Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on April 4, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:01 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Police Chief Matteucci.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O’Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2022 AS NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
Mayor Ortiz read the City’s proclamation recognizing April 2022 as National Poetry Month.
City Librarian McCulley introduced Eva Chen, a 16-year-old poet from Burlingame.
Eva Chen thanked the City for recognizing April 2022 as National Poetry Month. She then read the following poem, that she wrote for the occasion:
Burlingame, Explain by Poetry
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
2 when I first moved from the painted ladies
and cable car city of San Francisco,
to Burlingame, a small corner of the world
tethering at the edge of a peninsula,
the first thing I saw was a tall eucalyptus tree
looming above my house.
Burlingame is a city built on the foundation of poetry.
Because what is more poetic than
a string of a thousand eucalyptus trees,
shooting up from the floor like parachutes,
only to be pulled back by the weight of gravity.
Every fall, I watch cinnamon-brown leaves
spiral to the ground in closed perfect circles,
casting memories of something once green,
belonging to a past summer, now fragile and faded
crumbling at the folds of my fingers, a metaphor that
all things beautiful come as fast as the seasons change, leaving nothing but the ghosts of them behind
to wither away in city sidewalks.
Burlingame landscape is poetry:
with hills melting into roads like full-mouthed lovers, curves that match the slope of my mother’s smile,
arched, beautiful, and rounded like a butterfly’s wings as it opens for flight – the sun-baked limbs of this
city that hugs the spine of the ocean shoreline is poetry.
Burlingame people is poetry -
each body molded from stardust
and similes, blessed by rhymes taken
from the heavens, united under one margin
is poetry.
At the end of this city,
where the horizon bleeds into the sunset,
where the sea washes into a swollen corpse of the sand, where there is only half-bay moons and lost shadows,
is a world left behind by tidal waves and monsoon winds, now home to a mosaic of people, who named it sanctuary, Burlingame.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
3 The Council thanked Eva Chen for her poem and asked that it be published in the City’s enews.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked if any his colleagues or members of the public wanted to pull an item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Colson pulled item 8l. A member of the public pulled item 8e.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i, 8j, and 8k; seconded by Councilmember O’Brien Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 16, 2022 MID-
YEAR BUDGET STUDY SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 16, 2022 Mid-Year Budget Study Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 21, 2022
CLOSED SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 21, 2022 Closed Session.
c. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 21, 2022
REGULAR MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the March 21, 2022 Regular Meeting.
d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND 15061(B)(3)
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2004.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $1,413,978 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO RADIUS EARTHWORK, INC. FOR THE 2022 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 86220, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
4 Manito Velasco asked several questions about how streets were selected for the 2022 Street Resurfacing Program. (comment submitted via [email protected]).
DPW Murtuza stated that these streets were selected in the FY 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program.
Councilmember Beach thanked DPW Murtuza for keeping TSPC and BPAC involved in these processes.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 027-2022; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2021 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM BY G. BORTOLOTTO & CO. INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 85860
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 028-2022.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM
MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT AND SECURE
CALRECYCLE GRANT PAYMENTS
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 029-2022.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2, 2022; AND APPROVING THE DISTRICT’S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2021-22
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 030-2022.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO AMEND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR; SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH AMENDMENT FOR MAY 2, 2022
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council adopt Resolution Number 031-2022.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING A $830,314 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO JJR CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE 2022 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 86250, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
CONTRACT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 032-2022.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
5 k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING INITIATIVE 21-0042A1, THE TAXPAYER
PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AND AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 033-2022.
l. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF AB 1814 (GRAYSON), TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION: COMMUNITY CHOICE
AGGREGATORS
This item was pulled by Councilmember Colson because AB 1814 died in committee.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADJUSTING THE STORM DRAINAGE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BY 2.0% BASED ON THE CPI – SAN FRANCISCO AREA AS PUBLISHED ON MARCH 10, 2022
Finance Director Yu-Scott explained that each year, the City is allowed to adjust the storm drainage rate by CPI, not to exceed 2%. She noted that the CPI report for February 2022 indicated a CPI increase of 5.2%.
Finance Director Yu-Scott proposed a 2% increase in the storm drainage fee. She noted that this would raise the rate charged per square foot of impervious area from 5.269 cents to 5.374 cents effective July 1, 2022.
The increase is estimated to produce an additional $62,520, for estimated revenue of approximately $3.2 million in fiscal year 2022-23.
Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 034-2022; seconded by Councilmember O’Brian Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDERATION OF THREE APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman stated that there were three impending vacancies due to the expiring terms of Commissioner Loftis, Commissioner Terrones, and Commissioner Tse. She explained that the City received seven applications as of the March 4, 2022 deadline. However, because Commissioner Loftis and Commissioner Terrones elected not to reapply, the deadline was extended an additional two weeks. She noted that this resulted in three additional applications as of the extended deadline of March 18, 2022.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
6 City Manager Goldman stated that the Council interviewed the following nine applicants (one of the original seven applicants withdrew from the process) via Zoom on March 30, 2022: Victor Aenlle, Chris Horan, Uma Krishan, Sean Lowenthal, Patrick Martin, Charlotte Payton, Zachary Rozlen, Audrey Tse, and Bobba Venkatadri.
City Manager Goldman noted that the appointee terms will be for four years, ending on April 7, 2026.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Mr. Torres voiced his support for Victor Aenlle and Uma Krishan. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer asked the Council to text her their votes.
Mayor Ortiz thanked Commissioner Loftis and Commissioner Terrones for their service to the community.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer read the Council votes.
Congratulations to Commissioner Tse on her re-appointment.
Congratulations to Sean Lowenthal and Chris Horan on their appointment to the Planning Commission.
b. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL TAX MEASURES
City Manager Goldman began with a review of the difference between a general tax and a special tax:
• A general tax is a tax imposed for general governmental purposes, the proceeds of which are deposited into the General Fund. A majority vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend, or increase any general tax. An election for a general tax must be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election of City Councilmembers.
• A special tax is a tax that is collected and earmarked for a specific purpose and deposited into a separate account of the General Fund. A two-thirds vote of the electorate is required to impose, extend, or increase any special tax. Special taxes do not need to be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election of City Councilmembers.
City Manager Goldman explained that on September 20, 2021, the Council held a study session on potential tax measures, with an eye toward the possible placement of one or more measures on the November 2022 ballot. She stated that the Council directed staff to explore a few of the options discussed at the study session and return to Council with additional information. The potential tax measures included a business license tax, a cannabis tax, and a tax measure similar in structure to the City of East Palo Alto’s Measure HH to address sea level rise, the Broadway Grade Separation project, or another large infrastructure project.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
7 City Manager Goldman discussed the City’s business license tax. She explained that the City levies a flat rate business tax on all businesses. She explained that this means that a small mom-and-pop business pays the same amount, $100, as a large business such as an auto dealer, the Apple store, or Facebook. She added that many of the City’s neighboring jurisdictions, in contrast, levy a gross receipts tax.
City Manager Goldman discussed the following chart:
City Name Population Estimated
Number of
Businesses in
FY 2018-19
Tax Type Estimated
Revenue FY
2018-19
Last Revision
Belmont 26,941 3,074 Employee and
Flat Rate
$880,000 1993
Burlingame 30,889 5,897 Flat Rate $589,737 2001
Foster City 33,693 3,714 Gross Receipts $1,764,875 2013 Menlo Park 34,138 5,491 Gross Receipts $2,295,367 1975
Millbrae 22,394 2,385 Employee and
Gross Receipts
$381,177 2004
Redwood City 85,319 16,175 Employee $2,697,658 2018
San Bruno 42,807 4,060 Gross Receipts $2,176,473 2019
San Carlos 30,185 4,245 Employee $1,020,000 2003
San Mateo 104,570 21,337 Gross Receipts $6,265,284 1984 South San
Francisco
67,789 5,590 Employee and
Flat Rate
$1,805,595 2008
City Manager Goldman noted that she believes that Belmont was considering a business license tax measure that would be based on gross receipts.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff worked with HdL Companies to review the City’s business license tax and determine alternative models. She stated that at the February 22, 2022 study session, HdL presented the City with three alternate business license tax structures: one flat rate model and two gross receipts models. She noted that the flat rate model would not address the City’s existing equity issue. However, the two gross receipt models would inject more fairness into the City’s business license tax structure. She stated that the Council was concerned that Model 3 would have too great an impact on many of the City’s businesses.
City Manager Goldman stated that after the February 22, 2022 study session, staff met with HdL to brainstorm alternate models that would address the Council’s concerns about the initial models. She explained that HdL will review four new models for the Council’s consideration. She stated that all of the models will result in varying levels of increased revenues for the City.
City Manager Goldman discussed the four models. She explained that the first model contains two options:
• Flat rate business tax would rise to either $125, $150, or $175 across the board
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
8 • Tax would rise to $150, $200, or $300, with the amount levied based on gross receipts
She stated that models 2, 3, and 4 are all variations of gross receipts-based models. • Model 2 includes classification-based rates, which spread the burden of an increase across multiple business types.
