1 Senior Nutrition and Transportation
Programs Study Session
San Bruno City Council Meeting
Meghan Rosin, Senior Services Manager
Travis M Karlen, Community Service Director
August 25, 2026
2 NUTRITION & TRANSPORTATION
How the Programs Work Together
Congregate Nutrition Program
• Hot, healthy lunch at the Senior Center every weekday • 100+ meals served daily — approx. 25,000 meals a year • Suggested-donation basis for eligible adults 60+; no one is turned away for inability to contribute
• More than a meal: consistent social connection, information, education, and access to the broader Senior community
Funded through Older Americans Act, Title III C
Transportation Program
• Reservation-based rides for eligible San Bruno older adults getting to and from the Senior Center
• City-operated Vehicle provides scheduled morning pickups and afternoon return trips
• Removes a significant barrier to meals, programs, services, and social connection for residents who no longer drive or lack reliable transportation
Funded through Older Americans Act, Title III B
Separate programs, one continuum: transportation helps residents reach the nutrition program and other Senior Center activities. Both require eligibility verification, documentation, reporting, safety procedures, and ongoing staff oversight.
Decision point: San Mateo County has offered a new four-year grant agreement. Program costs are rising faster than grant funding — we'll walk through what that means, the alternatives, and ask for your direction. 3 To provide the City Council with a clear
overview of the current County-funded Senior
Nutrition and Transportation Programs,
present four alternative service models for
consideration, receive feedback and obtain
Council’s direction on the preferred approach
balancing fiscal sustainability, program
access, and service delivery ahead of the
County's grant renewal.
OBJECTIVE
4 PURPOSE OF TONIGHT’S DISCUSSION
Why We're Here
Decision: Year 1 of new 4-yr County grant,
or City-operated alternative
Trend: Costs outpacing grant funding;
General Fund subsidy rising
Today: 4 models presented for direction —
not final
SAB (6/16/26): Reviewed Models 1 & 2;
supports further evaluation
Four Models for Discussion
Model 1 Continue the San Mateo County
grant (status quo)
Model 2 Independent, City-operated — fee
based, open to all
Model 3 Independent, City-operated — fee
based, residents only
Model 4 Discontinue the Nutrition &
Transportation Programs
5 CURRENT PROGRAM: COUNTY GRANT MODEL
100+
Meals served daily
49% / 51%
Resident / non-
resident split
$198,491
FY 2026-27 grant
reimbursement
$800K+
Total annual
program cost
4 years
Length of new grant
cycle
What Is at Stake
• Funding stability vs. operational flexibility
• Low-barrier, donation-based access vs. the ability to set required fees • County program standards and reporting vs. greater City autonomy and control • Eligible participants current suggested contribution: $4/meal and $1/ride (rising to $6/meal and $2/ride on 10/1/26); no one is denied service for inability to contribute Federal OAA Title IIIC/IIIB → California Dept. of Aging → San Mateo County → San Bruno Senior Center 6 CONTINUE THE COUNTY GRANT MODEL
Status quo — enter Year 1 of the new four-year San Mateo County grant cycle MODEL 1
PROS
• $198,491 Year 1 grant reimbursement
• Maintains continuity - regardless of ability to
pay
• Preserves low-barrier, donation-based model
• Avoids disruption for participants, volunteers,
and staff
• Maintains connection to countywide senior
nutrition network
• Continues County standards
CONS
• Requires 4-year commitment; early exit
concerns
• Limits restructuring ability under agreement
• No ability to restrict or prioritize by residency
• Donation-only — no mandatory fees allowed
• Significant staff time required for compliance
• General Fund subsidy (~$516K in FY26-27)
projected to exceed $750K by 2030
• Limits program redesign flexibility during
renovation closure
7 INDEPENDENT FEE-BASED MODEL
$6.50 resident meal ▸ $13.00 non-resident meal ▸ $2.00 one-way ride (residents only) MODEL 2
PROS
• Full control over program structure
• Ability to prioritize San Bruno residents
• Ability set required fees vs. voluntary donations
• Reduces General Fund subsidy to ~$374K
(~$142K less than Model 1)
• Eliminates grant reporting — frees staff capacity
• Flexible delivery options during renovation
CONS and Considerations
• Eliminates County grant eligibility until 2030
• Shifts more cost recovery to participants
• May reduce participation
• Requires thoughtful outreach on service
continuity
• May require dedicated assistance fund or
free/reduced meal option
• Requires further discussion with Nutrition Site
Council on financial support
8 INDEPENDENT FEE-BASED MODEL – RESIDENTS ONLY
Same structure and pricing as Model 2, limited to San Bruno residents only MODEL 3
ADDITIONAL PROS
• Includes all Model 2 benefits (local control,
required fees, reduced staff burden)
• Concentrates limited subsidy on San Bruno
taxpayers/residents
• Reduces projected General Fund subsidy
further, to ~$222K
• Reinforces program - dedicated resident benefit
• Reduces risk of capacity (seating, meals, rides)
being used by non-residents
ADDITIONAL CONS
• Includes all Model 2 trade-offs (loss of grant
funding, participant fees, equity considerations)
• Eliminates access for non-resident seniors
(~51% of current participants)
• Less regionally collaborative
• May disrupt existing social bonds
9 DISCONTINUE THE PROGRAMS
The City could opt out of the County grant and would not continue the programs in any form MODEL 4
PROS
• Eliminates General Fund subsidy entirely
• Eliminates staff time
• Frees staff capacity for other priorities
• Simplifies service planning during Senior Center
renovation closure
CONS
• Eliminates service to 100+ daily participants
• May impact seniors on fixed incomes
• Ends transportation relied on for meals
• Eliminates County grant eligibility until 2030
• May disrupt existing social bonds
• May generate public concern
• May shift burden to other agencies
10 FISCAL IMPACT BY MODEL
FY 2026-27 projections — preliminary, for discussion purposes 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)
Annual Catered Meals $325K $325K $161K
Produce & Misc. $200K $200K $99K
Personnel $292K $171K $97K
Total Expenditures $817K $696K $356K
Donations / Booklets $103K $0 $0
Fees $0 $322K $134K
OAA Grant $198K $0 $0
Total Revenue $301K $322K $134K
General Fund Subsidy $516K $374K $222K
Model 4 (Discontinue): $0 expenditures, $0 revenue, $0 General Fund subsidy. Of the OAA grant, ~$121K supports grant-related staffing/compliance, leaving ~$77K for program costs. Excludes ~$75K in Nutrition Site Council contributions. 11 GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY COMPARISON
$515,827
$374,051
$221,809
$0
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Model 1
Current Model
Model 2
Fee Based / All
Model 3
Fee Based / Residents
Model 4
Discontinue
Key Takeaway
Moving away from the
County grant lowers
the projected General
Fund subsidy, but
each step also
reduces program
reach, participant
access, or both —
tradeoffs that should
be weighed alongside
the dollars.
12 PROGRAM & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Beyond the budget, these decisions affect access, staffing, and service delivery 1 Access & Equity
Required fees may
deter fixed-income
seniors; donations
preserve low-barrier
access.
2 Resident
Prioritization
Models 2/3 allow resident-focused
pricing/eligibility; Model 1 requires
open, County-mandated access.
3 Staff Capacity
Independent models free up
staff time currently spent on
grant compliance and
reporting for other
departmental priorities.
4 Renovation Closure
An independent model offers more
flexibility for alternate delivery (boxed
meals, multiple sites) during
construction.
5 Transportation Link
Nutrition and transportation share the
same funding structure and should be
considered together.
6 Core City Function
Council may also wish to weigh
whether senior meal services should
remain a core City function.
13 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Staff recommends Council receive the report, discuss the models, and provide direction Item 1: Which delivery model?
County Grant vs. Independent City Funded
1 Model 1: Grant-Funded
Items 2–6 Do not Apply
Grant does not permit these changes
Independent, City Funded
Resident Priority
SB Residents vs. Regional Seniors
2 Voluntary vs. Required Fees3
Renovation Closure
How much flexibility to build in now
4 Affordability Protections
Sponsorships, assistance fund, reduced meals
5 Core City Function?6
$0.5M Subsidy Question
Expected to reach $0.7M by 2030
14 THANK YOU
QUESTIONS
CITY OF SAN BRUNO · CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION August 25, 2026 Transition to a Program-Oriented
Budget for FY 2027-28
Joseph D. Toney
Assistant City Manager
Nick Pegueros
Administrative Services Director & CFO
1 WHY WE ARE DOING THIS
A department budget answers
the wrong question
TODAY — DEPARTMENT -BASED
Shows who spends the money
ADDED — PROGRAM -ORIENTED
Shows what the community
receives
Department Budget not being replaced – additional perspective 2 THE VOCABULARY
Three words.
