CITY OF FOSTER CITY/
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AS AMENDED BY AB 361) WHICH AUTHORIZES TELECONFERENCED MEETINGS UNDER THE BROWN ACT DURING CERTAIN PROCLAIMED STATES OF EMERGENCY.
THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA PROCLAIMED A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO COVID - 19 ON MARCH 4, 2020. THIS TELECONFERENCED MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT ESSENTIAL BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE 54953 IN ORDER TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ATTENDEE S. MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ATTEND AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING MAY DO BY JOINING THE ZOOM MEETING HTTPS://FOSTERCITY-ORG.ZOOM.US/J/89133725930 . PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED VIA ZOOM MEETING. ANY EMAILS SENT TO
[email protected] HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this City/District Meeting wil l be held via teleconference. City Councilmembers/District Board and staff will attend in person or via teleconference.
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting.
To Observe the Meeting via Teleconference/Video Conference:
• To access the meeting by computer / smartphone, go to: https://fostercity-org.zoom.us/j/89133725930
• To dial-in via phone:
1-669-900-6833 or
1-408-638-0968
And enter Webinar ID: 891 3372 5930
To Participate in the Meeting by Providing Public Comment via Teleconference/Video Conference:
• During the Meeting: Live verbal public comments may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the “raise hand” feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to “raise hand”) during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial -in attendees. Please clearly state your full name for the record at the start of your public comment.
Before the Meeting: Written public comments for the record may be submitted in advance by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by email to: [email protected] and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments submitted by email should adhere to the following:
• Clearly indi cate the Agenda Item No. or specify “Public” in the Subject Line for items not on the agenda
• Include the submitter’s full name (Recommended but not required)
Written public comments received by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting will be provided in their entirety to the City Council prior to the meeting and will be made part of the written record but will not be read verbally at the meeting. Written public comments will be posted to the City’s website for review prior to the meeting.
1 AGENDA
Monday, January 31, 2022 6:30 PM
SPECIAL MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers/ex officio EMID Directors Jon Froomin, Sanjay Gehani, Sam Hindi, Patrick Sullivan, and Mayor/President Richa Awasthi
3. PUBLIC
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(a), members of the public wishing to address the Council may do so, and the comments shall be limited to the Special Meeting notice topic(s). Speakers may join the Zoom meeting via the meeting link and using the “raise hand” feature and the Zoom host will call on people. Speakers may join the Zoom meeting via the meeting link and using the “raise hand” feature and the Zoom host will call on people
4. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
4.1. An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Adding Chapter 5.73 (Minimum Wage) to the Foster City Municipal Code
a) Staff Report
b) Action
i. Introduce Ordinance by Title, by Motion Waive Further Reading ii. By Motion Pass Ordinance to Second Reading
5. STUDY SESSION
5.1. 2022 City Council Vision & Policy Summit - Common Themes and Key Policy Takeaways
a) Staff Report
b) Action - By Minute Order, Receive and Accept Report
5.2. Recreation Center Project Update – Community Survey, Design Options, and Funding Options
a) Staff Report
b) Action - By Minute Order, Provide Policy Direction
2 6. ADJOURNMENT
The public is invited to attend.
Any attendee wishing special accommodations at the meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Department at (650) 286-3250 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council or EMID Board regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda packet was distributed will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk Department at City Hall located at 610 Foster City Boulevard during normal business hours and at the meeting.
City Council meetings on FCTV on Comcast Channel 27 and AT&T Channel 99:
LIVE every 1st and 3rd Monday of the month
REPLAY next day at 1:00 pm (that week only)
REPLAY Saturday at 5:00 pm (only on Saturday the week the actual meeting occurs) 3 DATE: January 31, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager
FROM: Jennifer Phan, Interim Deputy City Manager
Sabina Mora, Economic Development Manager
Leslie Parks, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER XX, MINIMUM
WAGE TO THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of “An Ordinance of the City of Foster City Adding Chapter
5.73 (Minimum Wage) to the Foster City Municipal Code.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the October 18, 2021 City Council meeting, staff presented research and analysis for a local minimum wage ordinance that included community outreach and input. After consideration and discussion of the report’s information, the City Council directed staff to prepare a local minimum wage ordinance requiring all employers located and doing business in Foster City to pay $15.50 an hour to any employee who works more than two hours a week starting January 1, 2022. The minimum wage would then increase to $16.00 an hour starting January 1, 2023 and will be adjusted annually on January 1 based on the Regional Consumer Price Index.
Due to pending considerations from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), this item is now being brought to City Council (after the original 4 January 1, 2022 intended effective date). The draft ordinance attached for City Council review accomplishes this by introducing Chapter 5.73 to the Foster City Municipal Code (Attachment 1). If the City Council wishes to establish a local minimum wage within the City of Foster City, this ordinance should be introduced and set for second reading. The ordinance will take effect and will be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption at the second reading.
BACKGROUND
Discussion of a local minimum wage ordinance initially began at the November 18, 2019 City Council meeting after which City Council directed staff by Minute Order No. 1626 to complete further analysis on the impacts a minimum wage policy would have on Foster City. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Economic Development/Sustainability Subcommittee decided to suspend further study of minimum wage.
On May 25, 2021, staff presented the City Council with an update on additional tasks, research, and analysis that would need to be completed before a local minimum wage ordinance could be adopted as well as a cost estimate for staff time needed to prepare sufficient information and analysis.
Staff was directed via Minute Order No. 1777 to complete an analysis for a local minimum wage ordinance (including community outreach and input), that would lead to a City ordinance on a phased timeline starting at $16.00 an hour and increasing annually based on the consumer price index.
At the October 18, 2021 City Council meeting, City Council formally provided direction by Minute Order No. 1813 (Attachment 3) for staff to prepare an ordinance establishing a local minimum wage that:
1. Starting January 1, 2022, all employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall pay $15.50 an hour; and
2. Starting January 1, 2023, all employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall pay $16.00 an hour.
Due to pending considerations from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), this item is now being brought to City Council (after the original January 1, 2022 intended effective date). The proposed ordinance would be applicable to any employee who works more than two hours a week and would also increase annually on January 1. The increase that would occur on January 1, 2024 and thereafter would be based on the Regional Consumer 5 Price Index. Furthermore, City Council also confirmed that outside sources be sought for enforcement of the local minimum wage ordinance (should it be adopted). The staff report for the October 18, 2021 City Council meeting provides a detailed chronology and analysis of establishing a local minimum wage ordinance as such in the City of Foster City (Attachment 2).
ANALYSIS
Since the proposed ordinance sets the minimum wage starting at $15.50 an hour, staff had prepared a projected cost to the City for one year beginning January 1, 2022.
The proposed ordinance is modeled after minimum wage ordinances adopted by ten cities in San Mateo County and includes the following key provisions:
Applies to all employers located in and doing business in Foster City; Applies to all employees who perform at least two hours of work for an employer located and doing business in Foster City;
An Employee who is a Learner, as defined by California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, shall be paid no less than 85 percent of the applicable Minimum Wage for the first 160 hours of employment. Thereafter, the Employee shall be paid the applicable Minimum Wage rate;
Retaliation including discharge or reduction in pay by an employer after an employee files a complaint is prohibited unless the employer has clear and convincing evidence or just cause for such discharge; Each employer shall maintain payroll records for each employee for at least three years and provide copies of records upon the employee’s request;
Provisions of the ordinance may be waived in whole or in part with respect to employees covered under a written collective bargaining agreement under the specific circumstances;
The ordinance shall not be applied to the extent it will cause the loss of federal or state funding of City activities.
Today’s meeting is the introduction and first reading of the proposed ordinance. If passed onto second reading at the February 7, 2022 City Council meeting, the ordinance will take effect and will be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption at the second reading – which would be March 9, 2022.
6 FISCAL IMPACT
Should the City Council choose to enact a local minimum wage ordinance, there will be costs associated with noticing employers about the new wage rate and other public outreach efforts to follow (which would be done in- house).
Starting March 9, 2022, the minimum wage paid by employers shall be $15.50 per hour and starting January 1, 2023, the minimum wage paid by employers shall be $16.00 per hour. Starting January 1, 2024, the rate will be adjusted annually based on the regional consumer price index. Table 2 of Attachment 4 shows the projected cost to the City. The original projected additional cost for the City starting January, 1, 2022 would be approximately $21,500 for the upcoming year (based on the current number of City employees and hours). This amount would decrease, if approved, as the implementation date would be March 9, 2022. This estimated cost is the increase from what the City is paying currently, not accounting for the required increase the City will have to pay starting January 1, 2022 to be in compliance with State law. Any costs to the City for adjusting hourly wages for part-time or full-time employees in the current fiscal year will need to be covered by City reserve funds and require a budget appropriation. Fiscal impacts in subsequent fiscal years for the total cost of the higher wages will be captured as part of the annual budget process.
Lastly, outsourcing enforcement of a minimum wage ordinance for three years with the City of San Jose is estimated to cost $45,0001. An agreement for services will be pursued once the minimum wage ordinance is adopted and similar to the personnel associated costs, this will need to be covered by City reserve funds and require a budget appropriation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or a foreseeable physical change in the environment.
1City of San Jose OEA indicated it would be interested in providing services for administration of the City’s minimum wage ordinance.
7 CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREAS
As part of the City Council’s Vision and Mission, it desires to take actions that deliver equity and foster a vibrant economy. This item is in alignment with the “Public Safety and Social Equity” Value/Priority Area in that it serves to support a thriving economy while also seeking to allow community members to enhance their quality of life through economic security.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Draft Foster City Minimum Wage Ordinance Attachment 2 - Staff Report, dated October 18, 2021 (Not Including Attachments)
Attachment 3 - Minute Order No. 1813
Attachment 4 - Estimated City Impacts (Detailed by Existing Positions) 8 ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY ADDING CHAPTER 5.73 (MINIMUM
WAGE) TO THE FOSTER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted a minimum wage that will reach $15.00 per hour in January of 2022; and
WHEREAS, recognizing the higher cost of living on the Peninsula and in an effort to support the stability of the community and economic security of local workers, the City Council of the City of Foster City wishes to enact a citywide minimum wage to reach no less than $15.50 per hour starting __________, 2022, followed by $16.00 per hour by January 1, 2023, with increases occurring on January 1 thereafter based on the Consumer Price Index; and
WHEREAS, the City of Foster City may adopt a higher minimum wage pursuant to the powers vested in the City under the laws and Constitution of the State of California including but not limited to the police powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Section 7, of the California Constitution;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to adopt a new Chapter 5.73 of the Foster City Municipal Code to provide a minimum wage of $15.50 per hour on __________ and a minimum wage of $16.00 per hour on January 1, 2023, and increases on January 1 thereafter based on the Consumer Price Index.
Section 2. Adding Chapter 5.73 to the Foster City Municipal Code. Chapter 5.73 “Minimum Wage” is added the Foster City Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Chapter 5.73
MINIMUM WAGE
SECTIONS
5.73.010 Definitions.
5.73.020 Minimum Wage.
5.73.030 Notice and Posting.
9 5.73.040 Implementation.
5.73.050 Enforcement.
5.73.060 Waiver through Collective Bargaining.
5.73.070 No Pre-Emption of Higher Standards.
5.73.080 Federal or State Funding.
5.73.010Definitions.
As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
A. “Calendar week” shall mean a period of seven consecutive days starting on Sunday.
B. “City” shall mean the City of Foster City.
C. “Employee” shall mean any person who in a Calendar Week performs at least two (2) hours of work for an Employer within the geographic boundaries of the City, and qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any Employer under the California Minimum Wage law, as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the State of California Industrial Welfare Commission. Employees shall include Learners, as defined by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
D. “ Employer” shall mean any person (including a natural person, corporation, non- profit corporation, general partnership, limited partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign), who receives or holds a business license from the City, and who directly or indirectly (including through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity) employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Employee.
E. “Minimum Wage” shall have the meaning set forth in Section ## of this Chapter.
5.73.020Minimum Wage.
A. Employers shall pay Employees no less than the Minimum Wage for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City.
10 B. The Minimum Wage paid shall be as follows: Beginning ___________, the Minimum Wage shall be an hourly rate of $15.50 and beginning January 1, 2023, the Minimum Wage shall be an hourly rate of $16.00.
C. Beginning on January 1, 2024, and each January thereafter, the minimum wage shall increase by an amount corresponding to the prior year’s increase, if any, in the cost of living. The prior year’s increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase, if any, as of August of the immediately preceding year of the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA for All Items) or its successor index as published by the U.S. Department of Labor or its successor agency. The change shall be calculated by using the August to August change in the CPI to calculate the annual increase, if any. A decrease in the CPI shall not result in a decrease in the minimum wage.
D. An Employee who is a Learner, as defined by California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, shall be paid no less than 85 percent of the applicable Minimum Wage for the first 160 hours of employment. Thereafter, the Employee shall be paid the applicable Minimum Wage rate.
E. An Employer may not deduct an amount from wages due an Employee on account of any tip or gratuity, or credit the amount or any part thereof, of a tip or gratuity, against, or as a part of, the wages due the Employee from the Employer.
5.73.030Notice and Posting.
A. By October 15 of each year, the City shall publish and make available to Employers a bulletin announcing the adjusted Minimum Wage rate, to take effect January 1 of the following year. In conjunction with this bulletin, the City shall, by November 1 of each year, publish and make available to Employers, in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, a notice suitable for posting by Employers in the workplace informing Employees of the current Minimum Wage rate and of their rights under this Chapter.
B. Each Employer shall give written notification to each current Employee, and to each new Employee at time of hire, of his/her/their rights under this Chapter. The notification shall be in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at the work site where it will be seen by all Employees. Every Employer shall also provide each Employee, at the time of hire, with the Employer’s name, address, and telephone number in writing. Failure to post such notice shall constitute a violation of this Municipal Code. The City is authorized to prepare sample notices and Employers’ use of such notices shall constitute compliance with this subsection. 11 5.73.040Implementation.
City may promulgate regulations for the implementation and enforcement of this Chapter.
Any regulation promulgated by City shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by Employers, Employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this Chapter. Any regulations may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective implementation of this Chapter, including supplementary procedures for informing Employees of their rights under this Chapter, for monitoring Employer compliance with this Chapter, and for providing administrative hearings or determining whether an Employer has violated the requirements of this Chapter.
5.73.050Enforcement.
A. Enforcement by the City. City may take any enforcement action set forth in Title 1 of this Municipal Code to address violations of this Chapter. Alternatively, City may elect to contract for enforcement services with a third party. If City elects to enter into such a contract, the City shall provide public, written procedures for such enforcement and any such enforcement shall be consistent with the due process rights established by Title 1 of this Code and relevant law.
B. Private Rights of Action. An Employee claiming harm from a violation of this Chapter may bring an action against the Employer in court to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and shall be entitled to all remedies available to correct any violation of this Chapter, including but not limited to, back pay, reinstatement, injunctive relief, or civil penalties as provided herein. An Employee who is a prevailing party in an action to enforce this Chapter is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees, witness fees, and costs.
C. Remedies.
1) The remedies for violation of this Chapter include but are not limited to:
(A) Reinstatement, the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld, and payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to each Employee whose rights under this Chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this Code or state law.
(B) Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full.
12 (C) Reimbursement of the City’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney fees.
(D) The City may require the Employer to pay an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50 to the City for each Employee or person whose rights, under this Chapter, were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this Code or state law, where there has been a previous violation of this Chapter. 2) The remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this Chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this Chapter. Actions taken pursuant to this Chapter shall not prejudice or adversely affect any other action, administrative or judicial, that may be brought to abate a violation or to seek compensation for damages suffered.
D. Retaliation Barred.
1) An Employer shall not discharge, reduce the compensation or otherwise retaliate against any Employee for making a complaint to the City, participating in any of the City’ s proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce his or her rights, or otherwise asserting his or her rights under this Chapter. Within 120 days of an Employer being notified of such activity, it shall be unlawful for the Employer to discharge any Employee who engaged in such activity unless the Employer has clear and convincing evidence of just cause for such discharge.
2) No Employer may fund increases in compensation required by this Chapter, nor otherwise respond to the requirements of this Chapter, by reducing the wage rate paid to any Employee, nor by increasing charges to them for parking, meals, uniforms or other items, nor by reducing the citation or other non-wage benefits of any such Employee, except to the extent such prohibition would be pre-empted by the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
E. Retention of Records. Each Employer shall maintain for at least three years for each Employee, a record of his or her name, hours worked and pay rate. Each Employer shall provide each Employee a copy of the records relating to such Employee upon the Employee’s reasonable request.
5.73.060Waiver through Collective Bargaining.
The provisions of this Chapter may be waived in whole or in part with respect to employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement if all of the following 13 circumstances apply: (a) Both parties to the collective bargaining agreement agree in writing to such waiver in whole or in part; and (b) the collective bargaining agreement contains provisions which specifically allow waivers of municipal minimum wage rates in excess of the contractually required wage rates for any group or groups of covered employees.
5.73.070No Pre-Emption of Higher Standards.
The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards. This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages) or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City. This Chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged Employee’s right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.
5.73.080Federal or State Funding.
This Chapter shall not be applied to the extent it will cause the loss of any federal or State funding of City activities.
Section 3. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council does hereby declare that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. Environmental Determination.
The Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the even that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment..
Section 5. Publication.
14 This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Foster City, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
Section 7. Posting.
Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.
Section 8. Retroactivity.
The provisions of this Ordinance apply starting on ___________, 2022.
This Ordinance was introduced and read on the 31 st day of January, 2022, and passed and adopted on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHA AWASTHI, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
15 DATE: October 18, 2021
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager
FROM: Leslie Parks, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE IN FOSTER CITY
RECOMMENDATION
It
is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive an informational report and provide policy
direction on whether staff should prepare a Minimum Wage Ordinance, which would increase the minimum wage in Foster City above $15.00 (the State minimum for all businesses in 2023) beginning January 1, 2022.
In the event the City Council desires to proceed with preparation of a Minimum Wage Ordinance, it is further recommended that the City Council identify which implementation option it would like to pursue:
Option 1: Following State Law. Starting January 1, 2022, all employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall
pay a minimum wage as required by the
State of California that is phased as follows:
a. Starting January 1, 2022, the minimum wage paid by employers with 25 or fewer employees shall be $14.00 an hour;
b.
Starting January 1, 2022, the minimum wage paid by employers with 26 or more employees shall be $15.00 an hour;
c. Starting January 1, 2023, the minimum wage paid by all employers shall be at least $15.00 an hour, with wages adjusted annually based on the national consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers but capped at 3.5%.
ATTACHMENT 2
16 Option 2: Starting January 1, 2022, all employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall pay a $16.00 an hour minimum wage to any employee who works more than two hours a week, increasing annually on January 1 using the regional consumer price index.
Option 3: Starting January 1, 2022, all employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall pay a $16.00 an hour minimum wage to any employee who works more than two hours a week, increasing annually on January 1 using the regional consumer price index capped at 3.5%.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By Minute Order No. 1777 (Attachment 4), staff was directed to complete an analysis for a local minimum wage ordinance (including community outreach and input), that would lead to a City ordinance on a phased timeline staring at $16.00 an hour and increasing annually based on the consumer price index. This report presents the analysis and findings for the above recommendation.
