Study Session: 2026 Ballot Measures
June 23, 2026Special Meeting of the City Council
AGENDA
I. Objective
II. Ballot Measures
I. New Revenue
II. Building Height Limit Update
III. Fireworks Regulation
III. Questions
2 OBJECTIVE
Provide overview
of three potential
Ballot Measures
01 Review proposed
timeline
02 Receive Council
direction on next
steps
03 3
OVERVIEW
I. Revenue Measure Options: Parcel or
Business License Tax
II. Height Ordinance No. 1284:
remove/amend for height & density
III. Safe and Sane Fireworks: potential
ban
4 I. Potential Revenue Measure Options
5 BACKGROUND
• Revenue Subcommittee
• Reviewed:
G.O. Bond – pursued and approved in 2024
Sales Tax – already at State maximum 9.875%
TOT – top of county at 14%, limited upside
Charter City/Documentary Transfer Tax – risks, low potential Parcel Tax – high potential, but 2/3 voter approval
• Parcel Tax further analysis and polling
6 PARCEL TAX
• Engaged EPS to assist with economic analysis
• Special tax on non-residential & 5+ unit property square footage • $0.50 per sq ft – competitive within nearby cities
• ~$5.6M annually; stable, forecastable revenue
• Requires 2/3 voter approval
• Restricted to specific named purposes
• No new non-school parcel taxes in County in 5 years
7 PARCEL TAX
8 Inventory Parcel Tax Annual Revenue
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family 19,839,500 sq. ft. $0 $0
2-4 units 845,100 sq. ft. $0 $0
5+ units 5,900 units $250 per unit $1,475,000
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Office 3,012,000 sq. ft. $0.50 per sq. ft. $1,506,000
Retail 2,578,300 sq. ft. $0.50 per sq. ft. $1,289,150
Other 1,166,000 sq. ft. $0.50 per sq. ft. $583,000
Parking/Vacant 1,687,000 sq. ft. $0.50 per sq. ft. $843,500 $5,696,650
POLLING
• Engaged Godbe Research
• All property types: only 54.6% support
• Commercial + multi-family (5+ units): 70.5% support
• Margin of error: ±4.8%
9
May 2026
Q6. Features of the Measure I
Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores:
“Much More Likely” = +2, “Somewhat More Likely” = +1, “No Effect” = 0, “Somewhat Less Likely” = -1, and “Much Less Likely” = -2.
Somewhat
More Likely
Somewhat
Less Likely
Much Less
Likely
-2 -1 0 1 2
G. Attract and retain qualified police officers
Q. Improve neighborhood parks, ballfields and
playgrounds
B. Maintain parks and recreation facilities
L. Maintain neighborhood police patrols
P. Maintain storm drains and provide flood protection
M. Maintain parks and open space
N. Maintain library programs for children, teens, adults and seniors
J. Provide rapid response to 9-1-1 emergency calls
A. Fix potholes and city streets
0.66 0.66
0.69 0.69
0.71 0.72
0.73 0.87
1.04 Much More
Likely
Tier 175.0%
Tier 2
63.0%
66.9%
64.0%
May 2026
Q11. Final Support for the Residential & Commercial Parcel Tax Sample A
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Final
Ballot
Interim
Ballot
Initial
Ballot
17.3%
21.2%
19.7%
28.3%
33.4%
28.5%
18.4%
16.9%
20.1%
25.7%
22.0%
23.4%
10.3%
6.5%
8.3%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA
48.2%
54.6%
45.6%
City of San Bruno Local Services
Measure. Shall the measure be
adopted to maintain the following
city services
• rapid 9-1-1 emergency response,
• wildfire prevention,
• neighborhood police patrols,
• youth crime prevention and gang
intervention programs, and
• storm drains and flood
protection,
by levying 9¢ per single family
residence square foot tax annually
(rates for other land uses as
specified in the ordinance), until
ended by voters, providing
$7,600,000 annually, with
independent citizen oversight and
audits and senior exemptions?
May 2026
Q12. Final Support for the Residential & Commercial Parcel Tax Sample B
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Final
Ballot
Interim
Ballot
Initial
Ballot
24.7%
35.6%
26.7%
34.4%
34.9%
33.1%
13.4%
9.1%
14.7%
18.5%
15.3%
15.7%
8.9%
5.2%
9.8%
Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No Definitely No DK/NA
59.8%
70.5%
59.1%
City of San Bruno Local Services
Measure. Shall the measure be
adopted to maintain the following
city services
• rapid 9-1-1 emergency response,
• wildfire prevention,
• neighborhood police patrols,
• youth crime prevention and gang
intervention programs, and
• storm drains and flood
protection,
by levying 50¢ per commercial
building square foot tax annually,
until ended by voters, providing
$5,600,000 annually, with
independent citizen oversight and
audits?
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
• Currently Regressive – marginal rate declines at higher receipts • General Tax
• ~$3-4M annually; unrestricted revenue
• Not polled
• Simple Majority (50%+1)
13 City of San Bruno
Business License
Tax Study
Presented By
Registry Overview:
Where is the City now?