Three different questions.
PROGRAM
What the City funds
SERVICE
What the City
delivers
SERVICE LEVEL
What Standard the
City decides
Service level is the lever
3 WHY IT MATTERS
One program.
Four departments.
CD: Planning CD: Building PW: Engineering FD: Fire Prevention City Attorney
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
TO THE APPLICANT
One service - Entitlement
INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION
Four departments, more than one fund – service
budget not clear
4 SERVICE LEVELS
A dial, not a switch.
THE OLD FRAMING
Keep it or cut it
THE MORE USEFUL QUESTION
What happens if we do more or less?
A LEVEL HAS TO BE STATED CONCRETELY ENOUGH TO TELL WHETHER WE ARE MEETING IT Next-day inspections 24/7 coverage 45-minute response Open 55 hours a week “We do our best” is not a level.
5 ONE PROGRAM, UP AND DOWN
What a dial actually looks like
PROGRAM
Code Compliance
SERVICE
Municipal Code education and enforcement
DEPARTMENT
Community Development
FEWER RESOURCES MORE RESOURCES
TODAY
TURN THE DIAL DOWN
More Open Cases
WHERE WE ARE TODAY
The level we hold now
TURN THE DIAL UP
More Completed Cases
6 ATTACHMENT 1
The draft inventory
8 departments
40+
programs
Draft
prepared August 19, 2026
WHAT THIS TRANSITION IS NOT
Not a cut list Not a reorganization Not a scoring model The inventory is a starting point, not a finished product. 7 MILESTONES
Transition Road Map
AUGUST 2026
Introduction
AUG – SEPT 2026
Phase I
SEPT – DEC 2026
Phase II
JAN – MAR 2027
Phase III
JUNE 2027
Adoption
January 2027 · Council goal setting
Long-Term Process
8 CITY OF SAN BRUNO · CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION August 25, 2026 Questions and Direction
Recommendation: Transition to a Program-Oriented Budget for FY 2027-28 9 False Alarm Compliance Program
Introduction of Proposed Ordinance Amendment to the Municipal Code Presentation by the San Bruno Police Department
Chief Matt Lethin August 25, 2026
AGENDA
2 I. Objective
II. Background
III. Purpose of Proposed Ordinance
IV. Review of Proposed Ordinance
V. Administration Agreement
VI. Regional Comparison
VII. Recommendation
VIII. Questions, Comments, and Action
OBJECTIVE
3 Introduce, read by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 6.48 of the San Bruno Municipal Code Regarding False Alarms; Adopt a Resolution Establishing Administrative Penalties for Repeated False Alarms Pursuant to Chapter 6.48 of the San Bruno Municipal Code; and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Police Chief to Execute a Non-Standard Agreement with PMAM Corporation to Administer the City's False Alarm Program
Amendments to the Municipal Code require introduction and adoption by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
4 False alarms place a significant, recurring burden on police resources • San Bruno police respond to an average of 1,000 -
1,300 alarm calls every year
• Of these, approximately 600 - 700 are determined to be false alarms
• Approximately 80 - 100 locations are chronic offenders, generating more than two false alarms in a calendar
year
• In 2025, 78 locations had three or more false alarms
600 - 700
False alarm calls per year
11 min
Average officer time on scene
~ 130 hrs
of officer time annually
BACKGROUND
5 The City's false alarm program needs to be restored and modernized • Chapter 6.48 has addressed false alarms for more than two decades, authorizing fees after repeat false alarms (3rd time) within a 180-day period • The fees were designed as a cost-recovery measure to reimburse the City and to encourage proper maintenance of alarm systems
• Due to staffing shortages and capacity limitations, administration of the program gradually ceased — the City is no longer recovering these costs
• Staff evaluated options and recommends updating the ordinance while contracting with a specialized third-party administrator
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
6 1 Modernize the Ordinance
Add clear definitions and an affirmative duty for
alarm users to maintain and operate their
systems properly
2 Strengthen Enforcement
Convert the false alarm fee to an administrative
penalty for greater clarity and enforceability
3 Restore Administration
Re-establish the City's false alarm program
without adding City staff
4 Reduce Unnecessary
Responses
Improve officer availability for higher-priority
calls for service
REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
7 1 Adds clear definitions for key terms (alarm officer, alarm user, false alarm) 2 Establishes an affirmative duty for alarm users to properly maintain and operate their alarm systems
3 Converts the false alarm fee to an administrative penalty and extends the review period from 180 to 365 days
4 Declares three or more false alarms within 365 days to be a public nuisance 8 SBMC 6.48.010(A–B)
Findings & Duty to Prevent False Alarms
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
A. The city council finds that responses to false alarms result in significant expenditure of police department time and resources, and finds it necessary to impose penalties on persons
responsible.
