City Council Meeting
August 25, 2026
Responses to City Council Agenda Questions
5:30pm Special Meeting
Item 3a. Senior Nutrition Program
• Regarding the 51% of current participants who are nonresidents, do we have any metrics on what cities they reside in? Have we approached those cities about possible subsidy, similar to the recent agreement with Millbrae for the RAC?
RESPONSE:
San Bruno residents made up nearly half (49.5%) of all senior nutrition program participants last fiscal year, with South San Francisco (18.6%) and Daly City (7.3%) the next largest shares. A long tail of other cities — Millbrae, San Mateo, Pacifica, Burlingame, and a dozen more — each registered under 5%, and several (Campbell, Half Moon Bay, Montara) barely cleared 0.1%.
This pattern lines up with how the County structures the program. The San Mateo County Area Agency on Aging administers senior nutrition — both congregate meal sites and home-delivered meals — through partnerships with cities, senior centers, and nonprofit providers across the county, including San Bruno, South San Francisco, Daly City, Brisbane, Colma, San Mateo, Burlingame, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, Half Moon Bay, and Coastside. For North County specifically, Meals on Wheels
Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
August 25, 2026
2 San Francisco is the primary home-delivered meals provider for San Bruno, South San Francisco, Daly City, Brisbane, Pacifica, and Colma, working alongside the county nutrition network.
Since most of these cities already have their own local access point into the county- wide network — a congregate site or delivery route of their own — residents there simply use whichever program they prefer. That's why staff haven't reached out to the low-percentage cities: it's not a service gap, its preference, and those residents are already served through the county's other city and provider partnerships. San Bruno's outsized share just reflects where the largest concentration of participants chooses to go directly.
• Have we studied a model where we stop the county grant, keep the current model for San Bruno residents at suggested donation, and go to full fee-based for non- residents?
RESPONSE:
Attached is the requested analysis in the last column. Worth noting: this model adds a layer of complexity for this age group, since they'll need to understand the distinction between where they pay and where they contribute anonymously. The assumptions are based on current figures and actual donations from last fiscal year. The analysis also does not account for a potential dip in non-resident participation.
Category
Model 1
Current
Model
(25,008
meals)
Model 2
Fee Based /
No Grant
(25,008
meals)
Model 3
Fee Based /
Residents
Only
(12,360
meals)
Requested
Model
Annual Catered
Meals $325K $325K $161K $325K
Produce & Misc. $200K $200K $99K $200K
Personnel $292K $171K $97K $171K
Total
Expenditures $817K $696K $356K $696K
Donations /
Booklets $103K $0 $0 $123K
Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
August 25, 2026
3 Fees $0 $322K $134K $188
OAA Grant $198K $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue $301K $322K $134K $311K
General Fund
Subsidy $516K $374K $222K $385K
• QUESTION: Before we ask seniors to pay more or ask the General Fund to continue absorbing a substantial subsidy, I want to understand what we have done to control the underlying cost of the program. We used to prepare meals with an in-house cook, and I understand we had difficulty retaining that position.
• What efforts have been made since then to reduce the cost per meal, competitively bid the food service, consider bringing some preparation back in-house, or partner with neighboring cities?
RESPONSE: Here is a summary of what staff has done to control the underlying cost of the meal program:
Staffing model: The City previously prepared meals with an in-house Chef/Cook position.
After the position became vacant, staff conducted two separate rounds of recruitment and was unable to successfully fill it. Beyond the recruitment difficulty itself, an in-house model also carries real liability and continuity risk, staff illness, vacancy, or turnover in a single- person kitchen operation can directly interrupt meal service for a vulnerable population with no backup.
Competitive bidding: Since moving to a contracted meal service, the City has gone out to competitive bid twice. In both rounds, our current provider returned the lowest bid, which is why staff has continued with them rather than switching providers.
Meal quality: Since transitioning to the contracted provider, participant complaints about meal quality have dropped significantly, which staff views as a meaningful improvement in service reliability alongside the cost picture.
In short, staff has actively tested the market twice and pursued in-house staffing twice, and the current contracted model has consistently come back as the most cost-effective and reliable option available to us. We have not yet formally explored a shared-services or joint- procurement arrangement with neighboring cities, staff can look into that as a possible avenue if Council would like it included in the broader discussion of program sustainability.