• Models 3 and 4 are both single gross receipts rates, with Model 4 capping the maximum payment at various levels
City Manager Goldman discussed a cannabis retail delivery tax. She explained that in February 2021, the Council adopted an ordinance allowing cannabis retail delivery from businesses located within the city limits. She stated that Council expressed an interest in levying a cannabis delivery tax, which a representative for a cannabis delivery company noted could bring in approximately $1 million annually from his company alone. She noted that according to HdL, one way to address the cannabis tax is to include it as a subsection under the business license tax ordinance. She stated that this would avoid the need for a separate tax measure.
City Manager Goldman discussed the City of East Palo Alto’s Measure HH parcel tax. She explained that the City of East Palo Alto put a parcel tax measure on the November 2018 ballot. The parcel tax was for commercial office space of 25,000 square feet or more at the rate of $2.50 per square foot. She noted that the measure was estimated at the time to raise $1.675 million annually for housing and career programs.
City Manager Goldman stated that Councilmembers expressed an interest in pursuing a measure similar to Measure HH. She noted that Council wanted to use the funds to help with sea level rise projects or to pay the City’s share of the Broadway Grade Separation project. She added that HdL’s presentation includes a slide showing the estimated revenue from levying such a tax in Burlingame on commercial office buildings 25,000 square feet and above, 50,000 square feet and above, and 100,000 square feet and above.
City Manager Goldman stated that at the February 2022 study session, Councilmember O’Brien Keighran requested that staff research other tax measures that may appear on the November 2022 ballot. She explained that at the time of the meeting, there were four initiatives cleared for signature gathering at the State level:
• An initiative to increase the tax on personal income over $2 million to fund programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• An initiative to increase the tax on personal income over $5 million to fund pandemic detection and prevention activities.
• Two similar initiatives that would increase taxes on high value properties over $4 million to increase the portion of a homeowner’s property value that is exempt from property tax from $7,000 to $200,000 and provide up to a $2,000 supplemental income tax credit for renters
City Manager Goldman noted that the County is working diligently on a measure that seems similar to the City of East Palo Alto’s parcel tax.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
9 City Manager Goldman explained that the City has until the second week of August to put a measure on the November 2022 ballot. She added that because of the Council’s summer break, the City would need to take all necessary steps by the first meeting in July.
HdL representative Josh Davis gave the Council a presentation on potential business license taxes.
Mr. Davis reviewed the different business tax models for the Council to consider:
Business Tax Model 1: Change Annual Rate
Model 1.A – By Rate Change
Number of
Businesses
Estimated FY
2021-22 Revenue
25% Increase 50% Increase 75% Increase
5,836 $583,600 $729,500 $875,400 $1,021,300
Model 1.B – By Business Type
Gross Receipts
Amount
Number of Businesses Annual Rate Total Estimated
Projected Revenue
Small Business (less
than $250,000)
3,712 $150 $556,800
Medium Business (over
$250,000 - $1,000,000)
1,769 $200 $353,800
Large Business (over
$1,000,000)
355 $300 $106,500
TOTAL $1,017,100
Mr. Davis then reviewed the impact these two models would have on different business types:
Hypothetical Business/
Employee Count/
Annual Gross Receipts
Total
City’s Current Rates Model 1.A Overall
Rate Increase of 50%
Model 1.B Rate
Increase by Business
Type
Auto Service Business/
5 employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
$100 $150 $200
Casual Dining
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000 in
gross receipts
$100 $150 $200
Contractor/ 3
employees/ $200,000 in
gross receipts
$100 $150 $150
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
10 Boutique Retail Store/
12 employees/ $2
million in gross receipts
$100 $150 $300
Fine Dining Restaurant/
8 employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
$100 $150 $200
Retail Goods and
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000 in
gross receipts
$100 $150 $200
Business Tax Model 2: Gross Receipts – Classification – Based Rates – Reduce
Categories Base Rate Gross Receipts Tax Rate
General Commerce/Retail $50 Flat Rate per Business for the first $50,000 in Gross Receipts
