The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-10-09 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council Regular Meeting Agenda October 9, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. KARYL MATSUMOTO, Mayor RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Vice Mayor MARK ADDIEGO, Councilman MARK NAGALES, Councilman BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilwoman FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019 October 9, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a proclamation recognizing October as National Italian American Heritage Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) 1. Presentation of a proclamation declaring October as Filipino American History Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) 2. Pledging to practice and encourage others to be kind to one another and not exhibit bullying behavior, thereby proclaiming October as National Bullying Prevention Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) 3. Presentation of Beautification Awards (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation ) 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. 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. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019 October 9, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting September 3, 2019.5. Motion confirming payment registers for October 09, 2019. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) 6. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign the response to the County of San Mateo Grand Jury Report titled "Soaring City Pension Costs - Follow-Up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018". (Janet Salisbury, Finance Director) 7. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign the response to the County of San Mateo Grand Jury Report titled “Soaring City Pension Costs - Follow-Up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018.” 7a. Report regarding a resolution approving the City of South San Francisco’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, "Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo", and authorizing the City Manager to submit the response. (Sarah Henricks, Management Analyst) 8. Resolution approving the City of South San Francisco’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, "Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo", and authorizing the City Manager to submit the response. 8a. Report regarding adoption of a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery” (Jesus Magallanes, Fire Chief) 9. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery”. 9a. Report regarding a resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay) Field Light Replacement Project. (Sharon Ranals, Assistant City Manager/Parks and Recreation Director) 10. Resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay) Field Light Replacement Project. 10a. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019 October 9, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of materials and services valued at $2,000 from the California Center for the Book to support Library participation in the 2020 Book to Action program. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) 11. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of materials and services valued at $2,000 from the California Center for the Book to support Library participation in the 2020 Book to Action program. 11a. Report regarding a resolution declaring that there is a need for a Parking Authority to function in the City, declaring that the City Council shall be the Parking Authority, and designating an Interim Chair of the Parking Authority. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) 12. Resolution declaring that there is a need for a Parking Authority to function in the City, declaring that the City Council shall be the Parking Authority, and designating an Interim Chair of the Parking Authority. 12a. Report regarding adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 8.50 and Title 20, Chapter 20.420, and adding Title 6, Chapter 6.47 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to the sale of tobacco, flavored tobacco, and electronic smoking devices (second reading). (Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager) 13. Ordinance amending Title 8, Chapter 8.50 and Title 20, Chapter 20.420, and adding Title 6, Chapter 6.47, of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to sale of tobacco, flavored tobacco, and electronic smoking devices 13a. PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding a resolution amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule to apply the 2.2 percent Credit Card Transaction Fee to all credit card transactions processed through the City’s community development software regardless of amount. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) 14. Resolution amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule to apply the 2.2 percent Credit Card Transaction Fee to all credit card transactions processed through the City’s community development software regardless of amount. 14a. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019 October 9, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapters 15.06, 15.08, 15.10, 15.12, 15.14, 15.16, 15.20, 15.22, 15.24, 15.26, 15.32, 15.34 and 15.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to building regulations in their entirety, and adopting by reference and amending the 2019 Editions of the California Administrative, Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Historical Building, Fire, Green Building Standards, Existing Building, Referenced Standards Codes, and the International Property Maintenance Code. (Phil Perry, Building Official) 15. An ordinance repealing and replacing Chapters 15.06 (California Administrative Code), 15.08 (California Building Code), 15.10 (Uniform Housing Code), 15.12 (California Plumbing Code), 15.14 (California Residential Code), 15.16 (California Mechanical Code), 15.20 (California Electrical Code), 15.22 ( California Green Building Standards Code), 15.24 (California Fire Code), 15.26 (California Energy Code), 15.32 (California Historical Building Code), 15.34 (California Existing Building Code), and 15.36 (California Referenced Standards Code) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in order to adopt by reference and amend provisions of the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 15a. Report regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code revising the City Manager’s contract approval authority. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) 16. An ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code revising the City Purchasing Procedures and Contract Approval Authority 16a. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding the progress of the Community Civic Campus Design Development. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects and SmithGroup, Project Master Architect) 17. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 and approving Budget Amendment number 20.020 to provide funding for the additional City contribution. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) 18. Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019 October 9, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 and Approving Budget Amendment 20.020 to provide funding for the additional contribution. 18a. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-392 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:1. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing October as National Italian American Heritage Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-393 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:2. Presentation of a proclamation declaring October as Filipino American History Month in South San Francisco. ( Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-391 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:3. Pledging to practice and encourage others to be kind to one another and not exhibit bullying behavior, thereby proclaiming October as National Bullying Prevention Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-712 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:4. Presentation of Beautification Awards (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation ) City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 2019 BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS South San Francisco Beautification Committee Overview •The Beautification Committee is a group of residents who strive to make the City a more pleasant and aesthetically desirable community in which to live. •The committee members selected thirty-five nominees and five award winners in three categories: •Single family residential •Multi-unit residential •Commercial SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL: 74 Calvert Ave 22 Graystone Dr 107 Buxton Ave 116 Adrian Ave 20 Canyon Court 2645 Wexford Ave 2660 Wexford Ave 2216 Delvin Way 18 Jacinto Ln 302 Forest View Drive 439 Holly Avenue 1131 Sunnyside Dr 1240 Birch Ave 1320 Crestwood Drive 6 Sonora Drive 23 Sonora Drive 29 Portola Avenue 109 Francisco Drive 145 Ramona Drive 414 Spruce Avenue 527 Orange Avenue 528 Spruce Avenue 645 Spruce Avenue 669 Spruce Avenue 773 Cottonwood Drive 105 Belmont Avenue 106 Belmont Avenue 228 Hazelwood Drive 41 Greenwood Drive 105 Rosewood Way 430 Hemlock Avenue 2019 Winner 466 Dellbrook Avenue 2019 Winner 223 Del Monte Avenue 2019 Winner MULTI -UNIT: 570 Baden Avenue 2019 Winner COMMERCIAL: 89 Westborough Boulevard 2019 Winner City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-844 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:5. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting September 3, 2019. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-833 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:2 Item #:6. Motion confirming payment registers for October 09,2019.(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) The payments shown in the attached payment register are accurate and sufficient funds were available for payment (payroll items excluded). Attachment: Payment Register City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Payment Listing by Department for City Council Review Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION CITY CLERK AMAZON.COM 9/25/2019 279269CC400572 E 100-02110-5033 193.16 G R COUNCIL MEETING BAG TO CARRY BINDERS/S 9/25/2019 279269CC400573 E 100-02110-5020 42.32 G R OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279269CC400573 E 100-02110-5033 24.41 G R OFFICE SUPPLIES CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 9/25/2019 2791595014503380 E 100-02110-5020 53.08 CITY HALL-FIRST AID CABINET SUPPLY CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT IN9/25/2019 279164RS3109190 E 100-02110-5001 1,008.98 RECORD STORAGE FROM 08/01/19 THROUGH 08 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 9/25/2019 279169B3289031 E 100-02110-5024 72.00 NOTICE OF PH ACTION SIGNS THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-02110-5074 247.13 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-02110-5071 107.02 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Payments issued for CITY CLERK $1,748.10 CITY COUNCIL BEST BUY 9/20/2019 279122cc401744 E 100-01110-5020 27.30 CF: CMO OFFICE SUPPLIES HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF SSF 9/27/2019 27931810/18/19 E 100-01110-5030 250.00 KM,RG,MA,MN,FN,MF: HIST SOCIETY 35TH ANNU KIWANIS CLUB OF SSF 9/27/2019 27932110/01/19 E 100-01110-5030 130.00 MN, FN: TKT TO KIWANIS ANNUAL INSTALLATION MARK NAGALES 9/18/2019 27906908/06/19-08/28/19 E 100-01110-5030 25.00 MN: MILEAGE EXP RPT AUG 2019 9/18/2019 27906908/06/19-08/28/19 E 100-01110-5031 295.20 MN: MILEAGE EXP RPT AUG 2019 SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 9/25/2019 279245037644 E 100-01110-5021 40.01 SUPPLIES AT MSB FOR CITY COUNCIL MTGS 9/24/ VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-01110-5071 357.73 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Payments issued for CITY COUNCIL $1,125.24 CITY MANAGER ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION 9/18/2019 279085cc401212 E 100-05110-5032 455.00 MF: REG FOR BIG IDEAS 2019 EVENT 9/13-9/15/1 BEST BUY 9/20/2019 279122cc401744 E 100-05110-5020 27.30 CF: CMO OFFICE SUPPLIES CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 9/25/2019 2791595014503380 E 100-05110-5001 53.08 CITY HALL-FIRST AID CABINET SUPPLY COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP 9/18/2019 279085cc401528 E 100-05110-5005 60.00 LA: COSTCO MEMBERSHIP & TOWN HALL FOOD 9/18/2019 279085cc401528 E 100-05110-5031 5.99 LA: COSTCO MEMBERSHIP & TOWN HALL FOOD HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF SSF 9/27/2019 27931810/18/19 E 100-05110-5030 50.00 KM,RG,MA,MN,FN,MF: HIST SOCIETY 35TH ANNU LESLIE ARROYO 9/18/2019 27904109/03/19-09/06/19 E 100-05110-5032 793.21 LA: EXP REIMBURSEMENT 3CMA CONFERENCE SE PACIFIC DISPLAY INC 9/25/2019 27922800573 E 100-05110-5005 9,295.00 LAMP POLE BANNERS IN SSF MAIN STS, SEPT 201 SAFEWAY STORE 9/18/2019 279085cc401526 E 100-05110-5031 116.74 LA: FOOD FOR EMPLOYEE TOWN HALLS Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 1 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco CITY MANAGER SAM'S CHOWDER HOUSE 9/20/2019 279122cc401743 E 100-05110-5031 28.86 CF: WORKING LUNCH W/ HARBOR DIST GOV & P SAN MATEO CTY HARBOR DISTRICT 9/27/2019 279328I19-028 E 100-05110-5005 11,782.56 HARBOR DISTRICT'S SSF MARINA MAINTENANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9/27/2019 279331399920 E 100-05110-5037 384.00 AUGUST 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-05110-5071 290.95 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 WESCO GRAPHICS, INC 9/18/2019 27908845565 E 100-05110-5025 2,196.49 PRINTING OF AVALON DRIVE NBRHOOD MTG 9/1 Payments issued for CITY MANAGER $25,539.18 COMMUNICATIONS CANVA.COM 9/18/2019 279085cc401416 E 100-05130-5001 12.95 LA: MONTHLY GRAPHIC DESIGN SUBSCRIPTION A CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 9/18/2019 279085cc401515 E 100-05130-5001 225.00 LA: EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION FOR SSF BUSINESS 8/19 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 9/18/2019 279085cc401412 E 100-05130-5001 99.00 LA: ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION ONE YEAR TO 7/23/2 DESIGNOSAUR GRAPHICS, INC 9/18/2019 279085cc401521 E 100-05130-5005 2,890.00 LA: GRAPHIC DESIGN/CITYWIDE NEWSLTR ENG&S ICMA ONLINE 9/18/2019 279085CC401519 E 100-05130-5032 545.00 LA: ICMA MEMBERSHIP & CONFERENCE REG MAILCHIMP 9/20/2019 279122cc401586 E 100-05130-5001 143.10 LA: EMAIL DISTRIBUTION SVCS 8/8/19 PIKTOCHART 9/20/2019 279122cc401582 E 100-05130-5001 39.99 LA: GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES 8/2/19 SPROUT SOCIAL 9/18/2019 279085cc401517 E 100-05130-5001 124.00 LA: SOCIAL MEDIA MONITORING SVCS 8/20-9/20/ Payments issued for COMMUNICATIONS $4,079.04 ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AMAZON.COM 9/18/2019 279085CC401579 E 100-10410-5020 10.85 SM - HDMI ADAPTER FOR LAPTOP ANTIGUA COFFEE SHOP 9/18/2019 279085CC401591 E 100-10410-5020 18.01 SM - COFFEE MEETING 9/27/2019 279333CC401924 E 100-10110-5031 10.26 JR: COFFEE FOR BUSINESS RETENTION MEETING CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 9/25/2019 2791595014503380 E 100-10110-5020 53.08 CITY HALL-FIRST AID CABINET SUPPLY CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 9/27/2019 279305BR48241 E 100-10110-5033 700.00 SUPERVISORY ACADEMY FEES (SPRING 2018 - 4 P CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 9/27/2019 279333CC401932 E 100-10110-5004 95.00 AG: CONSTANT CONTACT MONTHLY BILLING FOR CSG CONSULTANTS INC 9/25/2019 27916626519 E 100-10520-5005 510.00 GENENTECH INSPECTION 2017 - FOR 07/27 TO 0 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 9/25/2019 279169B3284666 E 222-10310-5020 180.21 CDBG PUBLIC HEARING PUBLICATION SMT 9.5.20 FACEBOOK 9/27/2019 279333CC401936 E 100-10110-5030 63.12 AG: ADS ON FACEBOOK FOR JUNE AND JULY 2019 FEDEX 9/27/2019 2793176-716-20071 E 100-10410-5020 119.31 DRB PACKETS AUGUST 2019 GATEWAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC 9/25/2019 279183RD-2775521 E 100-10110-5021 840.07 559 GATEWAY CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION DUES MICHAEL BAKER INTL, INC 9/18/2019 2790671056384 E 222-10310-5001 4,970.00 NEPA COMPLIANCE FOR CDBG AND ENVIRONME 9/25/2019 2792181055026 E 222-10310-5005 1,600.00 FY 18-19 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WI Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 2 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL BAKER INTL, INC 9/25/2019 2792181059139 E 222-10310-5005 4,820.00 FY 18-19 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WI OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/18/2019 279070367357089001 E 100-10110-5020 91.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ECD AND EDH (10 PPL) 9/25/2019 279225371731571001 E 100-10115-5020 119.39 OFFICE SUPPLIES ( 8PP) 9/25/2019 279225372291536001 E 100-10115-5020 84.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES ( 8PP) SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 9/27/2019 279333CC401925 E 100-10110-5022 99.00 AG: SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL ONLINE SUBSCRI SCHOOL HOUSE GROCERY 9/27/2019 279333CC401581 E 100-10410-5020 120.13 PC - DINNER FOR DRB SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 9/27/2019 279333CC401580 E 100-10410-5020 50.43 PC - SNACKS FOR DRB SSF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 9/20/2019 27911713919 E 100-10115-5031 250.00 TASTE OF SSF - TABLE FOR EDH STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 9/18/2019 2790838055588418 E 100-10520-5020 270.27 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLIES SUMMARY INVOICE FO 9/25/2019 2792548055588521/4238334E 100-10110-5020 77.34 OFFICE SUPPLIES ( 8 PP) STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9/27/2019 279331399920 E 100-10110-5037 64.00 AUGUST 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-10110-5074 241.31 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-10410-5074 409.53 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-10110-5071 175.33 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-10115-5071 91.64 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-10410-5071 162.78 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-10411-5071 60.12 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-10520-5071 521.31 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 WILSEY HAM, INC 9/27/2019 27933722852 E 100-10115-5005 5,807.52 101903 - FY 19-20 SURVEYING SERVICES AGREEM 9/27/2019 27933722914 E 100-10115-5005 12,335.25 101903 - FY 19-20 SURVEYING SERVICES AGREEM Payments issued for ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $35,021.51 FINANCE AAA BUSINESS SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2791272090557-0 E 100-06210-5005 134.38 PURCHASE AND INSTALL NEW WORK STATIONS-F ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 9/27/2019 27929230774 E 100-06210-5020 328.95 A/R INVOICE STOCK 1,000 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 9/25/2019 2791595014503380 E 100-06110-5021 53.08 CITY HALL-FIRST AID CABINET SUPPLY CSMFO 9/27/2019 279333CC402055 E 100-06110-5031 75.00 HE: 2019 CSMFO MUNICIPAL MEMBERSHIP H. EN 9/27/2019 279333CC402056 E 100-06110-5031 25.00 HE: CSMFO PENINSULA CHAPTER MEETING REGIS DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES INC9/27/2019 2793121907110 E 100-06210-5005 3,515.00 PROF SVCS THRU 07/31/19 - PROJ D19-00121.000 MUNISERVICES, LLC 9/27/2019 279324INV06-006131 E 100-06210-5001 4,433.73 SUTA SVCS FOR TAX QUARTER ENDING 12/31/20 9/27/2019 279324INV06-006132 E 100-06210-5001 226.55 SUTA SVCS FOR TAX QTR ENDING 12/31/18 DISTR OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/25/2019 279225349650910001 E 100-06210-5020 157.80 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 3 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco FINANCE PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 9/25/2019 279234044351 E 100-06110-5005 231.25 VISTA ASSISTANCE-ACTING PAY REWORK READYREFRESH 9/25/2019 27923709H0030587083 E 100-06210-5021 113.37 07/21/19-08/20/19 WATER COOLER RENTAL/REFI THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-06210-5074 283.71 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-06110-5071 253.72 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Payments issued for FINANCE $9,831.54 FIRE AED SUPERSTORE 9/25/2019 279269CC401793 E 100-11610-5021 478.07 KA - EMS OPERATING SUPPLIES AIRGAS USA, LLC 9/25/2019 2791309092507765 E 100-11610-5021 504.10 EMS SUPPLIES ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, INC. 9/18/2019 279038IS442322 E 100-11110-5033 68.00 LISTENING & SPEAKING TEST - BILINGUAL INCENT AMAZON.COM 9/18/2019 279085CC401394 E 100-11310-5020 85.61 KA - DIASTER PREP OFFICE SUPPLIES ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9/25/2019 279140000760338244 E 100-11710-5001 51.00 SUPPRESSION CONTRACTAUL SERVICE AYAR PRODUCE MARKET 9/18/2019 279085CC401359 E 100-11310-5021 23.84 KA - DIASTER PREP CLASS REFRESHMENTS (21) BAUER COMPRESSORS INC 9/25/2019 2791470000258207 E 100-11710-5051 554.42 SUPPRESSION MAINTENANCE SERVICE BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 9/25/2019 27914983342441 E 100-11610-5021 225.64 EMS SUPPLIES BOX.NET BUS SRVCS, CA 9/18/2019 279085CC401396 E 100-11310-5021 45.00 KA - DIASTER PREP OPERATING SERVICE CALIFORNIA TRAINING OFFICERS 9/18/2019 279085CC401223 E 100-11720-5033 250.00 JB - TRAINING STAFF DEVELOPMENT CMC RESCUE, INC. 9/18/2019 279085CC401221 E 100-11720-5021 329.25 JB - TRAINING SUPPLIES COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN9/25/2019 2791628155 20 044 0475707 E 100-11720-5045 113.50 HIGH SPEED INTERNET - FS65 - (SEP 17-OCT 15, 2 9/25/2019 2791628155 20 044 0475715 E 100-11720-5045 113.50 HIGH SPEED INTERNET FS62 - (SEP 16-OCT 15, 20 9/25/2019 2791628155 20 044 0475723 E 100-11720-5045 113.50 HIGH SPEED INTERNET FIRE STATION 64 (SEP 17- CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS, LLC. 9/20/2019 27909881983151 E 100-11210-5045 250.00 REALQUEST/S.MATEO CO. FORECLOSURE REPOR COSTCO 9/18/2019 279085CC401199 E 100-11730-5020 54.40 JR - STATION 65 SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 279085CC401200 E 100-11730-5020 120.00 JR - STATION 61 SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 279085CC401205 E 100-11730-5020 46.59 JR - STATION 64 SUPPLIES COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9/25/2019 2791651YSS21908 E 100-11610-5021 956.00 EMS RADIO SYSTEM SERVICE DELL MARKETING LP 9/27/2019 27931310340891948 E 100-11110-5045 1,286.99 LAPTOP - FIRE DEPARTMENT DEPT. OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES 9/20/2019 279102GEM0519KHV6 E 100-11610-5002 25,939.65 EMS QAF PAYMENT FOR QUARTER 1 2019 FASTRAK 9/18/2019 279085CC401398 E 100-11210-5021 25.00 KA - FIRE PREVENTION OPERATING SERVICE FEDEX 9/20/2019 2791046-709-72121 E 100-11610-5028 85.16 EMS LOCKBOX SHIPPING SERVICES 9/20/2019 2791046-715-94961 E 100-11610-5028 42.48 EMS LOCKBOX SHIPPING SERVICES 9/20/2019 2791046-723-76323 E 100-11610-5028 63.57 EMS LOCKBOX SHIPPING SERVICES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 4 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco FIRE FIREANDRESCUETRAINING.CA.GOV 9/18/2019 279085CC401220 E 100-11720-5033 100.00 JB - TRAINING SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 279085CC401234 E 100-11720-5033 915.00 JB - TRAINING STAFF DEVELOPMENT GRAND AVENUE HARDWARE 9/18/2019 279085CC401208 E 100-11110-5021 5.82 JR - OFFICE SUPPLIES IEC TRAINING 9/18/2019 279085CC401222 E 100-11720-5033 800.00 JB - TRAINING STAFF DEVELOPMENT ITUNES STORE 9/18/2019 279085CC401227 E 100-11720-5045 9.99 JB - TRAINING SERVICE 9/18/2019 279085CC401230 E 100-11720-5045 9.99 JB - TRAINING SERVICE 9/18/2019 279085CC401231 E 100-11720-5045 9.99 JB - TRAINING SERVICE 9/18/2019 279085CC401233 E 100-11720-5045 9.99 JB - TRAINING SERVICE JEFF COCHRAN 9/20/2019 27909608/29/19 E 100-11610-5033 200.00 J. COCHRAN - PARAMEDIC LICENSE RENEWAL REI L N CURTIS & SONS 9/18/2019 279058INV309710 E 100-11710-5061 284.25 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV310146 E 100-11710-5021 277.72 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV310621 E 100-11710-5061 284.25 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV310715 E 100-11710-5061 1,137.01 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV310752 E 100-11710-5061 408.27 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV311437 E 100-11710-5061 568.51 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV311485 E 100-11710-5061 284.25 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV312530 E 100-11710-5061 284.25 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/18/2019 279058INV314078 E 100-11710-5021 8,121.50 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT - THERMAL IMAGER 9/18/2019 279058INV314630 E 100-11710-5061 452.17 FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT 9/25/2019 279203INV315794 E 100-11710-5021 445.59 SUPPRESSION SUPPLIES LEE & ASSOCIATES RESCUE EQUIP 9/18/2019 27906060197 E 100-11720-5033 1,800.00 ROPE TECHNICIAN COURSE (2 - C. CAMPAGNA/C. LEXISNEXIS 9/25/2019 2792081381524-20190731 E 100-11210-5021 150.00 DATA MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIFE-ASSIST INC 9/25/2019 279210940360 E 100-11610-5021 3,233.95 EMS SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279210944281 E 100-11610-5021 9.68 EMS SUPPLIES LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 9/20/2019 279111910253 E 100-11720-5021 13.46 TRAINING OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/20/2019 279111910425 E 100-11720-5021 23.86 TRAINING OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279211909747 E 100-11710-5021 188.66 SUPPRESSION SUPPLIES MEDWASTE MANAGEMENT, LLC 9/25/2019 279214MW37991 E 100-11610-5021 99.00 EMS SERVICES OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/25/2019 279225359696030001 E 100-11110-5020 114.24 ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279225360214255001 E 100-11110-5020 61.32 ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279225360357053001 E 100-11710-5021 438.99 SUPPRESSION OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279225362634289001 E 100-11610-5021 24.68 EMS OPERATING SUPPLIES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 5 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco FIRE OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/25/2019 279225362634333001 E 100-11110-5020 60.71 ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279225365839605001 E 100-11110-5020 75.84 ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES RESOLVE INSURANCE SYSTEMS 9/20/2019 279114July 2019 E 100-11610-5005 3,492.41 SECONDARY AMBULANCE BILLING ROYAL PIN DONUTS 9/18/2019 279085CC401372 E 100-11310-5021 25.00 KA - DIASTER PREP OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 279085CC401373 E 100-11310-5021 25.00 KA - DIASTER PREP CLASS REFRESHMENTS 9/18/2019 279085CC401378 E 100-11310-5021 25.00 KA - DIASTER PREP CLASS REFRESHMENTS (21) SAFEWAY STORE 9/18/2019 279085CC401376 E 100-11310-5021 52.78 KA - DIASTER PREP CLASS SNACKS (21) 9/18/2019 279085CC401385 E 100-11310-5021 51.92 KA - DIASTER PREP CLASS SNACKS (21) SCHOOL HOUSE GROCERY 9/18/2019 279085CC401374 E 100-11310-5021 18.89 KA - DIASTER PREP REFRESHMENTS (3) 9/18/2019 279085CC401380 E 100-11310-5021 35.60 KA - DIASTER PREP CERT REFRESHMENTS (6) SFO PARKING CENTRAL 9/18/2019 279085CC401390 E 100-11310-5021 36.00 KA - DIASTER PREP OPERATING SUPPLIES SKEDCO, INC. 9/18/2019 279085CC401225 E 100-11720-5021 298.00 JB - TRAINING SUPPLIES SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 9/25/2019 279246978649 E 100-11730-5020 65.30 STATION 62 OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279246980751 E 100-11720-5021 1,991.16 TRAINING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279246982041 E 100-11730-5020 4.38 STATION 62 OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279246983849 E 100-11740-5021 0.22 PUBLIC ED OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279246983945 E 100-11720-5021 43.66 TRAINING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279246984018 E 100-11110-5021 7.56 ADMINISTRATION OPERATING SUPPLIES STARBUCKS 9/18/2019 279085CC401377 E 100-11310-5021 35.90 KA - DIASTER PREP CLASS REFRESHMENTS (21) 9/18/2019 279085CC401382 E 100-11310-5021 35.90 KA - DIASTER PREP CLASS REFRESHMENTS (21) TARGET 9/18/2019 279085CC401204 E 100-11730-5020 32.75 JR - STATION 62 SUPPLIES THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-11110-5074 326.21 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-11710-5074 37.29 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-11310-5074 25.47 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11210-5071 362.33 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11720-5071 316.32 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11710-5071 912.54 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11611-5071 172.62 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11310-5071 2.70 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11110-5071 920.86 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11110-5045 173.11 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-11610-5071 85.88 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 6 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco FIRE WALGREENS 9/18/2019 279085CC401201 E 100-11730-5020 9.32 JR - STATION 61 SUPPLIES WITTMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC 9/20/2019 27912419070745 E 100-11610-5005 11,756.68 AMBULANCE BILLING CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 9/25/2019 2792902933875 E 100-11610-5021 267.66 EMS SUPPIES Payments issued for FIRE $74,374.63 HUMAN RESOURCES CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 9/25/2019 2791595014503380 E 100-09110-5020 53.08 CITY HALL-FIRST AID CABINET SUPPLY IPMA-HR 9/25/2019 279195INV-49977-B7S7S0 E 100-09110-5033 957.00 STANDARD AGENCY MEMBERSHIP 01/01/2020-1 OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/18/2019 279070367439685001 E 100-09110-5020 46.12 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 279070367445540001 E 100-09110-5020 81.93 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 9/18/2019 2790750150374-IN E 100-09110-5001 318.78 AUGUST 2019 PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG SCREENI THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-09110-5074 301.36 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-09110-5071 78.80 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Payments issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $1,837.07 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGS GEOSPATIAL, LLC 9/18/2019 27903524 E 785-16110-5005 7,150.00 GIS MAPPING SERVICES - AGS GEOSPATIAL, INC. - DELL MARKETING LP 9/20/2019 27910010340416110 E 785-16110-5040 9,039.00 ANNUAL RENEWAL VMWARE WORKSPACE 9/27/2019 27931310341896454 E 785-16110-5041 976.78 COMPUTER SUPPLIES (HARD DRIVES) - IT DEPART PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 9/27/2019 27932613013 E 785-16110-5040 1,450.00 ENVSIONWARE- MOBILE PRINTING FOR PLS LIBRA S&J SALES 9/20/2019 27911513790 E 785-16110-5051 9,389.60 UPS REPLACEMENT BATTERIES - VARIOUS CITY SIT SABAH INTERNATIONAL INC 9/27/2019 279327143708 E 785-16110-5005 480.00 FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM INSPECTION - EOC SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK INC9/18/2019 27907723076 E 785-16110-5040 200.00 NETWORK ACCESS SERVICES THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 785-16110-5074 32.67 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 9/25/2019 279268025-268755 E 785-16110-5040 200.00 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE FEE - MYCIVIC APP - O 9/25/2019 279268025-271748 E 785-16110-5040 200.00 MONTHLY MAINTENANCE FEE - MYCIVIC APP - N UTILITY TELEPHONE, INC 9/25/2019 279276128202 E 785-16110-5071 1,489.55 CITY INTERNET AND TRANSPORT CHARGES VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 785-16110-5071 213.99 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Payments issued for INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $30,821.59 LIBRARY ADOBE SYSTEMS 9/27/2019 279333CC401665 E 100-15110-5021 19.99 ABS - OPERATING SUPPLIES - ADOBE AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 9/18/2019 2790391DYQ-JK6H-FC6T E 100-15220-5030 41.49 PROGRAM SUPPLIES - YOUTH SERVICES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 7 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco LIBRARY AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 9/18/2019 2790391FNL-CRKK-64LM E 100-15999-5999 175.25 SUMMER LEARNING PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 2790391NFR-M6WR-GHH4 E 100-15220-5030 88.48 PROGRAM SUPPLIES - YOUTH SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790391QTG-3RQ9-6TWY E 100-15999-5999 139.69 STEM KIT GRANT SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 2790391T7L-XHDN-WTHH E 100-15110-5021 29.62 OPERATING SUPPLIES - MAIN LIBRARY 9/25/2019 27913619TQ-PGCL-7GW7 E 100-15110-5021 47.87 OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 2792951KVP-VDFC-Y6GG E 100-15110-5021 217.75 OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 2792951L6M-7NWX-GNYN E 100-15220-5030 87.18 YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 2792951VQJ-1MJK-WWD1 E 100-15110-5021 47.29 OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 2792951WFD-FF96-DKFW E 100-15110-5021 32.90 OPERATING SUPPLIES AMAZON.COM 9/27/2019 279333CC401614 E 100-15210-5022 41.56 VS - BOOKS AMELIA HANCOCK 9/18/2019 27905608/26/19 E 100-15110-5001 750.00 AMELIA HANCOCK - INTERN STIPEND - AUG 2019 AMERICAN BUTTON 9/27/2019 279333CC401800 E 100-15110-5021 65.74 EM - OPERATING SUPPLIES AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 9/25/2019 2791380078978 E 100-15110-5031 225.00 ALA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL - V. SOMMER ANTIGUA COFFEE SHOP 9/27/2019 279333CC401617 E 100-15110-5031 19.97 VS - LEADERSHIP ACADEMY COACHING SESSION BAKER & TAYLOR INC 9/25/2019 279145C0321933 E 100-15210-5022 332.90 BOOKS 9/25/2019 279145L1161034 E 100-15210-5022 16.55 BOOKS BAY AREA YOUNG ADULT LIBRARIAN9/27/2019 279333CC401801 E 100-15110-5031 20.00 EM - BAY AREA YOUNG ADULT LIBRARIANS - ME BEST BUY 9/27/2019 279333CC401610 E 100-15999-5999 471.71 AE - WEARABLES FOR WELLNESS GRANT PROJECT BON CHON CHICKEN 9/27/2019 279333CC401622 E 100-15110-5030 30.29 AT - INTERNS APPRECIATION - REFRESHMENTS CALIFA GROUP 9/18/2019 2790482785 E 100-15230-5019 1,950.00 PRONUNCIATOR SUBSCRIPTION - 11/1/19-10/31/ CANVA PARTY LTD 9/27/2019 279333CC401681 E 100-15110-5021 13.95 SS - CANVA FOR WORK MONTHLY CLEAR SOLUTIONS 9/27/2019 279333CC401798 E 100-15110-5020 47.75 EM - SIGN HOLDERS - FYLER DISPLAY COSTCO 9/27/2019 279333CC401676 E 100-15999-5999 69.97 SS - READER LEADER INTERN CELEBRATION DEMCO INC. 9/25/2019 2791726650785 E 100-15110-5021 356.69 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2791726656710 E 100-15110-5021 129.03 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2791726678361 E 100-15110-5021 170.47 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES DI NAPOLI PIZZERIA 9/27/2019 279333CC401677 E 100-15999-5999 33.25 SS - READER LEADER INTERN CELEBRATION EASTWIND BOOKS & ARTS INC 9/18/2019 279051210936508 E 100-15210-5043 51.90 A/V GOOGLE.COM 9/27/2019 279333CC401672 E 100-15220-5030 82.91 SS - YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM SUPPLIES HOLLINGER METAL EDGE INC. 9/27/2019 279333CC401796 E 100-15110-5021 230.93 EM - HISTORY ROOM - OPERATING SUPPLIES ILLUSIVE COMICS & GAMES LLC 9/27/2019 279333CC401675 E 100-15220-5030 75.11 SS - YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM SUPPLIES LIBRARY IDEAS, LLC 9/25/2019 27920971911 E 100-15320-5022 689.10 BOOKS - GRAND YOUTH SERVICES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 8 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco LIBRARY LIBRARY IDEAS, LLC 9/25/2019 27920971928 E 100-15220-5022 689.10 BOOKS - MAIN LIBRARY LINKEDIN 9/27/2019 279333CC401611 E 100-15110-5020 79.99 AE - NEW CAMPUS PROJECT FUNDRAISING LITTLEBITS 9/27/2019 279333CC402104 E 100-15110-5021 83.11 EM - OPERATING SUPPLIES - POWER SUPPLY/CAB MAGGIE LI 9/18/2019 27906107/13/19-09/01/19 E 100-15220-5030 90.12 M. LI - STATEMENT OF EXPENSE - JUL - SEP 2019 MASE GROUP LLC 9/18/2019 27906300079a E 100-15110-5001 1,385.50 CATALOGING SERVICE 9/27/2019 27932300369 E 100-15110-5001 170.75 DVD LABELING SERVICE MICHAEL'S 9/27/2019 279333CC401664 E 100-15110-5020 82.28 ABS - OFFICE SUPPLIES - FRAMES MONTEREY GORDON 9/18/2019 27905508/14/19-08/19/19 E 100-15110-5021 89.98 M GORDON - STATEMENT OF EXPENSE - AUG 201 MOUSER ELECTRONICS 9/27/2019 279333CC401797 E 100-15110-5021 89.42 EM - OPERATING SUPPLIES NICK'S RESTAURANT 9/27/2019 279333CC401615 E 100-15110-5031 104.70 VS - ONBOARDING AND PLANNING LUNCH MEETI OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/18/2019 279070368318940001 E 100-15110-5020 202.60 OFFICE SUPPLIES - MAIN LIBRARY 9/25/2019 279225371685980001 E 100-15110-5020 131.67 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND LIBRARY ORDWAY SIGN SUPPLY INC 9/27/2019 279333CC402101 E 100-15110-5021 80.77 EM - OPERATING SUPPLIES - BANNER PAYPAL - WEBALON 9/27/2019 279333CC401663 E 100-15110-5021 7.50 ABS - HISTORY TIMELINE - WEBSITE PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 9/18/2019 27907312969 E 100-15110-5051 19,564.16 BIBLIOTHECA ANNUAL SUPPORT AND MAINTENA 9/18/2019 27907312983 E 100-15110-5051 136.06 BIBLIOTHECA PLS ENTERPRISE COMMAND CENTE 9/18/2019 27907312992 E 100-15230-5019 1,470.05 RECORDED BOOKS INC. RBDIGITAL ANNUAL SUBS PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS9/25/2019 27923534027 E 100-15110-5021 713.38 FUNDRAISING BOOKLET PRINTING SAFEWAY STORE 9/27/2019 279333CC401802 E 100-15110-5031 30.80 EM - NEW COMMUNITYCAMPUS - MTG REFRESH SAMANTHA MCTONNELL 9/18/2019 27906619.SSF.0002 E 100-15110-5001 1,170.00 GRAPHIC DESIGN - FUNDRAISING SHUTTERSTOCK.COM 9/27/2019 279333CC401608 E 100-15110-5021 49.00 AE - CAMPUS FUNDRAISING - OPERATING SUPPLI SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 9/27/2019 279333CC401804 E 100-15110-5031 41.99 EM - NEW COMMUNITY CAMPUS - MTG REFRES SPRINGSHARE, LLC 9/25/2019 27924719-R3262 E 100-15110-5021 1,186.00 EQUIPMENT AND ROOM RESERVATION SOFTWA STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 9/18/2019 2790838055588436 E 100-15410-5020 123.63 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 2790838055588436 E 100-15220-5030 31.59 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 2790838055588436 E 100-15110-5020 1,082.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792548055588410/4238327E 100-15110-5020 63.83 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND AVE LIBRARY TAQUERIA CELAYA 9/27/2019 279333CC401620 E 100-15110-5031 25.30 AT - LUNCH MEETING WITH STAFF - EVALUATION TARGET 9/27/2019 279333CC401619 E 100-15110-5020 65.42 AT - GRAND AVE LIBRARY OFFICE SUPPLIES THE GALE GROUP, INC 9/25/2019 27926067937026 E 100-15210-5022 27.00 BOOKS THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-15110-5074 748.79 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES USPS 9/27/2019 279333CC402103 E 100-15110-5027 16.20 EM - POSTAGE - LIBRARY BOARD PACKETS Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 9 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco LIBRARY VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-15430-5071 38.01 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-15110-5071 177.68 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Payments issued for LIBRARY $36,851.40 NON-DEPARTMENTAL AT&T 9/18/2019 2790429391060747 E 781-07210-5071 200.07 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060749 E 781-07210-5071 371.30 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060750 E 781-07210-5071 371.19 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060756 E 781-07210-5071 68.37 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060761 E 781-07210-5071 21.22 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060842 E 781-07210-5071 29.73 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060843 E 781-07210-5071 14.66 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060845 E 781-07210-5071 346.31 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391060976 E 781-07210-5071 296.06 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391061122 E 781-07210-5071 116.36 PHONE CHARGES 9/18/2019 2790429391062505 E 781-07210-5071 14.78 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791419391060758 E 781-07210-5071 62.01 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791419391060760 E 781-07210-5071 53.79 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791419391060844 E 781-07210-5071 27.00 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791419391060867 E 781-07210-5071 19.56 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791419391060870 E 781-07210-5071 490.19 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791419391060974 E 781-07210-5071 79.92 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791429391060855 E 781-07210-5071 1,549.62 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791429391060926 E 781-07210-5071 437.37 PHONE CHARGES 9/25/2019 2791429391060935 E 781-07210-5071 420.40 PHONE CHARGES ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 9/25/2019 279143IVC00000000018760 E 782-07410-5081 21,337.66 JULY 2019 TPA MONTHLY FEE & ANNUAL FEE 201 9/25/2019 279143IVC00000000018994 E 782-07410-5081 16,337.66 AUGUST 2019 MONTHLY FEE & TPA FEE BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 9/25/2019 279148192590025916 E 783-00000-4341 423,113.68 OCT 2019 ACTIVE EMPLOYEES HEALTH INSURANC 9/25/2019 279148192590175489 E 783-00000-4342 449,984.21 OCT 2019 RETIREES HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIU CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 9/27/2019 2793020982104814 E 781-07210-5073 119.61 WATER SERVICE 9/27/2019 2793024635141659 E 781-07210-5073 1,097.47 WATER SERVICE COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN9/27/2019 2793068155 20 044 0076067 E 781-07210-5071 93.22 INTERNET SERVICE/MODEM RENTAL Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 10 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco NON-DEPARTMENTAL COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN9/27/2019 2793068155 20 044 0695734 E 781-07210-5071 71.89 BUSINESS INTERNET/VOICE SERVICE DKS ASSOCIATES 9/27/2019 2793140070895 E 784-07511-5005 735.00 PF1903 - ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS DU-ALL SAFETY LLC 9/20/2019 27910321066 E 100-07110-5001 9,975.00 AUGUST 2019 PROF SAFETY CONSULTATION KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 9/25/2019 279199OCTOBER 2019 E 783-00000-4341 112,697.49 OCTOBER 2019 KAISER HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS 9/25/2019 279199OCTOBER 2019 E 783-00000-4342 123,106.28 OCTOBER 2019 KAISER HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS P & A ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS, INC9/18/2019 279071496947 E 783-00000-5095 2,907.86 FSA WEEKLY REIMBURSEMENTS FROM JUL 29 - A 9/18/2019 279071497395 E 783-00000-5095 2,504.14 FSA REIMBURSEMENTS WEEK OF SEPT 02-07, 201 9/25/2019 279227498820 E 783-00000-5095 1,492.59 FSA REIMBURSEMENTS WEEK OF SEPT 8-14, 2019 9/25/2019 279227F82470404614 E 783-00000-5095 274.50 FLEX FEES OCTOBER 2019 MONTHLY ADMINISTR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY9/18/2019 2790720285235090-5 E 781-07210-5070 301.54 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/18/2019 2790725177240092-8 E 781-07210-5070 527.82 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/18/2019 2790725534400076-9 E 781-07210-5070 30.07 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/18/2019 2790725961515715-9 E 781-07210-5070 45.80 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/18/2019 2790726846819681-8 E 781-07210-5070 80.36 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/18/2019 2790728701065497-5 E 781-07210-5070 79.18 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792290093316219-0 E 781-07210-5070 9.86 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792290379629797-0 E 781-07210-5070 93.24 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792291886610157-1 E 781-07210-5070 879.06 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792292500898977-1 E 781-07210-5070 61.52 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792292900060739-9 E 781-07210-5070 24.75 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792293084158901-0 E 781-07210-5070 35.92 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792297036130873-0 E 781-07210-5070 156.98 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792297785237739-7 E 781-07210-5070 117.68 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792298177181277-3 E 781-07210-5070 81.92 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE 9/25/2019 2792305908002015-5 E 781-07210-5070 103,276.54 ELECTRIC SERVICE-WQCP 9/25/2019 2792308634831335-3 E 781-07210-5070 2,358.94 GAS SERVICE-WQCP STANDARD INSURANCE CO 9/25/2019 279253338329 E 783-00000-4349 31,767.26 OCT 2019 MONTHLY LIFE INSURANCE ACTIVE EM UTILITY TELEPHONE, INC 9/27/2019 279335126848 E 781-07210-5071 214.80 LD PHONE CHARGES WESTBOROUGH WATER DISTRICT 9/25/2019 279284SSF0001-53 E 781-07210-5073 55,738.02 WATER SERVICE Payments issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $1,366,719.43 Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 11 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PARKS & RECREATION AED SUPERSTORE 9/25/2019 279269CC401597 E 100-17230-5034 684.84 DS - AED CARTRIDGES FOR OMP POOL ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY9/20/2019 2790905196709 E 100-17420-5050 -2.83 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES (CM FOR INV DATED 11/21/ 9/20/2019 2790905214360 E 100-17420-5050 360.61 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC9/25/2019 2791331165700 E 100-17110-5061 1,238.00 INSURANCE - CONCERT IN THE PARK AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. 9/25/2019 27913711WK-D6GN-GY9K E 100-17275-5021 208.39 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 27913714WD-HKMT-J4C1 E 100-17275-5021 85.60 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 27913714WD-HKMT-PPHN E 100-17275-5021 285.46 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371FLY-H1F6-3NJF E 100-17275-5021 138.69 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371J9K-7MRJ-YYNK E 100-17275-5021 337.37 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371M1C-QMM7-JQ9Q E 100-17275-5021 133.09 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371P49-C4PQ-R47F E 100-17275-5021 18.23 OPERATING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2791371PGQ-LMGQ-11D6 E 100-17270-5021 67.75 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371Q3G-FYQN-LNM7 E 100-17275-5021 131.85 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371RDF-DCLM-VW6Y E 100-17999-5999 404.34 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371WC3-7TVM-76LM E 100-17275-5021 232.94 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371WDC-TJJ6-XJ4P E 100-17270-5021 256.62 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371Y4Q-LYHJ-R9VF E 100-17275-5021 311.78 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE 9/25/2019 2791371YXR-Q3N9-JGDL E 100-17275-5021 280.00 OPERATING SUPPLIES - CHILDCARE AMAZON MKTPLACE 9/18/2019 279085CC401406 E 100-17320-5050 118.00 GM: MAGNOLIA CENTER ASH TRAY 9/25/2019 279269CC401820 E 100-17420-5050 47.13 AH: CITY FAC SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401494 E 100-17275-5021 371.10 FR POGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401500 E 100-17275-5021 22.84 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401501 E 100-17275-5021 168.50 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401502 E 100-17275-5021 54.40 FR PPROGRM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401899 E 100-17275-5021 3.99 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401993 E 100-17275-5021 120.10 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333CC401996 E 100-17275-5021 139.23 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc402001 E 100-17275-5021 150.78 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc402002 E 100-17275-5021 21.92 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES AMAZON.COM 9/27/2019 279333CC402008 E 100-17275-5021 49.60 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES AMERICAN RED CROSS 9/18/2019 279085CC401063 E 100-17230-5033 38.00 BN - BRIAN NOCE LIFEGUARD CERTIFICATION 9/18/2019 279085CC401066 E 100-17230-5033 152.00 BN - OMP STAFF RECERTIFICATIONS Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 12 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PARKS & RECREATION B&B CUSTOM DESIGNS 9/25/2019 27914417612 E 100-17110-5021 77.40 COMMISSIONER JACKET BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES 9/25/2019 2791506421376 E 100-17320-5001 21,750.50 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - AUGUST 9/25/2019 2791506421376 E 232-17532-5050 1,710.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - AUGUST 9/25/2019 2791506421376 E 234-17530-5050 7,910.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - AUGUST 9/25/2019 2791506421376 E 231-17531-5050 10,604.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - AUGUST 9/25/2019 2791506421376 E 233-17533-5050 1,621.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - AUGUST 9/25/2019 2791506467256 E 231-17531-5050 10,604.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - SEPTEMBER 9/25/2019 2791506467256 E 232-17532-5050 1,710.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - SEPTEMBER 9/25/2019 2791506467256 E 233-17533-5050 1,621.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - SEPTEMBER 9/25/2019 2791506467256 E 234-17530-5050 7,910.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - SEPTEMBER 9/25/2019 2791506467256 E 100-17320-5001 21,750.50 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - SEPTEMBER BROADMOOR LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 9/25/2019 27915152535 E 100-17320-5050 48.29 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 27915152542 E 100-17970-5061 6,450.67 IRISH TOWN GREEN PATHWAY EDGE 9/25/2019 27915152555 E 100-17320-5050 118.53 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 27915152576 E 100-17320-5050 237.06 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 27915152596 E 100-17970-5061 645.07 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 27915152613 E 100-17320-5050 177.80 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 27915152617 E 100-17320-5050 237.06 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 27915152618 E 100-17320-5050 179.99 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 27915152624 E 100-17320-5050 414.86 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP BSN SPORTS, INC 9/27/2019 279300906044872 E 100-17240-5021 148.27 SPORT EVENT SUPPLIES C&L SPORTING GOODS 9/27/2019 279301VB 2019 E 100-17240-5021 505.56 SPORTS SUPPLIES FOR VOLLEYBALL AND BASKETB CA DEPT PEST REGS LICENSING 9/18/2019 279085CC401523 E 232-17532-5061 60.00 JR: PESTICIDE TRAINING FOR PETER SHEA CALIFORNIA DEPT OF SOCIAL SVCS9/25/2019 279155410517397 E 100-17275-5029 968.00 WESTBOROUGH PRESCHOOL LICENSING FEE 9/25/2019 279155414004145 E 100-17999-5999 242.00 LITTLE STEPS LICENSING FEE CANVA.COM 9/18/2019 279085CC401402 E 100-17110-5020 119.40 GM: GRAPHIC DESIGN SOFTWARE CCP INDUSTRIES, INC. 9/25/2019 279157IN02385305 E 100-17320-5034 25.06 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES CITY MECHANICAL INC 9/20/2019 27909557732 E 100-17420-5050 680.00 HVAC REPAIR @ W.ORANGE LIBRARY CITY OF FREMONT 9/27/2019 279333CC402007 E 100-17275-5021 10.00 KM SUMMER CAMP FIELD TRIP CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 9/27/2019 279305BR48241 E 100-17310-5033 700.00 SUPERVISORY ACADEMY FEES (SPRING 2018 - 4 P COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 9/20/2019 279097W332161-2 E 100-17420-5021 76.75 FAC- CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 9/20/2019 279097W333176-1 E 100-17420-5021 76.75 FAC- CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 13 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PARKS & RECREATION COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 9/20/2019 279097W335350 E 100-17420-5021 918.11 FAC- CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 9/20/2019 279097W336674 E 100-17420-5021 495.59 FAC- CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 9/20/2019 279097W336674-1 E 100-17420-5021 5.79 FAC- CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 9/18/2019 279085CC401405 E 100-17110-5050 195.00 GM: E-MARKETING MONTHLY SERVICE COSTCO 9/27/2019 279333cc401348 E 100-17275-5021 330.86 CR SNACK SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc402006 E 100-17275-5021 362.69 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333CC402014 E 100-17275-5021 442.79 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES CPRS DISTRICT IV 9/27/2019 2793073414 E 100-17230-5031 20.00 MINI CPRS CONFERENCE - DEVIN STENHOUSE 9/27/2019 2793073438 E 100-17230-5031 20.00 CPRS MINI CONFERENCE - BRIAN NOCE DANNYBOY DESIGNS 9/25/2019 27917025 E 100-17110-5061 627.22 STAFF T-SHIRTS DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP INC 9/27/2019 27931187636 E 100-17970-5061 1,211.00 PK1802 - URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN DEA SECURITY SYSTEMS CO INC 9/20/2019 279099C073120238 E 100-17410-5005 798.00 SERVICE REPAIR @ MAGNOLIA DENALECT ALARM 9/20/2019 279101B27099 E 100-17410-5005 2,040.48 ALARMS @ CITY BLDGS: SEPT 2019 DOLLAR TREE STORE 9/27/2019 279333cc401318 E 100-17275-5021 6.59 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401994 E 100-17275-5021 14.52 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333CC402017 E 100-17275-5021 7.68 PROGRAM SUPPLIES FULLY INC. 9/27/2019 279333CC402015 E 100-17275-5033 1,534.31 KM NEW DESK GFI ENTERTAINMENT, LLC 9/25/2019 2791841025 E 100-17110-5061 21,250.00 CONCERT IN THE PARK PRODUCTION SERVICES GOODWILL 9/27/2019 279333cc401493 E 100-17275-5021 41.86 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 9/20/2019 279105115944 E 100-17971-5061 118.54 MAGNOLIA - PAINT SUPPLIES JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 9/20/2019 279106110-S100588852.001 E 100-17420-5050 128.36 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES KELLI JO CULLINAN 9/25/2019 279167Cash Adv 9-23-2019 E 100-17276-5021 500.00 CASH ADVANCE FOR SENIOR SUPPLIES AND SERVI KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 9/25/2019 2792011102-00000624924 E 100-17320-5050 355.04 PAINT SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792011102-00000625804 E 100-17320-5050 105.43 PAINT SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792011102-00000626066 E 100-17320-5050 61.88 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP KERRY WEST 9/25/2019 27928309/23/19 E 100-17275-5021 43.65 KERRY WEST - PHONE CASE FOR CITY PHONE LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 9/27/2019 279333cc401331 E 100-17275-5021 152.16 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401332 E 100-17275-5021 88.16 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401336 E 100-17275-5021 104.13 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 9/20/2019 279110SL016079 E 100-17230-5021 677.22 CHLORINE FOR OMP POOL 9/20/2019 279110SL016080 E 100-17230-5021 721.44 OMP POOL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 9/18/2019 279085CC401065 E 100-17230-5034 64.82 BN - NOZZLES AND SUPPLIES FOR OMP POOL Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 14 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PARKS & RECREATION LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 9/20/2019 279111902067 E 100-17420-5050 87.31 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES 9/20/2019 279111902137 E 100-17420-5050 3.23 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES 9/20/2019 279111910303 E 100-17420-5050 8.78 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 279211902182 E 100-17320-5050 135.43 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 279211902191 E 100-17320-5050 19.27 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 279211902637 E 100-17320-5050 22.31 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 279211903619 E 231-17531-5050 39.38 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 279211917720 E 100-17275-5021 611.85 PROGRAM S UPPLIES 9/25/2019 279269CC401596 E 100-17230-5034 22.35 DS - MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES FOR OMP POOL 9/27/2019 279333cc401496 E 100-17275-5021 46.39 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES MICHAEL BOROVINA 9/27/2019 27929909/23/19 E 100-17250-5020 323.68 M. BOROVINA - EMPLOYEE REIMB. CONCERT SUP MICHAEL'S 9/27/2019 279333cc401323 E 100-17275-5021 82.55 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401325 E 100-17275-5021 42.74 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401898 E 100-17275-5021 73.04 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333CC401998 E 100-17275-5021 7.63 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES PACIFIC NURSERIES 9/25/2019 279231SI-409144 E 100-17320-5050 823.64 PARKS DIV - PLANTS PARTY CITY 9/27/2019 279333cc402000 E 100-17275-5021 65.45 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES PET CLUB 9/27/2019 279333cc401347 E 100-17275-5021 9.87 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 9/18/2019 2790750150374-IN E 100-17310-5036 43.00 AUGUST 2019 PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG SCREENI READYREFRESH 9/25/2019 27923709I0030586945 E 100-17276-5021 56.47 BOTTLED WATER SERVICE FOR MAGNOLIA SENIO SLAKEY BROS. 9/18/2019 279085CC401428 E 100-17420-5050 35.41 AH: CITY FAC SUPPLIES SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 9/27/2019 279333cc401872 E 100-17275-5021 25.47 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 9/20/2019 279116971985 E 100-17420-5050 32.28 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP 9/20/2019 279116979800 E 100-17320-5050 -16.43 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/20/2019 279116981008 E 100-17320-5050 -41.68 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/20/2019 279116983225 E 100-17420-5050 57.81 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP 9/20/2019 279116983315 E 100-17420-5050 24.40 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP 9/20/2019 279116983359 E 100-17420-5050 29.73 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP 9/20/2019 279116983401 E 100-17420-5050 19.72 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP 9/20/2019 279116983564 E 100-17420-5050 13.38 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 279246983790 E 100-17320-5050 89.19 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/25/2019 279246983932 E 100-17320-5050 28.49 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 15 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PARKS & RECREATION STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO 9/20/2019 279118JZT147 E 100-17420-5050 147.43 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES 9/20/2019 279118KBJ723 E 100-17420-5050 121.56 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 9/25/2019 2792548055588454 E 100-17110-5020 226.43 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR MSB ADMIN OFFICE 9/27/2019 279333cc401328 E 100-17275-5021 143.72 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 9/18/2019 279085CC401430 E 100-17320-5050 57.06 JR: PARKS DIV SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 279085CC401431 E 100-17320-5050 -11.41 JR: PARKS DIV SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279269CC401578 E 100-17230-5034 54.85 DS TONER FOR PRINTER AND BATTERIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401326 E 100-17275-5021 43.87 EE OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401330 E 100-17275-5021 50.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401346 E 100-17275-5021 79.17 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401350 E 100-17275-5021 21.39 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9/27/2019 279331399920 E 100-17310-5037 128.00 AUGUST 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS TAP PLASTICS INC 9/18/2019 279085CC401429 E 100-17320-5050 332.22 JR: PARKS DIV SUPPLIES TARGET 9/27/2019 279333cc401319 E 100-17275-5021 36.49 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401321 E 100-17275-5021 76.65 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401334 E 100-17275-5021 8.69 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401343 E 100-17275-5021 183.24 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401345 E 100-17275-5021 30.59 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401349 E 100-17275-5021 21.81 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401503 E 100-17275-5021 54.60 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333CC401896 E 100-17275-5021 174.68 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401897 E 100-17275-5021 52.84 FR PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333CC401997 E 100-17275-5021 28.58 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES TARGET SPECIALTY 9/18/2019 279085CC401520 E 232-17532-5061 35.00 JR: VEG. MGNMT TRAININGS - PETER SHEA 9/18/2019 279085CC401522 E 100-17310-5033 35.00 JR: VEG. MGNMT TRAININGS - J. RICHARDSON TARGET SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279257Pl1012692 E 100-17320-5050 1,689.78 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279257Pl1014161 E 100-17320-5050 280.88 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES TEACHERS PAY TEACHERS 9/27/2019 279333cc401327 E 100-17275-5021 11.00 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-17275-5074 45.95 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-17240-5074 36.16 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-17110-5074 1,304.92 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-17276-5074 212.57 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 16 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PARKS & RECREATION THE URBAN FARMER STORE INC. 9/25/2019 27926273589 E 100-17320-5050 1,625.59 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP TURF STAR INC 9/25/2019 279267615522-00 E 100-17320-5050 7,253.14 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA 9/25/2019 279270114-9092043 E 100-17320-5001 149.99 PK - PORTOLET COMMUNITY GARDEN 9/25/2019 279270114-9096362 E 100-17320-5001 118.13 PK - PORTOLET PONDEROSA FIELD 9/25/2019 279270114-9096365 E 100-17320-5001 118.13 PK - PORTOLET PARADISE FIELD UNLIMITED TOOL REPAIR 9/18/2019 279085CC401432 E 100-17320-5050 146.29 JR: PARKS DIV SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 27908622573 E 100-17320-5050 323.41 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP 9/18/2019 27908622625 E 100-17320-5050 170.52 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17410-5071 313.28 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17320-5045 1,814.60 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 231-17531-5071 50.80 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17999-5999 10.02 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17310-5071 227.68 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17310-5045 427.99 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17276-5071 92.96 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17275-5071 299.50 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17270-5071 27.63 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17260-5071 53.63 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17250-5071 86.13 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17240-5071 25.74 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17230-5071 26.15 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17210-5071 27.29 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-17110-5071 147.86 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 WALGREENS 9/27/2019 279333cc401995 E 100-17275-5021 32.78 KM PROGRAM SUPPLIES WALSCHON FIRE PROTECTION INC 9/20/2019 279123190425.1 E 100-17420-5050 13,510.00 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ANNUAL INSPECT. ZIPRECRUITER INC 9/27/2019 279333CC402016 E 100-17275-5033 249.00 KM JOB RECRUITMENT Payments issued for PARKS & RECREATION $175,328.14 POLICE ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC 9/20/2019 27908909/16/19-09/20/19 E 100-12720-5033 395.00 BASIC BIKE PATROL COURSE - PERADOTTO ARAGON VETERINARY CLINIC 9/25/2019 279139178930 E 100-12720-5021 169.75 VET EXPENSE - DIESEL 9/25/2019 279139180064 E 100-12720-5021 84.64 VET EXPENSES - INDY/ MILLER Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 17 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco POLICE CLEARLITE TROPHIES 9/25/2019 27916185277 E 100-12110-5061 281.05 PD CHIEF'S AWARD COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9/25/2019 2791651YSS11908 E 100-12720-5002 8,083.87 AUGUST 2019 MESSAGE SWITCH/CLETS IAPE-INTL ASSOC FOR 9/25/2019 27919212/0319-12/04/19 E 100-12210-5033 375.00 PROPERTY ROOM MANAGEMENT - SEMINAR FOR INTOXIMETERS 9/25/2019 279194638057 E 100-12720-5061 289.90 REPAIR TO PAS DEVICE JON KALLAS 9/25/2019 27920008/05/09-08/07/19 E 100-12720-5033 218.93 DEFENSIVE TACTICS UPDATE - EXPENSES (KALLAS) JORGE ALFARO 9/25/2019 27913109/11/19 E 100-12720-5033 66.93 MILEAGE REIMB FTO OFC CLASS - J.ALFARO LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 9/25/2019 2792054627330 E 100-12720-5005 172.83 TRANSLATIONS - AUGUST 2019 LORRAINE DINAPOLI 9/25/2019 27917409/09/19-09/12/19 E 100-12110-5032 193.08 CA CLETS USERS CONF EXP REMB- DINAPOLI MERRITT COMMUNICATIONS INC. 9/25/2019 27921597047 E 100-12110-5020 87.76 DISPATCH SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 27921597122 E 100-12110-5020 97.68 DISPATCH SUPPLIES METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 9/25/2019 27921743667 E 100-12720-5021 1,917.58 NEW HELMET - PAPPAS NORTH PENINSULA VETERINARY CL 9/25/2019 27922268442 E 100-12720-5001 3,667.34 VET EXPENSES - INDY OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/25/2019 279225367305009001 E 100-12110-5020 88.07 DISPATCH SUPPLIES PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 9/18/2019 2790750150374-IN E 100-12720-5036 43.00 AUGUST 2019 PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG SCREENI SSF SCAVENGER CO INC 9/25/2019 2792510000864203 E 100-12110-5020 180.00 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9/27/2019 279331399920 E 100-12720-5037 98.00 AUGUST 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-12210-5074 445.10 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 9/25/2019 27926630820 E 100-12720-5021 713.38 HANDHELD TICKETWRITER ENVELOPES VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-12410-5071 1,875.18 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 YMCA OF SAN FRANCISCO 9/25/2019 27928804/09/20-04/10/20 E 100-12210-5001 1,720.00 STUDENTS RETREAT - EVERY 15 MINUTES (APPRO Payments issued for POLICE $21,264.07 PUBLIC WORKS 3M LIBRARY SYSTEMS 9/25/2019 2791269405430277 E 100-13430-5021 6,633.29 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPER SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2791269405443273 E 100-13430-5021 602.32 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPER SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2791269405447077 E 100-13430-5021 2,348.50 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPER SUPPLIES AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC 9/27/2019 279293409863 E 781-13610-5021 38.28 GARAGE OP STOCK ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY9/25/2019 2791325214996 E 710-13943-5051 4,583.72 POWER QUALITY ANALYZER 9/25/2019 2791325214996 E 710-13942-5051 4,583.71 POWER QUALITY ANALYZER 9/25/2019 2791325215369 E 710-13943-5051 549.20 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2791325215748 E 710-13943-5051 1,141.96 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 9/18/2019 2790379064019-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 3,203.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 18 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PUBLIC WORKS ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 9/18/2019 2790379083930-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 4,333.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379083957-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 291.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092229-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 1,387.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092230-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 1,387.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092231-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 1,387.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092381-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092382-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092383-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092470-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092471-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092472-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092506-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 65.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092526-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092527-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092532-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 65.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092533-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 113.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092534-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 241.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092535-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 110.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092536-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 110.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/18/2019 2790379092537-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 867.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/25/2019 2791349091914-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 139.60 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/27/2019 2792949092715-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 1,817.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/27/2019 2792949092722-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 1,817.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/27/2019 2792949092723-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 110.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/27/2019 2792949092724-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 110.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/27/2019 2792949093131-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 65.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/27/2019 2792949093597-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 110.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES 9/27/2019 2792949093603-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 110.00 FY 2019-2020 ANALYTICAL SERVICES AQUADYNE ASSOCIATES 9/18/2019 27904019-053 E 710-13942-5051 2,198.89 REPLACEMENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN INSTRUMENT ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9/25/2019 279140000760386094 E 740-13820-5001 147.34 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/25/2019 279140000760386094 E 710-13315-5001 147.34 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/25/2019 279140000760386096 E 781-13610-5001 39.80 PW MAINT UNIFORMS FOR GARAGE Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 19 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PUBLIC WORKS ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9/25/2019 279140000760386097 E 781-13610-5001 47.85 PW MAINT GARAGE SEAT COVER & SHOP TOWEL 9/25/2019 279140760431726 E 710-13910-5001 233.53 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/25/2019 279140760431727 E 710-13910-5001 174.20 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/25/2019 279140760431730 E 740-13820-5001 125.09 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/25/2019 279140760431730 E 710-13315-5001 125.09 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/25/2019 279140760431732 E 781-13610-5001 8.30 PW MAINT UNIFORMS FOR GARAGE 9/25/2019 279140760431733 E 781-13610-5001 47.85 PW MAINT GARAGE SEAT COVER AND SHOP TOW 9/25/2019 279140760443074 E 710-13910-5001 171.58 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/25/2019 279140760443075 E 710-13910-5001 174.20 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/27/2019 279296760443078 E 710-13315-5001 149.09 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/27/2019 279296760443078 E 740-13820-5001 149.09 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE 9/27/2019 279296760443081 E 781-13610-5001 47.85 PW MAINT GARAGE SEAT COVER AND SHOP TOW B&B CUSTOM DESIGNS 9/25/2019 27914417610 E 710-13910-5034 206.77 STAFF UNIFORMS BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST9/18/2019 279045T106161 E 710-13910-5002 454.00 ANNUAL PERMIT FEE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MA BAY AREA UPHOLSTERY 9/27/2019 2792978385 E 781-13610-5001 293.29 GARAGE VEH #10 REPAIRS BAYVIEW CONSTRUCTION & PAINTIN9/18/2019 27904607-2019 E 710-13910-5001 7,100.00 INTERIOR PAINTING IN THE LAB AND OPS ROOM CONIFER CREATIVE, INC. 9/25/2019 279163219-238 E 100-13999-5999 675.00 GOOGLE TRANSIT AND 511.ORG DATA MAINTEN CWEA - SANTA CLARA VALLEY SECT9/25/2019 27916810/08/19 E 710-13315-5033 195.00 CWEA-SCVS SEMINAR #59 - OCT 8, 2019 - REG FE DANIEL JOSEPH GARZA 9/18/2019 27905409/12/19 E 710-13953-5033 174.44 EMPL. REIMB. GREASE INTERCEPTOR TRAINING R DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE CTRL 9/25/2019 27917319SM0208 E 740-13820-5031 442.02 FORMER BASAPCO INC SITE (APR 1 2019 - JUNE 3 DKS ASSOCIATES 9/27/2019 2793140067741 E 100-13210-5005 22,414.69 TR2001 - DKS ASSOCIATES PM SERVICES DYSERT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 9/18/2019 27905014709 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2019-2020 SAMPLING SERVICES 9/18/2019 27905014710 E 710-13953-5005 400.00 FY 2019-2020 SAMPLING SERVICES 9/18/2019 27905014711 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2019-2020 SAMPLING SERVICES 9/25/2019 27917514712 E 710-13951-5005 445.00 FY 2019-2020 SAMPLING SERVICES 9/27/2019 27931514713 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2019-2020 SAMPLING SERVICES 9/27/2019 27931514714 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2019-2020 SAMPLING SERVICES (PROJ 16313) 9/27/2019 27931514727 E 710-13953-5005 400.00 FY 2019-2020 SAMPLING SERVICES (PROJ 16323) EUNEJUNE KIM 9/25/2019 27920209/19/2019 E 100-13410-5061 20.00 EK-LUNCH EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR 9/15/ EXPROLINK 9/25/2019 27917935663 E 781-13610-5021 851.72 GARAGE OP VEH #625 9/25/2019 27917935715 E 781-13610-5021 38.04 GARAGE OP VEH #625 FATHOM MARINE, LLC 9/18/2019 2790531864 E 781-13610-5001 4,072.85 GARAGE VEH#519 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 20 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PUBLIC WORKS FLYERS ENERGY LLC 9/25/2019 279182CFS-2052428 E 781-13610-5028 13,702.87 PW FUEL CARD TRANSACTION FOR CITY FLEET GOLDEN GATE TRUCK CENTER 9/25/2019 279185F005943075:01 E 781-13610-5021 16.43 GARAGE OP VEH#507 &STOCK GRANITEROCK COMPANY 9/25/2019 2791871196713 E 100-13411-5021 373.37 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES HATTON'S CRANE & RIGGING, INC 9/25/2019 2791881001195 E 710-13941-5051 6,350.00 CRANE RENTAL HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE SVC 9/25/2019 279189165170 E 781-13610-5021 114.40 GARAGE OP VEH#502 9/25/2019 279189165204 E 781-13610-5001 7,240.80 GARAGE VEH#510 REPAIRS 9/25/2019 279189165208 E 781-13610-5001 3,709.69 GARAGE VEH#510 REPAIRS HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 9/25/2019 279191115753 E 710-13941-5050 218.46 PAINT SUPPLIES IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC. 9/25/2019 2791933053133936 E 710-13951-5021 1,305.63 LAB SUPPLIES INSULTAB 9/18/2019 2790571203779 E 720-13720-5021 1,040.45 PARKING OPER SUPPLIES IPS GROUP, INC 9/27/2019 27931945128 E 720-13720-5005 2,565.00 REPAIR SERVICE FOR PARKING METER JAM SERVICES INC 9/25/2019 279196123886 E 100-13450-5021 2,875.45 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279196123887 E 100-13450-5021 5,196.66 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279196123888 E 100-13450-5021 4,774.13 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279196123889 E 100-13450-5021 2,590.10 SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES JDI ELECTRICAL SERVICES INC 9/25/2019 2791974449 E 710-13922-5021 3,162.00 INSTALLATION OF (2) EV CHARGERS JSF TECHNOLOGIES INC. 9/25/2019 27919830399 E 100-13450-5021 285.00 PW SIGNALS OPER SUPPLIES KENNETH DE LEON 9/25/2019 27917109/06/19 E 710-13942-5051 39.90 EMPL. REIMB. THERMAL PADS FOR SBS ANALYZE LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES, INC 9/25/2019 27920600516.07-1 E 710-13951-5005 1,236.00 FY 19-20 WASTEWATER REGULATORY ASSISTANC 9/27/2019 27932200516.05-25 E 710-13951-5005 769.25 FY 19-20 WASTEWATER REGULATORY ASSISTANC 9/27/2019 27932200516.06-9 E 710-13951-5005 545.00 NPDES REISSUANCE REGULATORY ASSISTANCE LARRY YAN 9/25/2019 27928608/29/19-09/11/19 E 710-13315-5031 46.98 LARRY YAN STAND-BY-MILEAGE - AUGUST 29 - SE LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 9/25/2019 279211909622 E 710-13315-5021 268.81 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES MARA SCHEUBER 9/18/2019 27907809/01/2019 E 710-13951-5021 56.78 EMPL. REIMB. 2020 CALENDARS FOR LAB MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 9/18/2019 27906515028962 E 710-13922-5021 144.01 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 27906515028962 E 710-13941-5050 317.24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 27906515028963 E 710-13941-5051 446.27 HEADWORKS PLATFORM 9/25/2019 27921315118416 E 781-13610-5021 110.94 GARAGE OP STOCK 9/25/2019 27921315290963 E 710-13941-5051 84.28 HEADWORKS PLATFORM 9/25/2019 27921315691188 E 710-13941-5051 145.62 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 27921315739757 E 710-13951-5021 4,534.86 REPLACEMENT ANTIFATIGUE VINYL MATS FOR LA MESA LABORATORIES INC 9/25/2019 279216INV-336104 E 710-13951-5021 176.58 LAB SUPPLIES Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 21 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PUBLIC WORKS MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMEN9/25/2019 2792200141464-IN E 781-13610-5001 454.01 GARAGE VEH# 320 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, LLC 9/27/2019 279325INV-185945 E 710-13953-5030 751.40 ON-SCREEN OUTREACH NELSON YUK 9/25/2019 27928909/12/19 E 710-13953-5033 175.14 N. YUK - EMPL. REIM. GREASE INTERCEPTOR TRAI NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 9/25/2019 279223051221 E 710-13951-5004 888.40 DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 9/25/2019 279223051242 E 710-13951-5004 1,100.00 DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE NSI SOLUTIONS, INC. 9/25/2019 279224370524 E 710-13951-5021 383.00 LAB SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT INC 9/18/2019 279070371008896001 E 710-13951-5021 18.78 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/18/2019 279070371008896001 E 710-13910-5021 45.72 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279225370132797001 E 710-13951-5021 -38.40 RETURN-DAMAGED ITEM 9/25/2019 279225371279297001 E 100-13210-5020 156.22 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR ENGINEERING PENINSULA BATTERY CO 9/25/2019 279233130191 E 781-13610-5021 157.68 GARAGE OP VEH #753 9/25/2019 279233130211 E 781-13610-5021 264.15 GARAGE OP VEH #10 9/25/2019 279233130212 E 781-13610-5021 315.36 GARAGE OP VEH #310 PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 9/18/2019 2790750150374-IN E 710-13310-5036 86.00 AUGUST 2019 PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG SCREENI READYREFRESH 9/25/2019 27923719I0028246270 E 710-13910-5021 302.09 DRINKING WATER (08/07-09/06/19) ROSS AUTO CLINIC 9/25/2019 279238010920 E 781-13610-5001 416.94 GARAGE VEH #127 REPAIRS SAN FRANCISCO HARLEY-DAVIDSON 9/25/2019 279240445878 E 781-13610-5021 5.38 GARAGE OP VEH #44 SERRAMONTE FORD INC 9/25/2019 279243254406 E 781-13610-5001 112.50 GARAGE VEH #128 REPAIRS 9/25/2019 279243669375 E 781-13610-5021 443.78 GARAGE OP STOCK 9/25/2019 279243669623 E 781-13610-5021 23.08 GARAGE OP VEH#28 9/25/2019 279243669625 E 781-13610-5021 16.17 GARAGE OP VEH #3 9/25/2019 279243670054 E 781-13610-5021 93.66 GARAGE OP VEH #10 9/27/2019 279330254218 E 781-13610-5001 2,153.21 GARAGE VEH#1 REPAIRS SIMONDS MACHINERY CO 9/18/2019 279080INV17841 E 740-13820-5001 7,970.33 DRAINAGE/STORM CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SNAP-ON TOOLS 9/18/2019 279085CC400504 E 781-13610-5051 3,702.98 DW CC - GARAGESHOP EQUIPMENT SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 9/25/2019 279246983609 E 710-13941-5050 39.49 PAINTING SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 279246983950 E 710-13941-5050 43.10 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES SSF SCAVENGER CO INC 9/18/2019 2790820000852949 E 710-13962-5072 18,277.03 DEBRIS BOX SERVICE FOR SWEEPER/VACTOR DU 9/18/2019 2790820000863197 E 710-13962-5072 19,630.88 DEBRIS BOX SERVICES FOR SWEEPER/VACTOR DU STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9/27/2019 279331399920 E 710-13310-5037 32.00 AUGUST 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS THATCHER COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA9/25/2019 279259268699 E 710-13941-5021 7,913.00 FY 2019-2020 FERRIC CHLORIDE 9/25/2019 279259268787 E 710-13941-5021 7,349.35 FY 2019-2020 FERRIC CHLORIDE Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 22 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PUBLIC WORKS THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO 9/25/2019 279261184-1088588 E 781-13610-5021 267.74 GARAGE OP VEH#271 9/25/2019 279261184-1088589 E 781-13610-5021 3,572.88 GARAGE OP STOCK 9/25/2019 279261184-1088641 E 781-13610-5021 244.48 GARAGE OP VEH #618 THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 100-13210-5074 295.04 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 710-13310-5074 290.85 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES 9/20/2019 279121243810 E 710-13910-5074 173.94 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES THOMAS SIPHONGSAY 9/25/2019 27924409/12/19 E 710-13953-5033 175.14 T. SIPHONGSAY - EMPL. REIM. GREASE INTERCEPT TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 9/25/2019 2792641801P123307 E 781-13610-5021 226.65 GARAGE OP STOCK TRANSENE COMPANY, INC 9/25/2019 279265173066 E 710-13951-5021 395.81 LAB SUPPLIES TURF STAR INC 9/18/2019 2790847081488-00 E 781-13610-5021 97.78 GARAGE OP VEH# 825 UNIVAR USA INC 9/25/2019 279272SJ960878 E 710-13964-5021 6,012.34 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM BISULFITE 9/25/2019 279272SJ961061 E 710-13944-5021 3,598.47 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 9/25/2019 279272SJ961111 E 710-13944-5021 3,473.52 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 9/25/2019 279272SJ961217 E 710-13944-5021 3,422.45 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 9/25/2019 279272SJ962229 E 710-13964-5021 6,019.86 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM BISULFITE 9/27/2019 279334SJ963393 E 710-13964-5021 6,039.96 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM BISULFITE UPS FREIGHT 9/25/2019 2792740000V52111379 E 710-13910-5021 34.00 SHIPPING FOR ITEM RETURN USA BLUE BOOK 9/25/2019 279275005839 E 710-13953-5021 100.47 PH ELECTODE STORAGE, BUFFER & SAMPLE CONT VERIZON WIRELESS 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 710-13910-5071 580.95 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13450-5071 35.12 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13430-5071 26.47 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13520-5071 107.26 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 710-13310-5071 116.31 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13210-5071 202.53 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13420-5071 12.67 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 710-13315-5071 314.24 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13411-5071 66.87 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13410-5071 399.10 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 100-13220-5071 60.29 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 740-13820-5071 72.50 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 781-13610-5071 79.66 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 9/25/2019 279278871588196-00001 E 720-13720-5071 20.04 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 09/2019 Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 23 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco PUBLIC WORKS VERIZON WIRELESS 9/27/2019 279336342028365-00001 E 710-13961-5045 125.18 WQCP MODEMS - MONTHLY CHARGES AUG 19 - 9/27/2019 279336742029559-00001 E 720-13720-5045 75.10 MILLER GARAGE MODEM - MONTHLY CHARGES - VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC 9/18/2019 2790878087462721 E 710-13951-5021 523.91 LAB SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792798087575934 E 710-13951-5021 364.01 LAB SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792798087615745 E 710-13951-5021 2,489.79 LAB SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792798087625813 E 710-13951-5021 23.66 LAB SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792798087640870 E 710-13951-5021 16.99 LAB SUPPLIES W.W. GRAINGER INC. 9/25/2019 2792809282270397 E 710-13941-5021 1,309.10 BACKUP PUMPS 9/25/2019 2792809282717801 E 100-13460-5021 284.61 PW LIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES 9/25/2019 2792809283978493 E 710-13941-5051 119.52 REPLACEMENT TOE BOARDS 9/25/2019 2792809283978493 E 710-13922-5021 753.81 REPLACEMENT TOE BOARDS 9/25/2019 2792809283978493 E 710-13943-5050 549.96 REPLACEMENT TOE BOARDS 9/25/2019 2792809286777272 E 710-13910-5050 55.32 BATTERY RE-STOCK 9/25/2019 2792809289057250 E 100-13430-5021 26.61 PAINTS AND SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 9/25/2019 279282219-08-414-01 E 710-13953-5005 3,850.00 NEW DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PLAN REVIE Payments issued for PUBLIC WORKS $273,232.84 BALANCE SHEET A. TEICHERT & SON INC 9/27/2019 279291B18-0508 B 270-21724 50,000.00 RELEASE OF C&D DEPOSIT FOR B18-0508 - 425 M ALEXANDER COMPANY (4615) 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 B 280-21706 1.50 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM 9/20/2019 2791084-2019 B 100-21742 907.50 52 FRANKLIN CONSULTING SVCS - MAR 19-AUG 1 ARBORTECH TREE CARE INC 9/20/2019 279092E19-0589 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 325 DEL MONTE AVE 9/20/2019 279092E19-0590 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 210 W ORANGE AVE ATLAS PLUMBING & ROOTER 9/20/2019 279093E19-0696 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 26 SCHOOL ST CITY OF BURLINGAME 9/27/2019 2793042ND/3RD QTR 2019 B 280-21204 31,083.30 BID ASSESSMENTS PASS THROUGH CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP 9/27/2019 2793080819 B 100-21742 6,850.00 GENENTECH MASTER PLAN PEER REVIEW (BAL FO DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 9/27/2019 279310B3287537 B 100-21742 127.50 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 9.5.19 9/27/2019 279310B3287539 B 100-21742 87.00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 9.5.19 9/27/2019 279310B3291600 B 100-21742 76.50 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PC MTG 9.19.19 FIRST FOUNDATION BANK 9/25/2019 27918012a B 710-21208 131,251.23 SS1301 - 5% RENTENTION FIRST FOUNDATION BA FLATIRON WEST INC 9/25/2019 27918112 B 710-21208 -131,251.23 SS1301 - WQCP WET WEATHER AND DIGESTOR I HOME DEPOT 9/25/2019 279190B19-1449 B 280-21706 0.40 CANCELLED PERMIT RELEASE OF FEES - B19-1449 Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 24 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco BALANCE SHEET KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 9/27/2019 27932014408865 B 100-21742 5,047.50 CHESTNUT AVE/EL CAMINO REAL AREA PLAN 201 LAMPHIER-GREGORY 9/25/2019 27920412490 B 100-21742 10,290.00 CEQA FOR DIGITAL BILLBOARDS THROUGH 8.9.20 MERVIN SERVIANO 9/18/2019 279079Stale chk#252840 B 100-21215 220.00 REPLACE STALE AP CHECK#252840 - HALL RENTAL SOUTHWOOD PLUMBING & HEATING 9/18/2019 279081E15-0435 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 1010 GRAND AVE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9/27/2019 279331399920 B 100-21205 79.00 AUGUST 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS WU MINGZHAN 9/18/2019 279068B19-1253 B 270-21724 100.00 RELEASE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPOSIT - B1 Payments issued for BALANCE SHEET $106,870.20 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN 9/20/2019 27909100-2018-181-09 E 510-99999-5999 11,398.05 TR1705 - FY 18-19 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREE 9/20/2019 27909100-2018-181-10 E 510-99999-5999 37,024.47 TR1705 - FY 18-19 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREE 9/20/2019 27909100-2018-181-8 E 510-99999-5999 17,687.00 TR1705 - FY 18-19 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREE 9/25/2019 27913500-2018-181-12 E 510-99999-5999 7,615.10 TR1705 - FY 18-19 CONSULTING SRVCS AGREEME BARKERBLUE INC 9/18/2019 2790430000624133 E 510-99999-5999 15.00 PF1805 - PRINTING MATERIALS FOR FIRE STATION 9/18/2019 2790430000625866 E 510-99999-5999 18.00 ST1602 - PRINTING MATERIALS FOR LINDEN/SPR 9/25/2019 2791460000624085 E 510-99999-5999 203.75 PF1805 - PRINTED MATERIALS FOR FIRESTATION 9/25/2019 2791460000624086 E 510-99999-5999 163.75 TR1701 - PRINTING MATERIALS FOR SUNSHINE G 9/25/2019 2791460000626084 E 510-99999-5999 76.65 ST1806 - BARKERBLUE PRINTING SERVICES BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9/20/2019 27909419002-B E 510-99999-5999 47,054.00 ST1904 - MISSION ROAD UNDERGROUND UTILITI 9/27/2019 27929817095-I E 510-99999-5999 19,663.00 ST1702 - ANTOINETTE LANE UNDERGROUND UTIL CAROLLO ENGINEERS, PC 9/25/2019 2791560180193 E 710-99999-5999 1,165.00 SS1705 - FY 19-20 ON CALL WATER SERVICES 9/27/2019 2793030180086 E 710-99999-5999 120,422.85 SS1301 - ESDC - WET WEATHER AND DIGESTER I 9/27/2019 2793030180192 E 710-99999-5999 7,767.00 SS1703 - ON CALL WATER RESOURCES CIVIL ENGINEERS SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSUL9/25/2019 27924231663 E 740-99999-5999 315.00 SD1603 - ON CALL WATER RESOURCES 9/27/2019 27932931650 E 740-99999-5999 3,535.00 SD1603 - ON CALL WATER RESOURCES 9/27/2019 27932931716 E 710-99999-5999 4,385.00 SS1702 - ON CALL WATER RESOURCES TASK ORDE 9/27/2019 27932931719 E 710-99999-5999 5,620.00 SS1601 - FY19-20 ON CALL WATER SERVICES SODI DKS ASSOCIATES 9/18/2019 2790490069816 E 510-99999-5999 95.00 ST1605 - SPRUCE AVE PEDESTRAIN SAFETY IMPR 9/18/2019 2790490070922 E 510-99999-5999 712.50 TR1904 - ON CALL TRAFFIC SERVICES 9/27/2019 2793140071258 E 510-99999-5999 8,347.06 TR1904 - ON CALL TRAFFIC SERVICES ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. 9/25/2019 279177B90091.00-01 E 710-99999-5999 7,618.50 SS1307 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EKI SS1307 9/27/2019 279316B70050.04-18 E 710-99999-5999 8,784.62 SS1301 - PM SERVICES: WQCPLANT WET WEATHE Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 25 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. 9/27/2019 279316B90091.00-02 E 710-99999-5999 9,381.00 SS1307 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EKI SS1307 ESSENCE PRINTING INC 9/25/2019 279178138759 E 510-99995-5999 493.88 COMM CIV CAMPUS, ESSENCE, NWSLTR-CHINESE FLATIRON WEST INC 9/25/2019 27918112 E 710-99999-5999 2,625,024.63 SS1301 - WQCP WET WEATHER AND DIGESTOR I KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC9/20/2019 279107132110 E 710-99999-5999 35,366.17 SS1705 WQCP SWITCHGEAR & COGEN CONTROLS KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 9/27/2019 27932014742474 E 510-99999-5999 4,492.50 ST1905 - ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVIC LC GENERAL ENGINEERING & CONST9/18/2019 27905910A E 510-99999-5999 203,303.49 ST1502 - GBI PHASE II: KAISER WAY TO BART - CO 9/20/2019 27910911A E 510-99999-5999 103,314.51 ST1502 - GBI PHASE II: KAISER WAY TO BART - CO 9/20/2019 27910911B E 510-99999-5999 706.80 ST1403 - GBI PHASE I: CHESTNUT TO ARROYO - C MARK THOMAS & CO. INC. 9/18/2019 27906234329A E 510-99999-5999 210.00 ST1403 - ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR GRAND BL 9/20/2019 27911234329B E 510-99999-5999 19,602.39 TR1801 - ONCALL CIVIL ENG SVCS - COMMERICAL 9/20/2019 27911234329C E 510-99999-5999 4,608.00 ST1602 - LINDEN-SPRUCE COMPLETE STREETS NCE 9/25/2019 279221872085503 E 510-99999-5999 2,120.00 ST1903 - ON CALL CONSULTING 2017 STREET SUR 9/25/2019 279221872095501 E 510-99999-5999 4,523.00 ST1903 - ON CALL CONSULTING 2017 STREET SUR SWA GROUP 9/20/2019 279119178225 E 510-99999-5999 17,507.14 ST1603 - ON CALL LANDSCAPE SERVICES SWINERTON MGMT & CONSULTING 9/20/2019 27912017100050-14 E 710-99999-5999 3,008.00 SS1307 - ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLI 9/20/2019 27912017100051-19 E 710-99999-5999 10,266.00 SS1702 - ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLI 9/20/2019 27912018100005-10 E 710-99999-5999 6,506.00 SS1601 - ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLI 9/25/2019 27925617100055-13 E 510-99999-5999 5,780.00 ST1702 - ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLI 9/25/2019 27925617100059-19 E 710-99999-5999 13,352.00 SS1502 - ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPL 9/27/2019 27933217100052-11 E 710-99999-5999 12,522.00 SS1704 - ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLI TJKM 9/25/2019 2792630048707 E 510-99999-5999 3,130.00 TR1602 - OP-E. GRAND AVE CORRIDOR IMPROVE WATRY DESIGN INC. 9/25/2019 279281938770 E 720-99999-5999 12,000.00 PF1801 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PARKING WILSEY HAM, INC 9/25/2019 27928522836a E 710-99999-5999 9,930.99 SS1702 - ON CALL WATER RESOURCES SERVICES ( 9/25/2019 27928522836b E 710-99999-5999 3,847.76 SS1702 - ON CALL CIVIL ENG SERVICES(TASK ORD 9/25/2019 27928522873 E 710-99999-5999 191.00 SS1702 - ON CALL WATER RESOURCES SERVICES F 9/27/2019 27933722874 E 710-99999-5999 4,911.00 SS1502 - PUMP STATION #4 FORCE MAIN - FINAL WOODARD & CURRAN INC 9/20/2019 279125165479 E 710-99999-5999 17,047.60 SS1601 - SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FACILITY REHA 9/20/2019 279125165480 E 710-99999-5999 19,046.91 SS1601 - SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FACILITY REHA 9/27/2019 279338161258 E 710-99999-5999 4,495.00 SS1704 - ON CALL WATER RESOURCES SERVICES F Payments issued for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $3,466,374.07 Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 26 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE ALEXANDER COMPANY (4615) 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 B 280-27465 8.00 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- DANNYBOY DESIGNS 9/25/2019 27917026 B 280-27405 4,908.34 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO T-SHRTS & HATS DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 9/27/2019 279333cc401320 B 280-27434 331.91 PROGRAM SUPPLIES 9/27/2019 279333cc401322 B 280-27434 530.69 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES GOURMET COFFEE SOLUTIONS INC. 9/25/2019 27918609181902 B 280-27408 456.25 SUPPLIES FOR PUBLIC COFFEE MACHINE HOME DEPOT 9/25/2019 279190B19-1449 B 280-27465 6.40 CANCELLED PERMIT RELEASE OF FEES - B19-1449 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTR9/25/2019 2792418191005 B 280-27402 205.00 SENIOR REDI-WHEELS FOR AUGUST 2019 Payments issued for DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE $6,446.59 REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS ALEXANDER COMPANY (4615) 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 R 110-00000-36014 9.02 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 R 270-00000-35101 18.40 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 R 100-10520-32111 1.00 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 R 100-10520-32101 352.00 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 R 100-00000-32101 2.29 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- 9/18/2019 279036B19-1302 R 270-00000-35105 27.00 343 LUX AVE DUPLICATE PERMIT REFUND - B19- BRONSTEIN MUSIC 9/25/2019 279152F19-0929 R 100-11210-32203 264.00 FIRE PERMIT REFUND C/O FRANCES LIDWELL MATER DOLOROSA CH9/18/2019 27906417995812 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK ELEANOR VERGARA GALA 9/25/2019 27927718098730 R 100-17250-35301 61.00 REFUND OF PICNIC RESERVATION PART 1 9/25/2019 27927718098737 R 100-17250-35301 86.00 CANCELLATION OF ALTA LOM PARK - PART 2 FAIROUZ BETTAHAR 9/18/2019 27904717995863 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF WEST. PARK SH GEORGINA RUIZ 9/25/2019 27923918098781 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSITFOR USE OF ORANGE PARK S HOME DEPOT 9/25/2019 279190B19-1449 R 270-00000-35105 21.60 CANCELLED PERMIT RELEASE OF FEES - B19-1449 9/25/2019 279190B19-1449 R 270-00000-35101 2.19 CANCELLED PERMIT RELEASE OF FEES - B19-1449 9/25/2019 279190B19-1449 R 100-10520-32111 0.80 CANCELLED PERMIT RELEASE OF FEES - B19-1449 9/25/2019 279190B19-1449 R 100-10520-32101 72.00 CANCELLED PERMIT RELEASE OF FEES - B19-1449 9/25/2019 279190B19-1449 R 100-00000-32101 0.47 CANCELLED PERMIT RELEASE OF FEES - B19-1449 JUANITO BAUTISTA 9/18/2019 27904417995884 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF WEST. PARK SH JUDY PETERSEN 9/18/2019 27907418001171 R 100-17260-35306 81.25 REFUND OF TAI CHI CHUAN CLASS - FALL 2019 LAWRENCE CUA 9/27/2019 27930918136739 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF WEST. RECREAT LEONARD OAKES 9/20/2019 27911318023531 R 100-17250-35301 500.00 REFUND OF REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT FOR HALL REN MICHELLE OROZCO-MOLINA 9/25/2019 27922609/21/19 R 100-12720-35403 2,128.00 POLICE SECURITY FEE REIMBURSEMENT Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 27 of 28 VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION Payments issued between and9/16/2019 9/29/2019 -City of South San Francisco REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS RACQUEL MORRIS 9/25/2019 27921918053866 R 100-17250-35301 700.00 REFUND OF REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT FOR HALL REN SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER'S 9/18/2019 279076AUG 2019 R 100-12720-33001 23,059.30 ALLOCATION OF PARKING PENALTIES - AUG '19 SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDER 9/18/2019 279085CC401578 R 100-10410-35103 300.00 SM - COUNTY FILING FEE 9/27/2019 279333CC401577 R 100-10410-35103 50.00 MC - COUNTY FILING FEE SOPHIA YEN 9/25/2019 27928718098769 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK Payments issued for REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS $29,086.32 TOTAL PAYMENTS FOR PERIOD $5,666,550.96 Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Page 28 of 28 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-835 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign the response to the County of San Mateo Grand Jury Report titled “Soaring City Pension Costs -Follow-Up on Grand Jury Report of 2017- 2018”.(Janet Salisbury, Finance Director) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the City of South San Francisco’s response to the Grand Jury Report titled “Soaring City Pension Costs - Follow-Up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018”. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On July 29,2019,the 2018-2019 Grand Jury of the County of San Mateo released a report titled “Soaring City Pension Costs -Follow-up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018”.A copy of the 2018-2019 Grand Jury Report is included in the City Council agenda packet.The “Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018”in the title is in reference to a previous report that was released by the 2017-2018 Grand Jury in June 2018 titled “Soaring City Pension Costs - Time for Hard Choices”. The July 2019 Grand Jury Report examines what San Mateo County’s cities have been doing in the year since the release of the 2018 report to manage and publicly disclose rising pension costs and makes findings and recommendations based upon that study.As one of the cities named in that report,South San Francisco is required to respond to the findings and recommendations in the manner proscribed in the report.In addition, under the requirements of the report,the response needs to be approved by Council at a public meeting and submitted to the Honorable Judge Donald J.Ayoob no later than October 28,2019.Staff’s recommended response letter to the Grand Jury report is included in the City Council agenda packet. Summary of Response Letter Of the twenty seven (27) findings in the 2019 Grand Jury Report: ·8 findings (F1-F8)are validations of already disclosed financial data with which the City agrees for the most part; there are some clarifications related to numbers for F2. ·4 findings (F9,F11,F12,F13)are related to current public access to information on long-term pension and financial forecasts with which the City agrees. ·3 findings (F21,F23,F25)are validations of how the City has already addressed future pension payments (e.g., reserves, cost-sharing agreements, ballot initiatives) with which the City agrees. ·2 findings (F20,F27)are related to future plans such as additional payments to CalPERS and ballot initiatives. The City disagrees with these findings for reasons disclosed in the response letter. ·The remaining 10 findings (F10, F14-F19, F22, F24, F26) are not applicable to the City. Of the two (2) recommendations in the 2019 Grand Jury Report: ·Staff expects to accept the first recommendation to publish a 10-year budget forecast for the City’s general fund operating budget beginning the next biennial budget cycle (FY2021-23). ·The second recommendation made by the 2019 Grand Jury is multi-pronged,with recommendations related to including both 3-year historical data and 10-year forecasts on complex pension related City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-835 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:7. related to including both 3-year historical data and 10-year forecasts on complex pension related actuarial numbers in future budget reports.As outlined in the response letter,the 3-year historical data is already disclosed as a normal part of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.However,the recommendation to generate future forecasts will be contingent upon the availability of that data directly from CalPERS, who is the administrator of the City’s pension plans. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of the response to the Grand Jury Report . RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN There is no relationship associated with the Strategic Plan as it relates to the approval of this response to the Grand Jury Report. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the enclosed response and authorize its submittal to the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. Attachments: 1.Grand Jury Report 2.Recommended Grand Jury Response City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ SOARING CITY PENSION COSTS – FOLLOW-UP ON GRAND JURY REPORT OF 2017-2018 Table of Contents | Issue | Summary | Background | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations Requests for Responses | Methodology | Appendixes | Bibliography | Responses -i- Table of Contents ISSUE ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 2 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Updated Pension Data from Cities’ FY 2017-18 Financial Reports ................................................... 3 Reports on Steps Taken by Each City to Address Pension Costs and Enhance the Availability of Public Information About Pension Costs .............................................................................................. 4 Atherton ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Belmont ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Brisbane ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Burlingame ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Colma ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Daly City ............................................................................................................................................ 23 East Palo Alto .................................................................................................................................... 27 Foster City ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Half Moon Bay .................................................................................................................................. 32 Hillsborough ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Menlo Park ........................................................................................................................................ 38 Millbrae .............................................................................................................................................. 42 Pacifica ............................................................................................................................................... 45 Portola Valley .................................................................................................................................... 49 San Bruno .......................................................................................................................................... 55 San Carlos .......................................................................................................................................... 59 San Mateo .......................................................................................................................................... 63 South San Francisco ......................................................................................................................... 66 Woodside ............................................................................................................................................ 70 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................. 72 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 76 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 77 -ii- APPENDIX A – Data on Each City’s Pension Costs for Four Years from FY 2014-15 through FY 2017-18 ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 APPENDIX B – Table showing information on each of the Cities. ........................................................ 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1 ISSUE One year after the Grand Jury’s 2017-2018 report on soaring pension costs, what are San Mateo County’s cities doing to manage them and to make better information available to the public about the impact of pension costs on long-term financial plans? SUMMARY The 2017-18 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report in June 2018 entitled “Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices.” It can be viewed at: www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2017/city_pension.pdf . In the current report, the 2018-19 Grand Jury updates financial data on pensions for each city in San Mateo County, including the data in Appendix A relating to their pension costs during the four-year period from FY 2014-15 through FY 2017-18. The Grand Jury also reports on the steps, if any, currently being taken by each city to reduce, otherwise better manage, and/or plan for their long-term pension costs. It identifies whether the cities have implemented the Grand Jury’s recommendation in the prior report that they develop long-term financial plans to address their pension liabilities and publish readily-accessible information on their websites about future pension costs and their long-term financial plans. The 2018-19 Grand Jury finds that while projected pension cost information can now be found on the websites of almost all of the 20 cities, only a few include that information in their annual budgets. As a result, members of the public who may be interested in these data are forced to hunt for them through manual searches of those cities’ numerous online city council meeting agenda packages looking for references to pensions. While the Grand Jury finds it commendable that almost half of the 20 cities now publish ten-year instead of five-year financial forecasts (and some of these cities only started generating ten-year forecasts this year), a minority of these cities still choose not to include these forecasts in their annual budgets. As a result, persons wishing to understand those cities’ long-term pension situations must search through online city council agenda packages to find forecasts. Some cities with five-year forecasts also do not include them in their annual budgets. (For specifics on city financial forecasts, see Appendix B.) The Grand Jury is persuaded that, in the interests of transparency, all of the cities should make it easy for their residents to see what their city’s projected pension costs are over at least a ten year period, together with a ten-year general fund financial forecast so that the public can compare these rising pension costs against their city’s overall financial situation. In order to make that information readily-accessible to the public, the Grand Jury recommends that this information be set forth in the cities’ annual budgets, making it unnecessary for the public to search through council meeting agendas looking for it. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2 BACKGROUND The 2017-18 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report in June 2018 entitled “Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices.” The report received substantial press coverage,1 and the 2018-19 Grand Jury decided to update the financial data in the report and conduct a follow-up investigation to identify what progress has been made to address the issues raised in the prior report. The 2017-18 report provided a detailed analysis of the local government employee pension system and the factors affecting its financial health. It provided key statistics on the recent (FY 2014-15 through FY 2016-17) and projected future pension costs of each city in San Mateo County (each referred to here as a “City” and collectively as the “Cities”). The report found that most Cities’ pension costs would likely double within the next seven to ten years, posing a serious threat to their ability to continue to deliver public services at current levels. The report outlined the alternatives available to meet these costs and recommended that the Cities develop long-term financial plans for how to address the coming crisis of pension payments. Analyses in the 2017-18 report are not repeated in this new report and the reader is encouraged to read the prior report first, in order to fully understand this update. A brief summary of the report’s key findings follows. Each City provides its employees with a defined-benefit pension plan2 administered by the California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”). These plans are funded by Normal Cost3 contributions4 to CalPERS from both the Cities and the employees themselves. CalPERS, in turn, invests these contributions in a portfolio of assets. CalPERS relies on a Return on Investment5 (ROI) from this portfolio for about 61 percent of the funds needed to pay the pension benefits promised to retired City employees. CalPERS’ current ROI expectation over the long- term is an annual return of seven percent.6 In the event that the projected cost of benefits increases unexpectedly, or CalPERS’ ROI falls short of projections, the pension plans will have Unfunded Liabilities.7 The Cities, rather than CalPERS, are responsible for paying off Unfunded Liabilities through payments to CalPERS of their Amortization Cost8 of principal and interest on the Unfunded Liabilities. Both Normal Cost and Amortization Cost contributions are legal obligations that the Cities have to CalPERS and are not discretionary spending. 1 Bradshaw, Kate, “Grand jury urges county cities to prepare for crushing pension costs,” The Almanac, July 31, 2018. Walsh, Austin, “Study: Cost of pensions dangerous,” San Mateo Daily Journal, July 18, 2018. Climate Magazine, “Wiping Out on the California Pension Wave” March 2019. 2 Defined pension benefit plans are described on page 4 of the prior report. 3 “Normal Cost” is defined on page 3 of the prior report. 4 The terms “contributions” and “pension contribution costs” as used in this report and in the prior report refer to payments to CalPERS of pension costs, including both Normal Costs and Amortization Costs. 5 All capitalized terms used in this report that are not defined have the definitions given to them in the prior report. 6 SFGate, “CalPERS lowers projected return on investment,” December 22, 2016. 7 “Unfunded Liability” is defined on page 4 of the prior report. 8 “Amortization Cost” is defined on page 2 of the prior report. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3 Due in large part to unduly optimistic assumptions CalPERS made in the past about long-term rates of return it could achieve, almost all of the Cities have large Unfunded Liabilities, with an average Funded Percentage9 of just 70.5 percent in FY 2016-17, well below the 80 percent “at risk” threshold.10 Further, average annual pension payments by the Cities were projected to increase by 92.6 percent between FY 2017-18 and FY 2024-25. According to some financial experts, CalPERS’ assumptions about ROI appear to remain optimistic, implying that future pension liabilities may be even larger than currently projected.11 The 2017-18 Grand Jury recommended that Cities develop long-term financial plans to address their pension liabilities and publish readily-accessible information on their websites about future pension costs and their long-term financial plans. The Grand Jury did not recommend what specific actions the Cities should take to plan for meeting their pension obligations but did outline a number of alternatives. Broadly, these fall into three categories: (1) reducing future pension payments to CalPERS by paying down the Unfunded Liabilities early, thereby saving interest costs; (2) managing future pension payments to CalPERS by methods such as contributions to a reserve, negotiating cost-sharing arrangements with employees, and keeping employee salary increases within the rate assumed by CalPERS; and (3) adapting to future pension payment increases by reducing municipal operating costs and/or seeking revenue enhancements. DISCUSSION Updated Pension Data from Cities’ FY 2017-18 Financial Reports Appendix A to this report is an updated version of the Appendix A attached to the prior report. The updated Appendix A incorporates pension cost data from each City for FY 2017-18, the most recent year for which annual financial reports (usually referred to in this report as “CAFRs” for “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”)12 from the Cities are available. This updated Appendix A provides data from each of the 20 Cities for the four-year period from FY 2014-15 through FY 2017-18. Data for FY 2017-18 in Appendix A show continued increases in (i) the Cities’ pension contribution costs, averaging an increase of 15.2 percent over FY 2016-17, and (ii) the amount of the Cities’ Unfunded Liabilities, averaging an increase of 14.2 percent over FY 2016-17. These increases are generally consistent with projections described in the prior report. 9 “Funded Percentage” is defined on page 3 of the prior report. 10 See discussion in prior report of “at risk” threshold (page 16). 11 See discussion of expert concerns that CalPERS’ return on investment projections may be too optimistic at pages 8 - 9 of the prior report. 12 The term “CAFR” is used in this report to refer, not only to “Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports,” but also to “Basic Financial Statements” and “Annual Financial Reports.” The audited annual financial reports for the Towns of Atherton, Colma, Portola Valley, and Woodside are referred to by them as either “B asic Financial Statements” or “Annual Financial Reports.” 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4 The 2018-19 Grand Jury hopes that the data in this updated Appendix A can serve as a reference for members of the public who wish to understand the pension costs being paid by their City, without having to sift through financial reports, operating budgets and city council agenda packages online to find and assemble the data themselves. It also serves as a helpful basis for comparing each City’s pension cost situation against other Cities. Reports on Steps Taken by Each City to Address Pension Costs and Enhance the Availability of Public Information About Pension Costs Set forth below as to each City is (1) additional information summarizing its projected, future pension costs (see, “Pension Contribution Costs”), (2) a brief overview of its financial condition (see, “Financial Overview”), (3) a summary of its available general fund reserves that might in the future help to absorb fiscal strains from rising costs or slowing revenue growth (see, “General Fund Reserves”), (4) specific actions that it might consider in order to better meet its future pension obligations (see, “Additional Payments to CalPERS,” “Pension Reserve Fund,” “Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost,” “Revenue Enhancement,” and “Pension Obligation Bonds”), and (5) the extent to which the City has and makes accessible to the public information about its projected pension costs (“Pension Contribution Costs”) and projected financial forecasts (“Long-Term Financial Forecast”). Some of this information is also summarized in Appendix B to this report in order to facilitate a side-by-side comparison of the Cities. The reports on individual Cities show that seven Cities13 are making, or plan to make, additional payments to CalPERS beyond their Annual Required Contribution14 in order to reduce their total pension payments. Cities taking steps to better manage rising pension costs include (1) fourteen Cities that have established, or are currently planning to establish and fund, special funds/reserves to help buffer the impact of future increases in pension obligations and/or shortfalls in projected revenues, whether as a result of a recession, natural disaster, or otherwise,15 (2) eleven Cities have reduced, or are planning to reduce, the pension costs they would otherwise owe through cost- sharing agreements with their employees under which those employees pay a portion of the Cities’ pension costs,16 nine Cities have since 2016 have sought and obtained voter approval for ballot 13 The Cities are Belmont, Colma, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo. (See, discussions of those specific Cities in sections for each of them below entitled “Additional Payments to CalPERS” and also Appendix B.) 14 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) means the sum of a municipality’s share of Normal Cost and, if any, the Amortization Cost. ARC is the amount an agency is legally required to pay to the plan administrator in o rder to fund a pension plan. See, Brainard, Keith and Brown, Alex, The Annual Required Contribution Experience of State Retirement Plans, FY01 to FY13, National Association of State Retirement Administrators, March 2015, p. 2, <https://www.nasra.org/files/JointPublications/NASRA_ARC_Spotlight.pdf>. 15 The Cities are Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, South San Francisco and Woodside. (See, discussions of those specific Cities in sections for each of them below entitled “Pension Reserve Fund” and also Appendix B.) 16 The Cities are Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo and South San Francisco. (See, discussions of those specific Cities in sections for each of them below entitled “Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost” and also Appendix B.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5 measures intended to increase revenues,17 and four Cities are concurrently considering seeking approval of their voters for revenue enhancement measures in the near term.18 Two Cities have not yet put in place either (a) a plan to make additional payments to CalPERS beyond their Annual Required Contribution in the near term in order to reduce their long-term pension costs, (b) a plan to set aside money in a separate fund/reserve to help pay future pension costs, or (c) long-term general fund financial forecasts to help in budget planning.19 One additional City also does not currently make long-term general fund financial forecasts.20 Of the seventeen21 Cities that prepare long-term general fund financial forecasts of at least five years, six22 do not publish those forecasts in their readily-accessible annual budgets or annual financial statements, requiring members of the public who are looking for long-term forecasts to manually search through City Council meeting agendas online looking for reports that contain such data, and eight23 only prepare five-year forecasts rather than the ten-year forecasts recommended by the Grand Jury. While all but three24 of the Cities have either generated, or retained consultants to generate for them, long-term projections of their future pension costs, only five of them25 publish those forecasted pension costs in their readily-accessible annual budget or financial reports, requiring members of the public who are looking for such projections to manually search through City Council meeting agendas online looking for reports that contain such data. 17 The Cities are Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Redwood City, and South San Francisco. (See, discussions of those specific Cities in sections for each of them below entitled “Revenue Enhancement” and also Appendix B.) 18 The Cities are Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Redwood City and San Bruno. (See, discussions of those specific Cities in sections for each of them below entitled “Revenue Enhancement” and also Appendix B.) 19 The Cities are East Palo Alto and Millbrae. (See, discussions of those specific Cities in sections for each of them below entitled “Additional Payments to CalPERS,” “Pension Reserve Fund,” “Long-Term Financial Forecast” and also Appendix B.) However, East Palo Alto’s City Council has instruct ed staff to prepare a long-term, general fund operating plan going out to the end of FY 2025 -26 and staff is in the process of preparing such a plan. Staff’s objective is to complete such a plan by October 2019. (See, section on East Palo Alto’s “Long -Term Financial Forecast” below.) Millbrae also reports that it is in the process of developing a ten-year general fund financial forecast and expects to have one sometime in FY 2019-20. (See, section on Millbrae’s “Long-Term Financial Forecast” below.) 20 This City is Portola Valley. (See, section on Portola Valley’s “Long-Term Financial Forecast” below.) 21 The Cities are Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco and Woodside. (See, sections on these Cities’ “Long-Term Financial Forecast” below.) 22 The Cities are Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Pacifica, and South San Francisco. (See, sections on these Cities’ “Long-Term Financial Forecast” below.) 23 These Cities are Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno and San Carlos. (See, sections on these Cities’ “Long-Term Financial Forecast” below.) 24 These Cities are Atherton, Brisbane, and Portola Valley. (See, sections on these Cities’ “Pension Contribution Costs” below.) 25 These Cities are Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Redwood City. (See, sections on these Cities’ “Pension Contribution Costs” below.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6 Finally, the Grand Jury commends the following Cities for the actions to increase transparency and/or reduce long-term pension contribution costs described below: o Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough for their decisions to incorporate pension contribution cost projections in their most recent annual budgets. They had not included such projections in their prior budgets.26 o Redwood City and Woodside for their decisions to extend their general fund forecast periods from five years to ten years.27 o Redwood City for recently adding a “Fiscal Update” page to its public website (www.redwoodcity.org/fiscalupdate) that the Grand Jury finds to quite helpful to access key information about Redwood City’s most recent budget.28 o Foster City for the unusual depth of information and analysis provided in the five-year general fund operating forecast contained in its most recent FY 2019-20 budget.29 o Belmont, Colma, Foster City, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo, for having made, or currently having specific plans to make, additional pension contribution payments to CalPERS beyond their Annual Required Contribution, thus actually reducing their long-term pension contribution costs.30 Atherton Pension Contribution Costs - Atherton Atherton’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $1.29 million (up from $1.16 million in FY 2016-17).31 The Town’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 27.7 percent of that year’s covered payroll32 (up from 26.7 percent the preceding year) and 10.7 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 10.1 percent the preceding year).33 The Town projects its pension contribution costs will increase above FY 2017-18 by $1.86 million (144.1 percent) to $3.15 million by FY 2023-24.34 The Town does not have any projections beyond FY 2023-24.35 26 See, sections on these Cities’ “Pension Contribution Costs” and Appendix B below. 27 See, sections on these Cities’ “Long-Term Financial Forecast” and Appendix B below. 28 See, sections on Redwood City’s “Long-Term Financial Forecast” and Appendix B below. 29 Foster City, Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020, pp. 55-94. 30 See, sections on these Cities’ “Additional Payments to CalPERS” and Appendix B below. 31 Appendix A. 32 “Covered payroll” refers to pay received by those employees who participate in a City’s CalPERS pension plan. 33 Appendix A. 34 Email from Atherton, dated June 20, 2019. 35 Grand Jury interview. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7 Financial Overview – Atherton Atherton describes its fiscal condition as “positive.”36 It had general fund surpluses of $3.87 million and $4.58 million in each of FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, respectively.37 It projects that it will accrue another $22.93 million in surpluses during the six year period from FY 2018-19 through FY 2023-24,38 which represents an annual average surplus of $3.82 million. Per its reserve policies, Atherton maintains general fund reserves equal to 15 percent of its general fund expenditures for emergency contingencies and additional 20 percent of expenditures for budget stabilization.39 Through the end of FY 2017-18, Atherton accumulated an unassigned general fund balance of $14.86 million,40 which the Town projects will grow to $18.49 million by the end of FY 2019-20.41 Atherton plans to invest this unassigned balance on a new Civic Center.42 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Atherton Atherton does not currently have plans to make additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution. It re-evaluates this option each year when it reviews its annual June 30 CalPERS actuarial valuation reports.43 Pension Reserve Fund - Atherton Atherton approved setting up a Section 115 Trust for future pension costs in November 2018 but has not funded the trust. The Town has no plan to fund the trust in FY 2019-20. It expects to re-evaluate its decision not to fund the trust each year when it reviews its annual June 30 CalPERS actuarial valuation reports.44 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - Atherton Prior to FY 2012-13, Atherton paid 100 percent of its employees’ pension contribution costs. That year, in order to reduce expenses, it negotiated a change with employees under which the Town stopped funding any portion of its employees’ pension costs.45 36 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 5, 2019 re: Review of the FY 2019/20 Town Budget, p. 2. 37 Atherton, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2017, p. 26. Atherton, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 26. 38 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick -Off and Overview, pp. 4-6. 39 See, section below entitled “General Fund Reserves – Atherton.” 40 Atherton, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 58. 41 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 5, 2019 re: Review of the FY 2019/20 Town Budget, General Fund 101 Revenue & Expenditures Summary, p. 20. 42 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick -Off and Overview, p. 7. 43 Grand Jury interview. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8 In FY 2018-19, Atherton entered into an agreement with employees under which employees agreed to pay a portion of the Town’s pension contribution costs (one percent of salary for employees under Miscellaneous plans and three percent of salary for employees under Safety plans).46 Revenue Enhancement - Atherton Since 2016 Atherton has not put any ballot initiatives before its voters for the purpose of revenue enhancement and it does not currently have plans to do so in the future.47 Pension Obligation Bonds - Atherton Atherton does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.48 General Fund Reserves - Atherton Atherton’s unassigned general fund balance at the end of FY 2017-18 was $14.86 million, representing 123.1 percent of general fund expenditures of $12.07 million that year,49 far in excess of its policy minimum of 20 percent of such expenditures.50 The Town projects that its unassigned general fund balance will grow to $15.58 million in FY 2018-1951 (representing 110.6 percent of general fund expenditures of $14.09 million)52 and to $18.49 million in FY 2019-20 (representing 126.7 percent of general fund expenditures).53 The Town expects to spend its unallocated general fund balance on a capital improvement project for a new Civic Center,54 which it describes as its “biggest capital project in recent memory.”55 In addition to its unassigned general fund balance, Atherton’s policy is to set aside another 15 percent of total general fund operating expenses for emergency contingencies.56 At the end of FY 2017-18, the Town had committed $1.81 million to this reserve57 (representing 15 percent of its $12.07 million in expenditures58). Per the 15 percent policy, this 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Atherton, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 22 & 26. 50 Ibid., p. 58. 51 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick -Off and Overview, p. 2. 52 Atherton, Fiscal Year 2018/19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budget, General Fund 101 Revenue & Expenditures Summary, p. 35. 53 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 5, 2019 re: Review of the FY 2019/20 Town Budget, General Fund 101 Revenue & Expenditures Summary, p. 20. 54 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick -Off and Overview, p. 7. 55 Atherton, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 15. 56 Ibid., p. 58. 57 Ibid., p. 58. 58 Ibid., p. 26. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9 emergency contingency reserve is projected to increase to $2.11 million at the end of FY 2018-1959 and to $2.19 million at the end of FY 2019-20.60 Atherton has also established a policy to have a “budget stabilization reserve” equal to 20 percent of general fund expenditures. This too is in addition to the unassigned general fund budget. Per this 20 percent policy, the budget stabilization reserve is projected to hold $2.82 million at the end of FY 2018-1961 and $2.92 million at the end of FY 2019-20.62 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Atherton Atherton has a long-term general fund financial forecast covering the five years from FY 2019-20 through FY 2023-24.63 The forecast is not included in the Town’s FY 2017-18 CAFR or its FY 2018-19 budget64 In order to find Atherton’s long-term financial forecast online, it is necessary to manually search online City Council agendas at www.ci.atherton.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=41 (last accessed on May 29, 2019). That search will eventually lead to the agenda for the City Council’s meeting on March 6, 201965 which includes a link entitled “2. FY 2019/20 Budget Kick-Off and Overview.” That link leads to a staff report for the March 6, 2019 meeting that includes the Town’s five-year long-term financial forecast.66 Belmont Pension Contribution Costs – Belmont Belmont’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $3.93 million, up $0.345 million (9.6 percent) from $3.58 million in FY 2016-17.67 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 24.9 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 23.6 percent the preceding year) and 20.2 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 19.5 percent the preceding year).68 The City’s actuarial consultant – GovInvest - projects that Belmont’s pension contribution costs will increase above FY 2017-18 costs by $1.43 million (36.4 percent) to $5.36 59 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick -Off and Overview, p. 2. 60 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 5, 2019 re: Review of the FY 2019/20 Town Budget, p. 20. 61 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick -Off and Overview, p. 2. 62 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 5, 2019 re: Review of the FY 2019/20 Town Budget, p. 20. 63 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on Marc h 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick-Off and Overview, pp. 4-6. 64 Atherton, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018. Atherton, Fiscal Year 2018/19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budget. 65 The March 6, 2019 City Council meeting agenda may be found at www.ci.atherton.ca.us/Archive.aspx?ADID=3112 (Last accessed May 29, 2019.) 66 Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick -Off and Overview, pp. 4-6. 67 Appendix A. 68 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.643 million (12 percent) to $6 million by FY 2027-28.69 Belmont’s projected, annual pension contribution costs are not included in its published FY 2018-19 budget, or its FY 2019-20 budget.70 In order to find these projected costs online, it is necessary to manually search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: https://www.belmont.gov/our-city/city- government/meetings-agendas-minutes. (Last accessed on May 11, 2019.) That search would eventually lead to the June 12, 2018 agenda for a meeting of the Belmont City Council71 which refers to a discussion of “CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) Funding Options” and provides a link to a June 12, 2018 GovInvest presentation, which includes a graph showing contribution projections through FY 2048-49 on page 5.72 Financial Overview – Belmont Belmont reports that it was in a financial “survival mode” following the 2008 recession, but that its finances have now “steadied … at least in the near-term.”73 In addition to “massive exposure from deferring infrastructure improvements,”74 the City states that its financial health is currently subject to two additional pressures. The first is rising CalPERS pension costs and the second is “the high likelihood of experiencing a mild recession in the mid-term.”75 The City’s primary budget focus at present is funding the repair of its infrastructure.76 Additional Payments to CalPERS – Belmont Over the six-year period from FY 2017-18 through FY 2022-23, Belmont plans to make additional payments to CalPERS beyond the Annual Required Contribution for a total of $3.65 million (approximately $0.609 million per year). The City estimates that these additional payments will result in long-term net savings of $4.67 million.77 69 Belmont, GovInvest, City of Belmont Pension Funding Analysis dated June 12, 2018, p. 5. GovInvest’s contribution projections run through 2049. 70 Belmont FY 2019 Budget. Belmont FY 2020 Budget. Note, however, t hat at page 15 of the Budget Brief section of the FY 2020 Budget, the City does (1) show projected increases in the CalPERS contribution “rates” (i.e., the percentages of covered payroll represented by CalPERS pension contribution costs) and (2) state that Safety Plan and Miscellaneous Plan contribution cost increases from FY 2020 to FY 2024 were projected to be $0.034 million and $0.148 million, respectively. 71 Belmont’s June 12, 2018 City Council meeting agenda may be found at - https://ca.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=563 (Last accessed on May 11, 2019.) 72 Belmont, GovInvest, City of Belmont Pension Funding Analysis dated June 12, 2018. 73 Belmont, FY 2019 Budget, p. 1 of FY 2019 Budget Brief. 74 Ibid, p. 1 of FY 2019 Budget Brief. 75 Ibid, p. 1 of FY 2019 Budget Brief. 76 Ibid, pp. 2 & 4-5 of FY 2019 Budget Brief. 77 Grand Jury interview. Belmont, GovInvest, City of Belmont Pension Funding Analysis dated November 27, 2018, p. 8. Net savings are the result of subtracting total additional payments of $3.65 million from total (not net) savings of $8.32 million. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11 Pension Reserve Fund – Belmont Belmont does not currently have plans to establish an internal pension reserve fund, nor a Section 115 Trust.78 Instead, it has decided to make additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution (as described above in section entitled “Additional Payments to CalPERS – Belmont”, because doing so actually reduced overall pension costs while merely setting aside funds for future payment obligations does not.79 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – Belmont Belmont has cost-sharing agreements in place with employees in Miscellaneous Plans80 and Safety Plans81 under which those employees pay a portion of the City’s pension costs.82 Revenue Enhancement – Belmont Belmont residents approved a one-half cent sales tax in November 2016 (Measure I), which was projected to generate approximately $1.3 million per year initially.83 Measure I revenues are all allocated to infrastructure projects.84 In November, 2018 Belmont residents approved Measure KK, which increased the City’s transient occupancy tax (“Hotel tax”) rate from ten percent to twelve percent. Measure KK is projected to bring in an additional $0.560 million in unrestricted general fund revenues annually. The City Council has adopted “Top Priorities” as part of its FY 2020 Strategic Planning effort, which include, in part, the following: “Secure on-going funding for Sewer, Storm, Streets, Facilities and Parks to address deferred maintenance and future capital needs along with a plan to support critical public services …”85 Pension Obligation Bonds - Belmont Belmont does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.86 General Fund Reserves – Belmont Belmont’s general fund unrestricted reserve as of the end of FY 2017-18 was $10.68 million, representing 54.9 percent of its $19.5 million in general fund operating expenditures that year.87 Belmont’s policy is to maintain a minimum reserve balance of $5 78 Section 115 Trusts are irrevocable trusts where funds are deposited for the purpose of meeting future pension obligations. They are described on page 30 of the prior report. 79 Grand Jury interview. 80 “Miscellaneous Plans” are pension plans for public service employees who do not provide safety services such as police and fire protection. Miscellaneous Plans are generally less expensive to maintain than Safety Plans. (Prior report, Glossary, p. 3.) 81 “Safety Plans” are plans for public service employees who provide safety services such as police and fire protection. (Prior report, Glossary, p. 3.) 82 Grand Jury interview. 83 Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Belmont, California, Sales Tax Measure I (November 2016). 84 Grand Jury interview. 85 Email from Belmont, dated June 7, 2019. 86 Ibid. 87 Belmont, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 25 & 27. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12 million and it targets maintaining a balance equal to 33 percent of general fund operating expenditures.88 The City projects that the general fund unrestricted reserve will remain well above this 33 percent target throughout the FY 2019-20 through FY 2023-24 period.89 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Belmont Belmont’s long-term financial forecast is based on a five-year forecast period.90 The City incorporated its long-term financial forecast into its FY 2019 and FY 2020 budgets,91 which are readily-accessible on the finance department home page of the City’s website.92 Brisbane Pension Contribution Costs - Brisbane Brisbane’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $1.91 million, up $0.193 million (11.3 percent) from $1.71 million in FY 2016-17.93 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 23.5 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 21.6 percent the preceding year) and 10.9 percent of its total general fund spending (down from 11.0 percent the preceding year).94 Brisbane projects its pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $1.63 million (85.5 percent) to $3.54 million by FY 2023-24.95 The City has not made any pension cost projections beyond FY 2023-24.96 In addition to its contribution payments made to CalPERS, Brisbane also makes annual, installment payments on its 2006 pension obligation bonds (originally issued in the amount of $4.75 million) and on a 2013 Pension Side Fund Bank Loan (in the original principal amount of $1.61 million).97 Brisbane paid a combined total of $0.794 million on the bonds and loan in FY 2017-18. These payments will decrease to $0.364 million in FY 2018-19. From FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23 when the bonds and loan are fully paid off, the City will make average annual payments on the bonds and loan of approximately $0.389 million.98 Taking bond and loan payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS, bond and loan payments combined) were $2.7 million in 88 Belmont, FY 2019 Budget, p. 6 of FY 2019 Budget Brief and p. 3 of Appendix. 89 Email from Belmont, dated June 7, 2019. Belmont, FY 2020 Budget, p. 21 of Budget Brief; General Fund and Subsidized Funds Trends & Projections FY 2018 – FY 2024. 90 Ibid, pp. 19-21 of Budget Brief; General Fund and Subsidized Funds Trends & Projections FY 2017 – FY 2023. 91 Belmont FY 2019 Budget, pp. 19-21. Belmont, FY 2020 Budget, pp. 19-21 & 24. 92 The finance department’s home page on the Belmont website may be found at https://www.belmont.gov/departments/administrative -services/finance/budget. (Last accessed on May 9, 2019.) 93 Appendix A. 94 Ibid. 95 Email from Brisbane dated May 21, 2019. Brisbane, CalPERS 2017 Public Agency Actuarial Valuation Reports for Miscellaneous First Tier, Miscellaneous Second Tier, PEPRA Miscellaneous, PEPRA Safety Fire, PEPRA Safety Police, Safety. 96 Email from Brisbane, dated June 13, 2019. 97 Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 53 -54. 98 Ibid, pp. 53-54. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13 FY 2017-18 (representing 33.3 percent of that year’s covered payroll of $8.11 million and 15.4 percent of that year’s total general fund spending of $17.54 million.99 The City’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its budget for FY 2018-19 & 2019-20. The Grand Jury’s review of Brisbane’s City Council agenda packages from January 1, 2018 through June 1, 2019 yielded no documents that set forth the City’s future, annual pension contribution costs over its five-year forecasting period. The Grand Jury obtained data on these annual costs through a direct document request made to the City. Financial Overview – Brisbane Brisbane notes that it has robust and growing revenues from its business base and staff is confident that projected revenues will be adequate to pay rising pension costs.100 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Brisbane Brisbane does not currently have plans to make additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution. The City’s Unfunded Liability is currently projected to be fully paid off within 20 years.101 The City Council has determined that it would like to have this Unfunded Liability paid off sooner, if possible. Accordingly, staff suggested in April 2019 that the City’s Administrative and Financial Policy Committee develop a policy related to the quicker funding of these liabilities over the next year.102 Pension Reserve Fund - Brisbane Brisbane has established a Section 115 Trust to help pay for any unexpected increases in its pension payment obligations. The City initially contributed $0.12 million to the trust. By the end of FY 2018-19, the City plans to have contributed an additional $0.8 million to the trust, bringing total contributions to $0.92 million.103 The City’s policy is to contribute 50 percent of any unanticipated general fund surpluses to this trust.104 Staff is bringing to the City Council a proposal to fund the trust with sufficient funds to cover two years of unfunded liability amortization costs (approximately $5 million) within the next four years and to set aside up to $1 million per year for this purpose.105 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - Brisbane Brisbane’s employees do not pay any portion of the City’s pension costs.106 99 Appendix A. 100 Grand Jury interview. 101 Email from Brisbane, dated June 13, 2019. 102 Brisbane, City Council Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on April 18, 2019 re: Mid -Year Budget Report, p. 2. 103 Grand Jury interview. 104 Email from Brisbane, dated June 13, 2019. Brisbane, City Council Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on April 18, 2019 re: Mid-Year Budget Report, p. 2. 105 Email from Brisbane, dated June 13, 2019. 106 Grand Jury interview. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14 Revenue Enhancement - Brisbane Brisbane voters approved two business license tax revenue enhancement measures in November 2017 (Measures D and E). As of FY 2017-18, Measure D was projected to yield annual revenues of $0.2 million and Measure E $4 million.107 Brisbane is not currently planning on proposing any revenue enhancement ballot measures to its voters.108 Pension Obligation Bonds and Loan - Brisbane Brisbane issued $4.75 million in pension obligation bonds in 2006 and took a $1.61 million Pension Side Fund Bank Loan in 2013.109 As of the end of FY 2017-18, the remaining outstanding principal on the bonds and loan, combined, was $1.73 million.110 The bonds mature in FY 2020-21 and the loan is due to be fully paid off in FY 2022-23. From FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23 when the bonds and loan are fully paid off, the City will make average annual payments on them of approximately $0.389 million.111 General Fund Reserves - Brisbane At the end of FY 2017-18, Brisbane’s general fund balance was $11.45 million, of which $8.63 million (49.2 percent of general fund expenditures for that year) represented unassigned reserves.112 The City projects that the FY 2018-19 ending general fund balance will be $10.8 million113 from which $3.5 million will be set aside in an “Emergency Reserve” for any sudden unanticipated expense, $3.2 million will be put in a “Recession Reserve” so that City services do not need to be “immediately reduced in case of recession,” and $2 million will be in an “Annual Reserve” for use in the event of any budget discrepancies.114 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Brisbane Brisbane’s long-term general fund financial forecast is based on a five-year period. It reports that it has “taken great strides in long-term financial planning” and that “[s]taff continuously works on a five-year forecast” which “provides Council and the community greater information on projects and issues that will be affecting the community in the near future.”115 However, the Grand Jury’s review of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, its budget for FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20, as well as all agenda packages that the City posted on its website from 107 Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. vii of letter of transmittal. 108 Email from Brisbane, dated June 13, 2019. 109 Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 55 -56. 110 Ibid., p. 54. 111 Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 53-54. 112 Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 20 & 22. 113 Brisbane, City Council Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on April 18, 2019 re: Mid -Year Budget Report, p. 2. 114 Ibid., pp. 2 & 4. 115 Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, December 7, 2018 letter of transmittal, p. viii. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15 January 1, 2018 through the Grand Jury’s final check on June 14, 2019116 yielded no long- term financial forecast for the City. Burlingame Pension Contribution Costs - Burlingame Burlingame’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $5.72 million, up $0.424 million (8.0 percent) from $5.29 million in FY 2016-17.117 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 27.8 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 26.8 percent the preceding year) and 10.7 percent of its total general fund spending (flat from the 10.7 percent the preceding year).118 In addition to its contribution payments made to CalPERS, the City also makes annual installment payments on its 2006 pension obligation bonds (originally issued in the amount of $33 million).119 It paid $3.85 million on the bonds in FY 2017-18120 and will pay $0.957 million in FY 2018-19.121 From FY 2019-20 through FY 2035-36 when the bonds are fully paid off, the City will have made total payments on the bonds of $12.6 million, with an annual average of approximately $0.741 million.122 Taking bond payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) were $9.56 million in FY 2017-18 (representing 46.4 percent of that year’s covered payroll of $20.6 million and 17.8 percent of total general fund spending of $53.6 million), up $0.535 million (5.9 percent) from $9.03 million in FY 2016-17.123 It should be noted, however, that the City’s annual bond payment amount dropped by almost $3 million in FY 2018-19.124 Burlingame projects that its pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $5.03 million (87.9 percent) to $10.74 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $2.57 million (23.9 percent) to $13.32 million by FY 2027-28.125 Taking bond payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) will increase from FY 2017-18 by $2.25 million (23.5 percent) to $11.81 116 Brisbane City Council meeting agenda packages can be accessed at https://brisbaneca.org/city- government/meetings?field_meeting_type_value=cc (Last accessed on June 14, 2019.) 117 Appendix A. 118 Ibid. 119 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 201 8, p. 69. 120 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015, p. 81. 121 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 69. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid. Burlingame’s pension obligation bond repayment amount in FY 2016-17 was $3.73 million. (Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015, p. 81.) 124 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 69. 125 Appendix A. Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 13, 2019 re: Adoption of Resolution Amending the FY 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budgets to Reflect the Recommended Mid-Year Adjustments, p. 32. This report provides pension cost projections from FY 2018-19 through FY 2023-24. Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Burlingame, January 22, 2019, pp. 28 & 46. This report provides pension cost projections from FY 2018 -19 through FY 2029-30. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $2.06 million (17.4 percent) to $13.87 million by FY 2027-28.126 Burlingame’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19 budget.127 In order to find the City’s projected costs online, the Grand Jury ran a search for the word “pension” on the “Search Archives” feature of the City Council Meeting Documents & Minutes website page.128 That search would eventually lead to the agenda for a City Council Study Session on January 22, 2019129 which refers to a review of pension liabilities by the actuarial consulting firm Bartel Associates, LLC and includes a link to Bartel’s presentation materials. However, as of the Grand Jury’s last search on June 9, 2019, the Bartel presentation slides could not be accessed through that link. Instead, the Grand Jury obtained a copy of the Bartel presentation slides through a direct document request to the City. Since then, the City has made the Bartel presentation materials available through its finance page on its website at https://www.burlingame.org/Pension%20Funding%20Presentation%20-%2001-22-19.pdf (last accessed on June 9, 2019). The presentation can most easily be found using the City’s “Search” feature on the home page of its website (https://www.burlingame.org/ ) (last accessed on June 9, 2019) by typing in the word “Bartel.” Going further back, the search results would also point to a City Council meeting on July 3, 2017, which links to a Staff Report for that meeting which includes contribution cost projections through FY 2027- 28.130 Financial Overview – Burlingame Burlingame’s financial condition appears to be strong. According to the City “In the bond markets, the Burlingame name is recognized as a high-credit municipal entity given both the City’s financial strength and solid financial management.”131 Burlingame had a general fund surplus of approximately $3.5 million in FY 2018-19 (after transferring approximately $3 million to its Capital Investment Reserve). 132 Looking forward to FY 2019-20, the City projects the general fund surplus will drop to approximately $0.361 million, primarily as a result of the City Council’s May 8, 2019 decision to transfer approximately $6.5 million to its Capital Investment Reserve.133 From FY 2018-19 through FY 2023-24 the City projects 126 Ibid. Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 69. Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 127 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. Burlingame, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. 128 This search feature may be found at https://www.burlingame.org/government/city_council/city_council_meeting_documents_and_minutes.php . (Last accessed on May 31, 2019.) 129 Burlingame, Agenda for City Council Meeting held on January 22, 2019. 130 Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on July 3, 2017 re: Review of Options Available for Pre - Funding Pension Obligations, pp. 4 - 5. 131 Burlingame, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. v of June 18, 2018 City Manager’s Transmittal Letter. 132 Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on May 8, 2019 re: Study Session: Fiscal Year 2019 -20 Budget, p. 22. 133 Emails from Burlingame, dated June 5 and June 7, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17 annual general fund revenue growth of 2.3 percent and an annual increase in its general fund balance (excluding amounts set aside for its Section 115 pension trust (described below)) of 1.5 percent.134 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Burlingame Burlingame is not currently planning on making additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution.135 Pension Reserve Fund - Burlingame In FY 2017-18, Burlingame established a Section 115 Trust which could be drawn upon when required pension contribution rates exceed the City’s threshold rates.136 The trust was funded with approximately $4.8 million in FY 2017-18.137 The City intends to transfer another $3.4 million to the trust in FY 2018-19,138 bringing total contributions to the trust to $8.15 million.139 This amount represents approximately 15 months of the City’s $6.69 million in pension costs in FY 2018-19.140 The City plans to continue making annual contributions to the Section 115 trust until its required contribution rates for each plan exceed the threshold rate, at which point the City will begin drawing down on the trust. The City currently projects that will happen in approximately FY 2025-26. As of the end of FY 2023-24 the City projects that it will have transferred an aggregate total of $16.78 million to the trust (including the $8.15 million deposited in the trust through FY 2018-19).141 This amount (less an $0.80 million contribution budgeted to be made in FY 2019-20 with respect to the City’s payment obligations to the Central County Fire Department) would represent approximately 148.8 percent of its $10.74 million in projected pension costs in FY 2023-24.142 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - Burlingame Burlingame employees have entered into cost-sharing agreements with the City under which they pay for a portion of the pension costs that would otherwise have to be paid by the City. Under these cost-sharing agreements (a) miscellaneous plan “classic”143 134 Five-year general fund forecast received from Burlingame via email dated May 3, 2019. Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 135 Grand Jury interview. 136 Burlingame, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, pp. v & xviii of June 18, 2018 City Manager’s Transmittal Letter. Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 137 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 23. 138 Burlingame, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. v of June 18, 2018 City Manager’s Transmittal Letter. 139 Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 140 Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 13, 2019 re: Adoption of Resolution Amending the FY 2018 -19 Operating and Capital Budgets to Reflect the Recommended Mid-Year Adjustments, p. 32. 141 Five-year forecast received from Burlingame via email dated May 29, 2019. Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 142 Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 143 “Classic” plan employees are those who joined the CalPERS pension system before January 1, 2013 and who have not had a break in service of more than six months. (CalPERS, Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act. (https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/laws-legislation-regulations/public-employees-pension-reform-act ) (Last accessed on May 31, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18 employees pay a portion of the City’s pension costs equal to 1.5 percent of their covered payroll, and (b) safety plan “classic” employees pay a portion of the City’s pension costs equal to 4 percent of their covered payroll.144 Revenue Enhancement - Burlingame In November 2017, residents of Burlingame approved Measure I, a one-quarter cent sales tax increase.145 The measure was projected by the City to yield additional annual revenues of approximately $2 million.146 The City is not currently planning on bringing another revenue enhancement ballot measure before its voters.147 Pension Obligation Bonds - Burlingame Burlingame issued $33 million in pension obligation bonds in 2006. As of the end of FY 2017-18, the remaining outstanding principal on the bonds was $9 million. The bonds mature on June 1, 2036. From FY 2018-19 through FY 2035-36 when the bonds are fully paid off, the City will make average annual payments on the bonds of approximately $0.8 million.148 General Fund Reserves - Burlingame As of the end of FY 2018-19, Burlingame projects that it will have a general fund balance of $39.92 million149 (up from $36.37 million at the end of FY 2017-18150), of which – as a result of the City’s General Fund Balance Reserve Policy adopted in FY 2014-15 establishing appropriate levels of reserves using a risk-based analysis of City’s long-term financial condition151 - $18.84 million are assigned to the Economic Stability Reserve, $2 million to the Catastrophic Reserve, $0.5 million to the Contingency Reserve, $7 million to a Section 115 Trust152 and $11.6 million are unassigned.153 Burlingame’s FY 2018-19 general fund balance represents a healthy 68 percent of its $58.67 million of general fund operating expenditures for the year.154 By FY 2023-24, Burlingame projects that the general fund balance will increase to $48.93 million (a 22.6 percent increase from FY 2018-19’s $39.92 million) of which $21.01 144 Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on October 15, 2018 re: Update on Long-Term Unfunded Post- Employment Liabilities and Options, p. 2. 145 Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Burlingame, California, Sales Tax Measure I (November 2017). 146 Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 19, 2017 re: Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance to Place a Revenue Measure to Enact a Quarter Cent Local Sales Tax on the November 2017 Ballot to Maintain Quality of Life Programs, p. 4. 147 Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 148 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 69. 149 Five-year forecast received from Burlingame via email dated May 29, 2019. 150 Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 32. 151 Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 152 Note: As noted in the section above, entitled “Pension Reserve Fund – Burlingame,” the Section 115 Trust will have a total of $8.15 million in contributed funds as of the end of FY 2018 -19; the $7 million is just the portion attributable to the general fund. 153 Five-year forecast received from Burlingame via email dated May 29, 2019. 154 Ibid. Email from Burlingame, dated June 5, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19 million will be assigned to the Economic Stability Reserve, $2 million to the Catastrophic Reserve, $0.5 million to the Contingency Reserve, $13.5 million to the Section 115 pension trust and $11.92 million will be unassigned. The City’s FY 2023-24 general fund balance will represent 67.8 percent of its projected $72.16 million of general fund expenditures for the year.155 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Burlingame Burlingame publishes a long-term general fund operating budget forecast with a period of 5 years.156 The City did not present this forecast in its FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget.157 In order to find the forecast online, the Grand Jury used the “Search Archives” feature on the City Council Meeting Documents and Minutes page158 and searched for “five-year forecast.” This yielded a reference to the March 13, 2019 council meeting agenda package, 159 which includes the forecast in a staff report for the meeting.160 Colma Pension Contribution Costs - Colma Colma’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $1.26 million, up $0.216 million (20.6 percent) from $1.05 million in FY 2016-17.161 The Town’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 29.1 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 26 percent the preceding year) and 8.6 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 7.9 percent the preceding year).162 The Town projects its pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $0.46 million (36.1 percent) to $1.72 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.106 million (6.2 percent) to $1.83 million by FY 2027-28.163 The Town notes that “rising pension cost continues to be the Town’s largest challenge.”164 The Town’s projected pension contribution costs were not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19 budget.165 However, in a change from prior budgets, Colma’s 155 Five-year general fund forecast received from Burlingame via email dated May 3, 2019. 156 Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 13, 2019 re: Adoption of Resolution Amending the FY 2018-10 Operating and Capital Budgets to Reflect the Recommended Mid -Year Adjustments, p. 52. 157 Burlingame, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. 158 https://www.burlingame.org/government/city_council/city_council_meeting_documents_and_minutes.php (Last accessed May 9, 2019.) 159 burlingameca.legistar1.com/burlingameca/meetings/2019/3/1452_A_City_Council_19 -03-13_Meeting_Agenda.pdf (Last accessed May 9, 2019.) 160 Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 13, 2019 re: Adoption of Resolution Amending the FY 2018-10 Operating and Capital Budgets to Reflect the Recommended Mid -Year Adjustments, p. 52. 161 Appendix A. 162 Ibid. 163 Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on September 26, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Study, Attachment B. This report contains pension cost projections through FY 2043 -44. 164 Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 11. 165 Colma, FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20 FY 2019-20 budget does include a graph showing annual pension cost projections. They run through FY 2035-36.166 Financial Overview – Colma Colma noted in its FY 2017-18 budget that “[r]ising costs of health care and pension rates are placing extraordinary pressure on the fiscal health of most California municipalities, including the Town of Colma” and, among other responses to this pressure, has elected to terminate its retiree health premium payments programs for all new employees hired after January 1, 2017.167 In its FY 2019-20 budget, the Town states that “rising pension cost continues to be the Town’s largest challenge.”168 Colma’s recent ten-year general fund forecast projects that, absent new revenue increases and/or expense reductions, current spending plans will turn the $4.06 million general fund operating surplus in FY 2017-18169 into an operating deficit of $5.48 million by FY 2029-30,170 and that general fund reserves will drop from $24.46 million in FY 2017-18171 to $15.23 million in FY 2023-24, to zero during FY 2027-28.172 The ten-year forecast shows that, in order to fund all currently projected general fund expenses through FY 2029-30, the Town would need to secure an additional $14.09 million in new funding.173 The Town’s latest forecast in the FY 2019-20 budget is immediately followed by a section entitled “Potential Options to Mitigate Insolvency.” The Town notes that “[d]ue to the projections above, the Town should consider cost containment/reduction strategies to remain financially healthy in the next ten years. To aggressively address the projected depletion of the Town’s reserve, the following cost containment/reduction and new revenue measures can be considered.”174 One of the potential options for cost containment/reduction identified in the budget is the adoption of a “pay as you go” policy under which the Town would stop making further contributions to the trusts it had established to set aside funds out of current budget 166 Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 20. 167 Colma, FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget, p. 8. 168 Colma, FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 11. 169 Ibid., p. 184. 170 Ibid., p. 180. Note: Colma provides two different versions of its ten-year general fund forecast. The first (at page 180), entitled “Status Quo,” uses the assumption that there will be an economic “slowdown” but not a “recession” (Email from Colma, dated June 14, 2019), while the second (at page 181) uses the assumption that th ere will be a recession beginning in FY 2020-21 with a three-year recovery period. Colma believes that the “Status Quo” projections at page 180 more closely track economists’ current sentiments than the recession projection at page 181. (Email from Colma, dated June 14, 2019.) Therefore, the Grand Jury is reporting numbers relying on the “Status Quo” projection. However, even if the recession forecast was used, the financial numbers are only slightly worse and, for purposes of this report, do not change the overall picture. 171 Colma, FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 184. 172 Ibid., pp. 180. 173 Ibid., p. 180. This $14.09 million amount would be $15.61 million if one used the recession version of this forecast. 174 Ibid., p. 182. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21 surpluses to help pay future pension costs (see section below entitled “Pension Reserve Fund – Colma”) and future OPEB (“other post-employment benefits”) costs.175,176 The Town notes that this measure “will handicap the Town in meeting its future unfunded liabilities.”177 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Colma On October 24, 2018, Colma decided to make an additional payment to CalPERS of $1.05 million more than its Annual Required Contribution.178 This amount was paid to CalPERS in February 2019179 and represented an additional 68.6 percent payment on top of the Annual Required Contribution of $1.53 million for FY 2018-19.180 Pension Reserve Fund - Colma On October 24, 2018, Colma also decided to transfer $1 million into its Section 115 Trust for pensions in FY 2018-19 and, from FY 2019-20 through at least FY 2042-43, to make annual contributions to the trust of the additional dollar amounts that Colma would be required to pay if CalPERS discount rate was set at 6 percent (or 6.5 percent if the City Council determined that the payment tied to 6 percent was not feasible) rather than the current 7 percent discount rate.181 As explained in the prior report at pages 6-8, higher discount rates result in lower payment obligations to CalPERS and lower discount rates result in higher payment obligations. 175 Ibid., p. 182. As of June 30, 2018, the Town had an unfunded liability under its OPEB plan of $14.04 million (substantially larger than its unfunded pension liability of $10.2 million). (Staff Report for City Council Meeting on October 10, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Study and Strategic Plan, p. 1.) The Town contributed $1.7 million to its OPEB trust in FY 2018-19 and has budgeted contributing another $1.61 million to the trust in FY 2019 -20. (FY 2019- 20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 18.) The Town’s plan has been to continu e making annual contributions to its OPEB trust through FY 2040-41, with the goal of reaching an 80 percent funded level for the OPEB plan. (Staff Report for City Council Meeting on October 10, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Study and Strategic Plan, p. 3.) At present, the OPEB plan’s funded percentage is only 14 percent. (FY 2019 -20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 18.) 176 In the OPEB context “pay as you go” means paying only the minimum amount required to pay benefits that come due each year to current retirees “and funds necessary for future liability are not accumulated. That is, contributions made are for current retirees only, causing the majority of retiree health benefits liability to be considered unfunded.” (GASBhelp website at https://gasb45help.com/(S(owachimsfyshowi4vph02112))/term.aspx?t=94 . ) The phrase has essentially the same meaning in the pension plan context. (See, e.g., Heinen, Winfried. Why Time is Running Out for Pay As You Go-Based Pension Systems, http://www.genre.com/knowledge/blog/why-time-is-running-out-for-pay-as- you-go-based-pension-systems-en.html. (Last accessed June 11, 2019.)) 177 FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 182. 178 Grand Jury interview. Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on October 24, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Funding Strategy, p. 1. 179 Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget., p. 12. 180 Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on September 26, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Study, Attachment B. 181 Grand Jury interview. Colma, Unfunded Liabilities Funding Strategy, October 24, 2018, pp. 3-4. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22 Colma transferred the initial $1.0 million to the Section 115 Trust for pensions in March 2019182 and its FY 2019-20 budget calls for it to transfer an additional $0.344 to the trust based on the 6 percent discount rate.183 As noted above in the section entitled “Financial Overview – Colma,” one of the potential cost containment/reduction options staff has identified to the City Council to help mitigate insolvency is adoption of a “pay as you go” policy for pensions, which would mean that these annual contributions to the Section 115 trust would stop, at least for a period of time. Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - Colma Colma does not have any cost-sharing agreements in place with its employees under which employees agree to pay a portion of the Town’s contribution obligations.184 Revenue Enhancement - Colma In November 2018, residents of Colma approved Measure PP, which put in place a transient occupancy tax (i.e., “hotel tax”) of 12 percent.185 The Town estimates that, if a hotel is built in Colma, this tax would yield annual revenues of approximately $0.319 million.186 Colma’s staff has stated that it “intends to review …new revenue measures as part of the 2020-22 Strategic Plan and future study sessions with the City Council.”187 Pension Obligation Bonds - Colma Colma does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.188 General Fund Reserves - Colma At the end of FY 2017-18, Colma had a total general fund balance of $24.46 million (representing 166.6 percent of its $14.68 million of general fund expenditures that year),189 of which $15.54 million (105.8 percent of expenditures) were committed, $7.96 million (54.2 percent of expenditures) were unassigned and $0.95 million (6.5 percent of expenditures) were assigned.190 The Town’s policy is to have general fund assigned reserves consisting of (a) 100 percent of the operating budget, (b) two years of debt service payments (which were $0.299 million in FY 2017-18), (c) a $0.1 million litigation reserve, 182 Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 12. 183 Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on May 8, 2019 re: FY 2019 -20 Budget Study Session, p. 7. Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 18. 184 Grand Jury interview. 185 Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Colma, California, Measure PP, Colma Hotel Tax (November 2018) 186 Voters Edge Library, Measure PP. 187 Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 182. 188 Email from Colma, dated June 11, 2019. 189 Colma, Basic Financial Statements as of June 30, 2018, p. 14. Colma, Fiscal Year 2019 -20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 184. 190 Colma, Basic Financial Statements as of June 30, 2018, p. 13. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23 (d) a $0.1 million insurance loss reserve, and (e) a $0.75 million disaster response / recovery reserve. All other general fund reserves are classified as “unassigned.”191 Colma projects that its general fund reserves will drop from $23.78 million in FY 2017- 18192 to $12.67 million in FY 2023-24, and to zero during FY 2027-28.193,194 In addition, “as a result of increasing expenditure [sic] budget”195 unassigned reserves will be completely drawn down during this period (dropping from $7.96 million in FY 2017-18196 to zero in FY 2023-24.197 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Colma Colma published a long-term general fund operating budget forecast with a period of 5 years, which was incorporated into its readily-accessible FY 2018-19 budget.198 In its FY 2019-20 budget, the Town has extended the forecast period to ten years.199 Daly City Pension Contribution Costs – Daly City Daly City’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $13.13 million, up $1.5 million (12.9 percent) from $11.63 million in FY 2016-17.200 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 30.4 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 26.8 percent the preceding year) and 16.9 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 15.1 percent the preceding year).201 In addition to its contribution payments made to CalPERS, the City also makes annual, installment payments of over $3.5M on its pension obligation bonds.202 Taking these bond payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) were $16.8 million in FY 2017-18 (representing 38.9 percent of that year’s covered payroll and 22.6 percent of total general fund spending), up $1.63 million (10.8 percent) from $15.17 million in FY 2017.203 191 Colma, FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget, pp. 151 & 155. 192 Ibid., p. 155. 193 Colma, FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, pp. 180 & 181. 194 Colma notes that its general fund reserves were dramatically reduced in FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 by the transfer of approximately $12.9 million from the reserves to fund the renov ation of its Town Hall. (Colma, FY 2019- 20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 178.) 195 Colma, FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. 151. 196 Colma, Basic Financial Statements as of June 30, 2018, p. 13. 197 Colma, FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. 151. 198 Ibid., pp. 149-155. 199 Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, pp. 179-181. 200 Appendix A. 201 Appendix A. 202 Daly City’s payments on the pension obligation bonds were $3.54 million, $3.67 million and $3.81 million in fiscal years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. The City’s bond repayment obligations continue through FY 2023 - 24. Daly City, City Council Meeting presentation slides re: FYs 2019/2020 Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget, April 12, 2018, p. 11. 203 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Daly City, March 27, 2017, pp. 24 & 44. Daly City POB payments in FY 2016-17 were $3.54 million and in FY 2017 -18 were $3.67 million. (Daly City, City Council Meeting presentation slides re: FYs 2019/2020 Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget, April 12, 2018, p. 11) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24 Daly City’s pension contribution costs are projected to increase from FY 2017-18 by $14.64 million (111.5 percent) to $27.78 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $4.63 million (16.7 percent) to $32.4 million by FY 2027-28.204 The City’s total pension costs (CalPERS and bond repayments combined) are projected to increase over FY 2017-18 costs by $15.55 million (78.7 percent) to $32.36 million by FY 2023-24. Total costs in FY 2024-25 drop because the bonds will be fully paid off by the end of FY 2023-24. From FY 2024-25 to FY 2027-28, annual pension contribution costs to CalPERS rise by $2.92 million (9.9 percent) to $32.4 million (up from $29.48 million in FY 2024-25.205 The City’s projected pension contribution costs were not included in its FY 2017 and 2018 budget206 but are set forth in its readily-accessible FY 2019-20 budget.207 They are also set forth in greater detail in the report of its actuarial consultant – Bartel Associates, LLC.208 However, in order to find the Bartel Associates projections online, it is necessary to manually search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: www.dalycity.org/City_Hall/Meeting_Agendas_ and_Minutes/City_Council.htm (last accessed on May 23, 2019). That search would eventually lead to the agenda package for the City Council meeting on March 27, 2017209, which includes the report from Bartel Associates, LLC dated March 27, 2017.210 Financial Overview – Daly City Daly City describes itself as being in a “precarious financial situation” and that it “has balanced recent budgets through major workforce and service reductions.”211 The City reports that, out of the ten largest cities in San Mateo County, it has the lowest median household income, per capita income and median home value, the highest unemployment rate and second highest poverty rate.212 Absent significant changes to revenues and/or expenses, the City forecasts that it will experience general fund deficits beginning in FY 2018-19 with a $4.4 million deficit that rises to $12.9 million in FY 2023-24. The forecast projects a cumulative deficit of $98 million over the ten years FY 2017-18 through FY 2027-28, with the City’s unassigned general fund reserves dropping to zero in FY 2021- 22.213 The foregoing forecast numbers do not factor in a recession between the present and 204 Appendix A. CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Daly City, p. 4. CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Safety Plan of the City of Daly City, p. 4. Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Daly City, March 27, 2017, pp. 24 & 44. The annual pension cost projection numbers are given through FY 2027-28. 205 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Daly City, March 27, 2017, pp. 24 & 44. Daly City, City Council Meeting presentation slides re: FYs 2019/2020 Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget, April 12, 2018, p. 11 206 Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018. 207 Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, pp. 19-20. These pension cost projections go through FY 2027-28. 208 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Daly City, March 27, 2017, pp. 24 & 44. 209 Daly City, Agenda for City Council Meeting on March 27, 2017. 210 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Daly City, March 27, 2017, pp. 24 & 44. 211 Daly City Budget Forecast Model & Long-Term Financial Planning, PFM Consulting LLC, June 25, 2018, p. 29. Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, p. 17. 212 Daly City Budget Forecast Model & Long-Term Financial Planning, PFM Consulting LLC, June 25, 2018, pp. 6 – 8. 213 Ibid., pp. 14 & 15. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25 FY 2027-28. When a hypothetical recession is modelled into the City’s forecast beginning in FY 2019-20, the FY 2023-24 deficit rises from $12.9 million to $15.2 million and the cumulative deficit rises from $98 million to $117.6 million for the FY 2017-18 through FY 2027-28 period.214 Additional Payments to CalPERS – Daly City At present, Daly City does not plan to make any supplemental payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution.215 Pension Reserve Fund – Daly City In May, 2017 Daly City approved putting in place a Section 115 Trust to help it manage payment of future pension costs.216 Daly City transferred $1 million into the trust in FY 2016-17 and an additional $2 million in FY 2017-18. The City expects to transfer another $1 million to the trust in 2019 bringing the total to approximately $4 million.217 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost Daly City does not have cost-sharing agreements in place with employees under which its employees pay for any part of the City’s pension contribution costs.218 Revenue Enhancement – Daly City In November 2018 the residents of Daly City approved two revenue enhancements.219 They were a transient occupancy tax (a “hotel tax”) increase from 10 percent to 13 percent that was expected to yield increased revenue of between $0.203 million to $0.459 million year during FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20 and $0.306 million to $0.689 million per year thereafter220 and business license tax increase of 10 percent that is expected to yield increased revenues of approximately $0.42 million per year.221 The City is not currently planning on bringing any new revenue enhancement ballot measures before its voters.222 Pension Obligation Bonds – Daly City In 2004 Daly City issued $36.24 million in pension obligation bonds.223 Daly City’s payments on these bonds were $3.54 million, $3.67 million and $3.81 million in FYs 2016- 214 Ibid., p. 23. 215 Grand Jury interview. 216 Daly City, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 44. 217 Grand Jury interview. 218 Email from Daly City, dated June 18, 2019. 219 Ibid. 220 Daly City, 6-25-18 Agenda Report re Consideration to Place a Measure Relating t o the Transient Occupancy Tax on the November 6, 20918 General Election, pp. 1 & 4. 221 Daly City, 6-25-18 Agenda Report re Consideration to Place a Measure Relating to the Business License Tax on the November 6, 20918 General Election, pp. 1 & 4. 222 Email from Daly City, dated June 18, 2019. 223 Daly City, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 56. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26 17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. The City’s bond repayment obligations continue through FY 2023-24.224 General Fund Reserves – Daly City Daly City’s goal is to maintain general fund unassigned reserves of at least 15 percent of general fund expenditures.225 In June 2018 the City had projected that it would have to apply approximately $6.1 million of these reserves in FY 2019-20 to close its expected operating budget deficit.226 However, the City’s most recent estimate is that the FY 2019- 20 deficit may be less than $6.1 million.227 If FY 2019-20’s deficit is $6.1 million, then the City’s unassigned general fund reserves would be projected to drop from $22.59 million in FY 2017-18 (29.1 percent of general fund expenditures),228 to $16.7 million (18.5 percent of general fund expenditures) in FY 2019-20.229 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Daly City Daly City uses a ten-year financial forecasting model as part of its long-term financial planning process.230 This forecast is not included in the FY 2019-20 budget.231 A manual search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: www.dalycity.org/City_Hall/Meeting_Agendas_and_ Minutes/City_Council.htm (last accessed on May 27, 2019,) would eventually lead to the June 25, 2018 agenda for a meeting of the City Council232 which refers to “Update of Long-Term Financial Plan” and a link to a staff report stating that a presentation on the City’s long-term financial forecast would be made at the meeting.233 Unfortunately, however, the slides for that presentation are not included in the June 25, 2018 agenda package available online. The Grand Jury was only able to obtain Daly City’s long-term financial plan through a document request made to the City. 224 Daly City, City Council Meeting presentation slides re: FYs 2019/2020 Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget, April 12, 2018, p. 11. 225 Daly City Budget Forecast Model & Long-Term Financial Planning, PFM Consulting LLC, June 25, 2018, slide 15. Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, p. 11. 226 Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, p. 7. This document is dated June 2018 and, at that time, the City also projected having to use $4.8 million in reserves to close a budget deficit in FY 2018-19. (Ibid.) However, the City now believes that it will not have a budget deficit in FY 2018 - 19 as a result of stronger-than-projected revenues during the year. (Email from Daly City, dated June 18, 2019.) 227 Email from Daly City, dated June 18, 2019. 228 Daly City, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 22 & 24. 229 Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, pp. 7 & 11. 230 Grand Jury interview. Daly City Budget Forecast Model & Long -Term Financial Planning, PFM Consulting LLC, June 25, 2018, slides 12-20. 231 Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020. 232 Daly City, Agenda for City Council Meeting on June 25, 2018. 233 Daly City, Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on June 25, 2018 re: Update of Long -Term Financial Plan. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27 East Palo Alto Pension Contribution Costs – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $1.64 million, up $0.149 million (10 percent) from $1.49 million in FY 2016-17.234 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 17.7 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 17.6 percent the preceding year) and 8.3 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 8.2 percent the preceding year).235 East Palo Alto’s actuarial consultant projects that the City’s pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $1.18 million (71.7 percent) to $2.82 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.429 million (15.2 percent) to $3.25 million by FY 2027-28.236 The City’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19, or FY 2019-20 budgets.237,238 In order to find these projected costs online, it is necessary to manually search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter (last accessed on May 23, 2019). That search would eventually lead to the agenda package for the City Council meeting on May 15, 2018.239 The agenda package includes a report by Bartel Associates, LLC that contains annual pension cost projections.240 Financial Overview – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto has experienced substantial revenue growth in recent years241 and describes itself as being “in a stable financial condition.”242 The City notes that its opportunities include “a robust economy” and “an excellent location in Silicon Valley with 60 acres of vacant or underutilized land.” However, the City also notes fiscal revenue challenges including “the lack of material increases in General Fund revenues for the near to medium term future,” and continued organizational challenges such as “fewer staff than comparable cities,” “ongoing retention and recruitment challenges,” “unfunded CalPERS liabilities,” and “an astronomical gap in deferred infrastructure and services created before the City’s incorporation.”243 234 Appendix A. 235 Ibid. 236 Bartel Associates, LLC report to the City of East Palo Alto, March 8, 2017, Updated May 15, 2018, pp. 15 & 21. The report contains annual pension cost projections through FY 2027-28. 237 East Palo Alto, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. East Palo Alto, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-2019. East Palo Alto, Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-20. 238 By way of clarification, however, East Palo Alto “notes that the actuarial projections contained in the Bartel study are utilized in graphical presentations to Council regarding FY 18 -19 to FY 2025-26 forecasts of General Fund revenues and expenditures – including increased CalPERS costs to provide context for the City’s need to contain program cost expansion.” (Email from East Palo Alto, dated June 7, 2019.) 239 East Palo Alto, Agenda for City Council meeting on May 15, 2018. 240 Bartel Associates, LLC report to the City of East Palo Alto, March 8, 2017, Updated May 15, 2018, pp. 15 & 21. 241 East Palo Alto, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-2019, p. CM-2. 242 Ibid., p. CM-5. East Palo Alto, Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20, p. CM-2. 243 Ibid., pp. CM-3 & CM-5. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28 The City also notes that its “compensation and benefits package is generally below market. Over the past four years, the City has experienced a high volume of turnover due to various organizational issues, including retirements and non-competitive salaries and benefits. The high turnover rate results in ‘short term’ General Fund savings and increased reserves, but ultimately strains staff capacity and is also a contributing cause of the high cycle of turnover. The high rate of turnover and vacancy also ultimately has tamped down the City’s pension costs during the past four years.”244 Additional Payments to CalPERS – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto is in the initial stages of evaluating additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution. At present, however, the City Council’s expressed interest is in pre-funding the City’s unfunded pension liability with current uncommitted reserves.245 Pension Reserve Fund – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto has not established a reserve fund for the specific purpose of helping to meet rising future pension costs. However, it does have an unassigned reserve that is projected to hold $9.5 million at the end of FY 2019 that is available for risk mitigation, including pre- funding CalPERS obligations.246 The City does not yet have comprehensive general fund reserve policies in place to address financial risks. Developing such an overall reserves plan is now a city council priority. At its March 5, 2019 meeting, the council approved hiring the Government Finance Officers’ Association (“GFOA”) and PSD Research Consulting Software to prepare analyses of financial risks to the City, which is a necessary precursor to the City developing an overall financial reserves policy.247 As part of developing overall reserves policies, the City will evaluate reserves needs to meet rising, future pension funding obligations.248 The City plans to complete the risk studies by January 2020.249 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto does not have cost-sharing agreements in place with its employees under which the employees pay a portion of the City’s pension contribution costs.250 Revenue Enhancement – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto’s residents approved Measure HH in November 2018, which is projected to provide the City with approximately $1.67 million of additional revenues to help pay for 244 Email from East Palo Alto, dated June 7, 2019. 245 Grand Jury interview. Email from East Palo Alto, dated June 7, 2019. 246 East Palo Alto, Staff Report for March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting, p. 5. Email from East Palo Alto, dated June 7, 2019. 247 Grand Jury interview. East Palo Alto, Staff Report for March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting. 248 Grand Jury interview. 249 Ibid. East Palo Alto email, dated June 7, 2019. 250 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29 housing and job training.251 In November 2016, residents of East Palo Alto also approved Measures O and P.252 Measure O increased the City’s business license tax for landlords with five or more residential units and was expected to increase City revenues by approximately $0.6M annually.253 Measure P increased the City’s sales tax by a half-cent and was expected to increase City revenues by approximately $1.8M annually.254 The City’s planned revenue enhancements are targeted toward an expanded and improved Master Fee Schedule (Fall 2019) and assessment or special district taxes related to the City’s stormwater and storm-drain systems. If approved, the assessment fees/taxes will ultimately relieve General Fund operating transfers of between $0.20 million and $0.50 million per year.255 Pension Obligation Bonds – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.256 General Fund Reserves – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto’s general fund unassigned reserve as of end of FY 2017-18 was $16.2 million257 which represented a healthy 82.3 percent of the $19.67 million in general fund expenditures for the year.258 However, as of the FY 2018-19 Mid-year report, budgeted general fund expenditures increased by 29.1 percent over FY 2017-18 (from $19.67 million in FY 2017-18 to $25.4 million in FY 2018-19).259 At that time, the City had approved approximately $5.8 million in additional spending initiatives primarily related to major capital project improvements; of which $4.2 million is budgeted from general fund reserves.260 Long-Term Financial Forecast – East Palo Alto East Palo Alto’s city council has instructed staff to prepare a long-term, general fund operating plan going out to the end of FY 2025-26 and staff is in the process of preparing such a plan.261 Staff’s objective is to complete such a plan by October 2019.262 251 The Stanford Daily, East Palo Alto Passes Measure to Tax Large Companies. Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, East Palo Alto, California, Measure HH, Commercial Office Space Parcel Tax. East Palo Alto website at www.ci.east- palo-alto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=627. 252 Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, East Palo Alto, California, Measure O, Landlord Tax (November 2016). Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, East Palo Alto, California, Measure P, Sales Tax (November 2016). 253 East Palo Alto, Staff Report for July 19, 2016 City Council Meeting re: increasing business license tax, p. 3. East Palo Alto, Staff Report for February 19, 2019 City Council Meeting, p.4. 254 East Palo Alto, Staff Report for July 19, 2016, p. 4. East Palo Alto, Staff Report for February 19, 2019 City Council Meeting, p. 4. 255 East Palo Alto email, dated June 7, 2019. 256 Ibid. 257 East Palo Alto, Staff Report for March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting, p. 4. 258 East Palo Alto, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 34. 259 East Palo Alto, Presentation slides re: Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Midyear Budget Amendment, p. 24. East Palo Alto email, dated June 7, 2019. 260 Ibid. 261 Grand Jury interview. 262 East Palo Alto, Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20, p. DB-55. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30 Foster City Pension Contribution Costs – Foster City Foster City’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $6.51 million, down $0.703 million (-9.7 percent) from $7.21 million in FY 2016-17.263 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 31.2 percent of that year’s covered payroll (down from 36.3 percent the preceding year) and 17.2 percent of its total general fund spending (down from 19.8 percent the preceding year).264 The City projects its pension contribution costs will increase by $4.81 million (73.9 percent) to approximately $11.32 million by FY 2024265 and then drop by $0.366 million (-3.2 percent) to $10.95 million by FY 2028.266 The City’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19 budget.267 Annual projected pension contribution costs for the five year period from FY 2019-20 through FY 2023-24 are, however, included in the City’s readily accessible preliminary budget for FY 2019-20.268 In order to find the City’s projected pension costs beyond FY 2023-24, it is necessary to manuall y search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: https://www.fostercity.org/agendasandminutes. (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.) That search would eventually lead to the agenda for the City Council meeting on January 22, 2019269 which has an agenda item entitled “Consideration of an Update on Unfunded Pension Liabilities” and a link to a “Staff Report” on the subject and a separate link to “Attachment 2 – Amortization Schedules – Current, Projected 15-year, Projected Leveled.”270 Clicking on this link to Attachment 2 leads to graphs showing Foster City’s annual, projected pension costs through FY 2028-29.271 Financial Overview – Foster City While Foster City describes its pension liability as a “significant cause of concern,”272 it also notes that its financial health is “strong.”273 While the City is facing structural general fund budget deficits during the five-year period ending with FY 2022-23, these deficits are 263 Foster City FY 2017-18 CAFR, pp. 86-87. 264 Appendix A. 265 Foster City, Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 44. 266 Attachment 2 to Foster City staff report re Pension Liability Subcommittee Updated dated January 22, 2019. This document sets forth pension cost projections through FY 2048-49. 267 Foster City Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19. 268 Foster City, Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 44. 269 Foster City, Agenda for City Council meeting on January 22, 2019. 270 The agenda for Foster City’s Council meeting on January 22, 2019 may be found at https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=772&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=-1&nov=0. (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.) 271 Attachment 2 to Foster City Staff Report for City Council Meeting on Jan uary 22, 2019 re: Pension Liability Subcommittee Update. 272 Foster City staff report for March 26, 2018 City Council Meeting re: Pension Liability, p. 269. 273 Foster City Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19, p. 9. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31 modest in comparison to available general fund reserves of $40.77 million as of the end of FY 2019.274 Additional Payments to CalPERS – Foster City Foster City plans to make an extra $3.43 million payment to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution by the end of FY 2018-19.275 The City Council has not yet established a policy about making additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution in future years.276 The City Council’s Pension Subcommittee plans to meet in the fall of 2019 to discuss long-term plans to improve funding for the City’s pension.277 Pension Reserve Fund – Foster City In 2018, Foster City approved creating a $2 million Discretionary Pension Liability Stabilization Fund.278 However, the City’s primary focus is on accelerating payments to CalPERS in order to reduce long-term CalPERS costs, not on building a stabilization fund. Accordingly, the City has decided to apply the $2 million in this stabilization fund as part of an estimated $3.43 million additional payment to CalPERS being made before the end of FY 2019.279 In late 2018, Foster City established a Pension Liability Subcommittee of the City Council to discuss strategies towards addressing the City’s long-term pension obligations.280 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – Foster City Foster City has stated that it will seek pension cost-sharing agreements from employees in its next round of labor negotiations.281 The City’s existing agreements with three of its represented groups of employees expire on June 30, 2019 and labor negotiations began in early 2019.282 274 The projected deficits are $850,000, $84,000, $159,000, $68,000 and $26,000. Foster City Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19, p. 43. 275 Grand Jury interview; Foster City, Staff Report for April 15, 2019 City Council Meeting re: Use and Transfer Out of FY 207-2018 General Fund Rollover Surplus, pp. 1-2. Foster City, Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020, p. 44. 276 Grand Jury interview. Email from Foster City, dated June 18, 2019. 277 Email from Foster City, dated June 18, 2019. 278 Foster City, Staff Report for June 4, 2018 City Council Meeting r e: Public Hearing for FY 2018-2019 Preliminary Budget, p. 136. Grand Jury interview. 279 Grand Jury interview. Foster City, Staff Report for April 15, 2019 City Council Meeting re: Use and Transfer Out of FY 207-2018 General Fund Rollover Surplus, pp. 1-2. 280 Foster City, Staff Report for November 19, 2018 City Council Meeting re: Establishing a Pension Liability Subcommittee. 281 Foster City, Staff Report for March 26, 2018 City Council Meeting re: Pension Liability, p. 269. Grand Jury interview. 282 Foster City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 11, 2019 re: Policy Direction Regarding Preparation of the FY 2019-2020 Annual Budget and Five -Year Financial Plan, p. 6. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32 Revenue Enhancement – Foster City Foster City residents approved Measure TT in November 2018.283 This was an increase in the City’s transient occupancy tax (“TOT” or “hotel tax”) from 9.5 percent to 12 percent. The City forecasts that this tax increase will yield revenue of $0.272 million, $0.924 million, $0.943 million, $0.962 million and $0.981 million in the 5 years from FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23.284 Foster City is not currently planning on bringing any new revenue enhancement ballot measures before its voters.285 Pension Obligation Bonds – Foster City Foster City does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.286 General Fund Reserves – Foster City Foster City’s general fund reserve balance is projected to be $40.77 million at the end of FY 2018-19, representing a very healthy 91.1 percent of the general fund budget for the year.287 The City’s five-year forecast projects that this reserve balance percentage will drop down to 82.5 percent by the end of FY 2022-23. This remains well above the City’s Reserve Policy percentage of 33.3 percent to 50 percent of the general fund budget.288 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Foster City Foster City’s long-term general fund financial forecast is based on a five-year projection. The most current five-year financial forecast published by the City is for the period ending on June 30, 2024 and can be found in the City’s FY 2019-20 preliminary budget .289 Half Moon Bay Pension Contribution Costs – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $0.881 million, up $0.287 million (48.3 percent) from $0.594 million in FY 2016-17.290 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 28.2 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 24.5 percent the preceding year) and 7.2 percent of total general fund spending (up from 5.7 percent the preceding year).291 283 Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Foster City, California, Measure TT, Hotel Ta x Increase (November 2018). 284 Foster City Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19, pp. 47-48. 285 Email from Foster City, dated June 18, 2019. 286 Ibid. 287 Ibid., p. 54. 288 Ibid., p. 54. 289 Foster City, Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, pp. 55-94. The city also published a five-year financial forecast in its Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 -19, pp. 52-90. 290 Appendix A. 291 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33 The City’s actuarial consultant projects that the City’s pension contribution costs will increase by $0.665 million (75.6 percent) to $1.55 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.345 million (22.3 percent) to $1.89 million by FY 2028-29.292 The City’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, its FY 2018-19 budget, or its FY 2018-19 budget293 nor was the Grand Jury able to find them in any City Council meeting agenda packages for the period from January 1, 2018 through June 1, 2019. The only pension cost projections for Half Moon Bay that the Grand Jury obtained came from a written document request made to the City. That request yielded a detailed study of the City’s current and projected annual pension costs through FY 2028- 29 prepared by Bartel Associates, LLC and dated October 8, 2018.294 As of the Grand Jury’s March 21, 2019 interview, staff reported that neither the Bartel report, nor any other data showing the City’s rising pension costs in the future, had been presented by staff to the City Council and that staff saw no reason to provide such information to the City Council because pensions are not an area of financial concern for Half Moon Bay.295 Financial Overview – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay states that it is in a “strong position” financially “following 10 years of economic growth”296 Nevertheless, the City states in its FY 2019-20 recommended budget that “rising pension costs will pose significant budgetary and service-level challenges in coming fiscal years.”297 Notwithstanding the concern, staff reports that it is confident that the City will be able to meet this challenge.298 The City projects that its general fund balance (or surplus) will decrease from $10.1 million at the end of FY 2017-18 (representing 56.8 percent of $17.77 million in general fund expenses) down to $4.14 million at the end of FY 2023-24 (representing 20.9 percent of $19.79 million in general fund expenses). This is due, in part, to the City’s projections that it will make approximately $12 million of investments into capital improvement projects from FY 2017-18 through FY 2023-24 (spending an average of $1.73 million per year on improvements during that period).299 Additional Payments to CalPERS – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay has no current plans to make any additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution.300 In its FY 2018-19 budget, the City stated that “Staff is currently working on an independent actuarial valuation of the City’s pension plans and 292 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Half Moon Bay, October 8, 2018, pp. 20 & 30. This report includes pension cost projections through FY 2028-29. 293 Half Moon Bay FY 2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Half Moon Bay Adopted Operating Budget FY 2018-19. Half Moon Bay, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Operating Budget. 294 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Half Moon Bay, October 8, 2018, pp. 20 & 30. 295 Grand Jury interview. 296 Half Moon Bay, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Operating Budget, p. 19. 297 Ibid., p. 16. 298 Grand Jury interview. 299 Half Moon Bay, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Operating Budget, p. 82. 300 Grand Jury interview. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34 will be bringing a pension funding policy recommendation to Council at the beginning of the new fiscal year.”301 As noted above, the City’s actuarial valuation firm (Bartel Associates, LLC) delivered that valuation report to the City on October 8, 2018.302 However, as of March 21, 2019, staff had not presented the Bartel report to the City Council and reported that there were no plans to develop a pension funding policy recommendation for council’s consideration.303 Pension Reserve Fund – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay has $1.15 million in a “Retirement Stabilization Fund”304 and plans to add another $0.1 million to that fund by June 30, 2019.305 This amount would represent approximately 17 months of pension contribution cost (based on FY 2017-18 payments). The City has made no decision yet as to whether to add further to this fund in FY 2019-20 or thereafter.306 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay has no cost-sharing agreements in place with employees under which the employees pay a portion of the City’s pension contribution costs.307 Revenue Enhancement – Half Moon Bay At present, Half Moon Bay is not engaged in a process of actively preparing to bring any revenue enhancement ballot measures before its voters.308 However, staff notes that it regularly considers whether a ballot measure seeking revenue enhancement is appropriate for the City and it is certainly possible that the City could decide to begin such a process in the future with an eye to submitting such a ballot measure to its voters in November 2020.309 Pension Obligation Bonds – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.310 General Fund Reserves – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay projects that its general fund balance (or surplus) will decrease from $10.1 million at the end of FY 2017-18 (representing 56.8 percent of its $17.77 million in general fund expenses) down to $4.14 million at the end of FY 2023-24 (representing 20.9 percent of its $19.79 million in general fund expenses).311 As noted above in the section entitled 301 Half Moon Bay Adopted Operating Budget FY 2018-19, p. 57. 302 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Half Moon Bay, October 8, 2018. 303 Grand Jury interview. 304 Half Moon Bay Adopted Operating Budget FY 2018-19, p. 208. 305 Grand Jury interview. Half Moon Bay Adopted Operating Budget FY 2018 -19, p. 57. 306 Grand Jury interview. 307 Ibid. 308 Ibid. 309 Ibid. 310 Ibid. 311 Half Moon Bay, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Operating Budget, p. 82. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35 “Financial Overview – Half Moon Bay,” this projected draw down of the general fund balance would be due, in part, to the City’s decision to make approximately $12 million of investments into capital improvement projects from FY 2017-18 through FY 2023-24 (spending an average of $1.73 million per year on improvements during that period).312 Notwithstanding the draw-down of the general fund balance, Half Moon Bay expects to continue to maintain an operating contingency reserve of at least 30 percent of operating general fund expenses each year313 and the City has also established an economic uncertainty reserve with the goal of holding an amount in that reserve equal to at least 20 percent of general fund operating expenses. The City projects that at the end of FY 2019- 20, the contingency reserve will equal $5.04 million (30 percent of general fund operating expenses of $16.79 million) and the new economic uncertainty reserve will equal $2.61 million (15.6 percent of general fund operating expenses).314 The City also notes that in FY 2019-20, it plans to make a one-time payment of $11 million to pay off (ahead of schedule) its outstanding judgement obligation bonds, which will leave the City largely debt free, except for repayment over the next ten years, on an interest-free basis, of $6 million that San Mateo County advanced to the City to help build the City’s new library.315 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay included a five-year general fund financial forecast in its readily-accessible FY 2018-19 budget316 and in its FY 2019-20 recommended budget.317 Hillsborough Pension Contribution Costs - Hillsborough Hillsborough’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $2.41 million, up $0.254 million (11.8 percent) from $2.16 million in FY 2016-17.318 The Town’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 23.6 percent of that year’s covered payroll (down from 24.9 percent the preceding year) and 10.8 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 10.2 percent the preceding year).319 312 Ibid., p. 82. 313 Staff note that this 30 percent compares favorably with the recommendation of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFAO) that municipalities maintain unrestricted reserves (which would include contingency reserves) equal to at least two months (17 percent) of general fund revenues or expenses. GFAO website (https://www.gfoa.org/fund-balance-guidelines-general-fund ). Grand Jury interview. 314 Half Moon Bay, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Operating Budget, p. 73. Grand Jury interview. 315 Grand Jury interview. 316 Half Moon Bay Adopted Operating Budget FY 2018-19, p. 94. 317 Half Moon Bay, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Operating Budget, p. 82. 318 Appendix A. 319 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36 Hillsborough’s actuarial consultant projects the Town’s pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $2.05 million (84.6 percent) to $4.47 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.926 million (20.7 percent) to $5.4 by FY 2027-28.320 Hillsborough’s projected pension contribution costs were not included in its FY 2018-19 budget321 but are set forth in its readily-accessible FY 2019-20 proposed budget.322 Financial Overview – Hillsborough Hillsborough’s financial position appears to be strong. It had a large general fund balance of $22.5 million at the end of FY 2017-18 (representing 101.1 percent of general fund expenditures for the year)323 and, over the course of the following ten years through FY 2027-27, projects that this balance will remain at an average of approximately $24.4 million, representing an average of 77 percent of general fund expenditures, still well above the Town’s minimum of 30 percent and goal of 50 percent.324 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Hillsborough Hillsborough’s staff recommended to the Town Council on September 11, 2018 that an analysis be prepared for the FY 2019-20 budget to fund a $0.25 million additional payment to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution for each of the next five years in order to accelerate amortization of the Town’s Unfunded Liability and thus reduce long- term interest costs.325 This recommendation was made in the context of an overall recommendation that the Town budget a total of $3.25 million for pension mitigation over the next five years ($1.25 million in additional payments and $2 million into a Section 115 trust).326 After weighing all aspects of pension mitigation strategies over the course of several discussions, the Town council elected not to proceed with additional payments to CalPERS at that time, but (as described in “Pension Reserve Fund – Hillsborough” below) also decided to increase the proposed contribution to the Section 115 trust from the recommended $2 million to $4.8 million over the next two years. Staff reports that the Town will review its pension mitigation strategy during the next annual budget process.327 320 Bartel Associates, LLC report to Town of Hillsborough, February 19, 2018, pp. 12 & 26. This report includes pension cost projections through FY 2028-29. 321 Hillsborough, Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19, with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21. 322 Hillsborough, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20 with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2020 -21 & 2021-22, p. 105. 323 Hillsborough, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 24. 324 Hillsborough, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20 with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2020 -21 & 2021-22, p. 107. 325 Hillsborough, Memorandum from Jan Cooke to Financial Advisory Committee Working Group dated August 3, 2018 re: Pension Liability Mitigation Strategies, p. 63. 326 Hillsborough, Memorandum from Jan Cooke to Financial Advisory Committee Working Group dated August 3, 2018 re: Pension Liability Mitigation Strategies, p. 63. 327 Grand Jury interview. Email from Hillsborough, dated June 5, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37 Pension Reserve Fund - Hillsborough Hillsborough has established a Section 115 Trust for the purpose of helping meet future pension expenses and, in January 2019 approved funding the trust with an initial $2.4 million. The Town’s FY 2019-20 proposed budget calls for an additional $2.4 million to be transferred to the trust. If this additional amount is deposited in the trust, the total as of FY 2019-20 will be $4.8 million328 which would represent 18 months of Hillsborough’s projected annual pension costs as of FY 2019-20.329 The Town is not currently planning to contribute any amounts beyond $4.8 million to this trust, but will review funding changes in the future if circumstances warrant.330 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - Hillsborough Hillsborough has cost sharing agreements with employees who participate in its “Classic” plans under which they pay a portion of the Town’s pension costs equal to one percent of their compensation.331 Revenue Enhancement - Hillsborough Hillsborough is not currently in the process of planning to seek voter approval of any revenue enhancement measures, but it does periodically review its funding sources to fund needs such as capital improvements.332 Pension Obligation Bonds – Hillsborough Hillsborough does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.333 General Fund Reserves - Hillsborough Hillsborough projects having a general fund balance of $23.42 million at the end of FY 2018-19. The Town projects that it will have small annual general fund surpluses through FY 2024-25, at which time the balance will be $25.6 million. In FY 2025-26, the Town projects running a general fund deficit of $0.441 million, and annual deficits of $1.32 and $1.66 million in FY 2027-28 and FY 2028-29, respectively, at which time the general fund balance is projected to be $21.34 million.334 Included in these annual general fund balance numbers is $4.8 million in the Section 115 Trust. Hillsborough’s general fund reserve policy is to maintain a general fund balance equal to a 50 percent, with a minimum of 30 percent, of general fund expenditures. In FY 2017-18, 328 Hillsborough, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20 with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2020 -21 & 2021-22, p. 27. 329 Appendix A. 330 Grand Jury interview. Email from Hillsborough, dated June 5, 2019. 331 Grand Jury interview. 332Ibid. Email from Hillsborough, dated June 5, 2019. 333 Grand Jury interview. 334 Hillsborough, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20 with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 20 20-21 & 2021-22, p. 107. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 38 the general fund balance equaled 101.1 percent of general fund expenditures for the year.335 That percentage is projected to drop to 85.2 percent by the end of FY 2018-19, 81.3 percent at the end of FY 2023-24 and down to 63.3 percent at the ed of FY 2027-28, still well above the Town’s goal of 50 percent.336 If Hillsborough’s general fund expenditures were calculated to include transfers of funds out to other funds, however, then the expenditures numbers would increase and the percentages of expenditures represented by the general fund balances would change to 92.5 percent at the end of FY 2017-18, 85.7 percent at the end of FY 2018-19, 81.1 percent at the end of FY 2023-24 and 57 percent at the end of FY 2027-28.337 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Hillsborough Hillsborough’s long-term general fund financial forecasting is based on a ten-year period. This forecast is included in the Town’s readily-accessible FY 2018-19 budget and its FY 2019-20 proposed budget.338 Menlo Park Pension Contribution Costs – Menlo Park Menlo Park’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $5.56 million, down $0.01 million (-0.2 percent) from FY 2016-17.339 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 23.8 percent of that year’s covered payroll (down from 24.1 percent the preceding year) and 11.8 percent of its total general fund spending (unchanged from 11.8 percent the preceding year).340 Menlo Park’s actuarial consultant projects the City’s pension contribution costs (net of employee cost sharing under which employees pay a portion of the City’s pension obligations) will increase over FY 2017-18 costs by $4.84 million (87.1 percent) to $10.39 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $1.64 million (15.8 percent) to $12.03 million over FY 2023-24 costs by FY 2027-28.341 Menlo Park’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19 budget.342 In order to find these projected costs online, it is 335 Hillsborough, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 24. 336 Hillsborough, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20 with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2020 -21 & 2021-22, p. 107. 337 Email from Hillsborough, dated June 5, 2019. 338 Hillsborough, Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19, with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21, p. 98. Hillsborough, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019 -20 with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2020-21 & 2021-22, p. 107. 339 Appendix A. 340 Ibid. See “Note” regarding Menlo Park’s “Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending” for alternative calculation of these percentages. 341 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Menlo Park, November 13, 2018, pp.28 & 46. 342 Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. Menlo Park’s FY 2018-19 budget (at page 38) does set forth the City’s pension costs through FY 2028-29, but only to the extent paid out of the general fund. Therefore, the budget does not show the City’s total pension costs. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 39 necessary to manually search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: https://menlopark.org/AgendaCenter/City-Council-14. (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.) That search would eventually lead to the agenda for the November 13, 2018 City Council meeting,343 which refers to an “Employee pension obligations” study session and includes a link to a staff report on this topic dated November 13, 2019,344 attached to which is a detailed review of the City’s projected pension costs from its actuarial consulting firm (Bartel Associates, LLC).345 Financial Overview – Menlo Park Menlo Park describes its financial outlook “currently quite strong” and notes that the outlook for growing property tax revenues, the City’s largest revenue source, remains “strong.”346 The City notes, however, that the “strong economy has resulted in near zero unemployment for the region and the City is in fierce competition for talented staff.”347 As of the end of FY 2017-18, Menlo Park had a total general fund balance of $37.12 million.348 Notwithstanding rising pension costs and a tight labor market, the City projects that it will continue to accrue substantial increases in its general fund balance. From FY 2018-19 through FY 2023-24, it projects aggregating additional general fund balance amounts totaling $16.3 million and, from FY 2024-25 through FY 2027-28, it projects aggregating an additional $12.1 million in general fund balance amounts, bringing total additional amounts accrued in the general fund balance for the period from FY 2018-19 through FY 2027-28 to $28.4 million.349 These projections take into account an assumption that “an economic downturn [is] nearly certain to occur within the time frame of the [long- term] forecast”350 making the projections more conservative than those of Cities that do not model a likely recession into their long-term financial planning. Staff notes, however, that a portion of these projected general fund surpluses may be used to offset a portion of future funding needs for planned capital improvements. The City points out that capital improvement projects are budgeted for a total of $73.5 million over five years and that the “funds that support those projects … are expected to have a funding requirement of $44.64 million through the five-year plan. As the City realizes surpluses in the General Fund, those funds may be used to offset a portion of the future funding need.”351 343 Menlo Park. Agenda for City Council meeting on November 13, 2018. 344 Menlo Park. Staff Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Study Session: Employee pension obligations. 345 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Menlo Park, November 13, 2018, pp.28 & 46. 346 Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. iii - iv of December 21, 2018 transmittal letter. 347 Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. ii of City Manager’s Transmittal Letter. 348 Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 36. 349 Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, pp. 36-37. 350 Ibid., p. 37. 351 Ibid., p. viii of City Manager’s Transmittal Letter. Email from Menlo Park, dated June 6, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 40 Additional Payments to CalPERS – Menlo Park Menlo Park’s staff has recommended to the council that the City make supplemental payments to CalPERS in excess of its Annual Required Contribution in amounts that mimic the effect of amortizing unfunded liabilities on a ten year schedule for its Miscellaneous Plans and a fifteen year schedule for its Tier 1 Safety Plan.352 If adopted by the City Council for FY 2019-20 and included in budgets for each subsequent year (which requires affirmative City Council action each new year), this recommendation would, by the end of FY 2027-28 result in the City making aggregate supplemental payments to CalPERS of approximately $12.68 million in addition to its Annual Required Contribution.353 After FY 2027-28, the City projects that these additional payments will yield net, annual decreases in payments to CalPERS for an aggregate savings – net of the $12.68 million of additional payments - of approximately $18.1 million by FY 2033-34.354 Pension Reserve Fund – Menlo Park Menlo Park has established a “Strategic Pension Funding” reserve which, as of June 30, 2018, had a balance of $4.3 million355, up from $3.3 million the year before.356 Menlo Park’s policy is to assign 25 percent of any general fund surpluses to this pension reserve.357 Based on projected surpluses set forth in the City’s FY 2018-19 budget of approximately $0.6 million in FY 2018-19, $4.24 million in FY 2019-20, $3.67 million in FY 2020-21, $2.57 million in FY 2021-22, $2.79 million in FY 2022-23 and $2.4 million in FY 2023-24358 this policy would, if the City continued to implement it, add another $4.1 million to the reserve through FY 2023-24 for an aggregate total Strategic Pension Funding Reserve of $8.4 million.359 If Menlo Park continued to apply this 25 percent policy through FY 2027-28, based on projections in the City’s FY 2018-19 budget a further $3 million would be added to the reserve.360 This would result in a Strategic Pension Funding reserve balance of $11.4 million at the end of FY 2027-28, which would equal almost a full year of projected FY 2027-28 pension costs.361 Menlo Park notes that the foregoing projections from its FY 2018-19 budget have been updated since the budget was prepared in 2018,362 however the new projections have not been published yet and so the Grand Jury relied on the FY 2018-19 budget numbers. 352 Menlo Park, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 5, 2019 re: Planned budget strategy for unfunded pension liability, pp. 9-10 & 11. 353 Email from Menlo Park, dated June 6, 2019. 354 Ibid. 355 Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 74. 356 Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, p. 14. 357 Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. 38. 358 Ibid., p. 36. 359 The City has indicated that it will continue to implement this policy until otherwise affirmatively decided by the City Council. Grand Jury interview. 360 Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. 37. 361 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Menlo Park, November 13, 2018, pp. 28 & 46. 362 Email from Menlo Park, dated June 6, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 41 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – Menlo Park Menlo Park employees have entered into cost-sharing agreements with the City under which they pay for a portion of the pension costs that would otherwise have to be paid by the City. Under these cost-sharing agreements (a) Miscellaneous plan employees will pay an additional amount equal to 50 percent of the City’s future pension cost increases above set percentage contribution rates for the City,363 (b) with sworn Safety plan Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees under which they will pay a portion of the City’s pension costs equal to 3 percent of covered payroll, and (c) with PEPRA Safety plan employees under which they pay the greater of one-half of the City’s pension contribution costs for them, or an amount equal to 12 percent of their covered payroll.364 Menlo Park estimates the net present value of the savings it could achieve under these employee cost-sharing agreements to be $11.88 million.365 Revenue Enhancement – Menlo Park Menlo Park is not currently planning to put any revenue enhancement ballot measures before its voters.366 Pension Obligation Bonds – Menlo Park Menlo Park does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.367 General Fund Reserves – Menlo Park As of June 30, 2018, Menlo Park’s unrestricted368 general fund balance was $35.71 million369 representing 53.1 percent of the general fund’s $67.26 million in budgeted general fund expenditures for FY 2018-19.370 Included within the FY 2018-19 general fund unrestricted balance was $9.3 million emergency contingencies reserve, a $12 million reserve to mitigate the effects of major economic uncertainties, and $4.3 million for strategic pension funding.371 The City’s goal is to maintain the unrestricted general fund balance at between 43 and 55 percent of general fund expenditures.372 363 For Miscellaneous plan employees in the SEIU unit, this percentage is 14.597 percent and for other Miscellaneous plan employees it is 15.85 percent. (Email from Menlo Park, dated June 6, 2019.) 364 Grand Jury interview. See also, Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, p. 38. 365 Menlo Park, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 5, 2019 re: Planned budget stra tegy for unfunded pension liability, pp. 6-7. 366 Email from Menlo Park, dated June 6, 2019. 367 Ibid. 368 “Unrestricted” assets are those which are not “invested in capital assets net of related debt” or that the City is otherwise restricted from spending by external creditors, grantors, contributors or applicable laws or regulations. Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 52. 369 Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. vi of December 21, 2018 transmittal letter & pp. 14 & 32. 370 Ibid., p. vi of December 21, 2018 transmittal letter. Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, pp. 36-37. 371 Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 74. 372 Ibid., p. 14. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 42 As of the end of FY 2017-18, Menlo Park had a total general fund balance of $37.12 million.373 As noted above, over the ten-year period from FY 2018-19 through FY 2027-28, Menlo Park projects it will aggregate further general fund surpluses totaling $28.4 million.374 Over that same ten-year period, the unassigned general fund balance is projected to increase from $4.41 million to $11.55 million.375 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Menlo Park Menlo Park publishes a long-term general fund operating budget forecast with a period of ten years.376 The long-term general fund operating budget forecast can be found in the City’s FY 2018-19 budget,377 which can easily be accessed online at the landing page for the Menlo Park finance department at https://menlopark.org/367/Finance. (Last accessed on May 11, 2019.) Millbrae Pension Contribution Costs - Millbrae Millbrae’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $3.31 million, up $0.978 million (41.9 percent) from $2.34 million in FY 2016-17.378 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 45 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 37.9 percent the preceding year) and 11.7 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 9.2 percent the preceding year).379,380 In addition to its contribution payments made to CalPERS, Millbrae also makes annual, installment payments on its 2004 pension obligation bonds (originally issued in the amount of $11.5 million).381 The City paid $1.07 million on the bonds in FY 2017-18 and will pay $1.11 million in FY 2018-19.382,383 Taking bond payments into account, Millbrae’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) were $4.39 373 Ibid., p. 32. 374 Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, pp. 36-37. 375 Email from Menlo Park, dated May 11, 2019. Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018 -19 Adopted Budget, p. 39. 376 Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget, pp. 36-37. 377 Ibid., pp. 36-37. A ten-year forecast was also included in the City’s Fiscal Year 2017 -18 Adopted Budget, pp. 46- 47. 378 Appendix A. 379 Ibid. 380 Millbrae notes that its pension payments as a percentage of covered payroll are artificially high because the City has pension liability for public safety employees (police and fire) but the City currently contracts for services and has no employees in those categories. While the City has no police and fire staff, the City is responsible for unfunded liability pension costs associated with former police and fire agencies and is also responsible for pension costs associated with employees in police and fire contracts. Pension spending for Miscellaneous plan employees in FY 2017-18 represented only 29.5% of covered payroll. (Email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019.) 381 Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 19 & 68. 382 Millbrae, Slide presentation for November 13, 2018 City Council meeting re: Post -Employment Benefit Review, slide 30. 383 Email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 43 million in FY 2017-18 (representing 59.6 percent of that year’s covered payroll and 15.5 percent of total general fund spending of $28.2 million384), up $1.02 million (30.3 percent) from $3.37 million in FY 2016-17.385 Millbrae projects its pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $2.93 million (88.3 percent) to $6.24 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.0.377 million (6 percent) to $6.62 million by FY 2027-28.386 From FY 2018-19 through FY 2027-28, the City will pay a total of $13.57 million on its pension obligation bonds, which represents an annual average of approximately $1.36 million.387 Taking bond payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) will increase from FY 2017-18 by $3.24 million (73.9 percent) to $7.62 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.602 (7.9 percent) to $8.23 million by FY 2027-28.388 Millbrae’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19 & 2019-20 budget.389 The most detailed information about the City’s projected pension costs is found in the January 19, 2018 report by the City’s actuarial consultant (Bartel Associates, LLC).390 Unfortunately, this report is not made available by Millbrae on its website. The Grand Jury obtained a copy through a direct request to the City.391 Other pension cost projection information can be found on the City’s website by manually searching through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/departments-services/city- clerk/city-council-meetings-agendas/-toggle-allpast. (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.) That search would eventually lead to the agenda for the November 13, 2018 City Council meeting,392 which references a discussion of “Post Employment Benefit Costs” and has a link next to it entitled “PowerPoint presentation.” Clicking on that link leads to presentation slides that include, on slide 30, projected pension costs and annual pension obligation bond debt service amounts.393 384 Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 34. Note: If general fund “transfers out” were included as part of general fund expenditures for FY 2017 -18, then total expenditures would be $33.64 million and the $4.39 million of total, combined payments on account of pensions would represent 13 percent of general fund expenditures. 385 Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, p. 34. Millbrae, Slide presentation for November 13, 2018 City Council meeting re: Post-Employment Benefit Review, slide 30. Email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019. 386 Ibid. 387 Ibid. 388 Ibid. 389 Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. Millbrae, Operating and Capital Budget for the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year and 2019-2020 Fiscal Year. 390 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Millbrae, January 19, 2018. 391 The Grand Jury also received updated annual pension contribution cost and pension obligation bond debt service cost information for FY 2018-19 through FY2028-29 via an email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019. 392 Millbrae, Agenda for City Council meeting on November 13, 2018. 393 Millbrae, Slide presentation for November 13, 2018 City Council meeting re: Post-Employment Benefit Review, slide 30. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 44 Financial Overview – Millbrae Millbrae reports that its overall financial position is “sound” and that key revenues are anticipated to continue to grow. The City notes, however, that there is concern about the effects of a future recession, which appears to be overdue as the length of the current recovery from the 2008 recession has lasted twice as long as the average of 5 years between recessions.394 The City notes that, for its prior 2-year budget cycle from FY 2015-16 through FY 2017- 18, it planned to drawn down a total of $12.5 million in general fund reserves “to fund a robust capital improvement program.” The City states that it was able to reduce that planned draw down of reserves to $8.5 million, but $1.8 million of that use of reserves was in order to close a budget deficit for operating expenses. In FY 2018-19, the City states that it had to take “significant action to assure a balanced operating budget.”395 Millbrae notes that on June 11, 2019, it presented an update to the FY 2019-20 budget that brings the operating budget into balance.396 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Millbrae Millbrae reports that it has no current plans to make any additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution but, at the City Council’s direction staff is investigating options which will be presented at a future date to be considered in line with the City’s additional strategic priorities.397 Pension Reserve Fund - Millbrae Millbrae has not established any reserves for the purpose of helping to meet rising pension costs in the future.398 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - Millbrae Millbrae has entered into cost-sharing agreements with Miscellaneous plan “classic” employees under which those employees agree to pay a portion of the City’s pension contribution costs equal to 5 percent of their salary.399 Those employee contributions are projected to average $0.257 million per year from FY 2017-18 through FY 2027-28.400 Revenue Enhancement - Millbrae Millbrae has no current plans to put any revenue enhancement ballot measures before its voters.401 394 Millbrae, Operating and Capital Budget for the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year and 2019-2020 Fiscal Year, p. 7. 395 Ibid., p. 16. 396 Email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019. 397 Ibid. 398 Ibid. 399 Millbrae, City Council Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Receive informational report on City of Millbrae Post-Employment Benefit Costs, p. 3 400 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Millbrae, January 19, 2018, p. 26. 401 Email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 45 Pension Obligation Bonds - Millbrae In 2004, Millbrae issued pension obligation bonds in the amount of $11.5 million.402 A total of $10.54 million in payments on the bonds will be due from Millbrae during the years from FY 2019-20 through FY 2026-27, which represents an annual average of approximately $1.32 million.403 The bonds will be paid off in FY 2033-34.404 General Fund Reserves - Millbrae At the end of FY 2017-18, Millbrae had an unrestricted general fund balance of $19.3 million. This amount was 68 percent of the $28.2 million of general fund expenditures for that year.405 The FY 2017-18 balance represented a decrease of $3.81 million (16.5 percent) from FY 2016-17, when the City’s unrestricted general fund balance was $23.07 million and equaled 90.5 percent of general fund expenditures of $25.49 million for the year.406 The City informed the Grand Jury in April 2018 that it was unable to predict what its general fund balance will be at the end of FY 2018-19 or FY 2019-20 as staff was continuing to evaluate opportunities to increase revenues and improve efficiencies.407 Based on the current adopted budget and proposed amendments at the mid-cycle update, assuming all revenues and expenses as originally forecast, staff now estimates an ending general fund balance of $12.7 million in FY 2018-19 and $6.05 in FY2019-20 with a reserve fund policy level of 15 percent.408 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Millbrae Millbrae does not currently have a long-term general fund financial forecast. The City is in the process of developing a ten-year general fund financial forecast and expects to have one sometime in FY 2019-20.409 Pacifica Pension Contribution Costs - Pacifica Pacifica’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $4.09 million, up $0.351 million (9.4 percent) from $3.74 million in FY 2016-17.410 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 24.8 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 22.9 percent the preceding year) and 13.6 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 13 percent the preceding year).411 402 Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 19 & 68. 403 Millbrae, Slide presentation re: Post-Employment Benefit Review, slide 30. 404 Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 68. 405 Ibid., pp. 5, 32, 34 & 74. 406 Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 32, 34 & 74. 407 Grand Jury interview. 408 Email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019. 409 Grand Jury interview. 410 Appendix A. 411 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 46 In addition to its contribution payments made to CalPERS, the City also makes annual, installment payments on its 2010 pension obligation bonds (originally issued in the amount of $20.5 million).412 It paid $1.69 million on the bonds in FY 2017-18413 and will pay $1.75 million in FY 2018-19.414 From FY 2019-20 through FY 2029-30 when the bonds are fully paid off, the City will make bond payments totaling $13.26 million, for an average annual payment on the bonds of approximately $1.25 million.415 Taking bond payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) were $5.78 million in FY 2017-18 (representing 35.1 percent of that year’s covered payroll and 19.3 percent of total general fund spending),416 down $0.528 million (8.4 percent) from $6.31 million in FY 2016-17.417 Pacifica’s actuarial consultant projects that the City’s pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $3.42 million (83.6 percent) to $7.51 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $1.59 million (20.6 percent) to $9.06 by FY 2027-28.418 Taking bond payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) will increase from FY 2017-18 by $2.91 million (50.3 percent) to $8.69 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $1.72 million (19.8 percent) to $10.41 million by FY 2027-28.419 The City’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its budget for FY 2018-19.420 In order to find these projected costs online, it is necessary to manually search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx?From=1/1/2019&To=12/31/2019. (Last accessed on May 20, 2019.) That search would eventually lead to the agenda for a City Council meeting on November 26, 2018.421 That agenda includes a heading entitled “2018 Presentation of Pension Costs” under which is a link entitled “Attachment 1 – Bartel Associates – CalPERS Actuarial Issues – 6/30/17 Valuation” which contains the City’s pension cost projections.422 412 Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 64. 413 Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016, pp. 64 & 66. 414 Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 64 & 66. 415 Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 64 & 66. 416 Appendix A. Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 64 & 66. 417 Appendix A. Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016, pp . 64 & 66. 418 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Pacifica, November 13, 2018, pp. 12, 21, 30. This report provides projected pension cost data through FY 2029-30. 419 Ibid., pp. 12, 21, 30. Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 64 & 66. Email from Pacifica, dated May 22, 2019. 420 Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. Pacifica, Annual Operating Budget 2018-2019, Adopted June 25, 2018. 421 Pacifica, Agenda for City Council Meeting on November 26, 2019. 422 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Pacifica, November 13, 2018, pp. 30, 34, 52, 56, 74, 78 & 82. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 47 Financial Overview – Pacifica While Pacifica has been able to maintain balanced general fund budgets over the years, it notes that “the slow [revenues] growth rate in Pacifica is not keeping pace with inflationary cost increases…”423 The City highlights two sources of rising cost pressures that are driving long-term general fund budget deficit projections; rising salary and benefits costs in order to compete with other cities for quality employees and rising pension and health care costs.424 If the City does not make substantial expenditure reductions or develop additional revenues, its long-term general fund financial forecast projects that its general fund expenses will exceed revenues by a total of approximately $18 million over the nine years from FY 2019-20 through FY 2027-28. Annual deficits are projected to rise from $1.1 million in FY 2019-20 to $3.55 million in FY 2027-28.425 Pacifica states that, while it is committed to keeping future general fund budgets balanced, “[t]he increasing [budget] gap projected beyond FY 2019-20 is anticipated to be extremely challenging to balance.”426 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Pacifica Pacifica does not currently have any plans to make additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution.427 Pension Reserve Fund - Pacifica Staff has recommended that the City Council consider establishing a Section 115 Trust and begin funding the trust with one-time revenue sources.428 The City expects to include a transfer of $0.2 million into a Section 115 Trust in the FY 2019-20 budget. It has not put in place a plan for the amounts of any future transfers to the trust in subsequent years but expects that it would consider further contributions if general fund surpluses were available.429 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – Pacifica Pacifica has cost-sharing agreements in place with its employees pursuant to which employees pay a portion of the City’s pension contribution costs equal a percentage of their compensation ranging from 2.5 percent up to 5 percent.430 423 Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for April 25, 2019 meeting re: FY 2019 -20 Narrative Budget Report, pp. 2-3. 424 Ibid., pp. 2-3 & 5. 425 Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for February 25, 2019 meeting re: Long Term Financial Plan Update 2018-2028, Attachment 1 (Long Term Financial Plan 2018 -28). 426 Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for April 25, 2019 meeting re: FY 2019-20 Narrative Budget Report, p. 5. 427 Email from Pacifica, dated June 10, 2019. 428 Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for April 25, 2019 meeting re: FY 2019 -20 Narrative Budget Report, p. 9. 429 Grand Jury interview. 430 Ibid. Email from Pacifica, dated May 22, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 48 Revenue Enhancement - Pacifica Pacifica is currently focusing on future economic development, especially the building of new hotels and residences, to help increase revenues and bring down projected future deficits. The City may also consider putting an increase in its 12 percent transient occupancy tax (“hotel tax”) before its voters.431 Pension Obligation Bonds - Pacifica In 2010, Pacifica issued $20.5 million in pension obligation bonds.432 As of the end of FY 2017-18, Pacifica’s remaining payment obligations on the bonds through maturity in FY2029-30 totaled $15 million.433 General Fund Reserves - Pacifica Pacifica’s general fund balance as of the end of FY 2017-18 was $12.55 million, of which $8.55 million (representing 28.5 percent of general fund expenditures for the year434) was spendable;435 consisting of $1.41 million that is assigned,436 and $7.14 million that is unassigned.437 The City expects that it will need to draw down some of these reserves to close general fund budget deficits in future years.438 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Pacifica Pacifica has a long-term general fund forecast covering the period from FY 2017-18 through FY 2027-28, which it made available online in connection with its February 25, 2019 City Council meeting regarding a long-term financial plan.439 The City has not included any long-term general fund operating forecast in its FY 2018-19 budget.440 In order to find its long-term general fund forecast online, it is necessary to manually search through agendas for City Council meetings that are available at https://pacificacityca.iqm2. com/Citizens/Calendar.aspx. (Last accessed on May 20, 2019.) That search will eventually lead to the agenda for a meeting held on February 25, 2019, which references a discussion 431 Grand Jury interview. 432 Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 64. 433 Ibid., pp. 64 & 66. 434 Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 34. 435 Nonspendable funds ‘include amounts that cannot be spend because they are no in spendable form, or legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. The ‘not in spendable form’ criterion includes items that are not expected to be converted to cash.” Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 90. 436 “Amounts in the assigned fund balance classification are intended to be used by the City for specific purposes but do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. In the General Fund, assigned amounts represent intended uses established by City Council or a City official delegated that authority b y City ordinance (City Manager).” Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 91. 437 “Unassigned fund balance is the residual classification for the General Fund and includes all spendable amounts not contained in the other classifications.” Ibid., p. 91. Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 30. 438 Grand Jury interview. 439 Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for February 25, 2019 meeting re: Long Term Financial P lan Update 2018-2028. 440 Pacifica, Annual Operating Budget 2018-2019, Adopted June 25, 2018. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 49 entitled “Long Term Financial Plan Update.”441 Clicking on the link below that heading entitled ‘Attachment 1: LTFP 2018-2028” leads to the long-term plan. Portola Valley Pension Contribution Costs – Portola Valley Portola Valley’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $0.141 million, up $0.025 million (21.7 percent) from $0.116 million in FY 2016-17. The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 9.3 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 8.1 percent the preceding year) and 2.7 percent of its total general fund spending (flat from 2.7 percent the preceding year).442 CalPERS projects that Portola Valley’s pension contribution costs will increase by $0.117 million (83.3 percent) to $0.258 million by FY 2023-24.443 Portola Valley does not prepare any projections for future pension contribution costs and none are included in its FY 2017-18 financial report,444 its FY 2018-19 operating budget,445 or its FY 2019-20 proposed operating budget.446 In order to develop the projected cost numbers through FY 2023-24 reported above, the Grand Jury reviewed CalPERS’ actuarial reports to Portola Valley,447 together with supplemental information received directly from the Town via email448 and combined the two data sources to generate the projection. Financial Overview – Portola Valley Portola Valley reports that its “fiscal condition remains strong.”449 The Town reported very robust general fund balances of $4.77 million at the end of FY 2016-17 (representing 109.4 percent of general fund expenses of $4.36 million for the year), rising to $4.92 million at the end of FY 2017-18 (representing 93 percent of general fund expenses of $5.29 million for the year). Unassigned reserves were reported to be $2.68 million in FY 2016-17 (representing 61.5 percent of general fund expenses for the year) and $2.83 million in FY 2017-18 (representing 53.5 percent of general fund expenses for the year).450 In addition, the Town projects that it will have an unfunded pension liability reserve funded with a 441 The February 25, 2019 City Council meeting agenda can be found at https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1259 . (Last accessed on May 20, 2019.) 442 Appendix A. 443 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley, p. 5. CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 PEPRA Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley, p. 5. Email correspondence from Portola Valley dated June 18, 2019. 444 Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018. 445 Portola Valley, Adopted Operating & Capital Budgets Fi scal Year 2018-19. 446 Portola Valley, Proposed Operating & Capital Budgets, Fiscal Year 2019 -20. 447 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley, p. 5. CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 PEPRA Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley, p. 5. 448 Email correspondence from Portola Valley dated June 18, 2019. 449 Portola Valley, Adopted Operating & Capital Budgets Fiscal Year 2018-19, Town Managers transmittal letter to the Town Council, p. 1. 450 Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 18 & 22. Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 20 & 24. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 50 balance of $0.712 million in FY 2019-20.451 Per the Town’s unfunded pension liability reserve policy, this reserved amount will equal the Town’s total unfunded pension liability for FY 2017-18452 and represent approximately 38 months of its projected pension contribution costs of $0.220 million as of FY 2019-20.453 Additional Payments to CalPERS – Portola Valley In FY 2014-15, Portola Valley paid CalPERS $0.907 million in order to retire its entire unfunded pension liability at that time.454 Since then, as a result of returns on CalPERS’ investments being lower than projected by CalPERS, the Town’s has accrued a new unfunded pension liability totaling $0.712 million as of the end of FY 2017-18.455 Over the course of three to four study sessions beginning in September of 2019, Portola Valley plans to discuss, among other things, how to manage its rising pension costs going forward. While staff has not yet analyzed the possibility of again making additional payments to CalPERS to retire this latest unfunded pension liability, this may be one of the options discussed in those study sessions.456 Pension Reserve Fund – Portola Valley As noted above in the section entitled “Financial Overview – Portola Valley,” the Town’s policy is to maintain a reserve for its unfunded pension liability that equals its total unfunded pension liability amount.457 The reserve balance was $0.524 million as of the end of FY 2018-19458 (equaling the total unfunded pension liability as of the end of FY 2016- 17)459 and will be increased to $0.712 million in FY 2019-20 (equaling the total unfunded pension liability as of the end of FY 2017-18).460 During its study sessions scheduled to begin in September 2019, the Town will consider, among other options, whether to move these reserves into a Section 115 pension trust or other outside investment vehicle.461 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – Portola Valley Portola Valley does not have any cost-sharing agreements in place with its employees under which employees agree to pay a portion of the Town’s pension contribution costs.462 451 Grand Jury interview. 452 Ibid. 453 CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley, p. 4. .CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 PEPRA Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley, p. 4. 454 Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2015, p. 49. Gra nd Jury interview. 455 Appendix A. 456 Grand Jury interview. 457 Ibid. 458 Portola Valley, Adopted Operating & Capital Budgets Fiscal Year 2018-19, 2018-19 Fund Activity Summary. 459 Appendix A. 460 Grand Jury interview. Portola Valley, Proposed Operating & Capital Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 -20, 2019-20 Fund Activity Summary. 461 Grand Jury interview. 462 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 51 Revenue Enhancement – Portola Valley Since 2016, Portola Valley has not sought voter approval of any revenue enhancement ballot measures and it does not currently have any plans for doing so in the next two years. Staff notes, however, that the Town may evaluate putting ballot measures before its voters for funding of road improvements and/or wildfire risk mitigation in the near future.463 Pension Obligation Bonds – Portola Valley Portola Valley does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.464 General Fund Reserves – Portola Valley AS noted above in the section entitled “Financial Overview - Portola Valley,” the Town reported very robust general fund balances of $4.77 million at the end of FY 2016-17 (representing 109.4 percent of general fund expenses of $4.36 million for the year), rising to $4.92 million at the end of FY 2017-18 (representing 93 percent of general fund expenses of $5.29 million for the year). Unassigned reserves were reported to be $2.68 million in FY 2016-17 (representing 61.5 percent of general fund expenses for the year) and $2.83 million in FY 2017-18 (representing 53.5 percent of general fund expenses for the year).465 Unassigned reserves are projected to drop to $1.06 million by the end of FY 2019-20,466 but staff notes this is largely due to planned investments in two pedestrian safety enhancements and setting aside funds to meet unfunded retiree medical costs.467 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Portola Valley To date, Portola Valley has not prepared long-term general fund operating budget forecasts. However, staff expects that in the study sessions beginning in September 2019, the possibility of developing five-year general fund forecasts will be discussed. Staff has not yet considered whether or not any such forecast would, once developed, be included in the Town’s published annual budget.468 Redwood City Pension Contribution Costs – Redwood City Redwood City’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $18.41million, up $0.687 million (3.9 percent) from $17.72 million in FY 2016-17. The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 30.3 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 28.5 percent the preceding year) and 14.6 percent of its total general fund spending (down from 15.8 percent the preceding year).469 463 Ibid. 464 Ibid. 465 Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2017, pp. 18 & 22. Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 20 & 24. 466 Grand Jury interview. Portola Valley, Proposed Operating & Capital Budget, Fiscal Year 2019 -20, 2019-20 Fund Activity Summary. 467 Grand Jury interview. 468 Ibid. 469 Appendix A. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 52 The City projects its pension contribution costs will increase by a $19.5 million (106 percent) to $37.9 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $3.71 million (9.8 percent) to $41.63 million by FY 2027-28.470 Redwood City’s projected pension contribution costs are included in its readily accessible FY 2018-19 budget and FY 2019-20 recommended budget.471 Financial Overview – Redwood City Redwood City faces significant fiscal challenges beginning in FY 2021-22 as substantial projected general fund surpluses in FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 are projected to turn into large and growing deficits (with an annual deficit of $0.945 million in FY 2022-23 rising to an annual deficit of $17.85 million in FY 2027-28) if significant expense reductions and/or revenue increases are not made.472 A major component of these looming deficits is rising pension costs.473 As part of its FY 2017-18 budget, the City adopted a “Financial Sustainability Plan” or “FSP” which includes reducing operating expenses and increasing revenue over the following five years.474 Under the FSP, the City had included in its FY 2018-19 budget approximately $3.8 million in operating cost reductions. The City also obtained voter approval for new revenue enhancement measures in 2018 (described in the section entitled “Revenue Enhancement – Redwood City” below). Partly as a result of passage of these measures, the City restored $2.7 million of the planned $3.8 million in planned cost reductions, which included restoration of police department staffing and library hours.475 Redwood City notes that, during FY 2019-20, “the City Council Finance/Audit Subcommittee will be discussing opportunities for the City to increase revenue, among other financial strategies” and that “[m]aintaining the City’s long-term fiscal stability requires meaningful action and a proactive approach to addressing the City’s projected deficit and long-term liabilities through both revenue increases and expenditure reductions over time.”476 Additional Payments to CalPERS – Redwood City Redwood City has been evaluating the option of making additional annual payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution in order to reduce long-term pension 470 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, pp. 26, 29 & 175. The graphs on pages 26 and 175 of this budget include contribution cost projections through FY 2038 -39. A table on page 29 of the budget projects pension contribution costs through FY 2045-46. 471Redwood City, Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget, p. 173. Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019-2020, pp. 26 & 175. 472 Ibid., pp. 166 &176. 473 Grand Jury interview. 474 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019-2020, p. 16. 475 Ibid. 476 Ibid., p. 17. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 53 costs.477 Staff has estimated that, by paying CalPERS an extra $1.6 million per year over the next 18 years, the City would receive net savings of approximately $6 to $27 million.478 If the City made additional annual payments averaging $5.56 million over 15 years, the City’s estimated net savings would be approximately $100 million.479 At its June 10, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved making an additional payment of $0.6 million to CalPERS beyond the City’s Annual Required Contribution out of the FY 2018-19 operating balance.480 In addition, staff’s ten-year general fund forecast included in the new FY2019-20 budget includes additional payments of CalPERS of $0.5 million per year through FY 2028-29.481 Staff’s recommendation to the City Council in June 2019 is that, on a going forward basis, the City apply 80 percent of all general fund surpluses to pension funding (a combination of additional payments to CalPERS and transfers to the Section 115 Trust) as long as surpluses last.482 Surpluses of $5.23 million and $3.93 million are projected for FY 2019- 20 and FY 2020-21.483 Putting 80 percent of those into pension funding would result in an additional $4.19 million for pensions in FY 2019-20 and another $3.15 million in FY 2020- 21. These general fund surpluses are projected to turn into a deficit of $0.945 million in FY 2021-22 and thereafter to grow each year through FY 2028-29484 if new revenues are not found, expense reductions made, or a combination of the two. Accordingly, staff considers FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 to be the City’s best window for making substantial progress toward funding future pension cost increases.485 Pension Reserve Fund – Redwood City In January 2018, Redwood City transferred $10.5 million into a Section 115 pension trust in order to pre-fund future pension payment obligations.486 In late calendar 2018 the City decided to put another $0.55 million into the Section 115 trust in FY 2018-19.487 At its June 10, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved contributing an additional $3 million to the Section 115 pension trust out of the FY 2018-19 general fund operating balance, which would bring total contributions to date approximately $14.05 million.488 477 Grand Jury interview. Redwood City, Staff Memorandum, March 21, 2019, re: Discussion Topics and Staff Recommendations for Meeting on March 25, 2019, pp. 2-5. Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019- 2020, pp. 27-28. 478 Ibid., p. 27. 479 Redwood City, Staff Memorandum, March 21, 2019, re: Discussion Topics and Staff Recommendations for Meeting on March 25, 2019, pp. 4 -5. 480 Email from Redwood City, dated June 18, 2019. 481 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 26. 482 Grand Jury interview. 483 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 176. 484 Ibid. 485 Grand Jury interview. 486 Redwood City, Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget, p. 15. 487 Grand Jury interview. 488 Emails from Redwood City, dated June 18 and June 19, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 54 In addition, the City’s ten-year general fund budget forecast included in the FY 2019-20 budget contemplates the contribution of an additional $1.1 million per year to the Section 115 pension trust through the ten-year period from FY 2019-20 through FY 2028-29.489 If made through FY 2028-29, total aggregate contributions to the trust would equal $25.05 million. However, it is possible that the City may begin drawing down some of the Section 115 pension trust balance in the out years of the ten-year forecast to mitigate the impact of rising pension costs, in which case annual contributions of $1.1 million might not continue.490 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – Redwood City Redwood City has negotiated cost-sharing agreements with certain employees bargaining units under which those employees pay a portion of the City’s Normal Costs equal to between 2 percent and 9 percent of their salary.491 The Grand Jury notes that Redwood City has also made a policy decision not to allow compensation increases to exceed CalPERS’ assumption on cost-of-living increases, thus ensuring that pension costs will not rise faster than projected based on employee pay raises.492 Revenue Enhancement – Redwood City In November 2018 Redwood City residents approved a half-cent sales tax increase which is expected to generate approximately $8.7 million per year.493 Notwithstanding this increase, the City will need to find further substantial revenue enhancements to close the projected its projected general fund budget gap that opens up in FY 2021-22. To the extent it does not, major expense cuts through staffing reductions will have to be made.494 Pension Obligation Bonds – Redwood City Redwood City does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.495 General Fund Reserves – Redwood City Redwood City’s ten-year general fund forecast projects that general fund reserves will increase from $21.4 million at the end of FY 2017-18 (representing 14.7 percent of general fund revenues) to $29.88 million at the end of FY 2019-20 (representing 19 percent of general fund revenues); thereafter dropping by $1.04 million, $4.36 million, $4.67 million, $7.6 million, and $9.31 million during the years from FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25, at which point reserves will be down to $2.9 million (representing 1.7 percent of general fund 489 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 176. 490 Grand Jury interview. 491 Redwood City, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2 018, p. 66. 492 Grand Jury interview. 493 Redwood City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 25, 2019 re: FY 2018 -19 Mid-Year Budget Update and Proposed Process for Development of the FY 2019 -20 Budget, p. 3. Email from Redwood City, dated June 7, 2019. 494 Grand Jury interview. 495 Email from Redwood City, dated June 7, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 55 revenues).496 The City’s policies require that general fund reserves not drop below 15 percent of general fund revenues,497 which is projected to occur by the end of FY 2022-23, unless revenues are increased or expenses reduced.498 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Redwood City Prior to FY 2018-19, Redwood City’s long-term general fund financial forecasting was based on a five-year period.499 In FY 2018-19, however, the City changed this to a ten-year period.500 This extension of the forecast period enabled the City Council and public to better understand the longer-term the general fund budget challenges facing the City.501 Redwood City included its long-term (five-year) general fund financial forecast in its FY 2018-19 budget502 and its new ten-year general fund financial forecast is included in the City’s FY 2019-20 budget.503 Redwood has also added a “Fiscal Update” page to its public website (www.redwoodcity.org/fiscalupdate) (last accessed on June 16, 2019) that the Grand Jury finds to be quite helpful to access key information about Redwood City’s most recent budget. San Bruno Pension Contribution Costs – San Bruno San Bruno’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $7.18 million, up $0.832 million (13.1 percent) from $6.34 million in FY 2016-17. The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 32.2 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 28.2 percent the preceding year) and 16.5 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 14.7 percent the preceding year).504 In addition to its contribution payments made to CalPERS, the City also makes annual, installment payments on its 2013 pension obligation bonds (originally issued in the principal amount of $13.18 million), which mature in FY 2026-27.505 It paid $1.18 million on the bonds in FY 2017-18506 and will pay approximately the same amount in FY 2018- 496 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 176. 497 Redwood City, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. vi of December 10, 2018 transmittal letter included in the report. 498 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 176. 499 Redwood City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 26, 2018 re: FY 2017 -18 Mid-Year Budget Study Session and Proposed Process for Development of the FY 2018-19 Budget, p. 16. 500 Redwood City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 25, 2019 re: FY 2018 -19 Mid-Year Budget Update and Proposed Process for Development of the FY 2019 -20 Budget, Attachment 2. 501 Grand Jury interview. 502 Redwood City, Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget, p. 174. 503 Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019 -2020, p. 176. 504 Appendix A. 505 San Bruno, Adopted 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 436. 506 San Bruno, Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2017-18 Through 2021-22, p. 194. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 56 19.507 From FY 2019-20 through FY 2026-27 when the bonds are fully paid off, the City will make average annual payments on the bonds of approximately $0.883 million.508 Taking bond payments into account, the City’s total payments on account of its pensions (CalPERS and bond payments combined) were $8.35 million in FY 2017-18 (representing 37.5 percent of that year’s covered payroll and 19.3 percent of total general fund spending), up $0.83 million (11 percent) from $7.52 million in FY 2016-17.509 The City projects its pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 by $6.27 million (87.4 percent) to $13.45 million by FY 2023-24.510 The City does not have pension cost projections for any subsequent years.511 The City projects its total pension costs (CalPERS and bond payments combined) will increase over FY 2017-18 costs by $6.27 million (75.1 percent) to $14.62 million by FY 2023-24. The City’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19 budget.512 However, the City has now included them in its new FY 2019-20 budget.513 Financial Overview – San Bruno San Bruno describes its overall fiscal condition as “[s]table but not sustainable.”514 The City notes that it has “[h]ealthy general fund Reserves” but also “[s]ignificant unmet needs” including [f]ailing infrastructure” and “[r]ising pension and other employee costs.”515 The City goes on to explain that “[t]hrough the proposed budget, the City will be able to maintain core service levels as well as make modest enhancements in a few notable areas …. However, the proposed budget reflects tough choices to not enhance needed services due to financial constraints in both the operating and capital budgets. There [are] remaining millions of dollars’ worth of deferred capital improvements and maintenance, and the City is not able to meet the needs and service priorities of the community in several areas – most notably annual roadway rehabilitation and pothole repairs.” “The backlog of deferred maintenance to public infrastructure and future growth in employee costs (both direct 507 The amount San Bruno paid in FY 2017-18 was $1,177,481 and the amount it will pay on the bonds in FY 2018-19 is $1,179,931. San Bruno, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 64. 508 San Bruno, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 64. 509 FY 2016-17 debt service payments on the pension obligation bonds totaled $1.18 million (San Br uno, Adopted Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating and Capital Budget, p. K-5.) FY 2016-17 pension contribution costs are in Appendix A. 510 Emails from San Bruno dated April 22, 2019 and May 6, 2019. These emails contain pension cost projections through FY 2024-25. 511 Email from San Bruno dated May 6, 2019. 512 San Bruno, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018. San Bruno, Adopted 2018 - 19 Operating and Capital Budget. 513 San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. A10. The budget contains projected pension cost numbers through FY 2024-25. 514 San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. A2. 515 San Bruno, Presentation Slides for City Council Meeting on November 27, 2018 re: Fiscal Sustainability Study Session – Presentation on the Scope of Work for a Comprehensive Fiscal Sustainability Project, Slide 9. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 57 compensation and long-term post-employment liabilities) will continue to significantly impact the health of the City’s General Fund. In addition, funding the needed and State- mandates improvements to the City’s stormwater system cannot be accomplished within existing resources and remains a significant financial challenge.”516 Not surprisingly, San Bruno emphasizes that it has a “[n]eed for new revenues.” “As discussed above, the Proposed Operating Budget includes viable strategies to balance revenues and expenditures and to assure continuation of all necessary programs and service delivery in the coming year. However, current projections indicated that the practice of using prior year fund balance to supplement annual revenues to cover operating expenditures is not sustainable long-term. Continuing cost increases to support necessary services creates a situation where there is insufficient revenue available to support existing service levels 2 to 3 years into the future.”517 Additional Payments to CalPERS – San Bruno San Bruno is not currently considering making additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution.518 However, staff is developing a set of options for managing rising pension costs that the City Council can discuss.519 Pension Reserve Fund – San Bruno San Bruno has not established any reserves specific to meeting rising pension costs in the future. However, as noted above, staff is developing a set of options for managing rising pension costs that the City Council can discuss.520 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – San Bruno San Bruno does not have any cost sharing agreements in place with its employees under which employees pay any portion of the City’s pension costs.521 Revenue Enhancement – San Bruno San Bruno recognizes that revenue enhancement is a necessary component for its long-term fiscal sustainability.522 As part of that process, the City is working to maximize existing revenue streams, by among other things, auditing payments to the City of transient occupancy taxes, property taxes and business license fees to ensure that all amounts due are, in fact, being paid. The City is also tightening up water and waste utility billing 516 San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. A2. 517 Ibid., p. A12. 518 Grand Jury interview. 519 Ibid. 520 Ibid. 521 Email from San Bruno dated April 22, 2019. 522 Grand Jury interview. San Bruno, Presentation Slides for City Council Meeting on February 19, 2019 re: Revenue Enhancements City Council Study Session. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 58 processes and significantly expanding the scope of business development impact fees it assesses.523 San Bruno is also currently engaged in a process to identify potential revenue enhancement ballot measures, including a 2 percent increase in its transient occupancy tax (commonly referred to as a “hotel tax”) that could yield annual additional revenues of approximately $0.55 million and an increase of a quarter-cent or half-cent to its sales tax that could yield annual additional revenues of approximately $2 million at the quarter-cent rate and $4 million at the half-cent rate. The City has to option of putting these two possible measures on the ballot in either November 2019 or 2020.524 Pension Obligation Bonds – San Bruno In January 2013, San Bruno issued pension obligation bonds in the principal amount of $13.18 million525 which mature in FY 2026-27.526 The City paid $1.18 million on the bonds in FY 2017-18527 and will pay approximately the same amount in FY 2018-19.528 From FY 2019-20 through FY 2026-27 when the bonds are fully paid off, the City will make average annual payments on the bonds of approximately $0.883 million.529 General Fund Reserves – San Bruno As of June 30, 2018, San Bruno had a general fund reserve of $11.25 million.530 The City projects that this reserve will increase to $12.09 million as of June 30, 2019,531 and to $12.77 million as of June 30, 2020.532 The City’s goal is to maintain this reserve of at least 25 percent of general fund expenditures and City policy requires that the balance not fall below 15 percent of general fund operating expenditures except upon a declaration of emergency.533 The June 30, 2018 general fund reserve balance was 25.9 percent of the $43.4 million in FY 2017-18 general fund expenditures.534 523 Grand Jury interview. 524 San Bruno, Presentation Slides for City Council Meeting on February 19, 2019 re: Revenue Enhancements City Council Study Session, p. 27. 525 San Bruno, Adopted 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 436. 526 Grand Jury interview. San Bruno, Adopted Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating and Capital Budget, p. K-4. 527 San Bruno, Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2017-18 Through 2021-22, p. 194. 528 The amount San Bruno paid in FY 2017-18 was $1,177,481 and the amount it will pay on the bonds in FY 2018-19 is $1,179,931. San Bruno, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 64. 529 San Bruno, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 64. 530 Ibid., p. 72. 531 San Bruno, Adopted 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 5 of Citywide Summary of Funds. 532 San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. 5 of Citywide Summary of Fund s. 533 San Bruno, Adopted 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budget, p. C13. 534 San Bruno, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. 30. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 59 San Bruno projects that it will incur general fund operating budget deficits of $2.09 million in FY 2018-19 and $0.376 million in FY 2019-20.535 which will be funded out of the FY 2017-18 general fund balance.536 Long-Term Financial Forecast – San Bruno San Bruno has noted that, in order to “[d]evelop a comprehensive understanding of the financial pressures and constraints on the City’s general fund, today and in the foreseeable future” it needs to “[d]evelop a ten-year operating budget forecast (general fund revenues and expenses).”537 Prior to its just-released FY 2019-20 proposed budget538 San Bruno had not previously prepared any long-term general fund financial forecasts.539 However, staff has now added a five-year general fund operating budget forecast to their budget.540 As part of the City’s “Fiscal Sustainability Plan,” staff plans to extend that to a ten-year period. No date has yet been set for staff to deliver that longer forecast.541 San Carlos Pension Contribution Costs – San Carlos San Carlos’ contribution payments to CalPERS in FY 2017-18 were $9.7 million, up $7.47 million (334 percent) from $2.24 million in FY 2016-17.542 However, $6 million of the FY 2017-18 payment reflected one-time additional payments that San Carlos made to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution.543 San Carlos’ Annual Required Contribution in FY 2017-18 was $3.7 million, up $1.46 million (65.2 percent) from $2.24 million in FY 2016-17. The City’s FY 2017-18 total contribution payments represented 86.9 percent of that year’s covered payroll of $11.17 million (up from 20.2 percent the preceding year) and 22.8 percent of its total general fund spending of $42.5 million (up from 6.7 percent the preceding year).544 However, the City’s total Annual Required Contribution for the year represented only 33.1 percent of that year’s covered payroll and 8.7 percent of its total general fund spending. 535 San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, p. A2. 536 San Bruno, Adopted 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budget, pp. A5 – A6. Email from San Bruno, dated June 13, 2019. 537 San Bruno, Presentation Slides for City Council Meeting on November 27, 2018 re: Fiscal Sustainability Study Session – Presentation on the Scope of Work for a Comp rehensive Fiscal Sustainability Project, Slide 11. 538 San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget. 539 San Bruno, Adopted 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budget. 540 San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget, pp. 6-8 of Citywide Summary of Funds. 541 Grand Jury interview. 542 Appendix A. 543 See, more detailed discussion below in Section entitled “Additional Payments to CalPERS – San Carlos”. 544 Appendix A. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 60 The City projects its pension contribution costs will increase from FY 2017-18 (excluding the $6 million additional payment) by $2.8 million (63.6 percent) to $6.5 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.5 million (7.7 percent) to $7 million by FY 2027-28.545 The City’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-2020 budget.546 In order to find these projected costs online, it is necessary to manually search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: sancarlosca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx (last accessed on June 5, 2019.) That search would eventually lead to the agenda for its meeting on April 9, 2018,547 which has a link entitled “a. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, and Funding the Other Post Employment Benefit Trusts: California Employers' Retirement Benefit Trust (CERBT) in the Amount of $1 Million and Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) in the Amount of $1 Million.” which takes the reader to the City’s April 9, 2018 staff report that contains a graph with the projected costs.548 Financial Overview – San Carlos San Carlos’ five-year general fund forecast projects steadily increasing revenues (including net transfers to the general fund) from $44.35 million in FY 2018-19 to $49.33 million in FY 2022-23, and also rising expenses from $44.3 million in FY 2018-19 to $48.6 million in FY 2022-23.549 The City projects modest operating surpluses in the general fund totaling $3.95 million over the five-year period FY 2018-19 through FY 2022-23.550 Additional Payments to CalPERS – San Carlos San Carlos made an additional one-time payment to CalPERS of $5 million beyond its Annual Required Contribution in FY 2017-18.551 Staff projects this will result in 545 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, p. 3. The report contains pension cost projections through FY 2047-48. 546 San Carlos, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2017 -2018. San Carlos, 2018 – 2020 Adopted Budget. 547 San Carlos, Agenda for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018. 548 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, p. 3. 549 San Carlos, 2018 – 2020 Adopted Budget, p. 63. 550Ibid. Email from San Carlos, dated June 11,2019. 551 San Carlos, 2018 – 2020 Adopted Budget, p. 23. Grand Jury interview. San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, p. 1. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 61 contribution cost reductions of $0.515 million per year for 18 years.552 The City also made $1 million one-time payment to PARS at that time, which staff projects will result in savings of approximately $0.06-$0.07 million per year for 18 years.553 The City expects to decide in November 2019, after receipt of audited FY 2018-19 financials, on whether to make a further additional payment to CalPERS and also whether to increase the amount of its “Unfunded Liabilities” reserve for pension costs. The City notes that its preference is making additional payments to CalPERS beyond the minimum requirements rather than holding money in a reserve because only the former actually reduces long-term pension costs.554 Pension Reserve Fund – San Carlos San Carlos has transferred $1 million into a Section 115 Trust through PARS to help pay for future PARS pension costs.555 In addition, as of end of FY 2017-18 San Carlos had a $2 million “Unfunded Liabilities” reserve for use in managing pension costs.556 The City expects to decide in November 2019, after receipt of audited FY 2018-19 financials, on whether/how much to increase this reserve amount.557 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – San Carlos San Carlos is not currently considering asking its employees to pay a portion of the City’s pension costs. The City does not pay any portion of employees’ pension costs.558 Revenue Enhancement – San Carlos San Carlos is not currently evaluating the possibility of bringing forward any revenue enhancement ballot measures.559 552 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, p. 1. 553 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, p. 4. 554 Grand Jury interview. 555 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million fro m the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, p. 4. 556 San Carlos, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2017 -2018, p. 26. San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the General Fund Balance Reserve Allocations, p. 2. 557 Grand Jury interview. 558 Ibid. 559 Email from San Carlos, dated June 11, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 62 Pension Obligation Bonds –San Carlos San Carlos does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.560 General Fund Reserves – San Carlos As of the end of FY 2017-18, San Carlos had a general fund ending balance of $29.6 million, of which $6.23 million were in an “Economic Uncertainty” reserve, $7.69 million were in a reserve for “Strategic Property Acquisition,” $2 million were in a “PG&E Community Endowment,” $2 million were in the “Unfunded Liabilities” reserve, $7.84 million were in “Facility/Infrastructure Reserves,” $3.17 million were unassigned and $0.61 million were not spendable.561 San Carlos notes that the Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”) “best practice” recommendation is that unrestricted general fund balances be, at a minimum, equal to two months (16.7 percent) of regular general fund operating revenues or expenses.562 The City’s unrestricted general fund balance at the end of FY 2017-18 was $29.55 million, an amount equal to 69.5 percent of general fund expenditures of $42.49 million.563 In its FY 2018-20 budget, the City projected that the general fund balance at the end of FY 2018-19 would be $22.12 million (47.6 percent of expenditures of $44.32 million), $21.81 million at the end of FY 2019-20 (49.1 percent of projected expenditures of $44.43 million), $22 million at the end of FY 2020-21 (49.4 percent of projected expenditures of $44.5 million), $21.27 million at the end of FY 2021-22 (45.7 percent of projected expenditures of $46.54 million), and $20.04 million at the end of FY 2022-23 (41.3 percent of projected expenditures of $48.56 million).564 San Carlos’ policy is that its Economic Uncertainty reserve not be allowed to drop below 12.5 percent of general fund expenditures, but the City notes that a balance of 20 percent is “highly desirable.”565 As of the end of FY 2017-18, the Economic Uncertainty reserve balance was $6.23 million,566 representing 14.7 percent of general fund expenditures of $42.49 million for the year.567 560 Ibid. 561 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the General Fund Balance Reserve Allocations, p. 3. 562 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 12, 2018 re: Repor t to Council on the City’s Reserves, Unfunded Pension Liabilities and Unfunded Capital Projects, p.1. 563 San Carlos, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2017 -2018, p. 30. 564 San Carlos, 2018 – 2020 Adopted Budget, pp. 63. 565 San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the General Fund Balance Reserve Allocations, p.3. 566 Ibid. San Carlos, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2017 -2018, p. 30. 567 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 63 During FY 2017-18, San Carlos withdrew $7 million out of existing general fund reserves in order to make a one-time $5 million additional payment to CalPERS, and to transfer $1 million into a pension trust and $1 million into a trust for OPEB liabilities.568 Long-Term Financial Forecast – San Carlos San Carlos’ long-term general fund financial planning is based on a five-year forecast period. The City includes its long-term general fund forecast in its 2018 – 2020 budget.569 San Mateo Pension Contribution Costs – San Mateo San Mateo’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $19.7 million, up $0.787 million (4.2 percent) from $18.91 million in FY 2016-17.570 The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 31.2 percent of that year’s covered payroll (down from 32.2 percent the preceding year) and 17.7 percent of its total general fund spending (down from 18.2 percent the preceding year).571 San Mateo’s actuarial consultant (Bartel Associates, LLC) projects its pension contribution costs will increase from the FY 2017-18 number by $11.7 million (59.4 percent) to $31.4 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $4.65 million (14.8 percent) to $36.06 million by FY 2027-28.572 San Mateo’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its budgets for FY 2017-18 or FY 2018-20,573 and the projections by its actuarial consultant (Bartel Associates, LLC) are not published by the City on its website.574 The Grand Jury obtained a copy of the Bartel report through a document request to the City. The City does include projected general fund pension costs in its budgets and in its FY 2018-20 budget through FY 2028-29.575 While general fund pension costs do not represent the San Mateo’s total pension costs, they do represent a large majority of the costs and the inclusion of the general fund cost information is helpful to an understanding of the impact of rising pension costs on the City. The Grand Jury’s review of online agenda 568 San Carlos, 2018 – 2020 Adopted Budget, pp. 63-64. San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million, p. 1. 569 San Carlos, 2018 – 2020 Adopted Budget, pp. 63-64. The City also included a general fund forecast through FY 2020-21 in its 2017-18 Adopted Budget, p. 32. 570 Appendix A. 571 Ibid. 572 Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of San Mateo, October 25, 2019, pp. 28 & 46. This report contains pension cost projections through FY 2029-30. 573San Mateo, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. S an Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget. San Mateo, Adopted 2018-20 Business Plan. 574 Email from San Mateo, dated June 12, 2019. 575 San Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget, p. 11. San Mateo, Adopted 2018 -20 Business Plan, p. 11. San Mateo, Proposed 2019-20 Budget, p. 11. The 2019-20 proposed budget provides pension cost projections for the general fund through FY 2029-30. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 64 packages from San Mateo City Council meetings on the City’s website at: https://cosm.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx (last accessed on June 12, 2019) also yielded an link to the January 22, 2019 City Council meeting agenda that provides pension cost projects for the City as a whole (not limited to costs to the general fund) through FY 2029- 30. Financial Overview – San Mateo In February 2018, San Mateo noted that “the City is currently in a strong financial position” but that “the long-term financial plan [is] out of structural balance, primarily due to rising pension costs and competing demands for general fund resources.”576 Staff notes that, under the City’s current long-term plan, “funding for all resource demands is not entirely sustainable.”577 The plan contemplates that the City will have to make annual net reductions in general fund spending of approximately $2.32 million each year throughout the plan period in order to absorb rising pension costs and keep the current 25 percent operating reserve and housing reserve at policy levels.578 (See, discussion of “General Fund Reserves – San Mateo” below.) Additional Payments to CalPERS – San Mateo San Mateo made the following additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contributions: $1.38 million in FY 2016-17, and $1.4 million in FY 2017-18. The City also made a $1.63 million additional payment in FY 2018-19, for a total over all three years of $4.41 million.579 San Mateo’s current plan is to apply 50 percent of future ERAF refunds toward making further additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contributions.580 Staff expects the City’s ERAF refund to be approx. $4 - $5 million per year over the next ten years,581 and it projects annual additional payments to CalPERS of approximately $2 million per year. The City’s current projection is that application of 50 percent of projected ERAF refunds toward additional pension payments to CalPERS over the course of the period from FY 2019-20 through FY 2029-30 would yield total additional payments of $22.8 million.582 Staff has not presented the City Council with any data on projected, long- term pension savings to be realized from these additional payments.583 576 San Mateo, Administrative Report Re: 2018-20 Business Plan – Preliminary Review, April 16, 2018, p. 1. 577 San Mateo, Proposed 2019-20 Budget, p. 54. 578 Ibid., pp. 44-45 & 54. 579Grand Jury interview. Emails from San Mateo, dated June 12 and June 13, 2019. 580 San Mateo, Adopted 2018-20 Business Plan, pp. 13 & 69. Grand Jury interview. 581 Grand Jury interview. 582 Email from San Mateo, dated June 12, 2019. Grand Jury interview. 583 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 65 Pension Reserve Fund – San Mateo San Mateo does not currently plan to create a pension stabilization reserve because setting aside funds in a reserve does not reduce long-term pension costs.584 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost – San Mateo San Mateo has cost-sharing agreements in place with employees under which they agree to pay a portion of the City’s pension costs.585 The City does not currently expect to ask employees to pay any greater portion of pension contribution costs in the future.586 Revenue Enhancement – San Mateo San Mateo’s City Council has directed staff to poll San Mateo voters on their support for revenue enhancement ballot measures, including increasing the City’s transient occupancy tax (“hotel tax”) rate, the business tax rates and/or the real property transfer tax rate.587 The City notes that it is exploring tax increase measures for the November 2020 ballot.588 Pension Obligation Bonds – San Mateo San Mateo does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.589 General Fund Reserves – San Mateo San Mateo’s general fund reserves are projected to decrease from $75.5 million in FY 2017-18 to $58.35 million in FY 2029-30, while remaining reserves (net of the City’s 25 percent operating reserve and its housing reserve) decrease from $44.76 million in FY 2017-18 to zero by FY 2029-30.590 The City’s policy is to maintain a reserve of 25 percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures,591 which will have to be increased from $26.84 million in FY 2017-18 to $40 million in FY 2029-30 in order to remain at 25 percent of projected expenditures, while the amount of the City’s housing reserve is projected to increase from $3.9 million in FY 2017-18 to $18.41 in FY 2029-30.592 Staff notes that under the City’s current long-term plan, “funding for all resource demands is not entirely sustainable.”593 The plan contemplates that the City will have to make net reductions in general fund expenditures of approximately $2.32 million per year from FY 2020-21 through FY 2029-30 in order to maintain its 25 percent operating reserve and the housing reserve at policy levels,594 and even with such net reductions, the remaining 584 Ibid. 585 San Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget, p. 52. 586 Grand Jury interview. 587 Email from San Mateo, dated June 12, 2019. 588 San Mateo, Proposed 2019-20 Budget, p. 12. 589 Email from San Mateo, dated June 13, 2019. 590 San Mateo, Proposed 2019-20 Budget, pp. 44-45. 591 San Mateo, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018, p. xi to Letter of Transmittal. 592 San Mateo, Proposed 2019-20 Budget, pp. 44-45. 593 Ibid., p. 54. 594 Ibid., pp. 44-45 & 54. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 66 reserves described above will be drawn down from $44.76 million in FY 2017-18 to zero in FY 2029-30.595 Long-Term Financial Forecast – San Mateo San Mateo’s general fund long-term financial forecasting is based on a ten-year period. The City included this long-term forecast it its readily-accessible FY 2017-18 and FY 2019-20 budgets.596 South San Francisco Pension Contribution Costs - South San Francisco South San Francisco’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $15.49 million, up $2.19 million (16.5 percent) from $13.3 million in FY 2016-17. The City’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 34 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 27.2 percent the preceding year) and 16 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 14.4 percent the preceding year).597 The City projects its pension contribution costs will increase by at least $9.42 million (60.8 percent) to $24.91 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $2.51 million (10.1 percent) to $27.42 million by FY 2027-28.598 The City’s projected, annual pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 CAFR, or in its FY 2018-19 budget.599 In order to find these projected costs online, it is necessary to manually search through City Council meeting agenda packages, which can be accessed at the following website: https://ci-ssf-ca.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx. (Last accessed on June 8, 2019.) That search would eventually lead to agenda information about the September 26, 2018 City Council meeting at https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/Meeting Detail.aspx?ID=621621&GUID=3C2F6C1E-F701-4040-8E44- 2DAB2DBCF52D&Options=info&Search (last accessed on June 8, 2019), a staff report for that meeting regarding pensions600 and a set of pension contribution projections 595 San Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget, pp. 46-47. San Mateo, Proposed 2019-20 Budget, pp. 44-45 & 54. 596 Ibid., pp. 44-45. 597 Appendix A. 598 Attachment 4 to South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. This report contains pension cost data through FY 2027-28. The City also has pension cost projections going out to FY 2045 -46 that were prepared for a September 26, 2018 City Council meeting. They are Attachment 2 to the Staff Report for the September 26, 2018 City Council meeting re: Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices.” 599 South San Francisco, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ended June 30, 2018. South San Francisco, Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 -19. 600 South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on September 26, 2018 re: Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices.” 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 67 attached to that report as “Attachment 2.”601 The search of the City’s online City Council meeting agendas would also eventually lead to information about the April 9, 2019 City Council meeting at https://ci-ssf-ca.legistar.com/ MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=683321& GUID=18367370-F11F-4D7B-9D54-5050862A9304&Options=info&Search= (last accessed on June 8, 2019) a staff report for that meeting regarding, among other things, pensions,602 and a set of pension contribution projections attached to that report as “Attachment 10.”603 In response to this paragraph, the City points out that “The City’s current unfunded liability of $179 million and the apex of annual pension payments of $29 million in FY 2028-29 can be found on the City’s website www.ssf.net.department/finance.”604 Financial Overview – South San Francisco South San Francisco city staff does not believe that rising future pension costs represent a major financial issue for the City. Staff believes the City is in a strong financial position with solid future revenue growth.605 The City projects general fund revenues increasing from $109.05 million in FY 2018-19 to $127.38 million in FY 2023-24, to $141.68 million in FY 2027-28.606 The City further projects that its general fund reserves will increase from $21.21 million at the end of FY 2018-19 to $25.12 in FY 2023-24, to $27.98 million in FY 2027-28.607 Additional Payments to CalPERS - South San Francisco South San Francisco is not currently considering making any additional payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution. When staff last investigated this possibility, it concluded that an additional payment of at least $10 million would be required to significantly reduce future pension costs.608 601 South San Francisco, Attachment 2 – Pension Contributions 2016-2046, linked to Staff Report for City Council meeting on September 26, 2018. 602 South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 603 South San Francisco, Attachment 4 to Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 604 Email from South San Francisco, dated June 14, 2019. 605 Grand Jury interview. 606 Attachment 8, p. 1 to South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 607 Attachment 8, p. 2 to South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 608 Grand Jury interview. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 68 Pension Reserve Fund - South San Francisco As of the end of FY 2017-18 South San Francisco had allocated $4.5 million to an internal pension stabilization reserve.609 The City plans to transfer another $1 million to this fund in FY 2019, bringing the total to $5.5 million.610 Staff’s recommendation to the City Council in November 2018 was to move this $5.5 million to a Section 115 Trust611 in order to earn higher returns on these funds that the City’s internal funds earn.612 However, City Council members expressed concerns about the loss of control over the funds entailed by putting them in a Section 115 Trust.613 In April 2019 staff instead recommended a plan for managing rising future pension costs consisting of: (a) expanding the City’s revenue and tax base, (b) considering transferring a portion of any future general fund surpluses to the internal pension reserve, (c) lowering the City’s pension cost through continued and expanded cost-sharing with employees, and (d) continuing to explore the possibility of a Section 155 trust.614 Staff’s recommendation to council is also, beginning in FY 2022-23, and “depending on available funds,” to contribute an additional $1 million per year to the pension trust fund.615 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - South San Francisco South San Francisco has cost-sharing agreements in place with safety employees under which those employees will pay a portion of the City’s pension costs equal to 3 percent of their salary.616 In FY 2020 labor negotiations, the City expects to negotiate for employees take on a greater share of pension costs.617 Revenue Enhancement - South San Francisco In November 2018, South San Francisco residents approved revenue enhancement ballot measures to increase its transient occupancy tax (“TOT” and sometimes referred to as the 609 South San Francisco, Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 -19, p. B-5. 610 Grand Jury interview. South San Francisco, Slide presentation for City Council meeting on Nov ember 14, 2018 re: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Year-End Results, Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Report regarding resolution accepting the financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, and approving Budget Amendment 18.034., slides 2 & 7. 611 South San Francisco, Slide presentation for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Pension Study Session, Attachment 10 to the Staff Report for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs, slide 16. 612 Grand Jury interview. 613 Ibid. 614 South San Francisco, Presentation Slides for Pension Study Session on April 9, 2019, Attachment 10 to Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs, slides 15 & 16. 615 South San Francisco, Slide presentation for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Pension Study Session, Attachment 10 to the Staff Report for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs, p. 16. 616 South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs, pp. 5 -6. 617 Grand Jury interview. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 69 “hotel tax”) (Measure FF)618 and to impose a business license tax on commercial cannabis operations (Measure LL).619 Measure FF is projected to increase revenues by approximately $5.9 million per year.620 The City is not currently planning on putting any new revenue enhancement ballot measures before voters in the near future. Pension Obligation Bonds – South San Francisco South San Francisco does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.621 General Fund Reserves - South San Francisco South San Francisco’s general fund unassigned reserves balance at the end of FY 2017-18 was $19.64 million,622 which represented 16.5 percent of the City’s $118.87 million in general fund revenues for the year.623 The City’s reserve policy is to have general fund unassigned reserves equal to between 15 percent and 20 percent of general fund operating revenues.624 The City projects general fund revenues in FY 2018-19 of $109.05 million and that these revenues will increase to $127.38 million in FY 2023-24, and to $141.68 million in FY 2027-28.625 The City further projects that its general fund reserves will increase from $21.21 million (representing 19.5 percent of operating expenses) at the end of FY 2018-19 to $25.12 million (representing 19.7 percent of operating expenses) in FY 2023-24, to $28.98 million (representing 19.7 percent of operating expenses) in FY 2027-28.626 Long-Term Financial Forecast – South San Francisco South San Francisco’s long-term financial forecasting period is 10 years.627 The City’s long-term financial forecast is not included in its FY 2018-19 budget.628 In order to find its forecast online, it is necessary to manually search agenda packages from the City Council calendar of meetings (listed at https://ci-ssf-ca.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx)629 for references to budgets and/or forecasts. That search of the City’s online City Council meeting agendas 618 Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, South San Francisco, California, Measure FF, Hotel Tax Increase (November 2018). 619 Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, South San Francisco, California, Measure LL, Marijuana Business Tax (November 2018) 620 South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs, p. 6. 621 Email from South San Francisco, dated June 14, 20 19. 622 South San Francisco, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ended June 30, 2018, pp. 32 & 74. 623 Ibid., p. 36. 624 Ibid., p. 74. 625 Attachment 8, p. 1 to South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 626 Attachment 8, p. 2 to South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 627 Attachment 8 to South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 628 South San Francisco, Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 -19. 629 Last accessed on May 10, 2019. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 70 would eventually lead to information about the April 9, 2019 City Council meeting at https://ci-ssf-ca.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=683321&GUID=18367370-F11F- 4D7B-9D54-5050862A9304&Options=info&Search= (last accessed on June 8, 2019) a staff report for that meeting regarding, among other things, pensions,630 and a general fund ten-year forecast attached to that report as “Attachment 8.”631 Woodside Pension Contribution Costs - Woodside Woodside’s pension contribution costs in FY 2017-18 were $0.39 million, up $0.067 million (20.8 percent) from $0.323 million in FY 2016-17.632 The Town’s FY 2017-18 pension contribution costs represented 18.8 percent of that year’s covered payroll (up from 16.2 percent the preceding year) and 5.7 percent of its total general fund spending (up from 4.8 percent the preceding year).633 The Town projects its pension contribution costs will increase by $0.316 million (81.2 percent) to $0.706 million by FY 2023-24 and by an additional $0.152 million (21.6 percent) to $0.859 million by FY 2027-28.634 The Town’s projected pension contribution costs are not included in its FY 2017-18 financials,635 its FY 2018-19 budget,636 or its FY 2019-21 budget,637 nor was the Grand Jury able to find them in any report that is included in City Council meeting agenda packages from January 1, 2018 to June 15 2019. While the Town’s operating budget forecasts contained in its FY 2018-19 budget and FY 2019-21 budget set forth combined annual cost projections for CalPERS and “Retiree Health Benefits,”638 the CalPERS costs – on a standalone basis – cannot be determined from this. Financial Overview – Woodside Woodside views its financial health as good. The Town projects ending FY 2018-19 with a general fund balance of $7.89 million; equal to 95.5 percent of its projected general fund revenues of $8.24 million for the year639 and it reports that this allows it the luxury of being able to think long-term.640 630 South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 631 South San Francisco, Attachment 8 (General Fund 10-year forecast $1M contribution to CalPERS) to Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. 632 Appendix A. 633 Ibid. 634 Appendix A. Email from Woodside dated May 23, 2019. 635 Woodside, Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 636 Woodside, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19. 637 Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019-21 638 Woodside, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, p. 6. Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019 -21, p. 8. 639 Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019-21, p. 8. 640 Grand Jury interview. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 71 Additional Payments to CalPERS - Woodside Woodside does not currently have any plan to make additional payments to CalPERS in excess of its Annual Required Contribution.641 Pension Reserve Fund - Woodside On March 26, 2019, Woodside’s staff recommended to the City Council that the Town establish a Section 115 Trust for the purpose of helping cushion the budgetary impact of future pension costs increases and “that the upcoming budget include funds to be contributed to the Section 115 trust.”642 The Town plans to contribute a total of $1.8 million to the trust over the next three fiscal years.643 Employee Contribution to City’s Normal Cost - Woodside Woodside does not have any agreements in place with its employees under which they pay for any portion of the Town’s pension obligations.644 Revenue Enhancement - Woodside Woodside does not currently have any plans for seeking voter approval of any revenue enhancement measures.645 Pension Obligation Bonds - Woodside Woodside does not have any outstanding pension obligation bonds.646 General Fund Reserves - Woodside Woodside currently projects cumulative general fund budget deficits of $3.71 million over the ten years from FY 2018-19 to FY 2027-28 (an average of $0.371 million each year).647 Over that same period, Woodside’s general fund balance is projected to drop from $7.89 million in FY 2018-19 (representing 95.5 percent of general fund operating revenues that year) to $3.68 million in FY 2027-28 (representing 33.6 percent of general fund revenues that year).648 Long-Term Financial Forecast – Woodside Woodside included a five-year general fund operating budget forecast in its FY 2018-19 budget.649 The Town has now developed a ten-year general fund operating budget forecast 641 Ibid. 642 Woodside, Report to Town Council for meeting on March 26, 2019 re: Discussion of the Town’s Pension Obligations and Direction to Staff Regarding an Approach to Address the Obligations, p. 3. 643 Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019-21, June 3, 2019 letter of transmittal from City Manager, p. ii. Email from Woodside, dated June 14, 2019. 644 Grand Jury interview. 645 Ibid. 646 Ibid. 647 Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019-21, Budget Overview, p. 8. 648 Ibid. 649 Woodside, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19, p. 6. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 72 for the first time and it is incorporated into the Town’s readily-accessible FY 2019-21 budget.650 FINDINGS Important explanatory note for the Cities in responding to the Findings: Each City is to respond to each Finding solely with respect to itself and not with regard to any other City. Data Set Forth in Appendix A F1. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined covered payroll for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. F2. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined contribution payments to CalPERS on the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. F3. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in this report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Each City has been required to make large Amortization Cost (as defined in this report) payments of principal and interest to CalPERS on those Unfunded Liabilities. These payments have diverted money that could otherwise have been used to provide public services or to add to reserves. F4. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined Funded Percentages (as defined in the prior report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. F5. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 reported what the combined Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in the prior report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 would have been if the applicable Discount Rate applied to calculate them had been one percentage point lower in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. F6. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 reported general fund total expenditures 650 Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019-21, Budget Overview, p. 8. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 73 for each of FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. F7. In each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018, each City’s combined contribution payments to CalPERS on the City’s pension plans represented the percentage of that City’s general fund total expenditures for that year set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A in the column entitled “Contribution Payments as % of General Fund Total Expenditures.” F8. In each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018, each City’s combined contribution payments to CalPERS on the City’s pension plans represented the percentage of that City’s combined covered payroll for the City’s pension plans in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A in the column entitled “Contribution Rate (i.e., Contribution Payments as % of Covered Payroll).” Projections of Future City Pension Costs F9. Each of Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Redwood City includes in its annual, or bi-annual budgets published on its public website, projections showing the annual dollar amount of its projected pension contribution costs for the next five or more years. None of the other Cities do so. F10. Neither Atherton, Brisbane, nor Portola Valley have published, anywhere on their public website or their agenda packages for city council meetings, projections showing the annual dollar amount of their projected pension contribution costs for the next five or more years. F11. The only way to find projections showing the annual dollar amount of the following Cities’ projected pension contribution costs for the next five or more years on their public websites is by manually searching through agenda packages for their city council meetings: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco and Woodside. Long-Term Financial Forecasts F12. Each of Colma, Daly City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco and Woodside has a general fund operating budget forecast covering a ten-year period. Of those nine, only Colma, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo, and Woodside make those forecasts accessible to the public in their most recent annual or bi-annual budgets or annual financial reports published on their public websites. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 74 F13. The only way to find the ten-year general fund operating budget forecasts on the public websites of Pacifica and South San Francisco is by manually searching through agenda packages for their City Council meetings. F14. Daly City’s ten-year general fund operating forecast is not accessible to the public through its public website. F15. Each of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno and San Carlos has a general fund operating budget forecast covering only a five- year period. Of those eight, only Belmont, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno and San Carlos make the forecasts available to the public in their most recent annual or bi- annual budgets or annual financial reports published on their public websites. F16. The only way to find the five-year general fund operating budget forecasts on the public websites of Atherton and Burlingame is by manually searching through agenda packages for their City Council meetings. F17. Brisbane’s five-year general fund operating forecast is not accessible to the public through its public website. F18. Neither East Palo Alto, Millbrae, nor Portola Valley has a general fund operating forecast that extends beyond the fiscal years covered in its most recent annual or bi-annual budget. Plans to Make Additional Payments to CalPERS Beyond Annual Required Contributions F19. Each of Belmont, Colma, Foster City, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo has made, or currently has a specific plan to make, additional pension contribution payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution. F20. Neither Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Bruno, South San Francisco nor Woodside currently has a specific plan recommended by staff to the City or Town Council (as applicable) to make additional pension contribution payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution. Establishment of Reserves or Section 115 Trusts for Future Pension Payments F21. Each of Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, South San Francisco and Woodside has set aside internal reserves, or contributed funds to a Section 115 trust, specifically for the purpose of paying future pension contribution costs. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 75 F22. Neither Atherton, Belmont, East Palo Alto, Millbrae, San Bruno, nor San Mateo currently has a specific plan recommended by staff to the City or Town Council (as applicable) to set aside internal reserves, or to contribute funds to a Section 115 trust, specifically for the purpose of paying future pension contribution costs. Employee Cost-Sharing to Help Pay Cities’ Pension Costs F23. Each of Atherton, Belmont. Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo and South San Francisco has, or currently intends to seek, one or more cost-sharing agreements with employees under which employees pay for a portion of the City’s Normal Cost pension payment obligations to CalPERS. F24. Neither Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, San Bruno, San Carlos nor Woodside has, or currently intends to seek, one or more cost- sharing agreements with employees under which employees pay for a portion of the City’s Normal Cost pension payment obligations to CalPERS. Revenue Enhancement Ballot Initiatives by Cities F25. Each of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Redwood City and South San Francisco have, since November 2016, sought and obtained voter approval for ballot measures intended to increase revenues. F26. Each of Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, Redwood City, and San Bruno are currently considering seeking approval of their voters for revenue enhancement measures in the near term. F27. Neither Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Portola Valley, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, nor Woodside is currently considering seeking approval of its voters for revenue enhancement measures in the near term. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 76 RECOMMENDATIONS R1. Each City include in its published annual or bi-annual budgets a general fund operating budget forecast for the next ten fiscal years. R2. Each City include a report in its published annual or bi-annual budgets specifically setting forth the dollar amounts of its annual pension costs paid to CalPERS. The report should include the following: a) The City’s total pension contribution costs under all plans, for each of the three preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such costs in each of the following ten fiscal years (whether developed by City staff internally, or b y outside consultants to the City), assuming CalPERS’ actuarial assumptions are met. b) The City’s total Unfunded Liabilities under all plans, for each of the three preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such Unfunded Liabilities in each of the next ten fiscal years, (whether developed by City staff internally, or by outside consultants to the City), assuming CalPERS’ actuarial assumptions are met. c) The City’s Funded Percentage across all plans, for each of the three preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such Funded Percentages in each of the next ten fiscal years, assuming CalPERS’ actuarial assumptions are met. d) The percentage of the City’s general fund expenditures, and the percentage of the City’s covered payroll, represented by the pension costs described in (a) above (using estimates of general fund expenditures in future fiscal years). REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests that each of the following respond to the foregoing Findings and Recommendations referring in each instance to the number thereof: ● The Town of Atherton ● The City of Belmont ● The City of Brisbane ● The City of Burlingame ● The Town of Colma ● The City of Daly City ● The City of East Palo Alto ● The City of Foster City ● The City of Half Moon Bay ● The Town of Hillsborough ● The City of Menlo Park ● The City of Millbrae ● The City of Pacifica ● The Town of Portola Valley 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 77 ● The City of Redwood City ● The City of San Bruno ● The City of San Carlos ● The City of San Mateo ● The City of South San Francisco ● The Town of Woodside METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed each of the documents listed in “BIBLIOGRAPHY” below. The Grand Jury also reviewed email correspondence it received from some of the Cities. In addition, the Grand Jury interviewed representatives of each of the Cities. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix A-1 APPENDIX A – Data on Each City’s Pension Costs for Four Years from FY 2014-15 through FY 2017-18 The column below that reflects the most immediate impact on the Cities is “Contribution Cost” as this sets out the total pension costs paid each year and shows the rate at which it has, in most cases, increased each year. The other column that is particularly useful to understanding the impact of pension costs on the Cities’ budgets is “Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending” as this shows the relative size of pension costs in comparison to the overall general fund budget. Note: Except as noted in this note, all information in Appendix A is derived from the Cities’ “Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports” (or “Basic Financial Statements,” or “Annual Financial Reports” in the case of the Towns of Atherton, Colma, Portola Valley and Woodside). Certain of Daly City’s, East Palo Alto’s and Foster City’s numbers are based on correspondence from those Cities received in June, 2019. (All dollar numbers in thousands.) CITIES Fiscal Year Covered Payroll Pension Contribution Cost Contribution Rate (i.e., Pension Contribution Cost as % of Payroll) Unfunded Liability Funded Percentage Unfunded Liability if Discount Rate is Reduced 1% General Fund Spending Pension Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending* Atherton 2017-18 $4,649 $1,289 27.7% $16,122 72.9% $24,391 $12,065 10.7% 2016-17 $4,327 $1,155 26.7% $13,982 73.8% $21,344 $11,437 10.1% 2015-16 $4,261 $617 14.5% $10,674 78.5% $17,326 $10,611 5.8% 2014-15 $3,988 $826 20.7% $9,253 81.9% $16,088 $11,622 7.1% Belmont 2017-18 $15,773 $3,927 24.9% $37,312 73.3% $55,262 $19,450 20.2% 2016-17 $15,209 $3,582 23.6% $32,835 72.0% $48,680 $18,344 19.5% 2015-16 $14,613 $4,191 28.7% $26,626 76.2% $41,855 $16,800 24.9% 2014-15 $12,701 $2,262 17.8% $25,067 79.8% $39,412 $16,777 13.5% Brisbane 2017-18 $8,111 $1,906 23.5% $21,118 73.4% $32,231 $17,544 10.9% 2016-17 $7,916 $1,713 21.6% $18,227 78.6% $27,989 $15,521 11.0% 2015-16 $6,880 $883 12.8% $13,952 79.9% $23,410 $14,850 5.9% 2014-15 $7,023 $1,174 16.7% $12,074 82.2% $21,119 $13,247 8.9% Burlingame 2017-18 $20,598 $5,718 27.8% $65,912 72.1% $97,834 $53,637 10.7% 2016-17 $19,753 $5,294 26.8% $57,694 73.4% $86,051 $49,707 10.7% 2015-16 $18,232 $4,615 25.3% $46,987 77.8% $75,062 $47,459 9.7% 2014-15 $17,671 $3,894 22.0% $41,762 80.1% $69,042 $44,405 8.8% Colma 2017-18 $4,346 $1,264 29.1% $10,682 73.3% $15,961 $14,683 8.6% 2016-17 $4,031 $1,048 26.0% $9,449 74.2% $14,008 $13,323 7.9% 2015-16 $3,749 $937 25.0% $7,747 74.7% $11,969 $13,410 7.0% 2014-15 $3,604 $939 26.1% $6,891 76.1% $10,724 $12,948 7.3% *Note: Contribution Cost amounts in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports may include pension costs paid on account of certa in employees whose activities are not accounted for as part of General Fund activities, and their pension costs would, therefore, not be included in General Fund total expenditures. As a result, the percentage of General Fund Spending in Appendix represented by Pension Contribution Costs may somewhat overstate the percentage represented by General Fund pension costs. Some experts have estimated that this might result in an overstatement of the percentage by 10 – 30 percent, such that a Contribution Payment as a % of General Fund Total Expenditures of 10 percent might actually be somewhere between 7 and 9 percent. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix A-2 CITIES Fiscal Year Covered Payroll Pension Contribution Cost Contribution Rate (i.e., Pension Contribution Cost as % of Payroll) Unfunded Liability Funded Percentage Unfunded Liability if Discount Rate is Reduced 1% General Fund Spending Pension Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending Daly City 2017-18 $42,809 $13,132 30.7% $164,352 74.1% $248,373 $77,663 16.9% 2016-17 $43,398 $11,631 26.8% $139,861 75.7% $213,918 $77,139 15.1% 2015-16 $42,608 $12,081 28.4% $112,195 80.0% $185,217 $79,062 15.3% 2014-15 $42,226 $8,862 21.0% $99,631 81.9% $169,965 $72,649 12.2% East Palo Alto* 2017-18 $9,258 $1,643 17.7% $10,854 73.3% $16,132 $19,673 8.3% 2016-17 $8,464 $1,493 17.6% $9,459 74.1% $13,750 $18,109 8.2% 2015-16 $8,078 $1,372 17.0% $8,112 78.4% $12,086 $17,735 7.7% 2014-15 $7,926 $1,477 18.6% $7,856 79.8% $11,417 $16,524 8.9% Foster City 2017-18 $20,859 $6,506 31.2% $78,061 68.1% $111,419 $37,842 17.2% 2016-17 $19,875 $7,209 36.3% $69,207 68.8% $98,575 $36,416 19.8% 2015-16 $18,697 $5,294 28.3% $56,390 76.3% $84,686 $33,048 16.0% 2014-15 $17,696 $4,552 25.7% $50,458 78.2% $77,534 $31,322 14.5% Half Moon Bay 2017-18 $3,118 $881 28.2% $10,902 72.9% $16,491 $12,188 7.2% 2016-17 $2,423 $594 24.5% $9,502 74.6% $14,557 $10,418 5.7% 2015-16 $2,014 $583 28.9% $7,319 80.1% $12,332 $8,781 6.6% 2014-15 $1,987 $529 26.6% $6,736 81.6% $11,620 $8,352 6.3% Hillsborough** 2017-18 $10,233 $2,412 23.6% $25,911 73.6% $39,430 $22,258 10.8% 2016-17 $8,661 $2,158 24.9% $22,387 74.8% $34,262 $21,224 10.2% 2015-16 $9,089 $1,893 20.8% $17,187 78.6% $28,063 $19,693 9.6% 2014-15 $8,625 $1,605 18.6% $14,770 79.8% $25,822 $18,721 8.6% Menlo Park*** 2017-18 $23,371 $5,555 23.8% $57,358 74.7% $87,527 $52,491 11.8% 2016-17 $23,112 $5,565 24.1% $50,993 74.4% $77,514 $47,314 11.8% 2015-16 $19,868 $4,747 23.9% $38,881 79.2% $64,170 $42,565 11.2% 2014-15 $19,969 $4,228 21.2% $34,371 80.6% $58,596 $40,581 10.4% *Note: East Palo Alto has stated to the Grand Jury that it believes it is more representative of its financial situation to in clude in “General Fund Spending” the “operating transfers out of [its] General Fund to other City funds. The transfers primarily re late to the support of infrastructure-related programs including NPDES, Drainage District and pay-go funded Capital Improvement projects.” If these operating transfers out are included, then General Fund Spending with transfers would be $21.77 million in FY 2017-18, $21.92 million in FY 2016-17, $21.2 million in FY 2015-16 and $20.15 million in FY 20-14-15 and Contribution Cost as a % of General Fund Spending with these transfers would be 7.5% in FY 2017-18, 6.8% in FY 2016-17, 6.5% in FY 2015-16 and 7.3% in FY 2014-15. (Email from East Palo Alto, dated June 7, 2019.) **Note: Hillsborough makes the same comment as East Palo Alto and notes that, transfers out of the general fund should be inclu ded in “General Fund Spending” above as follows: For FY 2017-18, add $2.07 million for a new total of $24.33 million; for FY 2016-17, add $3.86 million for a new total of $25.09 million; for FY 2016-17, add $0.461 million for a new total of $20.15 million; and for FY 2014 -15, add $0.742 million for a new total of $19.46 million. These higher General Fund Spending amounts would result in decreases in the percentages in “Contribution Cost as a % of General Fund Spending” as follo ws: for FY 2017-18, 9.9%; for FY 2016-17, 8.6%; for FY 2015-16, 9.4%; and for FY 2014-15, 8.3%. (Email from Hillsborough, dated June 7, 2019.) ***Note: Menlo Park also makes the same comment as East Palo Alto and Hillsborough. If its “transfers out” of $5.09 million in FY 2017-18 were included as a part of general fund expenditures, then those expenditures would increase to $57.58 million and “Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending” would drop from 11.8 percent to 9.6 percent. Adding “transfers out” of $5.57 million, $4.75 million, and $4.23 million for fiscal years 2016-17, 2015-16 and 2014-15, respectively, results in the “Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending” for those years dropping to 10.7 percent, 9.3 percent a nd 9.4 percent, respectively. (Email from Menlo Park, dated June 6, 2019.) (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017, p. 36. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016, p. 35. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015, p. 35.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix A-3 CITIES Fiscal Year Covered Payroll Pension Contribution Cost Contribution Rate (i.e., Pension Contribution Cost as % of Payroll) Unfunded Liability Funded Percentage Unfunded Liability if Discount Rate is Reduced 1% General Fund Spending Pension Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending Millbrae* 2017-18 $7,355 $3,313 45.0% $48,740 73.3% $71,117 $28,199 11.7% 2016-17 $6,165 $2,335 37.9% $42,769 74.1% $62,676 $25,494 9.2% 2015-16 $5,835 $2,064 35.4% $34,256 78.4% $53,883 $22,514 9.2% 2014-15 $6,871 $1,400 20.4% $28,989 79.8% $47,979 $18,201 7.7% Pacifica 2017-18 $16,478 $4,091 24.8% $50,801 76.7% $80,376 $29,991 13.6% 2016-17 $16,369 $3,740 22.9% $44,400 77.5% $70,650 $28,781 13.0% 2015-16 $15,922 $2,749 17.3% $32,841 82.3% $56,750 $27,358 10.0% 2014-15 $15,378 $2,739 17.8% $28,089 84.3% $52,855 $25,354 10.8% Portola Valley 2017-18 $1,523 $141 9.3% $712 89.7% $1,663 $5,292 2.7% 2016-17 $1,442 $116 8.1% $524 91.8% $1,382 $4,361 2.7% 2015-16 $1,072 $84 7.8% $82 98.6% $881 $4,303 2.0% 2014-15 $993 $1,019 102.6% $957 83.0% $1,706 $5,587 18.2% Redwood City** 2017-18 $60,845 $18,409 30.3% $245,579 64.8% $341,571 $125,859 14.6% 2016-17 $62,098 $17,722 28.5% $215,202 65.7% $298,653 $112,142 15.8% 2015-16 $57,352 $17,363 30.3% $177,937 70.1% $257,798 $101,684 17.1% 2014-15 $54,275 $16,467 30.3% $164,149 71.6% $240,111 $95,856 17.2% San Bruno 2017-18 $22,287 $7,176 32.2% $89,228 70.4% $130,222 $43,366 16.5% 2016-17 $22,512 $6,344 28.2% $78,198 70.7% $114,180 $43,244 14.7% 2015-16 $21,315 $4,434 20.8% $61,771 75.6% $96,281 $38,882 11.4% 2014-15 $20,532 $4,979 24.3% $53,531 78.4% $86,637 $36,738 13.6% San Carlos*** 2017-18 $11,169 $9,701 86.9% $50,152 62.6% $69,070 $42,495 22.8% 2016-17 $11,047 $2,236 20.2% $47,009 63.3% $64,530 $33,182 6.7% 2015-16 $10,486 $2,622 25.0% $40,263 67.3% $57,293 $41,264 6.4% 2014-15 $13,231 $2,624 19.8% $35,253 71.2% $42,824 $29,067 9.0% *Note: Millbrae notes that its pension payments as a percentage of covered payroll are artificially high because the City has pension liability for public safety employees (police and fire) but the City currently contracts for services and has no employees in those categories. While the City has no police and fire staff, the City is responsible for unfunded liability pension costs associated with former police and fire agencies and is also responsible for pension costs associated with employees in police and fire contracts. Pension spending for Miscellaneous plan employees in FY 2017-18 represented only 29.5% of covered payroll. (Email from Millbrae, dated June 12, 2019.) **Note: Redwood City points out that its FY 2017-18 General Fund Spending amount set forth above includes a one-time transfer of $8.8 million to the City’s Section 115 pension trust account. If that $8.8 million were excluded from General Fund Spending, then the total amount for FY 2017-18 would drop from $125.86 million to $117.06 million and Pension Contribution Costs as a % of General Fund Spending would increase from 14.6 percent to 15.7 percent. (Email from Redwood City dated June 7, 2019.) ***Note: San Carlos points out that its “Contribution Cost” in FY 2017-18 includes $6 million of one-time additional payments it made in excess of its Annual Required Contribution in order to reduce its unfunded pension liabilities and thus reduce long term pension contribution costs. If this $6 million voluntary additional payment were not included, then pension contribution costs would represent only 33.1 percent of covered payroll rather than 8 6.9 percent and only 8.7 percent of General Fund Spending, rather than 22.8 percent. In addition, the Grand Jury notes that San Carlos’ percentage of covered payroll represented by pension contribution costs is also artificially increased because the City continues to make substantial pension contribution payments to CalPERS (reflected in the numbers above) for its former fire and police personnel even though it no longer employs fire fighters or police personnel (thus reducing its covered payroll amount significantly). San Carlos’ police services are now provided by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office and fire services have been transferred to the Redwood City Fire Department. (San Carlos, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2017-2018, p. 155.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix A-4 CITIES Fiscal Year Covered Payroll Pension Contribution Cost Contribution Rate (i.e., Pension Contribution Cost as % of Payroll) Unfunded Liability Funded Percentage Unfunded Liability if Discount Rate is Reduced 1% General Fund Spending Pension Contribution Cost as % of General Fund Spending San Mateo (City) 2017-18 $63,131 $19,699 31.2% $218,196 65.9% $301,300 $111,079 17.7% 2016-17 $58,645 $18,912 32.2% $197,822 66.2% $271,523 $103,992 18.2% 2015-16 $52,345 $15,908 30.4% $168,693 70.1% $240,459 $95,779 16.6% 2014-15 $49,788 $13,860 27.8% $159,585 71.4% $228,588 $88,078 15.7% South San Francisco 2017-18 $45,563 $15,489 34.0% $182,872 66.2% $256,395 $96,677 16.0% 2016-17 $48,954 $13,300 27.2% $152,786 68.4% $216,103 $92,367 14.4% 2015-16 $40,396 $13,938 34.5% $130,042 72.2% $191,669 $86,795 16.1% 2014-15 $34,478 $11,403 33.1% $124,085 73.2% $184,305 $76,805 14.8% Woodside 2017-18 $2,073 $390 18.8% $3,642 71.9% $5,424 $6,876 5.7% 2016-17 $1,996 $323 16.2% $3,164 72.3% $4,702 $6,801 4.8% 2015-16 $1,809 $409 22.6% $2,578 75.8% $4,325 $6,638 6.2% 2014-15 $1,640 $355 21.6% $2,053 79.1% $3,356 $6,107 5.8% Totals & Weighted Averages 2017-18 $394,084 $122,642 31.1% $1,388,505 69.1% $2,002,188 $829,327 14.8% 2016-17 $386,398 $106,468 27.6% $1,215,467 70.6% $1,755,047 $769,315 13.8% 2015-16 $354,648 $96,784 27.3% $994,535 75.0% $1,515,516 $729,230 13.3% 2014-15 $340,601 $85,194 25.0% $905,562 76.3% $1,399,702 $668,939 12.7% % Change from 2016-17 to 2017- 18 15.2% increase 14.2% increase 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix B-1 APPENDIX B – Table showing information on each of the Cities. City Long-term pension cost projections available online on City’s website? Long-term pension cost projections published in City’s budget? Additional payments to CalPERS currently planned? Pension reserve fund? Employee cost sharing? Revenue increase measures approved since 2016 or planned? Pension obligation bonds outstdg.? Long-term general fund forecast? / Period of forecast? Long- term forecast included in budget? Atherton No. No. No. Section 115 trust approved but not funded. Yes No No. Yes. 5 years No Belmont Yes. Through FY 2048-49. No Yes. $3.65M No. Yes. Sales tax incr. 2016.No further plans. No. Yes. 5 years Yes. Brisbane No. No No. Yes. Section 115 Trust. $0.92M. No. Yes. Business license tax measures in 2017. Yes. 2006 for $4.75M and 2013 for $1.61M. Yes. 5 years No. Forecast not available on City’s website. Burlingame Yes. Through FY 2029-30 No No. Yes. Section 115 Trust. $8.2M as of FY 2018-19 and more thereafter. Yes. Sales tax incr. 2017. No further plans. Yes. 2006 for $33M. Yes. 5 years No Colma Yes. Through FY 2035-36. Yes. Colma included pension cost projections for the first time in FY 2019-20 budget. Yes. $1.05M Yes. Section 115 Trust. $1M in FY 2018-19 and more thereafter. No. Hotel tax 2018. No. Yes. Town extended forecast period to 10 years for first time in FY 2019-20 budget Yes. Daly City Yes. Through FY 2027-28. Yes. The City included pension cost projections for the first time in its FY 2019 & FY 2020 budget No. Yes. Section 115 Trust. $4M. No. Hotel and biz license tax 2018. No further plans. Yes. 2004 for $36.24M. Yes. 10 years No. Forecast not available on City’s website. East Palo Alto Yes. Through FY 2027-28. No No. No. No. Sales tax and biz license tax incr. 2016. Office space parcel tax incr. 2018. No further plan. No. No forecast exists. City plans to develop one in 2019. N/A Foster City Yes. Through FY 2048-49. Yes. The City included pension cost projections through FY 2023-24 for the first time in its FY 2019-20 budget Yes. $3.43M. Yes, but using its balance to make fund portion of $3.43M additional pymts. to CalPERS. City plans to seek in next round of negotiations. Hotel tax incr. 2018. No further plan. No. Yes. 5 years. Yes. Half Moon Bay Yes. Through FY 2028-29. No. No. Yes. $1.1M. No. No. No. Yes. 5 years. Yes. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix B-2 City Long-term pension cost projections available online on City’s website? Long-term pension cost projections published in City’s budget? Additional payments to CalPERS currently planned? Pension reserve fund? Employee cost sharing? Revenue increase measures planned? Pension obligation bonds outstdg.? Long-term general fund forecast? / Period of forecast? Long- term forecast included in budget? Hillsborough Yes. Through FY 2028-29. Yes. The Town included pension cost projections for the first time in its FY 2019-20 budget. No Yes. Section 115 Trust. $4.8M. Yes No No Yes. 10- years Yes Menlo Park Yes. Through FY 2029-30. No Yes. Plans for additional pymts. totaling $15.2M. Yes. $4.3M in FY 2018-19. Expect $8.4M by FY2023-24 and $11.4M by FY 2027- 28. Yes. No. No. Yes. 10 years. Yes. Millbrae Yes. Through FY 2028-29. No No. No. Yes. No. Yes. 2004 for $11.5M.. No forecast exists N/A Pacifica Yes. Through FY 2028-29. No No Yes. Plans for Section 115 Trust and $0.2M Yes. Yes. May seek increase in “hotel tax” Yes 2010 for $20.5M Yes. 10 years No Portola Valley No. No. The Town made a $0.9M pymt. in FY 2014-15. Additional pymts. to be discussed in 2019. Yes. $0.712 million. No. None currently planned. No. No forecast exists. N/A Redwood City Yes. Through FY 2038-39. Yes. Yes. $0.6M in FY2018-19 and $0.5M annually thereafter. Yes. Section 115 Trust. $14.05M to date and $1.1M per year thereafter. Yes. Sales tax incr. 2018. Expecting to seek additional revenue increases in future. No. Yes. City extended period to 10 years for first time in FY 2019-20 budget. Yes. San Bruno Yes. Through FY 2024-25 No No. No. No. Yes. Considering additional tax increase ballot initiatives in 2019 or 2020. Yes. 2013 for $13.16M. Yes. 5 years. Yes. City included forecast for first time in FY 2019- 20 budget San Carlos Yes. Through FY 2047-48. No Yes. $6M. Yes. Section 115 Trust. $1M and $2M internal reserve. No. No. No. Yes. 5 years. Yes. San Mateo Yes. Through FY 2029-30 No Yes. $4.39M by FY 2018- 19. Additional pymts. of $14M (for total of $18.39M) projected to be made by FY 2028-29. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. 10 years. Yes. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix B-3 City Long-term pension cost projections available online on City’s website? Long-term pension cost projections published in City’s budget? Additional payments to CalPERS currently planned? Pension reserve fund? Employee cost sharing? Revenue increase measures planned? Pension obligation bonds outstdg.? Long-term general fund forecast? / Period of forecast? Long- term forecast included in budget? South San Francisco Yes. Through FY 2045-46 No No. Yes. $5.5M. Yes. Hotel tax and business license incr.2018. Not planning further increases No. Yes. 10 years. No. Woodside Yes. Through FY 2027-28 No No. Yes. $0.15M per year. No No No Yes. Town extended period to 10 years for the first time in its FY 2019- 21 budget. Yes. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-1 BIBLIOGRAPHY  Atherton, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018. (www.ci.atherton.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/3119 ) (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.)  Atherton, Fiscal Year 2018/19 Operating & Capital Improvement Budget. (www.ci.atherton.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2696 ) (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.)  Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 6, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 Budget Kick-Off and Overview. (www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6284/Item-2 ) (Last accessed on May 26, 2019.)  Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 3, 2019 re: FY 2019/20 General Fund/Operations Budget. (www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6349/Item-3 ) (Last accessed on May 26, 2019.)  Atherton, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 5, 2019 re: Review of the FY 2019/20 Town Budget. (www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/6472/ITEM-1 ) (Last accessed on June 4, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Belmont, California, Sales Tax Measure I (November 2016) (https://ballotpedia.org/Belmont,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_I_(November_2016) ) (Last accessed on May 9, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Burlingame, California, Sales Tax Measure I (November 2017) (https://ballotpedia.org/Burlingame,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_I_(November_2017) ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Colma, California, Measure PP, Colma Hotel Tax (November 2018) (https://ballotpedia.org/Colma,_California,_Measure_PP,_Hotel_Tax_(November_2018) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, East Palo Alto, California, Measure O, Landlord Tax (November 2016). (https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Landlord_Tax,_Measure_O_(November _2016) ) (Last accessed on June 14, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, East Palo Alto, California, Measure P, Sales Tax (November 2016). (https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Sales_Tax,_Measure_P_(November_20 16) ) (Last accessed on June 14, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, East Palo Alto, California, Measure HH, Commercial Office Space Parcel Tax (November 2018) (https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Spa ce_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018) ) (Last accessed on April 25, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-2  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, Foster City, California, Measure TT, Hotel Tax Increase (November 2018) https://ballotpedia.org/Foster_City,_California,_Measure_TT,_Hotel_Tax_Increase_(Novem ber_2018) (Last accessed April 29, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, South San Francisco, California, Measure FF, Hotel Tax Increase (November 2018) (https://ballotpedia.org/South_San_Francisco,_California,_Measure_FF,_Hotel_Tax_Increas e_(November_2018) ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  Ballotpedia, Local Ballot Measures, South San Francisco, California, Measure LL, Marijuana Business Tax (November 2018) (https://ballotpedia.org/South_San_Francisco,_California,_Measure_LL,_Marijuana_Busines s_Tax_(November_2018) ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Burlingame, January 22, 2019. (https://www.burlingame.org/Pension%20Funding%20Presentation%20-%2001-22-19.pdf ) (Last accessed on June 9, 2019.)  Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Daly City, March 27, 2017(sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/cache/2/s20eiuhistj4uy0ywl0pk0cn/531941605232019082 244745.PDF ) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  Bartel Associates, LLC report to the city of East Palo Alto, March 8, 2017, Updated May 15, 2018. (www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05152018-1409) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Half Moon Bay, October 8, 2018.  Bartel Associates, LLC report to Town of Hillsborough, February 19, 2018. (https://www.hillsborough.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09112018-907 ) (Last accessed on May 22, 2019.)  Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Menlo Park, November 13, 2018 (https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/18957/1SS1---Pension-costs ) (Last accessed on May 30, 2019.)  Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Millbrae, January 19, 2018.  Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of Pacifica, November 13, 2018 (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1238&Print=Yes ) (Last accessed on May 20, 2019.)  Bartel Associates, LLC report to City of San Mateo, October 25, 2018.  Belmont, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017. (https://www.belmont.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=15900 ) (Last accessed May 9, 2019.)  Belmont, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. (https://www.belmont.gov/home/showdocument?id=17856 ) (Last accessed May 9, 2019.)  Belmont FY 2019 Budget (https://www.belmont.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=16425 ) (Last accessed May 9, 2019.)  Belmont, FY 2020 Budget. (file:///C:/Users/Michael%20Patrick/Desktop/GJury.2/Pensions%20(2018- 19)/Belmont/Belmont%20Budget%20(2020).pdf ) (Last accessed on June 9, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-3  Belmont, GovInvest, City of Belmont Pension Funding Analysis dated June 12, 2018. (https://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?event_id=563&meta_id=26745 ) (Last accessed on May 9, 2019.)  Belmont, GovInvest, City of Belmont Pension Funding Analysis dated November 27, 2018. (https://belmont-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?event_id=600&meta_id=29043 ) (Last accessed on May 9, 2019.)  Bradshaw, Kate, “Grand jury urges county cities to prepare for crushing pension costs,” The Almanac, July 31, 2018. (https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2018/07/31/grand-jury-urges- county-cities-to-prepare-for-crushing-pension-costs ) (Last accessed on June 13, 2019.)  Brainard, Keith and Brown, Alex, The Annual Required Contribution Experience of State Retirement Plans, FY01 to FY13, National Association of State Retirement Administrators, March 2015 <https://www.nasra.org/files/JointPublications/NASRA_ARC_Spotlight.pdf>. (Last accessed on May 30, 2019.)  Brisbane, Final Two-Year Operating Budget for Fiscal Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020. (https://brisbaneca.org/2018-20-budget ) (Last accessed on May 9, 2019.)  Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017. (https://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/2017%20Brisbane%20CAFR.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 21, 2019.)  Brisbane, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. (https://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/Brisbane_CAFR_2018.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 3, 2019.)  Brisbane, City Council Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on April 18, 2019 re: Mid- Year Budget Report (https://brisbaneca.org/sites/default/files/CCAR20190418_MidYearCompleteStaffreport_CH .pdf ) (Last accessed on May 3, 2019.).  Brisbane, CalPERS 2017 Public Agency Actuarial Valuation Reports for Miscellaneous First Tier, Miscellaneous Second Tier, PEPRA Miscellaneous, PEPRA Safety Fire, PEPRA Safety Police, Safety.  Burlingame, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget (https://www.burlingame.org/2018-19 percent20Adopted percent20Budget.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 2, 2019.)  Burlingame, Agenda for City Council Meeting held on January 22, 2019. (https://burlingameca.legistar1.com/burlingameca/meetings/2019/1/1422_A_City_Council_1 9-01-22_Meeting_Agenda.pdf) (Last accessed on May 31, 2019.)  Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015. (https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Finance/Comprehensive percent20Annual percent20Financial percent20Reports/CAFR percent2014-15.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 9, 2019.)  Burlingame, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. (https://www.burlingame.org/Burlingame percent20- percent202018 percent20Web percent20CAFR.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 2, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-4  Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on July 3, 2017 re: Review of Options Available for Pre-Funding Pension Obligations. (https://www.burlingame.org/government/city_council/city_council_meeting_documents_an d_minutes.php ) (Last accessed on May 2, 2019.)  Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 19, 2017 re: Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance to Place a Revenue Measure to Enact a Quarter Cent Local Sales Tax on the November 2017 Ballot to Maintain Quality of Life Programs, p. 4. (burlingameca.legistar1.com/burlingameca/meetings/2017/6/1217_A_City_Council_17-06- 19_Meeting_Agenda.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on October 15, 2018 re: Update on Long- Term Unfunded Post-Employment Liabilities and Options. (https://burlingameca.legistar1.com/burlingameca/meetings/2018/10/1311_A_City_Council_ 18-10-15_Meeting_Agenda.pdf ) (Last accessed on June 16, 2019.)  Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 13, 2019 re: Adoption of Resolution Amending the FY 2018-10 Operating and Capital Budgets to Reflect the Recommended Mid-Year Adjustments. (https://burlingameca.legistar1.com/burlingameca/meetings/2019/3/1452_A_City_Council_1 9-03-13_Meeting_Agenda.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 2, 2019.)  Burlingame, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on May 8, 2019 re: Study Session: Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget. (https://burlingameca.legistar1.com/burlingameca/meetings/2019/5/1461_A_City_Council_1 9-05-08_Meeting_Agenda.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 26, 2019.)  CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Daly City.  CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Safety Plan of the City of Daly City.  CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley.  CalPERS Actuarial Valuation – June 30, 2017 PEPRA Miscellaneous Plan of the Town of Portola Valley.  Climate Online / Redwood City, “Grand jury on pension crisis: Time for hard choices,” July 31, 2018 (https://climaterwc.com/2018/07/31/grand-jury-on-pension-crisis-time-for-hard- choices ) (Last accessed on June 13, 2019.)  Colma, FY 2017-18 Adopted Budget (https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/2017-18- adopted-budget/ ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Colma, FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget (https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/current-budget/ ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Colma, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget. (https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/current-proposed-budget/ ) (Last accessed June 11, 2019.)  Colma, Basic Financial Statements as of June 30, 2018 (https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/basic-financials-2017-18 ) (Last accessed on May 4, 20198.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-5  Colma, Presentation slides entitled “2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program. (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/colmaca/uploads/2019/03/2019-2024-Proposed- CIP-Document-Final.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Colma, Presentation Slides for September 26, 2018 City Council Meeting re: Unfunded Liabilities / Fund Creation.  Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on September 26, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Study (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/colmaca/uploads/2018/10/09.26.18-Regular- Meeting-Agenda-Packet-Revised.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on October 10, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Study and Strategic Plan. (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/colmaca/uploads/2018/10/10.10.18-Regular- Meeting-Agenda-Packet.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on October 24, 2018 re: Unfunded Liabilities Funding Strategy. (https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/unfunded-liabilities-strategy/ ) (Last accessed on May 27, 2019.)  Colma, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on May 8, 2019 re: FY 2019 -20 Budget Study Session. (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/colmaca/uploads/2019/05/05.08.19- Regular-Meeting-Agenda-Packet-Updated-05.06.19-2.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 27, 2019.)  Colma, Unfunded Liabilities Funding Strategy, October 24, 2018. (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/colmaca/uploads/2018/11/2018-Unfunded- Liabilities-Funding-Strategy.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 4, 20198.)  Colma, 2018 Pension Valuation Report Summary, November 1, 2018 (https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/2018-pension-valuation-report-summary/ ) (Last accessed on May 3, 20198.)  Daly City, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. (www.dalycity.org/Assets/Departments/Finance+and+Administration/pdf/FY+2018+Financi al+Report.pdf ) (Last accessed on April 24, 2019.)  Daly City, Agenda for City Council Meeting on March 27, 2017 (sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/cache/2/s20eiuhistj4uy0ywl0pk0cn/5319416052320190829136 51.PDF) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  Daly City, Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on April 10, 2017 re: Continuation of Discussion on Authorizing Participation in the Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Section 115 Trust Program to Pre-Fund Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits. (https://sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=918&doctype=AGENDA )  Daly City, City Council Meeting presentation slides re: FYs 2019/2020 Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget, April 12, 2018.  Daly City, Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on June 25, 2018 re Consideration to Place a Measure Relating to the Transient Occupancy Tax on the November 6, 20918 General Election. https://sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/cache/2/tpvnm5a4dfrulxndtjfjrphb/554519406142019050 143164.PDF ) (Last accessed June 14, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-6  Daly City, Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on June 25, 2018 re Consideration to Place a Measure Relating to the Business License Tax on the November 6, 2018 General Election. (https://sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/cache/2/tpvnm5a4dfrulxndtjfjrphb/554519606142019050 302211.PDF ) (Last accessed June 14, 2019.)  Daly City, Agenda for City Council Meeting on June 25, 2018. (https://sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1092&doctype=AGENDA ) (Last accessed on May 27, 2019.)  Daly City, Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on June 25, 2018 re: Update of Long- Term Financial Plan. (https://sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/cache/2/s20eiuhistj4uy0ywl0pk0cn/5545192052720190 45353885.PDF ) (Last accessed on May 27, 2019.)  Daly City, Budget Forecast Model & Long-Term Financial Planning, PFM Consulting LLC, June 25, 2018.  Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018. (www.dalycity.org/Assets/Departments/Finance+and+Administration/Operating+Budget+20 17-2018.pdf ) (Last accessed June 13, 2019.)  Daly City, Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020 (www.dalycity.org/Assets/Departments/Finance+and+Administration/Operating+Budget+20 19-2020.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  Daly City, City Council Meeting presentation slides re: FYs 2019/2020 Comprehensive Biennial Operating and Capital Budget, April 12, 2018). (https://sireweb.dalycity.org/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1092&doctype=AGENDA ) (Last accessed on June 16, 2019.)  East Palo Alto, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-2019. (www.ci.east-palo- alto.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/445 ) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  East Palo Alto, Agenda for City Council meeting on May 15, 2018. (www.ci.east-palo- alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05152018-1409) (Last accessed on June 1, 2019.)  East Palo Alto, Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-20. (www.cityofepa.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/488 ) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  East Palo Alto, Presentation slides re: Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Midyear Budget Amendment.  East Palo Alto, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. (www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/468 ) (Last accessed on April 25, 2019.)  East Palo Alto, Staff Report for July 19, 2016 City Council Meeting re: increasing business license tax. (www.cityofepa.org/DocumentCenter/View/2798 ) (Last accessed on April 29, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-7  East Palo Alto, Staff Report for July 19, 2016 City Council Meeting re: ½ cent sales tax increase. (www.cityofepa.org/DocumentCenter/View/2797 ) (Last accessed on April 29, 2019.)  East Palo Alto, Staff Report for September 4, 2018 City Council Meeting. (www.ci.east- palo-alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09042018-1440 ) (Last accessed on April 25, 2018.)  East Palo Alto, Staff Report for February 19, 2019 City Council Meeting. (www.ci.east-palo- alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02192019-1496 ) (Last accessed June 16, 2019.)  East Palo Alto, Staff Report for March 5, 2019 City Council Meeting. (www.ci.east-palo- alto.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03052019-1500 ) (Last accessed on April 4-25- 19.)  Foster City, Agenda for City Council meeting on January 22, 2019. (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/Web/Player.aspx?id=772&key=-1&mod=-1&mk=- 1&nov=0) (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.)  Foster City FY 2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. (https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/financial_services/page/3501/fo ster_city_cafr_2018.pdf ) (Last accessed on April 29, 2019.)  Foster City Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19. (https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/financial_services/page/3521/fy _2018-2019_final_budget.pdf ) (Last accessed on April 29, 2019.)  Foster City, Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020 (https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/financial_services/page/3521/fy _2019-2020_preliminary_budget.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.)  Foster City staff report for March 26, 2018 City Council Meeting re: Pension Liability (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ad=10823 ) (Last accessed on April 9, 2019.)  Foster City, Staff Report for June 4, 2018 City Council Meeting re: Public Hearing for FY 2018-2019 Preliminary Budget. (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=530 ) (Last accessed on June 16, 2019.)  Foster City, Staff Report for November 19, 2018 City Council Meeting re: Establishing a Pension Liability Subcommittee. (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=541 ) (Last accessed on June 16, 2019.)  Foster City Staff Report for City Council Meeting on January 22, 2019 re: Pension Liability Subcommittee Update. (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ar=1895 ) and Attachment 2 to that staff report (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ad=12095 ) (Last accessed on April 29, 2019.)  Foster City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 11, 2019 re: Policy Direction Regarding Preparation of the FY 2019-2020 Annual Budget and Five-Year Financial Plan. (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/web/UserControls/DocPreview.aspx?p=1&aoid=614 ) (Last accessed on April 29, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-8  Foster City, Staff Report for April 15, 2019 City Council Meeting re: Use and Transfer Out of FY 207-2018 General Fund Rollover Surplus. (https://fostercityca.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ar=1980 ) (Last accessed on April 29, 2019.)  GovInvest, City of Belmont Pension Funding Analysis dated June 12, 2018 (https://belmont- ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=563&meta_id=26745 ) (Last accessed April 11, 2019.)  GovInvest, Discussion & Direction Regarding Pension Funding Analysis, City of Belmont, November 27, 2019 (https://belmont- ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=600&meta_id=29043 ) (Last accessed April 11, 2019.)  Half Moon Bay FY 2017-18 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (www.hmbcit y.com/DocumentCenter/View/2007/Comprehensive-Annual-Financial- Reporting-Fiscal-Year-2017-18 ) (Last accessed on April 30, 2019.)  Half Moon Bay Adopted Operating Budget FY 2018-19. (www.hmbcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/1718/Operating-Budget-2018-2019-PDF ) (Last accessed on April 30, 2019.)  Half Moon Bay, Fiscal Year 2019-20 Recommended Operating Budget. (https://legistarweb- production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/371204/FY_19- 20_RECOMMENDED_BUDGET.pdf ) (Last accessed June 1, 2019.)  Half Moon Bay website (www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/) (Last accessed on April 9, 2019.)  Half Moon Bay City Council meeting agenda packages (www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/315/City- Council-Agendas ) (Last accessed on April 9, 2019.)  Hillsborough, Agenda for City Council meeting on September 11, 2019. (https://www.hillsborough.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09112018-907) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  Hillsborough, Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19, with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2019-20 and 2020-21. (https://www.hillsborough.net/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/212 ) (Last accessed on May 22, 2019.)  Hillsborough, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-20 with Preliminary Budgets for Fiscal Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 (https://www.hillsborough.net/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/254 ) (Last accessed on May 22, 2019.)  Hillsborough, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. (https://www.hillsborough.net/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/244 ) (Last accessed on May 22, 2019.)  Hillsborough, Memorandum from Jan Cooke to Financial Advisory Committee Working Group dated August 3, 2018 re: Pension Liability Mitigation Strategies. (https://www.hillsborough.net/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_09112018-907 ) (Last accessed on May 22, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-9  Menlo Park. Agenda for City Council meeting on November 13, 2018. (https://menlopark.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11132018-3181 ) (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.)  Menlo Park, Fiscal Year 207-18 Adopted Budget. (https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/6273 ) (Last accessed on June 16, 2019.)  Menlo Park. Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. (https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/8539 ) (Last accessed on May 3, 2019.)  Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015 (https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/4161 )) (Last accessed on June 13, 2019.)  Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 (https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5019 ) (Last accessed on June 13, 2019.)  Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 (https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/7607 ) (Last accessed on May 11, 2019.)  Menlo Park, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 (https://menlopark.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/8885 ) (Last accessed on May 3, 2019.)  Menlo Park. Staff Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Study Session: Employee pension obligations. (https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/18957/1SS1---Pension-costs ) (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.)  Menlo Park, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 5, 2019 re: Planned budget strategy for unfunded pension liability. (https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/20786/F1---Pension-liabilities ) (Last accessed on May 3, 2019.)  Millbrae, Operating and Capital Budget for the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year and 2019-2020 Fiscal Year. (https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=18646 ) (Last accessed on May 11, 2019.)  Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 (https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=14199 ) (Last accessed on May 11, 2019.)  Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 (https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=14193 ) (Last accessed on May 11, 2019.)  Millbrae, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 (https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=19512 ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-10  Millbrae, Agenda for City Council meeting on November 13, 2018. (https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/7147/48?toggle=allpast& npage=2 ) (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.)  Millbrae, City Council Agenda Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Receive informational report on City of Millbrae Post-Employment Benefit Costs. (https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=19036 ) (Last accessed on May 4, 2019.)  Millbrae, Slide presentation for November 13, 2018 City Council meeting re: Post- Employment Benefit Review. (https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=19058 ) (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.)  Pacifica, Annual Operating Budget 2018-2019, Adopted June 25, 2018 (https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=54206.65&BlobID=1453 1 ) (Last accessed on May 13, 2019.)  Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 (https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=11776 ) (Last accessed on May 19, 2019.)  Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 (https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13974 ) (Last accessed on May 19, 2019.)  Pacifica, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 (https://pacifica- prod.civica.granicusops.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=57180.84&BlobID=15241 ) (Last accessed on May 13, 2019.)  Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for February 26, 2018 meeting re: Long Term Financial Plan Update 2018-2028 (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1220 ) (Last accessed on May 13, 2019.)  Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for April 24, 2018 meeting re: FY 2018-19 Narrative Budget Report (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1242 ) (Last accessed on May 13, 2019.)  Pacifica, Agenda for City Council Meeting on November 26, 2019 (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1238&Print=Yes ) (Last accessed on May 20, 2019.)  Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for February 25, 2019 meeting re: Long Term Financial Plan Update 2018-2028 (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1259 ) (Last accessed on May 13, 2019.)  Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for April 25, 2019 meeting re: FY 2019-20 Narrative Budget Report (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1307 ) (Last accessed on May 13, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-11  Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for May 7, 2019 meeting re: Proposed 2019-20 General Fund Budget (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1308 ) (Last accessed on May 13, 2019.)  Pacifica, Council Agenda Summary Report for May 13, 2019 meeting re: Proposed 2019-20 General Fund Budget – Department Briefings (https://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1264 ) (Last accessed on May 14, 2019.)  Portola Valley, Adopted Operating & Capital Budgets Fiscal Year 2018-19 (https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showdocument?id=11109 ) (Last accessed on May 19, 2019.)  Portola Valley, Proposed Operating & Capital Budgets, Fiscal Year 2019-20. (https://www.portolavalley.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=12791 ) (Last accessed on June 7, 2019.)  Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2015. (https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showdocument?id=8710 ) (Last accessed on June 7, 2019.)  Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2017. (https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showdocument?id=10885 ) (Last accessed on June 7, 2019.)  Portola Valley, Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2018 (https://www.portolavalley.net/home/showdocument?id=12490 ) (Last accessed on May 19, 2019.)  Redwood City, Agenda for City Council Meeting on February 25, 2019. (https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1998&doctype =1 ) (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.)  Redwood City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 26, 2018 re: FY 2017-18 Mid-Year Budget Study Session and Proposed Process for Development of the FY 2018-19 Budget (https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showdocument?id=14650) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  Redwood City, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 (https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showdocument?id=17868 ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  Redwood City, Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget (https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showdocument?id=16801 ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  Redwood City, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2019-2020 (https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showdocument?id=18302 ) (Last accessed on June 10, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-12  Redwood City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 11, 2018 re: Fiscal Year 2018- 19 Budget Study Session and setting the date for the Public Hearing and Adoption of the Budget (redwoodcity-ca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=redwoodcity- ca_91c0e8c142394ecda94663c9bdf87847.pdf&view=1) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  Redwood City, Staff Memorandum, March 21, 2019, re: Discussion Topics and Staff Recommendations for Meeting on March 25, 2019 (https://webapps.redwoodcity.org/meetings/finance/agendas/2019/financeagenda_20190325_ Agenda-Packet.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  Redwood City, Agenda for City Council Meeting on February 25, 2019. (https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1998&doctype =1 ) (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.)  Redwood City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on February 25, 2019 re: FY 2018-19 Mid-Year Budget Update and Proposed Process for Development of the FY 2019-20 Budget (https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/STAFF percent20REPORT.PDF.pdf?meetingId=1998&documentType=Agenda&itemId=1544&publ ishId=2731&isSection=false ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  Redwood City, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on June 10, 2019 (https://meetings.redwoodcity.org/AgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/STAFF%20RE PORT.PDF.pdf?meetingId=2041&documentType=Agenda&itemId=2152&publishId=3342 &isSection=false ) (Last accessed on June 10, 2019.)  San Bruno, Agenda for City Council Meeting held on November 27, 2019. (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29903 ) (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.)  San Bruno, Presentation Slides for City Council Meeting on November 27, 2018 re: Fiscal Sustainability Study Session – Presentation on the Scope of Work for a Comprehensive Fiscal Sustainability Project. (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29912) (Last accessed on May 6, 2019.)  San Bruno, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Year Ended June 30, 2018 (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30113 ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  San Bruno, Adopted Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating and Capital Budget (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28181 ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  San Bruno, Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18 and Adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2017-18 Through 2021-22. (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28944 ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  San Bruno, Adopted 2018-19 Operating and Capital Budget (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29504 ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-13  San Bruno, Proposed FY 2019-20 Operating and Capital Budget. (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30561 ) (Last accessed on June 2, 2019.)  San Bruno, Presentation Slides for City Council Meeting on February 19, 2019 re: Revenue Enhancements City Council Study Session (https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30202 ) (Last accessed on May 5, 2019.)  San Carlos, Agenda for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018. (https://sancarlosca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2699 ) (Last accessed on June 5, 2019.)  San Carlos, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 (https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=5089 ) (Last accessed on May 6, 2019.)  San Carlos, 2017-18 Adopted Budget. (https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=672 ) (Last accessed on June 16, 2019.)  San Carlos, 2018 – 2020 Adopted Budget (https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=2615 ) (Last accessed on May 6, 2019.)  San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on March 12, 2018 re: Report to Council on the City’s Reserves, Unfunded Pension Liabilities and Unfunded Capital Projects. (sancarlosca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2699&Inline=True) (Last accessed on May 6, 2019.)  San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on April 9, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Transfer $7 Million from the Unfunded Liability Reserve to Pay Down the [CalPERS] Unfunded Pension Liability in the Amount of $5 Million (http://sancarlosca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2707&Inline=True ) (Last accessed on May 6, 2019.)  San Carlos, Staff Report for City Council Meeting on November 13, 2018 re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Approving the General Fund Balance Reserve Allocations. (sancarlosca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=2812&Inline=True) (Last accessed on May 6, 2019.)  San Mateo, Administrative Report Re: 2018-20 Business Plan – Preliminary Review, April 16, 2018. (https://cosm.