Peninsula Clean Energy
Update for San Bruno City Council
| 1
Jan Pepper, CEO
February 28, 2023
Peninsula Clean Energy
What is Peninsula Clean Energy?
• Community choice energy
not-for-profit public agency
• JPA launched in 2016
• Each city council in San Mateo
County, including San Bruno, and
the County Board of Supervisors,
voted unanimously to join in
2016
2 Members of Peninsula Clean Energy’s
founding Board of Directors in 2016
Peninsula Clean Energy
How it works
3 Generation
Peninsula Clean Energy
Delivery
PG&E
Savings
You
96% of electricity customers use Peninsula Clean
Energy in San Bruno
Peninsula Clean Energy
Energy choices for San Bruno
4 Automatically enrolled
50% renewable
100% carbon-free
5% lower rates than PG&E
Upgrade choice
100% renewable
Only about $4 more per
month for average consumer
Peninsula Clean Energy
San Bruno benefits
5 Peninsula Clean Energy
Clean energy – 50% renewable, 100% clean
6 Renewable: solar, wind, geothermal, small hydropower
Clean: large hydropower
Peninsula Clean Energy
Our 24/7 renewable power goal
Cost-effectively deliver
100% renewable energy
in every hour of every
day for our 310,000+
customers by 2025
7 Peninsula Clean Energy
Getting to 24/7: Procure Renewable Energy and Use Storage to Shift Renewable Energy Timing
8 Note: Does not represent Peninsula Clean Energy’s Actual Portfolio Peninsula Clean Energy
Partnering with communities to go 100% GHG-free
9 Make electricity as clean as possible…
and electrify everything.
Peninsula Clean Energy
Community-wide emissions
10 • 2019 greenhouse gas
inventory for San Mateo
County
• Focus on moving off
fossil fuels in
transportation and
buildings
Electricity
6.4%
Methane from
Buildings
28.9%
Transportation
49.7%
Stationary Sources
5.0%
Solid Waste
9.4%
Wastewater
0.4%
Water
0.1%
San Mateo County-Wide 2019 GHG Emissions
Note: Peninsula Clean Energy
has reduced its emission factor
by another 4% since 2019.
Peninsula Clean Energy
Reach Codes
11 • 18 cities in San Mateo County,
including San Bruno, have adopted
reach codes
• Electrification of buildings is a
key opportunity to reduce
emissions
• We partner with cities to
provide technical assistance
& model codes
Peninsula Clean Energy
Programs to support our community
• Electric Vehicles &
Charging Infrastructure
• Electric Bicycles
• Solar + Battery Storage
• Electric Water Heaters
• Home Upgrades
PenCleanEnergy.com/
community-programs
12 Peninsula Clean Energy
Partnering with schools
• Our partnerships enhance energy literacy in the
classroom and empower students to contribute to
climate action
• 322 Students served in 2021 and 2022*
• 270 students who received sustainability curriculum from participants of the Teacher Fellowship and who attend
schools in the San Mateo Union High School District
• 52 Youth Climate Ambassadors
*in the San Mateo Union High School District
13 Peninsula Clean Energy
All-electric highlights in San Bruno
14 • We have partnered with San
Bruno to install a 271.8 kW solar
system at the San Bruno
Aquatics Center
• 128 EV Ports to be constructed in
San Bruno are currently in the
pipeline
Peninsula Clean Energy
Additional partnerships with San Bruno
• Membership on Peninsula Clean Energy’s
Board of Directors: Councilmember Marty
Medina is our Director representing San
Bruno and Vice Mayor Tom Hamilton is our
San Bruno Alternate Board Member
• Councilmember Marty Medina is also a
member of our Executive Committee and
our Audit and Finance Committee
15 Peninsula Clean Energy
Thank you!