0.0005 x Gross Receipts
Rental (commercial and
residential)
0.0001 x Gross Receipts
Service 0.0001 x Gross Receipts
Professional 0.0015 x Gross Receipts
Administrative/ Research and
Development
0.0015 x Gross Receipts
Contractors 0.001 x Gross Receipts
Mr. Davis stated that this option has the benefit of spreading the burden of an increase across multiple business types. He showed how this would play out:
Business Type Number of
Accounts
Estimated
Taxable Gross
Receipts
Base Rate $50 per
Business
Total Estimated
Annual Gross
Receipts Tax
Contractors 1,377 $146,205,301 $68,850 $77,355
General
Commerce/Retail
712 $669,835,011 $35,600 $317,118
Service 2,004 $862,416,375 $100,200 $762,216
Administrative/
Research and
Development
77 $63,364,633 $3,850 $89,272
Rental
(commercial and
residential)
70 $36,338,070 $3,500 $32,838
Professional 1,596 $594,920,527 $79,800 $772,681
5,836 $2.3 billion $291,800 $2,051,480
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
11 TOTAL $2,343,280
Mr. Davis reviewed what the impact of this model would be on different business types:
Hypothetical Business/
Employee Count/ Annual Gross
Receipt Total
City’s Current Rates Model 2 – Gross Receipt
Classification Based – First
$50,000
Auto Service Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000 in gross
receipts
$100 $400
Casual Dining Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000 in gross
receipts
$100 $200
Contractor/ 3 employees/
$200,000 in gross receipts
$100 $200
Boutique Retail Store/ 12
employees/ $2 million in gross
receipts
$100 $1,075
Fine Dining Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000 in gross
receipts
$100 $450
Retail Goods and Clothing Store/
10 employees/ $600,000 in gross
receipts
$100 $325
Business Tax Model 3: Single Gross Receipts Rate – Reduced Rates
Model 3.A – Gross Receipts Total over $25,000
Number of
Accounts
Taxable Gross
Receipts
Base Rate at $50
per Account
Tax Amount
$0.50/thousand
over $25,000
Tax Amount
$0.75/thousand
over $25,000
5,836 $2.38 $291,800 $1,113,590 $1,670,385
TOTAL $1,405,390 $1,962,185
Model 3.B – Gross Receipts Total over $50,000
Number of
Accounts
Taxable Gross
Receipts
Base Rate at $50
per Account
Tax Amount
$0.50/thousand
over $50,000
Tax Amount
$0.75/thousand
over $50,000
5,836 $2.38 $291,800 $1,040,640 $1,560,960
TOTAL $1,332,440 $1,852,760
Model 3.C – Gross Receipts Total over $75,000
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
12 Number of
Accounts
Taxable Gross
Receipts
Base Rate at $50
per Account
Tax Amount
$0.50/thousand
over $75,000
Tax Amount
$0.75/thousand
over $75,000
5,836 $2.38 $291,800 $967,690 $1,451,535
TOTAL $1,259,490 $1,743,335
Mr. Davis compared the impact on these models on different business types:
Hypothetical
Business/ Employee
Count/ Annual
Gross Receipt Total
City’s
Current
Rates
Model 3.A –
Single Gross
Receipt –
Threshold
Increased:
$0.50/thousand
over $25,00
Model 3.B –
Single Gross
Receipt –
Threshold
Increased:
$0.50/thousand
over $50,000
Model 3.C – Single
Gross Receipt –
Threshold Increased:
$0.50/thousand over
$75,000
Auto Service
Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
$100 $238 $225 $213
Casual Dining
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
$100 $213 $200 $188
Contractor/ 3
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
$100 $138 $125 $113
Boutique Retail Store/
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
$100 $1,038 $1,025 $1,013
Fine Dining
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
$100 $463 $450 $438
Retail Goods and
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
$100 $338 $325 $313
Hypothetical
Business/ Employee
City’s
Current
Rates
Model 3.A –
Single Gross
Receipt –
Model 3.B –
Single Gross
Receipt –
Model 3.C – Single
Gross Receipt –
Threshold Increased
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
13 Count/ Annual
Gross Receipt Total
Threshold
Increased: $0.75
/thousand over
$25,00
Threshold
Increased:
$0.75/thousand
over $50,000
- $0.75/thousand
over $75,000
Auto Service
Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
$100 $331 $313 $294
Casual Dining
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
$100 $294 $275 $256
Contractor/ 3
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
$100 $181 $163 $144
Boutique Retail Store/
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
$100 $1,513 $1,513 $1,494
Fine Dining
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
$100 $669 $650 $631
Retail Goods and
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
$100 $481 $463 $444
Business Tax Model 4: Gross Receipts Rate – Reduced Rates – Maximum Payment Cap
Mr. Davis stated that this option caps the fee that the business would pay if it generated a large enough gross receipts total.
Number of
Accounts
Taxable
Gross
Receipts
Base Rate at
$50 per
Account
Tax Amount
$0.50/thousand
over $25,000 –
maximum
payment capped
at $750
Tax Amount
$0.50/thousand
over $25,000 –
maximum
payment
capped at
$1,000
Tax Amount
$0.50/thousand
over $25,000 –
maximum
payment
capped at
$2,000
5,836 $2.38 $291,800 $780,972 $833,296 $957,711
TOTAL $1,072,772 $1,125,096 $1,249,511
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
14 Number of
Accounts
Taxable
Gross
Receipts
Base Rate at
$50 per
Account
Tax Amount
$0.75/thousand
over $25,000 –
maximum
payment capped
at $750
Tax Amount
$0.75/thousand
over $25,000 –
maximum
payment
capped at
$1,000
Tax Amount
$0.75/thousand
over $25,000 –
maximum
payment
capped at
$2,000
5,836 $2.38 $291,800 $1,067,116 $1,141,403 $1,330,993
TOTAL $1,358,916 $1,433,203 $1,622,793
Mr. Davis compared the impact of this model on different business types:
Hypothetical
Business/ Employee
Count/ Annual
Gross Receipt Total
City’s
Current
Rates
Model 4 Gross
Receipts –
Reduced –
Payment Capped:
$0.50/thousand
capped at $750
Model 4 Gross
Receipts –
Reduced –
Payment
Capped:
$0.50/thousand
capped at $1,000
Model 4 Gross
Receipts – Reduced –
Payment Capped:
$0.50/thousand
capped at $2,000
Auto Service
Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
$100 $238 $238 $238
Casual Dining
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
$100 $213 $213 $213
Contractor/ 3
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
$100 $138 $138 $138
Boutique Retail Store/
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
$100 $750 $1,000 $1,038
Fine Dining
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
$100 $463 $463 $463
Retail Goods and
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
$100 $338 $338 $338
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
15 Hypothetical
Business/ Employee
Count/ Annual
Gross Receipt Total
City’s
Current
Rates
Model 4 Gross
Receipts –
Reduced –
Payment Capped:
$0.75/thousand
capped at $750
Model 4 Gross
Receipts –
Reduced –
Payment
Capped:
$0.75/thousand
capped at $1,000
Model 4 Gross
Receipts – Reduced –
Payment Capped:
$0.75/thousand
capped at $2,000
Auto Service
Business/ 5
employees/ $400,000
in gross receipts
$100 $331 $331 $331
Casual Dining
Restaurant/ 10
employees/ $350,000
in gross receipts
$100 $294 $294 $294
Contractor/ 3
employees/ $200,000
in gross receipts
$100 $181 $181 $181
Boutique Retail Store/
12 employees/ $2
million in gross
receipts
$100 $750 $1,000 $1,531
Fine Dining
Restaurant/ 8
employees/ $850,000
in gross receipts
$100 $669 $669 $669
Retail Goods and
Clothing Store/ 10
employees/ $600,000
in gross receipts
$100 $481 $481 $481
Mr. Davis next reviewed a potential cannabis tax measure. He explained that forecasting the potential size of the City’s cannabis market is beyond the scope of the business license tax study. However, preliminary numbers indicate that if the City were to capture a significant market share, which may be a challenge given the expansion of delivery and retail services in the area, at a rate of 4%, the City could stand to gain between $300,000 to $500,000 per year in revenue from the four cannabis delivery services businesses. He noted that this opportunity for revenue generation can be done through the creation of a separate classification or class for cannabis businesses within the existing business license ordinance provisions.
Mr. Davis next reviewed the potential revenue from a parcel tax measure similar to Measure HH. He noted that based on a preliminary review, implementing a tax of $2.50 per square foot on commercial offices in Burlingame (excluding government buildings and other buildings exempt from property tax) would yield approximately:
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
16 Threshold Estimated Parcels Estimated Revenue
Greater than 25,000 square feet 34 $5,400,000
Greater than 50,000 square feet 18 $4,000,000
Greater than 100,000 square feet 7 $2,300,000
Councilmember Colson asked in regard to gross receipts, what happens to a law firm that has a presence in Burlingame but a main office somewhere else. Mr. Davis stated that while the tax is measured by gross receipts, it is based on the ability to do business in Burlingame. He explained that this is done by apportioning the business activity by percentage of what is done in Burlingame.
