Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

City OKs $2.3M in cuts, savings (by Heather Murtagh, Daily Journal)

Cuts and revenue enhancements totaling more than $2 million were given the OK by the Burlingame City Council in an effort to address a projected $1.79 million shortfall in the current year's operating budget.
In November, officials explained the city faced a $5 million shortfall if it continued with the adopted budget for this year and next. A list totaling $200 million of unfunded capital improvements, rising employee benefits and decreasing revenue resulted in the City Council directing department heads to consider potential reductions, many of which were approved Monday.
This round is the more typical round of cuts,? City Manager Jim Nantell said during a video of the meeting. Moving ahead, Nantell expressed his hope to begin looking at reinventing the way departments run as a way to save money differently.
Of the $2.3 million in cuts, $1.6 million will come from delaying capital improvement projects. More than $700,000 will come from reducing operating expenses, downgrading vacant positions, transferring salaries to enterprise funds, re-bidding or delaying some purchases, reducing staffing on one fire truck from four to three, closing the main library two hours early on Friday evenings, eliminating a vacant police officer position beginning in May and eliminating funds for council studies, according to a staff report by Parks and Recreation Director Randy Schwartz.
Vice Mayor Cathy Baylock wanted to maintain the library hours on Friday and suggested cutting a graphic design position instead to make up the funds. She was alone in her hope to save the library hours, which City Librarian Alfred Escoffier explained were the least used hours of the week.
The library will begin to notice the public about the new 5 p.m. Friday closing time before implementing the change, Schwartz said.
Only two things were spared from the recommended list: $3,000 for a commissioners' dinner and $35,000 to be covered by grant money. The latter was pulled for clarification and could come back before council. As for the $3,000, Councilman Jerry Deal said little is done to recognize the volunteer work of individuals during the year and felt maintaining the dinner was important.
Delaying purchase of a fire command vehicle, dump truck and a police motorcycle were potential but not suggested cuts. Councilwoman Terry Nagel requested the three items totaling a potential one-time savings of $184,000 be examined and brought back for further discussion next month.
A list of $4.55 million in possible reductions $4.03 million in ongoing and $519,026 in one-time savings were put before the council. A majority of the savings will come from delaying the following projects: The Marsten Pump Station outfall line, Easton Creek box culvert, increasing disability access to City Hall, replacing the cooling tower at City Hall, replacing the library carpet and synthetic turf at Bayside Park.
Many of these projects could be funded if the city is successful in its effort to pass an annual storm drain fee. The proposed fee which could cost anywhere from $116 to $2,060 could go before Burlingame property owners in May in hopes of raising $39 million for capital improvements. Those opposed to the measure have until Jan. 20 to protest the proposal prior to the council giving a final vote to send out ballots.
A number of potential revenue-generating ideas, totaling $478,000, were also approved including: Shifting $200,000 of construction and demolition fees to the general fund; $5,000 from a $2 increase in cost to classes; $3,000 from extending the recreation building rental hours; $180,000 from increasing parking fines, which the council previously approved; and $90,000 from red light tickets from a yet-to-be installed camera at Broadway and El Camino Real.
In the upcoming fiscal year, the city will also look at charging for collecting fees for the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Conventions and Visitors Bureau, a move estimated to mean an additional $4,000 for the city.
Making cuts and looking for new revenue came as the result of revenues dipping. The city was looking at beginning the next fiscal year at a shortfall of $190,000 before funding capital needs.
Before the losses, the city invested $8 million to $10 million annually to capital improvements like facility repairs, which has decreased to below $2 million in recent years. The result is the investment of less than $15 million for capital improvements instead of $64 million to $80 million.
The Burlingame Avenue area accounts for 20 percent of the city's annual sales tax revenue about $2 million. Upgrading the streetscape in the area is estimated to cost $32 million. Since June, the city has seen about a 10 percent decline in sales tax revenue, which is estimated to result in a $700,000 loss if it continues at that level.

***
Glad to see that the library hours have been cut on Friday and not Sundays but any cutting of our Library "Community Center" is sad – even in these hard times.