Learn more
PenCleanEnergy.com
Connect
@PenCleanEnergy
16 Scan the QR Code to Visit our Website
PARKLET PROGRAM
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE,
ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING
REGULATIONS, AND HOLD PUBLIC
HEARING ON ADOPTING RESOLUTION
ADDING FEES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 28, 2023Hae Won Ritchie, City Engineer/PW Deputy Director Agenda Item 7a
2 Agenda
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Ordinance, Regulation, Fees
IV. Tonight’s Recommended Action
V. Questions
3 Objective
• Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of an ordinance amending Title 8 (Streets, Sidewalks, and
Rights-of-Way) to add regulations relating to Parklets
• Recommend City Council adopt a resolution adopting
San Mateo Avenue Parklet Program regulations
• Hold Public Hearing to adopt resolution adding fees
related to parklets to the master fee schedule
4 Background
5 Parklet Overview
• A “parklet” is a temporary sidewalk
extension that provides outside dining for
restaurants
• Parklets are typically installed within the
parking lane in commercial districts
• Regulated by Public Works through
ministerial permits required both to construct
and for the temporary use of the City street
• Most cities charge an annual use of space fee, similar to rent for use of the public street and to offset the loss in meter revenue and for annual inspections
6 Potential Parklet Locations
Central
Business District
(CBD Zones)
Limit 5
1-2 spaces each
1-2 max per block
7 City Council Study Session in January 2023
• Public Works presented draft revised regulations and proposed fees for the Parklet Program in Downtown
• City Council provided direction to lower fees from around $7k to $5k
• Staff’s next steps were to return item for implementation 8 Ordinance, Regulations, Fees
9 Ordinance, Regulation, Fees
• Formally introducing ordinance
• Recommending adoption by resolution of regulations
• Holding a public hearing for fees
10 Revised Proposed Parklet Permit Fees
Parklet Permit Fee* $1,886 $0
Encroachment Permit $350
Revocable Encroachment Permit $615
Annual Use of Space Fee Year 1 $2,185
Annual Use of Space Fee Year 2 $2,185
Total Fees for Permit + 2 years Use $7,221 $5,335
*General Fund pays for permit application processing costs, fund in FY 2023-24 operating budget
11 Next Steps
• Return ordinance for adoption on March 14, 2023
• Post application materials online
• Send flyer to restaurant and food/drink establishments 12 T onight’s Recommended Action
13 T onight’s Recommended Action
• Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of an ordinance amending Title 8 (Streets, Sidewalks,
and Rights-of-Way) to add regulations relating to
Parklets
• Adopt resolution adopting San Mateo Avenue Parklet
Program regulations
• Hold Public Hearing to adopt resolution adding fees
related to parklets to the master fee schedule
QUESTIONS?
14 MID
-
YEAR FY2022
-
23 FINANCIAL PROJECTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 28, 2023Bobby Magee, Interim Finance
Director
2 Objective
Receive Mid-Year Financial Update Report as of
December 31, 2022 (No Action)
Adopt Resolution Amending FY2022-23
Operating and Capital Improvement Budget by
Approving Budget Amendments (Action
Required)
3 Agenda
1. Development Related Payments
2. General Fund Budget Overview
3. Mid-Year FY2022-23 Financial Projection
General Fund
• Revenues & Expenditures
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
4. Additional Budget Amendments
5. City Council Discussion and Direction
4 Fiscal Operating Year
The City’s FY2022-23 fiscal year begins on July 1, 2022 and ends on June 30, 2023.
