With Burlingame’s City Hall needing a major and costly overhaul, the City Council is set to decide whether to lease and then purchase a new building at 1440 Chapin Ave. for $34.5 million.
Staff is recommending that Burlingame move forward with leasing the building from August 2026 to June 2027 before purchasing it in its entirety.
“It’s something we have been looking at since 2023. The current City Hall is an old building, it’s outdated, it’s not sufficient for the size of staff, it’s got all sorts of deferred maintenance issues,” Mayor Peter Stevenson said.
The current City Hall, located at 501 Primrose Road, is completely insufficient for a growing city and has seismic issues, asbestos and HVAC problems, City Manager Lisa Goldman emphasized. The cost to fix those problems alone would total around at least $35 million over the next 10 years, she said, making continuing maintenance at the existing building no longer tenable long term.
“We are bursting at the seams,” she said. “We also don’t have enough conference room space, meeting rooms, for staff, for council and for the public.”
While the city originally explored building a new City Hall from the ground up, that proved to be extremely expensive, with price estimates ranging from $73 to $87 million, according to the staff report. Adding on leasable space for potential tenants could up those costs by another $100 million, the staff report said.
Other potential sites with existing buildings that were considered for purchase included 220 Park Road, 1430 Chapin Ave. and 555 Airport Blvd.
Recommended for you
By contrast, the 1440 Chapin Ave. building already has existing tenants. If the City Council chooses to go forward with the agreement, the city will get six months of free rent before paying $168,414 a month in rent 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.
“We’ll be able to write down the cost of the building quite significantly,” Goldman said.
Once ownership of the building transitions to Burlingame, the city will be able to expand into the space if necessary, she said.
The decision to move forward with 1440 Chapin Ave. will be at the discretion of the City Council, that will discuss the purchase at its 7 p.m. meeting Tuesday, Feb. 18, Stevenson said.
“I think the 1440 Chapin location proved to be the best option; they’re obviously making the recommendation, as you can see,” he said. “Council will certainly discuss this on Tuesday, but I think it’s the most fiscally responsible direction.”
Nearly 10 years ago, Burlingame had weighed the possibility of developing housing at the current City Hall site, though Stevenson said conversation around the fate of the old building would be held at a future date.
The $34.5 million purchasing price, combined with necessary tenant improvements, would bring the total cost to $41.9 million, the staff report said.
Wait. Is this the Burlingame that was going to spend $6.4 million for a town square project? Didn’t Burlingame teachers recently receive a raise of more than 7% with these raises also counting towards their pensions and benefits? Didn’t Burlingame recently give union workers a 15% raise?
So Burlingame doesn’t want to build a new city hall – kudos for that decision but now they want to blow $42 million to purchase and improve an existing building? Instead of spending $35 million over 10 years for maintenance? Basically blowing $42 million instead of $3.5 million? And what’s the cost of maintenance for the “new” building? The numbers don’t work out, unless you want to reward union labor.
And what happens to the “old” building? Sell it? And who would buy it unless at a steep discount since $3.5 million in maintenance is required? Sounds like another losing proposition for Burlingame taxpayers. Remember Burlingame, you get the government you deserve. This is yet another expense, in addition to hefty raises that become more expensive since pensions are calculated on increased salaries. I imagine Burlingame will again reach for your wallets to pay for this “new” building.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
Wait. Is this the Burlingame that was going to spend $6.4 million for a town square project? Didn’t Burlingame teachers recently receive a raise of more than 7% with these raises also counting towards their pensions and benefits? Didn’t Burlingame recently give union workers a 15% raise?
So Burlingame doesn’t want to build a new city hall – kudos for that decision but now they want to blow $42 million to purchase and improve an existing building? Instead of spending $35 million over 10 years for maintenance? Basically blowing $42 million instead of $3.5 million? And what’s the cost of maintenance for the “new” building? The numbers don’t work out, unless you want to reward union labor.
And what happens to the “old” building? Sell it? And who would buy it unless at a steep discount since $3.5 million in maintenance is required? Sounds like another losing proposition for Burlingame taxpayers. Remember Burlingame, you get the government you deserve. This is yet another expense, in addition to hefty raises that become more expensive since pensions are calculated on increased salaries. I imagine Burlingame will again reach for your wallets to pay for this “new” building.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.