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3470289&GUID=7EB91E5F-581E- 43C0-B5EF-37D589ECF696&Options=&Search=&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 8, 2019.)  San Mateo, Presentation Slides for April 16, 2018 City Council Meeting re: 2018-20 Business Plan Overview. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3911064&GUID=085C5FE5-E350-4590-B22E- 6B516AEF0BEE ) (Last accessed on May 10-, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-14  San Mateo, Adopted 2017-18 Budget. (https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/60043/Adopted-2017-18- Budget?bidId= ) (Last accessed on May 23, 2019.)  San Mateo, Adopted 2018-20 Business Plan (https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/65342/Adopted-2018-20-Business- Plan ) (Last accessed on May 8, 2019.)  San Mateo, Proposed 2019-20 Budget (https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/68831/Proposed-Budget_2019- 20?bidId= ) (Last accessed on June 13, 2019.)  San Mateo, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018. (https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/66839/2018-Comprehensive- Annual-Financial-Report ) (Last accessed on May 8, 2019.)  San Mateo, Agenda for City Council meeting (7:00 pm) on January 22, 2019 (https://cosm.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx ) (Last accessed June 12, 2019)  SFGate, “CalPERS lowers projected return on investment,” December 22, 2016. (https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/CalPERS-lowers-projected-return-on-investment- 10814294.php ) (Last accessed on June 16, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2018-19. (www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=12317 ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Year Ended June 30, 2018. (www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=14828 ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on September 26, 2018 re: Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to signa a response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Soaring City Pension Costs – Time for Hard Choices.” (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3684489&GUID=B5FABF4F-377B-4E59-821A- 3787840AD758&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Attachment 2 – Pension Contributions 2016-2046, linked to Staff Report for City Council meeting on September 26, 2018 (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3684489&GUID=B5FABF4F-377B-4E59-821A- 3787840AD758&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 29, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Report regarding resolution accepting the financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, and approving Budget Amendment 18.034. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3726604&GUID=BCB98DA2-C0B4-466C- B628-163E50B9B3B1&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3726607&GUID=ED9CE209-888F-4A33- BCD1-363642AE87D1&Options=&Search=&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-15  South San Francisco, Slide presentation for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Pension Study Session, Attachment 10 to the Staff Report for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3911064&GUID=085C5FE5-E350-4590-B22E- 6B516AEF0BEE&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Slide presentation for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Year-End Results, Attachment 4 to the Staff Report for City Council meeting on November 14, 2018 re: Report regarding resolution accepting the financial results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, and approving Budget Amendment 18.034. (https://ci-ssf-ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3726604&GUID=BCB98DA2- C0B4-466C-B628-163E50B9B3B1&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3911064&GUID=085C5FE5-E350-4590-B22E- 6B516AEF0BEE&FullText=1 ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Attachment 4 to Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3911064&GUID=085C5FE5-E350-4590-B22E- 6B516AEF0BEE&Options=&Search= ) (Last accessed June 8, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Attachment 8 (General Fund 10-year forecast $1M contribution to CalPERS) to Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3911064&GUID=085C5FE5-E350-4590-B22E- 6B516AEF0BEE&Options=&Search= ) (Last accessed June 8, 2019.)  South San Francisco, Presentation Slide for Pension Study Session on April 9, 2019, Attachment 10 to Staff Report for City Council meeting on April 9, 2019 re: Study session regarding a comprehensive financial review of the City of South San Francisco, including pension costs. (https://ci-ssf- ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3911064&GUID=085C5FE5-E350-4590-B22E- 6B516AEF0BEE&Options=&Search= ) (Last accessed on May 10, 2019.)  The Stanford Daily, East Palo Alto Passes Measure to Tax Large Companies, 11-13-18 (https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/11/13/east-palo-alto-passes-measure-to-tax-large- companies/ ) (Last accessed on April 25, 2019.)  Voters Edge Library, Measure PP. (http://votersedge.library.ca.gov/ca/en/ballot/election/area/73/measures/measure/3516?&cou nty=san percent20mateo percent20county&election_authority_id=410 ) (Last accessed on May 3, 2019.) 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury B-16  Walsh, Austin, “Study: Cost of pensions dangerous,” San Mateo Daily Journal, July 18, 2018 (https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/study-cost-of-pensions- dangerous/article_967247b4-8a4a-11e8-ac86-ff17b1bc9de1.htm) (Last accessed June 13, 2019.)  Woodside, Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 (https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/finance/page/3721/woodsi de_financial_statements_2018.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 19, 2019.)  Woodside, Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2018-19 (https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/finance/page/23741/adopt ed_budget_2018-19.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 19, 2019.)  Woodside, Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2019-21. (https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town_council/meeting/261 91/proposed_budget_fy_20-21.pdf ) (Last accessed on June 8, 2019.)  Woodside, Report to Town Council for meeting on March 26, 2019 re: Discussion of the Town’s Pension Obligations and Direction to Staff Regarding an Approach to Address the Obligations. (https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town_council/meeting/261 41/item_2_report_pension_obligations.pdf ) (Last accessed on May 19, 2019.) Issued: July 29, 2019 October __, 2019 Via Email Hon. Donald J. Ayoob Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center: 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Grand Jury Report: “Soaring City Pension Costs – Follow-Up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018” Dear Judge Ayoob: The City of South San Francisco (the “City”) hereby submits the following response to the 2018- 2019 Grand Jury report filed on July 29, 2019. The following is in response to only those findings and recommendations as it pertains to the City. These responses were approved by the City Council at the City Council meeting held on October 9, 2019. FINDINGS Data Set Forth in Appendix A F1. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined covered payroll for the City’s pension plans for each of FY 2014-15, FY2015-16, FY2016-17 and FY2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F2. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined contribution payments to CalPERS on the City’s pension plans for each of FY2014-15, FY2015-16, FY2016-17, and FY2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. CITY COUNCIL 2019 KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER Mike Futrell City Manager 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 ----------------- SSF Response to Grand Jury Report October __, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Response: The City agrees with this finding for FY 2016-17 and FY2017-18. FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 should be $11,739 and $14,263, respectively. F3. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in this report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY2014-15, FY2015-16, FY2016-17, and FY2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F4. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2018 reported combined Funded Percentages (as defined in the prior report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY2014-15, FY2015-16, FY2016-17, and FY2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F5. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 reported what the combined Unfunded Liabilities (as defined in the prior report) for the City’s pension plans for each of FY2014-15, FY2015-16, FY2016-17, and FY2017-18 would have been if the applicable Discount Rate applied to calculate them had been one percentage point lower in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F6. Each City’s audited annual financial report for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018 reported general fund total expenditures for each of FY2014-15, FY2015-16, FY2016-17, and FY2017-18 in the amounts set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F7. In each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018, each City’s combined contribution to CalPERS on the City’s pension plans represented the percentage of that City’s general fund total expenditures for that year set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A in the column entitled “Contribution Payments as % of General Fund Total Expenditures.” Response: The City agrees with this finding. F8. In each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015, June 30, 2016, June 30, 2017, and June 30, 2018, each City’s combined contribution to CalPERS on the City’s pension plans represented the percentage of that City’s combined covered payroll for the Ctiy’s pension plans in the amount set forth beside its name for that year in Appendix A in the ----------------- SSF Response to Grand Jury Report October __, 2019 Page 3 of 6 column entitled “Contribution Rate (i.e., Contribution Payments as % of Covered Payroll).” Response: The City agrees with this finding for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. Percentages for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 should be adjusted accordingly to figures shown in our response to F2. Projections of Future City Pension Costs F9. Each of Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough, and Redwood City includes in its annual, or bi-annual budgets published on its public website, projections showing the annual dollar amount of its projected pension contribution costs for the next five or more years. None of the other Cities do so. Response: The City agrees with this finding. However, as detailed in this Grand Jury report, the City has publicly shared this information via Council reports. F10. Finding not applicable to the City. F11. The only way to find projections showing the annual dollar amount of the following Cities’ projected pension contribution costs for the next five or more years on their public websites is by manually searching through agenda packages for their city council meetings: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco and Woodside. Response: The City agrees with this finding. Long-Term Financial Forecasts F12. Each of Colma, Daly City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco and Woodside has a general fund operating budget forecast covering a ten-year period. Of those nine, only Colma, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo, and Woodside make those forecasts accessible to the public in their most recent annual or bi-annual budgets or annual financial reports published on their public websites. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F13. The only way to find the ten-year general fund operating budget forecasts on the public websites of Pacifica and South San Francisco is by manually searching through agenda packages for their City Council meetings. Response: The City agrees with this finding. ----------------- SSF Response to Grand Jury Report October __, 2019 Page 4 of 6 F14. Finding not applicable to the City. F15. Finding not applicable to the City. F16. Finding not applicable to the City. F17. Finding not applicable to the City. F18. Finding not applicable to the City. Plans to Make Additional Payments to CalPERS Beyond Annual Required Contributions F19. Finding not applicable to the City. F20. Neither Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Bruno, South San Francisco nor Woodside currently has a specific plan recommended by staff to the City or Town Council (as applicable) to make additional pension contribution payments to CalPERS beyond its Annual Required Contribution. Response: The City disagrees with this finding. It is the City’s practice to explore its options in addressing its UAL as a normal part of our financial planning efforts. The City has a set-aside of an internal reserve that is intended for additional pension contributions. Establishment of Reserves or Section 115 Trusts for Future Pension Payments F21. Each of Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, South San Francisco and Woodside has set aside internal reserves, or contributed funds to a Section 115 trust, specifically for the purpose of paying future pension contribution costs. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F22. Finding not applicable to the City. Employee Cost-Sharing to Help Pay Cities’ Pension Costs F23. Each of Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo and South San Francisco has, or currently intends to seek, one or more cost-sharing agreements with employees under which employees pay for a portion of the City’s Normal Cost pension payment obligations to CalPERS. ----------------- SSF Response to Grand Jury Report October __, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Response: The City agrees with this finding. F24. Finding not applicable to the City. Revenue Enhancement Ballot Initiatives by Cities F25. Each of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Redwood City, and South San Francisco have, since November 2016, sought and obtained voter approval for ballot measures intended to increase revenues. Response: The City agrees with this finding. F26. Finding not applicable to the City. F27. Neither Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Portola Valley, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, nor Woodside is currently considering seeking approval of its voters for revenue enhancement measures in the near term. Response: The City disagrees with this finding. The City is exploring its options for revenue enhancements and any measures that requires voter approval will be brought forth as necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. Each City include in its published annual or bi-annual budgets a general fund operating budget forecast for the next ten fiscal years. The recommendation will be implemented in the City’s next biennial budget (Fiscal Years 2021-2023). R2. Each City include a report in its published annual or bi-annual budgets specifically setting forth the dollar amounts of its annual pension costs paid to CalPERS. The report should include the following: a) The City’s total pension contribution costs under all plans, for each of the three preceding years as well as estimates for such costs in each of the following ten fiscal years (whether developed by City staff internally, or by outside consultants to the City), assuming CalPERS’ actuarial assumptions are met. b) The City’s total Unfunded Liabilities under all plans, for each of the three preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such Unfunded Liabilities in each of the next ten ----------------- SSF Response to Grand Jury Report October __, 2019 Page 6 of 6 fiscal years, (whether developed by City staff internally, or by outside consultants to the City), assuming CalPERS’ actuarial assumptions are met. c) The City’s Funded Percentage across all plans, for each of the three preceding fiscal years as well as estimates for such Funded Percentages in each of the next ten fiscal years, assuming CalPERS’ actuarial assumptions are met. d) The percentage of the City’s general fund expenditures, and the percentage of the City’s covered payroll, represented by the pension costs described in (a) above (using estimates of general fund expenditures in future fiscal years). Response: The recommendation above will not be implemented as part of our budget process because of the following reasons. The City already discloses the three-year historical data in our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in compliance with GASB 68 guidelines as it relates to information for the three preceding years. In terms of the recommendations related to disclosing projections, the City will implement this recommendation as is reasonable. The adoption of this recommendation will depend upon the availability of information directly from CalPERS, who is the administrator of the City’s pension plans. Sincerely, Mike Futrell City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-859 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign the response to the County of San Mateo Grand Jury Report titled “Soaring City Pension Costs - Follow-Up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018.” WHEREAS,in June 2018,the San Mateo County Grand Jury (“Grand Jury”)issued a report entitled “Soaring City Pension Costs - Time for Hard Choices” (“Grand Jury report”); and WHEREAS,on July 29,2019,the Grand Jury released a report titled “Soaring City Pension Costs -Follow-up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018”with two Recommendations directed at cities to address issues relating to rising pension costs; and WHEREAS,Recommendation R1 would direct cities to include in their published annual or bi-annual budgets a general fund operating budget forecast for the next ten fiscal years,and Recommendation R2 would direct cities to include a report in their published annual or bi-annual budgets specifically setting forth the dollar amounts of its annual pension costs paid to CalPERS, with certain specific content criteria; and WHEREAS,the Grand Jury requested a response from the City of South San Francisco within 90 days after the issuing date of the Grand Jury report; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared a response to the Grand Jury report, attached herein as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS,the City anticipates to implement Recommendation 1 by publishing a 10-year budget forecast for the City’s general fund operating budget beginning the next biennial budget cycle (FY2021-23); and WHEREAS,the City already discloses the 3-year historical data raised by Recommendation 2 as a normal part of the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,and the City’s ability to generate future forecasts will be contingent upon the availability of that data directly from CalPERS,who is the administrator of the City’s pension plans. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve and authorize the City Manager to sign the response,attached hereto as Exhibit A,to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Soaring City Pension Costs - Follow-Up on Grand Jury Report of 2017-2018.” ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-800 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding a resolution approving the City of South San Francisco’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report,"Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo",and authorizing the City Manager to submit the response. (Sarah Henricks, Management Analyst) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the City of South San Francisco’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report,"Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo", and authorizing the City Manager to submit the response. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Global warming and climate change are an everyday reality.California is a leader in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Sixty percent of greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo County come from the transportation sector.Local government vehicle fleets are a relatively small part of that sector;however,the Grand Jury believes they are important in terms of setting an example for private industry and individuals to follow. In December 2018,the Grand Jury surveyed the County and each of its 20 cities to determine the extent to which they are converting their fleets to electric vehicles.The average percentage of electric vehicles making up the County fleet is 31%and the percentage of city fleets is just two percent.South San Francisco has zero all -electric vehicles in its fleet. Ten additional cities in the County do not have any electric vehicles. The Grand Jury explored which cities within the County have Climate Action Plans (CAP)in place and whether those plans address the conversion of government fleets to electric vehicles.South San Francisco’s CAP was adopted in 2014 and does include a section on improving vehicle efficiency;however,it does not specifically address fleet conversion.The Grand Jury found that CAPs across the County varied in approach and strength;South San Francisco’s CAP provides specific actions to expand the use of alternative-fuel vehicles and reduce emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment.Examples include adopting policies and supporting agreements and programs for increasing EV charging infrastructure,and adopting policies for the City’s use of clean equipment.The SSF CAP however does not explicitly discuss purchasing low-emissions vehicles or a strategy for converting the fleet to electric vehicles. The Grand Jury also investigated sources of financial and technical assistance,listing programs that can assist municipalities in finding funding for electric vehicles,technical assistance in strategic planning for fleet electrification efforts, and policies for how to prioritize procurement of electric vehicles. Finally,the Grand Jury identified common obstacles to public adoption of electric vehicles,listing high purchase price,limited driving range,limited model choices,and lack of charging infrastructure among the reasons the public and municipalities may be slow to embrace fleet electrification. On August 12,2019,the 2018-19 Grand Jury issued the report,“Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and Counties of San Mateo,”included as Attachment 1.The City of South San Francisco is required to provide a response to the report within 90 days indicating the City’s agreement or disagreement with the findings andCity of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-800 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:8. response to the report within 90 days indicating the City’s agreement or disagreement with the findings and associated action plans regarding the report’s recommendations.A draft of the response is included as Exhibit A to the accompanying resolution. Grand Jury Findings The findings listed in the report appear to be factual and accurate with regard to the City of South San Francisco.As noted in the response,the City of South San Francisco agrees with Findings F1 through F11, because they are accurate and reflect information included in the City’s Municipal Code,on the City’s website or on the websites of neighboring jurisdictions. Grand Jury Recommendations The Grand Jury made four recommendations, all of which apply to the City of South San Francisco. Recommendation R1:By March 31,2020,the County of San Mateo and each city within the county should conduct a review of its government fleet procurement policy relating to electric vehicles and present a report at a public meeting.At a minimum,the review should be based on an analysis that includes up-to-date life-cycle costs of commercially available electric vehicles and an up-to-date assessment of whether electric vehicles can meet the performance needs of local jurisdictions for power,range,battery life,and other relevant factors.If an agency has completed such a review within the last three years,then such review should be presented to its governing body at a public meeting on or before December 31, 2019. Recommendation R2:By March 31,2020,the County of San Mateo and each city within the county should conduct an analysis of obstacles,if any,to the implementation of an EV government fleet procurement policy and present a report at a public meeting.This could include,for example,the availability of electric vehicle charging stations to serve the vehicle fleet and training of vehicle maintenance staff.If an agency has completed such an analysis within the last three years,then such analysis should be presented to its governing body at a public meeting on or before December 31, 2019. Recommendation R3:By September 30,2019,the County of San Mateo Department of Public Works and each city within the county should review the “Roadmap for Municipal Green Fleets”toolkit from the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability, including the information on the possibility of adopting an EV First Policy. Recommendation R4:By September 30,2019,the County of San Mateo and each city within the county,if they have not already initiated such a process,should investigate joining the Climate Mayors EV Purchasing Collaborative to take advantage of aggregate purchasing. FISCAL IMPACT None. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This response relates to the City’s strategic plan initiative to update its Sustainability/Climate Action Plan by outlining specific actions that the City can take to increase the use of electric vehicles in its fleet,to encourage others to adopt electric vehicles, and to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the City. CONCLUSION Adoption of the accompanying resolution ensures compliance and responsiveness to the Grand Jury report findings and recommendations,and demonstrates the City’s commitment to implementing electric vehicles and City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-800 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:8. findings and recommendations,and demonstrates the City’s commitment to implementing electric vehicles and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Attachment:San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo” City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ ATTACHMENT 1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-801 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:8a. Resolution approving the City of South San Francisco’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, "Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo",and authorizing the City Manager to submit the response. WHEREAS, global warming and climate change are an everyday reality; and WHEREAS, California is a leader in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS,sixty percent of greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo County come from the transportation sector and while local government vehicle fleets make up a relatively small part of the sector,the San Mateo County Grand Jury believes local governments are important in terms of setting an example for private industry and individuals to follow; and WHEREAS,purchase of electric vehicles has been cost prohibitive in the past;however,zero emissions technology has advanced and costs have dropped; and WHEREAS,there are now multiple programs in place to assist local jurisdictions in analyzing obstacles that prevent fleet conversion and facilitate the replacement of traditional gas powered fleets with electric fleet vehicles; and WHEREAS,on August 12,2019,the San Mateo County Grand Jury issued a report titled “Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo” (“Grand Jury Report”); and WHEREAS,the Grand Jury Report contains findings and recommendations pertaining to the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and WHEREAS,the City is required to provide a response to the findings and recommendations within 90 days of the Grand Jury report; and WHEREAS,the City’s response,attached hereto as Exhibit A,agrees with all the Grand Jury Report findings and provides individual replies to each of the recommendations made in the report. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve the City’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report,"Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo", attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to sign and submit the City’s response attached hereto as Exhibit A. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-801 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:8a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ October 10, 2019 Hon. Donald J. Ayoob Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Dear Hon Donald J. Ayoob, On October 9, 2019, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (“City”) approved the response contained in this letter to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, “Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo,” dated August 12, 2019. Response to Findings The City agrees with Findings F1 through F11. The findings are accurate, and reflect information that is included in publicly available documents, including the City’s website at http://www.ssf.net. Response to Recommendations In response to R1, the City will conduct a review of its government fleet procurement policy relating to electric vehicles and present a report at a public meeting no later than March 31, 2020. In response to R2, the City will conduct an analysis of the obstacles, if any, to the implementation of the fleet procurement policy and present a report at a public meeting no later than March 31, 2020. In response to R3, the City has reviewed the “Roadmap for Municipal Green Fleets” toolkit from the San Mateo County Office of Sustainability, including information on the possibility of adopting an EV First Policy. In response to R4, the City has investigated joining the Climate Mayors EV Purchasing Collaborative to take advantage of aggregate purchasing. Sincerely, CITY COUNCIL 2019 KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER October 9, 2019 Response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Electric Vehicle Adoption in the Cities and County of San Mateo” dated August 12, 2019 Mike Futrell City Manager City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-850 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding adoption of a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery”(Jesus Magallanes, Fire Chief) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery”. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Building safety inspections by fire departments are essential to identify potential fire hazards before they occur. When inspections do not occur,disasters result.Lawmakers have focused special attention on certain categories of buildings and require them to be inspected annually.California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2, 13146.3,and 17921(b)mandate that fire departments conduct annual inspections of all the buildings in the following building categories within their jurisdiction:Public and private schools,Hotels,Motels,Apartment buildings, and Condominiums. Fire departments are also authorized,but not required,to annually inspect high-rise buildings in their jurisdictions (California Health &Safety Code,Section 13217a).Significantly,prior to the passage of SB 1205 in 2018,California law did not include any requirement for fire departments to report on their compliance with annual inspection obligations. The Grand Jury undertook a compliance review of all ten fire departments within the County for the years 2015 through 2018 to determine whether their mandated annual inspections were conducted as required.For the period in question,the Grand Jury found substantial non-compliance among seven of the ten fire departments, particularly for the years prior to 2018.Although most departments appear to be making substantial efforts to correct their deficiencies,those departments must address such deficiencies promptly if they are to comply with the requirements of SB 1205. It is within this context that,on July 22,2019 the San Mateo County Grand Jury issued a report entitled, “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery”(included as Attachment 1,pages 17-19 for the list of Findings),which required the City of South San Francisco to provide a response within 90 days.A draft of the response is included as Exhibit A to the accompanying resolution. Grand Jury Findings Overall,the findings included in the Grand Jury report are factual and accurate.The City specifically agrees with Findings F1,F4,F5, F7, F9, F14, F16, and F18 because they reflect information that is included in publicly available documents. Grand Jury Recommendations The Grand Jury made four recommendations. Recommended responses are shown below. Recommendation R1 :By no later than January 31,2020,each fire department within the county should put City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-850 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:9. Recommendation R1 :By no later than January 31,2020,each fire department within the county should put in place a written policy that sets forth the process for (1)maintaining a comprehensive list of all buildings within its jurisdiction for which annual inspections required under Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health &Safety Code are to be performed,(2)keeping such a list updated on an annual basis,and (3) completing and reporting on all mandated annual inspections. Response to R1.The Fire Department already has in place the recommended policies and procedures,and per SB1205 will report annually, with the first report scheduled for November, 2019. Recommendation R2:By no later than November 30,2019,each fire department should submit a proposal to its administering authority setting forth the content of the annual report as required under Section 13146.4 of the California Health &Safety Code (former SB 1205)(the “Annual Report”),which at a minimum should propose the inclusion of the following information in the Annual Report: ·The total number of buildings within the fire department’s jurisdiction in each category of building (referred to as an “occupancy type”) subject to mandated annual inspections that year. ·The number of each occupancy type inspected during the year; ·The number of each occupancy type,if any,not inspected that year and the reason such inspection did not take place, and ·The number of each occupancy type, if any, not inspected for two or more consecutive years. Response to R2.The Fire Department will submit the annual report on mandated inspections to Council in November, 2019, which will include the information called for by the Grand Jury. Recommendation R3:By no later than January 31,2020,the administering authority for each fire department should review the proposal for the content of the Annual Report submitted by its fire chief and provide written instructions regarding the required content and due date for submission of the Annual Report. Response to R3.The Annual Report on mandated inspections is included in the Fire Department Annual Report, which will be released prior to January 31, 2020. Recommendation R4:By no later than February 28,2020 (and annually thereafter),the administering authority for each fire department should instruct the fire chief to publish the fire department’s Annual Report on the fire department’s public website. Response to R4.After approval and before February 28,2020,deadline the Fire Department will post this information on the City website. This process will be done on an annual basis. FISCAL IMPACT The responses outlined in this report do not require additional budgetary action. RELATION TO STRATEGIC PLAN This action supports priority area four regarding Public Safety. CONCLUSION In response to the Grand Jury Report:“Fire Safety Inspection Programs on the Road to Recovery”,the Fire City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-850 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:9. Department Staff agrees with the findings. Adoption of the accompanying resolution ensures compliance and responsiveness to the Grand Jury report findings and recommendations,and demonstrates the City’s commitment to improving public safety. Attachments: 1.San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspection Program on the Road to Recovery.” City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1 FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAMS ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY Issue | Summary | Background | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations Requests for Responses | Methodology | Bibliography | Responses ISSUE Have the ten fire departments and districts within San Mateo County conducted annual safety inspections of all schools, hotels, motels, apartments, and condominiums within their jurisdictions and are they ready to report to their administering authorities as required by SB 1205 (2018)? SUMMARY California state law requires that all fire departments and districts in the state (“fire departments”) conduct annual safety inspections of all public and private schools, apartments, condominiums, hotels and motels within their jurisdictions (sometimes referred to in this report as “mandated annual inspections”). In June 2018, the Bay Area News Group investigated the fire safety inspection programs of major fire departments across the Bay Area, including the Redwood City Fire Department in San Mateo County. The Bay Area News Group found that fire departments, including the Redwood City Fire Department, were routinely failing to conduct these mandated annual inspections. A state law (SB 1205) which became effective in January 2019, now requires all fire departments to submit Annual Reports to their governing bodies or administering authorities (e.g., city council, fire district board, board of supervisors) regarding their compliance with the state’s mandate for annual fire safety inspections. Based on the Bay Area News Group’s assertion that at least one fire department within San Mateo County had failed to annually conduct inspections, the Grand Jury undertook a compliance review of all ten fire departments1 within the County for the years 2015 through 2018 to determine whether their mandated annual inspections were conducted as required. For the period in question, the Grand Jury found substantial non-compliance among seven of the ten fire departments, particularly for the years prior to 2018. Although most departments appear to be making substantial efforts to correct their deficiencies, those departments must address such deficiencies promptly if they are to comply with the requirements of SB 1205. SB 1205 does not set forth the information to be contained in Annual Reports submitted by fire departments to their administering authorities. The Grand Jury concludes that administrative authorities should provide written instructions regarding the required content and due date for submission of Annual Reports in order to provide meaningful oversight of fire departments’ compliance with annual inspection laws. The Grand Jury also recommends that all fire departments establish written policies specifying processes and procedures for conducting inspection programs that comply with state law and for regularly monitoring their performance 1The ten fire departments in San Mateo County are: Central County Fire Department, Coastside Fire Protection District, Colma Fire District, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, North County Fire Authority, Redwood City Fire Department, San Bruno Fire Department, San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, South San Francisco Fire Department, and Woodside Fire Protection District. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2 against these requirements. Finally, the Grand Jury recommends that fire departments make data on compliance with annual inspection requirements available on their websites to members of the public. BACKGROUND Building safety inspections by fire departments are essential to identify potential fire hazards before they occur. When inspections do not occur, disasters result. Lawmakers have focused special attention on certain categories of buildings and require them to be inspected annually. California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2, 13146.3, and 17921(b) mandate that fire departments conduct annual inspections of all the buildings in the following building categories within their jurisdiction:  Public and private schools2  Hotels  Motels  Apartment buildings, and  Condominiums3 Fire departments are also authorized, but not required, to annually inspect high-rise buildings in their jurisdictions (California Health & Safety Code, Section 13217a). Significantly, prior to the passage of SB 1205 in 2018, California law did not include any requirement for fire departments to report on their compliance with annual inspection obligations. The infamous December 2016 Oakland Ghost Ship warehouse fire in which 36 people were killed brought this problem to public attention.4 Investigations of the fire by Oakland and Alameda County officials found a number of conditions that contributed to the disaster,5 including:  The Oakland Fire Department (OFD) had no record of the Ghost Ship warehouse property, therefore the property was never the subject of formal fire inspections.6 2 Includes buildings and structures occupied by more than six children two years of age and older used for educational purposes through the 12th grade. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 3, Use and Occupancy Classification. https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2016-v1/chapter/3/use-and- occupancy-classification#305. 3 California State Fire Marshal Code Interpretation. http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/codeinterpretation/pdf/2008/08_090.pdf 4 Oakland Fire Department, Fire/Arson Investigative Unit, Origin and Cause Report, Incident #2016-85231, December 2, 2016, 1315 31st Avenue, March 18, 2017, 3. https://www2.Oaklandnet.com. 5 Oakland Fire Department, Fire/Arson Investigative Unit, Origin and Cause Report, Incident #2016-85231, December 2, 2016, 1315 31st Avenue, March 18, 2017, 3. https://www2.Oaklandnet.com. 6 Kimberly Veklerov, “Oakland Fire Department Software Blamed for Inspection Lapses,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 9, 2017, accessed May 23, 2018. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-Fire- Department-software-blamed-for-11061705.php. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3  A number of city and county officials were aware of the warehouse and its live/work communal activities but did not take action that may have prevented the disaster.7  A variety of fire and building code violations existed in the warehouse.8 The revelations surrounding the Oakland Ghost Ship fire led to an investigation into the building inspection records of eleven large Bay Area fire departments by the Bay Area News Group (BANG) which resulted in a June 1, 2018 Mercury News article entitled, Burned Out: How overwhelmed fire inspectors fail to protect us.9 The article revealed that many of the fire departments that were investigated by BANG routinely failed to perform all of their required annual inspections. Prevention divisions within these major fire departments, which are responsible for inspections, were described as “overwhelmed and often disorganized.” Failures were attributed to “antiquated data management systems, small staffs and difficulty keeping up with problem properties that require repeat visits.”10 The one fire department in San Mateo County that was included in BANG’s investigation was the Redwood City Fire Department. The article revealed that:  Of the 17 public and private schools within its jurisdiction, the Redwood City Fire Department had inspected four of the schools only once and 13 others only twice between 2012 and 2017 when each of the schools should have been inspected at least six times.11  In 2017, 18 percent of Redwood City apartments, hotels, and motels had not been inspected as required.12  Between 2010 and 2017, 16 percent of apartments, hotels, and motels were overdue for their annual inspections by 6 months or more.13 SB 1205, enacted in 2018, now requires fire departments to report annually to their governing bodies (referred to in SB 1205 as their “administering authority”) on their compliance with state inspection requirements (referred to throughout this report as an “Annual Report”). The governing body may be a city council, a fire district board for departments serving multiple cities, or a county board of supervisors. This legislation seeks to hold fire departments accountable and offers a mechanism to ensure compliance with inspection laws. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Thomas Peele, “Burned Out How overwhelmed fire inspectors fail to protect us”, The Mercury News/East Bay Times, June 1, 2018. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4 DISCUSSION 1. Fire departments’ primary functions Fire departments have three primary functions: (a) fire suppression, (b) other emergency responses (primarily for medical emergencies), and (c) fire prevention. Suppression refers to putting out fires that have already started. This entails deployment of fire engines and firefighters that are highly visible to the public and garner significant attention. Interestingly, actual fire suppression accounts for only a small percentage of fire department emergency responses (approximately 3.4 percent in 2016).14 Responses to medical emergency calls, which involve responses by suppression personnel and equipment, accounted for approximately 64 percent of all 2016 emergency responses by fire departments in California.15 Prevention, in contrast, involves the low profile, day-to-day work of inspecting buildings for compliance with fire safety codes, reviewing plans for new building developments to ensure compliance with fire code requirements, on-site inspections of building construction to confirm that fire safety features are being installed per approved building plans, and investigating the causes of fires that do occur. Prevention functions within a fire department are usually managed by a Fire Marshal.16 2. Necessary elements for carrying out required annual inspection programs The elements necessary for a fire department’s performance of its required annual inspection obligations and, under SB 1205, their new reporting obligations, are as follows:  Written policies and procedures: Fire departments should have written policies and procedures in place that set forth: (a) how an inspection program is to be carried out, (b) staff responsibilities, (c) the specific inspection data that must be gathered and available for retrieval, (d) how performance of inspections is to be measured and reported, and (e) oversight and management processes for the inspection program.17  Lists of buildings required to be inspected: Fire departments need to have an up-to-date list of all of the buildings within their jurisdiction that must be inspected annually. Developing and maintaining such lists is time consuming and requires the investment of significant resources. In order to do so, fire department staff may review parcel lists, walk through neighborhoods to update the list, and review building permits or tax information to identify owners of apartment buildings.18 14 2016 data from the U.S. Fire Administration/California Fire Loss/Fire Department Profile www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/states/california.html. 15 2016 data from the U.S. Fire Administration/California Fire Loss/Fire Department Profile . www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/states/california.html. The other incident types were: Good Intent 17.9 percent, False Alarms 6.5 percent, Service Calls 6.1 percent, Hazards 1.8 percent, Other 0.3 percent, Explosions 0.1 percent. The information does not total 100 percent due to rounding. 16 Grand Jury interviews. 17 Grand Jury interviews. 18 Grand Jury interviews. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5  Inspection Process: Building inspections are usually carried out by a mix of prevention inspectors, who have specialized expertise on building code requirements, and regular engine company suppression firefighters. In some fire departments, engine company firefighters conduct most inspections, though in others they are assigned to carry out only simple, routine inspections and prevention personnel carry out the more complex inspections where a higher level of expertise is needed.19  Record keeping and data retrieval: Accurate records must be maintained of all inspections completed, the dates performed, building addresses, and the types of building inspected (e.g., school, hotel, apartment building). These records need to be organized and maintained in a manner that allows fire departments to monitor performance of their annual inspection obligations, identify inspections yet to be done, monitor follow up when deficiencies are identified, and report to management and administrative authorities on compliance. In all but the smallest fire departments, this necessitates storing inspection data in electronic databases that can be queried for reports reflecting progress against inspection requirements and follow up to ensure deficiencies are corrected.20 Fire departments’ inspection reports completed in the field have, in the past, been filled out on paper. Paper field reports are either filed manually and maintained only in paper form, or data from the field reports is entered into an electronic database to allow storage, retrieval and analysis. Most departments are moving toward the use of electronic tablet devices such as iPads for field reports.21  Staffing: Adequate specially trained inspectors who understand the requirements of city and state fire codes are needed. Such staff are usually part of prevention units within fire departments.22 3. Grand Jury’s review of individual fire departments’ inspection programs (a) Written policies and procedures: Of the ten fire departments in San Mateo County, only the following six have written policies and procedures applicable to their mandated annual inspection obligations:23  Central County Fire Department,24  Menlo Park Fire Protection District, 19 Grand Jury interviews. 20 Grand Jury interviews. 21 Grand Jury interviews. 22 Grand Jury interviews. 23 The Grand Jury requested each department to submit policies and procedures. Those received were reviewed by the Grand Jury. 24According to written communication, the policy on school inspections was updated 1/30/19. The policy on inspections for all occupancies is in draft form but has not been through the department’s approval process. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6  Redwood City Fire Department,  North County Fire Authority,25  South San Francisco Fire Department, and  Woodside Fire Protection District. One additional department, Coastside Fire Protection District, submitted an inspection policy, though it was specific to how engine company staff conducts business inspections and was not specifically for mandated annual inspections. The following fire departments do not have written policies and procedures regarding their inspection programs:  Colma Fire District,  San Bruno Fire Department, and  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. Of the policies submitted to the Grand Jury, the Grand Jury found the most comprehensive were from Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD) and North County Fire Authority (NCFA). The MPFPD’s policy defines the buildings to be inspected, the procedures to be followed, and inspection fees. Additionally, the MPFPD has an Engine Company Manual that includes occupancy classifications, information on the maintenance of records, an inspection flow chart, a referral form to the Fire Prevention Division for follow up, and a master list change request form. MPFPD also has a detailed slide show presentation on building inspections for engine company staff. The NCFA policies include detailed information on staff responsibilities, assignments, and the inspection process. (b) Lists of buildings required to be inspected: All ten fire departments investigated by the Grand Jury appear to have comprehensive lists of buildings in their jurisdiction subject to mandatory inspections. These lists may also include businesses in a department’s jurisdiction. (Single family residences are excluded since they are not routinely inspected.)26 (c) Inspection Process: Departments use different combinations of staff with different expertise to conduct inspections. Prevention staff receive training on fire safety codes and must understand the design and function of building systems, such as heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC), smoke 25North County Fire Authority’s policy did not mention school inspections. 26 Grand Jury interviews. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7 control, and alarm systems, and sprinklers. Fire suppression staff (also referred to as engine company staff) may only have a general understanding of fire codes.27 Of the ten fire departments investigated by the Grand Jury, the following three use prevention staff alone to complete mandated inspections:28  Colma Fire District,  South San Francisco Fire Department, and  Woodside Fire Protection District. Though South San Francisco Fire Department now uses prevention staff, engine company staff were used along with prevention staff in 2015, 2016, and 2017 to inspect apartments and condominiums. Of the seven remaining fire departments, the following four primarily use engine company staff to conduct inspections, though prevention staff will inspect schools and some large structures (which are more complex to inspect):29  Central County Fire Department,  San Bruno Fire Department,30  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, and  North County Fire Authority. For example, Central County Fire Department engine company staff inspect all but two apartment buildings. Prevention staff inspects the remaining two apartment buildings plus all hotels, motels, and schools.31 Finally, three of the fire departments– the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, Redwood City Fire Department and Coastside Fire Protection District – staff their inspections in other ways. Redwood City Fire Department uses fire prevention staff to conduct inspections of schools, hotels, motels and high-rise occupancies. Engine company personnel conduct inspections of other apartments.32 Menlo Park Fire Protection District uses a combination of prevention and 27 Grand Jury interviews. 28 Not all fire departments inspect day centers, though such facilities are classified as “Educational” under California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 3, Use and Occupancy Classification. https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2016-v1/chapter/3/use-and-occupancy-classification#305. 29 Grand Jury interviews. 30 San Bruno Fire Department also uses truck company staff to conduct inspections. Written correspondence. 31 Grand Jury interviews. 32 Prevention staff also inspects four jails bi-annually. Engine and truck company suppression staff were trained to perform fire and life safety inspections. The Department is also inspecting non-mandated business occupancies 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8 engine company staff for inspections and assigns inspections based on the level of technical expertise appropriate for each building. Assignments made to engine company staff will generally be those that require less inspection expertise and prevention staff handle inspections that require higher-level inspection expertise, or that require a greater amount of time to complete. Prevention staff, rather than engine company staff, are also tasked with following up on safety issues in buildings that had earlier been identified by engine company staff.33 Coastside Fire Protection District’s (CFPD) inspection staffing is not yet decided. In 2017, its Unit Chief learned that there had been significant failures in the department in carrying out mandated inspections. As a result, the CFPD hired consultants to complete all of the department’s mandated annual building inspections in 2017 and 2018.34 CFPD will continue to use consultants and engine company personnel to conduct inspections. However, CFPD is considering adding a full-time position in the Fire Marshal’s Office to facilitate inspections (as well as for other duties).35 (d) Record keeping and data retrieval: Until recently, all ten of the fire departments completed their inspection reports on paper, though three of them would then enter data from the reports into an electronic database.36 Four departments that continue to use paper filing system (as opposed to electronic) are:  Coastside Fire Protection District,  Colma Fire District,  San Bruno Fire Department, and  Woodside Fire Protection District.37 Woodside Fire Prevention District, however, reported that the department would like to digitize reports and eliminate paper files but because of its small size and the cost of a database system, it is unlikely to purchase one.38 Colma Fire District with only thirty-six mandated inspections, is also too small to purchase a database system.39 throughout their jurisdiction on a multi-year cycle using engine and truck company personnel. Written correspondence. 33 Grand Jury interviews. 34 Coastside Fire Protection District staff reported that in 2016 a Deputy Fire Marshal position was eliminated. This staff member had been responsible for managing inspections. No other staff member was assigned that responsibility. The Fire Marshal position was vacant, though it was filled in February 2019. 35 Grand Jury interviews 36 Grand Jury interviews. 37 Grand Jury interviews. 38 Grand Jury interviews. 39 Written correspondence. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9 San Bruno Fire Department (SBFD) reported that records had not been kept in a single, central location but had been scattered across various locations, including fire officers’ personal files.40 It was only after receiving a document request from the Grand Jury that SBFD’s inspection reports were collected, reviewed, and stored centrally.41 Since it is likely that files had been misplaced or purged, SBFD does not have an accurate record of the number of inspections that were completed (2015 – 2018). SBFD has addressed these issues and is now confident that it is accounting for all completed inspections on spreadsheets that list the date each building was inspected and by whom. In 2019, the San Bruno City Council approved funds for a Records Management System which is being implemented. Once implemented, staff will use electronic tablets to document inspections which will improve tracking and accounting of inspections.42 The following three fire departments complete their inspection reports on paper but then enter the information into a computer database:43  Central County Fire Department,44  Redwood City Fire Department,45 and  South San Francisco Fire Department.46 Since field report data must be entered manually, there can be delays in accessing up-to-date information and human entry errors or omissions occur.47 In response to Grand Jury queries, all three fire departments reported that they have difficulty retrieving accurate information from their current database systems regarding inspections.48 Though Central County Fire Department (CCFD) plans to continue using its current database, CCFD will implement software for the system using iPads to input field inspection data directly into the database system in 2019.49 Redwood City Fire Department issued an RFP for a new database system and as of June 2019 was in the final phase of evaluating the responses The new database system will allow for an all- electronic process using iPads in the field.50 South San Francisco Fire Department is not investing in a new database. As of January 13, 2019, the fire departments of San Mateo, Belmont, and Foster City completed their five-year transition to a single department called the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. The three city fire departments had used different database systems, though field inspection reports were completed on paper. San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department has 40 Grand Jury interviews. 41 Grand Jury interviews. 42 Written correspondence. 43 Grand Jury interviews. 44 Grand Jury interviews. 45 Grand Jury interviews. 46 Grand Jury interviews. 47 Grand Jury interviews. 48 Grand Jury interviews. 49 Implementation of the iPad-based system has been delayed by the database company for two years. The department is hopeful that problems will be resolved soon. Grand Jury correspondence. 50 Grand Jury interviews and correspondence. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10 implemented a new database system that incorporates the inspection data of its three predecessors going back to July 2018. This database is able to track and report on the completion of mandated inspections in the department’s jurisdiction. However, data for inspections done prior to July 1, 2018 are not included in the new system and can only be accessed by querying each of the three predecessor databases individually and then consolidating the results manually. All paper field inspection forms were eliminated in 2018 when staff transitioned to iPads for field reports.51 The Grand Jury identified two fire departments, Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD) and North County Fire Authority (NCFA), that currently have robust database systems on which they maintain inspection data. MPFPD staff has utilized iPads for approximately three years to complete field inspection reports. Inspection reports completed prior to that time and stored in paper form were digitalized so that their data could be incorporated into the database system, allowing staff to compare multiple years of inspections.52 In 2017, NCFA implemented an electronic records management system. Field inspection reports are currently completed on paper and then entered into the electronic system manually but NCFA expects that staff will begin using iPads for their field inspection reports in 2019. A demonstration of the database showed that inspections for individual sites are complete and easily accessible, though the reporting functionality was limited. For example, staff could not easily run a report to determine the percentage of mandated inspections completed.53 The Grand Jury noted that customized reports may still need to be created by the database vendor to meet all NCFA’s reporting needs. In all of the fire departments, inspection reports that document hazards and/or fire safety violations lead to re-inspections.54 The Grand Jury noted that inspection data submitted by fire departments identified sites that had been inspected multiple times in a year. Inspections of these sites55 were repeated to ensure violations were addressed. Departments’ use of iPads or tablets allows inspectors to more easily take and attach photographs to inspection reports to document violations.56 e. Staffing issues Of the ten fire departments investigated by the Grand Jury, three reported the need for additional fire prevention staff:57  Redwood City Fire Department,  San Bruno Fire Department, and 51 Grand Jury interviews. 52 Grand Jury interviews. 53 Grand Jury interviews. 54 Grand Jury interviews. 55 Grand Jury interviews. 56 Grand Jury interviews. 57 Grand Jury interviews. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department.58 Since first contacted by the Grand Jury, San Bruno Fire Department added a full-time prevention staff position59 and Redwood City Fire Department retained two contract fire inspectors and is in the process of filling a vacant Deputy Fire Marshal position.60 Two others -- Coastside Fire Protection District (CFPD), and South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFD) -- stated that they need to further assess their prevention staffing needs because of their unique staffing issues.61 Specifically, prevention staff in the SSFD has been tasked with code enforcement for all city code violations. SSFD estimates that general code enforcement (which does not include fire inspections) at times can consume up to 75 percent of prevention staff’s time based on code case volume and the complexity of individual code cases. SSFD’s general code enforcement responsibility is being transitioned to the city’s Public Works Department in 2019. Once that shift in responsibility is completed, SSFD’s prevention staffing needs will be assessed.62 With respect to the Coastside Fire Protection District, the Grand Jury learned that positions tasked with conducting inspections and oversight had been left vacant since 2016.63 Following the hiring of a new Fire Marshal, however, officials from CFPD informed the Grand Jury that they intend to re-assess staffing needs, particularly since CFPD’s annual inspections have been conducted by consultants rather than fire department personnel since 2017. f. Data on compliance with mandated annual inspection laws The data gathered and analyzed by the Grand Jury on San Mateo County fire departments’ compliance with their annual inspection obligations from 2015 through 2018 is set forth in Table 1 below. It paints a mixed picture, showing widespread failures to conduct mandated annual inspections, particularly in the earlier years, with substantial improvements taking place in 2018. As Table 1 shows, the following seven fire departments did not conduct at least 90 percent of the annual mandated inspections as required in all or some of the years from 2015 through 2018:  Coastside Fire Protection District,  Central County Fire Department,  Colma Fire District,64 58 Grand Jury interviews. 59 Written correspondence. 60 Written correspondence. 61 Grand Jury interviews. 62 Grand Jury interviews and written correspondence. 63 Grand Jury interviews. 64 Colma Fire District was unaware of the public space inspection requirements for condominiums but has now included them on their list of required inspections. Written correspondence and Grand Jury interviews. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12  Redwood City Fire Department,  San Bruno Fire Department,  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, and  South San Francisco Fire Department. The reasons for lapses in inspections vary.  Two departments, Coastside Fire Protection District and South San Francisco reported staffing issues, already described, which negatively impacted the ability of staff to complete inspections.  A lack of oversight was reported by staff in two departments, San Bruno Fire Department, and Coastside Fire Protection District.65 The Grand Jury believes this lack of oversight was also a factor that contributed to the lack of inspections by Redwood City Fire Department.  The lack of searchable database systems was also a factor in the seven departments noted above since staff could not readily assess their compliance with state inspection mandates throughout the 2015 – 2018 timeframe.  The disjointed storage of files by staff in San Bruno Fire Department meant SBFD could not verify that inspections were completed.66 The Grand Jury was unable to analyze the data submitted by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD) for 2015 through 2017. The data submitted came from the three city fire departments (Belmont, Foster City, and San Mateo) that now make up SMCFD and came from different database systems and which appeared incomplete. The Grand Jury was unable to combine the data for analysis. The data for 2018 was from one database and although inspections for all schools in the jurisdiction were complete, inspections for apartments, condominiums, hotels, and motels were incomplete. Three departments consistently performed at least 90 percent of mandated annual inspections from 2015 through 2018. These departments are:  Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD),  North County Fire Authority (NCFA), and  Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD). 65 Grand Jury interviews. 66 Written correspondence. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13 All three have well developed inspection programs including written policies and procedures for inspections. Two of the departments, MPFPD and NCFA, have also invested resources for database systems that permit monitoring and oversight. Even though WFPD did not have a computer database, the department was sufficiently well-organized, and the number of mandated inspections was small, such that management was able to effectively oversee the process to ensure annual inspections of schools in the district. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14 Table 1: Inspections Completed Annually Compared to Required Inspections by Fire Department School Inspections Apt/Condo/Hotel/Motel Inspections Name Jurisdictions Served Required Completed Required Completed 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 Coastside Fire Protection District Half Moon Bay, Miramar, El Granada, Princeton-by-the-Sea, Moss Beach, Montara 22 6 27% 5 23% 8 36% 20 91% 52 30 58% 35 67% 22 42% 34 65% Central County Fire Department Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae 22 to 23 18 of 22 82% 16 of 22 73% 22 of 23 96% 20 of 23 87% 790 NA67 483 61% 764 97% 746 94% Colma Fire District Colma, Broadmoor, Sterly Village, unincorporated Daly City 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3368 2 6 % 2 6% 7 21% 6 18% Menlo Park Fire Protection District Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, some of unincorporated San Mateo County 7669 77 100% 80 100% 77 100% 74 97% 749 745 99% 772 100% 765 100% 747 100% North County Fire Authority Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica 81 to 87 70 84 of 84 100% 85 of 85 100% 87 of 87 100% 81 of 81 100% 930 925 99% 920 99% 924 99% 902 97% Redwood City Fire Department Redwood City, San Carlos, some of unincorporated San Mateo County 36 24 69% 1 3% 6 17% 36 100% 1,002 71 619 62% 484 48% 629 63% 77572 77% San Bruno Fire Department San Bruno 14 12 86% 12 86% 12 86% 14 100% 367 245 67 % 235 64% 242 66% 290 79% San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Belmont, Foster City, San Mateo 57 NA NA NA 5773 100% 1,837 NA NA NA 1,505 82% South San Francisco Fire Department South San Francisco 18 5 28% 9 50% 9 50% 18 100% 456 124 27% 408 89% 87 19% 28 6% Woodside Fire Protection District Woodside, Portola Valley, Ladera, Los Trancos, Skyline, Vista Verde 6 6 100% 6 100% 6 100% 6 100% 0 0 0 0 0 67 Central County Fire Department inspected 22 schools in 2015 and 2016 and 23 in 2017 and 2018. Because of the Department’s com puter system, the Department could not extract data for 2015. 68 Colma Fire District was unaware of the requirement to inspect public spaces in condominiums but has now included them on their list of required inspections. Written correspondence and Grand Jury interviews. 69 According to Menlo Park Fire Protection District staff, the total number of buildings inspected changes annually. This is due to changes in day care facilities which are included in its list of mandated school inspections. The district also allows one inspection form f or a property or complex instead of multiple forms for one site which may account for some of the differences in inspection totals noted in the table. 70 North County Fire Authority noted changes in the number of schools reported annually because of construction, closures, presc hools (which are inspected), and corrections in their database. 71 This number only includes apartment buildings. Redwood City Fire Department does not inspect condominiums. Written correspondence. The Grand Jury notes that all other departments included condominiums as part of their mandated inspections. 72 Redwood City Fire Department operates by Fiscal Year. The data for 2018 is based on FY 2018 -2019, July 1, 2018- June 30, 2019. The Department provided data as of March 2019 and expects to complete all inspections by June30 th. There are 28 hotels and motels in Redwood City and San Carlos and the Department had inspected 22 or 79% but expects to complete all inspections by June 30th. Written Communication 73 The Grand Jury could not extract the desired statistics on annual inspections for the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department from 2015 - 2017 due to the quality of the data submitted. The Department did not have an accurate count of the inventory in the district until July 2018 when inspection data from the three cities was migrated to one system. Therefore, 2018 calendar year represents the first year with complete data records. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15 4. Conclusions Inspections As the data in Table 1 documents only three fire departments in the county, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, North County Fire Authority, and Woodside Fire Protection District, have consistently inspected at least 90 percent of their mandated annual inspections of schools, hotels, motels, and condominiums within their jurisdictions from 2015 through 2018. Redwood City Fire Department was non-compliant from 2015 – 2017, completing only 2 percent of schools and 48 percent of hotels, motels, and condominiums in 2016. However, the data indicates that the Department appears to be on track to complete their mandated inspections by the end of their fiscal year (June 30, 2019). Other departments have also shown improvement. In 2018, Coastside Fire Protection District completed more than 90 percent of school inspections (up from 36 percent the previous year). Central County Fire Department completed more than 90 percent of inspections of apartments, condominiums, hotels and motels in 2017 and 2018 (up from 61 percent in 2016). San Bruno Fire Department completed 100 percent of school inspections in 2018 (up from 86 percent the previous years). Record Keeping and Data Retrieval A number of departments are enhancing their database systems. However, as Woodside Fire Protection District demonstrates, smaller departments can complete and document inspections without costly investments in a database system. Inspection Process Table 2 summarizes information regarding inspection programs across the ten fire departments. A number of departments recently implemented the use of iPads or tablets to document inspections and others plan to do so. This should eliminate problems associated with paper files and such tools, as previously noted, allow departments to document deficiencies by attaching photographs. Written Policies and Procedures The first submissions of Annual Reports on mandated inspections will be for 2019. As previously noted, SB 1205 does not specify what information must be in those reports. Even the most comprehensive policies and procedures submitted to the Grand Jury did not specify what information departments will submit to their administering authorities. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16 Table 2: Summary of Inspection Programs Name Written policies and procedures in place for mandated inspection program? Master List of Bldgs. to Inspect? Records Electronic Database in Use? At Least 90% of All Inspections Completed from 2015 - 2018 Central County Fire Dept. For School Inspections74 Yes Paper field inspection forms used, though iPads to be implemented in 2019 Yes No Coastside Fire Protection Dist. No Yes Paper field inspection forms used No No Colma Fire Dist. No Yes Paper field inspection forms used No No Menlo Park Fire Protection Dist. Yes Yes iPads used for field inspection reports Yes Yes North County Fire Auth. Yes (for apts, hotels, motels, condos) Yes Paper field inspection forms used, though iPads to be implemented in 2019 Yes Yes Redwood City Fire Dept. Yes Yes Paper field inspection forms used but iPads to be used with new database system when implemented Yes, and department will be implementing a new system Yes, for FY 2018-2019 San Bruno Fire Dept. No Yes Tablets to be used beginning in 2019 Implementing a system in 2019. Yes, for Schools San Mateo Consolidated Fire Dept. No Yes iPads used for field inspection reports Yes (as of July 2018) No South San Francisco Fire Dept. Yes Yes (and in process of updating) Paper field inspection forms used Yes No Woodside Fire Protection Dist. Yes Yes Paper field inspection forms used, but department is considering digitizing paper reports No Yes 74As previously noted, the policy on engine company inspections is in draft form and has not been approved through the department’s process. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17 FINDINGS Inspections F1. California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2, 13146.3 and 17921(b) and regulations require fire departments to conduct annual inspections of all public and private schools, hotels, motels, lodging houses, and apartments in their jurisdictions (mandated annual inspections). F2. From 2015 through 2018, the following three fire departments conducted inspections of over 90 percent of the mandated buildings in their jurisdictions, as shown in Table 1:  Menlo Park Fire Protection District  North County Fire Authority  Woodside Fire Protection District F3. The disorganization and incompleteness of the data submitted by the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department for 2015 through 2017 (which it inherited from its predecessor fire departments) was such that it could not be analyzed by the Grand Jury. However, data submitted by SMCFD for 2018 was well organized and showed 100 percent of schools and 82 percent of the apartments, condominiums, hotels and motels within its jurisdiction were inspected that year. F4. Each of the fire departments is developing more robust inspection programs by, for example:  implementing database management systems.  adding prevention staff.  using iPads or tablets to document inspections. F5. SB 1205 does not specify what the content of Annual Reports to fire departments’ administrative authorities should be regarding mandated annual inspections School Inspections: F6. In 2015, 2016, and 2018 Central County Fire Department failed to perform annual inspections of at least 90 percent of the schools within its jurisdiction although it completed 96 percent of school inspections in 2017 as shown on Table 1. F7. From 2015 through 2017 the following four fire departments failed to perform annual inspections of at least 90 percent of the schools within their jurisdiction, though all showed substantial improvement in 2018 as shown on Table l:  Coastside Fire District increased inspections from 36 percent in 2017 to 91 percent in 2018.  Redwood City Fire Department increased from 15 percent in 2017 to 85 percent in 2018 and is on track to complete all schools by the end of its fiscal year. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18  San Bruno Fire Department increased inspections from 86 percent in 2017 to 100 percent in 2018.  South San Francisco increased inspections from 50 percent in 2016 and 2017 to 100 percent in 2018. F8. From 2015 through 2018 Colma Fire District completed 100 percent of school inspections. Apartment/Condominium/Hotel/Motel Inspections: F9. From 2015 through 2018, the following four fire departments failed to perform annual inspections of at least 90 percent of the apartments, condominiums, hotels and motels within their jurisdiction. as shown on Table 1:  Coastside Fire Protection District;  Colma Fire District;  San Bruno Fire Department; and  South San Francisco Fire Department. F10. From 2015 through 2017 Redwood City Fire Department failed to perform annual inspections of at least 90 percent of the apartments, hotels and motels within its jurisdiction, though the department showed substantial improvement in 2018 as shown on Table 1:  Redwood City Fire Department improved from a low of 48 percent in 2016 to 77 percent in 2018 and is on track to complete all inspections by the end of its fiscal year. F11: In 2016 Central County Fire Department failed to perform annual inspections of at least 90 percent of the apartments, condominiums, hotels and motels within its jurisdiction. The department inspected over 90 percent of these structures in 2017 and 2018. The Department could not provide data for 2015. Record-Keeping & Data Retrieval F12: The following five fire departments currently have data management systems that allow them to readily track and report on the completion of their mandated annual inspections:  Central County Fire Department,  Menlo Park Fire Protection District,  North County Fire Authority,  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department, and  Woodside Fire Protection District. F13: The following two departments plan to implement database systems that will allow them to readily track and report on the completion of their mandated annual inspections:  San Bruno Fire Department and  Redwood City Fire Department. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19 F14: The following three fire departments need to assess their data management systems to allow them to readily track and report on the completion of their mandated annual inspections:  Coastside Fire Protection District,  Colma Fire District, and  South San Francisco Fire Department. Inspection Process & Staffing F15. The following three fire departments reported the need for additional prevention staff to complete all of their mandated annual inspections:  Redwood City Fire Department,  San Bruno Fire Department, and  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Departments. F16. Coastside Fire Protection District and South San Francisco Fire Department reported they need to assess the sufficiency of their prevention staffing. Written Policies & Procedures F17. The following four fire departments reported they do not have written policies and procedures in place governing their mandated annual inspection programs:  Coastside Fire Protection District,  Colma Fire District,  San Bruno Fire Department, and  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department. F18. None of the ten departments’ policies and procedures specified how they will report to their administering authorities under SB 1205 (2018). RECOMMENDATIONS R1. By no later than January 31, 2020, each fire department within the county should put in place a written policy that sets forth the process for (1) maintaining a comprehensive list of all buildings within its jurisdiction for which annual inspections required under Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health & Safety Code are to be performed, (2) keeping such a list updated on an annual basis, and (3) completing and reporting on all mandated annual inspections. R2. By no later than November 30, 2019, each fire department should submit a proposal to its administering authority setting forth the content of the annual report as required under Section 13146.4 of the California Health & Safety Code (former SB 1205) (the “Annual Report”), which at a minimum should propose the inclusion of the following information in the Annual Report: 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20  The total number of buildings within the fire department’s jurisdiction in each category of building (referred to as a “occupancy type”) subject to mandated annual inspections that year.  The number of each occupancy type inspected during the year;  The number of each occupancy type, if any, not inspected that year and the reason such inspection did not take place, and  The number of each occupancy type, if any, not inspected for two or more consecutive years. R3. By no later than January 31, 2020, the administering authority for each fire department should review the proposal for the content of the Annual Report submitted by its fire chief and provide written instructions regarding the required content and due date for submission of the Annual Report. R4. By no later than February 28, 2020 (and annually thereafter), the administering authority for each fire department should instruct the fire chief to publish the fire department’s Annual Report on the fire department’s public website. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests that each of the following respond to the foregoing Findings and Recommendations referring in each instance to the number thereof:  Central County Fire Department Board of Directors  Coastside Fire Protection District Board of Directors  Colma Fire District Board of Directors  Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board of Directors  North County Fire Authority Board of Directors  The City Council of Redwood City.  The City Council of San Bruno  San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department Board of Directors  The City Council of South San Francisco  Woodside Fire Protection District Board of Directors In responding to the foregoing Findings and Recommendations, each of the respondents should respond only as to that part of the Finding or Recommendation that expressly applies to it. No respondent should respond as to any other respondent. Each respondent should be aware that its comments or responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. 2018-2019 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21 METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed relevant provisions of the California Health and Safety Code governing required annual inspections, SB 1205, the legislative history for SB 1205 regarding fire inspections and compliance reporting; and local news articles relating to fire safety inspections. The Grand Jury reviewed annual inspection data provided by each of the ten fire departments in San Mateo County for the years 2015 through 2018, conducted interviews with personnel from each fire department, reviewed their written policies and procedures governing safety inspections (to the extent they existed) and reviewed each fire department’s website information. Documents  The Grand Jury reviewed inspection data from the 10 fire departments in San Mateo County.  Documents in the Bibliography Interviews  The Grand Jury interviewed personnel from each of the ten fire departments in San Mateo County. BIBLIOGRAPHY  California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2, 13146.3, and 17921(b) www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/states/california.html. Last viewed May 14, 2019  California Senate Bill 1205 (2018) www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/states/california.html. Last viewed May 14, 2019  California State Fire Marshal Code Interpretation. http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/codeinterpretation/pdf/2008/08_090.pdf. Last Viewed May 14, 2019.  Kimberly Veklerov, “Oakland Fire Department Software Blamed for Inspection Lapses,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 9, 2017. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-Fire-Department-software-blamed- for-11061705.php. Last viewed May 14, 2019  Oakland Fire Department, Fire/Arson Investigative Unit, Origin and Cause Report, Incident #2016-85231, December 2, 2016, 1315 31st Avenue, March 18, 2017, 3. https://www2.Oaklandnet.com. Last viewed May 14, 2019.  Thomas Peele, “Burned Out How overwhelmed fire inspectors fail to protect us”, The Mercury News/East Bay Times, June 1, 2018  U.S. Fire Administration/California Fire Loss/Fire Department Profile www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/states/california.html. Last viewed May 14, 2019. Issued: July 22, 2019 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-851 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a response to San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery”. WHEREAS,building safety inspections by fire departments are essential to identify potential fire hazards before they occur; and WHEREAS,California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2,13146.3,and 17921(b)mandate that fire departments conduct annual inspections of all the Public and private schools,Hotels,Motels,Apartment buildings, and Condominiums within their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS,prior to the passage of State Senate Bill 1205 in 2018,California law did not include any requirement for fire departments to report on their compliance with annual inspection obligations; and WHEREAS,Grand Jury undertook a compliance fire departments within the County for the years 2015 through 2018 to determine whether their mandated annual inspections were conducted as required;the Grand Jury found substantial non-compliance among seven of the ten fire departments,particularly for the years prior to 2018; and WHEREAS,most departments appear to be making substantial efforts to correct their deficiencies,the departments must address such deficiencies promptly if they are to comply with the requirements of SB 1205; and WHEREAS,on July 22,2019,the San Mateo County Grand Jury issued a report titled “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery”; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco is required to provide a response within 90 days of the Grand Jury report, attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve and authorize the City Manager to sign the City’s response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspections Programs on the Road to Recovery” attached hereto as Exhibit A. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ October 9, 2019 Hon. Donald J. Ayoob Judge of the Superior Court c/o Neal Taniguchi Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Dear Hon. Donald J. Ayoob: On October 9, 2019 , the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (“City”) approved the response contained in this letter to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report “Fire Safety Inspection Programs on the Road to Recovery” dated July 22, 2019. Response to Findings The City agrees with the findings included in the Grand Jury report are factual and accurate. The City specifically agrees with Findings F1, F4, F5, F7, F9, F14, F16, and F18, as they reflect the information that is included in publicly available documents. Response to Recommendations In response to the Grand Jury Report: “Fire Safety Inspection Programs on the Road to Recovery”, the Fire Department Staff agrees with the findings. Additionally, in response to the recommendations Fire Staff provides the following: R1. The Fire Department already has in place the recommended policies and procedures, and per SB1205 will report annually, with the first report scheduled for November, 2019. R2. The Fire Department will submit the annual report on mandated inspections to Council in November, 2019, which will include the information called for by the Grand Jury. R3. The Annual Report on mandated inspections is included in the Fire Department Annual Report, which will be released prior to January 31, 2020. R4. After approval and before February 28, 2020, deadline the Fire Department will post this information on the City website. This process will be done on an annual basis. Sincerely, Mike Futrell City Manager City of South San Francisco CITY COUNCIL 2019 KARYL MATSUMOTO, MAYOR RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-840 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding a resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay)Field Light Replacement Project.(Sharon Ranals,Assistant City Manager/Parks and Recreation Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay)Field Light Replacement Project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On September 12,2018,the City Council adopted a resolution delegating authority to the City Manager to order any emergency action and enter into necessary contracts pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of Public Contract Code Section 22050.Pursuant to such delegated authority,the City previously executed a contract with Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.for the emergency repair and replacement of a light pole at the Hillside (Terrabay)Ballfield.The current resolution authorizes the continued suspension of competitive bidding and continued completion of this emergency repair work.Authorizing the continuation of emergency repair work will be a recurring Council item until project completion.Previous Council actions establishing the project are below: In April 2019,City staff determined there exists an emergency need for the removal and replacement of a 70- foot tall athletic field light pole that was damaged during a storm at Hillside (Terrabay)Ballfield,located at 1400 Hillside Boulevard. Upon determining there exists an emergency need for the removal and replacement of the pole given the potential for the pole to fail and harm a park visitor,City staff informally solicited bids for the project,with only one contractor,Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.(“Interstate Grading”)submitting a bid.Staff actively solicited bids from several other contractors,however,all of them declined the project due to the size of the pole and the specialized equipment and expertise needed for a project of this scale. As previously reported to the City Council,the bid received from Interstate Grading was $105,430.A subsequent contract change order was received in the amount of $4,700 due to the increased size and material needed for the engineered foundation,for a total project cost of $110,130.Since the pole was damaged during a storm,the City’s liability insurance policy with York Risk Services is expected to cover the cost of the replacement, excluding a $5,000 deductible. At the August 28,2019 regular City Council Meeting,staff provided an update on the status of the project,and the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the continuation of emergency repairs for this pole.The emergency repairs were again reauthorized at the September 25,2019 regular City Council Meeting.To date, the following work has been completed:receipt of the replacement pole hardware,mobilization of equipment and labor,establishment of an entrance accessible by heavy equipment,installation of new electrical conduit, boring of a 17-foot-deep rebar reinforced foundation,installation of mounting hardware,and pouring of the concrete foundation.The concrete is currently curing.Once this is complete,the existing pole will be removed,City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-840 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:10. concrete foundation.The concrete is currently curing.Once this is complete,the existing pole will be removed, the new pole and lights will be installed, and damage to the site cause by heavy equipment will be repaired. At this time,the pole remains in a fragile and hazardous condition as it is in a leaning condition over a significant portion of the ballfield.If the work is terminated now and the project is subject to applicable bidding procedures,the additional time that it takes to locate a new contractor willing to undertake the project and allow additional time for the contractor to complete installation would prolong the dangerous and hazardous condition in which the pole currently stands. As required by Public Contract Code section 22050(c)(1),this emergency pole repair project will be placed back on future regular City Council meeting agendas for the Council to review this emergency action and determine,by a four-fifths vote,whether there is a need to continue the action,until such emergency repairs have been completed and the project terminated.Adoption of the associated resolution authorizes the continuance of the emergency repair work to address the pole condition and related repairs. CONCLUSION Approving the resolution and adopting the findings will authorize the continuation of emergency repair work to address the pole condition.Staff recommends that the City Council continue to determine that the emergency exists and the emergency action,undertaken pursuant to the City Manager’s delegated authority,remains necessary. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-841 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay) Field Light Replacement Project. WHEREAS,on September 12,2018,the City Council adopted a resolution delegating authority to the City Manager to order any emergency action and enter into necessary contracts pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of California Public Contract Code Section 22050; and WHEREAS,in April 2019,pursuant to such delegated authority,the City solicited for and executed a contract with Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.for the emergency repair and replacement of a light pole at the Hillside (Terrabay) Ballfield, located at 1400 Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco; and WHEREAS,the 70-foot tall light pole was damaged severely during the 2019 winter storms,resulting in damages to its base and causing it to lean significantly over a large portion of the ballfield,which poses a significant hazard for public health and safety in the event it collapses; and WHEREAS,the emergency repair and replacement contract was executed with Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc.due to the nature of the pole damage and that all other contractors contacted by City staff have declined to perform the work due to the size of the pole and the specialized equipment and expertise needed for a project of such scale; and WHEREAS,on August 28,2019,the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing further continuation of emergency repair and replacement work to address the pole’s condition at the Terrabay Ballfield; WHEREAS,on September 25,2019,the City Council again adopted a resolution authorizing further continuation of the emergency repair and replacement work; WHEREAS,progress has been made on the emergency repair work including fabrication of a new,customized replacement pole,installation of new electrical conduit and rebar foundation,and construction of the concrete foundation, which is currently curing; and WHEREAS,if the work is terminated now and the project is subject to applicable bidding procedures,the additional time that it takes to locate a new contractor willing to undertake the project and allowing time for the contractor to commence installation would prolong the dangerous condition in which the pole currently stands; and WHEREAS,the pole currently stands in a leaning position and remains in an extremely dangerous condition for the public and additional emergency repair work is still needed to eliminate the dangerous conditions. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-841 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:10a. FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: A.Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 20168,the public interest and necessity demanded the immediate commencement of the above-described work at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field in the City and the expenditure of public money for such work to safeguard life, health and property; and B.Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050 and the authority delegated by the City Council on September 12,2018,and based on substantial evidence as set forth in the staff report prepared concerning this resolution,and as set forth in this resolution,establishes that the City Manager was authorized to order emergency repair work for the hazardous and threatening condition at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field in the City,and was authorized to execute a contract with Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.for such work;the above-described emergency conditions and work would not permit additional delay resulting from competitive solicitation for bids due to the pole’s condition and the lack of any contractors willing to undertake the project except Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.,and such work continues to be necessary to respond to the emergency conditions at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field and remediate the hazardous condition that the light pole is in; and C.Terminating the emergency repair project now and let the remaining work at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field to competitive bidding would jeopardize public health,safety and welfare;risk additional damage to public and private property;and result in the public incurring additional expense,including,but not limited to,additional expense due to delay and further damage.Therefore,it remains that competitive bidding of such work would not produce an advantage for the public; and D.The emergency work authorized at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field in the City continues to be statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15269, subparagraphs (b) and (c). NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby does resolve,by at least a four-fifths vote, as follows: 1.The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco. 2.The City Council determines that the emergency conditions at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field threatening public health and safety continue to exist and thus determines that the emergency repair work continues to be necessary to address the hazardous and threatening condition of the pole and related repairs. 3.City staff is directed,in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1),to place on future regular agendas of the City Council an item concerning the contracts authorized pursuant to this resolution so that the City Council may determine,by at least a four-fifths vote,whether there is a need to continue the emergency work described above or whether such work may be terminated. 4.This resolution shall become effective immediately. 5.Each portion of this resolution is severable.Should any portion of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction,then the remaining resolution portions shall be City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-841 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:10a. invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction,then the remaining resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect,except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid.The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section,subsection,clause, sentence,phrase and other portion thereof,irrespective of the fact that one or more section,subsection,clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-763 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:11. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of materials and services valued at $2,000 from the California Center for the Book to support Library participation in the 2020 Book to Action program.(Valerie Sommer, Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of materials and services valued at $2,000 from the California Center for the Book to support Library participation in the 2020 Book to Action program. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Library has partnered with the San Mateo County Office of Health and Aging Adult Services,to apply for a Book to Action grant to facilitate learning and discover ways for family members to survive the transition from loved one to caregiver and thrive. Book to Action is a program framework that takes the basic book club concept and expands it to create a dynamic series of events for adults and multigenerational groups.Community members read and discuss an engaging book on a current topic,attend author or speaker events,and put their new-found knowledge into action by participating in a community service project or civic engagement activity related to the book. The Library has selected two books for the community to read,The Conscious Caregiver by Linda Abbit and Holding the Net by Melanie Merriman.The Library will receive approximately $1,000 worth of copies of these two books to be distributed to the public and $1,000 to be allocated for programming around an author talk or professionally led workshop.Additionally,a variety of informative presentations and workshops led by library staff and partner organizations will “clear the path”of obstacles that may be preventing adults from taking care of themselves when caring for others.In addition to partnering with Senior Services,Parks and Recreation Department,this series of programming will include presentations and workshops led by local organizations such as Always Best Care Services,San Mateo County Health Aging and Adult Services,and Family Caregiver Alliance. FISCAL IMPACT All material purchases and speaker fees will be paid directly by the California Center for the Book.Receipt of this grant does not commit the City to ongoing funding. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this grant will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2:Improved Quality of Life, by strengthening learning programs for South San Francisco residents. CONCLUSION Receipt of these materials and services will enable the Library to participate in the California Center for the Book’s 2020 Book to Action program and provide opportunities for the community to increase their knowledge of the importance of self-care for family caregivers.It is recommended that the City Council accept a grant of City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-763 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:11. of the importance of self-care for family caregivers.It is recommended that the City Council accept a grant of materials and services valued at $2,000 from the California Center for the Book. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-764 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:11a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of materials and services valued at $2,000 from the California Center for the Book to support Library participation in the 2020 Book to Action program. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Library Department has partnered with Senior Services, Parks and Recreation Department and the San Mateo Office of Health and Aging Adult Services to apply for a Book to Action grant; WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Strategic Plan includes a goal of improving the quality of life by strengthening learning programs; and WHEREAS,the grant will facilitate community learning and increase participants knowledge for family members to survive the transition from loved one to caregiver and thrive; and WHEREAS,community members will read and discuss The Conscious Caregiver by Linda Abbit and Holding the Net by Melanie Merriman; and WHEREAS,the community will be invited to participate in a series of related programming including presentations and workshops by local organizations such as Always Best Care,San Mateo County Health Aging and Adult Services, and Family Caregiver Alliance; and WHEREAS,the California Center for the Book awarded the Library copies of the two books for public distribution and speaker fees valued at $2,000. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts materials and services valued at $2,000 in grant funding from the California Center for the Book to support participation in the Book to Action program. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-856 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:12. Report regarding a resolution declaring that there is a need for a Parking Authority to function in the City, declaring that the City Council shall be the Parking Authority,and designating an Interim Chair of the Parking Authority.(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a Parking Authority to function in the City and transact business. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION California Streets &Highways Code Section 32500 et seq.(the “Parking Law”)provide that there is within each city a parking authority and that the city council must activate it by a resolution in which the city council finds simply that there is a need for the parking authority (the to function within the city.Upon establishment, the parking authority will be authorized to transact business and exercise its powers as of the valid adoption of the resolution. One component of financing the City of South San Francisco (“City”)’s Community Civic Campus will be the sale of municipal bonds. In order to issue these bonds,the City needs to take administrative actions on certain technical matters,one of which is to establish a joint powers authority (“JPA”).Historically,a joint powers agreement would have been established between the City and the former redevelopment agency for the purposes of bond issuance. However,since the dissolution of the redevelopment agency,a new entity must be established for the purposes of establishing the JPA.An alternative is to form a parking authority,which is a generally accepted practice within the industry.The City currently does not have a parking authority and it is authorized to form such an entity by adopting the resolution required under state law. The Parking Authority incurs no major obligations or duties to act as a result of its formation.It has no obligation to initiate any project or activities.The only requirement the Parking Authority has is to file with the City Council a report of all it its transactions,but with no projects,revenues,or expenditures,these requirements will be nominal. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact as a result of the formation of the Parking Authority. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The formation of the Parking Authority lends itself to the overall of financial stability of the City as its creation will allow the City to issue debt on a tax-exempt basis.Tax-exemption allows the City the advantage of borrowing funds at a lower than would be otherwise available in the capital markets. CONCLUSION City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-856 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:12. Staff recommends that the City Council approve this resolution to establish the Parking Authority. City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/6/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-858 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:12a. Resolution declaring that there is a need for a Parking Authority to function in the City, declaring that the City Council shall be the Parking Authority, and designating an Interim Chair of the Parking Authority. WHEREAS,the Parking Law of 1949 is codified in California Streets &Highways Code Sections 32500,et seq. (“Law”); and WHEREAS,Section 32651 of the Law provides that in every city,including the City of South San Francisco (“City”),there is a public body corporate and politic known as the parking authority of the city (“Parking Authority”); and WHEREAS,Section 32651 of the Law additionally provides that the Parking Authority shall not transact business or exercise its power unless the City Council,as the governing body of the City,declares by Resolution that there is a need for a Parking Authority to function in the City; and WHEREAS,Section 32661.1 of the Law provides that the City Council may declare by Resolution that the members of the City Council shall be the members of the Parking Authority; and WHEREAS,Section 32658 of the Law provides that the Mayor of the City shall designate an interim chair of the Parking Authority from among the members of the Parking Authority,and thereafter the Parking Authority shall select its successor from among its members; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City of South San Francisco, does hereby resolve as follows: 1.The City Council finds that there is a need for a Parking Authority to function in the City,and the Parking Authority hereby is permitted to transact any business and exercise any power inferred thereon by the provisions of the Law. 2.Pursuant to Section 32661.1 of the Law,the City Council finds that the appointment of the members of the City Council as the members of the Parking Authority will serve the public interest and promote the public safety and welfare in an effective manner and,therefore,the members of the City Council are hereby declared to be members of the Parking Authority and all the rights,powers, duties,privileges and immunities that are adjusted by the Law and such a Parking Authority shall be vested in such members, except as otherwise provided by the Law. 3.The Mayor of the City shall serve as the interim Chair of the Parking Authority,until a permanent Chair is selected. 4. The Parking Authority shall file or cause to be filed with the City Council each year: (i) a detailed City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-858 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:12a. report of all of its transactions, including a statement of all revenues and expenditures; and (ii) a statement of all of its financial affairs, audited by independent certified public accountants. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-838 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13. Report regarding adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 8.50 and Title 20,Chapter 20.420,and adding Title 6,Chapter 6.47 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to the sale of tobacco,flavored tobacco,and electronic smoking devices (second reading).(Christina Fernandez,Assistant to the City Manager) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council amend Chapter 8.50 and Title 20,Chapter 20.420,and add Title 6, Chapter 6.47 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to the sale of tobacco,flavored tobacco, and electronic smoking devices. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City Council previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.50 AND TITLE 20,CHAPTER 20.420,AND ADDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.47 “SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS,PHARMACY SALES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND SALES OF ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES PROHIBITED”. (Introduced on 9/25/19; vote 4-1) Staff has noted in the ordinance that the effective date will be January 1,2020.The ordinance is now ready for adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/16/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. Ordinance amending Title 8,Chapter 8.50 and Title 20,Chapter 20.420,and adding Title 6,Chapter 6.47,of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to sale of tobacco,flavored tobacco,and electronic smoking devices WHEREAS,the U.S.Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that approximately 480,000 people die each year in the United States due to smoking,and more than 16 million people are living with disease caused by smoking; and WHEREAS, studies have shown that electronic smoking devices contain high levels of toxic chemicals; and WHEREAS,the Surgeon General has reported a more than an 900%increase in the use of electronic smoking devices among middle school and high school students between 2011 and 2015; and WHEREAS,the liquid nicotine solutions consumed in electronic smoking devices are marketed in a variety of flavors that appeal to youth including cotton candy, bubble gum, and fruit; and WHEREAS,the U.S.Food and Drug Administration and the U.S.Surgeon General have stated that flavored tobacco products in electronic smoking devices help establish smoking habits in youth that can lead to long- term addiction; and WHEREAS,traditional tobacco products including cigarettes,cigarillos,and chewing tobacco are also sold in flavors (such as menthol and wintergreen)that appeal to young people,with data from the National Youth Tobacco survey indicating that over two-fifths of U.S.middle school and high school smokers report using flavored cigarillos or flavored cigarettes; and WHEREAS,a local prohibition against the sale of flavored tobacco products and against the sale of all electronic smoking devices is an effective means to reduce the availability of these products to youth,thereby protecting the public health by discouraging tobacco initiation and continued use; and WHEREAS,State law contains various tobacco control laws including:the prohibition against the sale or furnishing of tobacco products and smoking paraphernalia to minors (Cal.Pen.Code,§308);the sale or furnishing of electronic smoking devices to minors (Cal.Health &Safety Code,§119405);and the sale of loose or single cigarettes; and WHEREAS,State law requires tobacco retailers check the identification of tobacco purchasers who appear to be under 21 years of age (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22956); and WHEREAS,flavored tobacco products,including liquid solutions for electronic smoking devices and City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. WHEREAS,flavored tobacco products,including liquid solutions for electronic smoking devices and traditional flavored products,are commonly sold to young people by California retailers.For example, statewide,California retailers violate the federal prohibition against underage tobacco sales at a rate of 19.1%. Convenience stores have a violation rate of 25.3%, while small markets have a rate of 24.8%. WHEREAS,the failure of retailers to comply with tobacco control laws and other smoking laws,particularly laws prohibiting sale to minors,presents an imminent threat to the public health,safety,and welfare of the residents of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS,the City seeks to ensure compliance with state laws relating to tobacco retailing and discourage violations of tobacco-related laws,particularly those that prohibit the sale or distribution of smoking and tobacco products to minors; and WHEREAS,in 2008 the City added Chapter 6.46 “Tobacco Retailer Permit”which adopted by reference and made effective Chapter 4.98 “Tobacco Retailer Permit”of Title 4 of the San Mateo County Code to establish a local licensing system for tobacco retailers and authorize enforcement by San Mateo County personnel as an effective means to ensure that retailers comply with existing tobacco and smoking control laws in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS,in 2012 the City added Chapter 20.420 “Prohibition on New Significant Tobacco Retailers”to preclude the opening, establishment, and/or operation of new significant tobacco retailers in the City; and WHEREAS,in 2018 the County of San Mateo adopted Chapter 4.99 of Title 4 of the San Mateo County Code, entitled “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products Prohibited”,prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products; and WHEREAS,the City desires to add Chapter 6.47 “Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products,Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products,and Sales of Electronic Smoking Devices Prohibited”,which will be modeled after Chapter 4.99 of the San Mateo County Code,to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products by any person,tobacco retailer, or pharmacy, as well as authorize enforcement by San Mateo County personnel; and WHEREAS,the City also desires to amend Chapter 20.420 to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products and all electronic smoking devices; and WHEREAS,the City further desires to amend Chapter 8.50 to provide internally consistent definitions for electronic smoking devices and regulations of permitted locations for smoking activities; WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco held a duly noticed public hearing on September 5,2019 to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the project,take public testimony,and make a recommendation that the City Council adopt the amendments to Chapter 20.420; and WHEREAS,based upon the recitals above,the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS,based on all of the information presented at the September 25,2019 City Council meeting,both written and oral,including without limitation the public comment,staff reports,minutes,and other relevant materials (hereafter the “Record”),the City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 2 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. materials (hereafter the “Record”),the City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2)of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment,and Section 15060(c)(3)of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity is not a “project”as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines,because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Findings The City Council of South San Francisco, finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2.Amendments to Title 8 Title 8,Chapter 8.50 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows. Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below,and shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8.50.020 Definitions The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section: “Common area” means every enclosed and every unenclosed area of a multi-unit residence where residents of more than one unit and/or their guests are entitled to enter or use, including, but not limited to, elevators, hallways, stairways, lobbies, lounges, recreation rooms, exercise facilities, shared restrooms, shared cooking or eating facilities, shared laundry rooms, community rooms, parking garages, swimming pools, playgrounds, pathways, and courtyards. “Employee” means any person who is employed or retained as an independent contractor by any employer. “Employer” means any person, partnership, corporation, association, nonprofit, city or other entity who employs or retains the service of one or more employees. “Enclosed” means any covered or partially covered space having more than fifty percent of its perimeter area walled in or otherwise closed to the outside (e.g., a covered porch with more than two walls); or any space open to the sky having more than seventy-five percent of its perimeter area walled in or otherwise closed to the outside (e.g., a courtyard). “Enclosed common area” means every enclosed area of a multi-unit residence where residents of more than one unit and/or their guests are entitled to enter or use, including, but not limited to, elevators, hallways, stairways, lobbies, lounges, recreation rooms, exercise facilities, shared restrooms, shared cooking facilities, and shared laundry rooms. “General public” includes shoppers, customers, patrons, patients, students, clients and other similar invitees of a for-profit or nonprofit entity. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 3 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. “Lobby” means the public common area of an establishment in which the establishment’s guests and members of the public typically congregate and in which registration and other related transactions are conducted. “Multi-unit residence” means any property with two or more units and has at least one or more shared walls, floors, or ceilings. Additionally, a property that has two or more units and has a shared ventilation system is considered a multi-unit residence. A multi-unit residence does not include the following: (1)A single-family residence with a detached in-law or secondary dwelling unit; (2)A single, contiguous residence in which rent is shared by the residents; and (3)A hotel or motel that meets the requirements of California Civil Code Section 1940, subdivision (b)(2). “Open to the public” means available for use by or accessible to the general public during the normal course of business conducted by either private or public entities. “Place of employment” means any area under the legal or de facto control of an employer that an employee may have cause to enter in the normal course of operations, regardless of the hours of operation, including, for example, vehicles used in employment or for business purposes, taxis, public transit buses, ferries and trains, and warehouses. A private residence is not a place of employment, unless it is used as a child care or health care facility. “Public place” means any place, public or private, open to the general public regardless of any fee or age requirement, including, but not limited to, bars, restaurants, clubs, stores, stadiums, theaters, museums, libraries, galleries, bowling alleys, parks, sidewalks, benches, playgrounds, hospitals, health care facilities, gymnasiums, taxis, and buses. “Smoke” or “smoking” means and includes inhaling or exhaling upon, or burning or carrying any lighted smoking equipment for tobacco, or any other plant or product used for the personal habit commonly known as smoking, and includes possessing a lighted pipe, lighted cigar, lighted hookah, or lighted cigarette of any kind, or the lighting of a pipe, cigar, hookah, or cigarette of any kind. “Transient lodging establishment” means a bed and breakfast, hostel, hotel, motel or other, similar short-term lodging establishment. “Unenclosed” means any area that is not an enclosed area as defined in this chapter. “Unit” means an apartment, condominium, detached home, townhouse, room in a single room occupancy facility, room in a homeless shelter, mobilehome, camper vehicle, tent or other personal dwelling space, even where lacking cooking facilities or private plumbing facilities. Section 8.50.040 Smoking permitted. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 4 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. (a)Unless otherwise affirmatively protected by state or federal law, smoking is permitted in the following places within the city: (1)Hookah bars/Smoking lounges. Smoking is permitted in hookah bars/smoking lounges as defined by Chapter 20.620 of this Code. (2)Transient Lodging Establishments. Smoking is permitted in up to sixty-five percent of transient lodging establishment guest rooms. Nothing in this section shall prohibit transient lodging establishments from choosing to be one hundred percent smoke-free. (3)Designated Lobby Areas. Smoking is permitted in areas of the lobby in a transient lodging establishment designated for smoking by the establishment. An establishment may permit smoking in a designated lobby area that does not exceed twenty-five percent of the total floor area of the lobby or, if the total area of the lobby is two thousand square feet or less, that does not exceed fifty percent of the total floor area of the lobby, provided that the smoking area of the lobby is not used primarily for the sale and service of food or beverages. (4)Theatrical Performances. Smoking is permitted in theatrical performances if smoking is an integral part of the story in the theatrical production. (5)Medical Research or Treatment Sites.Smoking is permitted in medical research or treatment sites if smoking is integral to the research and treatment being conducted. (6)Employee Break Rooms. Smoking is permitted in enclosed employee break rooms designated by employers for smoking, provided that they meet all of the following criteria: (A) air from the room is exhausted directly to the outside by an exhaust fan; (B) the employer complies with applicable state and federal ventilation standards; (C) the room is located in a non-work area; (D) the employer does not store or maintain any item necessary or related to the performance of any employee’s duties in the smoking break room such that non-smoking employees are required to enter or pass through the room in order to access said items; and (E) there are sufficient non-smoking break rooms to accommodate non-smokers Section 8.50.090 Use of electronic smoking devices-Restricted. (a)Purpose and Intent. It is the intent of this section to provide individuals with a reasonable degree of protection from involuntary exposure to secondhand electronic smoking device vapor and to limit exposure of minors to an activity that may increase social acceptance of smoking activity by prohibiting smoking in certain specified areas. The compelling purpose and intent of this chapter includes, but is not limited to, generally promoting the health, safety, and welfare of all people in the community against the City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 5 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. unknown health and societal effects of the use of electronic smoking devices. (b)Definition- Electronic Smoking Device. “Electronic smoking device” means any electronic device or product that delivers nicotine or other substances to the person inhaling from the device, including, but not limited to, an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic pipe, or electronic hookah. This term includes every variation and type of such electronic smoking devices whether they are manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold as an electronic cigarette, an electronic cigar, an electronic cigarillo, an electronic pipe, an electronic hookah, a vapor pen, or any other product name or descriptor. This term does not include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where such product is marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose, such as any medical inhaler prescribed by a licensed doctor. (c)Use of Electronic Smoking Devices Prohibited. The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in the following places within the city: (1)City Buildings. The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in all enclosed areas of any building or facility owned and occupied or leased and occupied by the city. (2)City-Owned Parking Structures. The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in all city-owned parking structures. (3)City Vehicles. The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in all city-owned, leased and/or controlled vehicles. (4)Parks and Recreation Areas. The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in all parks and recreation areas within the city, designated as parks and recreation (PR) on the South San Francisco Zoning Map. (5)Outside of City Buildings.The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited within twenty feet of a main exit, entrance or operable window of any city facility or building covered by subsection (c)(1). (6)City-Owned Parking Lots.The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited at all city-owned parking lots. (7)Downtown Core.The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited on all outdoor property along Grand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard.This prohibition extends in both directions down Cypress,Linden,Maple and Walnut Avenues where those streets intersect Grand Avenue,up to the beginning of Third Lane and Fourth Lane,respectively.Such prohibition includes,but is not limited to,sidewalks,benches,walkways,streets,and outdoor eating areas that are situated within the area prohibited by this subsection (b)(4). (8)Designated Public Places.The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in any open-air public places on city-owned property not otherwise covered by this section when designated by the city City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 6 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. manager. (9)Units within Multi-Unit Residences.Use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in all dwelling units contained within a multi-unit residence.Units within multi-unit residences with existing leases are exempt from this prohibition until the date the existing lease agreement expires,or six months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, whichever is sooner. (10)Common Areas.The use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in all common areas of multi-unit residences,except for outdoor designated smoking areas which shall be located more than thirty feet from an entrance/doorway and marked by conspicuous signage,or designated interior smoking areas in an area that is fully enclosed,separately ventilated,and not the only space available for a particular activity or service. (d)Unlawful Acts.It is unlawful for any person to use an electronic smoking device in a place within the city where such use is prohibited by this section. (e)Violations.Any violation of this section shall be subject to the same penalties and enforcement as provided in Section 8.50.080. SECTION 3. Amendment to Title 6 Title 6,Chapter 6.47 is hereby added to the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows.Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below,and shall remain in full force and effect. Chapter 6.47 Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products, Pharmacy Sales of Tobacco Products, and Sales of Electronic Smoking Devices Prohibited Section 6.47.010 Definitions Section 6.47.020 Sale or offer for sale of flavored tobacco products prohibited Section 6.47.030 Sale or offer for sale of electronic smoking devices prohibited Section 6.47.040 Sale or offer for sale of tobacco products by a pharmacy prohibited Section 6.47.050 Exemptions Section 6.47.060 Public nuisance Section 6.47.070 No conflict with federal or state law Section 6.47.080 Authorization of enforcement by San Mateo County personnel Section 6.47.090 Violation and Enforcement Section 6.47.100 Severability Section 6.47.010 Definitions City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 7 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall govern unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) “Adult” means, for the purposes of this chapter, an individual over the age of twenty-one (21) or older. (b) “Adult-only retailer” means any retailer or businesses that allow entry only by adults onto the entire premises of the business or retailer, or that require minors to be accompanied by a parent, guardian, or another adult in order to enter the entire premises of the business or the retailer. The definition of an “adult-only retailer” does not include any retailer or business that only prohibits minor from entering certain sections, divisions, or a part of the premises that are marked or otherwise restricted as adult-only and allows minors to otherwise enter the remainder of its premises unaccompanied by a parent, guardian or another adult. (c) "Characterizing flavor" means a distinguishable taste or aroma or both, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product. Characterizing flavors include, but are not limited to, tastes or aroma relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice. A tobacco product shall not be determined to have a characterizing flavor solely because of the use of additives or flavorings or the provision of ingredient information. Rather, it is the presence of a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, as described in the first sentence of this definition, that constitutes a characterizing flavor. (d) "Constituent" means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound, other than tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet that is added by the manufacturer to a tobacco product during the processing, manufacture, or packing of the tobacco product. (e) "Distinguishable" means perceivable by either the sense of smell or taste. (f) "Flavored tobacco product" means any tobacco product that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor. (g) "Labeling" means written, printed, pictorial, or graphic matter upon any tobacco product or any of its packaging. (h) “Minor” means, for the purposes of this chapter, an individual under the age of twenty-one (21). (i) "Packaging" means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind or, if no other container, any wrapping (including cellophane) in which a tobacco product is sold, or offered for sale, to a consumer. (j) "Pharmacy" means any retail establishment in which the profession of pharmacy is practiced by a pharmacist licensed by the State of California in accordance with the Business and Professions Code and where prescription pharmaceuticals are offered for sale, regardless of whether the retail establishment sells other retail goods in addition to prescription pharmaceuticals. (k) "Tobacco product" is defined as set forth in section 20.420.002 of this Code. (l) "Tobacco retailer" means any store, stand, booth, concession or any other enterprise that engages in the retail sale of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia as defined in section 20.420.002 of this Code, including but City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 8 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. not limited to stores that engage in the retail sale of food items. Section 6.47.020 Sale or offer for sale of flavored tobacco products prohibited. (a) Except for adult-only retailers as defined in this Chapter, no person or tobacco retailer as defined in this Chapter shall sell, or offer to sell, any flavored tobacco product. (b) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product if a manufacturer or any of the manufacturer's agents or employees, in the course of their agency or employment, has made a statement or claim directed to consumers or to the public that the tobacco product has or produces a characterizing flavor including, but not limited to, text, color, and/or images on the product's labeling or packaging that are used to explicitly or implicitly communicate that the tobacco product has a characterizing flavor. Section 6.47.030 Sale or offer for sale of electronic smoking devices prohibited; Except for adult-only retailers as defined in this Chapter,no person or tobacco retailer as defined under this Chapter shall sell, or offer to sell, any electronic smoking device as defined in Section 8.50.090 of this Code. Section 6.47.040 Sale or offer for sale of tobacco products by a pharmacy prohibited. (a)Notwithstanding any provisions of this Chapter,no pharmacy or pharmacy employee or agent shall sell or offer for sale any tobacco product. (b) No new tobacco retailer permit may be issued to a pharmacy under Chapter 6.46 of this Code. (c) No existing tobacco retailer permit issued under Chapter 6.46 of this Code may be renewed by a pharmacy. Section 6.47.050 Exemptions Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,the following retailers and businesses shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter provided that such retailers and businesses qualify as an adult-only retailer as defined in this Chapter: (a)Significant tobacco retailers as defined in Chapter 20.420 of this Code that were lawfully established prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 1455 prohibiting significant tobacco retailers. (b)Hookah bars/Smoking lounges as defined by Chapter 20.620 of this code that serve flavored tobacco or other products for on-site smoking. Section 6.47.060 Public nuisance. Any violation of this ordinance is hereby declared a public nuisance. Section 6.47.070 No conflict with federal or state law. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement,power,or duty that is City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 9 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement,power,or duty that is preempted by federal or state law. Section 6.47.080 Authorization of enforcement by San Mateo County personnel The City Manager,or his or her designee may enforce the provisions of this Chapter.Additionally,the County’s Health System Chief, or his or her designee, may enforce the provisions of this Chapter. Section 6.47.090 Violation and Enforcement Notwithstanding authorization of enforcement by San Mateo County personnel in this chapter,the violation of, or noncompliance with,any of the requirements of this chapter or applicable provisions of this code,shall be subject to any administrative,civil,or criminal enforcement remedies available under the law and/or the City’s Municipal Code.In addition,the City may enforce the violation of this chapter by means of civil enforcement through a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction or by any other means authorized by the law. Section 6.47.100 Severability If any provision,section,subsection,sentence,clause,phrase,or word of this Chapter 6.47,or any application thereof to any person or circumstance,is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of the chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this chapter,and each provision,section, subsection,sentence,clause,phrase,and word not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this chapter or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. Amendment to Title 20 Title 20,Chapter 20.420 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows. Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below,and shall remain in full force and effect. 20.420.002 Definitions The words and phrases included in this section shall have the following meanings,unless it is clearly apparent from the context that another meaning is intended: “Significant tobacco retailer”means any tobacco retailer whose principal or core business is selling tobacco products,tobacco paraphernalia,or both,as evidenced by any of the following:20 percent or more of floor area and display area is devoted to the sale or exchange of tobacco products,tobacco paraphernalia,or both;67 percent or more of gross sales receipts are derived from the sale or exchange of tobacco products,tobacco paraphernalia,or both;or 50 percent or more of completed sales transactions include a tobacco product or tobacco paraphernalia. “Tobacco paraphernalia”means cigarette papers or wrappers,pipes,holders of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines,any electronic cigarette and any other item designed for the smoking or ingestion of City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 10 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. cigarette rolling machines,any electronic cigarette and any other item designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco products. “Tobacco products”mean (1)any substances containing any tobacco leaf,including,but not limited to, cigarettes,cigars,bidis,pipe tobacco,snuff,chewing tobacco,flavored tobacco as defined under Chapter 6.47 of this Code,and smokeless tobacco.;and (2)any electronic device that delivers nicotine or other substances to the person inhaling from the device,including,but not limited to,an electronic cigarette,electronic cigar, electronic pipe,or electronic hookah.Notwithstanding the foregoing,“tobacco product”includes any component,part,or accessory intended or reasonably expected to be used with a tobacco product,whether or not sold separately.“Tobacco product”does not,however,include any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product or for other therapeutic purposes where such product is marketed and sold solely for such an approved purpose. 20.420.003 Significant Tobacco Retailers Prohibited A.Unless otherwise exempted under Chapter 6.47 of this Code,significant tobacco retailers are not a permitted use and are prohibited in all zones throughout the City.No permit or any other applicable license or entitlement for use,nor any business license,shall be approved or issued for the establishment,maintenance or operation of a significant tobacco retailer within the City. B.The establishment,maintenance or operation of a significant tobacco retailer within the City is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the City either pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code or any other available legal remedies, including, but not limited to, declaratory relief and civil injunctions. 20.420.004 Violation and Enforcement The establishment,maintenance or operation of a significant tobacco retailer in violation of,or in noncompliance with,any of the requirements of this chapter or applicable provisions of the Zoning Code or South San Francisco Municipal Code,shall be subject to any enforcement remedies available under the law and/or the City’s Municipal Code.In addition,the City may enforce the violation of this chapter by means of civil enforcement through a restraining order,a preliminary or permanent injunction or by any other means authorized by the law. SECTION 5.Severability If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 6.Publication and Effective Date Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 11 of 12 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-842 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:13a. This Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2020. ***** Introduced at a regular meeting of City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 25th day of September 2019. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 12 of 12 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-798 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:14. Report regarding a resolution amending the Fiscal Year (FY)2019-20 Master Fee Schedule to apply the 2.2 percent Credit Card Transaction Fee to all credit card transactions processed through the City’s community development software regardless of amount.(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule to remove the one thousand dollar limit on credit card fee transactions and instead apply the 2.2 percent fee to all fees that are paid by credit card and processed through the City’s community development software. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In June 2019,the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule.One of the fees adopted via the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule was a new transaction fee of 2.2 percent for payments made with credit cards.The 2.2 percent credit card transaction fee was intended to be utilized across the city for all transactions over one thousand dollars ($1,000).The credit card transaction fee is primarily a cost recovery tool to offset the interchange fees that the City pays to the banks via merchant account transactions. These interchange fees vary based on credit card issuer,rewards accounts,type of transaction and amount.The City pays on average 2.2 percent for credit card transactions at this time. Due to unforeseen administrative complications that caused potential errors in payment,including the fact that the $1,000 threshold cannot be automated in the system,staff is recommending to amend the Master Fee Schedule to charge the 2.2 percent credit card transaction fee for all transactions in the City’s community development software.This software is used for all building permits,fire inspections,planning projects, business licenses,engineering encroachment permits and code enforcement cases.This change will have no impact on other City departments, including the Parks and Recreation Department. Currently the City is paying approximately two hundred and forty thousand dollars ($240,000)annually in credit card interchange fees.The Finance Department recently engaged with Matrix Consulting to do a comprehensive fee study for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and will continue to monitor the costs of credit card transactions.Once the study is completed the recommended changes will brought before the Budget Standing Committee and City Council for adoption in the new fiscal year. FISCAL IMPACT This action could potentially recover at least an additional $10,000 in credit card transaction fees the City already pays to the banks via merchant account transactions.In addition,it would reduce an indeterminate implementation cost as the $1,000 threshold resulted in unforeseen administrative hurdles that would have resulted in additional internal and external administration and IT costs. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Master Fee Schedule update is the City’s guidance on cost recovery and revenue for charges for service that supports Priority Area 3, Financial Stability. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-798 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:14. CONCLUSION To lessen the administrative burden and reduce potential errors,it is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving changes to the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule to remove the one thousand dollar limit on credit card fee transactions and instead apply the 2.2 percent fee to all fees that are paid by credit card and processed through the City’s community development software. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-799 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:14a. Resolution amending the Fiscal Year (FY)2019-20 Master Fee Schedule to apply the 2.2 percent Credit Card Transaction Fee to all credit card transactions processed through the City’s community development software regardless of amount. WHEREAS,On June 12,2019,City Council adopted a resolution to increase existing fees by the Consumer Price Index (CPI); and WHEREAS,in addition,the City Council adopted a new Credit Card Transaction fee of 2.2 percent,applicable to transactions over one thousand dollars ($1,000); and WHEREAS,the implementation of the $1,000 transaction fee threshold in the City’s fee processing system became infeasible and would cause potential errors in payment processing,due to unforeseen administrative complications and technological challenges; and WHEREAS,to reduce administrative burden and reduce the likelihood of potential errors,staff recommends amending the Master Fee Schedule to charge the 2.2 percent Credit Card Transaction fee for all transactions in the City’s community development software. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby modifies the Credit Card Transaction fee to apply to all credit card transactions to all credit card payments made through the City’s community development software,regardless of whether the transaction exceeded $1,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby amends the FY 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule in accordance with this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution shall go into effect and be in full force and operation immediately. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/20/2019Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-701 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15. Report regarding an Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapters 15.06,15.08,15.10,15.12,15.14,15.16,15.20, 15.22,15.24,15.26,15.32,15.34 and 15.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code pertaining to building regulations in their entirety,and adopting by reference and amending the 2019 Editions of the California Administrative,Building,Residential,Electrical,Mechanical,Plumbing,Energy,Historical Building,Fire,Green Building Standards,Existing Building,Referenced Standards Codes,and the International Property Maintenance Code. (Phil Perry, Building Official) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce and waive reading of the Ordinance repealing and replacing Chapters 15.06,15.08,15.10,15.12,15,14 15.16,15.20,15.22,15.24,15.26,15.32,15.34 and 15.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.Adding Chapters 15.06,15.08,15.10,15.12,15.14,15.16,15.20, 15.22,15.24,15.26,15.32,15.34,15.36,and Adopting by Reference and Amending the 2019 Editions of the California Administrative,Building,Residential with Appendix K,Electrical,Mechanical,Plumbing,Energy, Historical Building,Fire with Appendices BB,C,and D,Existing Building,Green Building Standards,and Referenced Standards Codes,2019 Editions,respectively,and adopting by reference the International Property Maintenance Code. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Every three years,the California Building Standards Commission,along with other state agencies,reviews the California “Building”Codes and adopts and amends Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (“California Building Standards Code”or CBSC).The CBSC contains several titles such as:The California Administrative Code (Part 1),The California Building Code (Part 2,Volumes 1 and 2),The California Residential Code with Appendix K (Part 2.5),The California Electrical Code (Part 3),The California Mechanical Code (Part 4),The California Plumbing Code (Part 5),The California Energy Code (Part 6),The California Historical Building Code (Part 8),The California Fire Code with Appendices B,C,and D (Part 9),The California Existing Building Code (Part 10),The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11), and the California Referenced Standards Code (Part 12). The most recent State mandated adoption of the California "Building"Codes was on January 1,2017.The California Building Standards Codes for 2019 are to be enforced at the local level and thus must be adopted by January 1,2020.Local jurisdictions may also adopt additional amendments to the California Building Codes as necessitated by local climatic,geographical,or topographical conditions by making specific findings regarding those conditions.Any amendments by the City must be at least as stringent as those outlined in the CBSC.The purpose of City Council’s action on October 9,2019,is to introduce the ordinance that repeals the City’s previous CBSC,and adopts by reference the 2019 edition of the CBSC in order to reflect the City’s current needs to be effective January 1, 2020. A second reading of the Ordinance will follow on October 23, 2019. The proposed amendments to each respective code are described below: Amendments to the 2019 California Building Code: It is proposed that the 2019 California Building Code be adopted as the code regulating site preparation and construction,alteration,moving,demolition,repair,maintenance,use and occupancy of all buildings and structures within this jurisdiction.Staff proposes to adopt amendments to the California Building Code asCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-701 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15. structures within this jurisdiction.Staff proposes to adopt amendments to the California Building Code as follows: 1. Section 3410.2,Moved Structures: This section is added to establish the minimum requirements for maintaining public ways during the moving of structures within the city,and the length of time a structure can remain on temporary blocking. In addition to creating specific requirements for hours of grading operations,transportation routes,fees, and restrictions during season. 2. Section 1510.10,Spark Arresters: This section is added to require that all new roofing installations and all reroofing installations shall include the installation of an approved spark arrester on all chimneys. Amendments to the 2016 California Residential Code: 1.Section 1.8.10.3,Moved Structures and Temporary Structures: This section is added to establish the minimum requirements for maintaining public ways during the moving of structures within the city and the length of time a structure can remain on temporary blocking. In addition to creating specific requirements for hours of grading operations,transportation routes,fees, and restrictions during season. 2.Section 1.8.10.4 Work Hours: This section is added to regulate construction, delivery, servicing, and operation hours. 3.Section R506.3,Concrete Slab Design: This section is added to establish the minimum reinforcing requirements for concrete slabs on grade. 4.Section R903.5,Weather Protection: This section is added to establish specific weather protection for metal hardware such as:bolts,nails, hinges,locks,and other similar hardware exposed to the weather and used on the exterior of residential buildings located west of Interstate Highway 280. 5.Section R907.7,Spark Arresters: This section is added to require that all new roofing,and reroofing installations shall include the installation of an approved spark arrester on all chimneys. 6.Excavation and Grading: See 2016 California Building Code, Volume 2 7. Appendix K,Sound Transmission: This appendix is amended to establish requirements for air-borne sound transmission in residential structures. Amendments to the 2019 Fire Code: It is proposed that the 2019 California Fire Code,Appendices B,C,D,H and I be adopted with the proposed local amendments as follows: City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-701 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15. 1. Sections 105.6.52 through 105.6.63 Operational Permits: This section is amended to require operational permits to store or handle radioactive material,or operate stationary storage battery systems,child care center,day-care facilities,holiday tree sales lot,residential care facilities,fire alarms system,emergency responder radio coverage system,hospitals,facilities that contain confided spaces and temporary operational permit operate a tar kettle, and outdoor assembly event. 2. Section 903.2 Automatic sprinkler systems: This section is amended to establish the minimum requirements for fire sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings. 3. Section 508.1 Fire command center: This section is amended to establish the minimum requirements for fire command center in new buildings. 4. Section 510.4.2 and 510.5 Public safety radio coverage system: Both sections are amended to establish the minimum requirements for design and installation for new and existing buildings. 5. Sections 103.2 Appointment: This section is amended so that the fire code official will be appointed by the chief appointing authority of the jurisdiction. Additionally,the proposed ordinance includes findings regarding local climatic,geographical,and topographical conditions that would justify the amendments to be made to the state law provisions.The findings are attached to the draft ordinance as Exhibit A. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the ordinance which will amend the Municipal Code and a dopt by reference with necessary amendments the 2019 Editions of the California Administrative, Building, Residential with Appendix K, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Historical Building, Fire with Appendices B, C, D, H and I, Existing Building, Green Building Standards, and Referenced Standards Codes, 2019 Editions, respectively, and adopting by reference the International Property Maintenance Code, and waive further reading. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. An ordinance repealing and replacing Chapters 15.06 (California Administrative Code), 15.08 (California Building Code), 15.10 (Uniform Housing Code), 15.12 (California Plumbing Code), 15.14 (California Residential Code), 15.16 (California Mechanical Code), 15.20 (California Electrical Code), 15.22 ( California Green Building Standards Code), 15.24 (California Fire Code), 15.26 (California Energy Code), 15.32 (California Historical Building Code), 15.34 (California Existing Building Code), and 15.36 (California Referenced Standards Code) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code in order to adopt by reference and amend provisions of the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 WHEREAS, the 2019 California Building Standards Code has been amended and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) wishes to adopt building and fire code regulations in accordance with law and to use the most updated regulations in the processing of development and fire protection within the City; and WHEREAS, Government Code § 50022.2 authorizes cities to enact ordinances adopting any code by reference; and WHEREAS, notice of the Ordinance was published in accordance with Government Code Sections 50022.3 and 6066; and that such notice was sufficient to give notice to interested persons of the purpose of the ordinance and the subject matter thereof; and WHEREAS, because of the City’s unique climatic, geologic, and topographic conditions, the City desires to make amendments and additions to the building and fire code regulations, as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections 18941.5 and 17958, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds that the amendments adopted herein are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geologic and topographic conditions; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, the City Council hereby finds that the findings attached and incorporated as Exhibit A are applicable to the modifications described in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the Ordinance, including the findings, with the California Building Standards Commission. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1 Repeal City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 1 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. Chapters 15.06,15.08,15.10,15.12,15.14,15.16,15.20,15.24,15.26,15.32,15.34 and 15.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code are hereby repealed in their entirety.This repeal shall not affect or prevent the prosecution or punishment of any person for any act done or omitted in violation of this chapter prior to the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 2 Findings The City Council of the City of South San Francisco finds that in order to best protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of South San Francisco, the standards of building within the City must conform to state law except where local climatic, geological, and topographic conditions warrant more restrictive regulations. Therefore, the City Council should adopt the current state building codes, contained in the 2019 California Building Standards Code , and other codes governing the construction and regulation of buildings, structures and fire protection, with the modifications, additions and amendments contained herein. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, the City Council makes the factual findings set forth in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and finds that the amendments made in this ordinance to the 2019 California Building Standards Code, codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, are reasonably necessary because of the local climatic, geological or topographical conditions described in Exhibit A. SECTION 3 Adoption of the California Building Standards Code SECTION 3.A Adopt Chapter 15.06 - California Administrative Code Chapter 15.06 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “California Administrative Code” is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.06.010 California Administrative Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Administrative Code,2019 Edition,published by the International Code Council,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Administrative Code for building codes of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.B Adopt Chapter 15.08 - California Building Code Chapter 15.08 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “California Building Code”is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.08.010 California Building Code Vols. 1 and 2, adopted by reference Section 15.08.020 Amendments, General. Section 15.08.030 Concrete Slab Design. Section 15.08.040 Moved Buildings and Temporary Structures. Section 15.08.050 Spark Arresters. Section 15.08.010 California Building Code Vols. 1 and 2, adopted by reference The California Building Code Volumes 1 and 2,2019 Edition,published by the International Code City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 2 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. The California Building Code Volumes 1 and 2,2019 Edition,published by the International Code Council,and as modified by the amendments,additions and deletions set forth hereinafter,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Building Code of the City of South San Francisco,and may be cited as such. Section 15.08.020 Amendments, General. Set forth below are the amendments,additions and deletions to the 2019 California Building Code, Volume 1 and 2.Chapter,section and table numbers used herein are those of the California Building Code. Section 15.08.030 Concrete Slab Design. Section 1907.1.2 Slab on Grade is added to read as follows: New concrete slabs supported directly on the ground within the foundation perimeter and used as a finished floor, or as a base for other floor finishes shall meet the following requirements: 1.Steel reinforcement equivalent to no.3 deformed steel bars at 18 inches on center each way placed approximately mid-depth within the concrete slab.Blocks or chairs shall be provided in order to maintain the reinforcement in the center of the slab. Section 15.08.040 Moved Buildings and Temporary Structures. Section 3410.2 Moved Buildings is added to read as follows: Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or structures.In addition to all other requirements of the building code relative to the moving of buildings and structures,no permit for the moving of a building or structure shall be granted until the applicant has filed with the Chief Building Official the following items: 1.A performance bond in favor of the city,of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00)nor more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00),as the Chief Building Official may determine,shall be conditioned to require the applicant to strictly comply with all conditions and provisions of this chapter,and of any provision of the municipal code relating to the moving of buildings or structures,and of any order,rule or regulation which may be hereafter passed or adopted by the City Council.The applicant also shall be required to pay any and all damages to any fence,hedge,tree,pavement,sidewalk,street,curb,gas,sewer or water pipe,electric wire or pole supporting the same,or to any public or private property which may result from moving the building or structure; and 2.An undertaking to indemnify,defend and hold harmless the city and its elective officers,agents and employees against all liabilities,claims,actions,judgments,cost or any expense which may for any reason arise out of the issuance of said permit or moving of such buildings or structures. All removals made under any permit granted for such moving shall be done over and along only the street or streets designated in such permit,and at the times therein specified,and shall be done in a careful manner to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official,and the Public Works Director/City City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 3 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. careful manner to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official,and the Public Works Director/City Engineer. No person owning or having charge of the removal of any building or structure being moved over any street,shall permit such building or structure to be,or stand,on any street within the limits of any one block for a period of more than twenty-four (24) hours. No person owning or having charge of the removal of any building or structure being moved over any street,shall allow or cause injury to any fence,hedge,tree,pavement,street,sidewalk,curb,gas pipe, water pipe,sewer pipe,electric wire or pole supporting same,or any other public or private property by reason of such removal. Temporary structures such as reviewing stands and other miscellaneous structures,sheds, construction trailers,canopies or fences used for the protection of the public and/or in conjunction with construction work may be erected by special permit from the Chief Building Official for a limited period of time.Such buildings or structures need not comply with the type of construction or fire- resistive time periods required by this code.Temporary buildings or structures shall be completely removed upon the expiration of the time limit stated in the permit. Section 15.08.050 Spark Arresters. Section 1510.7 Spark Arresters Required is added to read as follows: Chimneys attached to any appliance or fireplace that burns solid fuel shall be equipped with an approved spark arrester.The net free area of the spark arrester shall not be less than four times the net free area of the outlet of the chimney.The spark arrester screen shall be heat and corrosion resistant equivalent to 12 gage wire,19-gage galvanized or 24-gage stainless steel.Openings shall not permit the passage of spheres having a diameter larger than ½inch and shall not block the passage of spheres having a diameter of less than 3/8 inch. SECTION 3.C Adopt Chapter 15.10 - International Property Maintenance Code. Chapter 15.10 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “International Property Maintenance Code” is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.10.010 International Property Maintenance Code, 2018 Edition, adopted by reference. Section 15.10.020 Amendments, General. Section 15.10.030 Authority. Section 15.10.040 Violations. Section 15.10.050 Penalties. Section 15.10.010 International Property Maintenance Code, adopted by reference. The International Property Maintenance Code,2018 Edition,and published by the International Code Council is hereby adopted by reference as the International Property Maintenance Code of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 4 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. Section 15.10.020 Amendments, General. Set forth below are the additions accompanying the adoption of International Property Maintenance Code, 2019 Edition. Chapter, to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Section 15.10.030 Authority. The Building Official and the Fire Chief,or the designee of the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enforce all provisions of this code.For such purposes the Building Official shall have the powers of a law enforcement officer.In conflicts of interpretation on technical issues the Building Official shall govern. Section 15.10.040 Violations. It shall be unlawful for any person,firm or corporation to erect,construct,enlarge,alter,repair,move, improve,remove,convert or demolish,equip,use,occupy or maintain any building,structure or service equipment or cause or permit the same to be done in violation of provisions of this code.Each day during any portion of which any violation is committed or continued by any person,firm or corporation shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as herein provided. Section 15.10.050 Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate a provision of this code, or fail to comply therewith, or with any of the requirements thereof, shall be prosecuted within the limits provided by stated or local laws. SECTION 3.D Adopt Chapter 15.12 - California Plumbing Code Chapter 15.12 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “California Plumbing Code”is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.12.010 California Plumbing Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Plumbing Code,2019 Edition,and Appendix I,published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Plumbing Code of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.E Adopt Chapter 15.14 - California Residential Code Chapter 15.14 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, entitled “California Residential Code” is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.14.010 California Residential Code,2019 Edition,adopted by reference. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 5 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. Section 15.14.020 Amendments, General. Section 15.14.030 Concrete Slab Design Section 15.14.040 Moved Buildings and Temporary Structures Section 15.14.050 Spark Arresters Section 15.14.060 Evacuation and Grading Section 15.14.070 Work Hours Section 15.14.080 Amendments to Appendix K Section 15.14.010 California Residential Code Part 2.5, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Residential Code Part 2.5,2019 Edition,and appendices E,J,and K,published by the International Code Council,and as modified by the amendments,additions and deletions set forth hereinafter,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Residential Code of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. Section 15.14.020 Amendments, General Set forth below are the amendments,additions and deletions to the 2019 California Residential Code, Part 2.5,2019 Edition.Chapter,section and table numbers used herein are those of the California Residential Code. Section 15.14.030 Concrete Slab Design Section R506.3 Slab on Grade in Conditioned Areas is added to read as follows: New concrete slabs supported directly on the ground and used as a finished floor or as a base for other floor finishes in conditioned rooms shall meet the following requirements: 1.Steel reinforcement equivalent to no.3 deformed steel bars at 18 inches on center each way placed approximately mid-depth within the concrete slab.Blocks or chairs shall be provided in order to maintain the reinforcement in the center of the slab. Section 15.14.040 Moved Buildings and Temporary Structures Section 1.8.10.3 Moved Structures is added to read as follows: Buildings or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or structures.In addition to all other requirements of the building code relative to the moving of buildings and structures,no permit for the moving of a building or structure shall be granted until the applicant has filed with the Chief Building Official: 1.A performance bond in favor of the city,of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00)nor more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00),as the Chief Building Official may determine,shall be conditioned to require the applicant to strictly comply with all conditions and provisions of this chapter,and of any provision of the municipal code relating to the moving of buildings or structures,and of any order,rule or regulation which may be hereafter passed or adopted by the City Council.The applicant also shall be required to pay any and all damages to any fence,hedge,tree,pavement,sidewalk,street,curb,gas,sewer or water pipe,electric wire City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 6 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. any fence,hedge,tree,pavement,sidewalk,street,curb,gas,sewer or water pipe,electric wire or pole supporting the same,or to any public or private property which may result from moving the building or structure. 2.An undertaking to indemnify,defend and hold harmless the city and its elective officers,agents and employees against all liabilities,claims,actions,judgments,cost or any expense which may for any reason arise out of the issuance of said permit or moving of such buildings or structures. All removals made under any permit granted for such moving shall be done over and along only the street or streets designated in such permit,and at the times therein specified,and shall be done in a careful manner to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official,Superintendent of Public Works and the City Engineer. No person owning or having charge of the removal of any building or structure being moved over any street,shall permit such building or structure to be,or stand,on any street within the limits of any one block for a period of more than twenty-four (24) hours. No person owning or having charge of the removal of any building or structure being moved over any street,shall allow or cause injury to any fence,hedge,tree,pavement,street,sidewalk,curb,gas pipe, water pipe,sewer pipe,electric wire or pole supporting same,or any other public or private property by reason of such removal. Section 15.14.050 Spark Arresters Section R907.7 Spark Arresters Required is added to read as follows: Upon completion of a reroofing project,an approved spark arrestor meeting the criteria as set forth in section R1003.9.2 shall be installed on any chimney attached to an appliance or fireplace that burns solid fuel. Section 15.14.060 Excavation and Grading See the California Building Code, Volume 2, 2019 Edition. Section 15.14.070 Work Hours Section 1.8.10.4 Work Hours is added to read as follows: No construction,delivery,servicing or operation of tool and equipment,shall be conducted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.,on Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10 a.m. Section 15.14.080 Amendments to Appendix K Section AK102.1 is amended to read as follows: Section AK102 Air-Borne Sound. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 7 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. Section AK102.1 General: Amended Walls,partitions and floor-ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units from each other or from public or service areas shall have a sound transmission class (STC)of not less than 50 (45 if field tested)for air- borne noise when tested in accordance with ASTM E 90.Penetrations or openings in construction assemblies for piping,electrical devices,recessed cabinets,bathtubs,soffits,or heating,ventilating or exhaust ducts shall be sealed,lined,insulated or otherwise treated to maintain the required ratings.This requirement shall not apply to dwelling unit entrance doors;however,such doors shall be tight fitting to the frame and sill. Section AK103.1 is amended to read as follows: Section AK103 Structural-Borne Sound. Section AK103.1 General: Amended. Floor-ceiling assemblies between dwelling units or between a dwelling unit and a public or service area within the structure shall have an impact insulation class (IIC)rating of not less than 50 (45 if field tested) when tested in accordance with ASTM E 492. SECTION 3.F Adopt Chapter 15.16 - California Mechanical Code Chapter 15.16 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “California Mechanical Code”is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.16.010 California Mechanical Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Mechanical Code,2019 Edition,published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Mechanical Code of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.G Adopt Chapter 15.20 - California Electrical Code Chapter 15.20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “California Electrical Code”is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.20.010 California Electrical Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Electrical Code,2019 Edition,published by the National Fire Protection Association,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Electrical Code of the City of South San Francisco,and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.H Adopt Chapter 15.22 - California Green Building Code Chapter 15.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “California Green Building Code” is hereby added to read as follows: City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 8 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. Section 15.22.010 California Green Building Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Green Building Standards Code,2019 Edition,published by the California Building Standards Commission,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Green Building Standards Code 2019 Edition of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.I Adopt Chapter 15.24 - California Fire Code Chapter 15.24 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,entitled “California Fire Code”is hereby added to read as follows Section 15.24.010 California Fire Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. Section 15.24.020 Amendments, General. Section 15.24.030 Operational Permits. Section 15.24.040 Administrative Amendments Section 15.24.010 California Fire Code, 2019 edition, adopted by reference. The California Fire Code 2019 Edition,published by the California Building Standards Commission,as modified by the amendments,additions and deletions set forth hereinafter,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Fire Code 2019 Edition of the City of South San Francisco,and may be cited as such. Section 15.24.020 Amendments, General. Set forth below are the amendments,additions,and deletions to the California Fire Code with Appendices B, C, D, H, and I, 2019 Edition. California Fire Code Section 903.2 is hereby amended to read: 903.2 Where required.Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section,firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. 1.In other than residential buildings which require the installation of fire sprinkler for all new buildings according to the California Building Code,an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures greater than 1,000 square feet of building area. 2.Group S-2 or U occupancies used exclusively for vehicle parking and which meet all of the following: City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 9 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. a. Noncombustible construction. b. Maximum building area not to exceed 5,000 square feet. c. Structure is open on three (3) or more sides. d.Minimum of 10 feet separation from existing buildings unless area is separated by fire walls complying with California Building Code 706. 3.An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout existing Group A,B,E,F,L,M,S and U buildings and structures,when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet or that create conditions described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18. 4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout existing Group R-3 occupancies when additions that create an increase in habitable space to more than 3,200 square feet. For purposes of floor area calculations, Group U (attached private garages or similar) occupancies shall not be included in the floor area calculation. 5.Any change in the character of occupancy or in use of any building with a building area equal to or greater than 3,600 square feet which,in the opinion of the fire code official or building official,would place the building into a more hazardous division of the same occupancy group or into a different group of occupancies and constitutes a greater degree of life safety1 or increased fire risk2,shall require the installation of an approved fire automatic fire sprinkler system. 1 Life Safety -Increased occupant load,public assembly areas,public meeting areas,churches, indoor amusement attractions,buildings with complex exiting systems due to increased occupant loads, large schools/day-care facilities, large residential care facilities with non-ambulatory 2.Fire Risks -High-piled combustible storage,woodworking operations,hazardous operations using hazardous materials,increased fuel loads (storage of moderate to highly combustible materials), increased sources of ignition (welding,automotive repair with the use of flammable liquids and open flames). California Fire Code Section 508.1 is hereby amended to read: 508.1 General.When required by other sections of this code and in all buildings four or more stories in height and all buildings classified as high-rise buildings by the California Building Code and Group I-2 occupancies having occupied floors located more than 75 feet (22,860mm)above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access,a fire command center for fire department operations shall be provided and shall comply with Sections 508.1.1 through 508.1.7. Exception: 1.Buildings of four or more stories in height,but not classified as a high-rise by the California Building Code,the fire command center shall be a minimum of 96 square feet with a minimum dimension of eight feet. 2.Buildings with eight or fewer units,the fire command center shall be a minimum 48 square feet with City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 10 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. 2.Buildings with eight or fewer units,the fire command center shall be a minimum 48 square feet with a minimum dimension of six feet. California Fire Code Section 508.1.1 is hereby amended to read: 508.1.1 Location and access.The location and accessibility of the fire command center shall be approved by the fire code official.The fire command center shall be located adjacent to an approved fire apparatus access road and be accessible directly from the exterior of the building. California Fire Code Section 510.4.2 is hereby amended to read: 510.4.2 System Design.The design of the public safety radio coverage system shall be in accordance with NFPA 72, 1221, San Mateo County ERRC policy, and Sections 510.4.2.1 through 510.4.2.8. California Fire Code Section 510.5 is hereby amended to read: 510.5 Installation requirements.The installation of the public safety radio coverage system shall be in accordance with NFPA 72,1221,San Mateo County ERRC policy,and Sections 510.5.1 through 510.5.4. Section 15.24.030 Operational permits. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.52 as follows: 105.6.52 Child-Care Center.An operational permit is required to operate a child-care center as defined in Chapter 2. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.53 as follows: 105.6.53 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System.An operational permit is required to maintain an emergency responder radio coverage system in accordance with Section 510. California Fire Code Section 106 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.54 as follows: 105.6.54 Hospitals and Psychiatric Hospitals.An operational permit is required to operate a hospital or psychiatric hospital as defined in Chapter 2. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.55 as follows: 105.6.55 Large Family Home Day Care.An operational permit is required to operate a Large Family Day Care as defined in Chapter 2. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.56 as follows: 105.6.56 Residential Care Facility for the Elderly.An operational permit is required to operate a residential care facility for the elderly having seven (7) or more residents as defined in Chapter 2. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 11 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.57 as follows: 105.6.57 Outdoor Assembly Event.A temporary operational permit is required to operate an outdoor assembly event. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.58 as follows: 105.6.58 Holiday Tree Sales Lot.A temporary operational permit is required to operate a holiday tree lot for the seasonal sales of natural cut trees. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.59 as follows: 105.6.59 Permit-Required Confined Space.An operational permit is required to operate a facility that contains permit-required confined spaces. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.60 as follows: 105.6.60 Fire Alarm System.An operational permit is required to operate a manually,or automatically actuated fire alarm in any building. Exception: one and two-family dwellings. California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.61 as follows: 105.6.61 Tar Kettle.A temporary operational permit is required to operate a portable tar kettle used to heat tar during roof surfacing, sealing, and or repair California Fire Code Section 105.6 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.62 as follows: Section 105.6.62 Radioactive Materials.An operational permit is required to store or handle at any installation more than one micro curie (37,000 Becquerel)of radioactive material not contained in a sealed source or more than one mill curie (37,000,000 Becquerel)of radioactive material in a sealed source. California Fire Code Section 105 is hereby amended by adding Section 105.6.63 as follows: 105.6.63 Stationary Fuel Cell Power Systems and Electrical Energy Storage Systems.An operational permit is required for stationary fuel cell power systems and electrical energy storage systems regulated in Sections 1205 and 1206. Section 15.24.040 Administrative Amendments Chapter 1, Division II, Section 103.2 Appointment is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 103.2 Appointment. The fire code official shall be appointed by the chief appointing authority of the jurisdiction. SECTION 3.J Adopt Chapter 15.26 - California Energy Code Chapter 15.26 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, entitled “California Energy Code” is City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 12 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.26.010 California Energy Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Energy Code 2019 Edition,published by the International Code Council,as modified by the amendments,additions and deletions set forth hereinafter,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Energy Code 2019 Edition of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.K Adopt Chapter 15.32 - California Historical Code Chapter 15.32 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, entitled “California Historical Code” is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.32.010 California Historical Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Historical Code, 2019 Edition, as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, and published by the International Code Council, is hereby adopted by reference as the California Historical Code, of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.L Adopt Chapter 15.34 - California Existing Building Code Chapter 15.34 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, entitled “California Existing Building Code” is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.34.010 California Existing Building Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Existing Code,2019 Edition,as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission,and published by the International Code Council,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Historical Code, of the City of South San Francisco, and may be cited as such. SECTION 3.M Adopt Chapter 15.36 - California Reference Standards Chapter 15.36 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, entitled “California Reference Standards Code” is hereby added to read as follows: Section 15.36.010 California Reference Standards, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference. The California Referenced Standards Code,2019 Edition,as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission,and published by the International Code Council,is hereby adopted by reference as the California Referenced Standards Code of the City of South San Francisco,and may be cited as such. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 13 of 14 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-727 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:15a. SECTION 4 Severability In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5 California Environmental Quality Act The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.,“CEQA,”and 14 Cal.Code Reg.§§15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”)under the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment,and in this case it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)). SECTION 6 Publication and Effective Date Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall:(1)publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk's office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this ordinance,the City Clerk shall:(1)publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk's office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting.This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/21/2019Page 14 of 14 powered by Legistar™ 1 Exhibit A FINDINGS OF FACT AND NEED FOR CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PARTS 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 11, 2019 EDITIONS CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS: Pursuant to Section 17958 of the State of California Health and Safety Code, the governing body of the City of South San Francisco in its ordinance adopting and amending the 2019 Editions of the California Administrative Code; California Building Code; California Residential Building Code; California Electrical Code; California Mechanical Code; California Plumbing Code; California Energy Code; California Green Building Standards Code, California Reference Standards Code; and the 2018 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, adds, changes or modifies certain provisions of the California Building Standards Code as it pertains to the regulation of buildings and fire protection. A copy of the text of such additions, changes or modifications is attached. FINDINGS: The City Council of the City of South San Francisco finds that in order to best protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of South San Francisco, the standards of building within the City must conform with state law except where local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions warrant more restrictive regulations. Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 (a) of the State of California Health and Safety Code, the governing body of the City of South San Francisco has determined and finds that all the attached changes or modifications are needed and are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological and topographic conditions as discussed below. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco further finds that administrative amendments to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, relating to enforcement and appointment authorities of the building official and fire chief are reasonably necessary in order to tailor to the local and operational structures of the South San Francisco city government. LOCAL CONDITIONS: Local conditions have an adverse effect on the prevention of (1) major loss fires, (2) major earthquake damage, and (3) the potential for life and property loss, making the changes or modifications in the California Building Standards Code necessary in order to provide a reasonable degree of property security, and fire and life safety in the City of South San Francisco. Below are adverse local climatic, geological and topographic conditions that necessitate the modifications to the California Building Standards Code. CLIMATIC Precipitation: Precipitation averages 18.83 inches/ year eighty percent (80%) falls during the months of November through April, and twenty percent (20%) from May through October. Severe flooding occurred during the months of January and March, 1995 and in 1998 and 2006. 2 Relative Humidity: Humidity generally ranges from sixty two percent (62%) during daytime and eighty-six percent (86%) at night. It occasionally drops lower during the months of September through November. Temperatures: Temperatures have been recorded as high as 106 degrees Fahrenheit. Average summer highs are in the 70-73 degree range. Winds: Summer prevailing winds are from the North-West direction. However, winds are experienced from virtually every direction at one time or another. Velocities are generally in the 5-10 mph range, gusting to 23 mph, particularly during the summer months. Extreme winds, up to 50 mph, have been known to occur. Summary: These local climatic conditions affect the acceleration intensity, and size of fires in the community. Times of little or no rainfall, of low humidity and high temperatures create extremely hazardous conditions, particularly as they relate to wood shake and shingle roof fires and conflagrations. Storage, disposal, and recycling of construction and demolition debris can contribute to hazardous conditions relating to fire. The winds experienced in this area also adversely impact structure fires in buildings in close proximity to one another. Winds can carry sparks and burning branches to other structures, thus spreading the fire and causing conflagrations. In building fires, winds can literally force fires back into the building and create a blowtorch effect, in addition to preventing "natural" ventilation and cross-ventilation efforts. South San Francisco’s downtown and surrounding areas contain numerous historic and older buildings that are located very close together, which exacerbates the fire danger from dry conditions, wind, and shake/shingle roofs. The stated climatic, geographical and topographical conditions warrant more stringent requirements for additional listing of operational permits (annually renewed) to those already described in Section 105 of the California Fire Code which provides permission to maintain, store, use or handle materials, or to conduct processes which produce conditions hazardous to life or property, or to install equipment used in conjunction with such activities. Knowledge of the location of radioactive materials will help firefighters develop strategies and tactics to minimize their impact on the pubic, property or environment in the event of an uncontrolled release. Stationary battery systems during normal operations release large amounts of Hydrogen a flammable gas. The systems can also be damaged in a fire, earthquake, or malfunction during an electrical emergency causing them to overheat and/or explode. Inspection of these systems will ensure proper guarding against physical damage, venting, electrical interrupts operate as designed, and other required safety features are present. Child care centers and large family home day care facilities that care for children have special requirements to ensure their safety in the event of a fire. Children in many instances are unable understand the nature of an emergency or take prompt action when necessary. Inspections will ensure that the operators of such facilities comply with these special requirements. Properly constructed and maintained Christmas tree lots will insure the safety of patrons as well as decrease the incidence and severity of fire. Combustible storage in the form of empty boxes, barrels, or other similar containers, or rubber, or cork is known to increase the spread and 3 severity of fire. Inspections of businesses that have combustible storage will ensure that such storage is done in such a way to minimize it impact. A properly functioning fire alarm system gives early warning to building occupants to leave the affected area promptly. When fire occurs in institutions or residential care facilities multiple injuries and/or fatalities can occur because elderly or disabled occupants possess a limited ability to understand the nature of the emergency or take prompt action when necessary. Proper exiting and other related fire safety issues can only be addressed through a fire inspection. Equipping new and existing buildings and structures with automatic sprinkler system will ensure the safety of patrons as well as decrease the incidence and severity of fire. When fire occurs in enclosed buildings and structures, automatic sprinklers can disperse water and help with remediating or extinguishing flames and reduce damages prior to fire responder crew arrival. Likewise, when such buildings and structures consists of large crow gathering areas, automatic sprinklers will serve as a preventative measure in the event that a fire happens. Tar kettles can overheat and cause their contents to catch fire. Such fires often place buildings and other structures in close proximity at risk. Inspections will ensure that overheat, automatic door closing and other safety systems have been properly installed and operate as designed. First responders must be able to maintain communications throughout a property in an emergency situation. Whether they are responding to a fire, medical emergency or domestic threat, they cannot be in a situation where their radios stop working. It is essential that their communication devices continue to transmit in hard-to-reach areas, such as stairwells, elevators, basements, and thick-walled or shielded areas. Newly-built LEED-certified buildings with low-E glass often suffer from poor public-safety signal coverage due to signal attenuation caused by low-E glass. It’s essential that first responders be aware of the radio systems being installed in buildings and that the installation of public safety radio coverage be in accordance. Likewise, the requirement for a fire command center in certain high-rise or taller buildings will ensure first responders are able to provide timely, coordinated, and effective emergency responses during a fire given the building’s height and concentration of occupants. Hospitals have potential fire hazards that set them apart from other places when it comes to fire protection. Whenever a fire starts in a hospital, it is important to begin an orderly evacuation process. However, evacuating vulnerable patients can be challenging, since they might not all be able to move on their own. Hospitals need to have fire protection systems that can detect and extinguish fires before they get out of control, which allows for even more time for first responders to conduct an evacuation. South San Francisco serves as host venue to many public and private events on an annual basis. Providing minimum standards via special event permits as stated herein would serve to ensure the safety of the participants and the public attending events of a temporary nature in the City of South San Francisco. Permit-required confined spaces contain oxygen deficient and flammable atmospheres or other hazardous conditions. Over 50% of fatalities that occur in these locations involve would be 4 rescuers. Confined space emergencies are rare, high-risk incidents. When they do happen, they can lead to firefighter injuries or deaths. First responders must be aware of the hazards and limitations of confined spaces so they can be prepared when they approach an incident in or around a confined space, and when they attempt to enter confined spaces during non- emergencies. This finding refers to and supports modifications to or the addition of Sections 1907.1.2, 3410.2, and 1510.7 of the California Building Code, Section R907.7 of the California Residential Code, and Sections 903.2, 508.1, 508.1.1, 510.4.2, 510.5, and 105.6.50-10.6.58 of the California Fire Code. TOPOGRAPHIC The City is made up of open terrain with scattered obstructions having heights and widths generally less than 30 feet, including flat open country, grasslands, hillsides and bay exposure. The City is also located within 5 miles of San Francisco International Airport and a portion of the City is located under the airborne easement. Including a permit and performance bond-related requirements for moving of buildings and temporary structures within South San Francisco would ensure that all proposed moves and removals are reviewed carefully by city officials and conducted in a manner to avoid injuries to persons and properties in the proposed work area. This finding refers to and supports modifications to or the addition of Sections 1907.1.2, 3410.2 and 1510.7 of the California Building Code, and Sections 1.8.10.3, 1.8.10.4 , R907.7 and Appendices AK 102-103 of the California Residential Code. GEOLOGICAL The above local topographic conditions enhance the magnitude, exposure, accessibility problems, and fire hazards presented to the City of South San Francisco. Fire following an earthquake has the potential of causing greater loss of life and damage than the earthquake itself. The San Andreas Fault is located between 0 and 3 miles from any point within the City. This finding refers to and supports modifications to or the addition of Section 1907.1.2 of the California Building Code, and Section R506.3 of the California Residential Code.3363365.2 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-843 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:16. Report regarding an ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code revising the City Manager’s contract approval authority.(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 4.04.096 of the Municipal Code,increasing the City Manager’s contract signature authority from $75,000 to $150,000, and waive further reading. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In 2014,City Council approved an ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the Municipal Code,which codifies the purchasing policies and procedures of the City.As part of that ordinance amendment,City Council approved increasing the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $25,000 to $75,000 to increase administrative efficiency and flexibility. Five years have now passed since that last review.In conducting a comprehensive review of the City’s purchasing guidelines recently,one of the areas that have been identified by staff as an area for increasing efficiencies is again increasing the City Manager’s purchasing approval authority.In comparison to other jurisdictions,the current purchasing authority of $75,000 is low.Attachment 1 of this Council report shows the results of a recent survey of Bay Area jurisdictions. As the survey shows,the City is on the low end of the spectrum with comparable cities.Increasing the City Manager’s purchasing authority from $75,000 to $150,000 will allow the City to keep pace with the increasing budgets for which the City Manager must manage.To give some quantitative context,within the last five years, budgetary expenditures have increased by almost 87%(e.g.,$117 million total expenditures in FY 2014-15 versus $219 million total expenditures in FY 2019-20).Increasing the limit will allow the agility of the City’s operations to keep pace with its overall obligations.This recommendation is in line with those made by the City’s outside consultant,Management Partners.The City awarded a contract to Management Partners in 2018 to conduct a comprehensive review of the City’s purchasing guidelines and procedures.As part of this mandate, Management Partners conducted a series of interviews and meetings with the Finance Director,City Attorney, and staff from each department.After a comprehensive observation period,Management Partners made specific recommendations to ensure that best procurement practices are being utilized within the City that spanned the gamut from optimizing business processes to providing insights into enhancing system integrity.Importantly, Management Partners made the specific recommendation to increase the City Manager’s contract authority, especially in light of recent expenditure growth,historical rates of inflation,and need for administrative efficiencies. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-843 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:16. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Increasing the City Manager’s signature authority will create more administrative efficiency,supporting the City’s goal of financial stability. CONCLUSION To enhance efficiency of operations,staff recommends increasing the City Manager’s approval authority from $75,000 to $150,000. Attachments: 1.Comparable cities survey of City Manager contract authority City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Attachment 1 City City Manager Contract Authority Amount Population San Jose $320k ~1,000,000 Oakland $250k ~425,000 Napa $125k ~80,000 San Mateo $100k ~105,000 Santa Cruz $100k ~65,000 Burlingame $100k ~31,000 Walnut Creek $85k ~70,000 Palo Alto $85k for professional services; $250k for goods and equipment ~67,000 South San Francisco $75k ~67,000 San Carlos $75k ~30,000 Menlo Park $75k ~35,000 Daly City $75k ~107,000 Redwood City $60k ~87,000 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-848 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:16a. An ordinance amending Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code revising the City Purchasing Procedures and Contract Approval Authority WHEREAS,Article XI,Section 7 of the California Constitution provides that a city or county may make and enforce within its limits all local,police,sanitary,and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and WHEREAS,California Government Code Section 54202 provides that every local agency shall adopt policies and procedures,including bidding regulations,governing purchases of supplies and equipment by the local agency; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)has adopted purchasing policies and procedures, which is codified in Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and WHEREAS,the City,by appropriate legislative action,has elected to be subject to the public bidding procedures established in the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act; and WHEREAS,the City wishes to revise its purchasing system in order to ensure efficient procedures for the procurement of services,supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost commensurate with the level of quality required,to exercise financial control over purchases,and to clearly define authority for the purchasing function. NOW THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby amends the following sections of Chapter 4.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and underlined text indicating addition).Sections and subsections that are not amended by this Ordinance are not included below, and shall remain in full force and effect. 4.04.096 Dollar limits for approvals (a) Purchases of supplies, services, public projects, and equipment, or any combination thereof, and the sales of personal property shall be approved by: (1) The city manager, or designee, if such purchases or sales do not exceed seventy-five one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and provided that adequate funds are budgeted. (2) The city council, if such purchases or sales exceed seventy-five one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-848 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:16a. provided that adequate funds are budgeted. (b) Unless stated otherwise, all written contracts shall be executed by the city manager, or designee. All contracts exceeding seventy-five one hundred and fifty thousand dollars shall be also approved by the city council. (c) All real property acquisitions or real property lease contracts with a term of three years or more, regardless of amount, shall be approved by the city council. (d) The city council can delegate the authority described in this section, with the exception of subsection (c), to the city manager. City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/17/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-827 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:17. Report regarding the progress of the Community Civic Campus Design Development.(Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects and SmithGroup, Project Master Architect) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council receive a Design Development Update presentation regarding the Community Civic Campus. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Community Civic Campus project has continued to progress since the June 12,2019,City Council presentation.The project envisions a new Library,Parks &Recreation center,1.3-acre park,City Council Chamber that can also function as a community theater,state-of-the art police station,and fire station to provide enhanced public safety services in our community. At the request of the Council,Project Architects from SmithGroup have prepared a more detailed presentation regarding the exterior skin of the combined Library/Parks and Recreation Facility that focuses on the functional and aesthetic characteristics of the glass system.The focus of this presentation is a detailed look at the building skin as well as an overview of the building program as the team begins to work out the details for each activity space within the building.Additionally,SmithGroup will provide an overview of the sustainability strategy for the project. The program description, site plan and architectural renderings are included in the presentation. The functional programs areas within the Library/Parks and Recreation/Council Chambers building have not shifted significantly since the last presentation.The building is three stories,80,000 square feet,with two main entrances:one from El Camino Real providing direct access to the second floor and the other off Antoinette Lane and the campus park providing direct access to the ground floor.The ground floor includes multiple event spaces and structured parking as well as the Community Theatre/City Council Chambers.The second floor includes library zones for children and teens,the Discovery Center,and Parks &Recreation classrooms.And, the third floor includes core library spaces,Parks &Recreation classrooms and administrative offices.Parks & Recreation classrooms are now on both the second and third floors. SmithGroup has achieved a signature design for the City of South San Francisco and the project team is excited to present it to the City Council and community.The design is memorable and strives to celebrate the past while embracing the future with confidence and enthusiasm.The design supports all of the program commitments outlined at previous City Council meetings.There have been some design changes necessitated by engineering and cost factors, but they do not change the key program commitments. Of particular note in this presentation is the summary of sustainability elements to be included in the project. Resource management in the form of efficient energy ventilations systems,stormwater management,and construction waste management are integral to the project plan.To this end,the building façade is engineered to manage heat gain and daylight use to minimize the use of energy to heat, cool, and illuminate the building. One central component of this strategy,required to meet California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards,is the treatment of air in the pre-function space surrounding the Council Chambers.Originally planned to be anCity of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-827 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:17. treatment of air in the pre-function space surrounding the Council Chambers.Originally planned to be an outdoor courtyard between the separate Council Chambers and Library/Parks and Recreation buildings,staff had concerns that noise,wind,and the inability to secure the area would make it difficult to use as a complementary event space.Enclosing this space into an indoor environment provides greater flexibility and a more useful area between program areas.By passively cooling and heating this area through natural ventilation, the building will be significantly more energy efficient. FISCAL IMPACT None. The proposed design cost is within the project budget. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This effort is included in the City’s Strategic Plan.It aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing quality of life and Priority #3 which is focused on enhancing public safety. CONCLUSION Moving forward, the project team will continue to manage the project in three phases to reflect the construction phasing of the project. Phase I construction will be the police station anticipated to break ground in January 2020, Phase II construction will be the main campus that includes the Library and Parks & Recreation building, Community Theatre/City Council building and the park in fall 2020, and Phase III will be the Fire station to be built in the future, likely coordinated with development at the Municipal Services Building site. Attachment: Design Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ CITY COUNCIL –OCTOBER 9,2019 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MAIN CAMPUS | PROJECT UPDATE A G E N DA Main Campus 1.Project Summary 2.Building Design •Exterior Skin •Council Chamber Skin 3.Sustainability Strategy Community Meetings Update MAIN CAMPUS PROJECT SUMMARY 3 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update PHASE I START: Q1 2020 FINISH: Q3 2021 PHASE III START: TBD PHASE II COMMUNITY CIVIC CAMPUS | COMPONENT MAP & CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE PHASE II START: Q4 2020 FINISH: Q4 2022 Community Civic Campus Project Update5smithgroup.com Cost: Building Size: $120 million 80,000 sq ft Library and Parks &Rec :75,000 sq ft (existing 57,120 SF) Council Chambers:5,000 sq ft (existing 3,700 SF) Parking:220 Spaces (existing 200 spaces) Number of Stories:3 levels Program Elements: o Library o Parks &Recreation o Community Theater /Council Chambers o Park o Parking MAIN CAMPUS | PROJECT SUMMARY MAIN CAMPUS BUILDING DESIGN BUILDING DESIGN | EXTERIOR SKIN 7 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update SCHEMATIC DESIGN BUILDING DESIGN | EXTERIOR SKIN 8 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN –SOUTH FACADE BUILDING DESIGN | EXTERIOR SKIN 9 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update RATIONALIZED PANEL TYPES BUILDING DESIGN | EXTERIOR SKIN 1 0 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update RATIONALIZED PANEL TYPES BUILDING DESIGN | EXTERIOR SKIN 11 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update PROGRAM INFLUENCE DIAGRAM –SOLID VS VISION GLASS BUILDING DESIGN | EXTERIOR SKIN 12 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BUILDING DESIGN | COUNCIL CHAMBERS SKIN 13 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update PROCESS MODELS BUILDING DESIGN | COUNCIL CHAMBERS SKIN 14 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update PROCESS MODELS BUILDING DESIGN | COUNCIL CHAMBERS SKIN 15 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND LOBBY BUILDING DESIGN | COUNCIL CHAMBERS SKIN 16 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update COUNCIL CHAMBERS MAIN CAMPUS | BUILDING LAYOUT LEVEL 1 –COUNCIL CHAMBERS 17 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update MAIN CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES MAIN CAMPUS | SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY 19 smithgroup.com Community Civic Campus Project Update Transit Connectivity & Bicycle Infrastructure The project design and open space plan build on the site’s adjacency to the Centennial Way bicycle trail, enhancing connections to BART and incentivizing bicycle access to the civic campus. Electrification of HVAC Systems Building mechanical systems will be all -electric, limiting use of fossil fuels for space heating. This positions the project for long-term operational decarbonization as renewable energy sources continue to ‘green’ the regional electric grid. Light Pollution Reduction Site lighting is designed to meet backlight, uplight, and glare criteria for light trespass, in an effort to minimize light pollution resulting from the project development. Low-Emitting Materials Field-applied paints, coatings, sealants, adhesives, flooring, and composite wood products installed in the project will meet low volatile organic compound (VOC) criteria, limiting exposure to these chemicals for builders and occupants. Electric Vehicle Charging 2% of project parking spaces will include electric vehicle supply equipment to charge plug-in electric vehicles Heat Island Reduction A high albedo roof and hardscape material palette will be used to reduce the urban heat island effect and provide thermally comfortable outdoor civic spaces. High-performance envelope The glazing system, which includes ceramic frit, is optimized with regard to thermal and solar performance to reduce energy consumption for space heating and cooling. Visually Comfortable Interior Environment Project glazing will incorporate a refined ceramic frit pattern to minimize glare caused by direct solar exposure and limit hours when internal blinds will be deployed to maintain visual comfort. Construction Waste Management & Air Quality Management A 75% waste diversion target has been established for the construction phase of the project. Additionally, rigorous construction pollution management will be required of the building contractor. Stormwater Management The site design will incorporate low-impact development strategies such as bio-swales to mitigate stormwater run -off during major rainfall events. Useful Daylight Illuminance The project envelope and massing is designed to maximize useful daylight in programmed spaces, reducing dependence on electric lighting, providing operational energy savings and improving the occupant experience. Water Efficiency Low-flow, efficient indoor water fixtures will be installed throughout the project to reduce potable water consumption. COMMUNITY MEETINGS 1.September 17 -Parks & Recreation Commission 2.September 24 -Library Board of Trustees 3.October 9 -City Council Meeting City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-855 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:18. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 and approving Budget Amendment number 20.020 to provide funding for the additional City contribution.(Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB)in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 and approving Budget Amendment number 20.020 to provide funding for the additional City contribution. BACKGROUND The City of South San Francisco and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB)secured funding to upgrade the South San Francisco Caltrain Station (Project)in December 2015.The Project was estimated to cost up to $59 million.As outlined in the existing agreement,the City committed to contributing 10 percent ($5.9 million) of the Project cost. Authorized by the City Council on January 25,2017,through the First Amendment to the original agreement, the City committed up to an additional $1.3 million to incorporate structural design changes that are important to maximize the pedestrian experience and encourage Caltrain Station use.The changes included in the First Amendment are: ·Widening the station tunnel entrance from the west/downtown to invite users to the station; ·Grading the plaza to ensure pedestrian sightlines through the tunnel for safety and public space; and ·Adding a new stairway at the start of the eastern plaza to improve pedestrian circulation and access to employer shuttles. Authorized by the City Council on May 10,2017,through the Second Amendment to the original agreement, the City committed up to an additional $1.5 million to incorporate: ·Upgraded plaza concrete paving and landscaping; ·New tile cladding along one wall of the entryway and tunnel; ·Improved lighting; ·New plaza furnishings that are weather and tamper resistant; ·Expanded CCTV camera coverage/signage for the plaza and parking lot; and ·Gate system for platform stairway and pedestrian tunnel during non-operation (pending approval from Caltrain). DISCUSSION PCJPB staff recently approached the City to discuss sharing in additional Project costs as a result of delays due City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-855 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:18. to: ·City staff negotiation with Caltrans regarding a long term Airspace Lease underneath US-101; ·Renewal of a 2008 Caltrans encroachment permit; ·Unanticipated utility relocation coordination issues; ·Extra inclement weather days; and ·PG&E bankruptcy-related coordination delays. Per PCJPB staff,the current cost of these delay charges in total is approximately $7,934,800.Consistent with the terms of the Agreement,as amended,the City and PCJPB negotiated how to fund the cost increases.The City agreed to contribute an additional $1.2 million,as negotiated by City and PCJPB staff,which represents approximately 15%of this overall Project shortfall.The proposed Third Amendment to the Agreement would commit the City to an additional contribution of $1.2 million for project cost increases. FISCAL IMPACT The $1.2 million contribution described in this report will be funded through Budget Amendment number 20.020 from Infrastructure Reserves and/or East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Fund in an amount to be determined. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This effort is included in the City’s Strategic Plan.It aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing quality of life and Priority #3 which is focused on enhancing public safety. CONCLUSION Approval of the resolution will allow the City Manager to execute a Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement with PCJPB in order to contribute $1.2 million toward the Project cost increases and will approve Budget Amendment number 20.020. Attachments 1.Project Update Presentation by PCJPB Staff City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ South San Francisco Station Improvement Project South San Francisco City Council October 9, 2019 2 Overview •Project Scope •Schedule and Budget •Funding update •Project Challenges/Lessons •Next Steps Project Scope 3 •New Center platform •Pedestrian Underpass •Shuttle Pick- up/Drop-off •Track and Signal Work •Removal of Holdout Rule & ADA Access 4 Description Date Bid & Award April 2017 –August 2017 Begin Construction November 2017 * Partial Suspension April 2018 –September 2019 * Complete Construction November 2020 * * Construction started in November 2017. * Project went into suspension on April 2018 and resumed construction in September 2019. * Construction is expected to be finished in November 2020. Project Schedule 5 •Original SSF total Project Estimate at Completion (EAC) during bid = $55.0M •Construction awarded in August 2017 with new SSF total Project Estimate at Completion (EAC) = $64.5M •Project experience significant delays related to required permits, agreements and Utility relocations (project delayed approx. 1 ½ year). •Current SSF total Project Estimate at Completion (EAC) to complete construction = $71.6M Project Budget * JPB Expended funds of $4M (prior to award) 6 Project Funding Update •Higher bid costs •UPRR scope added •Utility relocation cost added •Increased Project Soft Costs •Utility relocation delays •Contractor overhead delays •Increased Project Soft Costs Existing Project Conditions 7 Existing Platform –South San Francisco Station Boarding West Plaza –Station Access 8 Renderings of West Plaza -Station Access Pedestrian Underpass 9 Renderings of Underpass -Station Access Center Platform 10 Renderings of Center Platform –Looking North Station East Access –Poletti Way 11 Renderings of Shuttle Drop off Area –Poletti Drive Renderings of East Station Access –Poletti Drive 12 Higher Bid Cost vs. Engineers estimate Work is adjacent to active rail yard, requiring increased coordination with both commuter and freight operators. Delays in obtaining Caltrans Airspace Agreement -working below 101 freeway Coordination with Peninsula Electrification Project Delays in obtaining Caltrans Encroachment permit Constraint to complete construction prior to Electrification of corridor Sequential vs Concurrent Third party Utility Relocation Extended overhead delays and project soft costs approx. 1.5 years Inclement weather delays and Jack and Bore obstructions Contaminated soil disposal PG&E Bankruptcy filing (Jan 2019) SSF Project Challenges/Lessons 13 Utility Relocation Work Red = Existing Utility; Same location as Underpass Green = Relocated Utility; Away from Underpass CalWater Relocation –completed April 2019 Anvil 18 inch water main East side UPRR track Water main tie in East Grand Ave. Shoring West Plaza –Jack and bore Utility Relocation Work 15 PG&E Electric Relocation –completed Sept. 2019 Utility Relocation Work 16 Field Work Status Work Completed to Date •Utility Survey and Relocation •Geotechnical Investigations •Signal Cable Inspections •Shoofly construction (MT1 and MT2) Work in Progress and Upcoming •OCS Foundations •PTC Signal Cable cutover •Street Improvements (Poletti Way) Future Work •Remobilize Equipment and Crews •Ramp (West) Construction •Center Platform construction •Pedestrian Underpass Construction •Ramp (East) Construction •Shuttle Drop off Area •Signal Improvement •Additional Improvements to Plaza 17 Next Steps •Continue ongoing construction: OCS foundation construction, Street improvement work at Poletti Way, PTC Fiber cutover) •Remobilize Equipment and Crews for Critical Path Work •Execute Proposed Funding plan (SSF, SMCTA, JPB) •Resume Construction of SSF station improvements and Pedestrian Underpass City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-857 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:18a. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000 and Approving Budget Amendment 20.020 to provide funding for the additional contribution. WHEREAS,on December 9,2015,PCJPB and City entered into the Agreement,pursuant to which City contracted with PCJPB to perform or contract for the performance of all design,project management, construction management,construction engineering and reconstruction related to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station (“Project”); and WHEREAS,pursuant to the Agreement,City agreed to reimburse PCJPB a sum not to exceed $5,900,000 for Project reconstruction,including all planning,design,construction/project management,inspection and administration necessary provided in the Agreement; and WHEREAS,the City,as intended,identified important structural design changes to the original 2008 Project design to optimize the safety and pedestrian experience; and WHEREAS,the structural design changes were incorporated into the Project at the direction of PCJPB in coordination with the City and SWA Architects; and WHEREAS,the City contributed an additional not to exceed $1,300,000 for the City’s requested structure changes detailed in the First Amendment to the original agreement; and WHEREAS,the City contributed an additional not to exceed $1,500,000 for the City’s requested design changes detailed in the Second Amendment to the original agreement; and WHEREAS,the Parties desire to amend the Cooperative Agreement with a Third Amendment in order to commit additional City funds to partially cover the costs of delay-related expenditures. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby: 1.Approve a Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000. 2.Authorize the City Manager to execute a Third Amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board on behalf of the City, consistent with this resolution and including any minor modifications,as deemed necessary,and subject City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-857 Agenda Date:10/9/2019 Version:1 Item #:18a. to approval as to form by the City Attorney. 3.Approve Budget Amendment number 20.020 to the City’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Budget,authorizing the appropriation of $1,200,000 from the City’s Infrastructure Reserves and/or East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Fund in an amount to be determined,to fund the additional City contribution provided for in the Third Amendment. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/11/2019Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™