Fiscal
Quarter Months
Q1 July 2022 – September 2022
Q2 October 2022 – December 2022
Q3 January 2023 – March 2023
Q4 April 2023 – June 2023
5 Development Related Payments
Highlight of Received & Anticipated Large One-time
Resources
YouTube: $54.5M Affordable Housing Fees, Development Impact Fees and Community Benefit Payments (received) Southline Development: $10.6M Capital Project/City Benefit Payments (anticipated Q2 2023) Sale of City Property: $5M Proceeds from the sale of parcels w/in the Crossings Development (anticipated Q2 2023) Total: $70.1M
6 Fund Balances @ Mid-Year: General Fund & Development
Impact Accounts and Affordable Housing Funds
Fund Balance @ FY
22/23 Mid-Year
General Fund Balance & Capital Reserve
General Fund Balance (Proj. Ending @ 6/30/23) $7,186,707 General Fund Capital Reserve Fund $27,902,597
Subtotal: GF Fund Balance & Capital Reserve $35,089,304 Development Impact Fees
Community Facilities Impact Fee $6,778,787
Public Safety Impact Fee $451,875
General Govt Impact Fee $733,774
Transportation Impact Fee $5,463,427
Utilities Impact Fee $1,348,663
Subtotal: Development Impact Fees $14,776,526
Affordable Housing Funds $13,084,120
Total $62,949,950
7 Potential Allocations
Fund Balance @ FY 22/23
Mid-Year Recommended Initial Allocations Remaining
Balance
General Fund Balance & Capital Reserve
General Fund Balance (Proj. Ending @
6/30/23) 7,186,707 1,000,000 Replenish City's Emergency Reserve Fund
6,186,707
General Fund Capital Reserve Fund 27,902,597 9,200,000
$1.2M Parking Fund Loan, $3M
CityNet Fiber Installation, $5M Police
Radio Project
18,702,597
Subtotal: GF Fund Balance & Capital
Reserve $35,089,304 $10,200,000 $24,889,304
Development Impact Fees
Community Facilities Impact Fee $6,778,787 2,000,000 Florida Park Project Funding 4,778,787 Public Safety Impact Fee $451,875 300,000 Fire Station 52 Replacement Project Funding (project management)
151,875
General Govt Impact Fee $733,774 733,774
Transportation Impact Fee $5,463,427 5,463,427
Utilities Impact Fee $1,348,663 1,348,663
Subtotal: Development Impact Fees $14,776,526 $2,300,000 $12,476,526 Affordable Housing Funds $13,084,120 $13,084,120
Total $62,949,950 $12,500,000 $50,449,950
8 National Economic Data
A mild but short recession is likely in 2023
Businesses are likely to pass along inflationary
price increases to consumers
Fundamental question: How will businesses and
families weather the downturn with no additional
relief?
Reference: “What to Expect for the Economy 2023 per U.S. Chamber of Commerce” https://www.uschamber.com/economy/what-to-expect-for-the-economy-in-2023 9 National Economic Data (continued)
The outlook for the global economy headed into 2023 has soured as the ongoing war in Ukraine continues to strain trade.
In the United States, signs of a tightening job market and a slowdown in business activity fueled fears of a recession. The Institute of International Finance predicted a global economic growth rate of just 1.2% in 2023, a level on par with 2009, when the world was only beginning its
emergence from the financial crisis.
Reference: “World Economic Outlook for 2023 Increasingly Gloomy” https://www.voanews.com/a/world-economic-outlook-for-2023-increasingly- gloomy
10 State Economic Data
Governor has not declared a budget
emergency despite expected revenue
shortfalls.
Administration plans for multiyear deficits of
$9 billion in 2024-25, $9 billion in 2025-26, and
$4 billion in 2026-27
Reference: January 18, 2023 “The 2023-24 Overview of the Governor’s Budget” https://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/state_admin/2023/2023-24-Budget-Overview-011823.pdf 11 Local Outlook
High inflation continues to put pressure on local
consumer spending
Sales taxes expected to flatten in future months
Overall General Fund revenues expected to remain
close to budgeted amounts
Local consumer demand for retail falling, while
realizing increased dining and hotel taxes
12 FY2022-23 General Fund Adopted Budget
Taxes
67.1%
Department Revenues
14.1%
Franchises
3.3%
Use of Money & Property
1.6%
Other Revenue
9.6%
Operating Transfers
4.2%
General Fund Revenues
13 FY2022-23 General Fund Adopted Budget
General Administration
11%
Public Safety
57%
Public Works
7%
Community Development
5%
Community Services
15%
Non-Departmental
3% Transfer to Other Funds
2%
General Fund Expenditures
14 FY2022-23 General Fund Recap
Item Adopted
Budget
Mid-Year
Budget
Estimates
Revenues $54,885,106 $58,816,596
Expenditures 55,519,905 $60,074,571
Deficit (634,799) ($1,257,975)
Use of Fund Balance 634,799 $1,257,975
Balanced Budget $0 $0
15 General Fund Net Positives Through Dec 31
Increased Property Tax received by 3% $266,800
Increased Sales Tax received by 15% $817,000 and
ERAF of 8% $66,000
Increased Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax by 51%
$500,800
Increased Regulatory (Card Room) Tax by 43%
$480,300 per negotiated agreement
Increased Investment Income by 80% $451,000
compared to last year due to increased investment
activity
16 General Fund Highlights (Departmental)
Increased Fire Revenues received due to Strike
Team Reimbursements $145,000
Increased Public Works revenues received due to
increased engineering plan checks $89,100
Increased Building revenues received due to
increased permits for building, plumbing,
mechanical, electrical and plan checks $1.0 million
17 Significant Budget Impacts
Recreation Decreased Revenues by $125,200 and
Decreased Expenditures by $143,000 due to
Aquatic Programs being suspended for FY23.
