Category: Rec Center

  • Rec Center: $58.3 Million

    After the design preference was settled back in July, the costing out of the Rec Center project has been able to proceed with more certainty.  As eagle-eyed observer Lorne has noted on that July post, the new numbers going to Council are sizable–more sizable than expected just a couple of years ago.  The parameters from the Staff Report are:

    The project hard costs include local prevailing wage construction costs based on a design-bid-build procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, general contractor’s job site management costs, general contractor’s insurance and bonding costs, and general contractor’s profit. The project soft costs include allowances for engineering and design fees, construction management, permit fees, inspections, and testing. The project contingency allowance is calculated at 10% of the project hard cost and 5% of the project soft cost, and the escalation allowance is calculated at 5% per annum on the project hard cost estimated to the midpoint of construction. Construction is anticipated to be January 2020 to December 2022.

    I'm having trouble copying and pasting the chart from the Staff Report, so here are the totals by line item using the parameters above, i.e. all in with contingencies and escalations and rounded off to the nearest $100K:

    Playground, Multi-court, Picnic Area            $2.4 million

    Building, Associated Sitework, Parking        $49.9 million

    Furniture, Equipment, Technology                $2 million

    Everything Else                                            $4 million

                                                                       ————-

    Total                                                            $58.3 million

    Many thanks to Lorne for spotting this in a timely fashion.  We'll have to wait and see if there is any value engineering to be done.  In the meantime, here is the financing plan

    In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal- setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan for the Measure I funds, which included an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds. The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018. An additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer was approved in the 2018-19 fiscal year budget, also intended to fund the debt service, to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million for the Community Center project.

  • Rec Center: The Glass Box Wins

    Well folks, the Glass Box Rec Center design won out last night at City Council by a 5-0 vote. The theme of the council members' comments reflected some good points and some hand-waving. The good points were about natural light and views of the surrounding park and trees. We will have to see about that when the building is finished.  The idea that a tighter connection between the inside and outside is uniformly good is questionable.  If you live near the Glass Box you might disagree as one active local resident, Tom Paine, said last night.  Tom also characterized the architecture as looking like an insurance office.  The idea that staff are going to run around raising and lower shades to keep the light pollution down for the neighbors seems ambitious to me.  And the idea that seeing a yoga class in action might spur more people to take yoga, as Mayor Brownrigg suggested, ignores the fact that few people taking a yoga class want to do so in a fishbowl with spectators.  The estimate that all that glass would only be cleaned once per year doesn't hold water either.

    I found the whole solar power, photo voltaic argument a little thin. The flatter, "butterfly" roof design of the Glass Box allows for more square footage of solar panels by about half (50% verses 75-80%), but square footage is not as important as actual light energy collected.  With the flatter profile, the Mission design might have a substantial advantage in the winter months.  I have some experience with "Low E" windows that keep out some of the heat–they are not perfect.  With this much glass the energy profile of the building needs to take into account heating and cooling usage not just the solar energy collected.  If you end up roasting inside in the summer you will know who to blame.

    In the end, we get the Glass Box regardless of the reasons.  It was noted several times that this is a 50 year decision.  Let's hope it's not a gamble that turns out to be a 50 year mistake.  On the bright side, all of the original bad ideas like tearing up a huge swath of the park, moving the tennis courts and the Lion's Club, or putting "affordable housing" on the top floors fell by the wayside.  For that we should be thankful.

    Mission vs Pavilion
      

  • Rec Center Design–Vote Now

    As Measure I monies start to flow, the pace of work on the replacement Rec Center in Washington Park is picking up.  After lengthy discussions (years!), there are two radically different design proposals on the table and the City would like residents to weigh in on their preferences.  The architects, Group4, have offered a Mission design and a "Pavilion" design.  The word "Pavilion" doesn't really have any intrinsic meaning here and is just a way to avoid calling it the "Modern" or "Glass box" design.  Webster has a half dozen definitions ranging from "a large sumptuous tent" to "one of several detached or semidetached units into which a building is sometime divided.  My favorite Webster definition is "a temporary structure erected at an exposition".  Given all this, "Pavilion" reminds me more of the tennis center out on Rollins Rd. than a B'game centerpiece.  So you can guess how I am voting.  Here's the link to the survey.   You are paying for it, you might as well vote.  At least the plan to tear up a big chunk of the park for parking seems to have gone away.

    Rec Center2
    Rec Center2

  • The Real Sharing Economy

    There are not many things that Willie Brown and I agree on, but he wrote about one of them in his column in the Sunday Comicle:

    Toll talk: State Sen. Scott Wiener has introduced legislation that could help ease our ever-increasing traffic congestion problem by allowing San Francisco to charge for driving through downtown.

    My recommendation for City Hall is to start charging ride-hailing companies now. They are a huge part of the problem.

    Other studies have burst the idea that ride-sharing would take cars off the road.  The opposite appears to be the case with people more able to forego public transportation for more convenience at a reasonable price for door-to-door service.  That uplift is compounded by Lyft and Uber drivers circling continuously or worse yet sucking up parking spaces downtown.  Traffic flows are worsening as drivers who are not familiar with the area decide to just pull over and drop-off anywhere.

    On the home-sharing front, if the City needs money for a new Rec Center–and it does, a LOT of money; as Lorne notes here–then why no movement on charging TOT for AirBnB, VRBO, etc?  Those are low-hanging dollars and our ever-important hotels would not mind one bit.  Also in the Sunday Chron, the taxman's reach was verified in court:

    HomeAway must give San Francisco information about its local vacation rentals so the city can ensure that the company paid its hotel tax, an appellate court ruled Thursday.

    “We find that the tax collector acted within its authority,” in seeking records for HomeAway bookings dating to Jan. 1, 2012, the First District Court of Appeal for San Francisco wrote in a 20-page decision.

    We should start to see what kind of cash flow Measure I generates soon, but it won't be tens of millions of dollars so here are two ways to align taxes with local usage, improve some of the quality of life aspects of living in B'game and tap into the sharing economy.  Share and share alike.

  • Housing Manipulation: A Workshop That Worked

    Regular Voice reader David Harris also contributes on occasion and has kindly provided this summary of a recent Housing Workshop held by the City.  David writes:

    No matter where you stand on the issue of housing, affordable or otherwise, the city’s workshop on February 10 at the Lions Club was a well thought out and well attended effort to learn what residents are thinking and what their concerns are. Rather than a series of speakers addressing the audience, much of the meeting consisted of groups of residents huddled around tables exchanging ideas and sharing responses to questions posed by a facilitator.

    “How does the housing climate affect you and the people you care about?” and “What are your hopes for the future of our community?” were a couple of the ice breakers that got conversations started.

    Various housing options such as Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny units), multi-family units, live/work units and employee housing were presented, and pros/cons discussed at each table.  Residents were asked what their concerns were about each, and what other ideas they might have to create additional housing.

    A few factoids that were shared and are available from the presentation on the city’s web site:

    • San Mateo County has created about 79,000 jobs between 2010 and 2016, but only about 4,900 housing units.
    • The median price of a home in San Mateo County has doubled and average rent of a two-bedroom apartment has increased 66% between 2011 and 2017.
    • 30,000 people live in Burlingame. Nearly 39,000 people work here. Of those who work here, 38% earn less than $40,000 a year.
    • Homeowners comprise 47% of the city’s population. Renters comprise 53%.

    One can’t help but notice the imbalance between new jobs and new housing that seems to playing out each day as we watch a lot of commercial development (e.g. 300 Airport Blvd, north of Coyote Point) move forward lately and traffic congestion keeps growing.

    After the meeting, one official told me that one of the reasons for the meeting’s format is that Burlingame has some big decisions coming up in the years ahead. It’s easy to know what residents are against, she said. But figuring out what they will support is a tougher challenge. Hopefully, this meeting helped provide some useful insights and perspective. Another, planned for April or May, is to focus on prioritizing options.

