BBB: B'game Bulging Bucks

Let's continue our two week traipse through the financials of B'game, new sales taxes, Caltrain taxes, and the State's gas tax grab with this news from the Daily Journal's report on the City's coffers

Continuing the upward trend established over the past few years, Burlingame’s economic position is expected to keep improving due to a robust tax base, according to the newest annual budget. 

The Burlingame City Council unanimously approved last week a spending plan for the 2017-2018 fiscal year projecting $68.9 million in general fund revenue to grow by roughly $1.3 million from the previous year. 

The budget is bolstered by record gains from the city’s thriving strand of 12 hotels along the Bayshore, proposed to bring in $26.8 million this year, alongside a projected $19.1 million in property tax, according to the report authored by City Manager Lisa Goldman.

Hotel tax is expected to bring in $15 million more annually than it did in 2008, while property tax is slated to increase by $7 million annually from the $12.2 million generated a decade ago. In all, general fund revenue has ticked up by $32 million since hitting a recent low point at $36.7 million in 2010.

I'm all for "remaining vigilant" about a softening economy as the piece states, but right now softening is not really what is in the tea leaves.  Higher sales taxes are spoiling the bottom of the tea cup, but other than that things are looking OK.  To finish, let's just enjoy this bit of missed editing by the DJ

The budget sets aside an initial $3.7 million this year to pay toward pension costs, with the expectation of making more contributions commiserate with the projected cost hikes California cities should soon see, according to the report.

LOL

Comments

[Joe]

For those who skated through English class:

com·mis·er·ate
kəˈmizəˌrāt/Submit
verb
express or feel sympathy or pity; sympathize.

Verses

com·men·su·rate
kəˈmensərət,kəˈmenSHərət/Submit
adjective
corresponding in size or degree; in proportion.

[JF]

$3.7 million just for pensions? That seems incredible. This is paid every year and if we increase police and fire-fighters and teachers it will only grow. I think it's about time to push public employees into 401K plans like the rest of us (or keep the pension and reduce benefits).

[governed by gangsters?]

The quote seems unclear whether the $3.7M goes into the pension "lockbox" to pay down unfunded pension costs that the city has, or whether it's to fund current obligations.

Regardless, best not question these much fatter than corporate retirement plans or the unions bullying in general, or they'll literally send paid goons to attack you, knock you unconscious with a bottle, and cut your face at gunpoint.

And, then they'll send (6-7) police officers into your bedroom while you are asleep with guns drawn at your head for no reason - no shit. Oh yeah, my cheap Comcast burglar alarm went off accidentally on the other side of the house which I didn't even hear...that was the excuse.

Then, they admitted that one of the senior officers called off the investigation of the aforementioned assault on me because he was paid off by the people that directly ordered the assault. See, the mafia acts as enforcers for the unions, and the unions like the police then let them do their thing because after all - it's not their jurisdiction, its a federal matter. They further admitted that 25% of all police are paid off by the mafia. All while I stood there naked in my bedroom, after the woke me up at gunpoint. Strange but true.

"Stop questioning the unions" [or else].

Vote accordingly, oh yeah, we did. MAGA.

[tom]

Joe

For those who skated through English class:

Verses vs versus???

[Joe]

Misteaks are included for our mutual enjoyment!

[[email protected]]

Dear JF..
Would that be your position if you had worked for Burlingame?
Do you live in your Parents Old House?
Are you benefiting from Prop 13?
Same with you GBG.
Please respond.

[Cassandra]

Potholes.
Pensions.
Fix them.
No recreation center until they are fixed.
Or, just use the school and church programs and fields and close the recreation center.

[Laura]

Cassandra, our recreation center is used by many citizens of Burlingame of all ages. It's packed with activities going on daily. It's over 70 years old and needs to be replaced. I would much rather have money go to the Rec center that could be enjoyed by citizens for the next 70 years then fund bloated pension funds AGAIN. We need Parks and Recreational areas and Burlingame has one of the best recreational programs on the Peninsula. To let it crumble and stop those activities, would be a shame. I was there Friday and you had children at Camp as well as many senior citizens playing bingo. You telling me these children and seniors should have no where to go because you want only pensions and potholes? Really?

[Cassandra]

OK; potholes.

[[email protected]]

As I understand it, a sticking point "added" to a New Recreation Center is that City of Burlingame Management-Recreation & Park, do not want to be moved to an area near the Golf Center.
In my opinion, that is a logical setting for a Center.
The City owns the land.
What is the problem?

[HMB]

That rec bldg needs to be replaced. They stink of mildew in the walls during the winter is almost unbearable. And you can smell the gas from the kitchen. The building is hazardous! But there are so many wonderful programs in that building! We live in San Bruno but have participated in Burlingame Rec programs for 30 years.

[BMW]

2016 Salaries of top 20 Burlingame civil servants, including benefits and overtime:

Lisa K Goldman
CITY MANAGER
$306,085.53

Eric Alan Wollman
POLICE CHIEF
$284,479.49

Kathleen Kane
CITY ATTORNEY
$270,345.69

Syed R Murtuza
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
$265,551.01

Michael J Matteucci
POLICE CAPTAIN
$257,066.39

Carol T Augustine
FINANCE DIRECTOR
$256,671.03

Leslie Loomis
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR
$247,647.30

Margaret Lorna Glomstad
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
$245,312.43

William Duane Meeker
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
$242,000.35

John M Kiely
POLICE LIEUTENANT
$232,354.79

Art T Morimoto
ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
$231,420.01

8 POLICE SERGEANTS/OFFICERS
$229,601.22 - $208,939.40

Bradley Mcculley
CITY LIBRARIAN
$212,183.40

Robert J Mallick
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT
$206,638.66

Donald T Chang
SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER
Burlingame, 2016
$200,440.03

http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2016/burlingame/

[Bruce Dickinson]

Joe and Russ, can we enforce the one username per poster rule? Bruce Dickinson can see right through some of these posts where a single responder, under different usernames, keeps spamming the same comments/crazy concepts over and over again. Makes Milli Vanilli seem like an original artist in comparison, if ya know what I mean?!?

Has been going on for years!

[[email protected]]

WHAT?
Good for her..
But seriously,$245,312.43 a year...
That is incredible.
I bet that does not even include benefits, Car allowance, Petty Cash, etc.
I can not be anything but happy that these people get the monies they obviously believe they deserve.
Nevertheless, I bet if their salaries were cut by $100,000.00, they would still keep their job.

[[email protected]]

RE: Mr. Dickinson,
Why not include address?
If a person contributing does not live in Burlingame, what justifies a presence?
Phone numbers would be good too.
Why do this forum when I could either call you at home or knock on your door.
With all Respect.
H

[Bruce Dickinson]

Good point, Holy-baby. An IP address sweep of location would easily find the non-Burlingame residenT (emphasis on the singular) who is responsible for 90+% of the posts I speak about.

Bruce Dickinson may be old, but as they say, with age comes experience and cumulative knowledge!

[Joe]

BD, see what you have started!

Here is the answer to your question:

http://www.burlingamevoice.com/2015/04/commenters-names.html#comments

[Laura]

The Rec center needs to be centrally located. The children that attend camp, walk to the park, walk to the tennis programs, walk to the pool, walk to the baseball fields. If Rec Center was over by the golf center, the facilities are not near. The location is great and the new proposed center fits perfectly with just a few adjustments.

[[email protected]]

I understand your POV.
However, I disagree.
-There is little or no parking.
-The current "Footprint" of the Rec Center can only contain/replicate what is there now. No room for growth.
Being logical vs. emotional in spending Multi Million Dollars in Taxpayer funds for the New Building, Employee's income plus benefits, plus a Very Doubtful return on investment, The City of Burlingame can not afford to provide Charity to the people that use the facility.
I would like to see the current P&L facts.
As well as the amount of people who use/join programs now.
I believe that simple facts regarding the City of Burlingame providing a Recreation Center, is a very poor choice of Taxpayer funding.

[Bruce Dickinson]

Guy, don't think the point is that we don't need a new rec center. We all know the current one is aged and seismically unsafe. The bigger issue is do you need $45 million dollars to build a new one and the simple answer is NO! $1,100+ per square foot for a rec center is ridiculous for what is essentially industrial/commercial type construction. Keep it around the same size without all the bells and whistles (where prior council meetings on the new rec center design proposals sounded like a conference of the Association of International Architects) and make a practical/functional one for $20-$25 million dollars. Residents would get the benefit of a slightly larger Rec center without putting Burlingame finances at risk.

If the city has to resort to gimmicks such at the 1/2 cent sales tax increase, and we are already seeing the signs of a real estate market topping off, what is going to happen when the economy actually goes into a recession (which is 100% guaranteed to happen)? Burlingame is highly levered to economic cycles (Hotels and Real Estate), so it should have finances that can commensurately withstand the volatility to such leverage.

A $45 million dollar rec center at the peak of the economic and real estate cycle is far too expensive and imprudent when it can be easily done for much less!

[More Cowbell]

Such sweet sounding cowbell. Would you stand out in front of City Hell and ring it more loudly?

[Laura]

The proposal includes an underground parking structure that is needed in that area. Underground parking will take a large majority of the cars off the street that are parked in front of people's homes. It will help during events and it will uncluttered many streets around the area. The 45 million dollar price tag is not just the Rec center. It involves moving the park away from the street, a concern that many parents have had. Moving the basketball court, bathrooms etc. It's a reconfiguration of the front of Washington Park. Taking it over to the Bay front takes it out of the community and makes it difficult for seniors and parents to get to. Walk through the current Rec center on ANY given day and it will be packed with Burlingame Residents. Yesterday was music in the Park which was well attended and a wonderful summer program. Neighbors WALKED to the park and center to listen to a fun country band. It needs to be centrally located.

[Account Deleted]

FYI, here's an excerpt from an August 17, 2015 staff report re: the new rec center design (which has still yet to be finalized, I believe). It envisions nearly a 70% increase in square footage for the new building compared to the existing structure, despite having no gym:

During this process, the City and its consultants considered many factors, including the size of the building, the location in the park, respecting the passive areas of the park, the mature trees, the ballfields, the tennis courts, the Lions Club, parking challenges, and the impact on neighbors.

The outcome is a functional, two story, 35,500 sq. ft. building that is larger than the current single story 21,200 sq. ft. facility and only increasing the building and parking area’s footprint by 1,000 sq. ft. The new facility has a full complement of recreational multi-use, multi-generational, flexible spaces that support all of the identified community needs.

During the development of the master plan, there was discussion regarding the inclusion of a gymnasium in the new facility. However, the community members who participated in the process determined that a gym was not appropriate for this site, as it would create a footprint that encroached significantly into Washington Park (with both the larger building and additional parking considered). Fortunately, due to the strong relationship with the Burlingame School District, the City has access to their gymnasiums for many of the youth programs in addition to many private gymnasium options on Rollins Road.

[Bruce Dickinson]

Laura-baby, I understand your perspective, but trust Bruce Dickinson on this one as my staff's tentacles reach into multiple businesses including real estate: $1,300 per square foot for a Rec center is criminal! At most, should be $500-$600 per square foot. Burlingame already owns the land too! One story, add 1000 sq ft footprint, move part of the park for safety, keep parking as is and it's a $20 million dollar project.

Sure, we would like the latest/greatest/largest Rec center in the Bay Area, but only if Burlingame's finances and balance sheet can support it, and in an economic downturn situation, it will not. Mark my words on this one!

Understand what you and many community members want, but such things have to assume that resources are limited and finite.

You develop with the budget that you have, not with the one that you want! This adage applies to all successful business and economic endeavors - and you can take that advice right to the bank!

[[email protected]]

How about this Caviler Concept...
Let "The Park" be a Park.
There is NO need to create Mayhem in an area that should clearly be just a Park.
A Recreation Center is a "Business," of sorts.
As well as managed as a business.
8/10's(eight tenths) of Washington Park is a beautiful Arboretum, a Beautiful Baseball Park, and just an awesome place to let children run their bums off, and meet new friends.
However, the 2/10" that really takes away from Washington Park are the Recreation Center and the Heavy Equipment/Park Employee 365/24-7 work site.
I am sure there is a bigger risk allowing the Park Dept. Employyes to drive In & Out through that "Dynamic Parking Lot."
I have to call BS on whoever stated that the location of the children's play ground is dangerous.
Especially considering the amount of traffic will not change.
A Recreation Center in Washington Park, considering all the negatives would be a Criminal Act.
Stupid too.
Whatever happened to the Burlingame Rec & Park project to build a Multi Purpose Park on the San Francisco Bay's waterfront?
Global Warming?