Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Galligan Goal # Whatever – "Finalize a Council decision to review financing options for public facilities master plan".

Beware of the above fancy words!

It seems there is an expensive consultant document called "Facilities Master Plan Report Draft" dated October 2004 which includes our fair city considering spending (and our voting on) 56 million dollars (yes 56 million dollars) on a new City Hall and Community Rec Center at 217 East Lane.

  1. Why has this NOT become public knowledge?
  2. Why is there NOT a copy of this document in the Library?
  3. Why is this information NOT on the city website?
  4. Why was there NOT one representative of the general public on the Project Team? There are plenty of concerned residents who would have volunteered their time
  5. Why do we need a new city hall?

There may be a bond measure floated for $80 million which will include storm drainage on Laguna bundled in with the new city hall and community center. Sneaky heh! For a city that had to rely on a group of citizens to put together a crossing guard fund to try and cover a measly $32,000, there seems to be something strange going on. Could it be to do with "development".

The City Hall is the part that bugs me – our present 27,000 sq.ft. city hall monstrosity was built in 1970 and was three times larger than the ivy covered old city hall on Park Road. I know … its progress and they needed more space. Our present city hall is almost the ugliest building in Burlingame but what is the reasoning behind building a new one? Is it too small, too ugly, too round, too what?

The train station plaza was booted down because of the cost of 19 parking slots estimated by the city to cost $960,000 – how ridiculous. A plaza which would have been relatively simple, no destruction, and would have been a beautiful way to enhance our pedestrian town. What the hell is going on here?

Perhaps anyone interested in finding out how Galligan and his cohorts are going to finance this "public facilities plan" might want to get a copy of the report from city hall and/or attend the study session next Saturday at 9:00 am in the Lane Room.

I don't think our favorite grocery shop will dip into their profits for this one, so it will be up to us residents to pay for it – one way or another. Lets find out how …

– Written by Fiona

Posted in

28 responses to “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”

  1. Jenn

    Remember how the teen center morphed into a huge senior/youth complex, with no public survey in advance, showing whether such an expensive structure would actually be used? believe at the time, the estimate for this project was around 40 million, and the bad economy killed it. Lots of people thought that this was very extravagent, even in the “good” times. The eager teens, bless their hearts, couldn’t even manage to muster up enough interest and funding in this community to run a trial balloon by renting out a property in which they could have had a pared down hang-out, close to the High School, on California Drive.

  2. Jim

    One of the important words is “finalize” in Galligan’s goals. Why is this plan only coming out one week before being “finalized”

    This is going to affect every voter in Burlingame and should have been out there long before being “finalized”.

    Another example of open government Burlingame-style!

  3. al

    What we have here is the classic difference between accounting and finance. Galligan is an accountant. Just because one’s accountant says one CAN do something doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to actually do it. Hopefully some real financial minds who understand the long-term impact of such a debt load will bring some sanity to this. Increasing the debt load will simply intensify the pressure to over-develop. There is a reason why every corporation has a CFO and NONE of them have a Chief Accounting Officer!

  4. Jim

    One of the hows has something to do with utilizing our on-grade parking in a more creative way.

    And of course selling the City Hall land for apartments – a nice chunk of land for a lucky developer.

    Buying a whole block of businesses and homes on East Lane and Burlingame Avenue will not come cheap though. Bye bye Candy Store!

    Developments will unfold!

  5. Jenn

    I’ve got a thought. In the spirit of recycling buildings so they don’t become landfill, we make the Starship Enterprise (better known as the present City Hall) into the new teen center. Certainly it has plenty of redeeming qualities. A stage, for one, for all those future stage productions, skits, and movies. Also, plenty of parking already in place, lots of rooms for ping pong and fussball tables, tv’s and what not. And oh, for the ever popular basketball courts that are running short, plenty of space to create new outdoor ones, with green grass to spare.

    Now, for the City Hall part, we visit the Archives for photos and plans of the first, stunning, ivy covered city hall that used to be on lot J, and enlarge those with wings in the appropriate style. The old coppola can be reused as it is sitting precariously in lot J. The original doors are in the Archives. We can put this lovely replica building on East Lane, (NOT instead of the candyshop, but next to it), maybe instead of that old Mike Harvey Honda repair shop which he vacated months ago. How’s that for pie in the sky!?

  6. joe baylock

    Your idea is Brilliant with a capital B! Any teen center should be close to the library (one can always hope, yes?).

    When do we get started?

  7. Jenn

    The beauty of it is that City Hall can stay in the Enterprise until moving day, no shut down. Likewise the rec center can wait until they vacate and improvements are made, if necessary. I’d also keep the old rec building, it could be used as an art and culture center, and classes could continue there for all.

  8. Paula

    Why doesn’t Mayor Galligan hold a town hall meeting where these items can be discussed? This seems to have been planned behind back room doors without any input from the public.

