City Council Meeting
October 13, 2026
Responses to City Council Agenda Questions
6:00pm Special Meeting
• Item 3a Crestmoor Fields
o Which specific cities were used to establish the market-comparable rates, and can staff provide each city’s actual youth-sports rental fees and perplayer charges? • RESPONSE: The staff report’s market rate of $35 to $65 per hour is a blended rate across user types, lighting, and hours, not a single posted price. It falls between two regional averages: about $39 per hour for what neighbors charge local youth leagues and nonprofits (Burlingame, South San Francisco grass, Daly City grass, San Francisco, SMUHSD grass), and about $92 per hour for posted synthetic-turf rentals (South San Francisco, Daly City, SMUHSD, Skyline/CSM). The report’s $45 to $56 per-player fee is higher than both Millbrae ($31.38 to $40.93) and San Bruno today ($11 to $19). Rates are per hour unless noted. Resident or nonprofit rates come first, then nonresident or other users.
Agency Synthetic
turf
Grass or
general field
Youth
League Per
Player Fee
Lighting Notes
San Bruno $23-$60
Exception
Youth
Sports
$23-$60
Exception
Youth
Sports
$12
nonprofit or
resident,
$18 base,
per player
per season
$29 Youth sports
pay per player
only, no
hourly rate
SSF $86
resident;
$127 nonresident
(full field)
$32.25
resident;
$49.25 nonresident
Flat annual
co-sponsor
fee,
$126.50–
$437.50
$38.50
resident,
$41.50 nonresident
Half field $43;
commercial
adds $43
Daly City $85
resident;
$110
standard
$50
resident;
$75
standard
None $25 flat per
diamond
2-hour
minimum
Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
October 13, 2026
2 Millbrae None
posted
$68.22 nonregular
groups
$31.38
resident,
$40.93 nonresident,
per player
per season
$12.34 Fields owned
by Millbrae
School
District
Burlingame $7 - $81 Dependent on
Fields used
$25R
$110NR
Not Found
San
Francisco
$42
resident;
$108 nonresident
(any
surface)
Same None $16 Occasional
reservations
San Mateo
Union HS
Practice
field $78
nonprofit,
$99 other;
stadium
$140, $168
$70
nonprofit,
$90 other
None $43 Owns
Capuchino
fields in San
Bruno
Skyline
College and
CSM
$120
nonprofit,
$175 forprofit
$85
nonprofit,
$125 forprofit
None Not listed 3-hour
minimum
Millbrae
Elementary
None $50 youth
nonprofit;
$75 other
nonprofit;
$100 forprofit
None Not listed Per
designated
area
San Bruno
Park SD
$55 $55 None None Rates found
through
Facilitron -
May also
charge
custodial
Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
October 13, 2026
3 o A wish list item that I understand would be more difficult to obtain would be to also get subsidy amounts for per player or per playable hour for each of the cities.
• RESPONSE: Getting an exact subsidy per player or per hour for each city would take several weeks. Cities publish their fees, but few track what an individual field costs to run. Maintenance, crews, utilities, and turf replacement are usually folded into one parks budget. Staff would have to request data from six or more agencies and pull out the field-level costs.
Those costs would then need to be matched to each agency’s actual hours and players. Even then, differences in how each city keeps its books would make the results hard to compare.
Cities in our region heavily subsidize youth field use. Crestmoor would cost about $180 per playable hour, or about $410 per player. By comparison, neighbors charge youth leagues anywhere from $3 an hour in Burlingame to $42 an hour in San Francisco, or $31 to $41 per player per season in Millbrae.
If their fields cost anything close to Crestmoor’s, they are subsidizing roughly $130 to $175 per hour.
o Has the City obtained independent construction estimates or explored alternative bids to reduce the projected construction costs? If no, why not? I understand that having Toll Brothers on site creates opportunities for savings, but that does not guarantee that they are the lowest cost option. • RESPONSE: No, the City has not obtained an independent construction estimate or solicited competitive bids at this stage. The project is currently at approximately 30% design, meaning many construction details, quantities, and specifications remain undefined. Consequently, the current estimate has a relatively wide margin of uncertainty, and an independent estimate prepared today would face similar limitations.
Obtaining reliable construction pricing requires sufficiently developed plans and specifications. Soliciting competitive bids prematurely is generally not recommended, as contractors may base their pricing on different assumptions, making comparisons unreliable or misleading. As design progresses, estimates become more accurate, although actual construction pricing remains subject to market conditions, labor availability, and material costs.