Business License Registry Review
5-Year Revenue Trend Based on the Fiscal Year
$1,465,572
$2,127,941 $2,199,484 $2,282,550
$2,706,528
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
* T he rev enue fi gures i n the sli de are not i ntended match budgeted or audi ted fi nanci al by the Ci ty , but i nstead the trend i s ba sed on assessed tax amounts due ( collected and uncollected) .
Revenue Comparisons
Cost is outpacing business license tax revenue
CHANGE SINCE 2019
COST OF LIVING
+18.9%
SF Bay Area CPI
BUSINESS LICENSE
+11.1%
For reference, Sales Tax grow nearly 50%
over the same period.
AFTER INFLATION
−6.6%
Business license in real terms
Indexed to 2019 = 0. CPI: Consumer Price Index, San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA (SF Bay Area). Revenue and population: City of San Bruno.
JURISDICTION COMPARISON:
Basic Overview
Jurisdiction Comparison
Demographic and Economic Statistics by Location
Location Population* Business Count Business Tax
Revenue**
Revenue Per
Capita Revenue Per Business Ordinance
Last Modified Tax Basis Cap Presence?
(Y/N)
Brisbane 4,661 983 $5,390,411 $1,156.49 $5,483.63 2023 Gross Receipts Y Emeryville 13,314 2,600 $9,527,818 $715.62 $3,664.55 1993 Gross Receipts Y Sausalito 6,856 2,000 $2,142,427 $312.49 $1,071.21 2019 Gross Receipts N Richmond 112,735 5,200 $14,463,504 $128.30 $2,781.44 2021 Gross Receipts N Tracy 96,609 4,700 $8,807,071 $91.16 $1,873.84 2023 Gross Receipts Y Burlingame 30,513 8,400 $1,909,822 $62.59 $227.36 2023 Gross Receipts Y San Bruno 42,152 4,200 $2,199,484 $52.18 $523.69 > 10 Y ears Gross Receipts N South San Francisco 64,601 6,500 $3,175,739 $49.16 $488.58 2025 Per Employee N San Carlos 29,420 4,300 $1,342,096 $45.62 $312.12 > 10 years Per Employee N Hayward 159,770 12,300 $3,782,779 $23.68 $307.54 > 10 Y ears Per Employee N *Population Data is from the United States Census
* * B usi ness T ax R ev enue i s collected from the State Controllers Offi ce D ata – FY 2024 Tax Models
Features
• One gross receipts rate for all businesses.
• Small flat -rate tax.
• Exempt business definition remains unchanged and untaxed.
Model 1: Single Gross Receipts Rate
Model Evaluation
Pros:
• Easy for businesses to understand.
• Boosts revenue for ci ty servi ces.
• Same rate for all = more equitable.
• L ow base rate supports small
businesses.
Cons:
• Doesn’ t adjust for business type or
other local tax contributions.
Model 1: Single Gross Receipts Rate
Model Structure
Tax Basis Taxable Gross Receipts
Flat Rate $75 Flat Rate
( Up T o $75,000 G ross R ecei pts)
Gross Receipts Tax + $1.00 Per Thousand Dollars Of Gross Receipts Model 1: Single Gross Receipts Rate
Model’s Revenue Impact
Number of Businesses
Total Taxable
Gross Receipts
Current Revenues
(Fiscal Year 2026) Tax Amount $1.00/thousand
3,443 $6.359 Billion $2,719,000 $6,403,000
Increased Business Tax Revenue $3,684,000
*T he new regi str ati on f ee would apply to all busi nesses i ncludi ng those that are ex empt.
Features
• Variable gross receipts rate for businesses based on business type. • Small flat-rate tax.
• Model removes the special or specific categories in the current code in favor of five base categories and an exempt category.
Model 2: Variable Gross Receipts Rate
Model Evaluation
Pros:
• Onl y fi ve categori es = easi er to
determi ne.
• Boosts revenue potential.
• More equitable: accounts for varying
contributions to revenue base.
• L ow base rate supports small
businesses.
Cons:
• Definitions have the potential to be
too broad.
• Mult i-type busi nesses may need
mult iple lice nse s.
• Pot e nt ial for pe rce ive d favorit ism or
penalty in rate design.
Model 2: Variable Gross Receipts Rate
Model Structure
Categories* Flat Rate Rates Per Thousand
Contractor
$75 Flat Rate
Up to $75,000 G ross R ecei pts
$2.00
General /Retai l $1.00
Professional $3.00
Property Rental $3.00
Servi ces $2.00
Exempt $0.00 $0.00
Model 2: Variable Gross Receipts Rate
Model’s Revenue Impact
Business Type Number of Businesses
Est. Taxable Gross
Receipts
(in millions)
Current Taxes
(Fiscal Year 2026)
Variable Gross
Receipts
Est. Revenue
Contractor 1,360 $190 $110,000 $304,000
General /Retai l 508 $787 $459,000 $794,000
Professional 529 $222 $158,000 $617,000
Property Rental 505 $115 $76,000 $275,000
Se rvice 541 $5,045 $1,916,000 $10,074,000
Total 3,443 $6,359 $2,719,000 $12,064,000
Increased Business Tax Revenue $9,345,000
Model Comparison
Model Comparisons
How does the proposed models affect the City’s businesses? 83%
17%
72%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Increased
up to $100
Increased
over $100
Mo d e l 1 Mo d e l 2
MODELED IMPACT · 3,443 BUSINESSES
No Change or Increases up to $100
83%
MODEL 1
72%
MODEL 2
Increased over $100
17%
MODEL 1
28%
MODEL 2
i Most businesses see an increase under both models, but the changes are modest — within $100 for 83% (Model 2) or 71% (Model 3).