BACKGROUND
Discussion of a City minimum wage ordinance occurred at the November 18, 2019 City Council meeting (Attachment 8) after which City Council directed staff by Minute Order No. 1626 (Attachment 7) to complete further analysis on the impacts a minimum wage policy would have on Foster City. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Economic Development/Sustainability Subcommittee decided to suspend further study of minimum wage. On May 25, 2021, staff presented the City Council with an update on additional tasks, research, and analysis that would need to be completed before a minimum wage ordinance could be adopted as well as a cost estimate for staff time needed to prepare sufficient information and analysis. A copy of that staff report is attached (Attachment 5).
The State of California requires a minimum hourly wage of $15.00 for January 1, 2022, for employers that employ 26 or more workers. On January 1, 2023, all employers must pay workers at least $15.00 an hour, and once employers are at the $15.00 per hour threshold, increases each year thereafter are based on the consumer price index up to
3.5% per year.1 California has the highest minimum wage in the country along with New York. The Federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees has been $7.25 per hour since July 24, 2009.
1Under State law, the wage increase schedule may be temporarily suspended by the Governor during economic downturns until the State’s minimum wage reaches $15.00 an hour.
17 State of California Minimum Wage
Effective Date
Employers w/ 25
Employees or Less
Employers w/ 26
Employees or More
January 1, 2021 $13.00 $14.00
January 1, 2022 $14.00 $15.00
January 1, 2023 $15.00 $15.00+CPI
Under Federal and State law, local governments have the authority to adopt local wage ordinances that exceed state and federal standards.2 Such ordinances can increase the minimum wage more rapidly than the statewide time frame or can increase the minimum wage beyond the level set by the State.
Foster City employers are subject to federal and state minimum labor standards.
Because the State’s minimum wage is higher than the federal standard, employers are required to pay the State’s minimum wage. Should the City enact a minimum wage ordinance that exceeds State law standards, covered employers would be required to pay the City’s minimum wage.
Ten cities in San Mateo County have passed ordinances that either speed up the timeline for scheduled minimum wage increases or create a higher minimum wage than State law requires. The table below shows the minimum wage required by these cities in 2021. Atherton, Brisbane, Colma, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, San Bruno, and Woodside follow the State’s minimum wage requirements.
Table 1 – Cities with Minimum Wage Ordinances
CITY
LOCAL
ORDINANCE
MINIMUM
WAGE
POLICY ADMINISTRATOR Min. Wage
Jan. 1, 2022
Belmont $15.90
Regional CPI up
to 3.5%
City of San Jose, Office of
Equality Assurance
$16.46
Burlingame $15.00 Regional CPI
City of San Jose, Office of
Equality Assurance
$15.56
229 U.S.C. § 218(a), Cal. Labor Code § 1205(b).
18 CITY
LOCAL
ORDINANCE
MINIMUM
WAGE
POLICY ADMINISTRATOR
Min. Wage
Jan. 1, 2022
Daly City $15.00 Regional CPI City of Daly City
$15.56
East Palo Alto $15.00 Regional CPI
East Palo Alto, Office of
Economic Development
$15.56
Half Moon Bay $15.00 Regional CPI City of Half Moon Bay
$15.56
Menlo Park $15.25
Regional CPI up
to 3%
City of Menlo Park, City
Manager’s Office
$15.71
Redwood City $15.62 Regional CPI
City of San Jose, Office of
Equality Assurance
$16.20
San Carlos $15.24
Regional CPI up
to 3.5%
City of San Jose, Office of
Equality Assurance
$15.77
San Mateo $15.62 Regional CPI
City of San Jose, Office of
Equality Assurance
$16.20
South San
Francisco
$15.25 Regional CPI
City of San Jose, Office of
Equality Assurance $15.81
All the cities use consumer price index (CPI) to adjust minimum wage for future years, but three of the ten cap CPI increases at 3% or 3.5%.3 The column on the far right of Table 1 provides an estimated minimum wage starting January 1, 2022, using current Regional CPI (as of August 2021).
Table 1 provides an estimated minimum wage starting January 1, 2022, using current Regional CPI (as of August 2021).
3The consumer price index percentage increase used is from the prior year. Indexing wit CPI is predictable for employers and workers, and it keeps pace with the rising cost of living. The CPI tracks the prices of various goods, runs them through a formula and comes up with a number to illustrate how the prices in goods have changed over time. The market analysts will use these prices to tell how many goods or services a consumer will get for a dollar. Legislators will often index minimum wage rates to maintain the purchasing power of minimum wage workers. https://www.govdocs.com/minimum-wage-increases-planned-vs-indexed/ Adam Roberts, August 23, 2018.
19 ANALYSIS
This section provides a summary of research; outreach to employers; an analysis of potential minimum wage rates; a time frame for phasing implementation of a local minimum wage ordinance; possible exceptions and exemptions; options for administration and enforcement; and potential fiscal impacts for the City.
Definition of Minimum Wage
The terms “minimum wage” and “living wage” are often used interchangeably but they have different meanings. A living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. Needs include food, housing, and clothing. The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living through employment without government subsidies which are often substantially higher than the legal minimum wage. A minimum wage is usually set by law and is meant to standardize the lowest pay a worker can receive and is rarely sufficient to cover a worker’s basic needs.4 The U.S. government originally created the minimum wage with the intent to provide a living wage.
Appropriate Hourly Minimum Wage
At the May 25, 2021 City Council meeting, per Minute Order No. 1777, staff was directed to complete analysis for a local minimum wage ordinance (including community outreach and input), that would lead to a City ordinance on a phased timeline staring at $16.00 an hour and increasing annually based on the consumer price index. Nationally, many economists see $15.00 per hour as an amount that enables a full-time worker to earn enough to be safely out of poverty without relying upon public assistance.
However, most minimum wage standards in metro areas rarely achieve this goal.
It is staff’s assessment that the amount set for the minimum wage should consider a variety of factors, including the needs of businesses and workers, and should be consistent with the hourly rate set by other cities to help lessen the pressure for hiring workers in a tight labor market. Staff’s analysis is that currently, the hourly minimum wage set by Bay Area cities is equal to or less than what most employers must currently pay to hire new workers. Below is a list of entry level and low-skilled positions in Peninsula cities that were recently advertised on Craigslist and Indeed. 4Sources: https://www.govdocs.com/minimum-wage-and-its-counterparts/; https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp 20 Table 2 – Recently Advertised Entry Level and Low-Skilled Positions
CITY JOB FULL OR PART-TIME HOURLY WAGE
Delivery driver Full-time $16/hour with benefitsBurlingame Personal chef for
family
Part-time Negotiable*
Daly City Event rental
consultant
Full-time $17 -$20/hour
East Palo Alto Security officer Part-time and full-time $18-$25/hour Sign waver Part-time $20/hour
Lifeguard Part-time $17 - $20/hour
Hair stylist Part-time $17 - $18/hour
House cleaner Part-time $18 - $20/hour, not
including tips
Fast food
restaurant crew
member
Part-time and full-time Up to $17/hour
Subway Sandwich
Artist
Part-time and full-time Starting at $14/hour
Foster City
Barista/cashier Part-time and full-time $17.50/hour
Palo Alto Front desk
coordinator
Part-time $18/hour
Pacifica Childcare aide Part-time $15/hour with some
benefits
Redwood City Custodian and
driver
Full-time $16/hour with benefits
Warehouse/driver Full-time $18-22/hour with benefitsSan Carlos Full-time line cook Full-time $20/hour with benefits
Delivery drivers $18/hour
Lot attendant Full-time $16 -$18/hour
South San
Francisco
Inspector/packer Full-time $18.50/hour
Line cook Part-time and full-time $18.50/hour
Dishwasher Part-time and full time $16.50/hour
Server Part-time and full-time $15.62/hour
San Mateo
Take-out Part-time and full-time $17/hour
While these hourly rates are much higher than the State and Federal minimum wage (federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour) and wages paid in many areas of the country, they have little impact given the cost of living in the Bay Area. A study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition concluded that a Bay Area renter needs to make between $45 and $68 an hour to afford an apartment and still have enough money for other living expenses. A minimum wage requirement is meant to set a standard for the lowest pay a worker can receive and provide legal recourse if the wage is not paid.
21 Time Frame for Increasing the Minimum Wage
Almost all increases in minimum wage at a state or local level were phased over three to four years. This includes California law, which increases the wage to $15.00 over a six-year period. A phased approach provides time for businesses to adapt their operations and pricing to reflect the increase. Future increases in State and City minimum wages are tied to changes in the national or regional consumer price index.
Likewise, if the City Council directs the preparation of a minimum wage ordinance, implementation can be phased, and the CPI capped.
Exceptions and Exemptions
The ordinances adopted by ten San Mateo County cities contain similar terms and language. A city minimum wage ordinance applies to any employer that employs workers within city bounds.
Several cities’ ordinances included different exceptions and exemptions for entity status, business size, youth workers (training wages), and collective bargaining agreements.
For example, San Mateo’s ordinance allows 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations to have an additional year to comply with the increased levels. The City of Mountain View included an exemption for state, federal, and county agencies, including school districts, to authorize government agencies to not pay the local minimum wage when the work performed is related to their governmental function. San Mateo and Mountain View included waivers for collective bargaining agreements, which allow for all or any portion of the minimum wage requirements to be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, if such a waiver is part of the agreement. All local city ordinances and the state’s minimum wage requirement apply to all workers—either part-time or full-time.
Estimated Impacts to Employers
To assess potential impacts of a minimum wage ordinance for employers, public outreach was conducted to receive feedback from these entities, stakeholders, and residents. Outreach efforts included the following:
An online survey conducted in September 2021 (Attachment 3) and in February 2020 (Attachment 6).
Two business outreach meetings including a meeting co-hosted with the Chamber of Commerce on August 19, 2021 and another facilitated public meeting held on August 26, 2021. August 19 participants were invited based on a representative sampling, so some were members of the Chamber, others were not. They represented the restaurant/hospitality industry; non-profits; food 22 service; education; technology; childcare; and banking. August 26 attendees included professional services; real estate; labor; and food sales. Staff presented an overview of local minimum wage ordinances at both meetings (a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached to this report as Attachment 2). Staff also emailed the online survey to the meeting attendees.
Staff also received feedback from individual business owners.
A complete list of comments received at the two business outreach meetings held on August 19 and 26 is attached to this report (Attachment 1). A summary is provided below:
None of the participants in the August 19 and 26 meetings were opposed to a minimum wage ordinance if it was in line with what other cities in San Mateo County have adopted and the increases are phased over a few years. Most of the employers currently pay more than the minimum wage adopted by surrounding cities to fill positions. Paying higher hourly rates will be difficult to sustain for many small businesses that compete for labor with chain stores. Concerns were expressed about rising inflation that has increased the price of supplies and materials and could increase the wages of employees.
The responses received to the business survey conducted from September 3, 2021, to 16, 2021 are attached (Attachment 3). The survey was comprised of questions asked of participants who attended the two outreach meetings. They were not asked specifically if they supported a minimum wage ordinance or not, but comments provided included opinions of a City ordinance. The survey was emailed to approximately 2,500 recipients including those who receive City email newsletters, businesses with a business license and email address, and Chamber members. Below is a summary of the survey results:
The 45 respondents to the survey represented a broad group of businesses.
About 50 percent of respondents to the survey were personal service and restaurant/food service businesses while professional services, manufacturing, and a small number of retail accounted for the remainder. This is consistent with the overall profile of businesses located in Foster City. 58 percent of the workers employed by these businesses are not currently paid the State minimum wage. Follow-up questions about hourly wages paid pre- COVID and paid currently indicate most businesses are paying above $16.00 an hour.
Prior to the pandemic, only 13 percent were paying less than $15.00 (as mandated by the State), while more than 50 percent were paying $15.00 to $16.00 and hour or more than $16. Nine percent paid more $18.00 an hour or 23 more. These employers were likely in professional services or technical areas. 47 percent of respondents said they were paying more than $16.00 an hour for entry-level jobs and the range is $15.00 to $21.00 an hour for new hires. Most respondents are already paying much higher than $16.00 an hour. Most workers employed by respondents are hourly (either part-time or full-time). 20 percent of respondents said a cap on CPI was necessary while 33 percent said it was not. Thirty-six percent were unsure or neutral.
Some comments questioned why a local ordinance was necessary. Several expressed concerns about the impact of a minimum wage ordinance higher than the state on small businesses that are already facing higher prices for supplies and other operating costs.
Two comments stated that government at any level should not dictate what businesses pay their employees. Also noted are the concerns of some survey respondents about a minimum wage that is higher than the state or other cities in the County. A copy of all the written comments is attached to this report (Attachment 3).
For this report, it was not possible to determine the financial impact on Foster City businesses and how many would be subject to the hourly wage increase. Wage rates paid by local businesses for either part-time or full-time employees is not information that is available to the public. Conducting a survey to collect this data would be dependent on the willingness of businesses to voluntarily provide this information.
The City’s business license data (2020) shows there are 789 business license holders that maintain a fixed place of business. Most small businesses are involved in some type of services such as professional/technical; personal services; hospitality and restaurants; daycare; home maintenance, and health care. A small number of businesses sell goods. The City’s business license data does not ask for the number of employees per business. However, a profile of Foster City businesses based on responses to a business survey conducted last year provided a general profile of Foster City small businesses. Most are small businesses that employ less than 20 employees on a part-time rather than full-time basis. Even though the State’s minimum wage is $13.00 an hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees, the current labor market practically requires businesses to pay above $15.00 an hour for entry-level positions.
Table 2 (Recently Advertised Entry Level and Low-skilled Positions) and responses from the survey conducted for this report (Attachment 3) support this statement.
Estimated City Impacts
The estimated fiscal impacts to the City of Foster City are provided in the tables in Attachment 9. Increasing all part-time positions to start at $15.00 an hour or more may 24 cause compaction issues if the starting salaries for entry level positions within a particular job title are too close to the wages in a position that requires more skill or experience. However, it should be noted that part-time staffing can fluctuate quite a bit depending upon programming and staffing needs.
There are three City job classifications in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 that have a Step 1 starting pay lower than $15 an hour. They are Building Services Assistant, Recreation Leader I, and Clerical Assistant. Positions that are also affected include Recreation Leader II and III, which are necessary to adjust to avoid the compaction issue. These job classifications contain forty (40) funded positions that would be affected by a minimum wage increase.
As an employer with 26 or more employees, the City currently follows the existing State minimum wage of $14.00 an hour. Table 1 of Attachment 9 provides a table outlining the current wage rates of the City’s actual entry level positions in FY 2020-2021 over the last 15 months (July 2020 through September 2021). A total cost was calculated for the forty (40) positions which include Recreation Leader I, II, and III and Building Services Assistant. Many of these employees are employed for summer recreation programs. The current total cost to the City for this 15 month period was $200,850.
Option 1: Starting January 1, 2022, the minimum wage paid by employers shall be $15.00 an hour per the State’s requirement. Starting in 2023, the rate will be adjusted annually based on the national consumer price index, but not to exceed 3.5%.
Table 2 of Attachment 9 shows the projected cost to the City, following the State’s requirement of $15.00 an hour minimum wage beginning January 1, 2022, regardless of whether the City adopts a City minimum wage ordinance increase or not. The projected additional cost for the City would be approximately $14,650 for the upcoming year (based on the current number of City employees and hours).
Option 2: All employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall pay a $16.00 an hour minimum wage to any employee who works more than two hours a week starting January 1, 2022, increasing annually on January 1 using the regional consumer price index.
As reflected in Table 3 of Attachment 9, the projected additional cost for the City if minimum wage were to be increased to $16.00 for the forty (40) existing entry level positions would be approximately $28,950 for the upcoming year. CPI is not fixed and therefore may increase in following years.5
5Note: Because future regional CPI is unknown, the table does not reflect calculation of costs with regional CPI. 25 Option 3: All employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall pay a $16 an hourly minimum wage to any employee who works more than two hours a week starting January 1, 2022, increasing annually on January 1 using the Regional Consumer Price Index capped at 3.5%.
As reflected in Table 4 of Attachment 9, the projected additional cost for the City if minimum wage were to be increased to $16.00 + CPI capped at 3.5% (effective year 2 the ordinance is in effect) for the forty (40) existing entry level positions would be approximately $37,050.
Options Two and Three require development of a City ordinance which can be completed to accommodate a January 1, 2022, start date. Similar to other local ordinances and State law, any ordinance option should apply to all part-time and full- time employees and all employers located in and doing business in Foster City.
However, so long as the wage rate is in alignment with the State’s schedule, an exemption for part time City and business/non-profit workers would be permissible if the justification has a rational basis (e.g., some evidence that would support the exemption). But distinctions based on industry category or entity status would be more likely to garner a legal challenge. Instead, any exemption should be based on the size of the employer in line with State law.
Minimum Wage Ordinance Enforcement
Establishing appropriate enforcement provisions is a key component of a minimum wage ordinance. As part of adopting a local minimum wage ordinance, the City will need to implement a process and identify staff to administer and enforce the ordinance.
Several cities with existing minimum wage ordinances in Santa Clara County and the City of San Mateo have contracted with the City of San Jose Office of Equality Assurance (OEA) for enforcement services using a complaint-driven model that can require significant time and paperwork. OEA services range from answering written and telephone inquiries to conducting complaint intake of complaints that includes preparing, documenting, and serving a written notice of complaint that is sent to employers if warranted. OEA will visit the employer as part of the investigative process and interview the complainant and any current or former employees that may be involved but services do not include an enforcement action.
Even though most cities contracting with OEA have had few complaints, investigation of one complaint can take several months. The outcome and resolution of one complaint can involve many former employees and result in restitution of a significant amount of money on the part of the business although this is a rare occurrence. Depending on the date the ordinance goes into effect, the “look-back” period for investigating a complaint is typically three to four years. Ordinances typically require employers to keep payroll records for a similar period of time.
26 The cost for OEA’s services is $45,000 for a three-year term. If the complaint results in legal enforcement or an appeal, there may be additional costs for the City.
POLICY OPTIONS
There are three policy options for the City Council to consider.
Option 1: Do not adopt a local ordinance and follow State law, which means that the minimum wage in Foster City will increase to $14.00 by January 1, 2022 for all employers with 25 or fewer employees and $15.00 an hour for all employers with greater than 26 employees. Starting January 1, 2023, for all employers, the minimum wage would be at least $15.00 an hour (with employers having 26 or more employees paying $15.00 plus the CPI increase). On January 1, 2024, for employees with fewer than 26 employees, the rate will be adjusted annually based on the national CPI for urban wage earners and clerical workers and will be capped at 3.5%. For employers with 26 or more employees, the rate would also be adjusted annually based on the CPI, and would be capped at 3.5%.
Option 2: Adopt an ordinance that requires employers located in and doing business in Foster City to pay a $16.00 an hour minimum wage to any employee who works more than two hours a week starting January 1, 2022, increasing annually on January 1 using the regional consumer price index.
Option 3: Adopt an ordinance that requires employers located in and doing business in Foster City to pay a $16.00 an hour minimum wage to any employee who works more than two hours a week starting January 1, 2022, increasing annually on January 1 using the regional consumer price index capped at 3.5%.
CONCLUSION
The results of research and findings from the business outreach meetings and surveys confirm that most businesses are already paying more than $16.00 an hour and as much as $17.00 to $20.00 for entry-level jobs. Food service and other small service businesses are still having trouble finding workers and many are limiting operating hours. A minimum wage ordinance may not have much impact in the current labor market, but it does ensure that workers will be paid a base wage and provides legal recourse if they are not. If given a choice, many small businesses would prefer to pay no more than the current State minimum wage or less, but they also recognize they are competing for workers in a tight labor market.
Comments received in the business outreach meetings were supportive of a local minimum wage ordinance, but noted it was important that the City’s minimum wage was 27 aligned with other cities in San Mateo County and implementation should be phased to give businesses time to adjust. Comments received in the latest survey were not as supportive of a local ordinance and expressed concerns about increasing operating costs for local small businesses.
If the City Council approves either Option Two or Three, an ordinance can be prepared and implemented by January 1, 2022. Staff will need to develop a communications plan to notify employers about the date of implementation and requirements. The City Council is strongly urged to consider contracting the City of San Jose’s Office of Equality Assurance for administration of the ordinance.
Staff extends appreciation and thanks to the Foster City Chamber of Commerce for their assistance with outreach to local businesses and providing important feedback.
FISCAL IMPACT
Any costs to the City for adjusting hourly wages for part-time or full-time employees during the current fiscal year will necessitate a budget augmentation approval by the City Council. Fiscal impacts in subsequent fiscal years for the total cost of the higher wages will be captured as part of the annual budget process.
If the City chooses to outsource enforcement of a minimum wage ordinance, the cost for a three-year agreement with the City of San Jose is currently $45,000.6 If City staff administers the program, a tracking system for complaints and follow-up actions will need to be developed along with staff time for monitoring and enforcement. An estimated 40-50 hours for program start-up and a minimum of 12 hours a week for responding to and following up on complaints is anticipated (staff time will likely involve more than one City department, including the City Attorney). Formal investigation of a complaint can require a significant number of hours over several months. An outside consultant may be needed to assist with developing a tracking system for complaints.
Overall, most cities do not receive many complaints, but a single complaint can require several months of investigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity is not a project under CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or a foreseeable physical change in the environment.
6City of San Jose OEA indicated it would be interested in providing services for administration of the City’s minimum wage ordinance.
28 CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREAS As part of the City Council’s Vision and Mission, it desires to take actions that deliver equity and foster a vibrant economy. This item is in alignment with the “Public Safety and Social Equity” Value/Priority Area in that it serves to support a thriving economy and seeks to allow community members to enhance their quality of life.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Comments from Business Outreach Meetings (August 19 and 26, 2021)
Attachment 2 - PowerPoint Presentation from Business Outreach Meetings Attachment 3 - Responses from Survey (Conducted September 3 to 16, 2021) Attachment 4 - Minute Order No. 1777
Attachment 5 - City Council Staff Report (dated May 25, 2021) Attachment 6 - Findings from Business Survey (Conducted February 2020) Attachment 7 - Minute Order No. 1626
Attachment 8 - City Council Staff Report (dated November 18, 2019) Attachment 9 - Estimated City Impacts (Detailed by Existing Positions) 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 94018E8E-4162-4160-A5ED-B0EDEB8A2D64
ATTACHMENT 3
MINUTE ORDER
No. 1813
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 19, 2021
Attention:
City Council/EMID Board
Kevin Miller, Interim City/District Manager
Leslie Parks, Economic Development Manager
City Council/EMID Board of Directors Meeting Date: October 18, 2021
Subject: Consideration of a Minimum Wage Ordinance in Foster City
Motion by Vice Mayor Awasthi, seconded by Councilmember Hindi, and carried, 2-1-0, Councilmember Froomin voted "no", IT WAS ORDERED to direct staff to:
1. Prepare an ordinance modifying option 2 to the following: Starting January 1, 2022, all employers located in and doing business in Foster City shall pay $15.50 an hour, and starting January 1, 2023, $16.00 an hour minimum wage to any employee who works more than two hours a week, increasing annually on January 1 using the regional consumer price index; and
2. Seek outside sources to administer the program.
CITY CLERK/DISTRICT SECRETARY
*Councilmember Hindi, Councilmember Sullivan, and Mayor Gehani stated that they had a conflict of interest because they own a business within Foster City. Under the provision of the Government Code for Exercising the Rule of Necessity, based on a previous random selection drawing, Councilmember Hindi participated in the discussion, and Councilmember Sullivan and Mayor Gehani recused themselves due to a conflict of interest. 30 Attachment 4 – Estimated City Impacts (Detailed by Existing Positions) Page 1 of 2 1 ATTACHMENT 4
Estimated City Impacts (Detailed by Existing Positions) Table 1 – Current Cost to the City of Entry Level Positions FY 20-21
POSITIONS
Employee
# (emp.)
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Recreation
Leader I
28 $14.00
(26 emp.)
$14.49
(1 emp.)
$15.00
(1 emp.)
$15.52
(0 emp.)
$16.07
(0 emp.)
Recreation
Leader II
1 $15.00
(0 emp.)
$15.52
(0 emp.)
$16.07
(0 emp.)
$16.63
(0 emp.)
$17.21
(1 emp.)
Recreation
Leader III
6 $16.00
(5 emp.)
$16.40
(1 emp.)
$17.10
(0 emp.)
$17.90
(0 emp.)
$18.30
(0 emp.)
Building
Service
Assistant
5 $14.00
(4 emp.)
$14.49
(0 emp.)
$15.00
(1 emp.)
$15.52
(0 emp.)
$16.07
(0 emp.)
TOTAL 40
Current Cost (15 Month Period; July 2020 through August 2021): $200,850
Table 2 – Estimated Rate Increase and Cost to the City by Raising Minimum Wage to $15.50 an Hour
FY 20-21
POSITIONS
Employee
# (emp.)
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Recreation
Leader I
28 $15.50
(26 emp.)
$16.04
(1 emp.)
$16.60
(1 emp.)
$17.19
(0 emp.)
$17.79
(0 emp.)
Recreation
Leader II
1 $16.57
(0 emp.)
$17.15
(0 emp.)
$17.75
(0 emp.)
$18.37
(0 emp.)
$19.01
(1 emp.)
Recreation
Leader III
6 $17.71
(5 emp.)
$18.33
(1 emp.)
$18.97
(0 emp.)
$19.64
(0 emp.)
$20.32
(0 emp.)
Building
Service
Assistant
5 $15.50
(4 emp.)
$16.04
(0 emp.)
$16.60
(1 emp.)
$17.19
(0 emp.)
$17.79
(0 emp.)
TOTAL 40
15 Month Cost: $222,400
Increase from Current: $21,500
31 Attachment 4 – Estimated City Impacts (Detailed by Existing Positions) Page 2 of 2 2 Table 3 – Estimated Rate Increase and Cost to the City by Raising Minimum Wage to $16.00 an Hour
FY 20-21
POSITIONS
Employee
# (emp.)
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Recreation
Leader I
28 $16.00
(26 emp.)
$16.56
(1 emp.)
$17.14
(1 emp.)
$17.74
(0 emp.)
$18.36
(0 emp.)
Recreation
Leader II
1 $17.14
(0 emp.)
$17.74
(0 emp.)
$18.36
(0 emp.)
$19.00
(0 emp.)
$19.67
(1 emp.)
Recreation
Leader III
6 $18.36
(5 emp.)
$19.00
(1 emp.)
$19.67
(0 emp.)
$20.36
(0 emp.)
$21.07
(0 emp.)
Building
Service
Assistant
5 $16.00
(4 emp.)
$16.56
(0 emp.)
$17.14
(1 emp.)
$17.74
(0 emp.)
$18.36
(0 emp.)
TOTAL 40
15 Month Cost: $229,800
Increase from Current: $28,975
32 DATE: January 31, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager
Jennifer Phan, Interim Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: 2022 CITY COUNCIL VISION & POLICY SUMMIT - COMMON
THEMES AND KEY POLICY TAKEAWAYS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, receive and accept the report summarizing the Common Themes and Key Policy Takeaways (Attachment 1) from the 2022 City Council Vision & Policy Summit.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following this year’s Vision & Policy Summit, City staff has developed an overview document that summarizes the common themes from that day’s discussion, as well as the key policy items for City staff to prioritize and build into its work plan. This summary is provided for City Council consideration in order to bring clarity and ensure alignment on which items are the most critical, and to better balance future priorities against the City’s current resources.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Every year, the City Council holds a Vision & Policy Summit to identify, discuss, and prioritize work projects and initiatives that will be addressed over the course of the following year. A vast majority of City resources are used to deliver core governmental services and these operations continue to stand independent of those that may result from a Vision & Policy Summit. With that said, the primary objective of a priority-setting session is to provide focus and 33 align the City’s financial and staff resources to that of the City Council’s and community’s goals. This process is important as it establishes a clear set of goals and expectations to which City staff and limited financial resources may be dedicated.
This year’s Vision & Policy Summit was held on January 12, 2022. The City Council, via Minute Order No. 1825, reconfirmed and adopted its Vision and Mission, along with its Strategic Value/Priority Areas as established in the previous year. The intent of the Vision Statement is to provide directional guidance on the higher order perspective of the City Council’s policy intent, while the Mission Statement is to guide the City’s day-to-day work and serve to align staff work with current priorities. These statements together help communicate the purpose and principles of the organization and will facilitate more positive relationships between the City and the community in which we serve.
During the full-day session, City Council covered broad topics that included:
managed growth/land use, viable retail/economic development, sustainable revenue options, building business relationships, and areas for regional influence (such as transportation, education, water, legislative advocacy, etc.). In facilitating the session, the Mayor and City Manager posed questions for City Council consideration that allowed a high-level discussion on these topics. City staff has developed a summary document that provides an overview of the common themes from that day’s discussion, as well as the key policy items for City staff to prioritize and build into its work plan. This is attached to the report as Attachment 1.
In observing the City Council’s comments related to quality of life and quality of place, City staff has drafted a “Community Character” statement to help illustrate the elements that distinguish and define Foster City. While this description is not based on a planning perspective, it encapsulates the community values, characteristics, and general identity of Foster City. It is also consistent with the City Council’s Vision and Mission Statements.
City staff also summarized the major themes and principles that arose throughout City Council’s discussion. This is followed by a list of policy items that City staff understood to be of primary significance in the coming year. It is important to note that City staff recognizes there are action items to follow with each of the policy items identified. There are some that are already underway and others that are pending. For example:
34 Land Use – Several land use-related topics are scheduled for the February and March meetings, including a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting that is being planned for March. Economic Development – City staff is currently outlining its proposed approach, reevaluating how to best utilize the existing economic development services in the coming months, meanwhile, also reengaging the Chamber of Commerce.
Revenues – Initial direction on the Reserve Policy will be sought at an upcoming Budget Study Session. City staff is also exploring the pros and cons of a biennial budget for the next budget cycle (FY 2023/2024).
Legislative Advocacy – An amendment to the agreement with the City’s existing legislative advocacy consultants is being prepared and will be brought to City Council for consideration in February.
The overview document is not meant to be all inclusive or to exclude work that does not fall directly in the topic areas. Rather, the overview document is meant to keep the organization focused and outcomes based. On occasion, new projects/initiatives may emerge, and City Council may direct or ask City staff to consider adding to its work plan as certain items may result in a greater benefit to the City. Consistent with past practice, the City Manager will prioritize based on City and staff resources, coordinating realignment of priorities as necessary to advance any particular items.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
This item is overarching and directly addresses the Vision, Mission, and Strategic Priorities set forth by the City Council as a whole.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – 2022 City Council Vision & Policy Summit - Common Themes and Key Policy Takeaways
Attachment 2 – Minute Order No. 1825 & Strategic Priorities 35 P
age 1 of 3
CITY COUNCIL VISION & POLICY SUMMIT
COMMON THEMES AND KEY POLICY TAKEAWAYS FOR 2022
OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER
Foster City is a purposefully, planned community that strikes a unique balance of residential, family- oriented neighborhoods comprised of a variety of housing types to suit all needs , while being home to major commercial and research & development sites. The City prides itself on the wealth of recreational amenities and activities it provides to the community, including its healthy waterways and vibrant parks/open spaces. The City emphasizes public safety and proactively works toward strengthening relationships with the community. Foster City also has a long-standing commitment to fiscal prudence & responsibility, with a keen ability to prioritize its infrastructure needs. All- encompassing, sustainability is what defines Foster City. It holds progressive principles as an environmental leader in combating sea level rise and addressing climate change. It values diversity and strives to bring equal opportunity and foster civic pride & engagement. It recognizes and is dedicated to revitalization of the local economy as well as driving economic vitality.
COMMON THEMES
• Quality of life may have different meanings to each individual, but the City plays a vital role in defining, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of place. • The Master Plan serves as a foundational, guiding document. There has been a long- standing interest by City leadership (past & current) to preserve critical elements of the community, while looking forward and incorporating changes that enhance and build upon what Foster City has to offer.
• Community engagement & public participation is a cornerstone to good governance, and can help achieve more equitable and effective public decision -making. The City continues to seek more efficient and effective ways in which it can better provide information to residents. • Foster City has the opportunity to be recognized as a destination and no longer be a hidden gem, b
y using its unique attributes and strengths to attract businesses that complement the City. • Foster City can strengthen its regional influence and needs to continue to build relationships with the community, its neighboring colleagues, and local, County, and State representatives.
POLICY TAKEAWAYS
Land Use • Approach zoning changes/requests on a case-by-case basis through considerate and thorough evaluation
• Discuss and provide thoughtful analysis of housing topics, including Affordable Housing Overlay zone, Inclusionary Ordinance, Housing Element, RHNA
• Understand the implications of SB 9, SB 10, and other housing legislation that impacts the City and evaluate opportuniti es to minimize those impacts and maintain local control
ATTACHMENT 1
36
• Consider how to use imagery to provide a visual representation of sites and what is being proposed to increase densities
Economic Development Commercial and Retail Vacancies
• Consider policy or ordinance to prevent property blight and address “no use” situations and unoccupied areas/parcels
• Engage property owners and business owners to gain perspective on reasons for vacancies and challenges for restaurants/retailers
Business Community Relationships
• Reopen discussions with property owners to discuss zoning possibilities
• Identify ways the City can work with property owners to provide a financial benefit/incentive in order to reinvest and rebuild • Prioritize establishment of strategic alliances and public -private partnerships, whether with community organizations , business community, or leading employers
• Strengthen relationship with Chamber of Commerce and pursue areas for collaboration, namely in Economic Development and Sustainability, and define roles
Other
• Explore opportunities to activate or reenergize areas such as Mariners Point, Leo J. Ryan Park/Recreation Center, former OSH site, Costco
• Reopen discussions on Sea Cloud Pa rk II and how to reclaim land/property rights
• Develop Economic Development Strategic Plan that seeks to revitalize the local economy, demonstrate Foster City as a business- friendly community, and emphasizes strategic partnerships Revenues • Revisit Reserve Policy and consider if it should be revised, as well as possibly the Capital Asset & Acquisition Fund and how /when it should be used as it relates to purchasing power
• Discuss ARPA funds and best use of it (restoring lost revenue or reinvesting in community)
• Consider revenue generation ideas , such as using property in proximity to SR 92 with easy access and level of pass through traffic for an electronic billboard
• Identify how technology can be applie d or leveraged to reduce costs; for example, Objective Design and Development Standards • Evaluate pros and cons of a two-year budget approach
Regional Influence Transportation
• Advocate for regional transportation solutions to address areas of concern such as highway conditions, regional bicycle & pedestrian system (Bayshore/Bay Area Bay Trail), etc.
• Seek grants and encourage other municipalities to apply for regional infrastructure improvements
37
• Find solutions to improve public transit system to make it mor e accessible and efficient
Education
• Engage and build relationships between the City school districts , including strengthening the one between the Foster City Police Department and youth
• Explore potential partnership opportunities as it relates to the Recreation Center and programming/offerings, such as preschools and ceramics
Water/Sea Level Rise
• Stay abreast of regional/local water supply and needs, specifically impacts of drought and declared water shortage
• Advocate for Foster City’s proactive investment to address sea level rise early on via its Levee Project
• Gain better understanding of OneShoreline’s role and how proposed countywide tax may negatively impact Foster City
Legislative Advocacy
• Continue relationship with legislative advocacy firm
• Continue efforts to work with state -level elected officials to advocate on behalf of issues that impact the City/region • Stay abreast of and respond to pieces of State legislation that are part of the City’s priorities
38 MINUTE ORDER
No. 1825
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
Date: January 13, 2022
Attention: City Council/EMID Board
Kevin Miller, Interim City/District Manager
Jennifer Phan, Interim Deputy City Manager
City Council/EMID Board of Directors Meeting Date: January 12, 2022 Subject: Reconfirm and Adopt City Council Mission & Vision and Strategic Priorities for 2022
Motion by Vice Mayor Froomin, seconded by Councilmember Gehani and carried unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0-0, IT WAS ORDERED to reconfirm and adopt City Council Mission & Vision and Strategic Priorities for 2022 (attached).
CITY CLERK/DISTRICT SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT 2
39 40
DATE: January 31, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Kevin Miller, Interim City Manager
FROM: Jennifer Phan, Interim Deputy City Manager
Louis Sun, Public Works Director
Edmund Suen, Finance Director
Tiffany Oren, Recreation Manager
Julie Paping, Interim Principal Management Analyst
SUBJECT: RECREATION CENTER PROJECT UPDATE – COMMUNITY
SURVEY, DESIGN OPTIONS, AND FUNDING OPTIONS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order, provide City staff direction regarding the Recreation Center Project in relation to the community survey, design options, and funding options.
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the following policy questions:
1. Does the City Council accept the Recreation Center and Parks System Survey results and has staff satisfied City Council’s interest in validating programming and usage assumptions?
2. Does the City Council have a preferred project design option of those previously presented by Burks Toma Architects (Concept 1, 2, or 3) or does the City Council wish to explore an alternative "build-to-budget" option by identifying a not-to-exceed amount for the project? Is there 41 some other alternative for which City Council wants to provide direction?
3. Which funding sources, how much from each, and what voter approved tax measures are the City Council willing to consider for this project? The funding options, including Reserves, are outlined in Attachment 5 – Funding Options Spreadsheet.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 7, 2021, the City Council directed staff to validate assumptions related to Recreation Center programming and usage and to validate financing options for rebuilding the Recreation Center. This report is intended to present the results of the Recreation Center and Parks System Survey and update the City Council on funding options. Additionally, information has been included on the build process and design options. Estimated costs for a Recreation Center rebuild have increased to $89.1 million since the project was last brought before City Council, and as such, City Council may want to consider an alternative "build-to-budget" option by identifying a not-to-exceed amount for the project. Should the City Council provide direction to move forward with the alternative "build-to-budget" option and a not-to-exceed amount, staff will move forward with a design-bid-build process which would entail preparing requests for proposals (RFPs) for a designer, project and construction manager, construction inspection services, and materials testing for City Council consideration. Regardless of the direction provided by City Council, staff will continue to update the City Council through study sessions and remain engaged with the community throughout the process.
Staff recognizes tonight’s meeting is the initial step in revisiting the Recreation Center Project and that additional information may need to be brought back for City Council consideration. The Recreation Center Project is being considered separate from the Parks Master Plan, which is being evaluated through the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
BACKGROUND
The William E. Walker Recreation Center opened to the public in 1974. Due to its location as a central amenity in Foster City’s Leo Ryan Park, the center is a hub of activity in the community.
The current Recreation Center consists of the original building that was built 42 in 1974 and two expansion wings that were constructed in the 1990s. The current structure contains approximately 18,500 square feet of meeting room/user space in the 36,000 square foot building, with the remaining space allocated to lobbies, storage, mechanical rooms and long hallways to access the phased additions. Because the building was originally three separate structures that were all combined into one building with one roof in 1997, multiple roof penetrations were added to install HVAC equipment and aesthetic screens on the flat deck of the roof. Due to the construction history, a number of structural issues are known or anticipated related to water intrusion. The age of the building and the piecemeal way in which it was constructed contribute to a current need for a total roof replacement and structural assessment for emergency shelter readiness.
At the January, 25, 2016 City Council Special Meeting (Vision & Policy Summit), City Infrastructure was identified as a City Council priority area and the City Council expressed an interest in pursuing a process for evaluating the existing Recreation Center to determine whether a major re-roof project, a broader renovation, or a complete rebuild would best meet the recreational needs of the Foster City community and the infrastructure needs of the City both now and in the years to come. In March 2016, staff presented a special report on the structural integrity and ongoing maintenance of the Recreation Center and its relevance to City demographics and trends in recreation.
On October 17, 2016, the City Council approved a comprehensive outreach plan to engage the community on the Recreation Center Master Plan Project.
Between October 2016 and January 2017, a variety of methods, including one-on-one meetings, focus groups, public meetings, and an online and paper survey, were used to engage a wide variety of stakeholders and collect diverse viewpoints and opinions.
Based upon the input received during the public outreach process, in October 2017, the City Council passed Minute Order No. 1519, authorizing a Capital Improvement Project for the Recreation Center Master Plan and issuing a Request for Proposals to develop a conceptual design plan that would allow the City Council to begin to focus the options for the building and surrounding site. The City Council approved an agreement with Burks Toma Architects in April 2018 to provide these conceptual design services.
Burks Toma Architects developed three alternative conceptual design plans to help focus the options and opportunities for the facility. Concept 1, the “Recreation Complex” theme, emphasizes the City’s recreational mandate; 43 Concept 2, the “Cultural Complex” theme, emphasizes the addition of cultural arts uses; and Concept 3, the “Outdoor Activity Complex” theme, emphasizes the integration of the new facility with the outdoor park spaces.
On January 22, 2019, the City Council adopted Minute Order No. 1585, indicating a preference for Conceptual Design 3 and providing direction to include funding of $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 for Architectural Design and Pre-Construction Activities in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program in the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget.
Concept 3 gave the City Council a conceptual “starting point” of $45,000,000 for construction of a 51,000 square foot facility (50% larger than the current facility, with more than 50% more useable space) plus $10,000,000 for design and soft costs and $16,000,000 for proposed outdoor park space improvements.
On April 29, 2019, the City Council altered its direction when it passed Minute Order No. 1601. Where the previous direction had been to proceed with budgeting for architectural services based upon Conceptual Design 3, Minute Order No. 1601 indicated a new preference for a “build-to-budget” option with a cost not to exceed $40 million in 2022 dollars for design, construction, and community engagement and excluding park improvements from the Recreation Center Master Plan in favor of including the park improvements within the Capital Improvement Plan. Minute Order No. 1601 further directed staff to prepare a report on Recreation Center Master Plan Funding Alternatives.
The Recreation Center Master Plan Funding Alternatives report was brought to the City Council in August 2019. Upon review, the City Council passed Minute Order No. 1613, tabling further discussion of funding for the project until more information was known about the costs of the Levee project.
Without a funding source, the project was effectively paused.
As part of the City Council 2021 Strategic Priorities Implementation Plan, the City Council requested staff to “revisit the Recreation Center Master Plan in light of a post-COVID-19 world and explore both programming and financing options for construction and operation with respect to all the other priorities the City is facing.”
On June 7, 2021, the City Council received a report on the status of the Recreation Center Master Plan and recommended next steps during its 44 regular meeting. The City Council directed staff to validate assumptions related to programming and usage and to validate financing options. By way of Minute Order no. 1781, City Council supported staff’s recommendation to continue to patch the Recreation Center roof as needed.
At the August 2, 2021, regular meeting of the City Council, staff provided a report on the engagement process for the Recreation Center replacement plan, including a draft Recreation Center and Parks System Survey. Following that meeting, staff worked with Zencity to finalize the community survey to validate programming and use options, and how those may have changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Recreation Center and Parks System Survey launched on November 23, 2021 and was open through December 17, 2021.
ANALYSIS
Community Survey
Extensive community outreach efforts took place in 2016 and 2017. The findings of those efforts were presented to City Council on February 21, 2017 by way of the Foster City Recreation Center Needs Assessment and Master Plan prepared by RJM Design Group, Inc:
https://www.fostercity.org/RecCenterNeedsAssessmentandMasterPlan. The report identified 7 key themes related to the Recreation Center Master Plan:
1. Location and views of the lagoon are great attributes, but the size and inefficient floor plan of the building negatively impact the effectiveness of the facility to meet the current and future recreation needs of the community
2. Lack of adequate electrical service, technological capabilities, and a commercial kitchen impact the relevance and usefulness of the facility
3. Need for an environmentally sustainable project
4. Need for better parking and sense of arrival at the destination
5. Need for additional and larger multi-purpose rooms, performing arts space, a café or restaurant, and casual lounging spaces
6. Need for larger dedicated senior programming space, adequate space for pottery studio/visual arts program, and more variety of sizes of meeting spaces and recreation program/class rooms
45 7. Importance of maintaining or enhancing access to and relationship with existing features of the amphitheater, bocce ball courts, boat docks, VIBE, skatepark, and open park areas of the site
In June 2021, the City Council directed staff to validate assumptions related to programming and usage based on previous outreach efforts, and in August 2021 the City Council had the opportunity to review a draft Recreation Center and Parks System Survey. The survey was then finalized and open from November 23 through December 17, 2021. In addition to standard outreach methods, survey kiosks were set up at City Hall and the Recreation Center, Parks and Recreation Committee members tabled at the Winter Wonderland and Tree Lighting events and at Leo J. Ryan Park and the dog park, and direct outreach was made to community groups and anyone who has rented a facility or participated in a recreation class.
The survey generated 927 responses that were weighted to accurately represent Foster City demographics per Census Bureau data. 91% of respondents agreed that is important or very important for the City to look forward in a way that ensures our parks and recreation facilities remain relevant and attractive to the community for the next 50 years.
While the recent community survey did not go into the same level of detail as the previous outreach efforts, the survey results validate the related themes listed above. Recreation Staff noted that the desire for life-long learning programs and general outdoor programming, specifically interactive water features, appeared to be a higher priority than gleaned from previous outreach efforts.
When asked the main reasons for using Foster City parks, including the Recreation Center, respondents mostly answered exercise, attend events, and relax. 43% of respondents use the Recreation Center once to a few times per year, and 15% use the Recreation Center once per week or more. Of the respondents who participate in Recreation Center classes or programs, 78% said that they are usually available. Of the respondents who use Recreation Center meeting rooms, 86% said that they are usually available. There is some opportunity to improve availability by adding space for multi-purpose rooms. It should be noted that previous outreach efforts found that the building design did not allow for efficient use of the space. The usable and rentable spaces make up only roughly 50% of the building’s gross footprint.
46 In an open-ended question, those respondents who use recreation facilities in other communities were asked why. Some common responses were senior center and programs for seniors, more sports courts (pickleball and tennis), and a wider variety of classes of all sorts for all ages. This suggests the opportunity in a new recreation center to expand dedicated senior programming space and multi-purpose space to accommodate expanded programming for all ages. We heard from the community through the previous outreach efforts on the need for expanded senior programming space and the importance of the relationship between the Recreation Center and existing amphitheater, bocce ball courts, and other nearby amenities.
Similar amounts, about one-third each, of survey respondents stated that their use of Foster City parks and the Recreation Center has increased, decreased, or remained the same since the Covid-19 pandemic began. It is important to note that those who reported a decrease in use specifically noted a decrease in use of the Recreation Center, and those who reported an increase specifically noted an increase in use of Foster City parks. This aligns with what has been observed by Parks and Recreation staff and the fact that the Recreation Center was closed to the general public for a period of time.
More information on the Recreation Center and Parks System Survey results can be found in the Zencity Executive Summary and Zencity presentation (Attachments 1 & 2).
Policy Question:
Does the City Council accept the Recreation Center and Parks System Survey results and has staff satisfied City Council’s interest in validating programming and usage assumptions?
Design Options
Burks Toma Architects developed three (3) alternative Conceptual Design Plans to help focus the options and opportunities for the facility. Concept 1, the “Recreation Complex” theme, emphasizes the City’s recreational mandate; Concept 2, the “Cultural Complex” theme, emphasizes the addition of cultural arts uses; and Concept 3, the “Outdoor Activity Complex” theme, emphasizes the integration of the new facility with the outdoor park spaces.
The three (3) concept designs are summarized in Figure 1 below. Detailed 47 information on the concept design options can be found in the Concept Alternative Summary Report (Attachment 3).
Figure 1: Burks Toma Concept Alternative Summary Matrix
A Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate (in 2022 dollars) was provided in the Concept Alternative Summary Report by Burks Toma Architects (see Figure 2 below). It is essential to note that this Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate was prepared well before the current COVID pandemic began. COVID has created volatility and cost spikes associated with 48 construction market demands as well as supply chain disruption. For this reason, the Planning Level Construction Estimate should be considered preliminary, and a further refinement would be desirable as the project progresses, with an eye toward how the construction market is stabilizing.
Figure 2: Burks Toma Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars)
In January 2019, the City Council indicated a preference for Concept 3, the “Outdoor Activity Complex” theme, which would provide a Recreation Center 50% larger than the current facility, with more than 50% more useable space.
However, in April 2019, City Council altered its direction and indicated a new preference for a “build-to-budget" option with a cost not-to-exceed $40 million in 2022 dollars. The “build-to-budget" option was to include design, construction, and community engagement, and it was to exclude park improvements that would instead be included within the Capital Improvement Plan. The project was then essentially placed on hold in August 2019.
Public Works Department Staff has prepared an updated cost estimate based on Concept 3 to capture anticipated increases related to the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation, and anticipated cost increases for supplies and labor (see Figure 3 below). This preliminary estimate brings total construction costs for Concept 3 to $89,103,700.00.
49 Figure 3: 2022 Public Works Estimated Construction Cost
Due to the increased costs associated with the project, staff does not believe Concept 3 is a feasible option. Alternatively, City Council could identify a new not-to-exceed amount for a scaled down version of the project to exist within the same building footprint. Staff proposes working with a designer to identify a base design to include key amenities, such as multipurpose spaces, large event space, staff offices, etc. Once a base design is identified, we would then identify other add-on options, such as dance/movement space, ceramics and art space, preschool space, etc. A final bid package would include the base design and add-on options, and City Council would have the flexibility to include or remove add-on options depending on the final bid price. Staff would require the designer to provide updates to the City Council at several stages during the design process, allowing City Council the opportunity to provide feedback and direction.
The City of Burlingame, for example, is currently building a new Community Center that will be approximately 35,700SF in size and cost approximately $52.3 million. The size of Burlingame’s new building will be similar in size to Foster City’s existing Recreation Center. As noted earlier in this report, the current layout of the Recreation Center is inefficient with only roughly 50% usable space. A new Recreation Center that is not expanded but built within the same building footprint could still produce a more efficient layout and increased usable space. It is important to note that the construction contract for the Burlingame project was awarded in April of 2020 and that a project of similar size in Foster City would likely have a higher price tag. In 50 consideration of the cost of the Burlingame Project along with rising costs associated with supplies and labor, staff suggests a not-to-exceed amount of $55 million as a starting point.
Should the City Council identify a not-to-exceed amount and provide direction to move forward with the “build-to-budget" project, staff is recommending that a standard Design/Bid/Build construction delivery method be used. Under this model the Public Works Department would provide direct support and create RFPs for design and documentation phases which includes a designer, project and construction manager, construction inspection services, and materials testing. Public Works staff recommends initiating the RFPs concurrently and within a four-month timeframe, once approved by City Council.
Public Works staff prepared an estimated project schedule, shown below in Figure 4. This schedule is for illustrative purposes and does not represent actual project start and end dates.
Figure 4: Public Works Department Recreation Center Projected Schedule
If City Council no longer wants to consider rebuilding the Recreation Center, it may instead consider repairing the roof as needed, renovating the roof, or replacing the roof. Repairing or renovating the roof are short-term solutions and not recommended by staff. Replacing the roof was previously estimated to cost $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 or more; however, an updated inspection 51 and estimate would be needed given increased costs and the unknown extent of residual damage related to water leaks. Replacing the roof would likely extend the roof life by 15 years or more; however, it does not address the building inefficiencies, nor does it meet the current and future recreation needs as expressed by the community.
Policy Question:
Does the City Council have a preferred project design option of those previously presented by Burks Toma Architects (Concept 1, 2, or 3) or does City Council wish to explore an alternative "build-to-budget" option by identifying a not-to-exceed amount for the project? Is there some other alternative for which City Council wants to provide direction?
Funding Options
At the March 27, 2017 Special Meeting, City Council received a report from Kitahata & Company and William Euphrat Municipal Finance Inc. (Kitahata report) (Attachment 4) outlining financing alternatives for the City’s three largest projects, including the Recreation Center Master Plan. The report considered cash and debt options, including Assessment District Bonds, Mello-Roos Community Facility District Bonds (M-R bonds), General Obligation Bonds (G.O. bonds), and General Fund Lease Revenue Bonds.
The report advised either citywide M-R or G.O. bonds can be used for recreation centers. However, both financing options would require two-thirds voter approval for a project that does not have the public safety benefits or the essentiality such as that of the Levee Protection Planning and Improvements Project. This would suggest a lower likelihood of getting two- thirds voter approval for either G.O. or M-R bonds.
An Assessment District would not be appropriate. This would require a special benefit finding for each property within the assessment district. Developing an assessment formulation impervious to legal challenge would be very difficult for this type of improvement. Further, general benefits must be paid by the City, not by assessees.
As a means of overcoming the difficulties with obtaining voter approval or making a finding special benefit to properties, the City may consider General 52 Fund lease revenue bonds, which do not require voter approval, only majority approval of the City Council. However, the downside is that the City’s General Fund must pay for annual debt service without any dedicated new source of revenue to pay for debt service, unlike the other forms of financing just described above, each of which has both an authority to issue debt and a new source of revenue to pay debt service. Lease payments would put additional pressure on the General Fund to maintain a balanced budget on an annual basis for the duration of the 30-year bond term.
Alternatively, the City may consider using Reserves for this project. Using Reserves to cash-fund all or a portion of this project would not directly impact the City’s taxpayers as taxes would be unaffected by using cash resources, but using Reserves for this purpose would deplete cash resources that might be applied to other or more essential projects.
The Kitahata report concludes:
The Recreation Center project is not a candidate for financing based on user charges or property but could be funded with the proceeds of General Fund lease revenue bonds. Because this would burden the General Fund with annual debt service for the life of the bond issue, using cash reserves in place of debt would directly benefit the General Fund and therefore, indirectly, the City’s taxpayers. If the City is considering using City cash reserves for any capital project, the Recreation Center should be the primary candidate.
Expanding on the information included in the Kitahata report, the Finance Director has prepared a spreadsheet summarizing funding options, including current reserve amounts and sources. The spreadsheet also presents 4 scenarios, each considering different debt amounts ($15 million, $20 million, $25 million, and $30 million) and the corresponding General Fund annual debt service. New General Fund revenues in the form of voter approved tax measures will be needed to support the increase in annual General Fund expenditures. The spreadsheet is attached for City Council consideration (Attachment 5).
City Council has previously expressed interest in public/private partnerships, partnering with the school districts, and grant funding opportunities. Staff will continue to explore those and any potential funding options as the project progresses; however, those options should be considered supplemental to the funding sources noted above.
53 Policy Question
Which funding sources, how much from each, and what voter approved tax measures are the City Council willing to consider for this project? The funding options, including Reserves, are outlined in Attachment 5 – Funding Options Spreadsheet.
Other Considerations
If the Recreation Center is to be rebuilt, the City will be without a recreation center during construction of the new building. The project may require staging space including the parking lot, impacting parking for The VIBE, other Leo J. Ryan Park amenities, and City events including summer concerts and the Fourth of July celebration. Any restrictions placed on project activities, such as barring use of the parking lot for staging, could extend the project timeline.
If recreation activities are scaled back during construction, there may be a need to temporarily reduce staffing levels. The lack of a recreation center could also necessitate alternative spaces (such as modular buildings, other City facilities, or use of multipurpose rooms through partnership with the School District) for Recreation staff workspace and hosting recreation classes and programming. A relocation plan will need to be developed prior to the start of construction.
The temporary loss of a recreation center will impact recreation programming and City events, and in turn, could negatively impact revenue generated through the Recreation Division. Also, a larger facility could lead to a larger subsidy for programming costs from the General Fund in the long-term.
The City Council is not being asked to provide direction on these matters at this time. More information on these matters would be brought for City Council consideration later in the project process, should direction be given to proceed.
54 FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the project will ultimately depend upon the City Council’s direction regarding the project design and funding options as outlined above.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of the information provided above, staff is seeking City Council direction on the following policy questions:
1. Does the City Council accept the Recreation Center and Parks System Survey results and has staff satisfied City Council’s interest in validating programming and usage assumptions?
2. Does the City Council have a preferred project design option of those previously presented by Burks Toma Architects (Concept 1, 2, or 3) or does City Council wish to explore an alternative "build-to-budget" option by identifying a not-to-exceed amount for the project? Is there some other alternative for which City Council wants to provide direction?
3. Which funding sources, how much from each, and what voter approved tax measures are the City Council willing to consider for this project? The funding options, including Reserves, are outlined in Attachment 5 – Funding Options Spreadsheet.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREAS
This item directly aligns with the City Council’s Facilities and Infrastructure priority area which prioritizes maintaining, “a standard of excellence with regards to infrastructure, including... City facilities to preserve and enhance quality of life for future generations.”
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Zencity Executive Summary
Attachment 2 – Zencity Presentation
Attachment 3 – Burks Toma Architects Concept Alternative Summary Report
55 Attachment 4 – Kitahata & Company and William Euphrat Municipal Finance Inc. Report
Attachment 5 – Funding Options Spreadsheet dated 1/20/2022 56 December 2021
57 Executive Summary
This report summarizes the results of a representative survey conducted for Foster City to understand how residents use city parks and the recreation center and get residents
ʼ feedback on how to improve them.
927 respondents were recruited online between November 23rd and December 17th using targeted ads on various platforms (e.g., social media, apps for android and apple, local websites) as well as online survey panels and di fferent city channels.
Using data from the Census Bureau, this survey employed quotas to match the distributions of race, ethnicity, age, and gender in Foster City.
Since the responses recruited via una
ffiliated platforms are more representative and
less susceptible to sampling bias, we limited the influence of the city channel responses to 30%. Weighting was used to balance out any remaining differences between the makeup of the survey respondents and the community to ensure representativeness.
There were three parts to the survey:
1. Use of city parks and the recreation center: respondents were asked how o en
they used parks and the recreation center in Foster City and what their main uses were.
2. Residentsʼ preferences and suggestions: respondents were asked what they would like to see improved in city parks and the recreation center.
3. Breakdown by group characteristics (for details please see full report) Key findings:
1. Use of city parks and the recreation center
a. 71% of respondents visit Foster City parks at least once a week, with 43% vising them every day.
b. 46% of respondents use the city recreation center once or a few times a year, and 23% never use it.
c. Respondents mainly use city parks and the recreation center to exercise (59%), attend events (51%), and for picnics and leisure(50%). d. Over 50% of respondents use the picnic tables (70%), athletic facilities (60%), and the outdoor amphitheater (58%).
58 e. Over 70% of respondents say that almost all amenities are available when they want them. The least available amenity is the pickleball courts, which are only used by 25% of respondents, but they claim that it is available only 56% of the time.
f. Similar amounts of respondents used parks and the recreation center more(36%), used them less (32%) or didnʼt change how much they used them (31%). Of those who stated less use, many specifically used the recreation center less, and of those that stated more use, many specifically used parks more. Many of those who used parks and the recreation center the same amount changed how they used them to fit with COVID-19 protocols.
g. Many respondents donʼt use the lake at all. The primary uses for the lagoon are kayaking (36% of all respondents) and boating (31% of all respondents). Respondents also mentioned that they enjoy walking around the lake (94 mentions) and enjoying the view (91 mentions).
2. Residentsʼ preferences and suggestions:
a. Most respondents donʼt o en visit parks and recreation centers in other cities, but 41% do. The groups most likely to visit other citiesʼ parks and recreation centers are parents of children in elementary school (60%) and respondents aged 35-54 (55%).
b. Respondents say they use parks and recreation centers in other cities mainly due to the fact that they are located conveniently near other destinations (49%). When asked what amenities other cities have that Foster City does not, respondents mentioned things such as swimming pools, better programs for seniors, more sports courts (specifically tennis and pickleball), and better dog parks.
c. The thing that most limits respondentsʼ ability to use parks and the recreation center in Foster City is lack of time (36%), but some also mentioned a lack of facilities or programs that they desire (21%). d. Respondents would most like to see additional amenities such as lifelong learning programs (36%) and interactive water features (36%) in Foster City parks.
e. Respondents would most like the recreation center to offer a cafe (61%) or arts and performances programs (37%).
f. Respondents would most like to see a restaurant or a cafe (36%) or an outdoor seating area (29%) added to the recreation center facilities. 59 60
Recreation Center & Parks System Survey
Evaluation - Foster City, CA
December 2021
Attachment 2
61 The structure of the report
2021 | Slide 2
01. Methodology
02. Current status
03. Preferences and suggestions
Summary
The sample, distribution method, and the research tools How do residents use Foster City parks and the recreation center today? What do Foster City residents want to see in city parks and the recreation center?
04. Group characteristicsHow do different groups in the city use parks and the recreation center 62 Methodology01
63 Methodology
2021 | Slide 4
927 sample survey of Foster City adults, 18+Respondents recruited via Internet and client distribution Fielded November 23rd –December 17th, 2021Data was weighted to represent the population in Foster City 64 Methodology –how we ensure the sample is statistically valid o927 respondents were recruited online using targeted ads on various platforms (e.g., social media, apps for android and apple, local websites) as well as online survey panels and different city channels oUsing data from the Census Bureau, this survey employed quotas to match the distributions of race, ethnicity, age, and gender in Foster City, ensuring that the sample is representative of the entire city. oSince the responses recruited via unaffiliated platforms are more representative and less susceptible to sampling bias, we limited the influence of the city channel responses to 30%. 2021 | Slide 5
oTo make sure our sample is representative, a technique called rake-weighting was used to balance out any remaining differences between the makeup of the survey respondents and the community. This process serves as a statistical safeguard against any demographic group being overrepresented or underrepresented in the final score calculations by giving overrepresented groups a lower weight and underrepresented groups a higher weight in the analysis. 65 Demographics factors: The following characteristics were included in the analysis 2021 | Slide 6
05 03
02 06
Individualcharacteristics
Gender
Children
Income
01Age
Race/Ethnicity
66 How do residents use Foster City parks and the recreation center today?02 67 Importance of looking forward: Almost all respondents (91%) think that it’s important or very important for the city to be looking forward and making sure the parks and recreations facilities stay relevant. 2021 | Slide 8
73% 18%6%2%1%
Very im portantImp ortantModerately importantSlightly importantNot i mport an t Question: Foster City wants to make a comprehensive study of our parks and recreation facilities in order to make sure that they will remain relevant and attractive to the community for the next 50 years. How important is it to you that the City looks forward in this way? 68 Current use of parks: 71% of respondents visit Foster City parks at least once a week, with 43% visiting them every day. 2021 | Slide 9
Question: How often do you use the parks in Foster City?43% 28%
11%
5%
9%
2%
1%
Every day
Once a wee k
Every couple of w eeks
Once a month
Every fe w months
Once a ye ar
Never
69 Current use of recreation center: Nearly half of respondents use the recreation center once to a few times a year. 2021 | Slide 10
Question: How often do you use the Recreation Center in Foster City?3% 12%
10%
6%
26%
20%
23%
Every day
Once a wee k
Every couple of w eeks
Once a month
Every fe w months
Once a ye ar
Never
70 Main use for parks and the recreation center: Residents mostly use Foster City parks and the recreation center to exercise, attend events, and relax. 2021 | Slide 11
Question: What are the main reasons you visit Foster City Parks, including the Recreation Center?59%51%50%45%39%34%33%31%12%11%7% ExerciseAtte nd e vents (conce rts / fes tivals / activitie s)Rela x (picnic and le isure)Mee t socially with othersUse athletic fields or courtsUse the bike pathUse playg roundsWalk my dogParticipate in recre ation cla sses or ca mpsUse the boat launchRent rooms for persona l / fa mily use 71 Use of amenities: Over 50% of respondents use the picnic tables, athletic facilities, and the outdoor amphitheater. The most popular amenity is the picnic tables. 2021 | Slide 12
Question: Are Foster City park amenities usually available when you want to use them? (Percentage that didn’t mark “not relevant”)70%60%58%42%42%38%38%36%33%29%29%25%22%18% Drop-In Picnic TablesParks which conta in prima rily athletic fa cilitiesOut door A mphith eaterTot Lot / Play structureRecre ation Cente r Classes / Program sReserva ble Picnic Area sTennis CourtBa sketball CourtBoat Launching Facilitie sReserva ble Fie lds (Baseball a nd Socce r)Recre ation Cente r Meeting RoomsPickleball CourtBocce CourtVolleyball Court 72 Availability of amenities: Almost all amenities are available over 70% of the time. The three most popular amenities (picnic tables, parks with athletic fields and outdoor amphitheater) are also available 88-93% of the time. The amenity that is least available is the pickleball courts, which are only used by 25% of respondents. 2021 | Slide 13
56%68%73%76%77%78%78%81%86%88%88%91%93%93%
44%32%27%24%23%22%22%19%14%12%12%9%7%7%
Pickleball CourtTennis CourtVolleyball CourtBocce CourtReserva ble Picnic Area sReserva ble Fie lds (Baseball a nd Socce r)Recre ation Cente r Classes / Program sBa sketball CourtRecre ation Cente r Meeting RoomsBoat Launching Facilitie sParks which conta in prima rily athletic fa cilitiesDrop-In Picnic TablesTot Lot / Play structureOut door A mphith eater Usually availableUsually una vailable
Question: Are Foster City park amenities usually available when you want to use them? (Percentage does not include those who marked “not relevant”) 73 Current use of lagoon: Many respondents don’t use the lagoon. Those who do use it mostly for kayaking and boating. 2021 | Slide 14
Question: How do you use the Foster City Lagoon?
36%
31%
10%
7%
64%
69%
90%
93%
Ka yak ing
Boating
Caneoi ng
Swimming
Walking around the lagoon (94 mentions)
Sightseeing and enjoying the view (90 mentions)
Paddle boarding (21 mentions)
Additional uses
74 Open ended responses –COVID changes: Similar amounts of respondents used parks and the recreation center more, used them less or didn’t change how much they used them. Of those who stated less use, many specifically used the recreation center less, and of those that stated more use, many specifically used parks more. Many of those who used parks and the recreation center the same amount changed how they used them to fit with COVID-19 protocols. 2021 | Slide 15
Question: How has your use of Foster City parks and the Recreation Center changed since the COVID-19 pandemic? 36% 32% 31%
Use lessUse sa me amountUse more
Stopped using the recreation centerLess use of recreation center Stopped taking classesUse facilities less
Less time in parks or avoiding busy parksAttend fewer events Less availability of sports courtsLess social/group events Same amount of park visitsLess use at first or during lockdown, but now back to normal Wearing masksSocial distancing
Using hand sanitizerGo at different times to avoid crowds Increased outdoor activities -saferMore time with children outside Started new sports (like pickleball)More walks in city parks More time in parks to get out of the houseMeeting friends outdoors Initially stopped using parks but now use moreMore outdoor exercise (instead of gym) 75 What do Foster City residents want to see in city parks and the recreation center?03 76 Do respondents visit parks and recreation centers in other cities? Less than half of respondents visit parks and / or recreation centers in nearby cities. The groups that are most likely to do so are residents with elementary school aged children and residents aged 35-54. 2021 | Slide 17
Question: Do you visit parks and / or recreation centers in nearby cities? 41%59%
I v isit park s / re cre ation c en te rs in oth er citi esI d on't v isit park s / re cre ation ce nte rs in ot her citi es Parents of elementry school aged children
Which groups visit parks and recreation center in other cities the most? 60% use facilities in other cities
Age 35-54
55% use facilities in other cities
77 Reasons for using parks and recreation centers in other cities: Respondents visit parks and recreation centers in other cities mainly because they are located conveniently near other destinations. Respondents mentioned a few amenities that aren’t found in Foster City. 2021 | Slide 18
Question: What other facilities/amenities or recreation programs do they offer that are not available in Foster City? (open ended) Swimming poolSenior center and programs for seniors
More sports courts (pickleball and tennis)Dog parks
Ice skatingHiking, outdoor trails or bike paths
A wider variety of classes of all sorts for all agesWaterplay elements 49%
33%
28%
27%
23%
22%
10%
8%
3%
They are located conveniently to otherdestina tions (workplace, school, family and…Ope n spa ce Atte nd e ventsThey are more attractive / be tte r ma intained /saferOthe r facilities / ame nities or re crea tionprogram s that they offe rPl aygroun ds Sports courts
Ath letic fi elds
Gymnasium
Question: What are the reasons you are using parks and / or recreation centers in nearby cities? 78 What limits respondent’s ability to use parks and the recreation center in the city? Lack of time is the biggest issue that keeps respondents from using city parks and the recreation center, though lack of facilities and programs is also a leading issue. 2021 | Slide 19
Question: What limits your ability to use City parks and the Recreation Center?36% 21%
15%
11%
6%
5%
3%
2%
30%
La ck of time
Don't have the facilities / program s that I desire
No one to pa rticipate with
La ck of interest
Price for programm ing
Health limita tions
La ck of ADA frie ndly conditions
Too far awa y / difficult to access
None of the above
Additional reasonsCourts aren’t available or are hard to book (especially pickleball courts and tennis courts) The geese –droppings and violent geese
COVID-19
79 Additional things respondents would like to see in parks: The leading amenities that respondents would like to see in city parks are programs for seniors and interactive water features. Nature play, outdoor education programs and universal playgroups were also rated highly. 2021 | Slide 20
Question: Are there park amenities that are not currently offered that you would like to see?36% 36%
31%
31%
29%
18%
11%
8%
Life -long learning programs (Prog ra mming and a ctivitie s for seniors /older adults that provide for pe rsonal enrichment, de ve lopment, a ndrecr eati on)Interactive w ater featuresNature Play (Playgrounds that incorporate surrounding landscape andvegetation in the pla y a re a.)Outdoor Education prog ra msUniversal Playgrounds for all (Playg rounds tha t w elcome children of allabilitie s, a llow adults to engag e with their children and serve a...Parks and / or playg rounds with themes (example : w ha le pa rk ) Sport court or field, like Crick et / Lacrosse / Rugby Boat Storage
Swimming pool
Pickleball courts
Varied activities for adults
Dog park
Food (trucks, stands, cafe)
Additional suggestions
80 Additional things respondents would like to see in recreation center: Respondents would most like to see a café and arts and performance programs added to the recreation center. 2021 | Slide 21
Question: Which Recreation Center programs or amenities that are not currently offered (or offered on a limited basis) would you like to see?61% 37%
26%
23%
22%
17%
17%
11%
10%
Cafe
Arts a nd Performance
Educational programs
Dance progra ms
La goon Access
After-school programs
Teen Progra ms
Wedd ings
Pre school / Childca re
81 One thing to add to recreation center: Respondents think that a restaurant or a café and an outdoor seating area would be great additions to the Foster City Recreation Center. 2021 | Slide 22
Question: What is one feature, element, or design concept that you would suggest for the upgrade, expansion or rebuilding of the current Foster City Recreation Center?36% 29%
8%
5%
5%
13%
Restaura nt Or Ca fe
Out door S eati ng A rea
Ceramics / art studio
Com mercial kitchen
La rg er Multipurpose room
No cha ng es
82 Open ended responses –accessibility: Respondents had a number of suggestion for how to improve accessibility for parks and recreation facilities, such as improving handicap access and adding restrooms, all inclusive playgrounds and sports courts. 2021 | Slide 23
Question: Are there any accessibility needs we should consider in improving our parks and recreation facilities? Improve handicap accessibilityMore restrooms (including accessible restrooms)More all-inclusive playgrounds (like magic bridge)More sports courts (pickleball and tennis)More parking spaces (including handicap parking) Clean geese droppingsAccessibility and activities for seniorsMore lightingGet rid of woodchipsHandrails Ramps on the curbBraille signsMore wheelchair accessible paths 83 Open ended responses –one thing to improve: Respondents had a number of suggestions for improving city parks and the recreation center, such as improved geese control and more programs and classes. 2021 | Slide 24
Question: What is the one thing that you would change to improve your experience with Foster City parks or the Recreation Center? Improve geese control (55 mentions)More programs and classes (47 mentions)More courts (mainly pickleball courts) (33 mentions)More activities for kids and teens (27 mentions)More playgrounds (like magic bridge) (27 mentions) More dog parks and enforce unleashed dogs (22 mentions)Online reservations for courts (18 mentions)More restrooms (17 mentions)More activities for seniors (17 mentions)Renovate the recreation center (17 mentions) More outdoor seating and shade (16 mentions)More free events and programs (15 mentions)More lighting (14 mentions)Update the recreation center website (12 mentions)Improve park maintenance (10 mentions) 84 How do groups in the city use parks and the recreation center03 85 AgeHow many visit parks at least once a weekHow many visit the RC at least once a yearWhat do they mainly use parks and RC for? 74%18-34
55+
35-54
What limits their ability to go to parks and the RC (other than lack of time)What do they think is most missing in city parks 83%
64%
62%
82%
82%
Relax (picnic and leisure)
70%
Exercise
60%
Attend events
58%
Lack of interest22%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them26% 17%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them Interactive water features49%
45%
51%
Life-long learning programs
Interactive water features
*Differences that deviated from the mean percentage by more than 10% are colored in green(higher than average) or red(lower than average) 86 GenderHow many visit parks at least once a weekHow many visit the RC at least once a year?What do they mainly use parks and RC for? 67%Women
Men
What limits their ability to go to parks and the RC (other than lack of time)What do they think is most missing in city parks 75%
77%
79%
57%Exercise
59% 36%
Interactive water features
*Differences that deviated from the mean percentage by more than 10% are colored in green(higher than average) or red(lower than average) Exercise
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them20% Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them18% 47%
Life-long learning programs
87 EthnicityHow many visit parks at least once a weekHow many visit the RC at least once a year?What do they mainly use parks and RC for? 62%White
Hispanic
Asian
What limits their ability to go to parks and the RC (other than lack of time)What do they think is most missing in city parks 75%
71%
76%
72%
80%Exercise
60%
Attend events
59%Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them16% 23%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them 43%
42%
Life-long learning programs
Interactive water features
*Differences that deviated from the mean percentage by more than 10% are colored in green(higher than average) or red(lower than average) Relax (picnic and leisure)
61%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them24% 45%
Nature Play
88 ChildrenHow many visit parks at least once a weekHow many visit the RC at least once a year?What do they mainly use parks and RC for? 65%No children
Children in middle/ high school
Children in Elementry
What limits their ability to go to parks and the RC (other than lack of time)What do they think is most missing in city parks 93%
73%
68%
90%
81%
No one to participate with
22%
23%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them 43%
Interactive water features
*Differences that deviated from the mean percentage by more than 10% are colored in green(higher than average) or red(lower than average) Attend events
59%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them30% 54%
Nature Play
Exercise
60%
Use playgrounds
82%
44%
Interactive water features
89 Income levelHow many visit parks at least once a weekHow many visit the RC at least once a year?What do they mainly use parks and RC for? 51%Under 100K a year
Over 250K a year
100-249K a year
What limits their ability to go to parks and the RC (other than lack of time)What do they think is most missing in city parks 80%
81%
76%
80%
84%
19%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them *Differences that deviated from the mean percentage by more than 10% are colored in green(higher than average) or red(lower than average) Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them24% 39%Attend events
58%
51%
Interactive water features
Exercise
59%
Exercise
57%
26%
Don't have the facilities or programs that interest them 42%
Life-long learning programs
Life-long learning programs
90 Summary05
91 SummaryHow often are parks and the RC visited?
Main reason to go –convenient location to other things
Most don’t go to other citiesRCExercise Parks
Use of parks in other citiesWhat’s missing?
Parks –71% visit every week
What do residents use city parks and the RC center for? Attend events
Relax (picnic and leisure)
Lifelong learning programsCaféRC –46% use it only a few times a year 41%59%I vi sit parks / recreatio n centers in oth er ci ti esI d on 't vis it park s / recreati on c e n ters in o ther citi e s Interactive water featureArts
92 Thank You!
93 Survey respondents demographics –age, gender, ethnicity 2021 | Slide 34
18-3410%
35-5451%55+37%
NA2%AGE
Female58%Male38%
Other4%GENDER
395
765
389
3536050100150200250300350400450
Whi teBlackHispanicAsia nNAOther
Ethnicity
Unweighted demographics –the original sampleWeighted demographics –representative of the population 18-3423%35-5425%55+50%
NA2%AGE
Female49%Male47%
Other4%GENDER
39%
1%
18%
30%
4%8%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Whi teBlackHispanicAsia nNAOther
Ethnicity
94 BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS i
Concept Alternative Summary Report
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.
1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Process ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Concept Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Building Program ................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Park Program ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Site Location ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.7 Parking ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.8 Fiscal & Operational Impact ................................................................................................ 8
1.9 Construction Cost .............................................................................................................. 10
1.10 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 11 CONCEPT 1: RECREATION COMPLEX .............................................................................................. 13 2.
2.1 Program & Building Approach ........................................................................................... 13
2.2 Site Approach .................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Fiscal & Operational Impact .............................................................................................. 20
2.4 COST & Implementation Considerations ........................................................................... 21 CONCEPT 2: CULTURAL COMPLEX .................................................................................................. 23 3.
3.1 Program & Building Approach ........................................................................................... 23
3.2 Site Approach .................................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Fiscal & Operational Impact .............................................................................................. 30
3.4 COST & Implementation Considerations ........................................................................... 31 CONCEPT 3: OUTDOOR ACTIVITY COMPLEX ................................................................................... 33 4.
4.1 Program & Building Approach ........................................................................................... 33
4.2 Site Approach .................................................................................................................... 37 4 .3 Fiscal & Operational Impact .............................................................................................. 40
4.4 COST & Implementation Considerations ........................................................................... 41 95 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
ii JANUARY 2019
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 43 5.
5.1 Feedback & Direction ........................................................................................................ 43
96 FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS iii
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1.2 Opportunity Zones .................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.1 Concept 1 Project Program Table ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.2 Concept 1 Plan Diagram- First Floor ..................................................................................... 15 Figure 2.2 Concept 1 Plan Diagram- Second Floor (continued) ............................................................. 16 Figure 2.3 Concept 1- Pedestrian Connectivity...................................................................................... 18 Figure 2.4 Concept 1 Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3.1 Concept 2 Project Program Table ......................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.2 Concept 2 Plan Diagram--First Floor ..................................................................................... 25 Figure 3.2 Concept 2 Plan Diagram--Second Floor (continued) ............................................................. 26 Figure 3.3 Concept 2 - Pedestrian Connectivity .................................................................................... 28 Figure 3.4 Concept 2 Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 29 Figure 4.1 Concept 3 Project Program Table ......................................................................................... 34 Figure 4.2 Concept 3 Plan Diagram- First Floor .................................................................................... 35 Figure 4.2 Concept 3 Plan Diagram- Second Floor (continued) ............................................................ 36 This page intentionally left blank ................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 4.3 Concept 3 Pedestrian Connectivity ....................................................................................... 38 Figure 4.4 Concept 3 Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 39
TABLES
Table 1: Concept Alternative Summary Matrix .................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Existing Parking ...................................................................................................................... 7 T
able 3: Programmatic Parking Requirements ..................................................................................... 7 Table 4: Concept Alternative Parking Requirements ............................................................................ 7 Table 5: Estimated Recreation Staffing Needs (in FTEs) ....................................................................... 9 Table 6: Building Maintenance Division O&M Cost Calculations ........................................................ 10 Table 7: Projected Incremental Cost Recovery ................................................................................... 10 Table 8: Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate (2022 Dollars) ................................................... 11 Table 9: Concept 1 Construction Costs .............................................................................................. 22 Table 10: Concept 2 Construction Cost ................................................................................................ 31 Table 11: Concept 3 Construction Cost ................................................................................................ 41 Table 12: General Preferences for Site Location and Program Components ........................................ 45
97 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
iv JANUARY 2019
98 BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 1
Executive Summary 1.
1.1 OVERVIEW
The Parks & Recreation Department occupies a central place in the Foster City Community. Parks and park facilities are heavily used, and greatly loved. However, Foster City’s current Recreation Center requires significant renovation work and is currently limited in its capacity to adapt to growing and changing community needs. From 2016-17, Foster City conducted a Community Outreach study to identify the scope of potential renovation work, as well as the current needs and priorities of the community. Building on that study, the City authorized the development of Conceptual Master Plans for a new Recreation/Community Facility, which included a Predesign phase, serving to establish project design criteria, and a Concept Design Phase, in which three Conceptual Alternatives were developed.
This report summarizes the findings of the Concept Design phase. It includes a summary of each of the Concept Alternatives in relation to their programmatic functions, site character, and building configurations, as well as key direction received from Foster City staff, community, and leadership over the course of this process. The report serves to establish a basis of design for subsequent design and construction phases, in which a single Preferred Alternative will be developed and documented.
1.2 PROCESS
While earlier community outreach and staff review efforts had established a clear desire for updated programs and spaces, there was no clear consensus on their nature, quantity, and configuration. A key goal of the Concept Design Process was to synthesize many of these desires and to establish baselines for site, building, and program, in order to inform future design phases. The Concept Design process included the following stages:
1. The initial predesign phase served to establish a shared understanding of the variables shaping the project and to identify key project criteria for subsequent design efforts. Building on previous Community Outreach efforts as well as stakeholder interviews and workshops, it included analysis of physical requirements and constraints, programmatic activities and functional requirements, and fiscal and demographic characteristics of Foster City and Recreation Department programs.
Ultimately, this phase established a comprehensive list of programmatic elements desirable for inclusion in a new facility, as well as two potential sites for the facility location within Leo J. Ryan Park.
2. The Concept Alternatives described in this report were then developed in collaboration with a Foster City Working Group consisting of Parks and Recreation Department staff, City Council Subcommittee, and City staff. Additional input was provided by the full City Council, Planning Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, and will continue to be incorporated in subsequent phases. Preliminary feedback provided to date is included in Chapter 5. 99 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
2 JANUARY 2019
3. The fiscal and operational impacts of each Alternative were analyzed and a Planning Level Construction Cost estimate was provided in November 2018. These additional metrics provide further information to assist Foster City in their decision-making process.
4. The data gathered from the Concept Design process was presented to City Council, Parks & Recreation Committee, and the Planning Commission in public meetings. These opportunities for review, along with ongoing staff input, have informed recommendations for the project and the criteria for following phases of design, summarized in Chapter 5 of this report.
5. Following this Concept Design Phase, staff will work with City Council to develop a project funding strategy. An RFP for design and documentation phases, including approach for further public input, as well as ongoing feedback from Planning and Parks & Recreation Committee, will be issued in 2019, allowing for a potential construction start date in 2021.
Figure 1-1 Project Schedule
1.3 CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES
In addition to functional considerations of site and program, a new Recreation facility also serves broader community goals. The Recreation Department’s central location in Leo J. Ryan Park, and the significance of the lagoon to the park experience, have been a central theme in both community feedback, as well as working sessions. A new facility should serve to support and enhance the beloved characteristics of Foster City and the Park, while improving access and usability for residents.
Foster City’s key goals can be summarized as follows:
Celebrate and engage the water: the Lagoon is the focal point. Integrate indoor and outdoor spaces: to visit the park is to visit the building. Create a welcoming entry and community gathering place. 100
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 3
Building on these goals, as well as the site and program elements identified during Predesign, the three Concept Alternatives for initial City Council and public review are as follows:
Concept 1: Recreation Complex
Concept 2: Cultural Complex
Concept 3: Outdoor Activity Complex
The different components included in each Concept Alternative are summarized in Table 1, and described in more detail below.
TABLE 1: CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY MATRIX
CONCEPT 1
Recreation Complex
CONCEPT 2
Cultural Complex
CONCEPT 3
Outdoor Activity Complex
Building Program
Base Program Multipurpose Spaces Multipurpose Spaces Multipurpose Spaces Ceramics & Art Ceramics & Art Ceramics & Art
Dance / Movement Dance / Movement Dance / Movement
Kitchens Kitchens Kitchens
Preschool Preschool Preschool
Lobby / Public Space Lobby / Public Space Lobby / Public Space Staff Offices Staff Offices Staff Offices
Event Large Event Space (3,500 SF) Large Event Space (3,500 SF) Large Event Space (3,500 SF) Community Multipurpose Space
(8,000 SF)
Extra-Large Event Space (5,000
SF)
Community Multipurpose Space
(8,000 SF)
Performance Enhanced performance functions
in Community Multipurpose
Space
Dedicated Theater (Hillbarn) Enhanced performance functions in Community Multipurpose
Space
Food Service Cafe Full-Service Restaurant Food/Beer Garden (see below) Park Program
Base Program Meadow Meadow Meadow
Bocce Courts (4) Bocce Courts (4) Bocce Courts (4)
Waterfront Overlooks Waterfront Overlooks Waterfront Overlooks Event Plaza Event Plaza Event Plaza
Building Courtyards Building Courtyards Building Courtyards Sculpture Walk / Garden Sculpture Walk / Garden Sculpture Walk / Garden Picnic / Flexible Park Area Picnic / Flexible Park Area Picnic / Flexible Park Area Garden Area Garden Area Garden Area
Enhancements Storage / Support space for
amphitheater & meadow
Food/Beer Garden
Game Garden
Indoor / Outdoor Performance
Plaza
Nature Play
Adult Exercise
Parking & Access +/- 250 spaces +/- 400 spaces +/- 250 spaces New Midblock Crossing New Midblock Crossing
Site Location
Zone B Zone A Zone A
101
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
4 JANUARY 2019
1.4 BUILDING PROGRAM
All Concept Alternatives are comprised of the same base program elements, serving functions roughly comparable to the functions served by the current Recreation Center. The exact sizing and configuration of each space reflects key staff and community requirements to improve use and flexibility. Detailed program summaries are provided for each Concept Alternative.
The base program elements include:
Multipurpose rooms suitable for meetings, events, and classrooms. Ceramics and art spaces.
Dance / Movement Studio.
Signature Event Space, slightly larger than the existing Lagoon Room. Lobby and Reception.
Kitchens
Staff office space equivalent to existing.
New spaces—programmatic enhancements—are also included in each Concept Alternative as described below.
Concept 1. Includes a community multi-purpose space, suitable for very large events, performances, and sports activities, as well as a Café/snack bar within the building. Concept 2. Includes a dedicated theater performance space and associated production space (assumed to be operated by the Hillbarn Theater), as well as a full-service restaurant. This Concept also adds a second large event space.
Concept 3. Includes a community multi-purpose space, suitable for very large events, performances, and sports activities. While this Concept also includes a Food/Beer Garden, note that the back-of- house functions associated with this activity could be located either within or separate from the facility.
1.5 PARK PROGRAM
Improvements to Leo J. Ryan Park within each alternative are intended to increase park utilization, allow the park to better support events and existing uses, and improve the integration of building and park space around the new facility. As with the building program elements, all Alternatives include base outdoor program components:
Large outdoor multi-use event space (the “Meadow”). The meadow is a flexible turf area that supports a wide range of uses, from pick-up sports to large events. The meadow will be retained and/or expanded in all concepts.
Bocce area. Bocce areas include bocce courts and associated amenities, such as plaza area, tables and benches, shade structures, and planted areas.
Event Plaza for food trucks, community events, and staging. Similar to the meadow, event plazas can provide flexible use areas for events and activities. However, event plazas have stabilized 102
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 5
decomposed granite surface (rather than turf), integrate shade tree planting, and possess utilities and infrastructure for events.
Flexible park / picnic area. Flexible park and picnic areas provide a waterfront green that can be used for informal picnicking, games, and activities. These areas may have limited built-in seating and tables for small group gatherings.
Planted garden areas. In addition to rose gardens, various themed garden areas may include, but are not limited to, culinary/edible gardens, educational/demonstration gardens, meditation gardens and butterfly/wildlife gardens.
Sculpture walk or garden. Sculptural walks and gardens may be incorporated into plazas, promenades or planted garden areas. Curating sculptural pieces (either interactive or observation only) into a walk or garden provides a unique experience within the park setting. Waterfront enhancements. Waterfront enhancements are elements that invite visitors to engage directly with the lagoon and lagoon views. These features include seating and overlooks, both on the water and from within the park, as well as boat docking areas.
Additionally, Concept 3 incorporates more extensive and intensive park programming, including:
Food and Beer Garden seating area. The Food and Beer Garden is envisioned as a dedicated area that would provide outdoor food and drink service, and allow flexibility for temporary food vendors (i.e. food trucks/carts). This area would have a stabilized decomposed granite surface, integrated shade tree plantings, and the potential for festive overhead lighting and shade/rain shelters. Game Garden. A game garden would complement the bocce courts by providing additional table and lawn games, which could include, but are not limited to, chess, checkers, and shuffle board, as well as space for outdoor meetings and working tables.
Interactive installations. Interactive installations include sculptural elements that can be climbed on, moved, operated, and/or otherwise engaged with by visitors or elements. For instance, this could include sculptures that turn in the wind, or seating elements that can be used for climbing. Adult Exercise features. Adult exercise stations may include traditional fitness station equipment, offering a full work-out, or interactive installations that invite physical activity yet serve as sculptural installations when not in use.
1.6 SITE LOCATION
During Predesign, two “opportunity zones” were identified as potential building sites, as shown in Figure 1-2. Both of these sites fulfill key requirements for the Recreation Center enabling significant Lagoon engagement, and maintaining important public views of open space and parkland. Concept 1 is located in Zone B, while Concepts 2 & 3 are located in Zone A.
Key opportunities of Zone A include potential for direct connections with the Amphitheater and Grove, as well as relative prominence and centrality of the facility location. Potential constraints include the likely need to relocate Recreation functions during construction, and potential disconnect between park areas 103
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
6 JANUARY 2019
on either side of the building. Key opportunities of Zone B include the consolidation of Recreation activities into a central park destination, and the creation of an extended unified outdoor space for events and activities. Potential constraints include the relative distance and lack of visibility from downtown and other park locations.
Figure 1.2 Opportunity Zones
1.7 PARKING
Parking is a key site component, as well as an important differentiating characteristic among the Alternatives. Given the unique nature of the facility and park, it is assumed that final parking requirement will be developed in coordination with the Foster City Planning Department. The calculations below represent a preliminary assessment to allow for initial site planning, based on the Foster City Municipal code requirements in Section 17.62, Off-Street Parking Regulations.
GENERAL CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The site options currently proposed for a new facility are zoned PF (Public Facilities). No specific requirements listed govern this zoning designations or this area. Therefore, preliminary calculations are based on general commercial parking requirements, requiring 1 parking stall per 250 SF of gross building area. This ratio is consistent with the quantity of existing parking in relation to existing building size currently on-site:
104
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 7
TABLE 2: EXISTING PARKING
Existing Building Size Stalls Req’d Stalls Provided
Vibe Teen Center 9,565 SF 39
Existing Recreation Center 36,000 SF 144
Total Stalls 183 186
Source: Foster City Municipal Code 17.62.060
In addition to general requirements likely governing a new Recreation facility, other potential new program elements have additional code-required parking requirements.
TABLE 3: PROGRAMMATIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Function Calculation Assumed Size Stalls Req’d
Theater 1 stall/3 seats + 1 stall/staff person 250 seats, assume 5 staff 89 Restaurant: Full Service 1 stall/40 SF public accommodation area + 1 stall/250 SF other area
3,750 SF public area, 1,250
SF other area
99 Restaurant: Food/Beer
Garden
1 stall/40 SF public accommodation
area + 1 stall/250 SF other area 2,000 SF public area 50 Source: Foster City Municipal Code 17.62.060
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking requirements for non-building uses (ie, outdoor park activity) is not specified in this section of the municipal code. More detailed discussion with planning will be required to identify the appropriate level of additional parking to provide, if any, for these other uses, especially in Concept 3, where enhanced park amenities may be a significant draw. It is also assumed that the designated parking currently provided for the Teen Center (The Vibe) will need to be maintained.
Given the above noted code requirements, and the anticipated uses in each Concept Alternative, the below represents an initial calculation of the required parking:
TABLE 4: CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Alternative Uses & Size Stalls Req’d Stalls Provided
Concept 1 50,000 SF Building + (E) Vibe 239 250
Concept 2 50,000 SF Recreation uses + Theater
+ Restaurant + (E) Vibe
3,750 SF public area, 1,250
SF other area
427
Concept 3 50,000 SF Building + Beer Garden +
(E) Vibe 289 250
Source: Burks Toma Architects
105
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
8 JANUARY 2019
ADDITIONAL PARKING CONSIDERATIONS
As a more defined design is developed in future phases, it may be possible to consider the anticipated operational schedule more precisely in order to limit the total quantity of parking provided on-site.
Certainly many daytime recreation functions (classes, bocce ball, etc.) will not occur at the same hours as other activities (weddings, theater performance, etc.). However, it is very likely that demand for some of the larger spaces in the facility will overlap—events, dining, and theater all have similar scheduling profiles. Adequate parking will need to be provided for some or all of these to occur simultaneously.
Additionally, some of the parking requirements may ultimately be addressed by off-site parking, although this would need to be negotiated with both Planning and the appropriate neighboring landowners. Note that per the Municipal Code, any designated off-site parking would either need to be within 300 feet of the building entrance or served by a regular shuttle bus. For reference, the distance from the Civic Center parking lot to the entry of any of the Concept Alternatives is greater than 300 feet.
1.8 FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACT
PROCESS & ASSUMPTIONS
In addition to program and site considerations, the long-term feasibility of a new Recreation Center is also a critical component of Foster City’s decision-making. New programmatic elements serving to address changing (and future) community needs may impact approaches to staffing, maintenance, and long-term financial profile of the Parks & Recreation Department. To address these variables, the fiscal “profile” of each Concept Alternative has been analyzed in order to provide a general understanding of long term impact. The approach to this analysis is described below, and in more detail for each Alternative.
For all three of the concept alternatives, the cost and revenue impacts of a new facility are projected for a stabilized operating year, which is typically reached two or three years after a new facility opens for public use. However, cost and revenue projections are presented in terms of today’s dollars, in order to eliminate any bias from speculating on what future rates of inflation might be, and to make the numbers intuitively understandable to decision makers. A dollar in the future stabilized operating year is assumed to have the same buying power as a dollar today.
The comparison between concept alternatives is also presented in terms of incremental costs or revenues associated with each building concept, beyond the ongoing balance of operating costs and revenues the Parks and Recreation Department has in its existing annual budget. Over the coming five or more years that it would likely take to design, construct, and achieve stabilized operations in a new facility, the Parks and Recreation Department will continue to look to the future and evolve its program and service offering, independently of the new facility development project. For example, providing classes continues to evolve more towards an entrepreneurial business model where an independent party not only provides the content, but also handles the registration, collects the class fees, and pays the City the appropriate share for use of the facilities, minimizing the impact on municipal staff time. Another ongoing evolution is the de-emphasis of a separate “senior wing” in favor of greater integration of senior adult classes 106
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 9
dispersed throughout the facilities, including the Community Center across Shell Boulevard. Adult sports is also growing at the moment in Foster City. With all of these ongoing responses to changing demand and evolving best practices, full-time Department staff are shifting responsibilities in order to cover new activities. The Department’s full-time equivalent (FTE) staff count, or annual budget appropriation may go up or down as a result of this ongoing evolution over the next five or so years, but that is treated as independent from the incremental impacts in the comparison of alternatives below.
The detailed logic behind each fiscal impact estimate is described in the separate Fiscal and Operational Impact Analysis, and the key assumptions and methodologies are summarized in the descriptions of each of the three concepts below.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Level Construction Costs, the Estimated Staffing Needs, O&M Costs and Projected Incremental Cost Recovery for each of the three concept alternatives are summarized in Tables 5 through 7, which taken together serve as a matrix for quickly comparing impacts across alternatives.
The incremental annual costs of additional staff are presented in Table 5, based on the new staff time required (in FTEs). Concepts 1 and 3 provide the most public space for recreation programs and events and require the most staff for set-up/take-down and running programs. Concept 2 involves the most private partners (with both a restaurant and a theater group) and will require the largest incremental expansion of management staff to oversee those relationships. The resulting incremental staff costs are very similar, although Concept 3 would require the most.
TABLE 5: ESTIMATED RECREATION STAFFING NEEDS (IN FTES) Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Additional Staff Needed for a Community Multipurpose &/or 2nd Even Space
Building Services Assistants 2.00 2.00 2.00
Recreation Leader I 1.00 1.00
Recreation Leader II 1.00 1.00
New Staff for Managing Relationships with Food Service &/or Theater Partners
Building Services Coordinator Assistant 0.75
Management Analyst 0.25 0.75 0.5
Total New FTEs Required 4.25 2.50 4.50
Incremental Recreation Staff Costs
(2018 dollars) $195,000 $213,000 $241,000
107
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
10 JANUARY 2019
The annual cost of additional O&M is based on the incremental growth in the square footage of the building in each Concept using the factors shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6: BUILDING MAINTENANCE DIVISION O&M COST CALCULATIONS Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Incremental Space Beyond the Size of the Existing Building (in Square Feet) 18,000 SF 31,000 SF 19,000 SF
Per Foot Factor for Building Maintenance O&M Charges $14.59 $14.59 $14.59 Incremental Building Maintenance O&M Cost
(2018 dollars) $264,000 $447,000 $279,000
Source: Land Economics Consultants
In the last portion of the summary for ongoing fiscal impacts, the combined costs of additional staff and O&M responsibilities are compared with the estimated incremental revenues that would be generated for each Concept. In all three Concepts there is a fiscal gap remaining in the bottom line, which is not surprising for a recreational facility. What may not be as obvious in Table 7 is that the risks that revenues will not meet expectations are higher in some Concepts, especially for Concept 2, than for others, which means the fiscal gap for riskier concepts could be higher than projected.
TABLE 7: PROJECTED INCREMENTAL COST RECOVERY
Current Budget
Context Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Total Incremental Revenues $1.8M $403,000 $655,000 $451,000 Total Annual Staff & O&M Costs ($2.1M) ($459,000) ($660,000) ($521,000) Net Revenue Surplus (Fiscal Gap)
(2018 dollars) ($307,000) ($56,000) ($5,000) ($70,000)
Source: Land Economics Consultants
1.9 CONSTRUCTION COST
The Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate developed for all Concept Alternatives is based on the assumptions described in the Design Criteria for Costing which is provided in Appendix A and includes:
Overview of the scope of work.
Applicable Codes and Standards.
Building Program.
Building Systems and Materials.
Park and Site Exterior Materials.
Construction Considerations.
The cost estimate reflects the fair construction value for this project and includes Contractor Site Requirements, Jobsite Management, Phasing, Insurance and Bonding, and Profit. A Design Contingency of 18% and Construction Contingency of 3% are carried to cover scope that lacks definition, scope that is 108
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 11
anticipated to be added to the Design as well as unforeseen construction execution and Risks. The estimate assumes a 24 months construction duration and costs have been escalated to the assumed mid- point of construction, November 2022 with an escalation factor of 23.30%. See Table 8 for a summary of estimated construction costs for all Concepts. The estimated cost in 2018 dollars is included for reference.
The following items are excluded from the estimated costs:
Land acquisition, feasibility studies, financing costs and all other owner costs. All professional fees and insurance.
Site surveys, existing condition reports and soils investigation costs. Hazardous materials investigations and abatement.
Utility company back charges, including work required off-site and utilities rates. Work to City streets and sidewalks.
Permits.
Owners contingency.
PG&E Fees.
Sustainability Fees (LEED).
Furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) except as specifically identified. Move in and out and temporary facility costs.
TABLE 8: PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (2022 DOLLARS) Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
Building $48.8M $58.5M $45M
Sitework $15.5M $14.3M $16.8M
FF&E Allowances $518,000 $537,000 $559,000
Restaurant Tenant Improvements and FF&E N/A $1,100,000 N/A Total Cost
(November 2022 dollars) $59.3M $74.5M $62.3M
Total Cost (2018 dollars) $48.1M $59.1M $50.1M
Source: TBD Consultants.
1.10 FINDINGS
In addition to the regular Working Group meetings held with staff and Council subcommittee, broader feedback from the community and City leadership was provided at key milestones during the Concept Design Phase:
September 17, 2018 City Council Meeting: Predesign Update October 18, 2018 Joint study session of the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Committee:
Preliminary Concept Alternatives
October 29, 2018 City Council Meeting: Concept Alternatives 109
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
12 JANUARY 2019
Based on the input received, several key points of consensus have been established to guide the project as it moves forward. Generally, all parties emphasized the significance of a new facility for the current and future generations of Foster City, and the importance that the Recreation Center plays (and will continue to play) in the lives of its residents. Ongoing dialogue with community groups and individuals, as well as with City staff and leadership will be important to continue. A detailed summary of comments received is included in Chapter 5.
GENERAL
As previously anticipated in earlier planning efforts, the City Council confirmed the strategy of building a new facility, rather than attempting to renovate the existing building. All groups expressed a general preference for Concept 3, in terms of site and program, with some refinements (summarized at the end of this section).
The financial impact of construction and operations was of significant interest to all parties. In the coming year, staff will work with City Council to develop a strategy for project funding. Additionally, necessary updates to the City’s fee structure are anticipated, and will further refine current fiscal projections.
SITE INPUT
All reviews emphasized the importance of maintaining open space, both for quality of life and for maintaining a key element of Foster City’s identity. To this end, reviewers noted a general desire to limit parking and building footprint as much as possible. Also of interest were opportunities to physically and formally establish connections to adjacent uses, especially across Shell Blvd.
PROGRAM INPUT
In review of the various program enhancements, a general consensus emerged that a dedicated restaurant and theater are not appropriate for the site or project. Limited spatial resources (see site comments above) should be focused on creating highly flexible spaces that can be used as widely as possible. In all concepts, it is anticipated that existing Senior programs will be maintained, and will occupy general multipurpose spaces. Developing the Community Multipurpose space so that it can accommodate the widest range of uses—from performance to sports—was also seen as a significant community benefit.
110
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 13
Concept 1: Recreation Complex 2.
With its location at the south end of the park, Concept 1 takes advantage of the park’s most expansive Lagoon and hill views and its unique waterfront experience. The immediate proximity to both the Teen Center and outdoor recreation spaces (tennis and pickleball courts, skatepark) creates a centralized recreation complex for the Foster City community, and enhances the activation of the park areas immediately surrounding the building. Consolidating and integrating both indoor and outdoor recreation uses improves access and use of support spaces overall—from bathrooms to café. As the terminus of the park’s path system, the facility also serves to anchor a series of connected outdoor spaces, and provides the potential for a unique outdoor experience on the Peninsula.
2.1 PROGRAM & BUILDING APPROACH
The building is anchored on either end by one of its large, flexible event spaces, each with an associated outdoor plaza. A central lobby hosts a café and opens out onto a sheltered building courtyard facing the Lagoon. Adjacent to the Teen Center are spaces with more active recreation uses—the Community Multipurpose space, preschool, and arts areas. The north side of the building includes more of the multipurpose and event functions. Staff offices and smaller multipurpose spaces are located on an upper level, with access to a roof deck overlooking the courtyard and Lagoon. The building approach is further described in Figures 2.1 and 2.2.
BUILDING SIZE 50,000 SF
PARK AREA 7.3 acres
PARKING
REQUIRED
+/- 239
spaces
111
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
14 JANUARY 2019
Figure 2.1 Concept 1 Project Program Table
112
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS
Figure 2.2 Concept 1 Plan Diagram- First Floor
113
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
16 Figure 2.2 Concept 1 Plan Diagram- Second Floor (continued) 114
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 17
2.2 SITE APPROACH
The location of the building and park areas is designed to facilitate pedestrian connectivity between the site and surrounding uses, with key connection points at Foster Square Lane and East Hillsdale as well as to the Metro Center, as described in Figure 2.3. As illustrated in Figure 2.4, Concept 1 allows for an expansive, contiguous park experience between the amphitheater and the building. A protected pedestrian corridor, which extends from the existing crosswalk at Foster Square, provides the primary pedestrian access between the Park and Shell Avenue and connects directly with the Entry Promenade for the building and park. Small plaza areas provide flexible space for events and gatherings on the sides of the building, while a larger courtyard and waterfront overlooks support special event use as well as daily café and waterfront access. Internal paths front the event plaza and frame active park use areas (expanded bocce area and picnic/flexible use area), and direct users to the waterfront overlooks and central boardwalk area. The amphitheater, buffered by gardens from the active park uses, is accessible from the waterfront trail or through a forested boardwalk trail that leads to the veteran’s memorial wall.
In addition to retaining the existing meadow , the concept extends the flexible use area offered by the meadow to the waterfront through the inclusion of the picnic/flexible area. Sculptural elements are integrated into the site at key junctions and focal points. The parking lot extends along Shell Avenue, accommodating approximately 250 cars as well as space for food trucks along the event plaza and at entry promenade. An enhanced paving treatment would delineate the western portion of the parking area for special event use.
115
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
18 JANUARY 2019
Figure 2.3 Concept 1- Pedestrian Connectivity
116
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 19
Figure 2.4 Concept 1 Site Plan
117
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
20 JANUARY 2019
2.3 FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACT
STAFFING
The “Base Program,” which is the same in all three of the concept alternatives, has been specifically designed to replicate all the rooms and support all the activities found in the existing Recreation Center, although in the aggregate the new base program is considerably larger than the existing square footage of today’s usable spaces. With ever greater use of contract classes that essentially “run themselves” the core Department staff that currently manages and operates the Recreation Center is confident that they could operate the Base Program without needing additional staff.
For Concept 1, the 8,000 square foot Community Multipurpose facility and the 500 square foot café, would create additional need for staff time. Most of this would be associated with the set-up and take- down of seating, staging, or sports court equipment to handle a wide range of new activities in the large new space. Eight or ten part-time people could be needed to handle the additional load and provide staff coverage into nights and weekends. For comparison purposes this is projected to add up to:
2.00 FTEs for Building Services Assistants
1.00 FTE for Recreation Leader I, and
1.00 FTE for Recreation Leader II.
Concept 1 would also be a more complicated building to manage, because its Enhancement Program would create the need to manage more relationships with third parties. The large Community Multipurpose facility is likely to attract some performance oriented user groups, as well as sports leagues serving enthusiasts in multiple indoor court sports. There is also the hope that the small café will have sufficient market support to attract a private operator, relieving the City of having to staff the daily operation of a food and beverage counter. But more full-time professional management time on the part of the City will be needed to oversee these additional relationships. For Concept 1 this is projected to equate to:
0.25 FTE for Management Analyst.
The annual cost of this additional staffing has been estimated using the current salary schedules, factoring up for the appropriate benefits, and using a Step 4 level to create a conservative (i.e., slightly higher cost) estimate. The impact on the Department’s budget would be to add approximately $195,000 per year in employee costs (see the Summary Matrix section at the end).
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
At 49,888 gross square feet, Concept 1 would be significantly larger than the 31,786 square feet the City currently uses for allocating Building O&M costs back to the existing Recreation Center and Senior Wing.
Using the City’s internal service charge factor of $14.59 per gross square foot, the incremental 18,102 gross square feet of space implies an additional O&M cost of $264,000 per year to maintain the larger building.
118
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 21
The total cost impact on the City’s budget for Recreation staff and Building O&M combined would be $459,000 for Concept 1 as can be seen in the Summary Matrix.
REVENUE
As described previously, the Base Program has been designed to provide approximately the same number of rooms as the existing Recreation Center and to accommodate the same mix of activities currently provided by the Recreation Department. On the other hand, community input and previous experience have helped make improvements in dozens of areas, making the Base Program noticeably more efficient, better laid out, and larger in key places than what exists today. As described in more detail in the Fiscal and Operational Impact Analysis, the revenues accruing to the Department are expected to be higher for all three concept alternatives, even before the Enhancement Programs for each are considered.
The most significant element of the Enhancement Program for Concept 1 is the Community Multipurpose Room. Assuming the initial focus is on accommodating indoor court sports such as basketball and volleyball, but also including such spectator events as martial arts competitions and dance performances, such a space would have a proven ability to generate revenues from before- and after-work sports leagues, as well as classes. Large banquets and other food festival events could also be accommodated.
The other element of the Enhancement Program for Concept 1 is a 500 square-foot café (which would also benefit from general seating areas both inside and outside the building.) The hoped-for business model is that the City would merely be the landlord, and a private operator would handle all the staffing and expenses of running the café. In such a scenario, the café is projected to generate a small positive rent for the City.
The total of all revenue estimates from the various sources adds up to $403,000 for Concept 1 as presented in the Summary Matrix below alongside the other two Concepts.
2.4 COST & IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
CONSTRUCTION COST
The Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate developed for Concept 1 is based on the assumptions outlined in the Executive Summary, Section 1.9. and adjusted to reflect Concept 1 building area, program elements and concept specific site improvements. A summary of cost estimates for Concept 1 is shown in Table 9.
119
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
22 JANUARY 2019
TABLE 9: CONCEPT 1 CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Concept 1 Recreation Complex Gross SF
2022 Dollars
2018 Dollars $ / SF Total
Building 49,888 GSF $880 $43.8M
Sitework $15.5M
Total Complex Construction Cost $59.3M
FF&E Allowances
Move existing furniture to new building $30,000
Allow for limited replacement/upgrade of
furnishings $15,000
FF&E Allowances for lobby, multipurpose
spaces 10,525 SF $45 $474,000
Total Concept 1 Cost $59.8M $48.1M
Source: TBD Consultants.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Potential risks that could negatively impact budget/schedule and strategy to mitigate include the following:
There is the risk that the built-in market of serving Recreation Center users is perceived to be too small to attract a private for-profit operator for the café in the building, or that an operator is attracted initially but soon finds that the café cannot be operated profitably. In either case, the Department might have to assign management duties to a full-time staffer , and hire a number of part- time workers to operate the café. The Department would keep all revenues, but may still suffer a small ongoing loss in order to provide food and beverage amenities to facility users. A strategy to mitigate this risk is to solicit a private food and beverage operator early in the final design process, and allow operator requirements to help design the café. There is a risk in the Community Multipurpose space that if the City invests in built-in features and movable specialized equipment to support both sports and performance uses, that one investment may be underutilized if the preponderance of use trends towards the other . This could be mitigated to some extent by only investing in features that must be included in the construction, and making specific investments in furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) incrementally as demand is proven. 120
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 23
Concept 2: Cultural Complex 3.
Concept 2 features the most significant new programming for Leo J. Ryan Park. In addition to Recreation department functions, it adds a full-service restaurant and a new theater space for the Hillbarn Theater.
Sited to allow for more direct access between the facility and downtown Civic Areas, the new facility serves to broaden the user base for the Park and draw new visitors and activity to the site.
3.1 PROGRAM & BUILDING APPROACH
The building is split into two distinct wings separated by shared lobby and courtyard featuring views out to the Lagoon. Recreation functions (managed by Foster City) are located in the north wing, while the restaurant and theater performance space are sited adjacent to the amphitheater. The large event space, restaurant and theater lobby all open onto the central courtyard, with staff offices adjacent to the lobby.
Additional multi-purpose spaces are located on a second level, along with the second event space. An extensive upper deck provides both outdoor spaces and dramatic Lagoon views for the rooms above.
Facing the parking lot are production support spaces for the theater, while more active recreation uses— Preschool and arts spaces—open towards the Teen Center and intervening park areas. The program and building approach is further described in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.
BUILDING SIZE 62,000 SF
PARK AREA 5.7 acres
PARKING
REQUIRED
+/- 427
spaces
121
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
24 JANUARY 2019
Figure 3.1 Concept 2 Project Program Table
122
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS
Figure 3.2 Concept 2 Plan Diagram--First Floor
123
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
26 Figure 3.2 Concept 2 Plan Diagram--Second Floor (continued) 124
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 27
3.2 SITE APPROACH
The location of the building in proximity to the amphitheater divides the park into two distinct areas, including the meadow to the northwest of the building and waterfront recreation areas to the east. As illustrated in Figures 3.3 and 3.4, a promenade and event plaza provide a clear and inviting entrance to the building, and would connect to a new mid-block crossing at Shell Avenue to facilitate pedestrian connectivity to the Library, Community Center and Foster Square. Park users would be encouraged to access the waterfront and amphitheater directly through the building lobby and courtyards. The approximately 400 space parking lot occupies much of the site, leaving a narrow band of recreation areas to the east of the building. Waterfront programming in this area includes gardens, two bocce courts and associated amenities, and a small picnic and flexible use turf area. The waterfront trail is also enhanced with a series of overlooks, each incorporating sculptural elements, and boat docking area. Food trucks and events could be staged in the parking lot adjacent to the waterfront use areas, or along the promenade that opens onto the meadow. In addition, the portion of the parking lot located between the building and Shell Avenue could be utilized for large community events in conjunction with the promenade and meadow.
It should be noted that the incorporation of two new private entities with their own scheduling and operational models within the Park will likely have significant operational impact on the Recreation Department. In particular, the special events for which the Recreation Department is well-known—from summer concerts to Fourth of July—will require additional coordination and potential modification to accommodate needs of theater and restaurant users.
125
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
28 Figure 3.3 Concept 2 - Pedestrian Connectivity
126
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS
Figure 3.4 Concept 2 Site Plan
127
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
30 JANUARY 2019
3.3 FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACT
OVERVIEW
Concept 2 has the largest building program of the three, and can be expected to have the highest total costs. It also has the largest reliance on partners, however, and the agreements that specify sharing of costs and revenues with those partners would heavily influence the City’s potential for cost recovery.
The business model assumptions for Concept 2 include the large full-service restaurant as being operated entirely by an experienced restauranteur, and the City would function as the landlord for that space.
Similarly, the theater and its production space are assumed to be operated entirely by the Hilbarn Theater Company or a similar production company, with the City again being the landlord. On the other hand, the second Large Event Space, equivalent to the existing Lagoon Room, is assumed to be operated by Department staff along with all the other facilities in the Base Program.
STAFFING
As with all three of the concept alternatives, the Base Program in Concept 2 is assumed to be operated by the core Department staff that currently manages and operates the Recreation Center without needing additional staff.
The Enhancement Program to Concept 2, the 3,500 square foot Large Event Space would create additional need for staff time. Two or three part-time people could be needed to handle the additional load, which for comparison purposes is projected to add up to:
1.00 FTE for Building Services Assistants.
Concept 2 would also be arguably the most complicated building of the three to manage, because its Enhancement Program would create the need to manage relationships with both a major restaurant and a theater company. For Concept 2 this workload is projected to equate to:
0.75 FTE for Building Services Coordinator Assistant, and 0.75 FTE for Management Analyst.
The annual cost of this additional staffing is projected to add approximately $213,000 in employee costs to the Department’s annual budget
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
At 62,433 gross square feet, Concept 2 would be approximately double the 31,786 square feet the City currently uses for allocating Building O&M costs back to the existing Recreation Center and Senior Wing.
The incremental 30,647 gross square feet of space implies an additional O&M cost of $447,000 per year to maintain the larger building.
128
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 31
The total cost impact on the City’s budget for Recreation staff and Building O&M combined would be $660,000 for Concept 2.
REVENUE
Common to the comparison of all three concept alternatives, the Base Program in Concept 2 would generate the same incremental revenues due to the larger and more attractive offering of spaces in the new facility. The most routine element of the Enhancement Program for Concept 2 would be the inclusion of a second large event space, essentially equivalent to the Lagoon Room, which may be expected to provide incremental revenue, beyond what the Base Program generates.
The largest element of the Enhancement Program for Concept 2 is the Theater and its Production Spaces.
At this time it is completely unclear whether this, or any other, theater company would come forward with a capital campaign to build and operate the theater element without any City assistance at all. For purposes of comparison, it is assumed here that the City builds the space and becomes the landlord for a tenant theater company. Under this assumed business model, however, it is still unknown what the terms of a lease agreement might be. For purposes of comparison, the assumption here is that the City will want an annual payment that at least covers the full cost of the Building Division O&M. Using the $14.59 per foot factor applied to the 14,365 square feet occupied by the theater company (including the 30% gross to net factor) produces an assumed rent payment of $210,000 per year, or approximately $17,500 per month.
The other element of the Enhancement Program for Concept 2 is a 4,000 square-foot full-service restaurant. A market rate rent of $3.00 per square foot per month to the City as landlord has been factored into the revenue estimates, which total $655,000 per year for Concept 2.
3.4 COST & IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
CONSTRUCTION COST
The Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate developed for Concept 2 is based on the assumptions outlined in the Executive Summary, Section 1.9. adjusted to reflect Concept 2 building area, program elements and concept specific site improvements. A summary of construction costs for Concept 2 is shown in Table 10.
TABLE 10: CONCEPT 2 CONSTRUCTION COST
Concept 2 Cultural Complex Gross SF
2022 Dollars
2018 Dollars $ / SF Total
Building 62,433 GSF $936 $58.5M
Sitework $14.3M
Total Complex Construction Cost $72.8M
129
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
32 JANUARY 2019
TABLE 10: CONCEPT 2 CONSTRUCTION COST
Concept 2 Cultural Complex Gross SF
2022 Dollars
2018 Dollars $ / SF Total
FF&E Allowances
Move existing furniture to new building $30,000
Allow for limited replacement/upgrade of
furnishings $15,000
FF&E Allowances for lobby, multipurpose
spaces 10,925 SF $45 $490,000
Restaurant Tenant Improvements and FF&E 4,000 SF $275 $1,100,000 Total Concept 2 Cost $74.5M $59.1M
Source: TBD Consultants.
RISK ASSESSMENT
Potential risks that could negatively impact budget/schedule and strategy to mitigate include the following:
The San Mateo Peninsula is a highly competitive restaurant market, and starting up a new restaurant is one of the riskiest of all business ventures today. The $144,000 per year in revenue from a restaurant lease to the City is highly speculative. While there is a possibility that a run-away success in a new restaurant could produce even more for the landlord through an escalating participation rent schedule, it is also quite likely that the first restaurant in the space will fail, and it is possible that the space could sit empty for long periods.
To date there is no structure in place for a partnership with a theater company. The ongoing costs and revenues to the City from such a partnership would be determined by an agreement that has not yet been negotiated.
130
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 33
Concept 3: Outdoor Activity Complex 4.
Concept 3 provides enhanced park spaces surrounding a centrally located facility, immediately adjacent to the amphitheater . Actively programmed park areas create a series of unique outdoor spaces surrounding the facility on all sides, and highlight the celebrated waterfront experience of Leo J. Ryan Park.
4.1 PROGRAM & BUILDING APPROACH
The building is organized into two wings around an open lobby and courtyard. To the north, the Community Multipurpose space is tucked into the existing hillside, and offers the opportunity to open onto the meadow for outdoor events and performances. In the south wing, the large event space and prominent recreation functions (dance and art areas) face the courtyard and entry plaza, while an outdoor beer garden anchors the southernmost end of the facility, facing the Lagoon and connecting to adjacent outdoor park uses. Staff offices and smaller multipurpose spaces are located on an upper level, with an extensive upper deck that provides both outdoor spaces and dramatic Lagoon views for the rooms above. The program and building approach for Concept 3 is further described in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.
BUILDING SIZE 50,000 SF
PARK AREA 7.1 acres
PARKING
REQUIRED
+/- 289
spaces
131
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
34 JANUARY 2019
Figure 4.1 Concept 3 Project Program Table
132
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS
Figure 4.2 Concept 3 Plan Diagram- First Floor
133
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
36 Figure 4.2 Concept 3 Plan Diagram- Second Floor (continued)
134
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 37
4.2 SITE APPROACH
The building in Concept 3 is located in the same site as in Concept 2, and the site is organized to offer similar connectivity to the amphitheater and Shell Avenue uses, as shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4.
However, in Concept 3 the reduced building and parking footprint (which assumes 250 spaces) allows for expanded park uses along the waterfront to the east of the building. This waterfront park area includes meandering picnic/flexible use areas and a series of unique activity areas that may include an interactive play area, game gardens, adult exercise areas, and four bocce courts with associated amenities. In addition, a waterfront outdoor food and beer garden connects the building with these active park areas. A series of waterfront overlooks located in proximity to the building, food and beer garden, and bocce area offer additional opportunities to engage the lagoon. To the west of the building, a sculptural garden walk provides a unique experience for visitors, serving as an effective transition from the building to the amphitheater . Sculptural elements are also utilized to define and activate the entry promenade, beginning at Shell Avenue and leading to the waterfront. Similar to Concept 2, food trucks could be staged along the entry promenade or along the waterfront park areas, and the eastern area of the parking lot could be utilized for large community events. However, in this Concept, food trucks along the waterfront park areas could be operated in conjunction with the food and beer garden. 135
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
38 JANUARY 2019
Figure 4.3 Concept 3 Pedestrian Connectivity
136
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 39
Figure 4.4 Concept 3 Site Plan
137
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
40 JANUARY 2019
4.3 FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACT
OVERVIEW
Concept 3 is similar to Concept 1, except that it is in a different site and has a different food and beverage option. It is slightly larger than Concept 1.
The business model assumptions for Concept 3 include the food / beer garden as being operated entirely by an experienced restauranteur, and the City would function as the landlord for that space, the majority of which would be outdoors with suitable wind screening, heaters and other amenities.
STAFFING
As with all three of the concept alternatives, the Base Program in Concept 3 is assumed to be operated by the core Department staff that currently manages and operates the Recreation Center without needing additional staff.
The Enhancement Program to Concept 3, is estimated to have the same staffing needs as described for Concept 1, which was projected to add up to:
2.00 FTEs for Building Services Assistants,
1.00 FTE for Recreation Leader I, and
1.00 FTE for Recreation Leader II.
Concept 3 would also be a more complicated building to manage, because its Enhancement Program would create the need to manage more relationships with third parties. For Concept 3 this is projected to equate to:
0.50 FTE for Management Analyst.
The annual cost of this additional staffing has been estimated to add approximately $241,000 in employee costs.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
At 50,928 gross square feet, Concept 3 would be 19,142 gross square feet larger than the 31,786 square feet the City currently uses for allocating Building O&M costs back to the existing Recreation Center and Senior Wing. The incremental of space implies an additional O&M cost of $279,000 per year to maintain the larger building.
The total cost impact on the City’s budget for Recreation staff and Building O&M combined would be $520,000 for Concept 3.
138
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 41
REVENUE
The Base Program in Concept 3 would generate the same incremental revenues as were described for the first two Concepts. The most significant element of the Enhancement Program for Concept 3 is the Community Multipurpose Room, which is assumed to have the same revenue profile as described in Concept 1.
The food and beverage element of the Enhancement Program for Concept 3 calls for a food / beer garden where 2,000 square feet of seating area is offered outside, and a 100 square foot support space is either included in the side of the main building or as a freestanding pop-up type structure. It is expected to generate revenue that is between that of the café in Concept 1 and the restaurant in Concept 2, which when combined with all the other revenues adds up to $451,000 per year for Concept 3.
4.4 COST & IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
CONSTRUCTION COST
The Planning Level Construction Cost Estimate developed for Concept 3 is based on the assumptions outlined in the Executive Summary, Section 1.9. adjusted to reflect Concept 3 building area, program elements and concept specific site improvements. A summary of construction costs for Concept 3 is shown in Table 11.
TABLE 11: CONCEPT 3 CONSTRUCTION COST
Concept 3 Outdoor Activity Complex Gross SF
2022 Dollars
2018 Dollars $ / SF Total
Building 50,928 GSF $880 $45M
Sitework $16.8M
Total Complex Construction Cost $61.7M
FF&E Allowances
Move existing furniture to new building $30,000
Allow for limited replacement/upgrade of
furnishings $15,000
FF&E Allowances for lobby, multipurpose
spaces 11,425 SF $45 $514,000
Total Concept 3 Cost $62.3M $50.1M
Source: TBD Consultants.
139
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
42 JANUARY 2019
RISK ASSESSMENT
Potential risks that could negatively impact budget/schedule and strategy to mitigate include the following:
There is a risk in the Community Multipurpose space that if the City invests in built-in features and movable specialized equipment to support both sports and performance uses, that one investment may be underutilized if the preponderance of use trends towards the other . This could be mitigated to some extent by only investing in features that must be included in the construction, and making specific investments in furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF&E) incrementally as demand is proven. As with any form of restaurant, there is the risk that the market will not be as supportive as hoped, or that the “fad” of the outdoor beer garden will wane somewhat over time. One strategy to mitigate risk is to solicit a private operator experienced with this type of food and beverage outlet early in the final design process, and allow operator requirements to help design the garden and supporting space. Because the outdoor space is less costly than building an indoor restaurant, it may also be easier to repurpose the space into some other form of game garden or commercial event space if the demand for the food / beer garden concept diminishes.
140
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 43
Conclusion 5.
5.1 FEEDBACK & DIRECTION
At key points in the Concept Design process, input was solicited from stakeholders, community members, and City Leadership. In addition to the direction summarized in Chapter 1, comments and concerns raised by these groups are summarized below. These considerations will also continue to inform future design and planning decisions as the project moves forward.
PLANNING COMMISSION & PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE INPUT The Concept Alternatives were presented on October 18th to a joint study session of the Planning Commission and Parks & Recreation Committee. The Committee and Commission members generally expressed a preference for Concept 3, though noted that any final design approach will likely involve a combination of features from all three concepts. Some general points of consensus are summarized below:
There was a clear focus on the significance of a new facility on current and future generations of Foster City residents, and all parties emphasized the need for future flexibility, and spaces that effectively serve many constituents and activities.
Both groups were opposed to including a dedicated theater space within the new facility. Comments reflected concern with the significant footprint required, as well as the incompatibility with existing Recreation and Park functions.
Similar concerns were raised about a restaurant; café and pop-up (food truck) type food services were generally viewed as more appropriate for the character of the park and the neighborhood. Connections across Shell, both to Foster Square and to the Civic Center should be reviewed in more detail, as the Planning Commission sees potential for a more holistic and unified development in this area.
COUNCIL INPUT
The Concept Alternatives were presented on October 29th to the City Council at a Special Study Session.
Several members of the community provided comments in addition to the three Council members present, and the two absent Council members emailed their comments for the Mayor to read into the record. Some general points of consensus and comments are summarized below:
There was general consensus among Council members that the existing Recreation Center should be rebuilt, rather than patched up.
There was general opposition to a dedicated theater and restaurant. 141
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
44 JANUARY 2019
While no Concept was perfect, there was a general consensus preference for Concept 3. The two absent Council members emailed to say they generally agreed with the comments made by the Parks & Recreation Committee and the Planning Commission, and that they favored Concept 3. Council and public comments reflected concern with the lack of funding, impact of increased parking and loss of green space, need to avoid inflexible spaces, and large building footprint. Concerns were raised about how the needs of Seniors would be accommodated in the new facility.
Discussion reflected that Senior classes and activities will be integrated throughout the facility as they are currently, and in doing so even more capacity for Senior programs will be provided. As at the meeting with the Planning Commission & Parks & Recreation Committee, there was a clear focus on the significance of a new facility on current and future generations of Foster City residents, and all parties emphasized the need for future flexibility, and spaces that effectively serve many constituents and activities.
While lacking a clear consensus, a variety of other concerns and comments reoccurred, including the following:
Need to create a sense of “community.”
Need for a new name that evokes a facility that is more than a Recreation Center. There is a primary responsibility to provide adequate facilities to support the existing recreation programs into the future.
Concern about possible competition with local businesses. City’s obligation to provide social equity.
Councilmembers who were originally interested in a “restaurant” now favor a less formal dining option similar to the Fieldwork Brewing concept at Bay Meadows. A sense of community is fostered by the ability to informally drop by and hang out. It is not the City’s job to preserve the views from Foster Square. The entire fee schedule needs to be reviewed and updated. The Community Multipurpose room should be built with a ceiling high enough to accommodate sports, such as volleyball.
The allocation of space use on the first and second floors should minimize the building ‘footprint’ (first floor area) and equalize the size of the first and second floors as much possible.
THEMES IN PREFERRED LOCATION AND PROGRAMMING
Based on comments received, there was general consensus on preference for many of the program components and features. The site location and program components that received broad support from the City Council, the PRC, and the Working group are highlighted in green. Green highlighting therefore indicates that there was general support for including the feature in further design exploration. 142
FOSTER CITY RECREATI ON CENTER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
BURKS TOMA | PLACEWORKS | LAND ECONOMICS 45
Components that were generally opposed are highlighted in red. Components for which there was no clear preference for inclusion or exclusion remain in black font; these items are park features that will be further defined in future phases and with input from the public.
As illustrated in Table 12, the components and characteristics that were generally preferred include:
Locating the building in Zone A.
Inclusion of Base Program elements for the Building and Park. Including a Community Multi-purpose space (rather than an extra-large event space or theatre). Including food/beer garden area and café (rather than full-service restaurant). Including Park enhancements that complement the food/beer garden and activation of the waterfront.
Maximizing Park acreage
TABLE 12: GENERAL PREFERENCES FOR SITE LOCATION AND PROGRAM COMPONENTS
CONCEPT 1
Recreation Complex
CONCEPT 2
Cultural Complex
CONCEPT 3
Outdoor Activity Complex
Building Program
Base Program Multipurpose Spaces Multipurpose Spaces Multipurpose Spaces Ceramics & Art Ceramics & Art Ceramics & Art
Dance / Movement Dance / Movement Dance / Movement
Kitchens Kitchens Kitchens
Preschool Preschool Preschool
Lobby / Public Space Lobby / Public Space Lobby / Public Space Staff Offices Staff Offices Staff Offices
Event Large Event Space (3,500 SF) Large Event Space (3,500 SF) Large Event Space (3,500 SF) Community Multipurpose Space
(8,000 SF)
Extra-Large Event Space
(5,000 SF)
Community Multipurpose Space
(8,000 SF)
Performance Enhanced performance functions
in Community Multipurpose
Space
Dedicated Theater (Hillbarn) Enhanced performance
functions in Community
Multipurpose Space
Food Service Cafe Full-Service Restaurant Food/Beer Garden (see below) Park Program
Base Program Meadow Meadow Meadow
Bocce Courts (4) Bocce Courts (2) Bocce Courts (4)
Waterfront Overlooks Waterfront Overlooks Waterfront Overlooks Event Plaza Event Plaza Event Plaza
Building Courtyards Building Courtyards Building Courtyards Sculpture Walk / Garden Sculpture Walk / Garden Sculpture Walk / Garden Picnic / Flexible Park Area Picnic / Flexible Park Area Picnic / Flexible Park Area Garden Area Garden Area Garden Area
Enhancements Storage / Support space for
amphitheater & meadow
Food/Beer Garden
Game Garden
Indoor / Outdoor Performance
Plaza
Nature Play
Adult Exercise
143
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PL ANS FOR MULTI - USE RECREATION/COMMU NITY FACILITY AND PA RK
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CONCEPT ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY REPORT
46 JANUARY 2019
TABLE 12 (CONTINUED): GENERAL PREFERENCES FOR SITE LOCATION AND PROGRAM COMPONENTS
CONCEPT 1
Recreation Complex
CONCEPT 2
Cultural Complex
CONCEPT 3
Outdoor Activity Complex
Parking & Access +/- 250 spaces +/- 400 spaces +/- 250 spaces New Midblock Crossing New Midblock Crossing
Site Location
Zone B Zone A Zone A
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
FUNDING OPTIONS FOR RECREATION CENTER - WORKING DRAFT
SUBJECT TO REVISIONS BASED ON DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND RE-ENGAGMENT WITH MUNICIPAL ADVISORS AND BOND COUNSEL PREPARED: 1/20/22
Source
Money We
Have (as of
6/30/21
unless
otherwise
indicated)
Potential
Sources
Voter
Approved
New Money
(annual)
Scenario 1
Debt of $15M
Annual/Total Debt
Service over 30 years
Scenario 2
Debt of $20M
Annual/Total Debt
Service over 30 years
Scenario 3
Debt of $25M
Annual/Total Debt
Service over 30 years
Scenario 4
Debt of $30M
Annual/Total Debt
Service over 30 years
Notes/Comments
Projected General Fund Balance at 6/30/21 (after setting aside for reserves @ 50% of FYE 22 operating
expenditures)
$24,326,500
Additional reserves may be available from
annual General Fund operating surpluses (if
any) in subsequent fiscal years
Community Benefit Fund 005 $389,000 After encumbrances and designations identified by the City Manager's Office
Facilities Replacement Fund 011 $2,392,000
City CIP Fund 301 $10,000,000
This is a "soft" hold for cost overruns for the
Levee Project if the project would exceed the
GO Bond authorization of $90M. Otherwise,
the $10M is available for any City CIP project
including the rebuild of the Recreation Center
Capital Asset Acquisition and Replacement Fund 326 $36,500,000 Balance reduced by $7 million placeholder for
Pilgrim Triton Phase C project - FC workforce
housing; 4/5 vote needed for use of this Fund.
Annual PJCC payment is approx. $1.1 million.
PJCC final payment in 2038.
Construction and Demolition Forfeitures Fund 129 $742,000 May be utilized to pay for energy efficiency
items. Annual transfers of $50,000 to the
Foster City Sustainability Fund 012
Total Reserves Available $74,349,500
Assessment District Bond
Not recommended as it requires "specific
benefit" findings by an assessment engineer.
Assessment must be proportional to "special
benefit". Weighted majority protest procedure.
General Fund Lease Revenue Bonds / Certificates of
Participation
$868,401/
$26,052,041
$1,154,088/
$34,622,640
$1,439,774/
$43,193,220
$1,725,460/
$51,763,800
Not subject to voter approval; however,
requires sufficient General Fund resources for
debt service payments.
Total interest cost to General Fund for Lease Revenue
Bond/Certificates of Participation 11,052,041 14,622,630 18,193,220 21,763,810 Total interest paid in 30 years from the General Fund
GO Bonds (least expensive debt financing option, but
requires 2/3 voter approval and therefore unlikely to
succeed for this type of project)
Ballot measure to be placed at a San Mateo
County election cycle; 2/3 voter approval. Not
likely suitable for this type of project because
of the super majority voter approval
requirement.
Other potential sources of funds:
Corporate sponsorship
Development Impact fees
Grants
Loans
School District partnership
Other
Business License Tax - increase current maximum gross
receipts and maximum BLT from $35.98 million and
$26,985 to $200 million and $150,000 respective. This
increase in BLT is anticipated to impact our 20 largest taxpayers.
Each $10 M
increase in
maximum
Gross
Receipts =
$7,500
Transient Occupancy Tax Increase (each 1%); Current
rate is 12% (assumes new Hotel on SW corner of Metro
Center has opened)
each 1% =
approx.
$313,000
Sales/Use Tax (District Add On Tax) Increase (each 1/4%) each 1/4% =
approx.
$750,000
COST OF PROJECT TO INCLUDE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT ESTIMATES, INCLUDING COMPLETION TIMELINE AND ANCILLLARY COSTS FROM RECREATION SUCH AS THE RECREATION PROGRAMMING MODEL DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THE CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY. PROFORMA FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE IS ALSO NEEDED FOR THE NEW FACILITY TO DETERMINE THE ANNUAL SUBSIDY REQUIREMENTS FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
Simple voter majority and at the time of a City
Council election if General Tax. If dedicated
for Recreation Center purpose only, 2/3 voter
approval is needed.
Increase maximum gross receipts to $200M = $1,165,000
2% increase in TOT rate = $626,000
1/2% add on sales/use tax = $1,500,000
Revenue Measures to Support General Fund expenditures, including payment of Debt Service Financing Options
Available Reserves:
Financing Options
153