B. Each alarm user has a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent false alarms — maintaining the system in good working order, servicing it to prevent malfunctions, and controlling its use.
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE EFFECTS
Establishes a clear legal basis tying penalties to the
actual cost and resource impact on the Police
Department
Creates an affirmative duty for alarm users to properly maintain and operate their systems
9 SBMC 6.48.010(C)
Warning Notice & Review Period
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
C. An alarm user shall not have two or more false alarms within a three hundred and sixty-five day period. After the second false alarm, the police department may send a warning notice; subsequent false alarms within the 365-day period are subject to a false alarm fee.
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE EFFECTS
Extends the look-back period from 180 to 365 days,
giving alarm users more time to identify and correct
recurring issues
Preserves the two-strike warning notice before any
penalty is assessed
Chronic offenders remain accountable for repeated
false alarms
10 SBMC 6.48.010(D–E)
Administrative Penalty & Definitions
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
D. The false alarm fee is an administrative penalty for violating this section. The amount shall be established by resolution of the city council.
E. Key terms are defined, including “Alarm Officer,” “Alarm User,” and “False Alarm” — clarifying when a response qualifies and what circumstances (e.g., earthquakes, severe storms) are excluded.
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE EFFECTS
Allows the Council to adjust penalty amounts in the
future by resolution, without further Code amendments
Clear definitions improve enforceability and provide
consistency for alarm users and staff
11 SBMC 6.48.010(F) & 6.48.060
Nuisance Declaration & Hearing Procedure
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE
F. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 38771, the city council hereby declares three or more false alarms during a three hundred- and sixty-five-day period to be a nuisance.
6.48.060. At the date set for hearing, the city manager shall hear all competent testimony relating to the imposition of false alarm fees and may continue the hearing to a fixed date.
PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE EFFECTS
Gives the City an additional enforcement tool for
chronic locations under state nuisance law
Updates outdated hearing procedure language
(previously tied to permit language) to align with the
fee-based process
ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT
12 PMAM Corporation to administer the City’s false alarm program
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION SERVICES
• Maintains alarm records
• Issues warning notices and administrative penalties
• Processes payments
• Provides customer service
• Generates reports
• Coordinates with Police & Finance Departments
3 years
Initial term, with automatic annual renewals
50 / 50
Revenue share of collected penalties between City
and PMAM, after allowable processing costs
$0
Direct General Fund appropriation required
Considered non-standard due to vendor-specific provisions on software ownership, indemnification limits, termination, and revenue-sharing compensation — Council authorization is required.
REGIONAL COMPARISON
13 San Bruno's proposed penalty schedule is consistent with regional practice — emphasizing education before enforcement
Agency 1st False
Alarm 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th+
San Bruno (Proposed) $0 $0 $250 $500 $750 $750
Belmont $0 $0 $125 $225 $525 —
Daly City $735 $735 $735 $735 $735 —
Redwood City $0 $0 $0 $671 $671 —
Burlingame $0 $0 $780 $780 $780 $1,560
Atherton $0 $0 $0 $400 $500 $600
South San Francisco $0 $0 $215 $430 $860 —
RECOMMENDATION
14 Staff recommends that the City Council:
1 Introduce, by title only and waive further reading of, an Ordinance amending Chapter
6.48 of the San Bruno Municipal Code regarding false alarms 2 Adopt a Resolution establishing administrative penalties for repeated false alarms 3 Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Police Chief to execute a non-standard agreement with PMAM Corporation for false alarm management services QUESTIONS, COMMENTS and ACTION
C I T Y O F S A N B R U N O · C I T Y C O U N C I L S T U D Y S E S S I O N A u g u st 25, 2026Community Benefit Fund UpdateNick PeguerosAdministrative Services Director & CFO
Agenda1Background2Sources of Funds3Uses of Funds4Next Steps Community Benefit Fund:Sources of Funds
A T A G L A N C EYouTube Development Agreement$55MTotal DA revenue$27.9MDevelopment Impact Fees$24.5MCommunity Benefit$2.6MCredits on hold Y O U T U B E D E V E L O P M E N T A G R E E M E N TWhere were the funds deposited?RestrictionAmount depositedFundCapital$1,271,632Utilities Facilities Impact FeeCapital$426,336Public Safety Facilities Impact FeeCapital$691,578General Government Facilities Impact FeeCapital$5,149,372Transportation Facilities Impact FeeCapital$6,392,975Community Facilities Impact FeeCapital$4,278,488Bayhill Specific Plan ADIFAffordable housing$9,704,825Affordable Housing Impact FeePrepaid future City services$2,592,484Credits on HoldDiscretionary$24,454,580Community Benefit$54,962,274Total payment W H E R E T H E $ 5 5 . 0 M I L L I O N W E N TRoughly half the payment is legally or administratively restricted$27.9M — Development impact feesMitigation Fee Act and nexus studies Use limited to capacity-expanding capital facilitiesNot available for operations or General Fund support$24.5M — Community benefitFlexible resources for Council-determined Citywide priorities$2.6M — Prepaid service creditsA project-specific drawdown account for:Future permits, plan check, inspections, and engineeringRecognized as revenue only as services are delivered A T A G L A N C ESouthline Settlement$10.6MTotal Settlement$0.3MCredit for HuntingtonCycle Track$10.3MTransportation Network Improvements Community Benefit Fund:Uses of Funds
B E S T P R A C T I C ECommunity Benefit Fund One-Time RevenueOne-time Uses▪ Capital improvements projects▪ Debt reduction and long-term liabilities▪ Reserve contributions▪ Non-recurring strategic investmentsStructural Uses▪ New or expanded ongoing programs▪ Permanent service-level increases▪ Recurring staffing costs F U N D B A L A N C E W A L K - F O R W A R DCommunity Benefit Balances by SourceTotal $MillionSouthline settlement$millionYouTube contribution$millionActivity$35.1$10.6$24.5Revenue received$1.0$1.0—Investment Earnings($21.5)—($21.5)Feb 2024 — CityNet enterprise stabilization($2.2)—($2.2)Feb 2024 — Stormwater enterprise stabilization($2.8)($2.1)*($0.7)Capital Project Appropriations$9.6$9.5$0.1Available balance, June 30, 2026 (preliminary)$2.9—$2.9Estimated CityNet closeout return (pending audit)$12.5$9.5$3.0Potential resources for FY 2027-28 CIP development J A N U A R Y 2 5 , 2 0 2 4 A U D I TCityNet & Stormwater Funds’ Deficit“…CityNet’s recurring losses from operations, deficit net position, and continual borrowing from the General Fund to pay its liabilities raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”- Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 $23.7MDue to General Fund$21.5M CityNet$2.2M StormwaterAAABond Rating C H A L L E N G E$24.5M YouTube Community Benefit Fund Uses:Negative Unrestricted BalanceAmount$millionCityNet Fund$2.4Non-capital assetsLiabilities($16.0)General Fund Advances($6.7)Pension & Compensated Absences($1.2)Other($21.5)Unrestricted balanceAmount$millionStormwater Fund$0.3Non-capital assetsLiabilities($0.6)General Fund Advances($0.9)Pension & Compensated Absences($1.0)Other($2.2)Unrestricted balance C I T Y N E T F U N D C L O S E O U T — P E N D I N G D E C I S I O NCityNet CloseoutAmountUnaudited June 30, 2026 – CityNet Fund$8.0MComcast sale proceeds$1.4MResidual resources from Community Benefit Fund transfer$9.4MTotal cash held($6.5M)CityNet pension liabilities$2.9MPotential return to Community Benefit Fund Next Steps
F U T U R E C O U N C I L A C T I O NNext StepsJune 30, 2026 ACFRCityNet Closeout•Transfer liabilities and cash•Residual cash back to Community Benefit FundFY 2026-27 Capital Budget ProcessCapital Improvement Program budget•Project nomination process opening•Staff recommendation Questions & Discussion