Model Comparisons
How does the models affect the top 100 businesses?
Top 100
80%
Top 100
89%
Top 100
91%
20%
11%
9%
Current
Model
Model 1
Model 2
Percent of Tax Revenue Contributions
All other businesses
$12.76
Top 100
$51.76
Top 100
$84.15
All other businesses
$3.24
Top 100
$209.35
All other businesses
$12.34
Current Model* Model 1 Model 2
*T he per capita number for the “Current T ax” model is based on FY 2026. However, the jurisdiction comparison is based on FY 202 4. For reference, the rev enue per capita for FY 2024 is $52.18 with $41.86 from the top 100 businesses, and $10.32 from all other businesses.
Revenue Per Capita:
Top 100 vs All Other Businesses
Model Comparisons
How do models 1 and 2 change the City’s stance amongst neighbors? $1,156.49
$715.62
$312.49
$221.69
$128.30
$91.16
$87.40
$62.59
$52.18
$49.16
$45.62
$23.68
Brisbane
Emeryville
Sausalito
San Bruno ( Model 2)
Richmond
Tracy
San Bruno ( Model 1)
Burlingame
San Bruno ( FY 2024)
South San Francisco
San Carlos
Hayward
Neighboring jurisdictions and models based on revenue per capita 31 Attribute Commercial Parcel Tax Business License Tax Restructure Tax Base Square footage of non-residential buildings
and multi-family (5+ units)
Gross receipts of businesses operating in
San Bruno
Voter Approval Two-thirds (2/3) supermajority Simple majority (50%+1) if structured as general tax
Est. Annual Revenue ~$5.6 million ~$3–$4 million
Revenue Use Restricted to specific purposes named in
measure
General fund (if general tax); restricted if
special tax
Revenue Stability High — consistent and forecastable year to year
Moderate — dependent on business
activity and economic conditions
Who Pays Owners of commercial, industrial, and
multi-family (5+ unit) properties
Businesses operating in San Bruno
Polling Support 70.5% after hearing more information
(±4.8% margin of error)
Not polled
Administration San Mateo County Tax Collector (billed with property taxes)
City Finance Department (existing
infrastructure)
Key Challenge Competitive margin above 66.7% threshold; outreach critical
Rate schedule redesign requires analysis of
current revenue baseline (in process)
32 REVENUE MEASURE
QUESTIONS?
II. Ordinance No. 1284
Presented by Peter Gilli
33 BACKGROUND
34 Ordinance No. 1284
• Adopted 1977
• Requires voter approval:
> 3 stories/50’
Residential density increases
Multi-story parking structures
Certain changes to Crystal Springs Road and Sneath Lane
STATE LAW IMPACTS
35 • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – exempt from public vote • SB 9 (2021) – ministerial 2-unit/lot split approval
• State Density Bonus Law – approved without a vote:
732 El Camino Real (6 stories)
850 San Bruno Ave (10 stories)
• SB 79 (2025) – transit area density mandates
LOST ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
36 Two examples of lost opportunities to strengthen tax base • The Crossings – Hotel (1999)
Failed ballot measure contributed to deal collapse
$3 – 4M/year lost revenue
• Google/YouTube Bayhill Master Plan
Future phases on hold indefinitely
INITIATIVE: ELEVATE SAN BRUNO
37 • FY 2025-26 priority: Transit Corridors Plan Assessment Fiscal analysis: investment is being lost to neighboring cities • FY 2026-27 priority: Elevate San Bruno launched January 2026 Improve investment in San Bruno
Will require ballot measure(s)
POLLING
• Rescind Ordinance No. 1284: 53.2% support
• Rescind for a targeted geographic area: 51.4% support • Simple majority threshold
38 BALLOT OPTIONS
a. Rescind Ordinance No. 1284
(Staff Recommendation)
b. Rescind for a targeted
geographic area
c. No action at this time
39 40
ORDINANCE NO. 1284
MEASURE QUESTIONS?
III. Safe and Sane Fireworks
Presented by Brian Adam
41 OBJECTIVE
42 • Provide council
information to inform
their discussion of a
potential changes to
the Fireworks
program
BACKGROUND
43 • 2005: voters approved sale/use of "Safe and
Sane" fireworks
• 2008: Res No. 2008-67 established regulatory
framework for fireworks sale
• 2024: Res No. 2024-37 cost recovery cap at 7% of
gross sales
• June 9, 2026: Council directed staff to prepare
information for discussion of rescinding Res No.
