The Burling-Blame Game Explained Learn the rules of the game in two minutes or less and you too can play.

A brief primer; In 2005 City Council got a FIXED Bid to build Burlingame Phase I for $150 a square foot which included infrastructure inside the site. This contract got executed successfully with minor changes. At the time, city staff was responsible for estimating additional external infrastructure and future changes to the project. At the time the total cost estimate for Phase I was about $39 million. The original cost increased by $20.1 MILLION (per city staff memo) by mainly discretionary changes to reduce cost of units, add park, trail, buses, green improvements etc.

Additionally the infrastructure estimate by city staff was wildly off, the total cost appears to have increased $18.4 MILLION more than the original estimate (per city staff memo). Essentially the cost of Burlingame Phase I DOUBLED due to Council discretionary decisions and a terrible cost estimate of infrastructure by city staff. It was NOT due to construction inflation since it was a fixed bid. It was NOT due to a delay in starting Burlingame in 2005 instead of 2002, since the city’s cost to produce housing per square foot was less in 2005 than what the city paid in 2002.

So how do we get to the winners/losers of the blame game?

First the CPA’s (city political accountants) should transparently publish a complete accounting of exactly what the $38.4 million cost increase is with no spinning allowed. There is no doubt some of Council’s increases in spending were good decisions, there is no doubt the infrastructure cost more than the city could estimate, but the only way to end the blame game is to reveal EVERYTHING.

Second, those who made those decisions should justify what they’ve done and let the public agree or disagree with the usual consequences. The explanation that city staff got distracted by the fixed bid and therefore lost track of communicating the rest of the costs is too weak for words. The fixed bid to build the units was the only part of the project that worked effectively.

Game over.

Next game; should we vote for the $50/$70/$90Million (depending on estimate de jour) of tax money the city will ask for in November for housing? Questions at the beginning of this game include:

-How could the city spend $35 million of money in the bank budgeted to complete Burlingame on dubious land purchases this year? This decision makes a bond necessary to build anything. Some of these Land purchases require upward of $1,000,000 per unit subsidies without any public discussion. At best terrible financial planning, at worst a horrible waste of housing funds. If council had used the budgeted money to complete Burlingame there would be no need for a bond vote.

-How can we vote to bond millions based on city staffs estimate of what housing will cost in the future? They try very hard, but construction estimating is not their thing. A fixed bid should first be obtained for the rest of Burlingame (including everything) and only then should citizens be asked to approve a tax increase to cover it.

-Is the city’s shotgun spending approach to affordable housing a permanent policy now? Bond after bond, tax increase after tax increase forever as stated by some of our politicians? A multi-year plan showing real employment numbers, real goals, and real community input is just common sense before giving the government tens of millions to spend. Our 2001 Community plan goals for Affordable housing are close to being met. The current “crisis” should be substantiated first by updating the 2001 community consensus before giving the government a blank check. Are $1million per unit subsidies for AH units okay? Other sidelights of the bond game will include all sorts of interesting distractions.

Anyone saying boo to the bond will be accused of being an enemy of the people, anyone demanding accountability of the government will be “personalizing” politics, anyone not marching in lockstep to vote for the bond will be against the “AH fabric of the community.” Anyone who plays will become part of the soap opera. Personally I’ve created and worked on affordable housing for 15 years. It’s not so complicated once you get past the games. Before we give the government millions we citizens should demand more.

Tim Semrau

Former city councilperson.

Former Chair housing board.

Former developer of affordable housing.