Staff recommends independent cost reviews at approximately 60% and 90% design to validate the designer's estimates, evaluate Toll Brothers' proposed pricing, and identify potential cost-saving opportunities through value engineering and alternatives bidding. These independent reviews would help Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
October 13, 2026
4 the City evaluate whether the proposed costs from Toll are reasonable before committing to construction, consistent with the decision points contemplated in the Field Improvement Agreement, should the agreement return to Council for consideration.
• What other options has the City explored for using a construction firm that specializes in athletic field development?
• RESPONSE: The City has not engaged an alternative construction firm that specializes in athletic fields. The project is only at 30% design (Preliminary Design), which was prepared by CALA, a firm with expertise in athletic field design. At this stage, the plans are not detailed enough for a construction firm to give a reliable price. A meaningful construction estimate requires more complete design.
The fields are also already designed as an already value engineered facility with basic amenities, so there is limited room to reduce costs further through value engineering. Bringing in another firm at this point is unlikely to produce significant savings.
• Has staff solicited estimates or proposals from specialized sports field contractors to determine whether the project could be constructed at a lower cost? Has any discussions been held with this type of firm? • RESPONSE: It is important to recognize that obtaining reliable construction pricing is more involved than requesting quotes for a standard product or service. Construction contractors generally need sufficiently developed plans, specifications, and defined project requirements to prepare meaningful cost estimates. Soliciting construction quotes without this information is not standard or recommended industry practice, as it can produce unreliable estimates that provide little value in evaluating actual project costs. Developing these estimates requires considerable time and resources, particularly for specialized projects. Without that level of detail, preliminary estimates from different contractors may be based on different assumptions, making direct comparisons difficult and potentially misleading. While exploring alternative contractors is a reasonable consideration, doing so at this early stage may not produce reliable or comparable pricing. As the project advances through design, the City would be better positioned to evaluate construction costs and opportunities to achieve the best value.
The current cost figures are based on 30% design, so any pricing from contractors at this stage would be informal and carry the same wide margin of error as the existing estimate. The way to confirm the City is getting a fair Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
October 13, 2026
5 price is to have independent estimates prepared at 60% and 90% design and compare them against the developer’s pricing before construction.
However, the ultimate cost will be determined at the time of bid which takes various factors into account like market conditions, fuel prices, labor availability, economy, etc. That review lines up with the pause point in the Field Improvement Agreement, so Council would have reliable numbers to evaluate before committing to construction if direction is to bring the agreement back for consideration.
• How much have the project's design and estimated construction costs increased since the original estimates were received?
• RESPONSE: It is important to distinguish between preliminary project estimates and construction costs developed through a more advanced design process. Early estimates are generally based on conceptual information, broad assumptions, and limited knowledge of site conditions and construction requirements. As a result, these estimates inherently have a range of potential costs rather than representing a fixed construction price.
As design progresses, additional details become available regarding grading, drainage, utilities, materials, regulatory requirements, and other factors that can influence costs. Consequently, changes in estimated costs do not necessarily represent an increase in the cost of constructing the same project, but may reflect a more complete understanding of what is required to deliver it.
A standard practice in public infrastructure project management is to include appropriate contingencies to account for these uncertainties and establish realistic budget expectations. Contingency is not necessarily an additional cost that will be incurred, but rather an allowance for potential costs that cannot yet be fully defined. Without appropriate contingencies, preliminary estimates may understate the potential project cost, creating the appearance of continually increasing costs as the design advances. Where contingencies are not included in estimates provided by a developer or contractor, the City may incorporate appropriate allowances into its overall project budget to better communicate the potential financial commitment. This approach provides decision-makers with a more realistic understanding of project costs and associated uncertainties before committing public funds.
In 2024, the project was estimated at $6.6 million. Since then, costs have gone up in several areas. The field lighting was estimated at $1.6 million and is now close to $2 million. Design costs have increased from $350,000 to just Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
October 13, 2026
6 over $500,000. Construction costs overall have also continued to rise, which pushed the estimate to about $8.55 million.
Staff expects the final cost will likely be over $10 million for three reasons:
o Construction costs are still rising. Prices for materials and labor have not leveled off, and the project would not be built for at least another year or more.
o The design is only at 30%. Estimates at this stage are rough, and costs usually go up as the design becomes more detailed and unknowns are identified.
o There is little room to cut costs. The fields are already designed as a basic facility, so there are few places to reduce the price without removing core features.