2008-67
Bay Area Cities with Fireworks
• San Bruno and Pacifica only SM County Cities
44 City Name County Name
San Bruno San Mateo
Pacifica San Mateo
Dublin Alameda
Newark Alameda
Union City Alameda
Hollister San Benito
San Juan Batista San Benito
Gilroy Santa Clara
Watsonville Santa Cruz
Dixon Solano
Rio Vista Solano
Suisun City Solano
Cloverdale Sonoma
The Fireworks Program (“Program”)
• Interested individuals may apply for a temporary
fireworks stand permit for $95
• Cost recovery is capped at 7% of permittees gross
receipts.
• For a specified period, they may sell state-approved
“Safe and Sane” fireworks (6/28 -> 7/4)
• Permittees down from 17 (FY16) to 11 (FY26)
45 City Work Related to the Program
• Processes applications and
payments for temporary
fireworks stands
• Provides public education and
additional enforcement during
holiday week
• Cites individuals with
dangerous fireworks
• Cleans up fireworks debris as
needed
46 47
$42,777 , 63%$13,264 , 20%
$3,662 , 5%
$4,711 , 7%
$1,131 , 2% $1,961 , 3%
Average Fireworks program expenditures
by department
Police Fire Community Services Public Works Other City Manager* Overall Cost To City
• Program net neutral until
FY 2024-25
• With the 7% cap, the City
spends roughly ~$15k
continue providing related
enforcement, education,
and cleanup
48 Statewide Fireworks Fire Data
• FY2013 – FY2022:*
8,427 fires (~936 yearly fireworks fires out of 3.6M yearly average calls for service)
Approximately $32.9M in property loss
Approximately $11.4M in personal property loss
22 fire personnel injuries
50 civilian injuries
4 civilian deaths
18,767 acres burnt (1,876 yearly average)
*Retrieved from California Fire Marshal 2012-2021 Report 49 San Bruno Fireworks Fire Data
FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Total Fires 8 9 11 5
Exterior 8 7 10 5
Structural 0 2 1 0
50 • ~23 citations/year at $1,000 each; ~51% collection rate • Fireworks-related fires FYs 2022-26:
51 FIREWORKS QUESTIONS?
NEXT STEPS
• Staff Return in July with Resolutions
• Finalize by end of July
• Submit to County by August 7, 2026
52 Date Item
March-April Develop options & legal review
June City Council Direction
July City Council Adopts Resolution Calling the Election August 7 FINAL DEADLINE (88 days before election)
August Argument & Rebuttal Windows
September County Ballot Production
October Ballots Mailed; Outreach Continues
November 3 Election Day
FISCAL IMPACT
• County Cost to run Mayor and City Council
• Additional for adding 1-3 ballot initiatives
• Additional legal ads / translation from the City Clerk 53 On the Ballot $/Registered
Voters Low
$/Registered
Voters High County Low County High
Mayor/Council Seats only $ 4.52 $ 5.42 $ 118,000.00 $ 141,600.00 Mayor/Council +1 Measure 5.05 6.06 131,000.00 157,200.00 Mayor/Council +2 Measures 5.57 6.69 145,000.00 174,000.00 Mayor/Council +3 Measures 6.48 7.78 165,000.00 198,000.00 M easures are 5 pages per in the V oter I nf ormation Pamphlet
RECOMMENDATION
• Receive the 2026 Ballot
Measures Report and
Provide Direction on
November 3, 2026, General
Election Ballot Measure(s)
54 55
QUESTIONS AND DIRECTION
2025 - 2028
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
STRATEGIC
PLAN
1 40k+
vie ws
1.4k
inte ractio ns
146
reshares
SAN BRUNO MEDIA FEATURES
SAN BRUNO MEDIA FEATURES
ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION
• F ounded in 1971 as a 501(c)(6) nonprof it by San Mateo County hoteliers to attract visitors and drive hotel stays.
• Operates as the r egi onal F i l m Commi ssi on and manages the S an M ateo County "As Fresh as it Gets" farm -to -table program.