Councilmember Colson asked about individuals who work most of the time out of another office. Mr. Davis stated that the same principle and rule applies.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that it seems administratively complex to base a business license tax on gross receipts. He asked how cities manage this program and whether disputes occur. Mr. Davis stated that the process for the most part is the same. He noted that most businesses know their gross receipts, and therefore most cities don’t have any issue managing the program. He added that the process is self-assessed by the businesses, and therefore the government doesn’t step in unless it sees a problem.
Councilmember Beach asked if cities with big tech companies cap their gross receipts tax. Mr. Davis replied in the negative.
Councilmember Beach asked if any cannabis delivery company would be operational in the next year or two in Burlingame. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. He stated that he believed two would be operational.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if most cities incorporate an escalator with their business license tax. Mr. Davis stated that if a city has a flat rate tax, then they use a CPI escalator. However, he noted that most cities are now favoring a tax based on gross receipts, and in those cases an escalator is not needed.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that if an increase to the business license tax is brought to the voters, the language would need to be clarified for the community to understand the proposal. She asked how many words were allowed for a ballot measure question. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that 75 words are allowed.
City Manager Goldman explained that the City would be able to further explain the measure through the ballot question summary, legal analysis, and arguments in favor, all of which are included in the Sample Ballot Pamphlet.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City has enough time to get a successful measure on the November ballot. City Manager Goldman stated that the timeline is very tight.
Mayor Ortiz asked how HdL came up with the $2,000 cap. City Manager Goldman stated that it came out of a brainstorming session.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
17 Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct that the cannabis tax can be independent of the business license tax measure. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Noriaki Kojima stated that he wasn’t in favoring of increasing the business license tax based on revenue. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Dennis Mitchell stated that he approved increasing the business license tax but didn’t want it based on gross receipts. (comment submitted via [email protected] ).
Francesca Tashjian stated that while she agreed that the fee structure needs to change, she didn’t think basing it on gross receipts would be appropriate. (comment submitted via [email protected] ).
Jenny Keleher stated that the City’s businesses were still suffering from the pandemic and thought the business license tax should be increased to a maximum of $150 to $200. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
John Kevranian stated that the Broadway BID would like more time to review the different models. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Humberto Berenfus voiced concern about increasing the business license tax. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was unsure he supported enacting a gross receipts tax. He noted that it is more complicated, and it might treat some businesses more harshly than others. However, he explained that after 21 years of not increasing the business license tax, he didn’t think anyone could argue against the need to do so. He added that he would support an increase to the flat tax. He suggested having a tiered system.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that while the City has the third highest number of businesses among those studied, it is second to last in terms of business license tax revenue. She explained that she would like to see the City in the middle of this list. Therefore, she thought the City should increase the flat rates utilizing Model 1.B. She suggested having a tiered system of:
• Small business - $150
• Medium business - $250
• Large business - $600
She stated that the City’s revenue would be a little over $1.2 million. She added that she would also want to include an escalator.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
18 Councilmember Colson stated that she liked Councilmember O’Brien Keighran’s suggestion of a tiered system. She added that she was less inclined to enact a separate cannabis tax and would rather roll it in with the business license tax update. She discussed all the work that goes into putting a measure on the ballot.
Councilmember Beach stated that whatever the City decides to do, it has to be fair and equitable. She noted that she isn’t sure that increasing the flat tax a little bit is worth it. She discussed the need to fix the fairness and equity in the tax structure; however, she wasn’t sure any of these models did that.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of a parcel tax to assist with the Broadway Grade Separation or sea level rise but didn’t think this was the year to do that.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he liked Councilmember O’Brien Keighran’s tiered system. He noted that he thought it was clear that the $100 business license tax isn’t enough. He added that he believed Councilmember O’Brien Keighran’s tiered system with an escalator made the most sense. He stated that he thought the three tiers should be
• Small businesses - $200
• Medium businesses - $300
• Large businesses - $700
Councilmember Colson stated that there is never a good time to raise taxes. However, she noted that the City hasn’t done it in 21 years, and there is a need to diversify the City’s funds. She explained that she would like the City to poll different tiered systems to see what the community likes. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she was looking at the business license tax increase to help with sidewalk repairs, improvements to the business districts, and other projects. She explained that the parcel tax measure could be discussed for a future election. However, she didn’t think it should be put on the same ballot as the County’s proposed measure.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with both Councilmember O’Brien Keighran and Councilmember Beach. He thought the measure was a heavy lift for a modest amount of money. However, he did think it was important to modernize the business license tax.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the increase is creating an income stream that will continue for years. He noted that while it might only be $1 million initially, over ten years it will be $10 million. He asked what the tiers were that the staff would have consultants’ poll. City Manager Goldman reviewed the proposed tiers.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would be in favor of having a fourth tier for the mega businesses. She added that she appreciated her colleagues’ comments on going forward with a measure to modernize the business license tax.