For these reasons, staff believes it is more realistic to plan for a project cost above $10 million than to rely on the earlier estimates. • What are Toll Brothers' total financial obligations toward the Crestmoor Fields project?
• RESPONSE: Toll Brothers does not have any financial obligation toward the construction, maintenance or operation of the Crestmoor Fields. The field improvement agreement could allow for the City to pay the developer through development impact fees credits for City Facilities. The fee credits associated with this project are $3.2M and are eligible for utilization for other City facility projects. All other funding must come from other sources including the San Bruno Community Foundation. The new land asset will require maintenance and the cost will vary depending on the improvements and programming.
• How much additional annual property tax revenue will the City of San Bruno receive from the 155 Crestmoor homes once fully assessed? • RESPONSE: The basic property tax rate is 1% of assessed value. However, that revenue is divided among the City, County, school district, and special districts. San Bruno only receives about 12.5 cents from every property tax dollar paid in San Bruno. Forecasting property tax revenue from anticipated new development involves several variables that may impact the timing and amount of revenue received by the City, including estimated assessed property values, construction timelines, project delays, and market conditions, as an example. A scenario forecast, if the development is fully Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
October 13, 2026
7 built out, with 155 unit assessed at $2MM per unit, the City could estimate an approximate $0.38MM annual property tax revenue.
When evaluating the potential property tax revenue generated by the proposed new neighborhood, it is important to consider the long-term fiscal impacts of Proposition 13. A major outcome of Proposition 13 is that a typical single-family neighborhood’s property taxes no longer cover the basic services that such neighborhoods need. Since Proposition 13 was passed, cities heavily rely on other revenue sources such as sales tax, hotel tax, and special assessments to fund basic services. Costs of City services rise more than Proposition 13 allows property taxes to rise.
For the near term, it is expected the costs to serve this neighborhood will absorb a majority, but not all, of the new property tax revenues. Over time, as costs continue to grow faster than the property tax assessments are allowed to rise, this neighborhood will eventually have a net negative balance on the General Fund similar to other neighborhoods. • With approximately 46% of youth sports participants living outside San Bruno, has staff evaluated charging higher fees for nonresidents? • RESPONSE: Yes. Staff evaluated nonresident fees as part of the cost recovery analysis in the report. The recommendation would be that Residency differs by type of league. The recreational league has 568 players, and 68% are San Bruno residents. The competitive leagues have 400 players, and only 35% are residents. Overall, about 46% of participants live outside San Bruno.
• Staff’s recommendation would be to charge higher rates for those groups that serve less San Bruno residents:
o Hourly rental fees: A group would receive the resident rate only if a set percentage of its players are San Bruno residents. Council would set that percentage. Groups below it would pay the higher nonresident rate.
o Per-player fees: Nonresident players would always be charged the nonresident rate.
Higher fees have a practical limit, though. The fees must be passed on to families through player registration costs, and the youth sports groups have said they could pay about $80 per hour under an hourly-only structure.
Nonresident fees can help with cost recovery, but they will not close the gap Responses to City Council Agenda Packet Questions
October 13, 2026
8 on their own. Council would still need to decide what level of subsidy it is willing to provide for the fields.
7:00 Regular Meeting
• Item 7a Senior Nutrition Program
o Did the senior advisory committee provide any specifics as to why they did not favor the hybrid fee model council recommended in the last study session?
• RESPONSE: Yes. The Senior Advisory Board’s Nutrition Program Education and Funding Ad Hoc Subcommittee concluded, with the Full Board's support, that resident participants can reasonably pay the $6 fee, and lowincome assistance preserves access for the few resident seniors for whom cost is a barrier. The subcommittee preferred a standard fee because it provides a more consistent and reliable long-term revenue stream, improve the program’s fiscal sustainability, and reflect participants’ shared investment in the program.
Additionally, a full fee-based model is easier to administer than a hybrid model, especially with a senior aged population.
o How will the City determine low-income eligibility, and how will we ensure that the process to qualify for it will minimize barriers for seniors who need assistance?
• RESPONSE: Staff has identified two potential eligibility pathways: applying the City’s existing income criteria and verification requirements based on San Mateo County Area Median Income, or accepting verified enrollment in CalFresh or another comparable assistance program, consistent with the City’s recreation scholarship process.
To minimize barriers, seniors would be able to apply and submit documentation either online or in person. Once approved, their eligibility would be recorded in the City’s registration system CivicRec and applied confidentially at lunch check-in. Because both options build on existing City procedures and software, they should require limited additional administration while providing seniors with more than one way to qualify.