• 2022: R ebranded to T he San Francisco P eninsula
• 2024: L aunched New T ourism Marketing District (T MD) • 2025: L aunched T ourism Board Advisory Council, L aunched Strategic Plan • 2026 – 2028: Educate and Actualize
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
BOARD O F DIRECTO RS
Me lissa And re tta, San Francisco Inte rnatio nal Airp o rt Cynthia Chow, Embassy Suites SFO Oyster P oint, South San F rancisco Simone Harms, T he A meswel l Ho te l, Mountain Vie w
Dani el H erbst, E nterpri se R ent-a-Car
The We stin & Alo ft, Millb rae
Michae l Ho llo way, HY ATT Ho use , Be lm o nt
L isa K ershner, SFO Waterfront Marriott, Burlingame
Sam Kim , Em b assy Suite s SFO Wate rfro nt, Burlingame Daisy Li, Moonstar K itchen, South San F rancisco
Ge o rg e s Safi, Fo ur Se aso ns Silico n Valle y, East Palo Alto Cameron Palmer, Cameron’ s R estaurant & Pub, Half Moon B ay Prativ Pate l, Ho te l Aura & Ho te l Skye , San Bruno
Mitch Po ste l, San Mate o Co unty Histo rical Asso ciatio n, R edwood City B lanca R ivera, Half Moon B ay L odge, Half Moon B ay
Paul Wilso n, Grand Bay Ho te l, R edwood City
Ya k u b Ya k u b i, Co urtyard b y Marrio tt, F oster City
EXECUTIVE CO MMITTEE
BO ARD C HAIR – K ev i n K r etsch, H y att R egency S F O, Burlingame CHAIR ELECT – Jonathan P owers, DoubleT ree SFO, Burlingame IMMEDIATE PAST C HAIR – Christina Ongerth, T he Dylan SFO, Millb rae SECRETARY – Pravin Punjiya , Best Western I nn & Suites, San Mateo TREASURER – Casp e r van Eld ik Thie m e , Grand Hyatt at SFO VIC E C HAIR 1 – Anthony Buralli, R esidence I nn, San Carlos VIC E C HAIR 2 – R andy Johnson, F airf ield I nn & Suites, Pacifica
BOARD ADVISORY COUNCIL
Chair: Mitch Po ste l, Pre sid e nt, SMC Histo rica l Asso ciatio n Ed u catio n
• Dr. Melissa Moreno, Chancellor, San Mateo County
Co m m unity Co lle g e District
Business/T ech/Biotech
• R osanne F oust, CEO, SAMCEDA
• Jim Wunderman, CEO, Bay Area Council
• Gina Sim i, Pub lic Po licy + Exte rna l Affa irs, Zo o x • P eter B anzhaf , Co-Fo und e r, He lio s
• Amy Buckmaster, CEO, Chamber San Mateo County
• K rystlyn Giedt, CEO, Coastside Chamber of Commerce
Government
• Jacki e Spei er , SM C B oar d of Superv i sors
• Mike Ca lla g y, SMC Co unty Exe cutive
• Matthew Chi dester, Ci ty Manager, Hal f Moon B ay
Hosp itality
• Marti n Y an
• Bob T rahan, T welvemonth
• Aja y Wa lia , Amara
• Miche á l Ma llie , Ma ve rick J a ck’ s
• Mathie u Rivie re , The Ritz-Carl ton, Hal f Moon B ay La b o r
• J ulie Lind , Exe cutive O ffice r, Sa n Mate o La b o r Co uncil Attractions
• Ka ra Ne wp o rt, CEO, Filo li
• Jenni f er M cCabe, Di r ector , SF O M useum
Parks and R ecreation
• Nicholas Calderon, Deputy County Executive
V enues
• Dana Stoehr, CEO, San Mateo County Event Center
• Dr . A l l i son K eaney , CE O, Cow P al ace A r ena & E v ent Center • Jim McGuire, CEO, South San Francisco Conference Center Community
• Alicia Ag uirre , Fo rm e r Re d wo o d City Co uncilm e m b e r Strategic Plan F acilitator: Bill Ge ist, Fo und e r & CEO, DMO p roz T he B oard of Di rectors thank s al l the members of the B oard Advisory Council and members of the community who
p a rticip ate d in fo cus g ro up s a nd inte rvie ws, which we re inte g ra l in the dev el opment of the Strategi c Pl an.
SUPPORT DESTINATION ASSET DEVELOPMENT
• Advocate f or signif icant upgrades to the San
Mateo County Event Center.
• A nal y ze opportuni ti es to dev el op addi ti onal
tournament -grade sports facilities throughout
the P eninsula.
• Consi der the opportuni ty to dev el op a T ouri sm
Master Plan f or the P eninsula to serve as an
inspirational guide f or f uture community
dev el opment.
ENDEAVOR TO MAXIMIZE THE DESTINATION EXPERIENCE
• Analyze the opportunity to develop an annual
destination event that would ultimately be
synonymous with T he San Francisco P eninsula
br and.
• A dv ocate f or the compl eti on of the 500 -m ile Ba y Tr a il.
• Work with communities throughout the P eninsula
to encourage music and nightlif e to power
ad d itio nal visitatio n and q uality o f life .
CONTINUE TO BUILD ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE
• I ncrease the awareness, appreciation, and
support of the organization and the P eninsula’ s
v i si tor economy .
• E ngage the r ecentl y l aunched S F P B oar d
Ad viso ry Co uncil to se rve as co mmunity
ambassadors and emissaries.
• Continue to build organizational culture, capacity
and impact.
A pri l 23 - May 3, 2026
January 21 - 31, 2027
Te n d a ys o f ce le b rating culina ry e xce lle nce and ex pl orati on on B ay si de and Coastsi de.
Flavors of the Peninsula
Coyote Point, San Mateo
Jul y 26, 2026
He rita g e Fire b ring s to g e the r lo ca l
restaurants, talented chefs, and food lovers for
an al l-inclusive wa lk-around feast celebrating
co m m unity a nd b o ld fla vo rs.
Half Moon B ay B rewing Co.
A ugust 28, 2026
T he nati on’ s pr emi er whi sk ey-tasting event tour.
CELEBRATING THE PENINSULA’S CULINARY EXCELLENCE IN 2026 & 2027
THANK YOU!
Pre- 4TH of July
Safety Presentation
1 Matt Lethin
Police Chief
Michael Ku
Fire Chief
June 23, 2026
AGENDA
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Community Education and Engagement
IV. Operational Plans
V. Safe and Safe Fireworks Information
VI. Feedback
2 OBJECTIVE
Share a presentation with City
Council summarizing staff’s plan
for a safe and happy 4th of July.