Councilmember Colson stated that she would have the mega businesses level be significant. She suggested the fourth tier be based on businesses with gross receipts over $20 million so as to not capture grocery stores.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
19 She added that this would send a message that because those businesses use more infrastructure, they need to pay more.
The Council agreed to have a consultant poll on tiers, a potential fourth tier, and the inclusion of an escalator.
c. AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) DISCUSSION
Police Chief Matteucci stated that this item was discussed at the January 18 and February 22 Council meetings. He noted that this meeting’s discussion was noticed in the San Mateo Daily Journal, in the enews, on the Police Department’s website, and via social media.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that at the previous meetings, the Council discussed the pros and cons of ALPRs. He reviewed some of the pros of the City obtaining ALPRs including:
• Locating stolen vehicles
• Locating missing people
• Preventing criminal activity
• Assisting with criminal investigations
He also reviewed some of the cons of the City obtaining ALPRs including:
• Privacy issues
• Large data pools
• Potential data breaches
• Costs
Police Chief Matteucci stated that he was tasked with reaching out to other San Mateo County cities that currently use ALPRs. He explained that the City received overwhelmingly positive feedback about ALPRs.
He noted that 14 out of the 20 cities in the County currently use ALPRs including all of the City’s neighbors.
He stated that on average each city has 20 ALPRs.
Police Chief Matteucci discussed how ALPRs work and how they are intended to be used in the city. He explained that ALPRs are primarily used in two ways:
• Real time notification system – the dispatch center is notified if a wanted vehicle passes an ALPR. Wanted vehicles are stolen vehicles, those associated with a missing person, and those associated with a serious crime such as robbery or homicide. • After the fact investigatory tool – allows officers and inspectors to review specific timeframes when investigating cold crimes
He clarified that arrest warrants are generally not attached to vehicles.
Police Chief Matteucci explained that if the City purchases ALPRs, State law requires the City to have safeguards and privacy policies in place. He reviewed the questions that the policy would have to answer.
He noted that a draft policy was attached to the staff report.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
20 Police Chief Matteucci stated that there is an optional surveillance technology ordinance that can be adopted by Council. He explained that under this ordinance, the City Council would need to review any surveillance technology prior to usage. He noted that these reviews would include a surveillance impact report and a surveillance technology use policy. He added that no city in San Mateo County has adopted an ordinance of this nature, but cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley have.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about crime in Burlingame over the past four years. Police Chief Matteucci stated that residential burglaries have decreased, and vehicle burglaries have increased. He reviewed additional statistics including stolen vehicles and commercial burglaries.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City’s police department has done a great time keeping Burlingame safe. He voiced concern about people being pulled over for individual warrants. Police Chief Matteucci stated that 95% of the hits that police departments get from ALPRs are stolen vehicles. He added that seldom is a person’s warrant connected with a vehicle.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City of Alameda recently passed a fixed automated license plate reader draft policy. She noted that Alameda worked with civil liberties advocates on the policy. She asked if staff reviewed Alameda’s policy. City Attorney Guina stated that Alameda’s policy is more robust than the one attached to the staff report. He added that based on the Council’s direction, staff could incorporate aspects of Alameda’s policy into the City’s policy.
Mayor Ortiz asked about the requirement for annual reports. Police Chief Matteucci stated that the annual reports are required under the optional surveillance technology ordinance. However, he noted that the Council could always direct staff to include annual reports as a requirement in the draft policy.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
John Martos asked whether the six cities in the County that didn’t have ALPRs had explained why to staff.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that there was hesitancy from their governing bodies regarding privacy.
Brian Hofer discussed the City’s draft policy and stated that there were areas for improvement.
Constance Quirk discussed her concerns about the increase in crime in Burlingame. She urged the Council to purchase ALPRs. (comment submitted via [email protected] ).
Charles stated that he was opposed to ALPRs. (comment submitted via [email protected] ).
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Mayor Ortiz voiced support for purchasing ALPRs. He explained that he thought the City could create enough boundaries within its policy to ensure that ALPRs are properly used.
Councilmember Colson suggested an ALPR pilot program.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
21 Councilmember Beach stated that she appreciated the discussion and staff’s recommendation of 30-day retention of ALPR data. She explained that she would like to see the City adopt a surveillance vetting technology ordinance. She noted the increase of technology in this realm and thought it was important for the Council to thoroughly understand the technology before it is put in use. She added that she would like to see the City adopt a policy similar to that of the City of Alameda.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she didn’t think the City needed a surveillance impact report.