    Why isn’t our city manager keeping the public informed? Is he too beholden?

  9. Rosaline

    I would love a town hall meeting. The problem with going to the council meetings is that the councilmembers can spew out garbage and we can’t ask questions.

    After public comments, the audience cannot correct something – Mr. Doss tried. Harvey was allowed to twitter on presumably because the question came from “the chair”.

    Good questions would be: Why do we need a new city hall? If the City Hall/Community Center is shot down on Saturday because of finances, why did the City waste money doing the study? How much did the study cost?

    Holding a town hall meeting takes guts? Lets see who has it?!

    PS Welcome, Paula, to the blog!

  10. Candyman

    The possible taking of the Candy Store for a city facility is making quite a buzz around town, especially at the Candy Store and the Burlingame Country Club. To some people this appears to be Galligan’s payback for being rejected by the BCC. There’s not much he can do to the Club, but there are many common members between to two groups.

  11. Rosaline

    Can it really be so? Or is this a joke?

    There has been many a vindictiveness about some of the things that go on from the podium but this one is delicious!

    Would the car owners in the Candy Store have been treated so kid-glovish as the Harvey man! And is the Candy Store part of Auto Row?

  12. Annamarie

    Yet, there’s still no money for the crossing guards… I would think we would need to resurrect our teen center committee for this one. After all, if $40 million was too much back then, what on earth is he thinking? Shame on all of them for lumping this together with the Laguna improvements. Way to go B.C.C.–what comes around goes around. We should all treat each other more nicely…

  13. Jim Nantell

    The funding for the Public Facilities Master Plan was approved as part of the budget and was discussed publicly with the Council. The draft report was presented to the Council at a public study session last fall. The Council has not yet provided any direction for staff relative to the options and issues identified in the report. The Council did refer it to thier Budget Subcommittee to develop some next step recommendations for full Council review and discussion this Spring. One of the ideas that the staff and Council Subcommittee are discussing is a survey of the community to solicit broader input and that is part of what they will bring to the whole Council. Since the Council Study Session last fall a copy of the report has been available for review in our Public Works Department and I know that members of the press have stopped by to review copies of the report and I believe they did a follow up article. I have asked staff to make a copy available in the Library.

    Since my arrival in Burlingame four years ago I believe that staff has done a very good job in trying to get a handle on the state of our infrastructure. We completed an assessment of our water, sewer and storm drainage systems and developed plans to address what I consider overdue improvements. The next logical assessment of our community assests, from my perspective, was to provide the Council with information on the condition of our public buildings and it is for that reason that we under took the analysis. In addition the Council felt that before any consideration was given to funding a new community center in the future, we should give them information that would allow them to look at that issue relative to other facility needs.

    In terms of Saturday’s discussion at the goal setting meeting, Mayor Galligan included it in his suggested priority goals based on the Council’s direction last Fall. There will not be any detailed discussion of the report it self, just asking the council for thier confirmation that they still see it as priority goal to continue the next steps.

  14. Fiona

    Sorry, Jim, … if “the press have stopped by to review copies of the report and (you) believe they did a follow up article” is true, then I can assure you that most of us in Burlingame never saw the articles. This news was news to all of us and we are a very informed group of residents. It would have been blogged as fast as it takes to wiggle our noses ;~)

    Also, as far as the next steps … what about informing the residents as you go along? Is this going to be a case of let’s tell the residents when the decisions have been made – or not made?

    Remember Measure Q – learn from it boys!

  15. rich grogan

    Jim

    I would suggest you change the venue for the meeting, because the Lane Room will not handle the crowd. There are a BUNCH of residents upset about Galligan’s goals and how this report was kept in a back closet. I am shocked to hear there was a newspaper article regarding this report, could you provide article information, because I, nor anyone I know, have seen such an article. As a matter of information city staff had a difficult time locating a copy of the report.

    I stopped by today (1-24-05) and obtained a very poor black and white copy of the “Facility Master Plan” for $11.40. Unfortunately the copy I received was a copy of a copy, which means there are parts of the report that are unreadable.

    On page 13 &14 of the report under “Customer Satisfaction” the goals are as follow:
    · Work to create a more informed citizenry.
    · Improve customer convenience
    · Enhance community involvement
    · Realign customer expectations
    · Provide outstanding customer service.

    It is truly embarrassing to have an outside company realizes the city doesn’t openly desire community involvement, in fact, it is my experience and opinion the city’s position has been stifle community involvement.

    Page 17 indicates the “Visionary Scenario” will have a total cost to the residents of a whopping $182,935,939.

    If my information is closely accurate, B’game is looking an approximately $1.7 million shortfall. If this is true, I do not think paying the city’s Visa bill with a Master Card is a wise move. Floating a bond issue, at this time, does not sound like a wise business practice. With the residents having to shoulder more and more of the day to day operating expenses, if doesn’t seem fair to foist this obligation upon their shoulders. If the city is to move ahead with a bond issue, the various expenses should be separate, not bundled with another expense. This way the residents can prioritize and vote on the specific issues. The idea of spending approximately $250,000 to expand the shower/locker room of the NEW aquatic center is over the top and not needed, at this time.

  16. Jenn

    I am miffed about the Aquatic Center recommendations. My daughter is on the team, and says that the rooms are sufficient, that there are even empty lockers. I also wonder where they would expand? Without moving/redoing the tennis courts (again), there isn’t more that 4 or 5 feet of space.

  17. Paula

    Can we give the BCC a gold medal?

  18. Joe Baylock

    Bloggers,

    You should not assume City Manager Jim Nantell is reading the actual blog. On some occasions, we (the editors) send him e-mail and we post his responses with his agreement. We’ll try to make that distinction clear in each post, but if you want to be sure he sees your comment you should also e-mail it to him directly. Thanks.

  19. Rosaline

    Believe me, Joe, many many people read this blog – from the city down – but you are right, emails should be sent to the city.

    What is frustrating is that they ask for suggestions before Saturday’s meeting. If this city was more open minded they would provide us with important information before the meeting – case in point the Facilities whatever to bond $80 million. If there is any mention of this big project on the city website etc. it must be floating around in cyberspace!

    Inform us first and we can then make suggestions before these things are “finalized”.

  20. stephen

    It seems that the City has now posted the Facilities Master Plan on the city website. You can download / read it at http://www.burlingame.org/ConsolidatedShow_041019-FinalDraft.pdf

  21. Jim

    Shame on the City of Burlingame for not getting this document out BEFORE – yes BEFORE – the residents heard whispers about its very existence and asked why it has not been available. A document dated October 2004 so it did not come out yesterday.

    An 82.9 million bond! – no chicken feed!

    Next time City Hall – do a better job!

  22. rich grogan

    Based upon the Facility Master Plan this type of behavior falls right in the “troubled” area of poor customer service portion of the report. Repeatedly, the city has demonstrated the ability and desire to keep the citizenry in the dark. Tyrannical governments depend on the citizenry living in the dark and being ignorant about the local issues.

    “Da Mayor” must be a slow learner, because over the years, the citizens of Burlingame have demonstrated time and time again that they are educated, engaged, and not willing to lie down and allow the council to run rough amuck.

  23. Constance

    Joe B,

    Oh please!!….Jim Nantell checks in with the Voice at least every day! If you call him at city hall and speak about anything, he will alway redirect the conversation to be about The Voice. He doesn’t like the The Voice but it seems he cannot stop reading it. I would be willing to bet that Joey G and Mickey C read it regularly too.

    In previous conversations with Jim Nantell I have advised him that he and others are always welcome to post their comments but I guess that would be the last thing they would do. How about Galligan and Coffey starting their own website?? But then again, that would be too pro-active = trying to find out what the public thinks about issues. They could call Terry Nagel for advice. She always sends out a great newsletter that keeps the public informed about issues, meetings and guess what…she WANTS feedback Those two other guys want us to get out of the way and leave them to do things behind closed doors without any “sunshine”.

    Thank goodness the Voice exists.

  24. Jim

    The interesting thing is that in the old days alot of stuff was undercover, covert, whatever word you want to use. Now it is alot harder for the politicos and wannabe-politicos to keep things in the dark. Residents are more informed and more involved and the Voice gives the news instantly and is open to everyone.

    This blog often illuminate things a little too clearly which is obviously a threat to some. Let’s keep that light a-shining!

  25. Fiona

    Our city manager asked Liz Harrelson (Palo Alto Daily News email) whether she remembers if she ever ran an article on the Public Facilities Plan and she replied “yes, we did. It was slated to run on November 26, 2004 according to our Archives”.

    Ed Carpenter also told Mr. Nantell that he “ran an article on it about a week after the October study session”

    Interrrrrresting!

  26. Fred

    Well strangely if you search the city website for any minutes that refer to the master plan all you get is the agenda http://www.cityofburlingame.org/search.php?action=display&id=566&searchitem=Facilities%20Master%20Plan
    for the study session held in conference room A on October 26, 2004. If the press was there, there couldn’t have been much room for the public. There are no minutes to be found on the website and no reference in earlier or later minutes. Seems that this wasn’t exactly discussed very broadly. Funny, Fiona, that the press picked up on it at all!

  27. Rosaline

    Could the money for this expensive facilities master plan ($175,000) be better spent on a Specific Area Plan. Not a milk toast area plan that rubber stamps but one with vision. Even a City employee said that she had no guide lines or guidance when it comes down to another Apple riding into town.

    Perhaps lets wait for a change in the council and we will then get a couple more Mrs. Nagels and Mrs. Baylocks to sort it out!

  28. Candyman

    One can never know what Gallligan is thinking or why he is doing something. I’m just relaying what people themselves think.

Leave a Reply

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026