3 BACKGROUND
• 4th of July presents well-known safety challenges
Widespread illegal fireworks use
Noise, animal impacts, PTSI residents, risk of
injury
Fire hazards
This year – 4th of July on a Saturday and 250th
Anniversary of our country
Parties
Large, unruly gatherings
Increased alcohol use
• All cities in our region experience illegal fireworks use We can’t stop it
But we can responsibly manage it
4 COMMUNITY EDUCATION
• Focus is on helping our community make
good choices
Enjoy the holiday safely and responsibly
• Robust outreach and communications efforts
Pre 4th contact with previous
violators/residences
PSA video (release scheduled for 6/26)
and other social media postings
July 5th posting with summary of staff
efforts
5 PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT VIDEO
6 OPERATIONAL PLAN – FIRE
• Unified Command SBFD /
SBPD
• All Fire Prevention Staff on-duty
• Extra Engine Company on-duty
• Mandatory safety meeting with
all booth operators
• Joint Fire/Police PSAs
OPERATIONAL PLAN - POLICE
• Robust outreach and communications efforts
• Pre 4th contact with previous
violators/residences
• Pre 4th enforcement details
• Historical calls for service data trending down
in recent years
• All staff ordered to work the 4th of July
Marked/Unmarked units, bikes,
surveillance, drones, etc.
SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS INFO
•
Safe and Sane use permitted starting 6/28 from noon
to 9pm, on the 4
th
from noon until 11pm
•
Use on private property only, at least 10 feet away
from any structures
•
Not permitted in parks, public parking lots, schools or open space areas
•
Misuse of Safe and Sane Fireworks is dangerous and
illegal
Subject to $1,000 fine
SAFE AND SANE FIREWORKS INFO
• Must have Fire Marshall seal to be allowed
• Use at least 10 feet away from any structures
• Do not use near flammable materials (grass,
trees, garbage, etc.)
• Keep extinguisher, hose, or other water
source nearby
• Do not dispose of recently used fireworks in
garbage cans
ILLEGAL FIREWORKS ENFORCEMENT
• If it flies in the air or explodes, it is probably illegal • If it doesn’t have the Fire Marshall seal, it is illegal • $1,000 administrative citation for use/possession of
illegal fireworks
Social host citations
• Only report violations with specific suspect information Majority of citations do not result from resident
reports
FEEDBACK
12 CITY OF SAN BRUNO · BUDGET ADOPTION
FY27 CIP Public Hearing &
Budget Adoption
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director & CFO
Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
June 23, 2026
TODAY'S MEETING
Agenda
01 DRAFT City Council
FY27 Budget Recap
Process and major elements
02 FY27 Capital Budget
Public Hearing
New FY27 CIP projects
03 Wrap-up
Questions and discussion
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 2 Objective
1. Conduct FY27 Public Hearing on New CIP Projects
2. Consider Enabling FY27 Budget Resolutions
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 3
IN SUMMARY
“
Trimming at the Fringes
STILL
No Longer Cuts It.
Our path forward for FY27
Budget is responsive to known threats and risks to City revenue Core services preserved
General Fund reductions made carefully
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
Budget Milestones
Eight public meeting touchpoints from goal setting through the City Manager’s Recommended Budget JAN → JUN 2026
5 MONTHS • 8 MILESTONES
Jan 30
2026 City Council Goal Setting Session
Feb 10
2026 Council Adoption — FY27 Priority Initiatives and Budget Principles Feb 19
2026 Revenue Measure Oversight Committee
2026
Feb 24 FY25-26 General Fund Mid-Year Update
Mar 24
2026 Revenue Measure Oversight Committee feedback and Priority Initiative Discussion Apr 14
2026
Mid-year budget update, DIF Projects, & Priority Initiatives Discussion & Direction Apr 28
2026
FY27 Budget Preview & Forecast
Jun 3, 9, 23
2026
June Budget Meetings
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 5 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
City Council Adopted Budget Principles
Twelve guiding principles for sound financial management — unchanged from prior years
REVENUE & COST
01 Pursue revenue enhancements and full
cost recovery for fee-based services
02 Maintain core services and
infrastructure aligned with Council
priorities
03 Define cost and timing of cash outlays
to allow investment of idle cash
04 Increase reserve funds annually as
funds become available
OPERATIONS & PEOPLE
05 Improve productivity through continual
review of City services
06 Manage loss of institutional knowledge
through succession planning
07 Invest in technology that drives
efficiency and productivity
08 Strengthen San Bruno’s standing as an
employer of choice
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
& COMMUNICATION
09 Incorporate vacancy salary savings into
the forecast
10 Promote long-term financial
sustainability — monitor unfunded
liabilities
11 Evaluate one-time revenues for highest
impact and best investment
12 Communicate the City’s financial
position transparently
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 6 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
FY27 Budget — All Funds
$329M
All Funds
Spending Plan 265 All Funds FTEs
Police
68 FTEs
$24M
Patrol, Investigations, Traffic, Dispatch,
Special Assignments
Fire
37 FTEs
$15M
Suppression, Emergency Medical Services,
Fire Prevention
Community Services
