Burlingame moves forward with new City Hall plan

The decision to give permission to City Manager Lisa Goldman to negotiate and authorize the deal was largely a financial and economic one — repairs to the current City Hall, located at 501 Primrose Road, would total around at least $35 million over the next 10 years.

Even if it was repaired, that space is insufficient for a growing city, with four employees working off-site due to building constraints and many employees forced to double up on office space, Colson said.

“We’re dividing offices up that are supposed to house one person, and we’re putting three or four people in, and it’s really hard when you’re dealing with HR issues and privacy issues and lawsuits and all kinds of things that are confidential,” she said.

Building a new City Hall at the current location proved to be extremely expensive, ranging from $73 to $87 million, according to the staff report.

Waiting to remodel or rebuild City Hall until construction prices decrease would likely be wishful thinking, Goldman said.

“Things get more expensive. They don’t get less expensive. Any kind of construction probably is not going to get cheaper for us,” Goldman said.

The decision is also an ethical one, former Councilmember Stephanie Lee said during public comment, noting the current City Hall’s seismic issues, asbestos and HVAC problems.

“Ethically, the council has a responsibility to protect health, safety and working conditions,” she said. “This is also financially a smart decision … an old building that is seismically unsafe that has asbestos and outdated HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems is a huge liability.”

Barring a dispute in the agreement and signing process, Burlingame will move forward with leasing the building — which currently has existing tenants — from August 2026 to June 2027 before purchasing it in its entirety.

The city will get six months of free rent before paying $168,414 a month to the existing landlord. But when the building is officially purchased, Burlingame could make up to $1,656,000 in revenue a year from building tenants, according to the staff report.

Some residents voiced concerns around the need to purchase an entirely new building and the fiscal impact on the city.

“People could work from home,” resident Brennan Galloway said. “It just seems like a poor use of taxpayer money.”

City staff also explained the lack of information on the purchase before the agreement was made public. The city signed a nondisclosure agreement to protect its financial interests and prevent a third-party buyer from ruining the sale, Goldman said.

“To protect the city financially, all of this information had to be kept close to the vest,” she said. “I understand that is frustrating for people. It was frustrating for everybody, but we just couldn’t provide information about this particular building until everything was ready to go.”

The future of the current City Hall property remains an open question that staff and councilmembers will have with the public in coming months, Vice Mayor Michael Brownrigg said, noting that the surrounding green space remains an important area to the community.

“What’s the best way to use the land, what do we want to protect, what do we not need to protect, what do we want to do with it? That’s an open question,” he said.