected and attached below for reference.
Berkeley
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 58
Burlingame
Menlo Park
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 59
Oakland
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 60
Redwood City
San Bruno
Gross Receipts Annual Tax
Less than $75,000 $75.00
$75,000 or more, but less than
$100,000
$100.00
Over $100,000 $110.00, plus $5.25 for each additional $5,000 or
fraction thereof up to $500,000
Over $500,000 $530.00, plus $4.00 for each additional $5,000 or
fraction thereof up to $1,000,000
Over $1,000,000 $930.00, plus $2.75 for each additional $5,000 or
fraction thereof up to $5,000,000
Over $5,000,000 $3,130.00, plus $1.65 for each additional $5,000 or
fraction thereof
Area of Place of Business Occupied Annual Tax
999 square feet or less $150.00
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 61
1,000—2,499 square feet $250.00
2,500—4,999 square feet $350.00
5,000—9,999 square feet $550.00
10,000 square feet or more $850.00
Number of Employees Additional Annual Tax
1—10 $7.50 per employee
11—25 $75.00, plus $5.00 for each employee in excess of 10
26—50 $195.00, plus $4.00 for each employee in excess of 25
51 or more $350.00, plus $3.00 for each employee in excess of 50
San Francisco (2019)
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 62
San Jose
San Leandro
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 63
San Mateo
Gross Receipts Tax
Under $30,000 $25.00
$30,001—$40,000 $30.00
$40,001—$45,000 $38.00
$45,001—$50,000 $46.00
$50,001—$55,000 $54.00
$55,001—$65,000 $62.00
$65,001—$70,000 $70.00
$70,001—$75,000 $78.00
$75,001—$80,000 $86.00
$80,001—$85,000 $94.00
$85,001—$90,000 $102.00
$90,001—$95,000 $110.00
$95,001-$100,000 $115.00
Over $100,000, $115.00 plus $2.85 for each $5,000
or fraction thereof, thereafter.
Santa Clara
Business License Tax Assessment South San Francisco, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 64
Vacaville
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-713 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:4.
Study session regarding Article 34 of the California Constitution’s voter approval requirement for the City to
develop, construct, or acquire certain types of “low rent housing projects.”(Sky Woodruff, City Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive the following report regarding Article 34 of the
California Constitution’s voter approval requirement for the City to develop,construct,or acquire
certain types of “low rent housing projects”, and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Historical Context and Scope
Article XXXIV (Article 34)of the California Constitution requires South San Francisco voter approval before
any federal,state or local public entity can develop,construct or acquire certain types of low rent housing
projects in the City.Article 34 was approved in 1950 via Proposition 10 by the voters,and was implemented by
statute in 1976 under Health & Safety Code section 37000 et seq.
Under the statute,“low rent housing project”means any urban or rural dwellings,apartments or other living
accommodations for low income residents,financed in whole or in part by the federal,state,or local
government.This includes supplying labor,guaranteeing payment of liens,or other forms of financing.These
projects may not be developed,constructed,or acquired by a city until the project is approved by the majority
of the voters.
Typically,cities that have sought voter approval for low rent housing projects have crafted the ballot measures
to approve a specified number of units, rather than proposing that voters authorize specific projects.
There are some statutory exemptions that exclude certain types of projects from Article 34 requirements,and
specify that certain public entity actions are not considered as developing,constructing,or acquiring a low rent
housing project.
I. Projects Exempt from Article 34
The statute exempts eight (8)types of developments from the voter approval requirement.These exemptions
were most recently amended on July 19, 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1)Privately owned housing subject to property taxes or, if exempt, either: (a) fully reimburses the taxing
entities; or (b) is exempt under certain sections of the Revenue and Taxation Code available to non-
profit housing developments; and not more than 49 percent of the units are required by the public
entity to be occupied low-income persons;
2)Privately owned housing not exempt from property taxes by reason of any public ownership, and is not
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-713 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:4.
financed with direct long-term financing from a public entity;
3)Units intended for owner-occupancy, which may include a limited equity housing cooperative,
cooperative or condominiums;
4)Privately owned, newly constructed one-to-four family dwellings not located on adjoining sites;
5)Existing dwelling units leased by the public entity from a private owner;
6)Rehabilitation, reconstruction, improvement or addition to, or replacement of an existing low-rent
housing project or a project previously or currently occupied by lower income households;
7)Acquisition, rehabilitation, reconstruction or improvement of a rental housing development which was
subject to a federal or state public entity contract for assistance to provide affordable housing for low-
income households and maintains, or enters into, a contract for federal or state public entity assistance
for the same purpose; and
8)Acquisition, rehabilitation, reconstruction, alterations work or new construction of lodging facilities or
dwelling units using any of the following sources of funds:
a.CARES Act funds
b.ARPA funds
c.Funds Appropriated pursuant to various provisions of the Health and Safety Code relating to
affordable housing preservation, loans and grants to qualified rental housing developments, and
multifamily housing programs.
II. Public Entity Actions Exempt from Article 34
The California Supreme Court has held that if a public entity is sufficiently involved in a privately owned
project (i.e.provides funds conditioned upon review and approval of plans,financing,operation and
maintenance and occupancy),this project may be treated as a “co-development”and Article 34 likely will be
triggered under that concept.
However,the public entity is still able take certain actions with respect to housing projects that would not be
considered as the public entity developing,constructing,or acquiring the project.These actions are statutorily
exempt from Article 34 requirements.
Prime examples of these exempt actions include:
·Providing financing (secured by deed or other instrument) to a private owner of existing housing;
·Acquiring a previously publicly-funded development to temporarily protect its security, with the intent
to transfer ownership so that the public entity will not be the owner of a low-rent housing project.
·Acquiring or improving land which is anticipated to be sold, ground leased, or otherwise transferred to a
private owner prior to its development as a low-rent housing project, provided that the land and
improvements are not exempt from property tax due to public ownership for a five-year period or
longer, or if exempt, the taxing entities are fully reimbursed.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:21-713 Agenda Date:9/15/2021
Version:1 Item #:4.
·Leasing existing privately owned dwelling units, provided that the lease or sublease do not result in
property tax reduction for the units.
·Providing assistance to private owner or occupant of existing housing units to provide sanitary, safe,
and decent housing environment at affordable rent level.
Additional exemptions are set forth under Health and Safety Code Section 37001.5.
Article 34 Voter Approval Process
The City Council may submit a ballot measure for voters to approve the City developing,constructing or
acquiring low rent housing.Although this question has not been fully settled by the courts or statute,it appears
that the voters could probably also bring an Article 34 initiative given that the California Constitution gives
voters broad initiative power.As mentioned above,typically the public entity would be the one seeking
approval from its voters,and would do so for a certain amount of low income housing units and not a specific
development or project.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Council receive the foregoing report and provide direction to staff.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2021Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™