Fire Department Traffic preemption system
increase by $50,000
Re-appropriation to Human Resources borrowed
funds to cover outside counsel costs in the amount
$90,834
City Hall Roof replacement by $500,000
18 Significant Budget Impacts
City Attorney outside counsel costs
Shift from internal City Attorney to contracted services Initial invoices were higher than originally anticipated due to onboarding and transition activities
Overall costs beginning to settle in
19 Significant Budget Impacts
Special Revenue Received (You Tube Expansion)
• $2.0M – Building, Plumbing, Plans Check & Other
Permits/Fees
• $10.1M – Affordable Housing Fees
• $4.5M – Bayhill Area Development Impact Fees
• $25.4M – Community Benefit Payment
• $14.5M – Citywide Development Impact Fees
• Total = $56.5M
20 FY2022-23 Mid-Year Actuals compared to
2021-22 - General Fund Revenues
FY2021-22 FY2022-23
Revenue YTD as of
12/31/21
% of
Budget
Amended
Budget
YTD as of
12/31/22
% of
Budget
Property T ax $6,282,834 51% $12,188,998 $6,428,886 53% Sales Tax 5,544,878 52% 10,876,105 6,819,348 63%
Hotel/Motel Occupancy
Tax (TOT) 974,285 56% 2,772,483 1,475,128 53%
Motor Vehicle License Fee
& In Lieu Property T ax
2,180,387 47% 6,632,000 2,940,352 44%
Regulatory (Card Room)
Tax 1,110,296 50% 3,231,075 1,590,618 49%
Business T axes 1,889,415 88% 2,005,000 1,722,856 86%
Franchise Fees 667,459 36% 1,827,000 679,539 37%
Use of Money and
Property
565,243 75% 818,900 1,016,366 124%
Charges for Services 2,282,893 50% 1,620,736 810,365 50% Recoveries & Other
Revenues
84,726 16% 4,960,064 1,673,144 34%
Departmental Revenues 4,308,878 46% 9,813,245 5,615,348 57% T otal General Fund
Revenues
$25,891,346 51% $56,745,606 $30,771,951 54%
21 FY2022-23 Mid-Year Actuals compared to
2021-22 – General Fund Expenditures
FY2021-22 FY2022-23
Expenditures YTD as of
12/31/21 % of Budget Amended
Budget
YTD as of
12/31/22 % of Budget
Police $10,203,594 52% $21,164,572 $11,346,508 54%
Fire 6,941,417 60% 12,919,801 7,529,450 58%
General Administration 3,000,852 45% 7,039,342 3,624,634 51% Parks 1,210,989 45% 3,239,212 1,510,608 47%
Public Works 1,778,816 45% 4,619,553 2,049,157 44%
Library 1,127,248 52% 2,383,601 1,186,894 50%
Recreation 830,907 51% 2,158,038 893,034 41%
Community & Economic
Dev 1,379,111 41% 4,891,323 1,734,590 35%
Senior Services 619,561 50% 1,347,954 638,723 47%
Non-Departmental (192,385) 25% (470,229) (485,491) 103% T otalGeneral Fund
Expenditures $26,900,010 52% $59,293,167 $30,028,108 51% 22 FY2022-23 Measure G
(Half-Cent Use Tax) Mid-Year Projection (Rounded)
Item
FY21-22
Adopted
Budget
FY2022-23
Adopted
Budget
Beginning Fund Balance, July 1 $1,218,863 $3,222,863
Revenues 3,509,000 3,763,212
Approved Expenditures 1,790,000 6,110,000
Change in Fund Balance 1,719,000 (2,346,788)
Ending Fund Balance, June 30 $2,937,863 $876,075
23 FY2022-23 Compared to 2021-22 YTD
Enterprise Funds
FY2021-22
YTD as of
12/31/21
FY2021-22 % of
Budget
FY2022-23
Amended
Budget
FY2022-23
YTD as of
12/31/22
FY2022-23
% of
Budget
Water Enterprise
Revenue $7,093,405 42% $15,976,000 $6,924,526 43%
Expenditure 4,644,622 44% 12,632,134 5,319,030 42%
Wastewater Enterprise
Revenue $8,585,652 48% $16,677,000 $8,534,015 51%
Expenditure 4,659,036 47% 11,495,849 5,263,627 46%
CityNet Services
Revenue $4,241,044 43% $8,937,164 $4,158,105 47%
Expenditure 4,430,887 45% 8,751,398 4,045,765 46%
Stormwater Enterprise
Revenue $826,086 50% $650,000 $290,371 45%
Expenditure 583,895 40% 1,823,185 880,230 48%
24 FY2022-23 Compared to 2021-22 YTD
Internal Service Funds
FY2021-22
YTD as of
12/31/21
FY2021-22
% of
Budget
FY2022-23
Amended
Budget
FY2022-23
YTD as of
12/31/22
FY2022-23
% of
Budget
Central Garage
Revenue $453,574 51% $713,119 $356,568 50%
Expenditure 375,608 47% 893,088 441,014 49%
Building & Facilities Maintenance
Revenue $1,062,332 54% $1,551,198 $775,608 50%
Expenditure 911,811 45% 2,020,995 1,050,475 52%
Self Insurance
Revenue $1,464,042 50% $3,408,873 $1,704,432 50%
Expenditure 2,173,587 74% 3,344,873 2,339,012 70%
T echnology
Revenue $712,497 61% $1,627,641 $813,810 50%
Expenditure 648,671 43% 1,534,964 742,342 48%
25 Operating Budget Amendments
Program / Department Item Revenue
Increase/
(Decrease)
Expense
Increase/
(Decrease)
Recreation and Parks (Net) Aquatics Program
Suspension
(125,231) (126,350)
City Attorney Contracted Legal Fees 644,000
Human Resources Contracted Legal Fees 90,834
Fire Department Opticom Traffic
Preemption System
50,000
General Fund Budget Amendments T otal ($125,231) $658,484 Net Impact to General Fund $783,715
26 Operating Budget Amendments
Program Item Revenue
Increase/
(Decrease)
Expense
Increase/
(Decrease)
Fire Department – Equipment
Reserves
Mobile Radios 160,000
Fire Department – Equipment
Reserves
Airbags 7,000
Fire Department – Equipment
Reserves
Bullet-Proof Vests 95,455 30,000
Equipment Reserves Fire Department Budget
Amendments T otal
$95,455 $197,000
27 Operating Budget Amendments
Program Item Revenue
Increase/
(Decrease)
Expense
Increase/
(Decrease)
Building & Facilities – Building
Reserves
Roof Replacement –
City Hall
500,000
Building Reserves T otal $500,000
28 Operating Budget Amendments
Program Item Revenue
Increase/
(Decrease)
Expense
Increase/
(Decrease)
General Plan Maintenance -
Restricted Revenues
Safety Element
Consultant
60,500
T echnology Fund (Planning) -
Restricted Revenues
Short-Te r m
Residential Rental
Zoning Software
12,000
Restricted Revenues T otal $72,500
T otal Operating Budget Amendments Requests ($29,776) $1,466,484 29 Takeaways
General Fund
Both revenues and expenditures increase moderately from the adopted budget.
Operational and Capital deficit increases
Enterprise Service Funds
Stormwater Fund is currently in an operational deficit Water and Wastewater Funds – Operating as expected
Internal Service Funds
Normal, expected activity
30 City Council Discussion & Direction
Receive Mid-Year Financial Update Report as of
December 31, 2022 (No Action)
Adopt Resolution Amending FY2022-23
Operating and Capital Improvement Budget by
Approving Budget Amendments (Action
Required)
31 Questions
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING
AND
PROCUREMENT SOFTWARE
PRESENTATION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 28, 2023Bobby Magee, Interim Finance
Director
2 Objective
Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Enter into an Agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc. for the Upgrade to Enterprise Resource Planning to MUNIS Software and OpenGov for Procurement Software, along with related business process and implementation services, and support services, in an amount not to exceed $800,000
3 How Did We Get Here?
The City currently uses Tyler Technologies’ Eden software suite as its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) tool
Tyler has notified the City that it will be sunsetting the Eden software, and related support would end on March 1, 2027
Conversions and/or upgrades are estimated to take 18 months Staff from all City departments have participated in the development of this recommendation
4 Fiscal Impact
The City currently has $1,184,480 within CIP fund allocated to upgrade/replacement of the Tyler Eden ERP software
Project originally estimated at $2 million, fully funded by ARPA • Previously staff will request an additional $800,000 in appropriations for the project for FY 2023-24
Estimated cost of implementation and related support services for the upgrade of Tyler Technologies Eden ERP software to MUNIS software and OpenGov’s procurement software remains approximately $2 million
Tyler HUB
Tyler HUB – Dept. Head Page
Central Budget Entry
Executive Insights
Poweri ng M ore E ffecti ve and
Accountable G overnment
O penG ov Cloud
Confidential, D o not share
Solicit at ion De ve lopme nt
Op e n Go vhe lps you:
Turbo -charge RFP and bid
devel opment using
automation
Build cons is t e nt , compliant
solicitations
G et more time back in your
day to focus on strategic
initiatives
Confidential, D o not share
Op e n Go vhe lps you:
Stay al igned suppliers with
automation and workflow
transparency
R educe excessi ve
communicat ion, while
expediting bid responses
M aintain consistent,
c omplia nt procedures
Supplier Engagement
Confidential, D o not share
Contract M anagement
Op e n Go vhe lps you:
Easily search and find
contracts at the line -item
l evel
Stay ahead of deadlines and
insurance certification
expiration dates
R educe FO I Arequests with a
publicly accessible portal
City Council Discussion & Direction
Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Enter into an Agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc. for the Upgrade to Enterprise Resource Planning to MUNIS Software and OpenGov for Procurement Software, along with related business process and implementation services, and support services, in an amount not to exceed $800,000
15 Questions
PROPOSED
PAY SCALE
CITY MANAGER JOB CLASSIFICATION
City Council Meeting, February 28, 2023
PRESENTED BY: CORA DINO, CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER
- Agenda Item: 8c Conduct of Business
- Consider Adoption of a Resolution Adopting a Pay Scale for the City Manager Job Classification
OBJECTIVE:
BACKGROUND:
- Salary for the CM is dependent on qualifications and education - Competitive in the region
- A mutually agreeable employment agreement was negotiated with the City Council and selected candidate
- No pay scale exists for the City Manager job classification
PAY TRANSPARENCY LAW
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023
• SB 1162: Requires employers to post a pay scale,
in any job advertisement or job posting, including
3rd parties
• Pay scale is defined as a salary range
• Goal: Reduce gender and racial pay gaps
SALARY SURVEY
METHODOLOGY
• San Bruno utilizes 11 cities in the County of
SM to establish salary
• Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco
• Annual Range:
$254,792 (Pacifica) - $281,111 (SSF)
• Annual Menlo Park City Manager Rage:
$203,522 - $281,111
• Annual San Bruno City Manager:
$284,028
ADDITION OF TWO ADDITIONAL
CITIES
- Brisbane
- San Carlos
Fire Chief and Police Chief are the top paid City Executives •- Effective January 2023: $211,428 - $259,464
•- Effective January 2024: 5% increase, $272,437/ yr
•- Effective January 2025: 3% increase, $280,610/ yr
SAN BRUNO HIGHEST PAID EXECUTIVES
CITY MANAGER SALARY COMPARISON, FEBRUARY 2023
CITY MANAGER
PROPOSED PAY SCALE
Common Practice
At least 10% salary
difference between the
direct report’s top step
to that of the first step of
their manager.
Salary survey
Average City Manager
salary is approximately
16% above the highest-
paid executive.
Proposal
Salary minimum 10%
above the top step of
the highest paid
executive.
Establishing Salary Range
Proposed Annual Pay Scale:
$285,410 - $385,500
• Provides latitude to appoint commensurate with relevant experience • Competitive to attract and retain
• Capacity for future COLA and merit increases
• Ensure proper pay differential between the CM and highest paid executive • Same range to be used for Interim City Manager, if retired annuitant, cannot receive benefits
CITY MANAGER
Anticipated City Manager vacancies in the region:
City of San Mateo, $283,863 annually
City of South San Francisco, $307,590 annually
◦ Interim City Manager, $336,689 annually
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Thank you!
Questions?
STUDY SESSION FOR LOCAL
ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 28, 2023Matt Lee, Public Works Director
Harry Yip, Senior Civil Engineer
Agenda Item 8d
2 Agenda
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Study Session
IV. Fiscal Impact
V. Next Steps
VI. Tonight’s Recommended Action
VII. Questions
3 OBJECTIVE
4 Objective
Conduct Study Session and Provide Comments on the Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
5 BACKGROUND
6 Background
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a data-driven plan to prioritize safety improvements on local roadways over the long term.
Beginning in 2022, a LRSP is required to be eligible for regional, state, and federal traffic safety grants
February 2020 - the City was awarded $72,000 of grant funding from Caltrans to develop a LRSP
Grant has 3-year deadline for completion
7 Background
February 2021 - City issued a Request for Proposals for professional consulting services to develop LRSP
July 2021 - City Council authorized City Manager to contract with TJKM Transportation Consultants for the development of its LRSP February 2023 - Draft final LRSP presented to the Traffic Safety and Parking Committee
8 STUDY SESSION ON DRAFT LOCAL
ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
9 Study Session Agenda
I. What is a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)?
II. LRSP Development Process
III. Example Recommended Projects
IV. Existing Efforts
10 What is a Local Roadway Safety Plan?
Purpose: Data-driven plan to prioritize safety improvements on local roads
• Living document with 5-year updates, like the General Plan • Applies to all public roads in City except for 35, 101, 280, and 380 • Follows state and federal engineering methods and principles • Recommends state and federally proven countermeasures • Recommendations are made at a planning level and require further engineering
11 LRSP Development Process
Develop Plan Goals
Analyze Collision Data
Meet with Stakeholders/Safety Partners
Determine Emphasis Areas
Identify Crash Reduction Strategies
12 What are the Goals of the LRSP?
Identify and analyze traffic safety related issues
Enhance safety for all users of the roadway
Coordinate with key stakeholders
Reduce fatal and severe injury collisions
Create prioritized list of projects
Ensure improvements are made equitably based on high-risk locations as identify by collision data
13 Collision Data Range (2015-2019)
Study began in 2021
Availability of statewide collision data is typically 1 year behind 2020 – Not studied because of COVID-19
Collision Data Analysis
14 Collision Data Analysis
283
337
292
268
244
15 Collision Data Analysis – All Collisions
16 Collision Data Analysis – All Injury Collisions 2015-2019 Data Takeaways:
• 3 Fatal Collisions
• 51 Severe Injury
Collisions
Corridors
• El Camino Real
• San Bruno Avenue
• Sneath Lane
17 Safety Partners
January 24, 2022: Stakeholder Working Group Meeting
Reviewed goals, plan development, and collision data
Asked for their help in soliciting comments from the public Traffic Safety and Parking Committee (2) Police
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (2) Fire
San Bruno Park School District
18 Public Comments Solicited on Social Media, Website
Facebook T witter City Website
Posted February 2022
Also posted on Nextdoor and
Instagram
19 Public Comments on Traffic Safety by Location
20 T op Traffic Concern Categories
PARKING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL VIOLATION
POOR PAVEMENT
BIKE LANE
IMPROPER TURNING
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
SIGHT DISTANCE
AUTOMOBILE ROW
PEDESTRIAN ROW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
El Camino Real
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TRAFFIC SIGNAL VIOLATION
BIKE LANE
IMPROPER TURNING
UNSAFE SPEED
LIGHTING
AUTOMOBILE ROW
SIDEWALK
PEDESTRIAN ROW
San Bruno Avenue
21 Emphasis Areas
Determined through Comprehensive Collision Data Analysis Collision Types Collision
Severity Modes of Travel Weather
Time of Day Primary
Collision Factor Location
22 8 Emphasis Areas
Improve
Intersection
Safety
Reduce Unsafe
Speed
Improve
Pedestrian and
Bicyclist Safety
Reduce
Nighttime
Collisions
Reduce Rear
End Collisions
Reduce
Broadside
Collisions
Reduce
Improper
Driving
Reduce
Collisions near
Schools
23 Priority Areas
Top 10 Intersections
Top 11 Corridors
• Based on state methodology
• Weighted scores to giving more
weight to fatal and severe injury
collisions
• Same scoring system used for
state grant
24 Recommended Countermeasures
4-Es of Traffic Safety
• Engineering
Proven countermeasures selected for Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual
• Education
• Enforcement
• Emergency Response
25 Select Engineering Countermeasures
Improve signal
hardware
Improve signal
timing
26 Select Engineering Countermeasures
Upgrade to signal
mast arm
Advance stop bars
27 Select Engineering Countermeasures
Raised Median
Refuge
Advance walk for
peds
28 Select Engineering Countermeasures
Install delineators or
reflectors
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
29 Select Engineering Countermeasures
Crosswalk with
enhanced safety features
Upgrade intersection
markings
30 Recommended Countermeasures - Education
Conduct Public
Information and
Education
Campaigns
Public Service
Announcements
Safe Routes to
School Program
31 Recommended Countermeasures - Enforcement
Increase
enforcement
Increase penalties
for repeat
offenders
Zero tolerance for
distracted driving,
DUI, signal, stop
sign violations
32 Recommended Countermeasures – Emergency Response
Ensure countermeasures
don’t hinder emergency
responders
Provide signal pre-
emption for emergency
responders
33 Example Recommended Project
Emphasis Area
• Unsafe speed
• Improve
pedestrian/bicycle
safety
Countermeasures
• Delineators,
reflectors
• RRFB
• Enhanced
crosswalks
Ballpark Cost
• $1,400,000 +
Ongoing
maintenance
Crystal Springs Rd
0.4 miles
34 Example Project – San Bruno and 3rd
Emphasis Area
• Reduce broadside
Collisions
• Improve
pedestrian/bicycle
safety
Countermeasures
• Convert to signal
mast arm
• Install advance stop
bars
• Advance walk for
pedestrians
Ballpark Cost
• $400,000 +
Ongoing
Maintenance
35 Existing Efforts
Walk ‘n Bike Plan
• Citywide Bicycle
Route Installation
• Huntington – San
Anselmo Bicycle
Improvements
Transit Corridors
Plan
• Ped improvements
on San Bruno Ave
• Huntington Cycle
Track
• Additional
Crosswalk at El
Camino Real and
Angus Ave
Others
• Citywide Signage
Replacement
Program
• Cherry Ave/San
Bruno Ave Signal
Improvements
36 NEXT STEPS
37 Next Steps
After receiving input from City Council, staff will finalize the LRSP Present to City Council for adoption on March 14
Implementation:
• Capital Improvement Program / Grants / Development Projects Evaluation and Updates
38 FISCAL IMPACT
39 Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact with receiving this study session.
The adopted FY 2021-22 CIP Budget included a project with appropriation for the development of the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
The project is funded with $72,000 of Caltrans grant funding and $33,000 of Measure A local match for a total project budget of $105,000.
40 TONIGHT’S ACTION
41 T onight’s Action
• Conduct Study Session and provide comments regarding the Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
QUESTIONS?
42 THANK YOU!
43