    I appreciate David's recap of this workshop.  I am quite worried that some of the Big Decisions are being made without consideration to the quality of life in B'game.  This Monday night is a prime example of that with city parking Lots N and F on the slate for development of the "Village at Burlingame" affordable housing.  I have been hard pressed to find any current residents who think this is a good idea or that it will make a dent in the "affordability problem" with several thinking it will actually make things worse.  More than once I hear people ask "We can't afford a new, seismically safe Rec Center, but we can build affordable housing?".  Maybe we need a workshop on that trade-off.

    Affordable sign Lot N

    Affordable sign Lot F

  • No on “I”

    The voting rubber is about to hit the election road as the heft of the flyers in my mailbox can attest.  Two weeks from tomorrow is Election Day, but the absentee voting causes the candidates and issues advocates to be ahead of the fixed date.  I've given the Measure I tax proposal some thought and have come to a different conclusion than many of my friends (and my wife).   I do believe before one comes out against something one should be able to state the supporters' point of view, so as I understand it these are the main points:

    • It's a tiny tax of a quarter of a percent
    • Our sales tax rate is lower than some neighboring cities
    • It will be mostly paid by non-Burlingamers shopping here
    • We need the money for streets, policing and other General Fund expenses hence the tree, the streetlight and officer's cap on the lawn signs
    • We can borrow against expected proceeds to accelerate stuff we want

    First I'll stipulate that taxes that stay local to where they are raised are better than the other kind.  The leaky sieves that are the County and Sacramento are a crying shame.  It is a tiny tax increase, but nonetheless it's going in the wrong direction after numerous other taxes (direct and indirect) passed like:  the gas tax, the Prop 55 income tax on incomes above $250K, bond measures, Cap and Trade, the impending Caltrain tax, bridge toll increases and the distinct possibility that state and local tax deductions on Federal returns could be killed.

    If our sales taxes are lower than our neighbors, I say "Good" especially since we have a nice slug of high-value sales happening on Auto Row.  Why aren't we advertising THAT instead of trying to erase the advantage?  And the fact that out-of-towners also shop here doesn't obviate the desire to "Shop Local" for B'gamers.  Why push more people to on-line?

    Then there is the "We need the money" argument.  In the big picture, we are a pretty fiscally solvent city.  We also have a building boom happening.  While residential costs us money (even at B'game prices), commercial contributes and big commercial like we are seeing now should contribute big.  Have we looked at increasing the business license fee/tax?  It was traditionally $100 regardless of whether you were a donut shop or Virgin America!  And a new Top Golf money machine is due out on the Bayfront.  To top it all off, the street that is most in need of repair is El Camino and this tax won't help that since it is the State's responsibility.

    I'm not too worried about accountability for the funds should "I" pass.  And if the revenue stream exists, borrowing against it will seldom be better timed than now.  I do worry that a big chunk of new money might cause the new Rec Center to be over-designed, but again it's the principle not the implementation.  Getting nickel'ed and dime'd to death appears to be a California specialty and we should not just play along.  No on "I".

  • $15 million Is a Lot of Golf

    We have followed the redevelopment of the Bayfront driving range for quite sometime all the way back to criticizing the original contract made by a Council that couldn't negotiate its way out of a wet paper bag.  Most recently the skating rink vs. badminton vs. better golf controversy was discussed here.  The DJ was paying attention on to the quiet council meeting before the holiday

    The Burlingame City Council unanimously approved Monday, July 3, continuing exclusive negotiations with the company wishing to rejuvenate the former Burlingame Golf Center.

    The sizable rent offering once the facility is up and running amounts to nearly $1 million more than the initial figure floated by the company specializing in golf-style chipping games amidst a sports bar setting.  Additionally the company will construct a new facility offering 102 hitting bays spread across three stories along with a full bar and restaurant plus additional amenities expected to cost roughly $15 million.

    The company offered a $500,000 payment to address community benefits as well. Once the final terms of the contract are agreed upon, a completed contract will return before the council for ultimate approval.

    If you want to bother, you can click through and read the part of the article where the B'game socialists want the new money for "affordable housing".  These little irritants feel no compunctions about grasping at any bit of revenue the City stumbles into.  As for the real residents, i.e. those without an EPA law consortium feeding them bad ideas, we will be asking why we need a higher sales tax if TopGolf is adding to the city coffers so nicely?  But it is on the November ballot.  At least we won't need golf at the new Rec Center!

  • Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

    One of our roving correspondents sent us an unusual photo this week.  We love submissions.  We don't always use them, but we love them so please keep 'em coming.

    This is the new signage at the rest room near the Washington Park tennis courts and baseball field.  I'm not really sure where to start with this so I'll start with the correspondent's commentary:

    New signage at the tennis courts.  Someone must be getting paid by the letter.  Why not treat people as adults and buy a nice cheap sign at Ace Hardware that says "Toilet"?  Plus the signs are confusing: Is there a bath there?  (No)  And why do we need two signs next to each other?  Is there a regulation that says one must be square and the other triangular?

    Having used this facility a few times myself, my thoughts are 1) it's a "one-holer" with a good lock so is there really any gender issue at issue here?  2) I would much prefer to see a sign that says "One person at a time except caregivers" since that is the most likely problem to occur at that spot.  3) Let's hope this signage doesn't spread into the nearby Rec Center where it would really open a can of worms. 

    Washington Park RR

    Courtesy of the Five Man Electrical Band:

    Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
    Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
    Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

  • Following the Money: +8.1%

    We are pretty lucky to be in a relatively healthy financial position here in ole B'game. Last year's trend line has continued.  As the annual budget describes (transcribed by the DJ here)

    Of the city’s projected $65.8 million in general fund revenue, the largest sources are $26 million in transient occupancy tax, up about $80,000 from the last fiscal year, and $18 million in property tax, an expected roughly $310,000 increase from the amount received last year.

    Though the city has enjoyed steady growth over the past three fiscal years, to the tune of nearly $10 million in the general fund, some skepticism lies on the horizon as officials predict a drop in sales tax revenue for the coming year.

    Burlingame collected $13.2 million in sales tax last year, up $2.1 million from the year prior, but expects to draw in $11.9 million in the upcoming fiscal year, according to the budget document.

    You have to wonder what the TOT growth would look like if we added it to all of the room-sharing services operating in town.  You also wonder what impact that would have to push people to just rent to locals in need of an apartment instead of just parsing it out night-by-night.  Unlike some of my Socratic questions, I do not know the answer to that one.  Deeper into the budget we see

    Addressing liabilities in employee benefit plans are another challenge identified in the report, as the city’s staff has also grown over the years with the budget. More than half of the general fund is allocated to costs associated with employees

    CapEx is always an issue and the article notes the potential tax measure on the ballot.  Let's save that for another day.  The reserve fund is up $3 million.  It probably could be more since I don't know many established enterprises whose budget is up 8% year-over-year.  In the meantime, take a ride to the Bayfront and thank the hotels for their TOT.

  • RIP: Dan Anderson

    A full year has passed since I noted that an old friend, Dan Anderson, was fighting Lou Gehrig's Disease and now I must note that the fight has ended.  The Daily Journal has a great piece that highlights the many avenues of contribution that Dan made.  The avenue that he was both an activist and a true subject matter expert on was the hospital redevelopment so here is a patchwork of the quotes in the article on that topic

    (Cathy) Baylock said she also remembers Andersen’s participation in a variety of other community concerns, such as his role as part of Citizens for a Better Burlingame, which influenced the size and shape of the Safeway store before it was built at 1450 Howard Ave.

    She also recalled his tireless work to influence the development of Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, during which time he spent countless hours fighting for the interests of neighborhood residents.  “He was a great activist,” said Baylock.

    (Former councilman and mayor Joe) Galligan said the council relied heavily on Andersen’s perspective when deciding the best way to address the medical center issue.  “Because he was a positive influence, not a negative influence, we listened to him,” he said.

    Andersen’s willingness to attend public meetings and fight in the best interest of residents gave the Burlingame community a faithful ally in a fight against a medical institution some did not trust, said Galligan.

    Ultimately, finding a resolution which served the wishes of residents was due in part to Andersen’s hard work, said Galligan.  “There are a lot of people we can give credit to, without a doubt Dan watched every movement,” he said.

    My thoughts and sympathies go out to Carolyn.  The circle of life can be very bumpy in places and I hope she is headed for smoother times.

The Burlingame Voice

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

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