– Written by Fiona

Posted in

14 responses to “Burlingame Oks $2.3m in Cuts and Savings”

  1. Fiona

    Apologies I am not able to start a new thread with this important document “Employee Costs in the Cities of San Mateo County” from the San Mateo Grand Jury:
    http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/2008/Employee_compensation.pdf

  2. Rich

    Great find, Fiona! How do we start a new thread on this very important topic?

  3. I’m seconding Rich — Excellent find, Fiona!!! Especially in light of proposed cuts (including Easton branch), despite the community making a sacrifice/stepping up to the plate with the recently approved storm drain fee!

  4. Joanne

    For those who didn’t bother to click on Fiona’s link, the title of the San Mateo County Grand Jury report is actually titled, “Summary of Reversing the Upward Trajectory of Employee Costs in the Cities of San Mateo County.” It is a damning report on the management of our cities.
    Among it’s conclusions:
    “Employee wages and compensation packages are not affordable.”
    “To accommodate escalating employee costs, and balance their budgets, cities have increased user fees, raised taxes, issued bonds, transferred funds from their reserves, and postponed needed infrastructure projects.”
    “The escalating employee costs can and should be reversed so civic services {read library, sports programs] and infrastructure improvements [read storm drains, city streets] are not neglected.”
    By almost all measures, Burlingame leads the pack in terms of offering the most generous (and least affordable) salaries and benefits to its employees.

  5. Fiona

    Rich, I would love to start a new thread but after two email requests to the Voice editors, they have not given me the capabilities for me to start a new thread.
    Perhaps our dead Anson Burlingame can start a new thread with this as it is an important document for all to see and in particular the recommendations to cities like ours.

  6. Rich

    Fiona, do you know when this report was issued? I wonder if the City Council has seen this yet.

  7. Joanne

    Yes, the city council has seen it. At least Fiona’s favorite city council person has seen it because she sent it out in her newsletter.
    I believe the city council is also well aware that the packages that have been promised in the past are not affordable.
    One of the conclusions of the report is that “Political barriers to change exist because all those negotiating employee contracts — staff, unions and city council members — benefit when wage and compensation packages increase.” The report also concluded that in “almost all County cities, unions play an active election role.”
    The city manager(s) and/or finance director could have provided political “cover” for the city council by stating that “we simply can’t afford what the unions are asking” but, of course, he (they) didn’t. Instead, they either led the charge, or merrily they went along . . . until now the state, county and city is bankrupt.

  8. I haven’t been afforded the ability to start new posts, either. Who, exactly, are the editors of the Burlingame Voice? It’s also a bit disconcerting that all of the prior posts/records from the old version of the Voice are now gone (i.e., my string on Granicus, etc)

  9. Joanne

    I have also noticed, Lorne, that some things were dropped when the system changed over. Most notable for me were the names of people who were early posts in favor of high speed rail. (I’ll bet they regret those comments!) More than likely, however, this isn’t intentional on the part of the computer gurus and is simply a technical matter of getting things transferred over properly.

  10. Thanks Joanne!

  11. Fiona

    Joanne, why don’t you ask your fellow editors and your new computer guru to fix these problems because I too like seeing names on posts including the ever dead Anson Burlingame!
    Having other contributors like Lorne being able to post new threads would make the Voice alot more interesting than it has become recently.

  12. Joanne

    And, yet, for all the technical difficulties we are able to post away, as demonstrated by the activity today — so back to the point here. There is a San Mateo Grand Jury report that has concluded that the benefits and salaries being paid to employees of our 20 cities are not affordable — and that, in order to meet these costs, cities have been borrowing from reserves, taking out new bonds and cutting back on services: http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/2008/Employee_compensation.pdf

  13. Holy Roller

    I know what a grand jury is. I have a good idea about what it does, I thought. Until now.
    How does this issue make its way to a Grand Jury?
    I thought Grand Juries were convened for criminal inquires. Wether or not there is evidence to proceed with trials.
    How does anyone get selected to be on a Grand Jury?

  14. Richard

    Holy Roller, you can find the answers to your questions here:
    http://www.sanmateocourt.org/grandjury/

Leave a Reply


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.


All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading