San Mateo City staff presented a citywide facilities condition assessment at a special council study session on Monday, Oct. 20, and asked the council for direction on four approaches to addressing widespread deferred maintenance and seismic vulnerabilities.

The assessment, presented by Steve Wu, facilities and fleet services manager (Public Works), and consultants from ELS Architecture and Urban Design, found the city maintains “over 100 facilities spread throughout the city's 5 districts,” of which 97 were deemed occupiable; 37 were excluded from detailed review and the remaining facilities were grouped for deeper analysis. Staff estimated a direct cost today of $183,000,000 to address prioritized deficiencies, an escalated 2030 estimate of $243,000,000 and an all‑in estimate including additional soft costs near $367,000,000.

The report identified immediate life‑safety and structural priorities (priority 1), near‑term major upgrades (priority 2) and longer‑term enhancements (priority 3). Staff highlighted several facilities of particular concern: the Lakeshore Recreation Center (closed due to structural and dry‑rot concerns), Fire Station 27 (does not meet current seismic standards for an emergency operations facility), Joinville Swim Center (mechanical and code issues that could force closure within one to two years), the MLK community center and pool, Shoreview and Beresford recreation centers, the senior center (noted to be sinking about a quarter inch per year), city hall and multiple downtown parking garages.

Consultant David Masonton told the council San Mateo’s conditions are similar to other Bay Area cities and warned that older wood‑frame buildings “don’t meet the collapse prevention standard” and “need repairs and reinforcements” to reduce collapse risk in a major earthquake. Matt Fabry, public works director, described four response approaches: (1) continue current maintenance levels (status quo); (2) selectively extend useful life through targeted investments; (3) pursue strategic redevelopment for some sites (for example, Lakeshore, MLK, Fire Station 27 and Joinville); and (4) reduce facility inventory where consolidation makes sense.

Staff described funding options including the city’s recurring general‑fund contribution (about $4 million per year), the council’s recently established $25,000,000 capital reserve as potential seed or matching funds, park impact fees, parking revenue, negotiated community benefits from development, federal and state grants and low‑interest loan programs. Staff said the city has received federal earmarks earmarked to specific projects: $1,800,000 for childcare at Lakeshore and $850,000 toward the MLK resiliency center. Staff also noted potential finance tools such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund loans, WIFIA‑style programs and the Federal Infrastructure Bank and suggested a future general obligation bond or sales tax measure could be necessary to fully address projected needs.

Council members asked for specifics about escalation (staff cited roughly 6% annual construction cost escalation), examples of consolidation (senior center near Beresford complex), and the likely buildings to close for safety if no action is taken (beyond Lakeshore: Fire Station 27, Joinville, Shoreview, portions of the central parking garage and selected park restrooms). Staff said the Joinville pool replacement is now estimated at $8–9 million in 2025 dollars and noted a 2001 estimate had shown a then‑cheaper renovation option the city deferred; staff also clarified the portion of Joinville’s grounds used by the school district is under lease until 2037 while the pool sits on city‑owned land.

After discussion, council members expressed majority support for a blended strategy emphasizing approaches 2–4 (targeted life‑extension, strategic redevelopment and consolidation), focused study sessions and use of the $25,000,000 capital reserve as seed funding rather than spending it all at once. Council requested staff return with focused study sessions on (a) downtown parking garages and city hall, (b) recreation and aquatic facilities, and (c) the corporation yard. The mayor summarized direction as majority or unanimous support for those study sessions and for using the reserve as a down payment on early phases, with staff to develop a funding strategy and a proposed phasing plan. Staff estimated an 18–36 month timeline for study sessions and initial design work and recommended a regular five‑year reassessment cadence.

Council members and staff emphasized the difference between discussion and formal action: no ordinance, resolution or bond measure was placed on the table or voted on in this special session. Instead, the council provided policy direction and preferences for prioritization and for returning with more detailed cost, design and funding options. Staff and several council members indicated grant and earmark opportunities are highest for life‑safety, resilience and childcare projects and that any grant pursuit will require local matching funds.

The presentation and council discussion closed with staff directed to refine the approaches, identify priority projects for near‑term seed funding and prepare the recommended study sessions and CIP (capital improvement program) adjustments for the council’s review in the coming 12–36 months.