36 FTEs
$17M
Library, Parks, Satellite Programs, Senior
Center, Recreation & Aquatic Center
Public Works
Enterprises
Capital Improvement Program
$12M
$138M
$76M
Admin & Engineering, Streets, Utilities,
Stormwater, Internal Services, CIP
Council & Administration
32 FTEs
$40M
Council, City Attorney, CMO, Finance, HR, IT,
Internal Services, Debt Service
Community Development
19 FTEs
$7M
Building, Code Enforcement, Planning
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 7 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
City Council Priority Initiatives
ALL FUNDS IMPACT
$10.91M
$2.8M
Elevate San Bruno
Funded by Community Development Special Revenue Fund
$0.26M
Street Sweeping Program
Funded by General Fund One-time Revenue Reserve
$0.35M
Downtown Improvement Initiatives
Funded by General Fund One-time Revenue Reserve
$5.5M
Reaffirming our Legacy – Senior Center Remodel
$4.1M in restricted revenue; $1.4M in pending grant application and/or SBCF request $2.0M
Catalyzing Innovation – Software Overhaul
Funded in previous year Capital Improvement Program
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 8
NEW FUNDING
$0.61M General Fund
$6.17M Restricted Funds
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
General Fund by the Numbers
THE HEADLINE
General Fund Balanced
with cuts
GENERAL FUND
SPENDING PLAN
$75.2M
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT PERSONNEL
173.55 8.0 vacant positions removed in FY27
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 9 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
FY27 General Fund Budget Balancing Measures
Six targeted actions close the General Fund gap — $2.45M total impact
TOTAL IMPACT
$2.45M
$1.50M
Vacant personnel reductions
3.0 Firefighters · 1.0 Police Officer · 2.0 Management Analysts · 2.0 Engineers 61%
8.0 FTEs
$0.35M
Code enforcement reallocation
Transition 2.0 FTEs from Police to Community Development Fund 14%
2.0 FTEs
$0.25M
Finance reallocation
Transition 2.0 FTEs directly to Water for utility billing activity 10%
2.0 FTEs
$0.17M
Police contract services
Contract services, maintenance, meetings & conferences, miscellaneous repairs and replacements 7%
Operating
$0.10M
Fire contract services
Contract services and operational adjustments
4%
Operating
$0.08M
Community Services reductions
Program and operational expenditure adjustments
3%
Operating
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 10 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
$20.6M+ Annual Revenue At Risks
The State is shaping the City’s fiscal future.
STATE ACTIONS THREATEN CITY REVENUE
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption
VLF IN - LIEU
$7.0M
$3M loss in FY27
Potential additional loss
TAX SHARING
AGREEMENT
$8.0M
potential annual loss
+ One-time payment
EXCESS ERAF
$2.2M
potential annual loss
CARDROOM
$3.4M
potential annual loss
11 SUMMARY
Maintain services and deliver on
FY27 key objectives
All Funds performing as expected
General Fund balanced with cuts, Enterprise funds investing in capital Removal of 8 vacant positions &
Proactive reallocations
No layoffs, Code Enforcement, Administrative Services
Expenditure growth restraint & line-item
reductions
Targeted at 3% year-over-year & Operating budget reductions Continued investment in infrastructure
Roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, facilities
San Bruno • FY2026-27 Budget
12 Capital Improvement Program
Public Hearing
Matthew Lee, P.E.
Public Works Director
SECTION TWO
NEW Streets Projects
2027-28 Slurry Seal Project
Use the City’s We LOVE Paving Program to proactively apply slurry seal treatments to streets in good condition, extending pavement life, improving roadway quality, and reducing the need for more costly future repairs.
Budget Request: $100,000
2027-28 Street Pavement Project
Advance the City’s We LOVE Paving Program by
rehabilitating and reconstructing deteriorated streets, improving roadway conditions and accessibility, and reducing long-term pavement maintenance costs.
Budget Request: $400,000
$6.61 million
invested in
paving!
14 NEW Streets Projects
2026-27 Clear Path Sidewalk Project
Implement the Clear Path Sidewalk Program through multi- year sidewalk repairs that reduce trip hazards, improve accessibility and walkability, and keep the City’s sidewalk priorities data-driven and responsive to community needs.
Budget Request: $1,850,000
Downtown Improvement Initiative
Improve downtown San Bruno’s appearance and visitor
experience through targeted paseo enhancements, lighting analysis, zoning updates, and public art projects.
Budget Request: $350,000
151
NEW Parks Projects
Belle Air/Lions Field Park Plan
Develop a Belle Air/Lions Field Park Master Plan with the School District to assess site conditions, evaluate shared-use opportunities, and guide future improvements to recreation amenities, accessibility, parking, and grant funding.
Budget Request: $60,000
City Park Drinking Fountain Upgrades
Replace five aging drinking fountains in City Park with durable, ADA-compliant units that improve access to clean water, reduce maintenance needs, and support sustainable park facilities.
Budget Request: $125,000
16 Senior Center Renovation Project
Renovate the San Bruno Senior Center with interior, exterior, accessibility, and HVAC improvements to modernize the
facility and preserve it as a welcoming community gathering place for seniors and residents.
Budget Request: $3,700,000
NEW Facilities Projects
17 NEW Facilities Projects
City Hall HVAC Replacement Project
Replace City Hall’s outdated and unreliable HVAC and
Building Management systems with a modern heat pump
system and multizone controls to improve reliability, energy efficiency, and occupant comfort.
Budget Request: $750,000
Municipal Services Center Master Plan
Develop a long-range plan to evaluate existing Public Works and Parks maintenance yards, assess future operational
needs, determine whether consolidation or relocation is needed, and establish a phased CIP roadmap for modern,
efficient, and resilient maintenance facilities.
Budget Request: $150,000
18 NEW Stormwater Project
Storm Drain System Improvements Project
Rehabilitate, replace, and upsize priority storm drainpipes and culverts identified through the City’s assessments to improve system reliability, reduce flooding risks, and
strengthen long-term stormwater resilience.
Budget Request: $1,000,000
19 Next Steps & Thank Yous
Nick Pegueros
Administrative Services Director & CFO
SECTION THREE
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
Next Steps
01 June 9
Introduce FY27
Recommended
Budget
Staff presentation and
City Council discussion
and/or direction
02 By June 18
Prepare City
Council Draft
Budget
Staff incorporates
directed changes
03 June 23
CIP Public
Hearing, Budget
Adoption
Council formally adopts
the FY27 budget by
resolution
04 July 1
FY27 Begins
New fiscal year begins; all
FY27 appropriations
effective
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 21 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL FY27 BUDGET
Thank You
This budget reflects the dedicated work of teams across the organization. With sincere thanks to:
CORE BUDGET TEAM
Ana Morales Ashley Crociani Dan Jacobson
Joanne dela Cruz Robert Wood Audrey Afe-Tuufuli
Mike Ku
City Council
Brenda Calara
DEPARTMENT BUDGET MANAGERS
Trisha Ortiz Joseph Toney Peter Gilli
Brian Adam Jennifer Dianos
Lindsay Nieri Matt Lee Hae Won Ritchie
Dennis Bosch Steve Salazar Ross Shkuratov
Phil Woffenden Matt Lethin Jeremy
Brandenburg
Brent Schimek Travis Karlen Tim Wallace
Meghan Rosin
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 22 Bill Mitchell
Esther Garibay
Henry Joves
Recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS
1. Conduct FY27 Public Hearing on New CIP Projects
2. Adopt Enabling FY27 Budget Resolutions
San Bruno • FY27 CIP Public Hearing & Budget Adoption 23
FOR DISCUSSION
Questions?
LEARN MORE
sanbruno.ca.gov/finance
SCAN QR CODE
FOR THE BUDGET BOOK
24 Internet and Telephonic
Service Disruption Policy
June 23, 2026
City Council Regular MeetingLupita Huerta
City Clerk
AGENDA
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Purpose of the Policy
IV. Response to a Service Disruption
V. Restoration Efforts
VI. If Service Cannot be Restored
VII. Closed Session During a Recess
VIII. Tonight’s Recommended Action
IX. Questions
2 OBJECTIVE
Consider Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Policy Addressing Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Services Occurring during City Council Meetings Pursuant to Senate Bill 707 (SB 707)
3 BACKGROUND
• Brown Act Amendments (SB 707)
SB 707 became effective January 1, 2026
Added Government Code Section 54953.4
Requires eligible legislative bodies to provide hybrid meeting access beginning July 1, 2026.
City Council qualifies as an “eligible legislative body” Requires adoption of a policy addressing telephonic or internet service disruptions during meetings before July 1, 2026.
4 Purpose of the Policy
• Why Adopt This Policy?
Establish procedures when technical issues interrupt remote participation
Provide a clear process for recesses, restoration efforts, and meeting continuation decisions
Maintain compliance with the Brown Act and SB 707
5 Response to a Service Disruption
When a Disruption Occurs:
1. Responsible Person and/or City Clerk identifies disruption
2. Mayor/ Vice Mayor is notified
3. Meeting recess is announced
4. Recess may last up to one hour while service is restored
5. Time of recess is recorded
Disruption Definition: A technological issue preventing the public from hearing or participating remotely.
6 Restoration Efforts
Good Faith Attempt to Restore Service
Examples include:
•Checking internet and telephone connections;
•Troubleshooting software and hardware;
•Resetting or replacing equipment;
•Contacting support staff or service providers
If service is restored within one hour:
•Meeting reconvenes;
•Public is informed;
•Time of reconvening is recorded
7 If Service Cannot be Restored
City Council Determination
If service is not restored within one hour:
•City Clerk/Responsible Person informs Mayor City cannot restore service and describes restoration efforts;
•City Council may make findings that:
o Good faith efforts were made; and
o The public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote access.
If approved: Meeting continues
If not approved: Meeting is adjourned
8 Closed Session During a Recess
During the described recess, the City Council may meet in closed session for items listed on the agenda for that meeting. 9 TONIGHT’S RECOMMENDED ACTION
Consider Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Policy Addressing Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Services Occurring during City Council Meetings Pursuant to Senate Bill 707
10 QUESTIONS?
11