She added that she would like to move forward and implement a pilot program. She noted that she would like an annual summary of how the ALPRs are being utilized.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he liked the idea of an annual summary.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if a surveillance technology ordinance needed to come before the purchase of ALPRs. He discussed his experience with living in a police state and didn’t think that the community wanted to live in that atmosphere. He worried about the consequences and risks of the City installing surveillance technology.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the City adopt a surveillance ordinance in conjunction with the purchase of ALPRs that outlines the rules for how this technology is used.
Mayor Ortiz stated that Councilmember O’Brien Keighran is recommending that the City undertake a pilot program. He noted that he was comfortable with moving forward with a pilot program.
Councilmember Beach stated that she would like to see the City work on a surveillance vetting technology ordinance in conjunction with the pilot program.
Councilmember Colson asked if the ordinance needed to be done prior to the pilot program.
City Attorney Guina stated that the Council can move forward with a pilot program now without a surveillance technology ordinance. He added that at a later date, the Council can give direction to staff to pursue a surveillance technology ordinance.
Mayor Ortiz asked what the pilot program would look like. Police Chief Matteucci stated that he laid out a few options in the staff report including 14 or 6 locations. He noted that if the Council wanted to cover the entrances to the city, it would be better to go with 14 locations.
Mayor Ortiz asked if 14 locations meant 14 cameras. Police Chief Matteucci replied in the negative. He explained that 14 locations would need 20 cameras.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City was going to undertake a pilot program, then the Council should recommend 14 locations to see if it works. However, he would like to see the Council make a commitment that before the year is out, the City will review enacting a surveillance technology ordinance.
He suggested creating a subcommittee that can work with staff on this ordinance.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
22 Mayor Ortiz concurred with Vice Mayor Brownrigg that 14 locations should be in the pilot program.
Councilmember Colson and Councilmember O’Brien Keighran concurred with 14 locations.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a consensus to create a surveillance policy.
City Attorney Guina stated that there was a difference between a surveillance policy and ordinance. He noted that a policy must be in place to deploy the ALPRs. He added that a draft policy is attached to the staff report. He explained that an ordinance is more detailed and requires an impact report.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the City work towards an ordinance.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she would prefer going forward with the pilot program and re- evaluating in a year whether an ordinance is needed. She explained that she would want to see the data first before creating an ordinance to understand if it is needed.
Councilmember Beach stated that she thought what the ordinance would do is create a framework for how to vet any type of surveillance technology that is brought to Council in the future.
Mayor Ortiz asked about the amount of staff time it would take to create a surveillance technology ordinance. City Attorney Guina stated that the ordinance itself wouldn’t take a lot of time to create. Instead, he discussed the elements of the ordinance that would require continuous work such as the surveillance impact report.
Councilmember Colson suggested that the City move forward with the pilot program and that if her colleagues wanted, they could request a future agenda item to better understand what a surveillance technology ordinance requires.
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the staff report provided a good summary of the different elements of a surveillance technology ordinance.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if she was correct that none of the cities in the County had an ordinance and that this type of ordinance was only seen in the big cities. Police Chief Matteucci stated that no city in the County had this ordinance and that he was only aware of it in cities like Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she didn’t want to decide on whether to institute an ordinance without having baseline data.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he agreed with Councilmember Beach that an ordinance made good sense.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he thought the City should move forward with the pilot program and also review whether to enact a surveillance technology ordinance.
Burlingame City Council April 4, 2022 Approved Minutes
23 Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked about the ALPR Use Policy. He asked when the deadline is for community members and Council to submit comments and feedback. City Attorney Guina stated that the absolute deadline for having the policy finalized is before the police department flips the on-switch on the pilot program. He added that the Council can give direction on what additional elements they want in the use policy besides what is in the draft attached to the staff report.
Mayor Ortiz asked how long it would take to get the pilot program started. Police Chief Matteucci stated that he would need to get bids and would bring the Council back a final policy.
Councilmember Beach stated that what she thought was missing from the draft policy is an annual review.
She also asked that staff look at the City of Alameda’s policy.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no reports.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Beach asked to agendize raising the Progress Pride Flag for the month of June every year.
The Council agreed to agendize the discussion.
Councilmember Beach asked to agendize a discussion on a surveillance vetting technology ordinance. The Council agreed to agendize the discussion.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org
.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk