GENERATOR READY IN AUTO( )
- - - 1-
ꢀ--- lGENERATOR RUNNING _,_
GENERATOR RUNNING
INDI
CATION
ꢀ---ꢁꢂꢂꢂ
GENERATOR FAILURE {
{
GENERA
TOR FAILURE
LARM
-----_____________________----------
-
-
-
_
_
,_
_
J
J
ꢀ---
,
A
--------------------------------------------------- ~
rnec=c
ꢃꢂꢂꢂ
LOW FUEL LEVEL
-,_ �
ALARM
LEGEND:
◊ -NEW FIELD WIRING TERMINAL BLOCK
LOCATED ON EXISTING PLC BACKPAN
( )
NEW FIELD WIRING
PROVIDED BY OTHERS
( )
TYPICAL FOR:
ꢁSCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
LIFT STATION LS22 STANDBY POWER SYSTEM
DATE:
SCALE:
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
CHECKED:
2/2612024
NO SCALE
TB
BEi
BEi
DESCRIPTION
PRE-PURCHASE DESIGN PACKAGE
DATE
2/2612024
GIPP 455-705 EMID
EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT
LIFT STATION LS22
SHEET
FREYE
LAURE
E-02eecher
Ingineering, Inc. JOB NO.
342001STANDBY POWER SYSTEM
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
CIVIL ENGINEERS· SURVEYORS· CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
150 Executive Park Blvd Suite 4200 San Francisco. CA 94134 (415) 534-7070 feyeecom
PROJ. ENGR: JJT • •
•
6.10 Attachment 2 - Pre-purchase Package
417
LIFT STATION LS29
NEW STANDBY GENERATOR
180kW / 225kVA, 480V, 30, 60 HZ
EXISTING FACILITY PLC NEW AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH
(NOT INCLUDED IN SCOPE OF SUPPLY) 400A, 480V, 30, 60 HZ, SOLID NEUTRAL
---
CB
7 480V
30
---
J
7 ATS IN NORMAL POSITION ATS IN NORMAL POSITION
+
{ 60HZ { INDICATION
(EMERGENCY TERMINALS)
{
--
-
JATS IN NORMAL POSITION ATS IN EMERGENCY POSITION
INDICATION
START/STOP COMMAND {
-
- - -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, -7
GENERA TOR READY (IN AUTO) GENERATOR READY (IN AUTO){
{
{
INDICATION J
---
- - - _,_
---7
GENERATOR RUNNING GENERATOR RUNNING
INDICATION
T-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
- - - 1-
GENERATORFAILURE -10,NERATORFAILURE
ALARM
T---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -,-1
- 1-
---
LOWFUEL LEVEL LOW FUEL LEVEL{ALARM J
- - _,_
LEGE
N
N
E
D
W
: FIELD WIRING TERMINAL
BLOCK
(LOCATED ON EXISTING PLC BACKPAN)
◊ -
NEW FIELD WIRING
(PROVIDED BY OTHERS)
TYPICAL FOR:
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
LIFT STATION LS29 STANDBY POWER SYSTEM
DATE:
SCALE:
DESIGNED:
DRAWN:
CHECKED:
2/2612024
NO SCALE
TB
BEi
BEi
DESCRIPTION
PRE-PURCHASE DESIGN PACKAGE
DATE
2/2612024
GIPP 455-705 EMID
EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT
LIFT STATION LS29
SHEET
FREYE
LAURE
E-03eecher
Ingineering, Inc. JOB NO.
342001STANDBY POWER SYSTEM
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA
CIVIL ENGINEERS· SURVEYORS· CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
150 Executive Park Blvd Suite 4200 San Francisco. CA 94134 (415) 534-7070 feyeecom
PROJ. ENGR: JJT • •
•
6.10 Attachment 2 - Pre-purchase Package
418
3 6
0 DATE: May 20, 2024
TO: President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant District Manager
FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT MASTER PLAN
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (CIP 455-652) - CLEAN WATER
PROGRAM - UPDATE FOR QUARTER 1 – JANUARY THROUGH
MARCH 2024
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) by minute order, receive and accept this Quarter 1 progress update on the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Master Plan Improvements Project (CIP 455- 652) – Clean Water Program (CWP). No further action is required by the EMID Board of Directors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the progress-to-date of the WWTP Master Plan Improvements Project (CIP 455-652) - Clean Water Program (CWP) for the City of San Mateo/EMID WWTP for the months of January 2024 through March 2024. The report includes summary information about construction and other project activities over the first quarter of the calendar year.
6.11 6.11 Staff Report
419
3 6
0 BACKGROUND
The CWP is a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program to rehabilitate the sanitary sewer collection system in the City of San Mateo and the treatment systems at the San Mateo WWTP. EMID has 24.12% ownership of the WWTP. In October 2014, the City of San Mateo retained Jacobs to serve as the Program Manager responsible for overseeing the management of the approximately $1 billion-dollar combined program, including the coordination of the design, construction, and start-up activities of this multi-year project.
The EMID Board of Directors requested that staff provide updates on a regular basis.
The WWTP Expansion Project is being performed using a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) delivery method, whereby the contractor is involved in the project early in the design process and the City benefits from the contractor providing constructability input and insight to inform the design development.
The Program Manager and Construction Manager is Jacobs. The WWTP Expansion Project Design Engineer is HDR. The team for the disinfection improvements portion of the WWTP Expansion Project is Trussell Technologies. HDR is also providing Engineering Services During Construction (ESDC). The CMAR is Sundt Construction Inc. (Sundt).
ANALYSIS
Construction Package 1 – Site Preparation (Original Agreement with Sundt - $33,098,178) is complete and in the closeout phase. Construction Package 2 – Foundation Piles (Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Sundt - $17,716,049) is complete and the Notice of Completion was filed with the County in March.
Construction Package 3 – WWTP Facilities (Amendment No. 2) - Efforts by the Contractor to mitigate schedule impacts from multiple change events are ongoing.
Major ongoing work continues to include process mechanical (motors and pumps), plumbing, HVAC, and electrical work (gear including cabinets, breakers, switches, conduit and wiring) throughout the treatment structure. The yard piping has been completed except for the final connection of the force mains to the headworks which is scheduled for August 2024. Installation of the interior components of the warehouse continues and is anticipated to be complete in May 2024. Additionally, improvements to the existing sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite systems as well as the chlorine contact basins continues. The primary screens, grit chambers, fine screens, and grit washers have been installed in the headworks Area 51.
6.11 6.11 Staff Report
420
3 6
0 Administration Building
Construction of the Administration Building is nearing completion. Installation of the exterior siding and ceilings occurred during this period and is projected to be completed by June 2024. Startup and commissioning (including LEED commissioning) activities are in their final stages. Furnishing of the Administration Building is expected to occur in June 2024. Subsequently, the City/WWTP Operations staff is planning to occupy the building in time for process startup and operations of the new WWTP. General sitewide work, such as site lighting, irrigation, landscaping, signage, and parking lot, is ongoing.
Plant Commissioning
Construction of the new treatment facilities and associated commissioning activities are currently anticipated to be complete in late summer 2024. Clean water testing, process seeding (the introduction of microorganisms into the wastewater being treated), startup, and functional demonstration is expected to occur in the August to October 2024 timeframe. The new liquid treatment processes are anticipated to be in full service by the end of October 2024.
Final Project Completion
The current final completion is projected to be August 2025 (as of the end of April 2024). The overall schedule has been pushed out due to various issues. A major portion of this potential schedule impact is stemming from challenges with the delivery of certain scopes of work, such as electrical components, due to supply chain issues.
Several of these key components that would typically take months to order currently have lead times of over a year. Efforts by the contractor to mitigate schedule impacts from multiple change events are ongoing. The City and contractor are working together to minimize potential delays and reduce the potential completion date extension. The City of San Mateo is continuing discussions with the contractor pertaining to the contractor’s responsibility for any resulting increases in management costs as a result of any schedule changes.
QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION REPORT
Attachment 1 consists of selected portions of the Quarterly Progress Report for January through March 2024 published by the Program Management Team on April 23, 2024, summarizing the budget, schedule, and project activities that have occurred during the first quarter of 2024 and activities that are anticipated to occur in the second quarter of 2024 for the following projects:
▪WWTP Expansion Project (comprised of GMP-1, GMP-2, and GMP-3), ▪Immediate Action Projects (IAPs), and
▪Annual Major Component Projects (AMCs).
6.11 6.11 Staff Report
421
3 6
0 Attachment #2 consists of a site plan showing the locations of the various process units being constructed as part of the projects.
Attachment #3 includes photographs of construction activities at the site over the past 3 months.
Attachment #4 includes a history of the financing for the Project.
More detailed information including additional photographs and architectural renderings of the completed WWTP Expansion Project as well as real time video of the active construction, are available on the Clean Water Program Project site:
https://cleanwaterprogramsanmateo.org/wwtp/.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the WWTP Master Plan Improvements Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2015032006).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this update.
As described in the Quarterly Report provided as Attachment A, the total forecast Estimate at Completion (EAC) for the WWTP Expansion Project is approximately $572.08 million, which is an increase of approximately $9.4 million (EMID share:
approximately $2.3 million) from the last quarterly update. This information was presented to the City Council at its February meeting during the last quarterly update.
See Attachment #4 for a history of project financing.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Facilities and Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report – 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
Attachment 2 – Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Plan
Attachment 3 – Construction Photographs
Attachment 4 – Project Financing
6.11 6.11 Staff Report
422
Progress Through: March 31, 2024
Quarterly Progress Report
San Mateo Clean
Water Program
for the
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Projects
1st Quarter Report January 1, 2024
to March 31, 2024
Submitted on: April 23, 2024
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
423
Active Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects
46T003 WWTP Nutrient Removal and Wet Weather Flow
Management Upgrade
Project Description:
The WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Project will replace aging infrastructure, provide capacity for wet weather flows, comply with regulatory requirements, enhance reliability, and produce a higher quality effluent that meets current and future permit requirements and Title 22 recycled water quality. Producing a higher quality effluent will enable the City to develop a water reuse Program.
GMP3 – Contract
Contractor Sundt
Award Date 9/21/2020
Construction NTP 9/22/2020
Duration (calendar days) 1584
Contracted Completion Date 1/23/2025
Total Original Contract Amount $379,880,747.00
Revised Contract Amount $383,790,833.00
Original Contingency Amount $13,900,000.00
Revised Contingency Amount $24,336,910.00
Forecast Completion Date 8/23/2025
Current Contracted Amount $404,413,089.00
Actual Expended $357,812,305.00
Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
• Coordinating the Special Inspections Services
• Providing Construction Inspection Services
• Reviewing and recommending approval of change orders
• Administering the Consultant and Subconsultants contracts • Assisting with the Startup and Commissioning training of Plant Staff • Monthly WWTP update meeting with Foster City management team.
January through March 2024 P A G E 10
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
Project Inside
Project Manager Leswin DCunha
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Construction
GMP1 – Contract
Contractor Sundt
Award Date 5/6/2019
Construction NTP 6/4/2019
Duration (calendar days) 1124
Contracted Completion Date 7/1/2022
Total Original Contract Amount $33,098,178.00
Contingency Amount $1,725,000.00
Substantial Completion Date 2/1/2023
Current Contracted Amount $34,783,550.00
Actual Expended $31,630,697.00
GMP2 – Contract
Contractor Sundt
Award Date 5/4/2020
Construction NTP 5/5/2020
Duration (calendar days) 619
Contracted Completion Date 01/14/2022
Total Original Contract Amount $17,716,049.00
Contingency Amount $1,645,000.00
Acceptance Date 3/6//2024
Current Contracted Amount $17,963,767.00
Actual Expended $17,206,534.00
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
424
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction
• Interpretive Signage -:Contractor is in the process of procuring the signage. • ESDC: HDR continued review of submittals and RFIs on GMP 3; development of design change notices; onsite and remote support by Resident Engineer. .HDR continuing the preparation of electronic Operations and Maintenance Manuals
Permitting:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
A/C 30448 (Liquid Processes)
Because the A/C renewal request has been submitted, the City can continue construction/operation under the conditions of the existing permit until a new A/C permit is issued.
A/C 30449 (Generators)
Because construction is complete and source test data submitted, the City does not need to renew the A/C. The Source Test data was approved 10/26/23. The next step, issue the Permit to Operate (P/O). In the interim, the City can operate the generators under the conditions of the A/C permit.
Public Outreach
• PM/CM and the CWP Public Outreach Lead coordinated on regular project updates to the website, newsletter, social media, etc.
Construction
GMP1
Project close out is almost completed.
GMP-2
Project is closed out and accepted.
GMP-3
The contracted completion date for GMP3 is January.23,2025. However, in mid-January 2024, the City was informed by the contractor that the procurement of the electrical panels required for programming the SCADA have been impacted by the supply change issues as a result of the Covid pandemic, and the leak testing of the basins taking longer than originally planned, the project end date is now projected to be August 2025. The Contractor and the City are working together to minimize the potential delays and reduce this potential completion date extension. The Contractor and the City are also discussing the responsibility of the Contractor in covering the increase in management costs as a result of this schedule change.
Commissioning meetings were held to continue discussing start-up activities, including roles and responsibilities.
Yard piping is complete except for final connection of the force mains to the Headworks schedule for August 2024.
Continued to install Electrical (gear including cabinets, breakers, switches, conduit and wiring) and Mechanical Equipment (piping with structural supports, motors and pumps) in Areas 51 (Headworks), 52 (Primary Clarifiers),53 (Bio- Actiflo), 55 (BNR) and 56 (MBR).
January through March 202 4 P A G E 11
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
425
Continued installation of the exterior siding, and ceiling in Area 80 (Admin. Building) projected to be completed in June 2024
Continued installation of interior work for the Warehouse project to be completed by end of May 2024 Continued improvements to the existing Sodium Hypochlorite Day and Bulk Storage Tanks, and pumping systems.
Continued improvements to the existing Sodium Bisulfite Tanks and Pumping system. Continued improvements to the existing Chlorine Contact Basins. Parcel Map Recorded April 11, 2024
Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
• HDR’s to continue to provide ESDC services including development of process O&M manuals, process training, expanded discipline-specific Resident Engineer services, and related known scope reflected in the contingency budget.
Engineering Design/Services During Construction
• ESDC: HDR to continue to provide onsite resident engineering services.
Permitting
• Coordination with Building and Fire Departments for Temporary Occupancy for Admin Building and Warehouse
Public Outreach
• Provide project updates to the CWP Public Outreach Lead for monthly newsletter, website, and social media updates.
• Continue as-needed support in response to resident queries via the communication hotline.
Construction
GMP-1
• Close out project
GMP-2
• Completed.
GMP-3
Continue to install Electrical (gear including cabinets, breakers, switches, conduit and wiring) and Mechanical Equipment (piping with structural supports, motors and pumps) in Areas 51 (Headworks), 52 (Primary Clarifiers),53 (Bio-Actiflo), 55 (BNR) and 56 (MBR). Continue exterior of building, including installation of siding, installation of interior ceiling for Area 80 (Admin. Building)
Continue installation of the interior work for the Warehouse Continue the improvements to the existing Sodium Hypochlorite and Sodium Bisulfite systems. Continue improvements to the Chlorine Contact Basins
January through March 202 4 P A G E 12
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
426
Risks and Opportunities
• Cal Water’s New Potable Water Main Extension: Completed • PG&E’s New Primary Service: Completed
• Relocation of PG&E’s Utilities from Detroit Drive: Completed
Financial Status
Current update shows an overrun ($39.4M) of original budget.
Millions
Budget $532.71
Actual Cost to date $494.26
Estimate at Completion $572.08
Schedule Status
As part of re-baseline efforts, the current forecast as of March 2024 , shows project completion to be in August 2025.
January through March 202 4 P A G E 13
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
427
46T009 IAP Package II
Project Description:
Replace and repair aging infrastructure at the WWTP by adding screening, flexibility, and redundancy for WWTP solids processes. The project includes: (1) Mechanical bar screen and repair of concrete wall at the IJB; (2) Effluent PS #1 pumping and piping improvements; (3) replace two of the oldest pumps in PS #1; (4) Cake pumping system: add second cake pumping system; and (5) Second cake hopper system: add a second cake hopper, slide gate, access walkway, and platform.
Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
• Coordinated City negotiations with Contractor for time extension / delays.
Worked with Contractor on Cake pump issues.
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction
(Various)
• Stantec ESDC is ongoing through the remainder of its construction period.
Permitting
No activities this period.
Public Outreach
No activities this period.
Construction
Immediate Action Projects, Package II (IAP II)
Replaced one of the mitered pipes, Analyzing if additional measures to resolve the pressure issue are needed.
Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management
Continued change management support.
Engineering Design and Engineering Services During Construction Stantec ESDC is ongoing through the remainder of its construction period. Continue review of submittals and RFI.
Permitting
No activities this period.
January through March 202 4 Page 35
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
Project Inside
Project Manager Tyler Kirkendall
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Construction
Design Firm Stantec, HDR
IAP II – Contract
Contractor Myers & Sons
Award Date 2/11/2019
Construction NTP 2/19/2019
Duration (calendar days) 848
Contracted Completion Date 6/14/2021
Contract Amount $6,340,000
Contingency Amount $1,144,000
Forecast Completion Date 9/1/2024
Current Contracted Amount $7,167,599
Actual Expended $7,142,099
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
428
Public Outreach
No activities this period.
Construction
Immediate Action Projects, Package II (IAP II)
Analyze if additional measures such as pipe supports and polymer ring are needed in order to resolve the pressure issue.
Risks and Opportunities
Sludge Cake Hopper No. 1 has not successfully completed start-up testing. Contractor working to identify issue affecting Cake Pump No. 1 and requested both design engineer and Vendor assistance in their troubleshooting of Cake Pump No. 1. Design Engineer provided new sludge cake measurement technology selection in DC 8, which was issued to the Contractor in September. City contracted with a third party to provide recommendations for fixing the Cake pump. The third party has recommended removal of welded pipe and installation of new piping. Contractor has replaced the miter welded pipe for one of the pumps , analysis is ongoing to determine if additional measures are needed. Delays to the project by sludge cake pumping system will result in significant delays to the project.
Financial Status
Current update shows an overrun ($4.85 M) of original budget.
Millions
Budget $13.02
Actual Cost to date $13.20
Estimate at
Completion
$18.22
Schedule Status
Project schedule temporary on hold while issues are being resolved. Anticipat es construction to be completed by September 1 , 202 4
January through March 202 4 P A G E 36
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
429
46T010 IAP Package III
Project Description:
Upgrade aging infrastructure and increase reliability for the effluent PS at the WWTP. Improvements include perform hydraulic analysis on the effluent PS and flow meters; replace MCCs P1, P2, P3, and P4 in the Main Structure Building; add variable-frequency drives (VFDs) and check valves on stormwater pumps; replace check valves (3) for dry weather pumps; replace MCCs/VFDs (4) and control panels (4) for dry weather pumps; and replace doors (3) and windows (10), repair roof, and add HVAC for the PS.
Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/TBD)
Project Bid opened on April 6, 2023
Project awarded to Mountain Cascade for $11,703,696
EAC revised to $17,711,486.
Project management by City Staff with Assistance from Jacobs Construction Management by Tanner Pacific
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction (HDR)
Review of Submittals and RFI’s
Construction
S tarted potholing to identify utilities and determine if there are any unknown conflicts.
Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/Tanner Pacific)
Construction Management by Tanner Pacific.
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction
HDR to continue EDSC.
Construction
Start construction of Site Waste Pump Station
Start replacement of Digester piping.
Risks and Opportunities
Rescoping the project push out the completion date of the project.
January through March 202 4 P A G E 37
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
Project Inside
Project Manager TBD
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Engineering
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
430
Financial Status
The current update shows an overrun ($15.12M) of the original budget. The original budget was an estimate to be used as a place holder that was set prior to having any knowledge of the project scope of work. The overall program carried a large contingency to compensate for this unknown and a portion of those contingencies are being used to offset this overrun. The current estimate is based on a defined scope of work.
Budget
$2.47
million
Actual Cost to
date
$2.38
million
Estimate at
Completion
$17.71
million
Schedule Status
Current forecast shows final completion in May 2025.
January through March 202 4 P A G E 38
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
431
46T090 Annual Major Component WWTP
Project Description:
Maintain reliable plant operations to meet regulatory permit requirements and repair and replace critical WWTP
infrastructure. The operations and maintenance team maintain an active list of potential projects that are implemented as funds are available.
Current Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/ TBD)
City to manage with City staff the Project Management with assistance from Jacobs. AMC project
Update WWTP Biosolids and Energy Management Plan - Requests for proposal being finalized. Digester 1 Improvements - waiting for biosolids report to be completed. Centrifuge and Centrifuge Feed Pump Replacement - waiting for biosolids report to be completed. Solids Handling Systems I&C Improvements - waiting for biosolids report to be completed. Digester Transfer Pump Project – Awarded contractor currently procuring equipment. 3 Water Pumping Improvements – design ongoing anticipated November 2024 award DAFT Corrosion Improvements – recommendations for improvements being analyzed by City staff. Digest 2 Mixer Repair/Replacement – quote for repair being analyzed to determine in repair or replacement is the most cost-effective solution.
Permitting (Various)
None
Construction
Digester Transfer Pump Project was awarded in November 2023. The contractor is currently procuring equipment.
Next Period Activities
Project/Construction Management (City/ Tanner Pacific)
Begin CM on the Digester Transfer Pump Project
Engineering Design/ Services During Construction
• Design Consultants providing EDSC for the Digester Transfer Pump project. • . Monthly WWTP update meeting with Foster City management team. for the AMC projects.
Permitting
N one
Construction
Begin on site Construction on the Digester Transfer Pump project.
Risks and Opportunities
AMC 36 Centrifuge Conveyor Replacement is on hold.
January through March 202 4 P A G E 39
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
Project Inside
Project Manager TBD
Project Type Wastewater System
Phase Engineering
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
432
Financial Status
Project shows EAC over budget.by $4.03 million The original budget was an estimate to be used as a place holder that was set prior to having any knowledge of the project scope of work. The overall program carried a large contingency to compensate for this unknown and a portion of those contingencies are being used to offset this overrun. The current estimate is based on a defined scope of work.
Millions
Budget $8.92
Actual Cost to date $1.60
Estimate at Completion $12.92
Schedule Status
AMC 6 +23 was completed in November 2022.
AMC Digester 2 Mixer Repair/Replace, quote to repair mixer is being evaluated, approximately 6 months without Digester 2 online.
AMC Digester Transfer Pump was awarded in November 2023 to Contractor procuring equipment. All other AMC projects are in the design or predesign phase.
January through March 202 4 P A G E 40
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
433
Completed Projects
Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects
Updated to latest values from EDEN (January 2020)
Name
Start Date
Finish
Date
Actual Cost
469948: SCADA Immediate Projects: Phase 2 (IAP) 1/2/2015 11/25/2015 $1,524,717 469962: Short-Term MCC Replacement Project (IAP) 1/2/2015 11/25/2015 $49,628 469973: Secondary System: Immediate Projects: SCs 1-4 and return- activated sludge Pump Values (IAP)
1/2/2015 11/25/2015 $426,918
469975: Solids: Immediate Projects: GT 1&2 (IAP) 1/2/2015 11/25/2015 $372,358 469976: Immediate Projects: Boiler Replacement 1/2/2015 4/29/2016 $475,296 469978: Solids Building: Immediate. Projects: Centrifuge Hoist Project (IAP) 1/2/2015 11/25/2015 $2,410 46T002 IAP Package I 8/1/2018 8/28/19 $18,621,868
TOTAL $21,472,951
January through March 202 4 P A G E 41
SAN MATEO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
QUARTERLY REPORT
Q1 2024
6.11 Attachment 1 - Selected Portions of Quarterly Progress Report - 1st Quarter Report, January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024
434
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SITE PLAN
Attachment 2
Area 64
Area 52
Area 80
Area 51Area 51
Area 53
Area 55
Area 56
6.11 Attachment 2 - Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Plan
435
Area 51 Headworks Piping
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 202 4 PAGE 14
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
436
Area 51 Preliminary Screens Area
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 202 4 PAGE 15
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
437
Area 51 Electrical Room
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 202 4 PAGE 1 6
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
438
Area 51 Dumpster Bay
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 202 4 PAGE 1 7
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
439
Area 51 Grit Washers
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 202 4 PAGE 18
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
440
Area 64 Odor Control Area
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 PAGE 19
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
441
Area 52 Primary Clarifiers
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 202 4 P A G E 20
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
442
Area 52 Preliminary Effluent Pump Station
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 P A G E 21
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
443
View Inside the Electrical Room for Area 56
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 22
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
444
View inside the Membrane Permeate Pump Room Area 56
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 23
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
445
Area 56 MBR Cartridge Trains
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 24
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
446
Area 56 Blowers Room
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 25
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
447
View of Area 80 – Ongoing Work
April 2, 2024
December 31, 2023
January through March 2024 Page 26
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
448
Area 80 Admin Building Exterior North elevation.
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 27
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
449
East Elevation
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 28
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
450
Area 80 Admin. Bldg. - South Elevation
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 29
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
451
Area 80 Admin. Bldg. - Operations Control Room
April 2, 2024
January2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 30
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
452
Area 80 Admin. Bldg. Laboratory
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 31
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
453
Reception Area
April 2, 2024
January 2, 2024
January through March 2024 Page 32
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
454
View of the Warehouse
April2, 2024
December 29, 2023
January through March 2024 Page 33
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
455
Interior of the Warehouse
April2, 2024
December 29, 2023
January through March 2024 Page 34
6.11 Attachment 3 - Construction Photographs
456
ATTACHMENT #4
PROJECT FINANCING
In addition to cash from the District’s and City of San Mateo’s wastewater enterprises, financing for the project consists of the following funding sources:
Revenue Bonds – The San Mateo Foster City Public Financing Authority (“PFA”) sold $270 million in revenue bonds in 2019 for Clean Water Program costs. The District’s share of the proceeds from that bond issue was $40,131,000. The WWTP 2019 bond funds were fully expended in July 2021.
The Program through the San Mateo-Foster City PFA is obtaining additional financing through the two programs as described below:
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) - The PFA approved the close of the WIFIA loan in November 2020 in the total amount of $277.2 million (San Mateo share is $210.4 million and EMID share is $67.8 million). The WIFIA loan has excellent rates (1.32% for San Mateo and 1.14% for EMID). We have until 8/1/25 to start drawing on the WIFIA loan.
2021 Wastewater Revenue Notes, Series A (Estero Municipal Improvement District) - On July 1, 2021, the San Mateo-Foster City PFA issued $62.76 million of 2021 Wastewater Revenue Notes, Series A (EMID) to attain a cost savings (from lower interest rates than the WIFIA loan) of approximately $1.1 million for the financing of EMID’s share of WWTP project costs. These notes have a maturity date of 8/1/25 when the City will draw on the WIFIA Loan to pay off the notes.
State Revolving Fund (SRF) –The SRF loan package, for a maximum loan amount of $137,000,000, was approved by the State with an interest rate not to exceed
1.6% (EMID’s share of the loan is $33,044,400). These funds are now available as part of the financial strategy for the project.
6.11 Attachment 4 - Project Financing
457
6 3
6 DATE: May 20, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
FROM: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
Mimi Lam, Financial Services Manager
DEPARTMENT: City Manager, Finance
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024- 25 AND FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FY 2024-25 TO FY
2028-29
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and provide direction, by Minute Order, on the information provided in the FY 2024-25 Preliminary Budget and the FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29 Five-Year Financial Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study session is for the City Council to review and provide policy direction on the Preliminary Budget for FY 2024-25 and the FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29 Five-Year Financial Plan. On June 3, 2024, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the FY 2024-25 Budget where they will discuss the Preliminary Budget, non-profit funding awards, and provide any further policy direction to be incorporated into the final budget document. Formal adoption of the budget is scheduled for June 17, 2024, with duplication and distribution by June 30, 2024.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has held two budget study sessions to-date (February 26, 2024 and March 25, 2024) and this budget study session is the third of four planned budget meetings prior to the scheduled adoption on June 17, 2024. Its purpose is to review the
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
458
6 3
6 Preliminary Budget for FY 2024-25 and the Five-Year Financial Plan for FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29. City staff seeks policy direction from the City Council regarding the budget documents so that a final budget can be prepared for City Council adoption.
ANALYSIS
At tonight’s budget study session, the Preliminary Budget for FY 2024-25 and Five-Year Financial Plan for FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29 will be reviewed. Please refer to the City Manager’s Budget Message, the Budget Guide, the Five-Year Financial Plan and the Financial and Personnel Summaries sections for the overview and summaries of this year’s budget document. The other sections of the budget document contain the individual department or fund summary and budget detail. With the challenging labor market marked by the great resignation, hybrid work expectations, and higher personnel cost as well as initiatives for next fiscal year, the FY 2024-25 and 5-year financial plan indicates ongoing General Fund structural deficits (Attachment 1). The City Manager’s Office and staff will continue to monitor and develop strategies to counter the structural deficits. These strategies may include additional or updated revenue opportunities, cost recovery measures, and operational efficiencies. The Preliminary Budget for FY 2024-25 has been posted on the City website here:
https://www.fostercity.org/finance/page/annual-budget.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Not Applicable
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on policy direction provided at tonight's Budget Study Session, City staff will proceed to prepare the FY 2024-25 Budget and Five-Year Financial Plan for FY 2024- 25 to FY 2028-29 for a June 3 public hearing followed by final adoption on June 17, 2024. Upon final adoption, the FY 2024-25 Budget will become effective July 1, 2024.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Staff Empowerment and Operational Excellence
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - General Fund (Funds 001 to 003) Five Year Financial Plan for FY 2024- 25 to FY 2028-29
7.1 7.1 Staff Report
459
City of Foster City, California
General Fund (Fund 001 to 003)
Five Year Financial Plan for the Years Ended June 30, 2029 Projected Five Year Financial Plan
Revenues by Source: 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Property tax $34,384,300 $35,476,460 $36,517,500 $37,589,300 $38,692,800 $39,828,900 Excess ERAF $3,541,000 $2,800,000 $2,856,000 $2,913,100 $2,971,400 $3,030,800 Transient Occupancy Tax $4,150,000 $4,698,500 $4,839,500 $4,984,700 $5,134,200 $5,288,100 Property Taxes in-lieu of
Vehicle License Fee $3,775,648 $4,288,848 $2,680,715 $1,829,065 $921,164 $942,803 Sales Tax $3,927,700 $4,099,600 $4,289,900 $4,429,500 $4,559,200 $4,679,100 Business License Tax $1,735,500 $1,890,000 $1,984,000 $2,083,000 $2,187,000 $2,296,000 Charges for current services -
Recreation $1,712,836 $1,640,589 $1,631,081 $1,753,619 $1,901,527 $1,931,036 Charges for current services -
CDD & Others $361,266 $523,366 $389,404 $329,526 $351,628 $341,293 Permits $1,441,000 $1,081,140 $1,113,180 $1,145,020 $1,179,260 $1,214,300 Franchise Taxes $1,377,000 $1,377,700 $1,414,700 $1,455,300 $1,499,400 $1,547,200 Interest Income $2,623,900 $1,563,900 $1,215,800 $1,072,100 $908,500 $772,300 Rentals - City/EMID $905,600 $1,063,700 $840,100 $393,600 $397,200 $400,800 Rentals - Parks and Recreation $600,000 $500,000 $500,000 $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 Other (Fines, Shared Services,
Street Sweeping, Other) $548,096 $524,985 $528,685 $532,485 $536,285 $454,528 Other taxes (real property tax
transfer) $244,200 $268,600 $295,500 $325,100 $334,900 $344,900 Intergovernmental (SB90,
Grants, etc) $140,000 $140,000 $140,800 $141,600 $142,400 $143,300 Total Revenues $61,468,046 $61,937,388 $61,236,865 $61,577,015 $62,366,864 $63,915,360 Projected Expenditures (1) $59,402,377 $61,628,999 $61,960,288 $64,204,190 $65,332,549 $67,830,491 Net revenues over (under)
expenditures before
transfers $2,065,669 $308,389 ($723,423) ($2,627,175) ($2,965,685) ($3,915,131) Net Transfers In (Out) ($6,000,000) ($5,750,000) ($5,750,000) ($5,750,000) ($5,750,000) ($5,750,000) Net Increase (Decrease) in
Fund Balance ($3,934,331) ($5,441,611) ($6,473,423) ($8,377,175) ($8,715,685) ($9,665,131) Opening Fund Balance $58,199,969 $54,265,638 $48,824,027 $42,350,604 $33,973,429 $25,257,744 Ending Fund Balance
(Reserves) (2) $54,265,638 $48,824,027 $42,350,604 $33,973,429 $25,257,744 $15,592,613 Reserve Balance as % of Next
Year's Operating Expenditures 88.1 % 78.8 % 66.0 % 52.0 % 37.2 % 22.5 % (1) Expenditures for FY 2024-25 represent budgeted appropriations; expenditures for FY 2025-26 to FY 2028-29 are projections. (2) The City is able to meet the City Council Reserve Policy of 50% through FY 2026-27, but is projected to fall below it in the following two years.
City of Foster City's FY 2024-25 Preliminary Budget
7.1 Attachment 1 - General Fund (Funds 001 to 003) Five Year Financial Plan for FY 2024- 25 to FY 2028-29
460
City of Foster City, California
General Fund (Fund 001 to 003) Expenditures Detail
Five Year Financial Plan for the Years Ended June 30, 2029 Projected Five Year Financial Plan
2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29
Expenditures by Categories:
Employee Services $36,952,244 $39,054,713 $40,107,683 $41,800,854 $42,588,981 $44,581,516 Salaries and Wages $21,193,109 $22,057,849 $22,726,374 $23,553,650 $24,266,321 $25,042,431 PERS $9,431,210 $10,777,446 $10,943,846 $11,518,221 $11,349,447 $12,314,355 Flex Allowance (Health) $3,712,180 $3,814,907 $4,005,662 $4,266,962 $4,480,278 $4,704,293 Workers Compensation $1,462,676 $1,203,173 $1,203,173 $1,203,173 $1,205,253 $1,203,173 Other $1,153,069 $1,201,338 $1,228,628 $1,258,848 $1,287,682 $1,317,264 Supplies and other $17,661,358 $17,618,282 $17,654,106 $18,143,055 $18,397,493 $18,842,523 Capital Outlay $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total department expenses $54,653,602 $56,672,995 $57,761,789 $59,943,909 $60,986,474 $63,424,039 Internal Services Charges $7,747,636 $8,097,964 $8,666,499 $8,836,681 $9,009,075 $9,185,052 Reallocation ($2,998,861) ($3,141,960) ($3,203,500) ($3,266,100) ($3,329,700) ($3,394,300) Net Expenditures $59,402,377 $61,628,999 $63,224,788 $65,514,490 $66,665,849 $69,214,791 Less: Expected Expenditure
Savings (2%) $0 $0 ($1,264,500) ($1,310,300) ($1,333,300) ($1,384,300) Projected Expenditures $59,402,377 $61,628,999 $61,960,288 $64,204,190 $65,332,549 $67,830,491 City of Foster City's FY 2024-25 Preliminary Budget
7.1 Attachment 1 - General Fund (Funds 001 to 003) Five Year Financial Plan for FY 2024- 25 to FY 2028-29
461
6 2
4 DATE: May 20, 2024
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
FROM: Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager
Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
Priscilla Schaus, Communications Director/City Clerk
DEPARTMENT: City Manager, Community Development, Finance SUBJECT: REPORT ON BUSINESS LICENSE TAX UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Minute Order:
1. Receive and accept this report on a potential update to the City’s Business License Tax (BLT); and
2. Review and discuss the proposed models related to the BLT update and provide policy direction on:
a. The preferred Business License Tax model;
b. Whether to consider phasing the maximum tax cap increase over a three (3) year period for the preferred model;
c. Whether to keep or eliminate the current Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC) exemption provision related to multiple corporate entities; and d. Whether to proceed with a potential ballot measure to increase the Business License Tax for the November 2024 General Election.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s Five-Year Financial Plan indicates an ongoing structural deficit over the next five years, meaning, annual ongoing expenditures will exceed ongoing revenues. In other
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
462
6 2
4 words, there are insufficient revenues to pay for the cost of operations and services provided to the community. In recognition of the fiscal challenges facing the City and the City‘s commitment to provide uninterrupted services to the community, the City Council directed staff to consider an update to the City’s BLT as a potential revenue enhancement option in 2022. Although progress was made on the BLT update in 2022, those efforts were put on hold. In 2023, one of the goals that the City Council adopted at its Vision & Policy Summit was to “Identify new revenue sources and strengthen existing resources to ensure Foster City finances are more resilient to economic fluctuations and support city services.” Under this goal, two (2) measures/initiatives were identified including:
▪Initiate and engage in ongoing dialogue with City businesses to build strong relationships and assess their needs and understand their perspectives on a BLT ballot measure.
▪Research BLT methodologies and consider feasibility of various methodologies (e.g., gross receipts, square footage, employee count) with presentation to Council in January 2024.
The City Council reaffirmed this initiative as a key priority at its 2024 Vision & Policy Summit. A project team comprising of staff from the City Manager’s Office, Community Development Department, Finance, Communications/City Clerk and Consultants were assembled to begin work on this initiative. Staff presented reports to Council on October 16, 2023 ( link), December 18, 2023 ( link) and February 05, 2024 ( link), where staff outlined the strategy for amending the BLT Ordinance, discussed steps leading to the potential ballot measure in the November 2024 General Election, provided preliminary analysis of the City’s current BLT structure, shared pros and cons of the various BLT structures and provided a comparison to other cities’ BLT structure.
Following the Council meetings, the project team began to explore potential BLT models that could generate additional revenue while meeting the City’s goals. To understand the impact of the potential BLT models on businesses and assess the support for a BLT update, the project team began a robust engagement effort with the community, the Chamber, the businesses and key stakeholders utilizing surveys, one-on-one and group meetings, social media and direct outreach efforts to share information on the City services, City budget, the proposed BLT models and gather feedback. During this time, a public opinion survey and a fiscal sustainability survey was administered to understand the community’s needs and perspectives on the potential BLT ballot measure for the November 2024 General Election.
In this staff report, staff will present the potential BLT models and share feedback received from the various outreach/engagement efforts from the community and businesses for Council consideration. Staff would like to seek Council direction on the preferred model and other policy direction before proceeding with continued outreach and engagement efforts and a potential ballot measure for the November 2024 General Election. It is important to note that with all the potential models that will be presented, approximately 78% of Foster City businesses, which includes 1,287 small businesses, would see no change in their annual BLT. Of the 78%, approximately 8% will see a positive impact in
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
463
6 2
4 that they’ll be paying less than what they currently pay. This was in response to the initial feedback that staff received to ensure that small businesses are not impacted.
BACKGROUND
The City of Foster City's BLT Ordinance was enacted in 1972, shortly after the City's incorporation. The City of Foster City requires all businesses operating within the City of Foster City to obtain a business license and pay associated taxes in accordance with Title 5 – Business Licenses and Regulation of the Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC). It wasn’t until four decades later (in 2013) that the BLT Ordinance was amended and a ballot measure (Measure U) to increase the BLT was approved by the Foster City voters.
Chapters 5.04 to 5.40 of FCMC Title 5 outline the provisions of the City's current BLT. All businesses, trades, professions, and occupations specified in the code are subject to a BLT when there is sufficient evidence that business is being conducted in the City.
Nonprofit Organizations as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code and Farmers Markets approved by the city are exempt from BLT.
The model which the City follows is based on a gross receipts model with a single tax rate of $0.75 per $1000 of gross receipts, utilizes a minimum tax of $100 ($200 for general contractors) and a maximum tax ($28,597 based on FY 2023 licensing period). Under the current structure, a business has to gross more than approximately $33 million to hit the gross receipts cap and pay the maximum tax. Generally, single-rate gross receipt tax structures allow the City to capture all gross receipts generated locally and tie the City to the economic growth of the business community. This model has growth potential, yet is also equitable to businesses during economic downturns, which also means there may be significant revenue volatility during periods of expansion and contraction (gross receipts are self-reported by each business). As noted earlier, in 2022, the City began exploring an update to its BLT by increasing the gross receipts cap while maintaining the same tax rate.
Table 1 below shows a comparison of the original 1972 BLT Ordinance, the 2013 BLT Ordinance Amendment and the 2022 BLT Proposed Ordinance Amendment. 1972 Original Business
License Tax Ordinance
2013 Business License
Tax Ordinance
Amendment
2022 Proposed Business
License Tax
Ordinance Amendment
Scope All forms of
entities conducting business
in Foster City
(non-profits excluded)
All forms of
entities conducting business
in Foster City. Farmers
Markets excluded in
addition to non-profits
NO CHANGE
Tax Rate $0.75 per $1,000 of gross
receipts (or 0.075%)
NO CHANGE NO CHANGE
Gross Receipts
Cap
$5 million $30 million adjusted over
three (3) years:
Scenario #1 $300 million
Scenario #2 $400 million
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
464
6 2
4 2014 - $10 million
2015 - $20 million /
2016 - $30 million /
Scenario #3 $500 million
Scenario #4 $1 billion
Minimum Tax $25 / $50 for General
Contractors
Phased in over 3 years:
$50 in 2014;
$75 in 2015;
$100 in 2016;
All Rates – Double for
General Contractors
NO CHANGE
Maximum Tax $3,750 based on a $5
million cap
$22,500 (based on $30
million cap in 2013)
$26,985 (based on 2022
$35.98M cap)
Scenario #1 $225,000
Scenario #2 $300,000
Scenario #3 $375,000
Scenario #4 $750,000
Future Increases None Gross Receipts Cap will
increase based on SF
Bay Area CPI-U Rate
October-to-October
NO CHANGE
Cap on
Corporate Entities
Each corporate entity is
considered a separate
business and requires
a separate business license
The number of corporate
entities conducting business
at same location is limited
to (3) entities with the
highest gross receipts
NO CHANGE
Effective Date 1972 January 1, 2014 January 1, 2023 (if passed) As noted earlier, the BLT update efforts in 2022 were paused to allow staff to engage with the business stakeholders, research various BLT methodologies and their feasibility. Staff resumed this effort in 2023. At the October 16, 2023 Council Meeting, staff provided a preliminary report on the approach to amending the BLT Ordinance, and steps leading up to adding a ballot measure during the November 2024 General Election. The Council received the report and provided direction to staff to continue the work on placing the potential BLT update on the ballot for the November 2024 General Election. At the December 18, 2023 Council Meeting, staff provided an update on progress on amending the BLT including an update on the consultant selection for BLT tax study (HdL Companies), public outreach/community engagement services (Grassroots Lab) and polling/survey services (FM3 Research). Specifically, the City commissioned HdL to review the administrative efficiency of the current structures, to review options for improving the BLT structure, if any, and to investigate the possibilities for additional revenue generation.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
465
6 2
4 At the February 5, 2024 Council Meeting, the project team presented an informational report on the preliminary analysis of the City’s current BLT structure, shared pros and cons of the various BLT structures, provided a comparison to other cities’ BLT structure and possibilities to modernize the City’s current BLT. A memo summarizing preliminary findings was provided and attached to the February 5, 2024 staff report.
ANALYSIS
I. General Overview of Business License Tax
Business License Tax, also referred to as “BLT” has become a common and important revenue source for many cities. It is an annual tax charged to anyone doing business in a city. The measure of how much taxable activity is occurring within the City (or subject to the City’s taxation powers), is referred to as “measure of the tax.” In most cases, BLT uses proxies for the measure of taxable activity. Those proxies fall into the three significant alternatives for measuring taxable activity: inputs (employee count, square footage based), flat taxes, payroll taxes and outputs or gross receipts or a combination of these. Approaches used by cities vary and can depend on a number of variables.
Table 2 below summarizes the key points of comparison (pros and cons) for the various BLT Methodologies/Types of Measurements.
Measure
Type
Measure Pros Cons
Input Per
Employee
▪Maybe less volatile than
gross receipts.
▪Easy to calculate and
administer.
▪Larger businesses with
more employees pay
more-aligning tax
contributions with their
use of city resources
and services.
▪Higher burden on businesses with more
labor inputs (like restaurants) that have
already seen their costs of goods sold
increase.
▪Doesn't capture per-employee
productivity gains from technology.
▪A per-employee tax measure tends to
place a heavier burden on smaller
businesses than larger businesses.
▪Rise in remote or hybrid work could
increase volatility and reduce the
usefulness of this measure of tax.
Input Square
Footage
▪Fixed amount for
calculation.
▪Can be challenging to calculate as
certain spaces need to be discounted,
tenant improvements take place
changing square footage data, etc.
▪Would require City to maintain a
database of square footage for each
business and keep it up to date.
▪Tends to miss the business activity
occurring at other than floor level.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
466
6 2
4 ▪Is limited to only businesses with a
physical location in the city, reducing the
taxable business activity/tax base.
▪Rise in remote or hybrid work could
increase volatility and reduce the
usefulness of this measure of tax.
▪Can be perceived as double taxation as
property taxes are assessed on property
values based on square footage.
▪It can disproportionately affect
businesses that require large physical
footprint due to the nature of their
business even though the business itself
may generate limited revenue.
Input Unit ▪The units of input may
already be tracked.
▪Does require pro-ration and may only
have a weak relation to the amount of
business activity.
Flat Flat
Fee/Flat
Tax
▪Easy to calculate.
▪Predictable and
consistent.
▪No clear relationship to the amount of
taxable business activity.
▪Not proportional to the amount of business
conducted
Output Gross
Receipts
▪Closer relationship to
the amount of business
activity since it captures
the output of the taxable
business activity.
▪Proportional to the
amount of business
conducted.
▪Has potential for
capturing revenue from
economic growth
▪Increase in the volatility of revenues
since they are linked to the outputs of the
business activities.
▪In some cases, may be harder to
calculate.
▪Under State law, it cannot be based on
net income.
▪Exposes City revenues to fluctuations in
gross receipts based on the economy.
▪May concentrate revenue in the highest-
grossing businesses.
II. Current Business License Tax Structure (Single Rate Gross Receipts Tax) The City has approximately 1,651 businesses contributing to the BLT. Since FY 2019, BLT revenue has averaged approximately $1,653,122. As seen in the chart below, the City's BLT revenue has remained flat with a dip during the pandemic. Although revenue has since recovered, it has remained steady.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
467
6 2
4 Source: HdL
The City’s current BLT structure includes a gross receipts component consisting of a single (gross receipts) tax rate of $0.75 or 75 cents per $1,000 with a minimum tax of $100 ($200 for contractors) and a maximum tax based on the cap ($28,597 based on FY 2023 licensing period). The gross receipts cap is adjusted annually for inflation based on the local Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Table 3: City Current Tax Structure
The single rate gross receipt tax of $0.75 has remained the same since the City’s BLT Ordinance was first adopted in 1972. The single tax rate applies to all businesses regardless of the amount of taxable gross receipts they report. Generally, single rate gross receipt tax structures allow the City to capture all gross generated locally and ties BLT revenue to the economic growth of the business community. However, two factors reduce the amount of tax revenue generated from the reported gross receipts. The first factor is the cap. Businesses paying the maximum tax amount often report gross receipts that are significantly higher than the amount of the cap (in some cases, hundred times more than the amount of the cap). The second factor is the tax limit on the number of multiple corporate entities. The City’s current Ordinance limits the tax on multiple corporate entities conducting business at the same location to three (3) entities with the highest gross receipts (FCMC Section 5.24.020). This exemption allowed otherwise taxable entities to claim millions of dollars in BLT exemptions.
III. Foster City’s Business License Tax Structure Comparison to Other Cities
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
468
6 2
4 a. Jurisdictions Comparison
Foster City is heavily dependent on the business service industry, which includes businesses such as research & development, warehousing, and technology.
Professional, Business, and Personal Service make up approximately 50% of the tax base in Foster City. Service businesses, unlike retail, are limited in the way they contribute to the tax base since they tend not to contribute to sales tax.
The table below illustrates, in descending order based on business license tax revenue, key features of each jurisdiction, namely population, estimated number businesses, and business license tax revenue. The revenue trend diagrams indicate the lowest revenue (red) and highest (green) between FY2018 and FY2022.
5Richmond adopted a new gross receipt tax structure in 2020 – Measure U. 6Union City is currently considering modernizing their business license tax. 7Belmont is currently considering modernizing their business license tax. b. Business License Tax Revenue Per Capita
BLT revenue per capita is arguably one of the most important statistics that help determine how well a city’s business license tax structure produces revenue, given the population size. Additionally, revenue per business shows how productive a tax is once
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
469
6 2
4 the number of businesses is controlled for. These measures allow us to compare cities of varying populations and business communities.
Source: HdL
Foster City has an effective tax gross receipt rate of $0.75 per thousand. Despite this favorable structure, the City’s cap means that not all of the gross receipts from large businesses in the City contribute to the total revenue. The City has several businesses that generate very large amounts of reported gross receipts. HdL’s initial analysis indicates that this cap is one of the main reason Foster City’s tax structure is less productive per capita than some other cities with a gross receipts structure.
Richmond passed a new measure in 2020 to a progressive gross receipts model (Measure U). The tax rates range from 0.075% to 1.395% of gross receipts. Other interesting comparisons are Daly City and San Mateo. Daly City’s tax structure is $1.10 per thousand dollars with a $100 minimum, while a portion of San Mateo’s businesses pay about $0.57 per $1,000 (for gross receipts over $100,000). Both outproduce Foster City per capita. Please note that Sausalito was included because it adopted a change to its gross receipts structure in 2019 that provides an instructive comparison. c. Business License Tax Revenue Per Business
When we account for the number of businesses in each City (by dividing revenues by the number of businesses), which yields a per-business measure of the tax, Foster City is in the top three cities in the comparison set for generating business license tax per business.
Nevertheless, Richmond and Daly City also show that this category may have room for
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
470
6 2
4 growth. The Chart below shows estimated FY 21-22 Business Tax Revenue Per Business.
Source: HdL
d. Current Rate Comparison based on Sample Businesses
The Tables below show a comparison of tax from certain hypothetical businesses across these cities to show how the differing tax structures would produce different revenues.
Current Rate Comparison Based on Sample Businesses
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
471
6 2
4 Source: HdL
When compared to some other cities in the region, Foster City is currently imposing a lower tax than about half of the comparison cities. The key driver of that difference is the City’s cap on taxable gross receipts (as seen in the tax comparison for the Business Services-Large Firm category in the above tables).
IV. Foster City’s Proposed Business License Tax Structure and Measure Based on the analysis of the City’s current business license tax structure and comparison to other cities, staff requested HdL to explore BLT models and options for modernizing the City’s BLT structure. Using the data from the analysis of the current structure and comparison to other cities, HdL developed five models and estimated the fiscal impact of each, discussed benefits and impacts of each of these models. It is important to note that a discount factor is applied to all these models to account for fluctuations in gross receipts generated in the City and other uncertainties in the modeling. The initial models that were developed are discussed in detail below.
Model 1: Increase In Current Maximum Tax (Cap)
This model retains the existing structure and tax rate while modifying/increasing the tax cap. A simple increase to the business license tax cap could keep the existing structures in place while yielding higher revenues to the City. The drawback of Model 1 is that simply increasing the business license cap rate increases the effective rate for the largest business, but it also makes the revenues more dependent on the largest businesses.
And, instead of being a more general tax modernization, it focuses only on the largest businesses.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
472
6 2
4 Model 2: Gross Receipts Tax – Single Gross Receipts Rate Model 2 changes the existing single-rate gross-receipts model to a more effective tax rate. The “single rate” method of taxing on gross receipts provides an even distribution of the effective tax rate. All businesses subject to the tax will pay the same rate. This model implements $1,000,000 maximum tax so only a few businesses would reach the gross receipts limits. This allows the City to get closer to total taxation of gross receipts generated in the City. Model 2 expands revenue while keeping the tax structure simple and easy to understand for businesses while asking larger businesses to pay a proportionally equivalent share. This model would raise the tax rate for mid-sized businesses and would lower the tax rate for those paying the minimum tax to $25 to provide some tax relief for very small businesses when compared to the City’s current structure.
Model 3: Gross Receipts Tax – Classifications-Based Rate Model 3 would create different rates for different business classifications. The City might choose to implement a rate for the retail and wholesale business activities that recognize the higher costs of goods sold, lower profit margins, and their contribution to other City revenues such as collecting and remitting sales tax. At the same time, the City could consider implementing a higher rate for professionals due to the nature of their business model. This model offers the most flexibility for increasing revenues while accommodating certain business categories. Model 3 is tailored to shifting more of the tax to property rentals and professional services and spreads the tax burden across multiple business types. The model retains most of the administrative efficiencies of Model 2 by having a simple structure of just six categories.
Model 4: Tiered Gross Receipts
This model attempts to mitigate the regressivity in the City’s business license tax structure with a gross receipts measure that increases the share that large businesses pay and provides lower taxes for small businesses. The model removes or increases the cap, creates a lower minimum, and uses different tax structures to test different configurations of the tiered approach. Under this model, businesses making less than $100,000 pay less tax because of the decreased minimum tax. Overall, the number of businesses that would see an increase in tax owed is less than 30% of businesses.
Model 5: Uniform Employee Tax Rate
This model switches the tax base away from gross receipt model to an alternative tax structure – a uniform employee tax rate. This model is simple – allows the City to implement a structure without a cap. Unlike gross receipts, City wide employee count may have less volatility—although the rise in remote or hybrid work could increase volatility and reduce the usefulness of this measure of the tax. This model is a useful comparison to the gross-receipts models. It would produce about the same amount of revenue as the current model.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
473
6 2
4 For additional information and revenue estimates for each of the above models, refer to Attachment 1 – Business Tax Analysis prepared by HdL Companies (pages 11-20).
Note: Staff did initially discuss a square-footage model with HdL, but the data was hard to obtain, and the model would have the side-effect of only taxing businesses with an office in the City, thus giving an advantage to businesses that come in from outside the City to do business. As noted in an earlier section of the report, the disadvantages of this model outweighed its benefits.
STAFF COMMENTS
In analyzing the current BLT model and researching the BLT structure used in other cities, staff came to the following conclusion:
▪The gross receipts model is becoming increasingly popular and is the preferred model due to its relatively simple tax structure that allows for adaptability. ▪The current fixed gross receipts tax rate of $0.75 per thousand, which has remained the same since 1972, is regressive in nature. A regressive gross receipts tax requires all businesses to pay at the same BLT rate regardless of the value of the taxable gross receipts that each individual business reports. In other words, businesses that report lower taxable gross receipts pay a disproportionate share of the BLT burden when compared to larger businesses. As illustrated in the graphic below, the larger businesses (in red) are paying proportionally less than the small businesses (green) and medium businesses (yellow) based on estimated gross receipts.
▪The business tax base is unique in Foster City given that approximately 70% of the businesses are small businesses (reporting less than approximately $133,000 in gross receipts annually) and a very small percentage (less than 5%) of the businesses report extremely high gross receipts.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
474
6 2
4 ▪The City's current tax limit exemption on the number of multiple corporate entities to three (3) entities does not benefit the City’s tax structure. ▪The business license tax applies to taxable activity namely, conducting businesses in the City. If a business is doing business both inside and outside the City, that business can request apportionment so that it is reporting the gross receipts that appropriately reflect the amount of taxable activity attributable to the City. The city's current Ordinance language allows for this, and the intent is to continue allowing businesses to apply for apportionment in the modernized code.
The five early models discussed above provided a starting point for discussion for staff.
While all the models demonstrated revenue growth potential, the impact of the specific rates and the increased tax burden on businesses, the current rate for business license tax, the administration of the BLT and alignment with the City's goals were taken into consideration as staff review the various options. While narrowing down to a preferred model (Model 4), the following objectives were taken into consideration:
▪Minimal to no impact on small businesses.
▪A modern progressive rate structure that is equitable and fair. ▪A modest increase to the gross receipt rate for middle to large businesses. ▪Creating tiers so that medium to large businesses pay a lower rate (share of the overall BLT) than the largest businesses.
▪A new increased maximum for large businesses.
▪Potential to generate additional revenue to support core City services.
The tiered rate structure (Model 4) involves a tax rate that increases (or progresses) as taxable gross receipts increase. It imposes a lower tax rate on businesses that report lower taxable gross receipts and a higher tax rate on those businesses that report higher taxable gross receipts. A progressive tiered rate structure group businesses into different tiers with varying tax rates that is proportional to the range of taxable gross receipts within that tier.
MODEL 4 – TIERED GROSS RECEIPTS
Staff requested HdL to provide variations of Model 4 - Tiered Gross Receipts Structure with varying tiered rates (modest to slightly larger increase for the middle tiers and a much larger increase for the topmost tier), maintaining the minimum tax of $100 for small businesses, a maximum tax cap of either $250,000 or $500,000 and overall revenue generation potential (in the $2 to $3 million range). In the Model 4 variations presented below, businesses will pay $100 for the first $250,000 of gross receipts. Businesses making an excess of $25 million will pay on gross receipts until they reach the maximum tax imposed by the City ($250,000 or $500,000).
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
475
6 2
4 Model 4X-1 – Estimated Additional Revenue Potential - $2.36 million Model 4X-1: Gross Receipts $1.25 to $3.00 with $250K Cap Model 4X-2 – Estimated Additional Revenue Potential - $1.46 million Model 4X-2: Gross Receipts $0.75 to $3.00 with $250K Cap Example:
If a company reports $50,000,000 in annual gross receipts, their annual maximum business license tax will be as follows:
Model 4X-1 would be $49,062.50 + $75,000 = $124,062.50
Model 4X-2 would be $26,388 + $75,000 = $101,388.00
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
476
6 2
4 Model 4Y-1 – Gross Receipts $1.25 to $3.50 with $500K Cap Model 4Y-1: Gross Receipts $1.25 to $3.00 with $500K Cap Model 4Y-2 – Estimated Additional Revenue Potential - $2.93 million Model 4Y-2: Gross Receipts $0.75 to $3.50 with $500K Cap Example:
If a company reports $50,000,000 in annual gross receipts, their annual maximum business license tax will be as follows:
Model 4Y-1 would be $46,488 + $87,500 = $133,988.00
Model 4Y-2 would be $46,987.50 + $87,500 = $134,487.50
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
477
6 2
4 Overall Gross Receipts Taxed Per Model and Tax Cap
Current Rate Comparison Based on Sample Businesses
In the four variations of Model 4 provided above, it can be seen that Model 4X-2 which generates the lowest amount of additional revenue ($1.46 million) is what would also have the least impact on businesses. Model 4X-2 includes: a modest increase for the medium sized businesses (a gradual increase from the current 0.75 tax rate); a significant impact on the largest grossing businesses that currently pay a maximum tax of approx. $29,397 as of 2024 will see a 9x increase with a $250K max tax cap or a 17x increase with a $500K max tax cap; and a reasonable rate for businesses like restaurants and large retailer/grocery stores.
Based on the information provided above and the community feedback provided (see below section), staff has the following policy direction questions for the City Council:
a. The preferred Business License Tax model;
b. Whether to consider phasing the maximum tax cap over a three (3) year period for the preferred model;
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
478
6 2
4 c. Whether to keep or eliminate the current FCMC exemption provision related to multiple corporate entities; and
d. Whether to proceed with a potential ballot measure to increase the Business License Tax for the November 2024 General Election.
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT
BLT stakeholder outreach and engagement efforts to date include:
▪Social media: Feb: 27 (boosted); March: 4, 6, 19 & 29; April: 4, 17 & 30; May: 6 & 13, additional posts forthcoming through the end of the month. ▪Public Polling/Voter Survey: March 2024
▪Fiscal Sustainability Survey: February 27 through the end of May ▪Newsletter: 3/14, 3/28 & 5/9
▪Mayoral Minute: 5/9
▪Website: Published 2/22 and FAQs added ( Link)
▪Business appointment scheduler added 4/18 – Multiple time slots offered on City website for businesses to schedule an appointment and offer both in-person and virtual options.
▪Direct email:
oCommunity organizations: 4/18, follow up 5/1
oBusinesses: 4/18 (top 20 large employers)
o4/24 – 4/25 (additional large employers)
o5/1 (follow up to top 20 plus other larger employers)
o5/3 (all business license holders – approx. 1300 emails) o5/13 (follow up email to all business license holders + large employers) ▪Press release: 5/9
▪Recology mailer: 2/28, 5/30 (forthcoming)
▪Digital marquee, FCTV + posting boards: 5/13
▪Printed flyers (council chambers, city hall lobby, library, levee kiosks): 5/13 ▪Planned Town Hall Meetings (May 29 th & May 30th)
1. Public Polling/Voter Survey
In March 2024, FM3 completed 343 interviews with randomly selected, likely November 2024 voters in Foster City in order to assess the viability of a potential ballot measure to modernize the city's BLT. Interviews were conducted online and via telephone. Results of the polling/voter survey are included in Attachment 2.
2. Fiscal Sustainability Survey
The City promoted a Fiscal Sustainability Survey asking the community to identify their priorities on public safety, parks, infrastructure, and more. The Survey was released on February 27. The survey is ongoing and will be open through the end of May. To date, 138 respondents have responded to the survey. The results of the survey are included in Attachment 3.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
479
6 2
4 3. Business Stakeholder Outreach
The City conducted in-person and virtual outreach to various sized businesses. Some of these meetings were convened in collaboration with the Foster City Chamber of Commerce. Staff also set up a website allowing individual businesses to schedule briefings with City staff and consultants. Feedback has ranged. Some participants have expressed their understanding of the fiscal challenges facing the City, and even their openness to an updated BLT structure. Larger firms with potentially higher rates have naturally raised concerns about the increase in tax and additional questions about the impact and structure of the potential changes. Firms that are the most impacted (subject to the maximum tax) expressed concerns about their current tax increasing 9 to 18 times with the $250K and $500K cap respectively. Outreach is slated to expand to residents and the business community in the coming weeks.
Depending on the direction received at the May 20 th meeting, the City will host two Townhall Meetings and will be increasing distribution of information on both the potential BLT update as well as the City’s fiscal condition.
Feedback/Questions received from Businesses include the following:
▪Concerns about the tax increases faced by the multiple entities under the same management in Foster City.
oSuggested limiting taxing multiple entities to avoid paying separately for each entity.
▪Questions regarding apportionment. There is language in the existing ordinance regarding apportionment, but some have said they may scrutinize these provisions more closely the higher the levy rises. Some have cautioned they believe the bulk of their receipts/operations are located outside of the City and would impact how they report gross receipts moving forward. ▪Smaller business owners have characterized efforts to reduce the relative share of BLT paid by small firms as “fair”, and others even expressed a willingness to pay modest increases to support the City.
▪Concerns about the proposed tax increase, questioning how it would address the identified budget deficits, and if the City will continue to move the goal post on businesses by looking at future BLT increases.
▪Concerns about the exponential increase affecting the largest firms with consideration to a phased approach (even for $250k maximum tax model). ▪The increase to the maximum tax is unreasonable.
▪Questions about how the city is funding the remaining gap in the budget. ▪Sourcing receipts gets complicated, and predictability is important. ▪If the City has considered the fiscal impact if one or more large businesses leave the City and take their business to a more tax-friendly city. ▪If the City has considered the loss of sales tax revenue that may potentially be lost if the large businesses leave the City.
▪How the revenue numbers were taken into consideration for various models.
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
480
6 2
4 ▪Almost all the stakeholders emphasized that they are sympathetic and supportive towards the city’s financial constraints.
▪Some small business owners noted that they would not mind paying $200 instead of the minimum $100 tax.
▪A small business owner expressed concern about being double taxed, paying for taxes in other places for the same earnings.
▪Some small business owners were perplexed with the models presented by staff that showed zero increase to their tax structure as they received certain messages showing that City is increasing taxes ranging from 9x to 17x. ▪The idea of modernization of tax structure sounds reasonable, large businesses should pay their fair share.
▪If City has taken into considered impact fees, permit fees, and property tax that a large business pays i.e. the cost of doing business in the City. ▪Some business owners expressed appreciation for all the facilities that the City offers and noted that the proposed increase in tax is completely understandable and is supportive of the same.
▪Question regarding the potential impact of city business license fees updates on utility providers.
One-on-one outreach meetings held to date:
▪Wednesday, May 1, 2024, 2:00 pm in-person meeting (Gilead) ▪Thursday, May 9, 2024, 10:00 am virtual meeting (Chamber, multiple businesses)
▪Thursday, May 9, 2024, 1:00 pm virtual meeting (Visa)
▪Thursday, May 9, 2024, 2:00 pm in-person meeting (Chambers, multiple businesses)
▪Wednesday, May 15, 2:00 pm virtual meeting (Cowan Capital) ▪Wednesday, May 15, 1:00 pm virtual meeting (PG&E)
▪Wednesday, May 15, 1:00 pm virtual group meeting (Chambers, multiple businesses)
▪Thursday, May 16, 2024, 2:00pm virtual meeting (Bailard) ▪Thursday, May 16, 2024, 10:00 am virtual meeting (Zoox) ▪Thursday, May 16, 2024, 11:00 am virtual meeting (Sycomp) NEXT STEPS – ACTIONS REQUIRED AND ELECTION OVERVIEW
The City’s current BLT is considered a general tax because funds generated from the tax are considered general fund revenues that can be used for any governmental purpose.
A potential ballot measure to increase the BLT that utilizes funds generated from the tax in same manner would also be a general tax that would require a 2/3rd majority vote of the City Council (4 out of 5 Councilmembers) to be placed on the ballot and a simple majority vote (50% + 1) of the voters to pass. By law, a general tax may only be placed on the ballot when there is a City Council election, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the City Council. California Constitution Article XIII C Section 2(b)
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
481
6 2
4 governs this requirement, which restricts the placement of such a measure during such election years.
Calling for Election and Consolidation of Election
A separate resolution is necessary to call for the election and place the measure on the ballot for the November 5, 2024, General Municipal Election. The County of San Mateo’s deadline for the City to call an election and request consolidation for the election is July 3, 2024. Per the Elections Code, if the City Council wants to place a measure on the November 5th ballot, the Council must also adopt a resolution placing any such measures on the ballot and submit it to the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors and Assessor County Clerk-Recorder Elections' Office no later than 5:00 PM on August 9, 2024. The resolution would contain the wording of the measure as it would appear on the ballot and request its consolidation with the November 5, 2024, General Election. At the meeting placing a potential measure on the ballot, the City Council would also establish Argument and Rebuttal deadlines that correspond to the deadlines set by the County. Based on the direction received at the May 20 th Council Meeting, staff anticipates returning to the City Council to adopt a resolution to call the election and potentially placing a measure on the ballot in June 2024.
California Environmental Quality Act
This activity is not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as defined in CEQA Guidelines, section 15378, because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
If approved by voters, an increase to the business license tax could potentially generate additional revenue in the amount of $1.46 million to $3.23 million depending on Council’s preferred model.
CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Business Tax Analysis prepared by HdL Companies Attachment 2 – Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research Attachment 3 – Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date) Attachment 4 – Stakeholder Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
482
6 2
4 PAST MEETING LINKS
▪March 7, 2022 (Item 8.3) – Mar 07, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting - Foster City, CA (swagit.com)
▪April 4, 2022 (Item 7.2) – Apr 04, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting - Foster City, CA (swagit.com)
▪June 6, 2022 (Item 8.2) – Jun 06, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting - Foster City, CA (swagit.com)
▪October 16, 2023 (Item 8.2) – Oct 16, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting - Foster City, CA (swagit.com)
▪December 18, 2023 (Item 6.14) – Dec 18, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting - Foster City, CA (swagit.com)
▪February 5, 2024 (Item 7.1) – Feb 05, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting (trimmed) - Foster City, CA (swagit.com)
8.1 8.1 Staff Report
483
1 | Page
May 16, 2024
Final
Business Tax Analysis
&
Ordinance Review
Foster City
City of
SUBMITTED BY
HdL Companies
120 S. State College Blvd., Ste 200
Brea, CA 92821
hdlcompanies.com
CONTACT
Eric Myers
T: (424) 228-8517 Ext. 1022
E: [email protected]
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
484
2 | Page
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
SECTION 1 – Current Structure Analysis and Comparisons 4 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX: AN OVERVIEW 4
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX: BUSINESS TYPE ANALYSIS 5
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX: RATE SCHEDULE REVIEW 5
JURISDICTIONS COMPARISON SUMMARY 6
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX REVENUE IMPACT COMPARISON 7
CURRENT RATE COMPARISON – FOSTER CITY VS. NEIGHBORS 9
CURRENT RATE COMPARISON – SAMPLE BUSINESSES TAX REVENUE CHART COMPARISON 10 SECTION 2 – Category & Tax Analysis 11
GROSS RECEIPTS TAX – ESTIMATES 11
MODEL 1: EXISTING CATEGORIES WITH SIMPLE INCREASES 12
MODEL 2: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX – SINGLE GROSS RECEIPTS RATE 13 MODEL 3: GROSS RECEIPTS TAX – CLASSIFICATION-BASED RATES 14 MODEL 4: TIERED GROSS RECEIPTS OPTIONS 15
MODEL 5: UNIFORM EMPLOYEE TAX RATE 16
PROPOSED RATES COMPARISONS 18
CURRENT RATE COMPARISON – HYPOTHETICAL BUSINESSES (MODELS) 19 CURRENT RATE COMPARISON – HYPOTHETICAL BUSINESSES (NEIGHBORS AND MODELS) (SELECT CITIES) 20 Appendix A - License Classification and Rate Types 21
Appendix B - Comparison Charts Logic 22
Appendix C – Model 4X and 4Y 23
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
485
3 | Page
Executive Summary
Background
In accordance with the City Municipal Code (Title 5 “Business Licenses and Regulation” § 5.04.030), all businesses operating within the City of Foster City (the “City”) are required to obtain a business license and pay associated taxes . This revenue is locally controlled and funds essential services. The City commissioned HdL Companies ("HdL" or "we," "us," "our," or similar terms) to prepare this tax study to review the administrative efficiency of the current structures, to review options for improving the business license tax structure, if any, and to investigate the possibilities for additional revenue generation.
Summary
The City utilizes a single rate gross receipts tax of $0.75, which utilizes a minimum tax of $100 (general contractors pay $200) and a maximum tax (of $28,597 based on FY2023’s licensing period).
Generally, single-rate gross receipt tax structures allow the City to capture all gross captured generated locally and tie the City to the economic growth of the business community. However, higher minimum taxes and maximum tax limits undermine the advantages inherent in this simple structure.
More than 70% of businesses pay the minimum tax amount, which impacts the revenue needed for essential city services.
In contrast, about 20 businesses pay the current cap, which requires a business to gross more than approximately $33 million. For these large businesses, gross receipts are uncommonly high.
Report Structure
We have divided this report into two major sections and an appendix.
Section 1
In the first section, we review the City's tax code and historical revenue to establish foundational facts about the City’s current Business License tax structure. Additionally, we compare the City’s tax structure and revenue to neighboring or similar jurisdictions.
Section 2
In the second section, we reviewed five different models to determine which ones more closely align with the City’s revenue and policy. We looked at a straight increase to the current maximum business license tax/cap (Model 1), a single tax rate without a cap (Model 2), a model based on different rates for different types of businesses (Model 3), a model that preserved the current structure but adjusted the rates and the cap (Model 4) , and a per-employee model (Model 5). Given that Model 4 was a closer fit to the City’s objectives and it roughly preserves the current structure, we also focused on that model with some additional variations as provided in Appendix C.
Appendices
Appendix A outlines the categories of businesses utilized in Model 3 and provides basic statistics used in the model for each category.
Appendix B outlines the logic used in selecting the comparison jurisdictions.
Appendix C focuses on updated variations of Model 4.
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
486
4 | Page
SECTION 1 – Current Structure Analysis and Comparisons
Business License Tax: An Overview
As of this report, the City has approximately 1,651 businesses contributing to the business license tax. Since fiscal year (FY) 2019, business license tax revenue has averaged approximately $1,653, 122. This study is based on $1,394,0001 in business license tax revenue from business licenses issued between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023.
As you can see in Chart 1, overall, revenues from business license taxes have been steady. They did dip as a result of the pandemic—as you see in FY 2021—by about 8%.2 Revenue has since recovered after the modest dip in business tax revenue.
Please note that throughout this study we have used the data from the 2023 licensing period, which is to say any license that expired in 2023, when providing details from the City’s existing tax structure and when estimating the current revenue, we used a lower amount than the actual results in 2023 to adjust for some uncertainties in the gross-receipt reporting (as noted above and in footnote 1).
3 1 Tax revenue was based on the active businesses in the City data, but gross receipts were adjusted for outlier businesses with significantly higher reported gross receipts. The adjusted gross receipts, require us to use a comparable business license tax amount. 2 The dip in revenues is in FY 20-21 because the gross-receipts are reported a year after they are earned. So the gross receipts reported for licenses issued in FY 20-21 were actually from business activity that occurred in FY 19-20. 3 The revenues in chart 1 are based on City-provided data.. $1,764,875
$1,674,780
$1,506,696 $1,583,789
$1,735,472
$0
$250,000
$500,000
$750,000
$1,000,000
$1,250,000
$1,500,000
$1,750,000
$2,000,000
FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
Chart 1: City Business License Tax Revenue Trend
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
487
5 | Page
Business License Tax: Business Type Analysis
Chart 2, below, shows the key business types that generate the City’s business tax revenue. These show the key kinds of economic activity currently in the City.
The City currently tracks approximately 194 different combinations of business types and subtypes for its general business license tax. For ease of presentation, we have grouped the City’s data into 9 business categories.
The City is heavily dependent on the business service industry, which includes businesses such as research & development, warehousing, and technology. Professional, Business, and Personal Services make up approximately 50% of the tax base in Foster City. By comparison, Union City and Belmont both have approximately 30% business activity in the service industry. Taking Belmont and Union City as proxies for both the west and east sides of the bay, Foster City possesses a higher percentage of professional service businesses. Unlike retail or rental properties, service businesses are limited in how they contribute to the tax base since they tend not to contribute to either sales tax or property tax .
Business License Tax: Rate Schedule Review
The City utilizes a single rate gross receipts with a minimum and maximum tax.
Table 1: City Current Tax Structure
Category
Minimum
Tax
Gross Receipt
Rate
Maximum
Tax
Business
Count
Total Reported4
Gross Receipts
Tax
Collected
General Contractor $200 $0.75 per
thousand $28,597
449 $204,000,000 $203,000
All Other Businesses $100 1,202 $59,895,000,000 $1,448,000 Totals 1,651 $60,099,000,000 $1,651,000
Two factors reduce the amount of tax revenue generated from the reported gross receipts. The first is the cap. Businesses paying the maximum tax amount often report gross receipts that are significantly higher than the amount of the cap (in some cases hundreds of times more than the amount of the cap). Second is the tax limit on the number of multiple corporate entities. The City’s current Ordinance limits the tax on multiple corporate entities conducting business at the same location to three (3) entities with the highest gross receipts (FCMC Section 5.24.020).
4 Gross receipts represented in the tables are based on the reported gross receipts; however, while these are the reported gross receipts, the models discount these gross receipts to account for potential uncertainties in reporting.. 36%
19%
12%
10%
7%
7%
6%
2%
1%
Chart 2: Total Share of Tax Revenue Generated by Business Type Business Services
Contractor
Retail
Rental - Residential
Professional - Medical
Manufactoring/Wholesale
Professional - General
Personal Services
Rental - Commercial
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
488
6 | Page
Jurisdiction Comparisons
This section highlights the key stats of the comparison cities. The data in this section is based on data reported to the State of California and the US Census Bureau. We also use estimates where data is not available.
Jurisdictions Comparison Summary
In consultation with the City, we created a set of jurisdictions that might give us a picture of how the City is doing compared to these similar jurisdictions. In descending order based on business license tax revenue, Table 2 illustrates key features of each jurisdiction, namely population, estimated number of businesses, and business license tax revenue. The revenue trend diagrams indicate the lowest revenue (red) and highest (green) between FY2018 and FY2022.
Table 2: Jurisdiction Data
5 Richmond adopted a new gross receipt tax structure in 2020 – Measure U. 6 Union City is currently considering modernizing their business license tax. 7 Belmont is currently considering modernizing their business license tax.
Jurisdiction
Name Population
Median
Household
Income
Est. Annual
Businesses
State Report
Revenue
(FY2022)
Tax Schedules
(General)
Latest Code
Updated
Revenue Trend
FY2018 – FY2022
Richmond5 116,448 $79,478 5,190 $8,491,418 Gross Receipts with Measure 2022
San Mateo 105,661 $133,612 7,070 $6,639,151 Gross Receipts / Flat Rate 1984
Daly City 104,901 $105,374 3,780 $5,710,745 Gross Receipts 2004
Hayward 162,954 $98,837 8,717 $3,170,501 Gross Receipts / Hybrid 1978
South San
Francisco 66,105 $112,818 6,490 $2,741,082 Employee Based 2008
San Bruno 43,908 $117,747 4,171 $2,277,785
Flat Rate with
Gross Receipt
Measure
1999
Union City6 70,143 $127,828 3,650 $1,787,652 Multiple Tax Types 1990
Sausalito 7,269 $140,417 2,737 $1,649,760 Gross Receipts 2018
Foster City 33,805 $173,721 1,651 $1,583,789 Gross Receipts / Capped 2013
San Carlos 30,722 $204,570 3,420 $1,110,893 Employee Based 2017
Belmont7 28,335 $178,125 2,015 $1,068,168 Employee Based 1990
Burlingame 31,386 $150,182 4,170 $889,658
Flat Rate with
Gross Receipts
Measures
2022
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
489
7 | Page
Business License Tax Revenue Impact Comparison
Business license tax revenue per capita is arguably one of the most important statistics that help determine how well a city’s business license tax structure produces revenue, given the population size. Additionally, revenue per business allows us to see how productive a tax is once the number of businesses is controlled for. These measures allow us to compare cities of varying populations and business communities,
Table 3:
Revenue Per Capita Comparison
City Revenue
Per Capita
Sausalito8 $226.96
Richmond $72.92
San Mateo $62.83
Daly City $54.44
San Bruno $51.88
Foster City $46.85
South San
Francisco $41.47
Belmont $37.70
San Carlos $36.16
Burlingame $28.35
Union City $25.49
Hayward $19.46
Foster City has an effective tax gross receipt rate of $0.75 per thousand. Despite this favorable structure, the City’s cap means that not all of the gross receipts from large businesses in the City contribute to the total revenue. The City has several businesses that generate very large amounts of reported gross receipts. Our initial analysis indicates that this cap is the major reason Foster City’s tax structure is less productive per capita than some other cities with a gross receipts structure.
Please note that Richmond passed a new measure in 2020 to go to a progress ive gross receipts model (Measure U). The tax rates range from 0.075% to 1.395% of gross receipts.
Other interesting comparisons are Daly City and San Mateo. Daly City’s tax structure is $1.10 per thousand dollars with a $100 minimum, while a portion of San Mateo’s businesses pay about $.57 per $1,000 (for gross receipts over $100,000.) Both outproduce Foster City per capita.
Please note that we included Sausalito, not because it is similar to Foster City but because it adopted a change to its gross - receipts structure in 2019 that provides an instructive comparison.
8 Sausalito’s per capita representation in Chart 4 was reduced so that proportions aren’t significant skewed and interfere with the cities’ space relationship in the chart.
Foster City
Sausalito
Richmond
San MateoDaly City
San Bruno
South San
Francisco
Belmont
San Carlos
Burlingame
Union City
Hayward
0 15,000
30,000
45,000
60,000
75,000
90,000
105,000
120,000
135,000
150,000
165,000
0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000
Population
Estimated Number of Businesses
Chart 4: Comparison City by Population and Business Count Size of Circle = Revenue Per Capita
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
490
8 | Page
When we account for the number of businesses in each City (by dividing revenues by the number of businesses ), which yields a per-business measure of the tax, Foster City is in the top three cities in the comparison set for generating business license tax per business. Nevertheless, Richmond and Daly City also show that this category may have room for growth.
On the following page, we compare the tax from certain hypothetical businesses across these cities to show how the differing tax structures would produce different revenues.
$1,636
$1,511
$959
$939
$603
$530
$490
$422
$364
$325
$322
$213
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 Richmond
Daly City
Foster City
San Mateo
Sausalito
Belmont
Union City
South San Francisco
Hayward
San Carlos
San Bruno
Burlingame
Chart 5: Est. FY 21-22 Business Tax Revenue
Per Business
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
491
9 | Page
Current Rate Comparison – Foster City vs. Neighbors
Tables 4A & 4B: Current Rate Comparison Based on Sample Businesses Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Foster City Belmont Burlingame
Daly
City Hayward Richmond
Outside Sub-Contractor $6,000 / 1 Emp $100 $376 $200 $110 $53 $11 Home-Based Cottage Food
/ Retail $22,000 / 1 Emp $100 $376 $200 $110 $16 $26
General Contractor -
Remodeling $85,000 / 3 Emp $200 $446 $200 $110 $53 $153 Business Service $450,000 / 5 Emp $338 $516 $300 $385 $120 $810 Engineering Firm $500,000 / 5 Emp $375 $516 $300 $440 $632 $1,550 Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $1,391 $300 $578 $167 $750 Family Dentistry $2,000,000 / 10 Emp $1,500 $691 $750 $2,090 $2,627 $7,700 Apartment Complex $5,000,000 / 20 Emp /
150 Units $3,750 $5,500 $750 $5,390 Repealed $144,000
Large Retailer -
Grocery Store $20,000,000 / 300 Emp $15,000 $10,841 $750 $21,890 $5,399 $24,850 Business Services –
Large Firm $350,000,000 / 400 Emp $28,597 $14,341 $750 $384,890 $94,499 $1,831,850 $50,429 $34,994 $4,500 $415,993 $103,566 $2,011,700
Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Foster City San Bruno San Carlos
San
Mateo Sausalito
Union
City
Outside Sub-Contractor $6,000 / 1 Emp $100 $75 $253 $40 $125 $167 Home-Based Cottage Food
/ Retail $22,000 / 1 Emp $100 $100 $253 $25 $125 $167
General Contractor -
Remodeling $85,000 / 3 Emp $200 $100 $253 $100 $170 $340 Business Service $450,000 / 5 Emp $338 $478 $271 $366 $1,350 $194 Engineering Firm $500,000 / 5 Emp $375 $530 $321 $394 $1,500 $279 Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $630 $966 $466 $625 $269 Family Dentistry $2,000,000 / 10 Emp $1,500 $1,480 $446 $1,249 $6,000 $279 Apartment Complex $5,000,000 / 20 Emp /
150 Units $3,750 $3,130 $796 $2,959 $10,000 $2,150
Large Retailer –
Grocery Store $20,000,000 / 300 Emp $15,000 $8,080 $3,055 $11,509 $20,000 $8,600 Business Services –
Large Firm $350,000,000 / 400 Emp $28,597 $116,980 $3,055 $199,609 $1,050,000 $150,500 $50,429 $131,583 $9,669 $216,717 $1,089,895 $162,945
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
492
10 | Page
Current Rate Comparison – Sample Businesses Tax Revenue Chart Comparison (Selected Cities)
Chart 6A - D: Current Rate Chart Comparison (Neighboring Jurisdictions)9
9 See Appendix B for the logic behind our comparison selection. $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
Outside Speciality
Contractor
Cottage Food /
Home-Based Retail
Residential
Contractor
Foster City
Belmont
San Bruno
San Mateo
Daly City
Sausalito
$0
$2,500
$5,000
$7,500
$10,000
$12,500
$15,000
$17,500
$20,000
$22,500
$25,000
Family Dentistry Apartment Complex Large Retailer -
Grocery Store
$0
$150,000
$300,000
$450,000
$600,000
$750,000
$900,000
$1,050,000
$1,200,000
Business Services –
Large Firm
Foster City
Belmont
San Bruno
San Mateo
Daly City
Sausalito
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Business Service Engineer Firm Restaurant Chain
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
493
11 | Page
SECTION 2 – Category & Tax Analysis
The City requested that HdL conduct an analysis of its business license tax structures and explore options for modifying their rates and categories. In Section 1, we summarized the City’s tax structure and compared the City to select jurisdictions in the state to walk through the importance and value an effective tax code brings to one’s community. This section provides options for modifying the City’s business tax rates and classifications. Using the City’s data compiled in section 1, we developed five models and estimated the fiscal impact of each.
The models include increasing the City’s existing maximum tax (cap), reducing the existing minimum tax, assigning gross receipts rates by business category, creating a gross receipt scale to allow the removal of the existing cap, or switching to a different tax base structure. This section focuses on providing models that could improve the tax structure and administrative efficiency while enhancing revenue. With each model, we discuss some of the benefits and impacts while illustrating their alignment with the City’s goals.
Tax Model Revenue
Model 1 is an increase on the current cap without changing the existing tax rate .
Model 2 increases revenue by using a more effective gross receipt tax rate and would be simple to administer since it is a single tax rate.
Model 3 focuses on flexibility by structuring the rates for business industries or categories in a way that considers other revenue contributions to the City, like sales tax and property tax. Model 3 has the capacity to be highly customizable to meet the needs of the City.
Model 4 demonstrates how the city can increase revenue, adjust their current cap, and impose a lower tax amount on smaller businesses through the use of a gross receipts scale that imposes a gross receipt rate that, while regressive, would capture more of the taxable activity.
Model 5 illustrates a possible shift to an employee tax base, which would remove the cap on large businesses without as much dependence on large revenue payments from these large businesses .
Note: The City's tax limit on the number of multiple corporate entities was not included in HdL's proposed tax models because we do not see how the exemption benefits the City’s tax structure.
Gross Receipts Tax – Estimates
Many California jurisdictions use some form of gross receipts tax structure for their business license tax. Many of those jurisdictions use a standard rate multiplier to determine the tax amount owed or by setting the rate for each business category. For example, a city might charge $1 per thousand dollars of gross receipts (0.001 x Gross) for a retail business while charging a rate of $3.00 per thousand dollars of gross receipts (0.003 x Gross) for service or professional businesses.
The benefits of gross-receipts-based taxes are the ease of calculation and the potential for capturing revenue from economic growth. The drawbacks are that it exposes City revenues to fluctuations in gross receipts in the economy and may concentrate revenue in the highest-grossing businesses.
A note on our estimate of total taxable gross receipts
Given the cap in the City and the large amounts of gross receipts some businesses report to the City, there is a chance that some of the gross receipts may be inadvertently overreported. Because of that chance, we reduced the estimated gross receipts for those businesses over the cap with a discount factor. For example, for any business reporting gross receipts greater than or equal to $100 million, we discounted the gross receipts by 95%. All other businesses are discounted by 20% to account for fluctuations in gross receipts generated in the City and other uncertainties in the modeling.
Because we adjusted the gross receipts, we also recalculated the tax paid based on the adjusted gross receipts to show what the City would receive under its current structure with these adjustments for uncertainty in the model.
The following figures are used as the foundation for the model below:
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
494
12 | Page
Table 7: Key Estimates Used In The Gross Receipts Models Number of
Businesses
Estimated Total Taxable
Gross Receipts
Adjusted City Annual
Business Tax Revenue
Total Est. Taxable Number
of Employees
1,651 $4.48 Billion $1,394,000 29,957
All models presented below should be considered as a starting point for discussion. Decisions about specific rates should consider the increased tax burden on businesses, the current rate for business license tax, and the City's goals.
Model 1: Existing Categories with Simple Increases
The City may elect to retain the existing structure while modifying the tax cap. The categories in the table below group businesses that are paying the minimum tax, gross receipts, or maximum amounts based on the current structure. This grouping is intended to help us, at a summary level, see how many businesses pay the minimum tax (or on gross receipt, or the cap), and how much the untaxed gross receipts might be. It also helps illustrate how increasing the cap increases the business license tax revenue.
Table 6: Estimated Revenue From Raising the City’s Tax Cap Category
Number of
Businesses
Estimated
Gross Receipt
Current Rate
Cap at
$28,597
Model 1A:
Cap at
$100,000
Model 1B:
Cap at
$500,000
Model 1C:
Cap at
$1,000,000
Minimum Tax 1,179 $30,480,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 Gross Receipts
Tax 453 $1,063,306,000 $798,000 $798,000 $798,000 $798,000 Maximum Tax 19 $3,383,682,000 $441,000 $817,000 $1,769,000 $2,413,000 Total Revenue 1,651 $4,477,468,000 $1,394,000 $1,770,000 $2,722,000 $3,366,000
Model 1 - Highlights and Impact Review
As indicated in the model above, a simple increase to the business license tax cap could keep the existing structures in place while yielding higher revenues to the City.
The drawback of Model 1 is that simply increasing the business license cap rate increases the effective rate for the City’s largest business but it also makes the revenues more dependent on the largest businesses. And, instead of being a more general tax modernization, it focuses only on the largest businesses.
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
495
13 | Page
Model 2: Gross Receipts Tax – Single Gross Receipts Rate Model 2 reflects the potential revenues raised from changing the existing single-rate gross-receipts model to a more effective tax rate. This model retains administrative simplicity—everyone is charged the same rate—but it still allows the City to increase revenue. Model 2 also lowers the annual minimum rate to a uniform $25 to provide some tax relief for very small businesses when compared to the City’s current structure.
Table 7: Model 2—Potential Tax Structure
Tax Basis Tax Rate
Minimum Tax $25 flat rate
(First $25,000 in Gross Receipts)
Gross Receipts Tax + $1.25 per thousand dollars of Gross Receipts (0.001 x Gross Receipts)
Maximum Tax Shall not exceed $1,000,000 in tax.
Model 2 Estimates Table
The table below illustrates the potential revenues from implementing a gross receipts tax with two options: $1.25 per thousand and $1.50 per thousand. While these figures should not be solely relied upon for precise budgeting purposes, they can be useful for understanding revenue trends, making informed assessments, and comprehending the potential implications and outcomes associated with this model.
Table 8: Model 2 – Estimates From A Simple Gross Receipts Structure Category
Number of
Businesses
Taxable Gross
Receipts
Tax from Current
Rate
Model 2A
$1.25 / Thousand
Model 2B
$1.50 / Thousand
Minimum Tax 787 $5,578,000 $101,000 $20,000 $20,000
Gross Receipts Tax 860 $1,695,172,000 $1,179,000 $2,113,000 $2,532,000 Maximum Tax 4 $2,776,718,000 $114,000 $2,524,000 $2,628,000 Total Revenue 1,651 $4,477,468,000 $1,394,000 $4,657,000 $5,180,000
Model 2 – Highlights and Impact Review
The "single rate" method of taxing on gross receipts provides an even distribution of the effective tax rate . All businesses subject to the tax will pay the same rate. This model implements $1,000,000 maximum tax so only a few businesses would reach the gross receipts limits. This allows the City to get closer to total taxation of gross receipts generated in the City.
For example, large businesses, which generate over $1,000,000 in gross receipts and make up 97% of the gross receipts in the City, contribute to approximately 96% of total revenue in the $1.25-per-thousand model. Model 2 expands revenue while keeping the tax structure simple and easy to understand for businesses while asking larger businesses to pay a proportionally equivalent share. This model would raise the tax rate for mid-sized businesses and would lower the tax rate for those paying the minimum tax.
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
496
14 | Page
Model 3: Gross Receipts Tax – Classification-Based Rates Model 3, as indicated below, would create different rates for different business classifications. As mentioned, the City might choose to implement a rate for the retail and wholesale business activities that recognize the higher costs of goods sold, lower profit margins, and their contribution to other City revenues such as collecting and remitting sales tax. At the same time, the City could consider implementing a higher rate for professionals due to the nature of their business model.
This model offers the most flexibility for increasing revenues while accommodating certain business categories.
We have tailored Model 3 to provide a revenue increase and to focus on shifting more of the tax to property rentals and professional services.
Tax Structure and Estimated Revenue
Model 3 is one example of how the City might utilize a gross receipt model to improve flexibility and increase revenue.
Should the City decide to use a gross receipts model like model 3, HdL will work with City staff to finalize a structure that best serves the City’s goals. We define these categories and provide summary statistics in Appendix A. It is important to remember that, like Model 2, these models use estimated gross receipts based on the business classification , which may overestimate or underestimate the actual gross receipts in the City. We believe, however, that it gives a useful representation of the potential impact of the proposed tax structure. While these numbers should not be used for precise budgeting, useful insights are contained in the industry averages for the business classifications.
Table 9: Basic Tax Structure For Classification-Based Gross Receipts Categories Minimum Rate Tax Rate 3A Tax Rate 3B Maximum Tax Contractor
$25 Flat Rate
(First $25,000
Gross)
$2 / Thousand X Gross $3 / Thousand X Gross
Shall not exceed
$1,000,000 in tax.
General $1 / Thousand X Gross $1 / Thousand X Gross
Professional $2 / Thousand X Gross $3 / Thousand X Gross Rental - Commercial $3 / Thousand X Gross $2 / Thousand X Gross Rental - Residential $3 / Thousand X Gross $2 / Thousand X Gross Service $2 / Thousand X Gross $3 / Thousand X Gross
Table 10: Estimated Revenue From Classification-Based Gross Receipts Business Type
Number of
Businesses
Est. Taxable Gross
Receipts Current Taxes
Est. Annual Gross
Receipts Tax
Model 3A
Est. Annual Gross
Receipts Tax
Model 3B
Contractor 864 $265,472,000 $295,000 $526,000 $779,000
General 164 $371,030,000 $244,000 $372,000 $372,000
Professional 121 $1,768,572,000 $200,000 $1,536,000 $1,802,000 Rental - Commercial 10 $23,999,000 $18,000 $72,000 $48,000 Rental - Residential 28 $182,859,000 $134,000 $547,000 $365,000 Service 464 $1,865,536,000 $503,000 $3,012,000 $4,001,000 1,651 $4,477,468,000 $1,394,000 $6,065,000 $7,367,000
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
497
15 | Page
Model 3 – Highlights and Impact Review
This model spreads the tax burden across multiple business types. The model retains most of the administrative efficiencies of model 2 by having a simple structure of just six categories. Additionally, it could increase revenue by over 430% in Model 3A.
Model 4: Tiered Gross Receipts Options
This model attempts to mitigate the severity of regressivity in the City’s business license tax structure with a gross receipts measure that increases the share that large businesses pay and provides lower taxes for small businesses. The model removes or increases the cap, creates a lower minimum, and uses different tax structures to test different configurations of the tiered approach.
Table 11A: Estimated Revenue From a Regressive10 Gross Receipt Scale – Model 4A Measure
Index Gross Receipts Range
Measure Base
Tax
Gross Receipt
Rate
Number of
Businesses
Model 4A
Revenue
1 $0.00 to $25,000 $25.00 Minimum 787 $20,000
2 $25,000 to $100,000 $25.00 +$1.50 per
$1,000 344 $23,000
3 $100,000 to $1,000,000 $138.50 +$1.25 per
$1,000 326 $144,000
4 $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 $1,262.50 +$1.00 per
$1,000 150 $539,000
5 $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 $10,262.50 +$0.75 per
$1,000 41 $974,000
6 $100,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 $77,762.50 +$0.50 per
$1,000 2 $653,000
7 Gross Receipt Over
$1,000,000,000 $527,762.50 +$0.25 per
$1,000 1 $653,000
1,651 $3,006,000
Table 11B: Estimated Revenue From a Progressive11 Gross Receipt Scale (With Cap) – Model 4B Measure
Index Gross Receipts Range
Measure Base
Tax
Gross Receipt
Rate
Number of
Businesses
Model 4B
Revenue
1 $0 to $100,000 $25 Minimum 1,131 $28,000
2 $100,000 to $1,000,000 $25 +$0.50 per
$1,000 326 $48,000
3 $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 $1,825 +$1.00 per
$1,000 150 $420,000
4 $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 $15,325 +$1.50 per
$1,000 41 $1,495,000
5 Gross Receipts Over
$100,000,000 $105,325
+$2.00 per
$1,000
(Max $250,000)
3 $750,000
1,651 $2,741,000
10 A regressive tax rate is one where the rate decreases the more gross receipts increase. Regressive tax rates cause a business’ average Business License Tax burden to decrease as higher taxable gross receipts are reported. In other words, businesses that report lower taxable gross receipts pay a disproportionate share of the Business License Tax burden when compared to larger businesses. 11 A progressive business license (gross receipts) tax involves a tax rate that increases (or progresses) as taxable gross receipts increase. It imposes a lower tax rate on businesses that report lower taxable gross receipts and a higher tax rate on those businesses that report higher taxable gross receipts. A progressive business license (gross receipts) tax is usually achieved by creating tiered business license (gross receipts) tax rate that group businesses into various tiers with varying tax rates based on taxable gross receipts that they report.
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
498
16 | Page
Table 11C: Estimated Revenue From a Regressive Gross Receipt Scale (With Cap) – Model 4C Measure
Index Gross Receipts Range
Measure Base
Tax
Gross Receipt
Rate
Number of
Businesses
Model 4C
Revenue
1 $0 to $100,000 $25 Minimum 1,131 $28,000
2 $100,000 to $1,000,000 $25 +$2.00 per
$1,000 326 $167,000
3 $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 $1,825 +$1.50 per
$1,000 150 $797,000
4 $10,000,000 to $100,000,000 $15,325 +$1.00 per
$1,000 41 $1,366,000
5 Gross Receipts Over
$100,000,000 $105,325
+$0.50 per
$1,000
(Max $250,000)
3 $724,000
1,651 $3,082,000
Model 4 - Highlights and Impact Review
Businesses making less than $100,000 pay less tax because of the decreased minimum tax. Overall, the number of businesses that would see an increase in tax owed is less than 30% of businesses, and this option almost doubles the City’s business license tax revenue.
Model 5: Uniform Employee Tax Rate
If the City were to decide to switch the tax base away from a gross receipt model, an alternative tax structure would be a uniform employee tax rate.
This model is simple – allows the City to implement a structure without a cap. Unlike gross receipts, Citywide employee count may have less volatility—although the rise in remote or hybrid work could increase volatility and reduce the usefulness of this measure of the tax.
We based this model on actual employee data, where that was available in the City-provided data. Where actuals were not available, we estimated them as follows. We took the mean of the number of employees by businesses in the same business category and gross receipts range. If gross receipts were less than $25,000 and no employee was provided, we reported one employee in the model.
Table 12: Basic Tax Structure For Classification-Based Employee Tax Basis Tax Rate
Minimum Tax $150 flat rate
(Covers the First Employee)
Employee Tax $50 per Employee
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
499
17 | Page
Table 13: Estimates From A Uniform Employee Tax
Number of
Businesses
Number of
Employees
Total Minimum Tax:
($150 per business)
Employee Tax:
$50 per
Employee after 1
Total Est. Employee
Tax Revenue
1,651 29,957 $248,000 $1,415,000 $1,663,000
Model 5 – Highlights and Impact Review
This model is a useful comparison to the gross-receipts models. It would produce about the same amount of revenue as the current model.
On a side note, we did initially discuss a square-footage model but the data was hard to obtain and the model would have the side-effect of only taxing businesses with an office in the City, thus giving an advantage to businesses that come in from outside the City to do business.
Continued on the next page.
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
500
18 | Page
Proposed Rates Comparisons
Table 14A & B: Comparing Gross-Receipt Models By Hypothetical Business Type Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Current Rate
Raised Cap to
$100,000
Raised Cap to
$500,000
Raised Cap To
$1,000,000
Model 2A:
$1.25/$1,000
Model 2B:
$1.50/$1,000
Outside Sub-Contractor $6,000 / 1 Emp $100 $100 $100 $100 $25 $25 Home-Based Cottage Food / Retail $22,000 / 1 Emp $100 $100 $100 $100 $25 $25 General Contractor - Remodeling $85,000 / 3 Emp $200 $200 $200 $200 $100 $115 Business Service $450,000 / 5 Emp $338 $338 $338 $338 $556 $663 Engineering Firm $500,000 / 5 Emp $375 $375 $375 $375 $619 $738 Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $469 $469 $469 $775 $925 Family Dentistry $2,000,000 / 10 Emp $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $2,494 $2,988 Apartment Complex $5,000,000 / 20 Emp / 150 Units $3,750 $3,750 $3,750 $3,750 $6,244 $7,488 Large Retailer - Grocery Store $20,000,000 / 300 Emp $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $24,994 $29,988 Business Services - Large Firm $350,000,000 / 400 Emp $28,597 $100,000 $262,500 $262,500 $437,494 $524,988 $50,429 $121,832 $284,332 $284,332 $473,326 $567,943
Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Current Rate
Model 3A:
GR by
Category
Model 3B:
GR by
Category
Model 4a:
Gross Receipt
by Scale
Model 5:
Employee Tax
Outside Sub-Contractor $6,000 / 1 Emp $100 $25 $25 $25 $150 Home-Based Cottage Food / Retail $22,000 / 1 Emp $100 $25 $25 $25 $150 General Contractor - Remodeling $85,000 / 3 Emp $200 $145 $205 $115 $250 Business Service $450,000 / 5 Emp $338 $875 $1,300 $575 $350 Engineering Firm $500,000 / 5 Emp $375 $975 $1,450 $638 $350 Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $625 $625 $794 $1,600 Family Dentistry $2,000,000 / 10 Emp $1,500 $3,975 $5,950 $2,263 $600 Apartment Complex $5,000,000 / 20 Emp / 150 Units $3,750 $14,950 $9,975 $5,263 $1,100 Large Retailer - Grocery Store $20,000,000 / 300 Emp $15,000 $20,000 $20,000 $17,763 $15,100 Business Services – Large Firm $350,000,000 / 400 Emp $28,597 $699,975 $1,000,000 $202,763 $20,100 $50,429 $741,570 $1,039,555 $230,224 $39,750
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
501
19 | Page
Current Rate Comparison – Hypothetical Businesses (Models)
Chart 11A - D: Current & Model Rate Comparison Charts12
12 See Appendix B for the logic behind our comparison selection. $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
Outside Speciality
Contractor
Cottage Food /
Home-Based Retail
Residential
Contractor
Current
Model 1C
Model 2A
Model 3B
Model 4
Model 5
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Business Service Engineer Firm Restaurant Chain
$0
$3,000
$6,000
$9,000
$12,000
$15,000
$18,000
$21,000
$24,000
$27,000
$30,000
Family Dentistry Apartment Complex Large Retailer -
Grocery Store
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
Business Services –
Large Firm
Current
Model 1C
Model 2A
Model 3B
Model 4
Model 5
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
502
20 | Page
Current Rate Comparison – Hypothetical Businesses (Neighbors and Models) (Select Cities)
Chart 12A - D: Models and Jurisdiction Comparison Charts13
13 See Appendix B for the logic behind our comparison selection. $0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
Outside Speciality
Contractor
Cottage Food /
Home-Based Retail
Residential
Contractor
Model 1C
Model 2A
Model 3B
San Mateo
Daly City
Sausalito
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
Business Service Engineer Firm Restaurant Chain
$0
$3,000
$6,000
$9,000
$12,000
$15,000
$18,000
$21,000
$24,000
$27,000
$30,000
Family Dentistry Apartment Complex Large Retailer -
Grocery Store
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
$1,100,000
Business Services –
Large Firm
Model 1C
Model 2A
Model 3B
San Mateo
Daly City
Sausalito
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
503
21 | Page
Appendix A - License Classification and Rate Types
In Model 3, we use six basic categories of businesses. These are six basic structures that are common across municipalities.
The definitions below are general and not meant to be the complete definitions that would appear in a municipal code. We list both rental categories together below.
Contractors: These are persons or firms that are carrying on the business of a contractor, subcontractor, or builder, particularly the construction or repair of any buildings. Examples include but are not limited to construction, plumbing, HVAC, etc.
General Commerce/Retail: These are retailers, wholesalers, hoteliers, restaurateurs, manufacturers , and warehousing. All these businesses are likely to contribute to your tax base in other ways (i.e., property tax and sales tax) and often have lower profit margins.
Rental (Commercial & Residential): This category includes any business that leases, rents, or provides use of real property to another individual or entity for compensation. Examples include but are not limited to commercial leasing, residential rental, parcel leasing, etc. This would also be a category where the City could include language and rates for taxing short- term rentals.
Service: This sector offers services that require minimal to no higher education or training. This is also the default category for any business that is not specifically defined in one of the other five categories. Examples include but are not limited to hair stylists, gardeners, nail salons, etc.
Professional: These businesses offer services that require a rigorous amount of training through any type of higher education or vocational institutions that exclusively certify the complete obtainment of skills and the ability to offer such professional services. Examples include but are not limited to a doctor ’s office, a law office, a consulting firm, research and development, etc.
Please note that in the table below, we have excluded the non-profit businesses along with the “revenue” attributable to their fees to give a clearer picture of the tax revenue-producing businesses in the City.
Approximate Grouping Of City's Businesses By The Proposed Categories Business Category Type Total Count Total Current Taxes
Contractor 864 $295,000
General 164 $244,000
Professional 121 $200,000
Rental - Commercial 10 $18,000
Rental - Residential 28 $134,000
Service 464 $503,000
Totals 1,651 $1,394,000
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
504
22 | Page
Appendix B - Comparison Charts Logic
Comparison Cities in Charts 6A-D
1. Belmont – Southern neighboring City with an employee base tax with a high flat base rate.
2. San Bruno – Utilizes a gross receipts rate which makes it slightly more per capita than Foster City.
3. San Mateo – Western neighboring City with a gross receipts rate that is $0.57 and produces more per capita.
4. Daly City – Has a single rate gross receipts of $1.10 tax structure without a business tax cap .
5. Sausalito – Uses a multiple business category tax structure without a cap.
Note: Richmond was considered because it adopted a progressive business tax structure. However, the high rates make it difficult to include visualizations with a group with diverse revenue models.
Model Comparison in Charts 11A-D
1. Model 1C - demonstrates the greatest potential of increasing business tax revenue without removing the business license tax cap and retaining the existing business tax structure.
2. Model 2A – demonstrates the impact of decreasing the minimum tax to $25, providing businesses with a $25,000 gross receipt credit, raising the effective tax rate by $0.50, and raising the cap.
3. Model 3B – demonstrates the benefits of business tax by category at an effective tax rate of $1 - $3 per thousand.
Under this model, the $1 million cap would be used.
4. Model 4 – illustrates how smaller businesses would still have a reduced tax payment even with an effective rate of double the current rate, and the cap could be removed if the City used a controlled regressive gross receipt measure.
5. Model 5 shows the impact on businesses if the City changes the tax basis from gross receipts to employees.
Models and Cities Comparisons Charts 12A-D
1. San Mateo – can be compared to Model 1C to show whether Foster City could take advantage of its more effective tax with a cap increase.
2. Daly City – This is another example of model 2 at a rate of $1.10 per thousand with a base rate of $110 and no cap.
3. Sausalito – Uses a tax structure based on Model 3 that they adopted in 2018, but they did not impose a cap and have the advantage of capturing all gross receipts generated in the City.
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
505
23 | Page
Appendix C – Model 4X and 4Y
In this section, we provide four variations of models for the city of Foster City, which explore a progressive gross receipt structure with a minimum tax and a maximum tax. Businesses in both models will pay $100 for the first $250,000 of gross receipts. Businesses making an excess of $25 million will pay on gross receipts until they reach the maximum tax imposed by the City ($250,000 or $500,000).
Table 15: Gross Receipts $1.25 to $3.00 with $250K Cap (Model 4X-1) Measure
Index Gross Receipts Range
Gross Receipt
Rate
Minimum
Tax
Number of
Businesses
Model 4X-1
Revenue
1 $0 to $250,000 $0.00 $100.00 1,287 $128,700
2 $250,000 to $4,400,000 +$1.25 per $1,000 $100.00 276 $324,366 3 $4,400,000 to $8,500,000 +$1.54 per $1,000 $5,287.50 39 $299,118 4 $8,500,000 to $12,650,000 +$1.83 per $1,000 $11,608.33 14 $220,531 5 $12,650,000 to $16,750,000 +$2.13 per $1,000 $19,216.67 11 $257,834 6 $16,750,000 to $20,900,000 +$2.42 per $1,000 $27,929.17 3 $91,134 7 $20,900,000 to $25,000,000 +$2.71 per $1,000 $37,958.33 1 $44,047 8 Gross Receipts Over $25,000,000 +$3.00 per $1,000
(Max $250,000) $49,062.50 20 $2,728,446
1,651 $4,094,176
Table 16: Gross Receipts $0.75 to $3.00 with $250K Cap (Model 4X-2) Measure
Index Gross Receipts Range
Gross Receipt
Rate
Minimum
Tax
Number of
Businesses
Model 4X -2
Revenue
1 $0 to $250,000 $0.00 $100 1,287 $128,700
2 $250,000 to $4,400,000 +$0.75 per $1,000 $100 276 $205,660 3 $4,400,000 to $8,500,000 +$0.88 per $1,000 $3,213 39 $178,018 4 $8,500,000 to $12,650,000 +$1.00 per $1,000 $6,800 14 $126,844 5 $12,650,000 to $16,750,000 +$1.13 per $1,000 $10,950 11 $145,041 6 $16,750,000 to $20,900,000 +$1.25 per $1,000 $15,563 3 $50,488 7 $20,900,000 to $25,000,000 +$1.38 per $1,000 $20,750 1 $23,841 8 Gross Receipts Over $25,000,000 +$3.00 per $1,000
(Max $250,000) $26,388 20 $2,342,971
1,651 $3,201,563
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
506
24 | Page
Table 17: Gross Receipts $1.25 to $3.50 with $500K Cap (Model 4Y-1) Measure
Index Gross Receipts Range
Gross Receipt
Rate
Minimum
Tax
Number of
Businesses
Model 4Y-1
Revenue
1 $0 to $250,000 $0.00 $100 1,287 $128,700
2 $250,000 to $4,400,000 +$1.25 per $1,000 $100 276 $324,366 3 $4,400,000 to $8,500,000 +$1.50 per $1,000 $5,288 39 $296,607 4 $8,500,000 to $12,650,000 +$1.75 per $1,000 $11,438 14 $215,502 5 $12,650,000 to $16,750,000 +$2.00 per $1,000 $18,700 11 $249,418 6 $16,750,000 to $20,900,000 +$2.25 per $1,000 $26,900 3 $87,540 7 $20,900,000 to $25,000,000 +$2.50 per $1,000 $36,238 1 $41,858 8 Gross Receipts Over $25,000,000 +$3.50 per $1,000
(Max $500,000) $46,488 20 $3,625,401
1,651 $4,969,392
Table 18: Gross Receipts $.75 to $3.50 with $500K Cap (Model 4Y-2) Measure
Index Gross Receipts Range Gross Receipt
Rate
Minimum
Tax
Number of
Businesses
Model 4Y-2
Revenue
1 $0 to $250,000 $0.00 $100.00 1,287 $128,700
2 $250,000 to $4,400,000 $0.75 per $1,000 $100.00 276 $205,660 3 $4,400,000 to $8,500,000 $1.21 per $1,000 $3,212.50 39 $198,105 4 $8,500,000 to $12,650,000 $1.67 per $1,000 $8,166.67 14 $167,073 5 $12,650,000 to $16,750,000 $2.13 per $1,000 $15,083.33 11 $212,367 6 $16,750,000 to $20,900,000 $2.58 per $1,000 $23,795.83 3 $79,241 7 $20,900,000 to $25,000,000 $3.04 per $1,000 $34,516.67 1 $41,354 8 Gross Receipts Over $25,000,000 $3.50 per $1,000
(Max $500,000) $46,987.50 20 $3,633,901
1,651 $4,666,401
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
507
25 | Page
Table 19: Overall Gross Receipts Taxed Per Model and Tax Cap Categories 4X-1 - $250K 4X-2 - $250K 4Y-1 - $500K 4Y-2 - $500K Model Maximum Tax Limit $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 Taxable Gross Receipt of the 1st 7 Tiers $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Gross Receipt Taxed at Final Tier $66,979,167 $74,537,500 $129,575,000 $129,432,143 Total Gross Receipt Taxed $91,979,167 $99,537,500 $154,575,000 $154,432,143 Estimated Additional Revenue for the model $2.36 million $1.46 million $3.23 million $2.93 million
On the following page, we compare Model 4X and Model 4Y to the existing structure and to the comparison cities.
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
508
26 | Page
Tables 20A - C: Current Rate Comparison Based on Sample Businesses Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Foster City
Model 4X-
1 $250k
Model 4X-2
$250K
Model 4Y-1
$500K
Model 4Y-2
$500K Belmont Burlingame Daly City
Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $569 $381 $569 $381 $1,391 $300 $578 Large Retailer -
Grocery Store
$20,000,000 / 300
Emp $15,000 $31,992 $19,625 $34,213 $32,192 $10,841 $750 $21,890 Business Services –
Large Firm
$350,000,000 / 400
Emp $28,597 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 $14,341 $750 $384,890 $44,066 $282,561 $270,006 $534,782 $532,573 $26,573 $1,800 $407,358
Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Foster City
Model 4X-1
$250k
Model 4X-2
$250K
Model 4Y-1
$500K
Model 4Y-2
$500K Hayward Richmond San Bruno
Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $569 $381 $569 $381 $167 $750 $630 Large Retailer –
Grocery Store
$20,000,000 / 300
Emp $15,000 $31,992 $19,625 $34,213 $32,192 $5,399 $24,850 $8,080 Business Services –
Large Firm
$350,000,000 / 400
Emp $28,597 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 $94,499 $1,831,850 $116,980 $44,066 $282,561 $270,006 $534,782 $532,573 $100,065 $1,857,450 $125,690
Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Foster City
Model 4X-1
$250k
Model 4X-2
$250K
Model 4Y-1
$500K
Model 4Y-2
$500K
San
Carlos
San
Mateo Sausalito
Union
City
Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $569 $381 $569 $381 $966 $466 $625 $269 Large Retailer –
Grocery Store
$20,000,000 / 300
Emp $15,000 $31,992 $19,625 $34,213 $32,192 $3,055 $11,509 $20,000 $8,600 Business Services –
Large Firm
$350,000,000 / 400
Emp $28,597 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,055 $199,609 $1,050,000 $150,500 $44,066 $282,561 $270,006 $534,782 $532,573 $7,076 $211,584 $1,070,625 $159,369
8.1 Attachment 1 - Business License Tax Analysis prepared by HdL
509
A Potential Foster City Business
License Tax Modernization Measure
Key Findings of a Randomized Voter Survey
220-7138
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
510
2 Dates March 24-31, 2024
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2024 Voters in Foster City Total Interviews 343
Margin of Sampling Error (Full Sample) ±5.7% at the 95% Confidence Level (Half Sample) ±7.9% at the 95% Confidence Level
Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
Survey Methodology
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
511
3 Electoral Context
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
512
4 Q1.
Right
Direction
55%
Wrong
Track
17%Don't
Know
28%
Foster City voters are optimistic
about the direction of the city.
Would you say things in Foster City are going in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
513
5 Q8. ^Not Part of Split Sample
38%
32%
23%
18%
19%
18%
14%
30%
26%
22%
20%
19%
14%
15%
18%
29%
20%
29%
26%
25%
28%
11%
11%
33%
25%
32%
39%
19%
7%
24%
The cost of housing
^The cost of living
Traffic congestion on local streets and roads
Water quality in the lagoon
Sea level rise
^Too much growth and development
Waste and inefficiency in City government
Ext. Ser. Prob. Very Ser. Prob. Smwt. Ser. Prob. Not a Prob. No Opinion/Don't Know Ext./Very Ser. Prob.
68%
58%
45%
39%
38%
32%
29%
The cost of housing and cost of living are the only
problems that majorities view as “very serious.”
I’m going to read you a list of things some people say may be problems facing Foster City.
Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not a problem for Foster City residents.
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
514
6 Q8. I’m going to read you a list of things some people say may be problems facing Foster City. Please tell me whether you think it is an extremely serious problem, a very serious problem, a somewhat serious problem, or not a problem for Foster City residents. ^Not Part of Split Sample 8%
14%
8%
6%
6%
5%
20%
13%
11%
9%
5%
24%
33%
38%
30%
17%
18%
11%
20%
27%
43%
45%
69%
70%
49%
28%
12%
10%
36%
^A lack of support for local businesses
^Jobs and the economy
Potholes and street repair
Crime, in general
Homelessness
The condition of parks and open space
911 emergency response times
Ext. Ser. Prob. Very Ser. Prob. Smwt. Ser. Prob. Not a Prob. No Opinion/Don't Know Ext./Very Ser. Prob.
28%
27%
19%
15%
11%
10%
4%
Very few worry about crime, homelessness,
parks, and emergency response times.
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
515
7 Q2.
11%
8%
6%
38%
36%
32%
5%
8%
11%
22%
22%
34%
19%
21%
13%
5%Foster City
city government
Foster City's
City Council
The Foster City
Chamber of Commerce
Very Fav. Smwt. Fav. Never Heard of Can't Rate Smwt. Unfav. Very Unfav. Total Fav.
Total
Unfav.
50% 24%
44% 26%
39% 16%
Voters have net favorable opinions of city government,
the City Council, and the local chamber of commerce.
I am going to read you a list of names of some local institutions that are often in the public eye.
Please tell me if your overall impression of that institution is favorable or unfavorable. +26%
+23%
+18%
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
516
8 Q7.
13%
30%
14%
24%
19%
Great need
Some need
A little need
No real need
Don't know
A Little/
No Real Need
38%
Great/
Some Need
43%
Only two in five see an appreciable need for funding
for city services; only one in ten see a “great need.”
In your personal opinion, do you think there is a great need, some need, a little need, or no real need for additional funds to provide uninterrupted levels of City services that Foster City residents need and want?
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
517
9 Reactions to a
Potential BLT Measure
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
518
10 Hypothetical Ballot Measure Language
Q3. Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? Foster City Business License Modernization and City Services Measure.
To maintain essential city services — such as police/fire protection, 911 response, and parks/street maintenance — shall Foster City adopt an ordinance increasing its business license tax by up to (SPLIT SAMPLE C: 0.225%) (SPLIT SAMPLE D: 0.3%) on gross receipts — with a $100 minimum, smaller businesses paying lower rates, and a maximum tax cap — generating approximately
(SPLIT SAMPLE C: $2,100,000) (SPLIT SAMPLE D: $3,400,000) annually until ended by voters for general government use, and requiring independent audits and all funds used locally?
(General-purpose; 50% Vote Threshold)
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
519
11 Q3 Split C & D. Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? While a majority expressed support at the 0.3% rate,
there was more ambivalence at the 0.225% rate.
22%
27%
8%
2%
12%
18%
11%
15%
21%
9%
4%
14%
22%
15%
0.225% 0.3%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
41%
Total
Yes
44%
Total
No
32%
Total
Yes
57%
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
520
12 Q4a.
“Yes” voters indicated support for
funding services and benefiting the city.
In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES on the measure? 26%
16%
13%
11%
10%
8%
8%
5%
4%
3%
5%
5%
(Open-ended; Asked of Yes Voters Only, n=175)
Maintaining (improving) essential services/city services It would benefit the city (community)/city needs/needed funds for the city Would rather tax businesses/pay their fair share/
small cost to businesses
Funding first responders (police/firefighters/EMS)
To maintain the safety of the public (community)/a safer city Maintaining infrastructure/city roads/sidewalks
It is a minor increase/natural progression/reasonable increase General positive/support/YES
More information needed/where would the funds come from? Inflation/cost of living
Other
Refused/no comment
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
521
13 In a few words of your own, why would you vote NO on the measure? The “no” vote was driven by anti-tax sentiment
and concern that it will push out businesses.
Q4b.
(Open-ended; Asked of No Voters Only, n=125)
37%
34%
20%
16%
12%
8%
2%
1%
Taxes are already too high/No new taxes
Business will struggle/Leave
Adds to inflation/Cost of living
Mismanagement of funds
General Negative
Other
Don't Know/Unsure
Find other ways to generate revenue/Additional services
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
522
14 44%
57%
67%
59%
41%
36%
26% 30%
15%
7% 7% 11%
Initial
Vote
Explanation
Vote
Midpoint
Vote
Final
Vote
Total No
Total Yes
Undecided
Q3, Q5, Q11 & Q12. (Split C) Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? 50%
Support for the 0.225% tax rate
exceeded 50% as voters learned more.
0.225% Tax Rate (8% MOE)
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
523
15 57%
64% 68%
60%
32%
26% 24%
30%
11% 10% 8% 10%
Initial
Vote
Explanation
Vote
Midpoint
Vote
Final
Vote
Total No
Total Yes
Undecided
Q3, Q5, Q11 & Q12. (Split D) Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? 50%
Support for the 0.3% tax rate was
above 50% throughout the survey.
0.3% Tax Rate (8% MOE)
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
524
16 Q3 & Q12. (Total) Do you think you would vote “yes” or “no” on this measure? Combining rates, support increases to
60% after all information, but only one-quarter
said they would “definitely” vote yes.
27%
26%
6%
3%
6%
21%
11%
19%
24%
9%
3%
13%
20%
13%
Initial Vote After
Hypothetical Ballot Language
Final Vote After Supportive
and Critical Statements
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
36%
Total
Yes
51%
Total
No
30%
Total
Yes
60%
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
525
17 Measure Structure &
Investment Priorities
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
526
18 56%
40%
29%
30%
19%
21%
21%
27%
37%
36%
32%
41%
36%
32%
5%
5%
10%
15%
6%
20%
17%
6%
8%
12%
10%
19%
12%
17%
6%
10%
11%
13%
15%
12%
14%
Maintaining the minimum business tax
of $100 per year for small businesses
Creating tiers so that medium to large
businesses pay a lower tax rate than
the largest businesses
Adjusting the minimum business tax
annually to account for inflation
^Phasing in the tax on the largest
businesses that have more than
$25 million in gross receipts
Adjusting the maximum business tax
annually to account for inflation
Establishing a maximum business tax of
no more than $500,000 per year
Establishing a maximum business tax of
no more than $250,000 per year
Strng. Supp. Smwt. Supp. Don't Know Smwt. Opp. Strng. Opp.
Voters are most supportive of maintaining
the $100 minimum and creating tiers.
Q6.The final structure of this proposed ballot measure has not yet been finalized. Here are some potential elements of the measure under consideration.
Please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this element. ^Not Part of Split Sample Total
Supp.
Total
Opp.
83% 12%
77% 18%
66% 24%
61% 23%
60% 34%
56% 24%
53% 30%
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
527
19 48%
33%
45%
41%
41%
36%
30%
28%
31%
41%
26%
29%
29%
34%
39%
41%
19%
18%
20%
14%
12%
24%
26%
22%
7%
9%
14%
17%
8%
Maintaining fire protection
and response
Retaining and attracting
qualified police officers
Preventing property crime
Maintaining infrastructure to
prevent flooding
Providing safe routes to school
for children
Maintaining the city's
stormwater infrastructure
Repairing streets, roads,
and potholes
Maintaining the City's
financial stability
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Ext./Very Impt.
79%
73%
71%
71%
70%
70%
69%
69%
Q9. Split Sample
Many of voters’ top investment priorities are
related to public safety and infrastructure.
I am going to read you a list of City projects and programs. If additional funds were made available — either from the potential measure we discussed or from another source — please tell me how important increasing spending on each project or program would be to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important.
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
528
20 30%
31%
24%
31%
25%
20%
18%
31%
26%
38%
33%
40%
32%
38%
34%
32%
19%
20%
24%
23%
29%
22%
27%
28%
36%
28%
30%
7%
12%
6%
9%
8%
17%
14%
22%
23%
6%
^Supporting local businesses
Maintaining levee systems to protect
from sea level rise
Protecting parks and open spaces
Maintaining 911
emergency response times
Maintaining youth and
recreation programs
Supporting local economic development
Fixing streets, roads and potholes
Funding programs to make
housing more affordable
Reducing local traffic congestion
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Too Impt. Don't Know Ext./Very Impt.
68%
64%
64%
63%
63%
53%
51%
50%
46%
Q9. I am going to read you a list of City projects and programs. If additional funds were made available — either from the potential measure we discussed or from another source — please tell me how important increasing spending on each project or program would be to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not too important. ^Not Part of Split Sample Supporting local economic development and
road repairs were least likely to be “extremely important.”
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
529
21 Conclusions
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
530
22 Electoral Context
• Foster City voters are optimistic about the direction of their city and have a favorable view of city government. • Additionally, few problems in the community are seen as very serious by a majority of voters, with the exceptions of the cost of housing—and more broadly—the cost of living. • In that context, only two in five see a need for additional funding for city services.
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
531
23 Perceptions of
the City Voters view City government favorably and feel optimistic about Foster City’s future.
Perceptions of
Need
Approximately one in ten perceive that the City has a “great” need for additional funding.
Initial Vote
(Total)
This is complicated by the differences in rates where the higher tax rate enjoyed a greater “yes” vote. However, the initial total “yes” vote for the 0.3% version suggests majority support for such a measure may exist at this point in time.
Initial Vote
(Intensity)
Regardless of rate, there was only modest intensity in the initial “yes” vote.
Vote Movement Support for measure increased after voters learned more about it and remained above 50% after presentation of rationales to oppose a measure.
Rates
By the end of the survey, support was very similar for both rates tested—both in aggregate and intensity—suggesting that those initial differences may have been artifacts of how respondents quickly interpreted the 0.225% rate and that voters might make their decision on other factors besides the tax rate.
BLT Measure Viability Factors
Polling Results indicate that a BLT modernization measure may be a viable ballot measure in the November 2024 General Election.
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
532
For more information,
contact:
Curt Below
[email protected]
Lucia Del Puppo
[email protected]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
8.1 Attachment 2 - Public Polling/Voter Survey by FM3 Research
533
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
1 / 10
38.41% 53
29.71% 41
31.88% 44
Q1 Protecting against Sea Level Rise
Answered: 138 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 138
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
534
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
2 / 10
79.71% 110
15.22% 21
5.07% 7
Q2 Helping Prevent Crimes, Thefts and Burglaries
Answered: 138 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 138
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
535
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
3 / 10
81.16% 112
13.77% 19
5.07% 7
Q3 Maintaining 911 Response Times
Answered: 138 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 138
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
536
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
4 / 10
67.15% 92
29.20% 40
3.65% 5
Q4 Keeping Public Areas Safe and Clean
Answered: 137 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 137
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
537
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
5 / 10
14.71% 20
55.15% 75
30.15% 41
Q5 Expediting Permit Application and Review Processes
Answered: 136 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 136
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
538
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
6 / 10
40.44% 55
51.47% 70
8.09% 11
Q6 Repairing Streets, Sidewalks and Potholes
Answered: 136 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 136
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
539
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
7 / 10
40.58% 56
41.30% 57
18.12% 25
Q7 Retaining and Attracting Local Businesses
Answered: 138 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 138
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
540
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
8 / 10
44.93% 62
47.10% 65
7.97% 11
Q8 Maintaining Parks and Playgrounds
Answered: 138 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 138
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
541
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
9 / 10
55.47% 76
35.77% 49
8.76% 12
Q9 Upgrading Storm Drains and Flood Control Systems
Answered: 137 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 137
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
542
Foster City Fiscal Sustainability Survey SurveyMonkey
10 / 10
18.84% 26
50.72% 70
30.43% 42
Q10 Supporting Programs for Youth and Seniors
Answered: 138 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 138
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
8.1 Attachment 3 - Fiscal Sustainability Survey Results (to date)
543
MAY 2024
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
2024 BUSINESS LICENSE
TAX UPDATE PROPOSAL
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
544
Agenda
City Council Vision & Mission
Why Foster City?
City Services
City Infrastructure
City Budget
Current Business License Tax
Structure
2024 Draft Business License Tax
Models Proposed
Timeline/Key Dates
Feedback/Questions
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
545
Vision Statement
“Create a vibrant and
sustainable Foster City
community through
smart, inclusive , and
efficient actions to
preserve and enhance
our quality of life for
current and future
generations
.”
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
546
The mission of the City of Foster
City is to deliver services, invest in
quality infrastructure and
implement policies that prioritize
public safety, smart planning, a
vibrant economy, fiscal stability,
community connections, and a
sustainable environment. In
pursuit of this mission, we use
community engagement and
data to make decisions and
measure progress based on
economic, social, and
environmental factors.
Mission Statement
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
547
Why Foster City?
Foster City is unique, diverse,
innovative, and has a big vision for
the future. It is the destination of
choice for residents and businesses.
Consistently rated among top
safest cities
Well-maintained roads and
infrastructure
Ideal location with proximity to
Silicon Valley and San Francisco
Highly skilled work force and
world-renowned businesses
Vibrant community with robust
recreational amenities, such
as parks, waterways, and access
to the beautiful Bay Trail
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
548
CITY SERVICES
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
549
Fire & EMS
San Mateo
Consolidated Fire
Department
Foster City
Police
Department
Parks and
Recreation
Public
Works
Planning &
Building
Safety
Library
JPA
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
550
Public Safety & Emergency Services
The Foster City Police Department’s authorized staffing levels are for 39 Sworn Police Officers, as well as support staff & Community Service Officers. Historically rated among the safest cities in California and the nation. Broader trends in commercial burglaries have not left the City untouched, however.
The Police Department responded to over 26,000 calls for service in 2023, a slight increase from the prior year.
Foster City contracts with the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department for fire and emergency medical response.
Fire and EMS for service have increased approximately 10% per year over the last several years, and approximately 65% of fire calls are for medical emergencies.
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
551
Public Safety
& Social Equity
Crime Statistics
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
552
CITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
553
• 120 Miles of Streets & Roads
• Four (4) Bridges
• Over 2,000 Street Lights
• Recreation Center & 24 Parks
• Police Station & Fire Station
• Library/Community Center
• Stormwater & Flood Control Systems
• Water Distribution Systems (EMID)
• Wastewater Collection Systems
(EMID)
• Foster City Lagoon & Levee
• Buildings, Fleet & More
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
554
Levee Bay Trail
Foster City maintains the 8-mile
levee along the Bayfront, which protects
the City from flood hazards and storms.
In 2014, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) conducted a coastal flood
hazard study and determined that roughly
85% of the City’s levee system did not
meet FEMA requirements.
The City recently completed a $95 million
upgrade to the levee through Measure P.
The upgraded levee will protect
the community from future sea level
rise, reinforce the levee
against earthquake damage, and
enhance the popular regional Bay Trail
for the enjoyment of its users.
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
555
Facilities and Infrastructure Needs
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Improvements
Project
Recreation Center Rebuild Project
Adding a third Lagoon Pump
Rehabilitate Lagoon Intake Structure and Pump Station buildings including seismic upgrades
Maintain newly improved levee bay trail
Water Tanks and Facilities Improvements
Replace Emergency Generators
Rehabilitate Shell Bridge Sanitary Sewer Force Main
Rehabilitate Streets and Park Pathways
Water Transmission and Distribution System Improvements
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
556
CITY BUDGET
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
557
Foster City’s
General Fund
Budget for 2023-24
is just over $58
million
Police
31%
Fire
20%
Parks and Rec
19%
Comm. Dev.
8%
Public Works
8%
Admin Svcs
3%
Financial Services
3%
Library Services
1%
All Other
7%
Where the Money Goes
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
558
City Revenue Sources
Property Taxes (inc
ERAF/In Lieu, Etc)
70%
Transient Occupancy Tax
6%
Sales Tax
7%
Business License Tax
3%
Charges for Service (Rec/CDD/Oth)
3%
Permits 2%
Franchise Taxes
2%
Interest Income
3%Rentals (Parks/Rec, CMID, etc)
2%
Intergovernmental (SB90, Grants, etc)
0%
Fines/Other
1%
Other taxes (real property tax transfer)
1%
Approx. 26% of
Property Tax dollars
stay local
o Property Tax rates
governed by
Prop 13
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
559
Foster City Tax Structure
Sales Tax
Approx. 1 in 9 sales tax dollars stays
local.
The City of Foster City has no local
add-on sales tax and is tied for the
lowest Sales Tax rate in San Mateo
County.
Other Bay Area cities have higher
rates as well. Hayward (10.75%),
Oakland (10.25%), Fremont
(10.25%), Emeryville, (10.5%), San
Leandro (10.75%), and others.
Cities in San Mateo
County
Sales Tax Rate
Belmont 9.875%
Daly City 9.875%
Redwood City 9.875%
San Bruno 9.875%
South San Francisco 9.875%
Brisbane 9.875%
East Palo Alto 9.875%
San Mateo 9.625%
Burlingame 9.625%
Atherton 9.375%
Foster City 9.375%
San Carlos 9.375%
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
560
Foster City Tax Structure
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
In 2018, the City increased its transient
occupancy tax (TOT) paid by hotel
guests from 9.5% to 11% effective
January 1, 2019, then to 12% effective
July 1, 2019
FY 2018-19 - $4.39 million
FY 2019-20 - $3.5 million
FY 2020 -21- $992,616
FY 2021-22 - $1.98 million
FY 2022-23 - $3.44 million
FY 2023-24 - $3.56 million (estimate)
Cities in San Mateo County TOT Rate
Half Moon Bay 15%
Belmont 14%
Brisbane 14%
Millbrae 14%
San Bruno 14%
San Carlos 14%
San Mateo 14%
South San Francisco 14%
Daly City 13%
Burlingame 12%
Foster City 12%
Redwood City 12%
Pacifica 12%
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
561
Foster City Tax Structure
Utility User Tax (UUT)
The City of Foster City has no Utility Users Tax, which can apply to gas, electric, water and telephone,
cable/internet bills.
Numerous Bay Area cities impose UUTs at 5% or
higher of these expenses. As an example, Palo
Alto generates nearly $16 mil/yr in UUT.
According to CaliforniaCityFinance.org: “On
average, the UUT provides 15 percent of general-
purpose revenue in cities that levy it. In some
cities, the UUT provides as much as one third of the
General Fund,” and “roughly half of California
residents and businesses pay a utility user tax.”
City UUT Rate*
Pacifica 6.5%
Daly City 5%
Palo Alto 5%
East Palo Alto 5%
Redwood City 5%
San Jose 5%
Portola Valley 4.5%
Foster City 0%
CA State Controller: California Cities Utility Users Taxes Revenue and Tax Rate Fiscal Year 2021-22
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
562
What has the City done to manage its
budget?
Periodically reviewing the organizational structure and restructuring as necessary for cost savings and/or improved operational efficiencies. Implementing a hiring freeze during the pandemic.
Seeking grant opportunities for capital replacement and infrastructure projects. Pursuing grant opportunities that offset staffing costs. Using consultant services to augment staffing needs.
Periodically evaluating & prioritizing capital projects that need replacement and maintenance and defer/extend non-critical projects.
Renegotiating contracts wherever possible.
Leveraging the use of technology in City Operations.
Taking positions on legislation that will adversely impact City revenues and operations
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
563
The City is projecting economic volatility for several of its key revenue streams that support its General Fund.
Transient occupancy tax (TOT/hotel) revenues in Foster City have improved steadily since the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the ability to conduct virtual/remote meetings has likely reduced business travel and therefore hotel occupancy. TOT revenues continue to trail pre-pandemic levels. Higher interest rates have had multiple impacts as the City's investment income has expanded but so has the cost of service and supplies as well as supply chain disruptions. Development activity within the City has decreased due to high interest rates, lack of vacant land, high labor costs and difficulty obtaining bank loans.
Continued trend in State mandates that place additional burden on existing resources. State potentially withholding millions of dollars in revenues from Vehicle License Fees (VLF) to San Mateo County cities due to State Budget deficits.
Increasing personnel costs due to cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) each year coupled with increasing pension and health insurance costs.
Fiscal Challenges
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
564
Projected
General Fund
Deficit
$4.54
$6.78
$8.31
$7.70
$6.35
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
2023-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28
Millions
Projected GF Deficit
Note: These numbers are estimated projections. Final numbers will be part of the Final Budget
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
565
Need for additional revenues
Maintaining 911 emergency medical, police/ crime
prevention and fire response services
Continue to maintain local streets, pathways, bike lanes and public sidewalks
Maintaining and repairing infrastructure to
prevent flooding and other hazards
Keep existing parks and recreation facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained
Maintaining the City's Long Term Fiscal Sustainability
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
566
Current Business License Tax Structure
The Business License Tax Ordinance was updated in November 2013 based on voter approval.
The current tax rate is 0.075%, or 75 cents per thousand dollars of Gross Receipts.
Nearly 1,300 of the City’s 1,651 businesses report less than $250,000 in Receipts and pay $200 or less annually.
[1] Gross receipts represented in the tables is based on the reported gross receipts, * Table Reflects Calendar Year Calculations
Category
Minimum
Tax
Gross
Receipt
Rate
2023
Maximum
Tax
Business
Count
Total Reported[1
Gross Receipts Tax Collected
General
Contractor $200
$0.75 per
thousand $28,597
449 $204,000,000 $203,000
All Other
Businesses $100 1,202 $59,895,000,000 $1,448,000
Totals 1,651 $60,099,000,000 $1,651,000
In calendar year
2023, the
City’s gross
receipts cap was
$38,129,333 for a
maximum tax of
$28,597.
The cap for 2024
increased by 2.8%
(annual CPI
adjustment)
to $39,196,000 for
a maximum tax of
$29,397.
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
567
Comparison to other Cities
Sample Business
Gross Receipts/
Employee/Units Foster City Belmont Burlingame Daly City Hayward San Mateo Outside Sub-Contractor $6,000 / 1 Emp $100 $376 $200 $110 $53 $40 Home-Based Cottage
Food / Retail $22,000 / 1 Emp $100 $376 $200 $110 $16 $25 General Contractor -
Remodeling $85,000 / 3 Emp $200 $446 $200 $110 $53 $100 Business Service $450,000 / 5 Emp $338 $516 $300 $385 $120 $366 Engineering Firm $500,000 / 5 Emp $375 $516 $300 $440 $632 $394 Restaurant Chain $625,000 / 50 Emp $469 $1,391 $300 $578 $167 $466 Family Dentistry $2,000,000 / 10 Emp $1,500 $691 $750 $2,090 $2,627 $1,249 Apartment Complex $5,000,000 / 20 Emp /
150 Units $3,750 $5,500 $750 $5,390 Repealed $2,959
Large Retailer -
Grocery Store $20,000,000 / 300 Emp $15,000 $10,841 $750 $21,890 $5,399 $11,509 Business Services –
Large Firm
$350,000,000 / 400
Emp $28,597 $14,341 $750 $384,890 $94,499 $199,609
$50,428 $34,994 $4,500 $415,993 $103,567 $216,718
San Bruno
$75
$100
$100
$478
$530
$630
$1,480
$3,130
$8,080
$116,980
$131,583
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
568
Current Tax Structure - Effective Rate
The City’s current tax code results in a regressive tax structure, where larger (red) businesses are paying proportionally less than the smaller businesses (green) based on estimated gross receipts.
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
569
2024 BUSINESS LICENSE TAX UPDATE PROPOSAL
Maintain the minimum Business License Tax of $100 per year for small business (businesses making up to
$250,000 yearly in gross receipts)
Increase the gross receipt rate modestly
Create tiers so that medium to large businesses pay a lower rate than the largest businesses
Have larger businesses pay more of their fair share by increasing the existing cap.
1. Equity – Ensuring that
businesses of various size and
across industries are assessed
properly.
2. Fairness – Crafting a system
that is fair to Foster City
businesses and the demands
for local services
& infrastructure
provided and maintained by
the City.
3. Fit for Purpose – An
instrument that reflects
changing dynamics in
the workplace and local/
regional economy.
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
570
2024 DRAFT BLT Models Proposed
MODEL #1
Maximum Gross Receipts Tax: $250,000
Estimated Revenue Increase: Approx, $2.1 million
Gross Receipts Cap will increase annually based on SF Bay Area CPI-U
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
571
2024 DRAFT BLT Models Proposed
MODEL #2
Maximum Gross Receipts Tax: $500,000
Estimated Revenue Increase: Approx, $3.4 million
Gross Receipts Cap will increase annually based on SF Bay Area CPI-U Phasing proposed over 3 years
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
572
2024 DRAFT BLT Models Proposed
MODEL #3
Maximum Gross Receipts Tax: $500,000
Estimated Revenue Increase: Approx, $2.2 million
Gross Receipts Cap will increase annually based on SF Bay Area CPI-U Phasing proposed over 3 years
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
573
2024 DRAFT BLT Models Proposed
MODEL #4
Maximum Gross Receipts Tax: $500,000
Estimated Revenue Increase: Approx, $2.5 million
Gross Receipts Cap will increase annually based on SF Bay Area CPI-U Phasing proposed over 3 years
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
574
Next Steps/Key
Dates
Continued stakeholder outreach
including 1-on-1 meetings, group
meetings, surveys, polling, townhalls
from April through June.
Staff to seek Council direction at the
May 20th Council Meeting on the
models.
Final City Council action required
by June (4/5th vote) to place
on November 2024 ballot.
Business License Tax changes must go
to voters during a general election
where a governing board position is
up for election.
Simple Majority Vote (50%+1)
required, but funds may not be
restricted for any specific purpose.
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
575
Feedback
& Questions
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
576
Thank You
All Images Source: google.com
8.1 Attachment 4 - Stakeholder PowerPoint Presentation
577
Prepared Date 4/30/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/10
Report Number 33
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151651
151652
151653
151654
A-G SOD FARMS, INC. ELITE PLUS FESCUE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,069.25
846.80AAA BUSINESS SUPPLIES & INTERIORS
ACADEMIC CHESS INSTRUCTOR FEE: CHESS 3,628.80
ADVANCED SOFTWARE PRODUCTS GROUP REACT ANNUAL MAINTENANCE RENEWAL: MAY 1, 2024 - APRIL 30, 2025
800.66
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151655
151656
151657
151658
151659
151660
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.
ANA R. PUZON
MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - PARKS PROGRAM 356.17
500.00RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
AT&T MOBILITY CELLULAR SERVICES - POLICE CARS
EQUIPMENT FOR FCTV UPGRADE PROJECT
ADVERTISEMENT FOR CIP678 & 712
528.29
B&H PHOTO-VIDEO 140.55
BARKER BLUE DIGITAL IMAGING 541.88
BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY & CONSERVATION
AGENCY
WATER LOSS CONTROL PROGRAM: FEBRUARY AND
MARCH 2024
18,075.75
4/30/2024 151661 BAYSIDE BUILDING MATERIALS MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS & SUPPLIES - PARKS
PROGRAM
359.14
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151662
151663
151664
BENDER ROSENTHAL INC CIP657: ACQUISITION SERVICES - MARCH 2024 101.25 1,406.25
48,354.00
BLANKINSHIP & ASSOCIATES, INC.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
LAGOON MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES, WASTEWATER ISSUES,
UP2023-0058/0059/0060/0067/0068/0069/0070/0072/0094
AND OTH2024-0001 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
JANUARY 2024; CIP678: RECREATION CENTER PROJECT
SUPPORT AND DA2023-0002 - PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES: FEBRUARY 2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151665
151666
BURR PLUMBING & PUMPING INC.
C/CAG
GREASE TRAP MAINTENANCE 225.00
STREETLIGHT DATA & SERVICES SUBSCRIPTION:
9/1/2023 - 8/31/2024
17,533.33
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151667
151668
CALIFORNIA ROOFING CO. INC CIP693: RETENTION RELEASE 59,110.40 1,091.25CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP INC CLIMATE ACTION PLAN OUTREACH - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: 2/26/24-3/25/24
4/30/2024 151669 CEL ANALYTICAL INC LAGOON TESTING - APRIL 2024 575.00
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 33 - April 30, 2024
578
Prepared Date 4/30/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/10
Report Number 33
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151670
151671
CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFORM/LAUNDRY SERVICES 4,200.32
CITY OF SAN CARLOS COUNCIL OF CITIES DINNER MEETING: STACY JIMENEZ,
JON FROOMIN, PATRICK SULLIVAN, SAM HINDI, AND ART
KIESEL
300.00
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151672
151673
151674
151675
151676
151677
CLARK PEST CONTROL OF STOCKTON INC
CODE FOR FUN
PEST AWAY SERVICE 970.00
269.50INSTRUCTOR FEE: CODE FOR FUN
CIP681: RETENTION RELEASE
INSTRUCTOR FEE: PUBLIC SPEAKING
CIP678: ADVERTISEMENT
COLUMBIA ELECTRIC, INC
COMMUNICATION ACADEMY
CONSTRUCTCONNECT
153,885.99
1,665.00
710.00
CORE & MAIN LP MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER AND STREET
PROGRAM
2,604.91
4/30/2024 151678 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS
MESSAGE SWITCH: OCTOBER - DECEMBER 2023 4,088.75
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151679
151680
CREATIVE SECURITY COMPANY INC. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION 4,088.36 319.00CWEA CERTIFICATION RENEWAL FOR MATT CULLEN AND
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR JAMES MACKINLAY
POND DYE FOR LAGOON MANAGEMENT4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151681
151682
151683
151684
151685
151686
151687
CYGNET ENTERPRISES INC.
DODGE DATA & ANALYTICS
EDWARDS, BERNARD
5,441.41
1,905.64
2,952.00
200.00
ADVERTISEMENT FOR CIP678 & 712
INSTRUCTOR FEE: KARATE
ERIK HANAN VISION REIMBURSEMENT
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FIELDTURF USA INC.
WATER SERVICES: FEBRUARY - MARCH 2024
CIP709: RETENTION RELEASE
26,979.90
46,393.47
60.00ROGER FISHER UNIFORM ALLOWANCE: FY23/24 QUARTER 3 (JANUARY - MARCH 2024)
AUTO PARTS4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151688
151689
151690
151691
151692
FORELAND PARTS INC.
FREYER & LAURETA, INC.
GOETZ BROTHERS SPORTING GOODS
GRAINGER
781.81
8,948.75
347.81
CIP705: EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPLACEMENT
MEN'S SOFTBALLS
RUBBER BOOTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - WATER PROGRAM
183.96
GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 5,619.57
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 33 - April 30, 2024
579
Prepared Date 4/30/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/10
Report Number 33
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 4/30/2024 151693 GRASSROOTSLAB LLC BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONSULTING SERVICES: JANUARY - MARCH 2024
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
21,000.00
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151694
151695
GREG CANNON 500.00
GROUP4 ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH +PLAN CIP678: RECREATION CENTER CONSTRUCTION 250,521.28 SUPPORT - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - MARCH 2024
4/30/2024 151696 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS MATERIAL & SUPPLIES - BUILDING,
SEWER, WATER, AND PARKS PROGRAMS
ONLINE UTILITY BILLING
6,316.60
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151697
151698
151699
151700
151701
INFOSEND INC. 2,643.82
1,665.65
137.13
I9SPORTS - CENTRAL SAN MATEO COUNTY
JORONICA VINLUAN
INSTRUCTOR FEE: FLAG FOOTBALL
VISION REIMBURSEMENT
JULIO CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE
KASSIRER ENTERTAINMENT CO.
JANITORIAL SERVICES: APRIL 2024 26,615.50
5,708.93INSTRUCTOR FEE: TENNIS, TRACK AND FIELD,
BADMINTON
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151702
151703
151704
151705
151706
151707
151708
151709
KATHERINE MENDOZA EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT 1,138.53
13,904.10
1,515.28
450.00
LANDO INTERACTIVE INC
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
INSTRUCTOR FEE: LEGO ENGINEERING & DESIGN
LANGUAGE LINE TRANSLATION SERVICES
LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES PRE-EMPLOYMENT EXAM LOUIS MEDINA POST TRAINING 117.17
LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS, INC.
MAD SCIENCE OF THE BAY AREA
MANITO CONSTRUCTION, INC.
LANDSCAPE MATERIALS - PARKS PROGRAM
INSTRUCTOR FEE: MAD SCIENCE
1,827.31
2,302.30
341,440.45CIP660: WATER TANK IMPROVEMENTS - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: MARCH 2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151710
151711
151712
151713
151714
151715
MANUEL MINZER INSTRUCTOR FEE: BASKETBALL 1,116.50
1,359.15
452.82
METRO LIGHTING PRODUCTS
MISSION LINEN SUPPLY-UNIFORM
MISSION LINEN SUPPLY-UNIFORM
MORRIS MOUSSA
LIGHTING SUPPLIES
LAUNDRY SERVICES
LAUNDRY SERVICES 476.24
INSTRUCTOR FEE: CERAMICS
MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - STREET PROGRAM
2,648.23
192.28N. GLANTZ & SON LLC
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 33 - April 30, 2024
580
Prepared Date 4/30/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/10
Report Number 33
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151716
151717
151718
151719
151720
NANCY A. CHARLOW INSTRUCTOR FEE: ENRICHMENT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,960.00
59.35OFFICE DEPOT
OGAWA-MUNE INC PLANT MATERIAL 590.63
1,410.00PACIFIC AUXILIARY FIRE ALARM COMPANY
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
FIRE ALARM INSPECTION
ELECTRICITY & GAS AND ENGINEERING ADVANCE FOR
CIP678
65,804.34
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151721
151722
151723
151724
151725
151726
PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION, INC
PENINSULA GYMNASTICS
COPIER USAGE CHARGES AND (1) SHARP COPIER 5,630.09
3,736.00
96.68 INSTRUCTOR FEE: GYMNASTICS
CLASS REFUND: TENNISPOLINA MOISEEVA
PREFERRED ALLIANCE "DOT" COMPLIANCE EXPENSES - MARCH 2024
TOWEL/UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICES
290.07
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES (RGS)
239.74
CIP657 - LEVEE PROJECT SERVICES: FEBRUARY -
MARCH 2024; SPRING 2024 VIRTUAL ANALYST BOOT
CAMP REGISTRATION FOR ESTELLE GOBRERA
LOBBYING SERVICES: MARCH 2024
5,646.59
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151727
151728
151729
RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP, LLP
RIGHT ON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
5,000.00
7,120.00
94.00 CONCRETE WORK
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY
TRAINING CENTER
POST TRAINING: DAVID ORLANDO
4/30/2024 151730 SAFE SOFTWARE INC. FEATURE MANIPULATION ENGINE (FME) FLOW MAINTENANCE: JUNE 9, 2024 - JUNE 8, 2025
VISION REIMBURSEMENT
3,750.00
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151731
151732
151733
SALVADOR ACEVEDO
SFPUC - WATER
200.00
641,407.47
246.76
WATER SERVICES: 03/11/24-04/10/24
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO CA LAW ENFORCEMENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM ACCESS - MARCH 2024
CRIME LAB FEE4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151734
151735
151736
SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP
SELOMIT OJEDA
3,229.00
13.11MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - VEHICLE PROGRAM
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND 500.00
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 33 - April 30, 2024
581
Prepared Date 4/30/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/10
Report Number 33
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 4/30/2024 151737 SERVICE PRESS INC. BUSINESS CARDS: CATHY LAU, JOHN CHOI, LYNDSEY
CASTRO, WILLIAM SANDRI, RECORDS BUREAU, AND
PATROL UNIT
296.33
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151738
151739
SHELL DOOR SERVICE, INC. LOBBY DOOR REPAIR & PARTS - REC CENTER 1,239.38 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC CIP657: LEVEE PROTECTION PLAN AND IMPROVEMENT:
MARCH 2024
233,137.81
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151740
151741
151742
151743
151744
151745
151746
SHIRLEY WONG CLASS REFUND: LOW IMPACT FITNESS 45.00
275.00SMC SHERIFF'S OFFICE POST TRAINING: DAVID EDHAMMER
MISCELLANEOUS SIGNS FOR PARKS
FINGERPRINTING SERVICES
SPEEDPRO IMAGING OF S.F. PENINSULA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
VISION RECYCLING
842.19
226.00
AGRICULTURAL MATERIALS & SAFETY SUPPLIES
WONDERMULCH
759.28
2,200.00
2,115.50TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING
ASSOCIATES
RADIO EQUIPMENT FEES
4/30/2024 151747 THERMAL MECHANICAL INC. HVAC SYSTEM REPAIR AND PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 682.00 4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151748
151749
151750
THIRKETTLE CORPORATION
TIFCO INDUSTRIES
WATER METER PURCHASES 4,262.85
127.03MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES - VEHICLE PROGRAM
TRASHCANS UNLIMITED, LLC PUSH DOOR GARBAGE CAN LIDS FOR 55 GALLON DRUMS
3,008.48
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151751
151752
TRAVIS MURRAY
HENRY TRUONG
EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENT 668.90
60.00UNIFORM ALLOWANCE: FY23/24 QUARTER 3 (JANUARY -
MARCH 2024)
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151753
151754
151755
151756
151757
151758
VAC-CON INC VAC-CON VJT1500 ENCLOSED JETTER TRUCK 415,922.69 4,063.98
500.00
VERITIV OPERATING COMPANY
VIKASH SHARMA
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
RENTAL DEPOSIT REFUND
WE GO LOGO STAFF UNIFORMS - PARKS PROGRAM
UNCLOG BATHTUB AT 833 GULL
VMWARE ANNUAL SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION
398.97
WESTCOAST PLUMBING SERVICE INC.
NWN CORPORATION
250.00
14,304.00
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 33 - April 30, 2024
582
Prepared Date 4/30/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/10
Report Number 33
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 4/30/2024
4/30/2024
151759
151760
LUCIA MOHINI WETTASINGHE
10X REPAIR SERVICES
INSTRUCTOR FEE: CERAMICS WORKSHOP
DISHWASHER REPAIR AT 833 GULL
409.50
269.00
2,545,296.91
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
(For Edmund Suen, City Treasurer)
CHECKS ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED AND MAILED ON APRIL 30, 2024
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 33 - April 30, 2024
583
Prepared Date 5/3/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/11
Report Number 34
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Description Check Amount 5/3/2024 151761 DANIEL STRAMBI LONGEVITY 04/16/24-05/15/24 350.00 350.00
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
(For Edmund Suen, City Treasurer)
CHECKS ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED AND MAILED ON MAY 3, 2024
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 34 - May 3, 2024
584
Prepared Date 5/3/2024 City of Foster City, CA
Accounts Payable Check Register
Accounting Period 2024/11
Report Number 34A
ACH Date ACH Vendor Name Description Amount
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
5/3/2024
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
ACH
WILLIAM CLARK LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
LONGEVITY 04/16/2024-05/15/2024
210.00
200.00
200.00
275.00
140.00
210.00
350.00
350.00
345.00
140.00
210.00
350.00
350.00
350.00
345.00
350.00
350.00
140.00
4,865.00
BARBARA SCHUTZ
DAVID VILLANUEVA
MOSHE JOSHUA
GLENN WILSON
ERIC EGAN
DOUGLAS ESTILL
THOMAS LINARI
MONICA MEDRANO
JOSEPH PIERUCCI
BRIAN TIDWELL
MICHAEL TOWNS
CHARLES GOODWIN
KENNKETH LAMBRO
MOHAMMAD ASLAM
KRAIG WHITNEY
ALBERT PIACENTE
STEVEN ARCHER
Submitted for Information:
____________________________________________
Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
(For Edmund Suen, City Treasurer)
ACH ON THIS REGISTER PROCESSED ON MAY 3, 2024
9.1 Warrant Register Report FY 2023-2024 Number 34A - May 3, 2024
585