Skip to main content

tv   BOS Budget and Appropriations Committee  SFGTV  June 24, 2021 9:00pm-12:01am PDT

9:00 pm
this meeting will come to order. this is the june 21st, 2021, budget and appropriations meeting. i'm matt haney, the chair of the budget appropriations committee. joining by supervisor ronen, supervisor safai, and supervisor mar. and i want to thank sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting. before we get started, i want to let everyone know we will be taking a break around 12:30 for lunch and we have a packed schedule today as we always do. so i appreciate everyone's time and brevity. madam clerk, do you have any
9:01 pm
announcements. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. to the same extent as though physically present. the board recognizes that public access is essential and by public participation in the following ways. public comment will be available on items one through 4 and 7 through they're teen on the agenda. on friday, june 25th at 10:00 a.m. either channel 26, 78, 99 and sfgov tv are streaming the public call in number across the screen. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment are available via phone call. (415) 655-0001. meeting i.d. 146 6780558 then press the pound symbol twice.
9:02 pm
you will be muted and in listening mode only. speak clearly and slowly. e-mail at sf. it will be forwarded to the supervisors and will be included as part of the official file, written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service top city hall number 1 dr. carlton b. goodman place room 234, san francisco, california. this concludes my announcement. >> chairman: great. thank you. will you please call items 1, 2, 3, and 4 together. >> clerk: yes. item number one appropriations
9:03 pm
for hetchy 2022 to 2022. $8 million hetchy revenue funds to hetchy fund balance by project on controller's reserve item number 2. appropriation of 213.5 mondays deappropriating of grant funds to prices capital improvement program. fiscal years ending 2021 to 2022. the appropriating de-appropriating and re-appropriating funds. item number 3, ordinance
9:04 pm
amending 172-20. in an aggregate principal. the cost of various capital projects benefitting the power enterprise. item number 4. ordinance number 173-20 san francisco p.u.c. commission wastewater revenue bond issue answer. not to exceed $563.4 million to finance the cost of various capital waste water projects benefitting the waste water enterprise. member officer the public who wish to provide public comment call (415) 655-0001.
9:05 pm
meeting id 146 678 0558. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. i want to invite the sfpuc on these items. >> good morning. my name is charles and i'm a member of the budget and appropriations committee. i'll present to you these four items before you today. two of the items are amendments to our fiscal '22 capital budget approved last year. one of them for our waste water enterprise and the other is for our power enterprise. the other two items are associated amendments to bond financing to fund those changes in our capital budgets. our commission approved these
9:06 pm
changes to our capital budget and bond authorizations on february 9th and the capital finance financing committee, the capital financing committee approved them on february 22nd. supervisors, here's a high level view of the proposed p.u.c. budget for proposed 2022. the spending is related to our waste water and the majority of that is to fund the south for clean power which is our newest capital plan. so here is an overview of the budget. supervisors, we have a
9:07 pm
$213.5 million proposed change in our waste water enterprise and $17.3 million from what's already been approved. let me provide you some details on what's changing and why. here we have our biggest change to our capital water plan with the increase. supervisors, this change is namely driven by the bio solids project which is the main components or one of the main components at the building of the southeast waste water plant. those funds are being moved up earlier in our capital plan in order to meet the revised project time lines as was presented to our commission last december. they're also the $6 million increase for our careen infrastructure grants program which is an important part of how we are working with our
9:08 pm
customers in order to control and improve storm water flows across the city. also, supervisors, we're looking for ways to offset these increases. so there are approximately $40 million in budget reductions reflecting changing projects, scoping, and time lines in terms of making sure that we're only appropriating the funds that we need in fiscal '22. so we're cutting some project funding and we'll add back those funds in future years and bring those forward for your considerations, of course. is there any questions? >> chairman: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: no. sorry about that. i'll wait. >> i'll keep going. the other change in our capital
9:09 pm
budget is in our hetchy water and power enterprise. we're proposing a $17.3 million increase. supervisors, that's related to our visions corridor and distribution project to fund changes and increases to the substation. that's a key component of that project for electric distribution, grid enhancement on the eastern part of the city. the low carbon fuel standard project is being decreased by $2 million in our ordinance before you today. supervisors, this project is in coordination with the sfmta, it's a self-appropriating sale of carbon credits and we actually don't need this $2 million in our base. when we receive those funds through work, those are self-appropriating. so we're taking the $2 million out of our base here. as with the waste water
9:10 pm
enterprise, we are reducing and cutting just under $7 million in project budget funds mostly through project close-outs, but also some project cuts to partially offset these proposed increases. and authentic, lastly, we have changes to the bond financing. all of these budget changes are revenue bond finance. so if you have the proposed changes to our authorizations, you'll see the waste water enterprise of $213.5 million and in the power enterprise $19.4 million. and i'm happy to take your questions. >> chairman: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: he answered my questions the rest
9:11 pm
of his presentation. thank you, chair. >> chairman: great. and i believe there are b.l.a. reports on these items. >> yep. >> that's right. nick menard from the budget legislative office. for the budget which are the power bond revenue appropriated revenue. item 15024617 is an item that would appropriate $6.8 million in the p.u.c.'s fiscal year 2021 to fund balance and $23.4 million in proceeds. financing cost in fund balance in 21-22. the details are shown on page 3 of our report. item 3, file 210649 is an around pans that would increase the p.u.c.'s authorization to issue power revenue bonds and
9:12 pm
other debt from 143 mondays. the proposed debt is consistent with the p.u.c.'s policies. so we recommend approval of items 1 and 3. item 2 appropriating showing on page 9 of our report. item 4 is a file that authorizes the p.u.c. to issue $563.4 million in waste water revenue bond and other forms of debt. the debt is in compliance with the p.u.c.'s debt management and fund balance policies, but we do have one recommendation for changing to file 210650 which is to amend that legislation to state if the p.u.c. issues refunding bonds they're a funding savings report and the initial statement would be submitted to
9:13 pm
the board of supervisors and we recommend approval of file 210648 and 250 as amended. >> chairman: great. thank you. colleagues, are there any questions or comments for either the b.l.a. or p.u.c.? not seeing any. and for these recommendations on item 4, city attorney ann pierson has advised us these these amendments are not substantive. can you see if there's any public comment on these items, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes mr. chair. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on
9:14 pm
this item, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. are there any callers who wish to comment on items 1 through four? >> we have one caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. please unmute the first caller. >> eye lean bogan, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my own behalf. urging the committee to continue items 1 through 4 and hold this on the p. u. c.'s debt burden prior to the board's summer recess. the p.u.c. debt is $6 billion. this level of indebtedment together with the announcement of the new p.u.c. general manager wants a hearing. this woe prevent the board from being blind sided with the issues related to the former p.u.c.. the $6 billion debt portfolio was brought to the attention of
9:15 pm
the p.u.c. commission on june 8th. the commission seemed disinterested. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> we have no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chairman: public comment is closed. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: yes. the one thing i was trying to get clarity on and i wasn't sure, it seemed like it made sense, but i wanted to just double check with the p.u.c.. it says that it doesn't specify the amount of waste water refunding bonds that could be issued. why are we not specifying the amount of waste water refunding bonds. i understand the b.l.a.'s recommending and i think that recommendation that the proposal ordinance we should amend that and you all should come back and submit that report to the board of supervisors. i'm wondering why we're not
9:16 pm
saying a specific amount for the waste water refunding bonds. >> thanks for the question, supervisor. typically, we include language which says if you're authorizing a dollar to be financed through bonds, that same dollar can be refunded in the future if rates come down and it's, you know, it makes sense for us to do that. i believe in the ordinance that's being recommended for change that standard language was omitted so the b.l.a.'s recommendation to add it is we completely agree with it and it's standard for us to do that. so to your question around, you know, which bonds would we bring forward, we'll bring them all forward for refinancing in the future if interest rates come down and if it makes sense for us to do that. for sure. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. >> sure.
9:17 pm
>> chairman: thanks for that question. colleagues, i want to and um, for mr. perl, is there any response to the b.l.a.'s recommendation on item 4? >> we fully support the recommended change. >> chairman: okay. with that, i want to make a motion to move the amendment to item number 4, is there a second? >> supervisor ronen: second. >> chairman: seconded by ronen. >> clerk: on the motion to amend to item 4, [roll call] >> chairman: i know make a motion to move items 1, 2, 3,
9:18 pm
and 4 as amended. is there a second? >>. >> supervisor safai: seconded. >> chairman: roll call vote please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] there are five ayes. >> chairman: thank you will go to the full board on july 19th. thank you so much. mr. perl. madam clerk, can you please call items 5 and 6 together. >> clerk: yes, item 5 is budget and appropriation ordinance for the fiscal years ending 2020. item number 6. annual ordinance i
9:19 pm
numeratebling positions in the annual budget ending june 30th, 2022, and june 30th, 2023, continuing or creating or establishing these positions. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. colleague, what we are going to do, if you can hold questions for the department or the bla until after they've presented with the proposed z savings. and then the b.l.a. will summarize their report. after the b.l.a. has finished, we'll be able to discuss the proposed cuts and ask any remaining question. you can ask things that are not included in the b.l.a.. each department will be free to go. as they're aware, we may call
9:20 pm
them back at some point later in this process. as comments can be made during public comment day this friday june 25th what we are going to do is first bring up departments that have generally agree we will share anything more in their response and then we'll hear from their response. welcome. >> thank you, chair haney and supervisors. thank you to the budget analyst for working with us. we accept the budget
9:21 pm
analysis's. >> good morning, chair haney. our recommendations for the department of building inspection start on page 12 of our report. we recommend reductions $425,zero a one-time savings. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $425 these reductions would still allow an increase and we.
9:22 pm
>> chairman: comments about this agreement? not seeing any of those to the controller please note it's this committee's attention with the b.l.a.'s recommendation and i want to thank director for the work in leadership and your team. and your excuse for now. next up we have the planning department. >> good morning, chair haney. and board of supervisors. we are also in acceptance of the budget analysis
9:23 pm
recommendations. >> chairman: thank you. mr. gocher. >> yes. chair haney. our recommendations for the city planning department are on page 17 of our report we recommend reductions to the in fiscal year 2021-2022. of those recommendations and $150,000. these reductions would still allow an increase of $1,531,234 million. all of those are ongoing savings and we have an agreement with the department. >> great. colleagues, questions,
9:24 pm
comments. this agreement, seeing none. thank you, director harris. to the controller, please note it's the committee's intention. thank you, director harris you're excused for now next we have our favorite department that's mostly a pass through here is there someone here representing that department. >> yes. we're here in agreement. >> chairman: great. our recommendations are on page 35 of our report. we are in fiscal year
9:25 pm
2021-twenty-two. all those are one-time savings. we also make recommendations in year two of the budget at $400,zero and those are all one-time. >> i believe it was just in the first year of the budget, but, dan, i look to you. >> yes. sorry. conflict between our narratives, description and the actual recommendations and you're correct, it's just $400,000.01 time fiscal year
9:26 pm
thank you for that correction. >> chairman: with that i'll take any questions or comments from colleagues. please note it's the committee's intention thank you to general city responsibility. you're accused now. we have the office of the city attorney. >> good morning chair haney and supervisors. we too have reached an agreement with the budget legislative analysis office and we thank them for the work on it. >> chairman: thank you. >> thank you, chair haney.
9:27 pm
our recommendations are on the report for the city attorney's office. we recommend total reductions of $467,five hundred thirty all of those recommended reductions are one-time savings and would still allow increase of with the b.l.a.'s recommendation and thank you so much for being with us, mr. flin. >> thank you. >> chairman: maybe we'll see
9:28 pm
you next week or maybe not. >> good morning chair haney and board of supervisors and to the legislative analyst team. i just wanted to verify in agreement with the nonpolicy recommendations that has been put forth by the budget analyst. in addition to that i know there are two items remaining so we are available for any questions you may have on that. >> chairman: great. mr. goncher. >> our recommendations start on page 44 of our report. we recommend a reduction of $1,031,253 in fiscal year 2022 of those recommended reductions $249,575. and $781,six hundred
9:29 pm
seventy-eight are one-time savings. in addition, we recommend closing out prior unexpended prior year coverages for total general fund savings. $141,541 our policy recommendations total $3,445,218 all of which are ongoing. in year 2, we recommend $355,295 of recommended reductions all of which are ongoing savings and we have policy recommendations in year two of $3,359,863 all of which are ongoing. and i believe we do have agreement on the technical
9:30 pm
recommendations. there's disagreement on the policy recommendations and i can summarize those briefly if you would like. >> yes. >> so the first policy recommendations. this is a recommended reduction of $2.6 million in the convention facilities management for convention contributions. the department has proposed offering $4.6 million in rental incentives to organizations with convention bookings in calendar years 2022 and 2023 with the goal of defended bookings. the incentives could generation an additional $5 million in transient occupancy tax revenue through increased hotel bookings. however, we note the actual impact of these incentives on organizations decisions to book
9:31 pm
is unknown and would likely depend on the size of incentives provided and other factors. would be funded from existing convention center revenues would not be funded through general fund revenues. we also have a policy report. that is to delete 6.15fte customer service agents in 311. the city straightor's office is requesting ten new customer service agent positions and these equate to 7.69fte and 10fte in the second year at a cost of $2.41 million to
9:32 pm
respond to an estimated $84,081 thousand calls handled by the police. and traffic congestion, but not calls that will be dispatched to the street crisis response team, the overdose response team or the proposed wellness response team. the number of position has been based on the number of call length time. the department anticipates transitioning the call sometime during the first budget year, but there's not currently an operational or implementation plan or time line. each call time will require the development of new work flows, protocols, response team, coordination between 911, 311 and relative response agency. according to the mayor's office transitioning a simple call to 311 which is about five hundred calls, it took about five weeks to plan and implement.
9:33 pm
we also noticed there are departments that are still not in development. it's expected to be carried out by new staff and the mayor's office that's not anticipated to be hiring until october of this year. additionally police alternative response teams has not yet been identified. given the complexity of the call transition proposed, transition and other department initiatives, we consider this proposal to be a policy matter for the committee. it could be considered denying replacing all or a portion of the proposed positions pending additional updated information on implementation of this recommendation and i just want to also note that we did make a recommendation to actually delete or deny two of the customer service agent positions and the department agrees with denying two of those positions for the first
9:34 pm
year. this recommendation would be calling out the remainder of those divisions and so that completes my summary of those recommendations. we're available for questions if you have any. >> chairman: so i'm clear on the policy recommendations. so we wouldn't accept those now, but that's for our consideration for the final decision on the budget or how do the policy recommendations. >> the committee could consider that now, could consider making that decision now or i believe that the committee could wait to make a decision and call the department back to -- for further discussion or make a decision at a later hearing. >> chairman: and for the moscone related one, your
9:35 pm
recommendation is that we do not fund that or reduce it. i'm not entirely clear on that? >> we are flagging actually to delete it entirely, but we are not making it a recommendation because there are some pretty important policy implications for this. the department can provide further information on what they believe may be the impact but because it wasn't clear to us that those incentives were actually going to result in increased bookings or in definitive bookings at the convention center, we thought it was a good idea to flag that for the community.
9:36 pm
>> chairman: okay. and, administrator chu, do you want to respond to the policy recommendations as well. i don't know if you want to potentially hear from the macone director or have further dialog about that. >> sure. thank you, chair haney. and of course, my deputy city administrator who can also chime in. i think this is an item that you raised. the mascone center i believe you raised and i believe your office reached out with information in terms of the bookings. i think at a high level, the release is the competitive nbc in terms of conventions is pretty intense. every little bit does matter and we're seeing that people are offering 100% rental
9:37 pm
incentives essentially making it such that conventions do not have to pay anything for the use of the facility. what the benefit is for san francisco. if we're able to book one convention, we're able to work with the conventions to bring them back for multiple years which helps to set up visitors for a longer period of time to san francisco. in addition to the transit occupancy tax which san francisco would be collecting from all of the visitors who come. we're expecting it would impact our hotel businesses. in addition to direct spending, direct convention spending about $1703 million. much less all the indirect spending. so i think as we're thinking about recovery, this is one of the ideas that we would help prop up our economy. i know there was a comment
9:38 pm
about whether or not these rental incentives. what we do here is that it is very competitive and every little bit does count. so, i think this is ultimately a policy call for the board of supervisors about which direction to go, but we do believe that our convention business is an anchor business for san francisco's tourism industry and visitors to the city and we hope you will consider it. i'll turn it over to my deputy with any additional comments he'd like to provide and then we can go to 311 as well. >> yeah. thank you, city administrator chu. chair haney, supervisors, deputy city administrator. the only thing i would add is the reason why we put forward this request is part of the overall economic recovery package the city's looking at is because normally sf travel is part of their other hotel assessments, funding that would come from people staying in hotels would have revenue.
9:39 pm
but they do not have that revenue coming from the budget because of the significant decrease in hotel room nights and so normally, they would be having incentive funds that they would provide because it is a great value. so just like we've had to back fill a variety of things, this is another similar thing where we've seen the combangt of the compact and this is a two year fix in order to help the industry and a multitude of industries around the convention to thrive over the next two years until these revenues come back. >> and then on to the point about 311 policy recommendations and this is for the additional call takers that dan had provided information on. as a whole, our offices
9:40 pm
especially through 311 is at the tail end, but intent is to handle additional telephone calls. it sounds like there's still a good amount of work that needs to continue. and i believe that dan is suggesting the remaining eight call takers be put on reserve pending sort of the further flush-out of the program. how it will be implemented, timing. all of those pieces. generally, we would not be opposed to reserves because we're happy to come back to the committee, but we would like to request that the consider three of those requests. so this is something we'd love to be able to work with the board on. >> chairman: thank you. i see a number of my colleagues have questionings, comments. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, chair haney.
9:41 pm
the first question about mascone incentives, what is the actual incentive to different conventions if you're saying that other cities are offering 100% free use of the facility, what are we offering in comparison? >> well, in the past i think ken has mentioned earlier, the san francisco travel would have additional funding to be able to provide offsets to rentals. let's say rental cost $10,000 to rent or whatever it may be to offset some of the expense associated with renting the actual physical facility. and so what we're seeing in other jurisdictions is that the rent is completely forgiven essentially not only they charge $10,000 or more, they charge nothing at all. >> supervisor ronen: so we're planning on the incentive covering about half of the cost
9:42 pm
is that? >> no. i was just giving you an example of how the rental incentive could work. the travel does provide rental incentives. but because we haven't seen tourism or any other kind of funding come through, that's not been something that we've been able to offer to make our packages more competitive. ken, anything you would like to add on that. >> supervisor ronen: so it's a case by case basis. so there's not a standard amount we offer every convention. >> no, it's not a standard amount. it's a case by case basis. sometimes it will be a complete offset. other times it will be a partial. it's a package that sf travel works with a particular event organizer and puts together and then the rents, those rents are typically what supports are. variable costs in order to put on the convention in mascone.
9:43 pm
that pays for other things and so that's why we need to have the budget of the rent. they're not the event organizers so we need that rent to be able to pay for all of our cost to actually put on the event and then those organizers pay other things. we get other incentives because we have food and beverage that we get a cut of. they do everything else in the area. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. i understand now. thank you for that. and then, with the 311 diversion, you had asked for six positions, i just want to make sure i'm understanding this fully. you adapt for six positions, you agreed with b.l.a. to cut two of those positions. so there's four left, and you're asking of those four that are left to at least authorize three of the four now and put the fourth on reserve? i just want to make sure i'm understanding what you're
9:44 pm
asking for. >> chair, i see that nancy with 311 has joined us and just a quick summary. the original request on the budget was based on initial kind of estimates of what the diversion, number of diverted calls would be and what it would take to have call takers handle that volume of calls to keep service level up. i think, through time, there's also been some conversations around whether or not the calls that were initially considered for diversion and so i think there's still both conversations to be had that based on what we know there's been some adjusted call volume numbers and so i believe we can reduce the number of call takers hence the reduction at the two positions. on top of thanks, the budget analyst is requesting of the remaining positions, half the two that were cut, that they would put those on reserve and we don't have a problem with putting those on reserve pending the program being further flushed out and the number of calls that we expect
9:45 pm
to be diverted. the challenge is that we want to make sure we have enough capacity to hire people early enough to do training because typically it takes 6 to 9 months between call takers. so i'll let nancy add to it. >> yes. good morning, supervisors. to answer your question, supervisor ronen, we asked for ten positions and we have agreed to release two of those. so we're asking for eight to be put on reserve with three being released given some of the numbers that we've been given so far as potential. something i do want to make sure that you keep in mind when you're making these policies is sometimes we're given call volumes at some timed call volumes that are projected to come to 311 and often times
9:46 pm
those numbers are much lower than what we actually get because i know there's a lot of interest and a lot of calls getting diverted off of police. i know that with, dan, he mentioned for two simple processes, it took five weeks. those two were handled at two different times and we needed training. if the project manager that comes on board would be handling some things at the same time, we could train the staff on both of those things at one time versus two separate times so that would have cut some of that time as well. keep in mind, 6 to 9 months to train, it's not like we can ramp up very quickly. so if beyond the three, we are seeing that other call volumes wants to get moved, we would have to delay that from being a resource because we would have to be able to ramp up and take that time to train, fully train
9:47 pm
staff. >> i still am not clear about what calls you're talking about. so the skirt calls those will all go through 911. >> yes. correct. what we're talking about is primarily we're of urgency where they feel that perhaps a different agency would be best to respond to those type of calls and most likely they would call through 311 and send
9:48 pm
those requests for response to whatever agency gets decided would be taking those calls. >> supervisor ronen: okay. and if i understood correctly, exactly what calls we're talking about have not been determined. >> yeah. it has not been determined, but it would be like noise complaints. it could be various types of issues. >> somebody intoxicated on the street would probably go through one of those three street teams. >> possible. >> it's based on the caller. the caller decides. >> yeah. before there was a period of time where 311 was taking calls for intoxicated people. but there was mobile assistance program as part of dph, so i
9:49 pm
think there's a lot of decisions still to be made as to who would pick what? >> sorry. i'm a little confused. how is the public. sorry. let me get it out how is the public going to know if they should call. so let's say i, you know, my neighbor down stairs is having a party so i called 911. if we determined that's a priority c call or graffiti in
9:50 pm
progress. if they are going to 911, 911 would immediately transfer them to 311. >> supervisor ronen: i see. and if there's simultaneous sort of education of the public that happens rather than having that transfer of calls that if you have a noise complaint, you should call 311 and not 911. >> there will probably be education and on the nonemergency phone line there's the potential of having announcements or something to let people know and i think once someone calls and they know they're being transferred to 311, that's a way people get educated as well and those calls coming to 311 where we would typically transfer to 911 or the nonemergency police, then we would keep those. >> supervisor ronen: and then the process of being transferred to 311, is that going to be handled by the
9:51 pm
mayor's new proposed justice diversion committee or office? okay and so what dan was saying is that office will take how long to set up? >> i believe he said the person would be hired by october. >> supervisor ronen: okay. they then have to work with the departments. that's going to take a couple months. we're looking at sort of potentially january when those calls would start to be and you're say interesting takes six to nine months. >> after that, we have concern. >> so you're saying that if we authorized the three positions, you're asking for now, then you
9:52 pm
would try to hire them right away and it would more or less match the timing. got it. thanks for answering my questions. >> welcome. >> chairman: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: there we go. sorry. i don't have questions for 311. that all makes sense about timing and so on and ramping things up now. my question is more directed to city administrator chu around sf travel and maybe your deputy. is this -- have we offered these incentives in the past? is this something that we've done where we consistently pay for through rental fees for
9:53 pm
conventions? >> thank you, supervisor, for the question. as ken mentioned earlier, previously in the past, san francisco travel does have a series or has funding that comes typically through the tourists who come to san francisco or visitors to san francisco to be able to provide incentives on a case by case basis and so we have provided that it's not necessarily consistent where it's all 100% or 50%. so san francisco in the past has provided them. it's not a consistent level that we provided them and this would be a stop gap measure or conventions into the city. >> do we know what we've done in the past on an annual basis? >> i do not know. we're gong to work with them to see what kind of information they have. >> supervisor, it varies by
9:54 pm
year but it has been a couple million to $2 million range each year. >> supervisor safai: so we've done this in the past, but you all have not baselined this in your budget. if this is something that's done consistently over the years. >> the funding in the past has come through from the tourism improvement district funding and the mascone. those fundings are a result of the hotel assessments and so when the hotel stays dropped, there are no hotel assessments that have been coming in for the past 18 months. they've been solo we've had the difficulty. so in order normally that would be the funding source rather than the mascone budget. for this two year period, we're doing the stop gap funding. hotel assessments are back at
9:55 pm
the regular level and that picks up as the funding source for the incentives. >> supervisor safai: right. i guess that's what was missing. i understood that this had been kind of done up and down. i just didn't know what consistent level, but this is something that's been generated by the level of tourism that we get in the city through these particular improvement districts and/or expansion districts and so because the hotel occupancy z have dropped, there hasn't been any revenue generated. so you don't have money to cover the rental fee. that was not presented clearly, but now that i understand that, it makes 100% sense that we would put this money aside to generate. we had a hearing about a month ago that we were talking about how we could, what kind of incentives we could provide to get tourism back so we could
9:56 pm
increase our hotel occupancy so that we could begin to revitalize our economy. this makes sense to me. what is the recommendation of the b.l.a.? what are you recommending? >> vice chair safai, our recommendation was to remove or delete the amounts funded, it's about $2.6 million in the first year and just under $2 million in the second budget year. so our recommendation was to actually delete this from the budget given the questions that we had around whether these incentives were actually going to result in definitive bookings. >> supervisor safai: do we have bookings lined up, mr. cowski.
9:57 pm
>> it's a bit of a chicken and egg. until we can commit to providing the incentives, they can't commit to the incentives. they know this is part of the overall package that they're discussing with each of these event organizers. >> supervisor safai: got it. well, it seems to me like what we could do we could split the baby. take the recommendation in year 2 for year 1 and see how effective it is and come back and have a conversation and this time next year. as a potential solution. because i can say myself personally, i am absolutely for providing this incentive. i think it's really important. i certainly wouldn't want any conventions not to utilize the san francisco as a result of this being taken away and it's something that we've offered in the past as part of the package. we should do everything we can to stabilize that. going into year 22, 23, we can
9:58 pm
always have this conversation the following year. i don't know how you feel about that. >> yeah. thank you for working with us. >> supervisor safai: i guess i would amend one thing. unless some of the bookings are so far out. if that's the case. if they're booking and i'm sure they are, then probably having that money for the second fiscal year. that's how far in advance the bookings take place. >> thank you for that and i think you hit it right on the nail. we are looking in to the future for those bookings already. to the extent that the amount is for year two. that means we knock out that entire year's ability for bookings. i mean, booking multiple years in advance typically. >> supervisor safai: yeah. do they ever. if the revenue were to jump back up in year one, are we
9:59 pm
able to then -- able to have some type of resolve? >> could they help -- could then we consider that moving to year two. if the hotel occupancy and all the revenue is generated. i guess that's a question we could always answer. i guess i would just end with i think it's important to have this funding especially if the bookings happened that far out. so i'm okay. thank you for answering questions. >> thank you, supervisor. >> chairman: president walton. >> president walton: thank you, chair haney, and thank you city administrator chu and your team. just one question going back to the time line just for specificity for me, but with the additional 311 positions, from a practical standpoint, what would be the actual timeline for the infrastructure to be in place where now these
10:00 pm
calls that are going to 911 get rerouted. even now with the street crisis response team out on the streets which is great, i had people reluctant to call because they don't want to call 911 because we know what that could turn into. so with the time line, if we get these positions and these folks were working, how quickly could we stop these calls from having to go to 911? >> thank you, supervisor, for the question. i'm going to turn it over. she can speak about the specifics on the time line. >> hi, president walton, through the chair. i think your question is, if we have our call takers fully trained, how quickly could it transfer, could we be ready to take those calls? is that your question? >> president walton: so we allow budget to go forward with
10:01 pm
these new positions and we stop having to call 911. >> it bo all depend on the project manager, the type of activity that we would want to get transferred and then determining which department would be the one responding to that and then we would need time to either build a system -- not the system, but a form to handle the intake of those type of calls and transfer them to the responding agency. so it really has a lot of variables depending on what exact function we're asking to be transferred. so i don't think we can say definitively. >> president walton: maybe i'm asking the question wrong because in order to increase staffing and to provide these positions, obviously, we want to make sure that we were able to change what's happening because, again, we want folks to be able -- so, i don't understand why we wouldn't know
10:02 pm
the time line, like, that answer doesn't work for me i guess is what i'm saying. and we want these positions, but we can't give you an answer of when folks would have to stop calling 911 in order for the street crisis response team to respond and the thing that i want to support is, yeah, let's get more staff so we don't have to deal with this, but my answer is we don't know what the time line is. that gets me less enthusiastic. >> can i suggest, i think, what nancy is saying is the first piece to your question, president walton is that we want to make sure that there's buy-in about which calls are being diverted and where they're going and that decision has to be made before 311 folks are trained and before we do the diversion. once there is that decision and policy call about where the diversion will go and who, then our team will step in to start ensuring that our call takers
10:03 pm
are higher trained and also have the right kind of forms and documents to be able to consistently be able to go where they need to go. so, nancy, maybe one of what supervisor walton. >> president walton: and i think there's a little bit of either lack of understanding on my part or miss communication, because i assumed all the things that you're talking about were already worked out. i assumed that we're already working on the infrastructure. we already know what types of calls need to be rerouted and how that works. >> if i may, and i think you're -- >> president walton: conversations across adopts. in order to get excited about these positions, you know, for
10:04 pm
me, it would be let's not have to call 911 for these calls that don't involve police because right now, even if you know it's up to interpretation and we need folks to be able to reach out to the strlt crisis response team and have an infrastructure in place and not the police, not law enforcement because that's what gets me excited about saying let's get the infrastructure going. i think just maybe more coordination across the departments because i understood it differently from d.e.m. and d.p.h. than i'm hearing right now. >> got it. and i think there has been initial conversations about what their intent is and what people are thinking about diverting. there hasn't been a final decision and more conversation. i think that's also why there is a position in the mayor's budget that would work on the actual specifics and the implementation running through
10:05 pm
that process. so i think the estimates that came out in the budget were really funding to be able to ensure that as soon as we're able to move and that decision's made, we're able to have the funding and the people to deliver it and implement it, but you are correct enough, there's still some work that needs to be done across the departments. and, nancy, i think you wanted to say a few things. >> yes, thank you, some of the lists that we were providing of some of the possible items were like car alarms, dumping trash, traffic congestion. accidents without injuries. those type of things is what we were told would be some of the things that would be moving and then, of course, that person will also be determining if there's any others that will move, but once that determination is made. depending on what it normally is, we normally need about five
10:06 pm
weeks to get people, the entire staff trained and be able to develop the form so that we can route things electronically to the responding department. >> president walton: so we're talking a couple of months if everything was in order. >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman: thank you, colleagues, for those questions and comments. so we will have more opportunity to make decisions on the recommendations in the coming days, but i do want to as soon as we are good with the oop aspects of the recommendations from the b.l.a. and there's agreement on those so i want to thank the city administrate chu and to the controller note that the committee's intention is to accept the office of the city
10:07 pm
administrator budget with the b.l.a.'s recommendation and we will make decisions around the policy recommendations in the coming days and i want to thank you again, administrator chu and we look forward to continuing the conversation. >> thank you very much, chair haney. >> chairman: next up, we have the department of technology. welcome. >> good morning, supervisor haney, president walton, and members of the board. d.t. accepts the b.l.a. recommendations. thank you. >> chairman: >> chair haney, members of the committee, our recommended reductions to the proposed budget in the first year total $652,457 of those recommended
10:08 pm
reductions. all of those are one-time savings. an increase of $21 million or 16% in the department fiscal year 2021-22 budget. in addition, we'd recommend closing out prior year encouple pences. additionally, we are recommending savings in the current year of $48,107. we are recommending savings of 97611 and we did not have any recommendations in the second budget year. sorry. i just want to -- okay. sorry. no further comments. thank you. we're available for questions. >> chairman: colleagues, questions. comments. if there is agreement.
10:09 pm
all right. with that, i am refer it to the controller. please note it's the committee's intention to accept the department of technology budget with the b.l.a.'s recommendations and we appreciate you being here director drel and we will see you soon. thank you. next up, we have the department of public works. welcome, director. >> good morning. and thank you, chair haney. and vice chair safai and president walton and the other supervisors. i just want to at first to say and to agent lou and the mayor's budget office and to linden barry from and the budget analyst office, the report we've gotten from the controller's office and i also
10:10 pm
want to quickly thank my colleagues within public works and devon and mccally and victoria chan, silvia ho and bruce robinson for the help on this budget. as i'm pleased to say as public works is in full agreement with the recommendations from as b.l.a., i do want to point out very quickly, there's going to be one small reduction that's being proposed for -- as a 09 and the 31 position as we were hoping to use to support as public works as we work through the implementation of prop d. i think we'll be able to absorb that loss. i just wanted to say that public works is in full support
10:11 pm
of the recommendations and i'd be happy to answer any questions and thank you. >> chairman: thank you, director. >> our recommendations are on page 59 for the reports. we recommend reductions to the proposed budget totalling $751,011. our recommended reductions in year two of the budget total $621,528. all of those are ongoing savings and we note that this would still allow increase of a little over $4 million or 1.2% in this department's fiscal
10:12 pm
'22-'23. we do have direct degrahnned. >> chairman: i had a question not about these particular recommendations. but for director degrabnreid. i checked back in with them and there's still serious concerns about the way it's appropriating and even the proposal that has existed and one of the things in terms of having access for m.t.a. bathrooms and how accessible they are and one of the things that i was wondering about, you know, is this is also a budget question in the sense that is there any cost to ensuring
10:13 pm
these bathrooms are accessible or how this is working with mta, but i did just want to communicate there seems to be an ongoing concern for people who are out there who are part of your staff who themselves are not feeling they have adequate access to restrooms. and there is a cross to that. so we have been able to negotiate as an mlu with the m.t.a., the cost for and public works is going to be about $60,000 each year. but as we're able to absorb that, the one question i think that as we've been having with an employee is trying to figure
10:14 pm
out the and then trying to find a way as efficient distribute those keys at the beginning of each shift. so that's the one thing that we have been working on them over the last several weeks: >> chairman: it's going to be prioritized and integrated and absorbed within the budget. colleagues, questions or
10:15 pm
comments. >> i want to ensure that we're taking the committee's recommendations and implementing correctly and in this case, i believe i heard a conversation between the department and the b.l.a. that for one of the recommendations d.p.w. number 4 on page 58 of the report that in lieu of the position cut, the position would be retained but a comparable amount of attrition would be taken to get to the same dollar. i want to just confirm that with the department and.
10:16 pm
>> i'd like to refer to deputy director bruce roberts. >> ben, that is correct. we are willing to correct the within the department director degrafh. this was a second tier manager and that was going to help assist with the performance msht component of prop b implementation. but even with this reduction of a vacant position, we still think we can achieve those goals. short answer, yes, we are acceptable with the reduction and elimination of this within our budget. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> chairman: great. thank you all for clarifying that and thank you again,
10:17 pm
public works and we'll see you soon. >> next up, we have the office of the mayor. >> good morning, chair haney. members of the committee. i wanted to start by saying thank you to the b.l.a., dan, and the team. we are in support of the b.l.a.'s recommendation. >> chairman: mr. gonchers. >> our recommended budget totals $271,673 in fiscal year 21-22. nearly $22 million or 6% of the department fiscal year 2021. our recommended reductions to
10:18 pm
year two of the budget is $231,648 and all of those are ongoing savings and we do have full. >> chairman: okay. questions, comments, colleagues. agreements. disagreements. not seeing any. all right. to the controller, it's our intention to accept this budget and recommendations and we thank you again for your work ms. groffenberger. >> thank you. >> chairman: all right. next up, we have the ethics
10:19 pm
commission. >> i do not know if they were asked to come back for other reasons. >> chairman: anybody have any questions for the ethics commission? not seeing any. let's move on to the department of elections. >> good morning, supervisors. john armstrong. and the department is in agreement with the budget and the recommendations. members of the committee, our recommendations are on page 67 of our report. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $85,000 in the first year of those religioned $10,000 are ongoing and $75,zero are one-time saving. still on increase of $6.3 million or 26% of the department's fiscal budget.
10:20 pm
unexpended encumbrances. and as the director mentioned, we are available for questions. >> chairman: i had a question about this for the recall election. it's my understanding that since we have that meeting that the numbers were a little bit different than were discussed at that hearing, then we are assuming some level of reimbursement, but still putting aside a significant amount of local costs. or expenditures. is this something that you looked at at all.
10:21 pm
did you all analyze or do you view that as a policy consideration or it seemed to me to be relatively high amount of money that we're putting aside in light of the expectation that the state is going to be paying for most or all of this. >> chair haney, we reviewed the entire budget, but it's not something that rose to the level where we thought it needed to be flagged on if the committee would like, you could take a quick look over the next day or two and look back at that. take a second look. >> chairman: director ornst, do you have anymore? i know we talked about this late in the evening last year. could you clarify again, where that stands and what's the latest that we're hearing and what's your sense of it from a budget perspective?
10:22 pm
>> so i don't have any new information since last month's hearing. the state did put in the budget for the next fiscal year of $215 million to reimburse the counties. i don't know the ratios that would go back to the counties for reimbursement. the one potential change i guess is that the secretary of state indicated last week that the recall election may occur on september 14th, which is extremely soon to organize for an election. if that were the case, then i don't think the city -- it'd be a challenge for the city to consolidate any local measures on local contests that that statewide recall ballot. so that potentially would raise the amount of reimbursements that the city could gain from a state since there's no local
10:23 pm
contest or local content on the ballot. but until the election date is set. until we know what is on the ballot locally and until we know what the ratio reimbursement of the state, i really can't get any numbers to the committee today. >> chairman: okay. got it. last i heard, it's possible we may get answers around at least the timing of the recall, any time in the next week or so. i guess we'll find out. okay. i saw controller rosenthiel jump in as well. is there anything you wanted to add there. >> briefly, chair. as we talked about last week in committee. and the budget currently does
10:24 pm
assume $3.9 million in reimbursement. but as it's been talked about just now. there are questions about what the actual level of reimbursement will be. we can follow up with the department in the week ahead. >> chairman: got it. okay. well, other than that, i think we are in agreement generally and it sounds like you are as well. so we will be express our intention to accept the budget with its, with the b.l.a.'s recommendations, thank you. >> next up the department of environment. >> good morning chair haney. we are in agreement with the budget legislative analyst report and we thank them for their work.
10:25 pm
>> chairman: great. questions, comments. >> thank you, chair haney. yes, our recommendations are on page 72 of our report. we recommend reductions 20,000 of those are ongoing savings and $62,seven hundred twenty-five are one-time savings. we also recommend closing out prior year is 32, $264. our recommendations reductions in the prior year, all of those are ongoing savings and would still allow an increase of over $511,200. we have full agreement. >> chairman: great. questions, comments, colleagues? not seeing any we intend to
10:26 pm
accept the budget. next up we have the b.l.a. >> good morning chair, and good morning to the board. shall davis with the human rights commission and we are in agreement with the recommendations from b.l.a. >> chairman: great. thank you. mr. goncher, not doctor. >> that's correct. our recommendations are on page 77 of our report and summarized on 276. $250,zero are one time savings. these reductions would increase a little over $2.1 million.
10:27 pm
in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended encumbrances. for a total general savings of three hundred six in year two total $25,000. all of which is ongoing savings and would still allow an increase of $181,000 as the director noted. we are in full agreement and we're available for any questions. >> chairman: thank you. colleagues, questions, comments? disagreements? not seeing any. all right. thank you, dr. davis, we will let the controller know that it's our committee's intention to accept the human rights commission budget with the b.l.a.'s recommendations and we will call you back on monday if we have any more questions on
10:28 pm
changes. >> thank you. >> chairman: next up, we have the board of supervisors. >> good morning. on behalf of the clerk of the board. we are in agreement with the b.l.a. recommendations this morning. >> chairman: great mr. goncher. >> chair haney, members of the committee, the board of supervisors and summarized on page 81. our recommended reductions to the total $11,907 in the first year. all of which are one time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $93,496 or 5.1 of the department's fiscal
10:29 pm
year we're available for any questions. >> chairman: great. questions? comments? all right. not seeing any. we will express our intention to accept the board of supervisors budget with the b.l.a.'s recommendations and thank you for joining us and we'll move to the next. next, we have the office of assessment recorder. welcome access sorry torres. >> thank you, chair haney, and president walton and supervisors ronen, mar, and
10:30 pm
safai. many thanks to the budget legislative team. we are in agreement with the b.l.a.'s recommendations. thank you. >> chairman: great. that's good to hear. mr. goncher. >> thank you, chair haney. summarized on page 20 of our report, there have been some changes since the report was released on thursday. there's just one change. so the total recommended reductions now total $197,500 of that 30,zero is one-time and 167, $five hundred is ongoing. in year two of the budget our recommending reductions are $167,500 all of which are ongoing. the total general fund savings in year one is $197,five
10:31 pm
hundred and year two $167,five hundred the one change and i'll just note this in the first recommendation under program attic projections. reduced from $250,000 in savings to $150,000 in savings for both budget years. that's after further discussions on the needs of the property assessment and tax system project. and as director torres noted, we are in full agreement that i will let him confirm that those numbers are what he agrees to and we're available for any questions. >> thank you so much, mr. goncher. >> chairman: great. that's good to hear. no questions or comments from colleagues. we will express our intention to accept these recommendations and the budget of the office of the access sorry recorder and
10:32 pm
we thank you assessor torres for the collaborative work and leadership. much appreciated. >> pleasure. thank you so much. >> chairman: next up, we have the office of treasurer and tax collector. >> good morning, supervisors. i too want to thank the budget office and i'm happy to report with further discussions, we are now in agreement. >> chairman: thank you. >> chair haney, for the treasurer tax collector. as you noted, there have been some changes to that. there are two changes i would like to note. now our total recommendations total for the first year total $286,467. of those recommendations $133,five hundred eighty-nine are one-time.
10:33 pm
and $869,000 are ongoing. all of those recommendations are general fund. in year two, we have recommended ongoing statements of the changes are to we added a recommendation to include a new reduction of $20,000 to programatic projects under the collection division to better reflect historical expenditures and we also have adjusted our recommended reduction to attrition savings which is on page 26, its recommendation tt xvmgd 2. we have changed our recommendation from total savings of $212,979 to $113,589
10:34 pm
and it's our understanding that the department agrees with those adjusted recommendations. we're available for questions if there are any. >> chairman: great. thank you. treasurercisneros. i don't see any questions or comments or disagreements from my colleagues. so we will plan to accept the recommendations and the budget, office of the treasurer and tax collector and appreciate your where can and leadership. >> thank you. >> chairman: next up, we have the office of the controller. >> good afternoon again, chair haney. we are in agreement with the b.l.a. recommendations as
10:35 pm
presented. >> chairman: all right. another positive change. mr. goncher. >> chair haney, our recommendations are on page 30 of our report. we -- our recommended reductions to the proposed budget in the first year total $475seven hundred eight of that in recommended reductions all at one time, these reductions would still allow an increase of $1,845,364 or 2.5% of the department's fiscal year 21-22 year budget. for a total general savings in the first year of $481,933. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total in the second year total $119,four hundred fifty-one all of which are one-time savings as
10:36 pm
mr. rosen thiel noted we have full agreement with the department. we're available for any questions. >> chairman: great. i do not see any questions. we will let the controller know that we're in agreement with the controller's budget and the recommendations and we thank you for working together on that. next and finally, we have one department where there is still actually disagreement. all of the others came to agreement on and that's the office of economic and workforce development. welcome. >> good morning. thank you, chair haney, president walton, supervisors ronen, mar, and safai. the director of the department of workforce development. actually, we are in agreement with the budget and legislative analyst recommended reductions. there's one policy recommendation where we're not
10:37 pm
in agreement surrounding, again, the need for our two new small business permitting specialists. we have provided further information to the b.l.a. to substantiate why we're critical from the customer service generalist as well as from specialized permitting assistance that we provide primarily to existing and large businesses through our businesses services position. i also did want to take the opportunity to highlight that this approach was directly informed by a recommendation that came out of the covid-19 taskforce report which included a recommendation to expand oewd to offer more wrap around services to help more businesses start. so in light of this, we hope you will support keeping these positions in our budget, but in terms of the overall production, we are in agreement
10:38 pm
with the b.l.a.. last but not least, i wanted to follow up on a direct request from supervisor ronen last week around how much of our budget goes to support small business and i'm pleased to report our estimate is approximately 59 mondays of our total budget department goes to support small businesses and that represents 92% of our economic development budget which includes the o.s.b. and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> chairman: great. thank you, director sofis mr. goncher. >> yes, chair haney. start on page 4 of our report. and summarized on page 3. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget totalled all these reductions are
10:39 pm
ongoing savings and would still allow an increase of over $45 million for 46.9% of the department for fiscal year. we recommend closing out prior year of $201,651 of $362,097. we have policy recommendations that total $261,415 all of which are ongoing which is where we still have disagreement. we also have reserve recommendations totalling $700,zero all of which are one-time. we are also then, we have recommendations in year two. the total $124,674 all of which are ongoing savings. and we have a policy recommendation totalling $34,875 in the second year i
10:40 pm
believe that is also ongoing. so just going to speak to the policy recommendation real quick. so basically, this is on page 5 of our report. it's recommendation number 3. the department is requesting 977 office of small business to support it as a small business center. it's not provided justification for the need in addition for staff to authorize the new permit center in the current year. and the integration with wider in the city administrator's office and the city administrator's office currently has nine full f.t.e.s existing customer service
10:41 pm
representatives who are trained in each department in handling complex requests. we believe adding additional additions could cause inefficiencies or redundancies between the existing staff and the office of proposed small business staff. how it will integrate and perform wider work flow. further, we note that the office, the department funds contract services for small businesses outside the office of small business, the small business development center which may overlap divided by these proposed decisions. given the cost of these positions and lack of clarity on the existing permanent center and propose staff, the approval as a policy matter for the committee, but we are recommending that these positions not be approved.
10:42 pm
and we did get some additional but unfortunately, that is there's not changes in our recommendations. we're available for questions and further discussion. >> chairman: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney. i just -- well, i had one specific question about the recommendations. i wanted to ask director sofis to respond to the policy recommendation that mr. goncher just spoke to about the lack of adequate justification for the two new positions for small business permitted. this is certainly something that i support and i think most of my colleagues do in streamlining, but, yeah, again, the b.l.a. is saying there's not adequate justification for
10:43 pm
this given that others exist in similar contracts. >> certainly. thank you, supervisor. it is a good question and it's an important question and, you know, let me start by saying as an engineer underneath the surface in my own background. i am a huge supporter of making things clear and making sure that as we introduce something like this it would in no way make it less efficient to address permitting as a city it's also an exceptional time an vacancies to make it easier and more clear of a pathway for
10:44 pm
our businesses to get some go all the way to where they're open. so the way we think about these two positions and i'll sort of contrast them to the two areas that the b.l.a. has pointed them out were concerned that we not have overlap. so let's start with the positions in the actual permit. again, there's a lot of need with existing businesses in fact, to get assistance with permitting whether it's expanding, moving spaces, etc.. there's plenty of work to be done already in the permit center, city wide across businesses large and small. what these two positions are really about is accelerating the ability of very small starting businesses to get businesses open and we know over the course of the pandemic, the office of small business has had a dramatic increase in e-mails and requests for consultations and assistance, so we have the duel
10:45 pm
challenge of needing to do a better job as a city at getting more businesses open while also, and i believe in perpetuity for at least the next year or two dealing with the recovery and lots of small businesses needing support in that effort. so these two, again, these two specialized positions will really work similar to a concierge from the beginning. they will get assigned specialist who will walk them through the permit center to the point that they're open. also, we'd want to point out is part of what our small businesses face particularly in areas where they require state or federal permitting is the need to navigate that along with our local permitting requirements. so these two special positions to also be prepared to bring
10:46 pm
that knowledge. regarding the other two areas. so our organizations, the small business development center as well as our other cbos who might provide some education around permitting. that is most often provided to businesses that are still in conception have not yet actually gotten to the point where they're trying to start. so we do a lot of early indication across all of our industry sectors when we work with new would be businesses and that's largely what the s.b.d.c. and others provide. but that's a very different service than the actual service around i have this business, we are licensing and we are moving it towards getting it up and running in this very specific space. and then the last point is in our existing business services
10:47 pm
group, we have some expertise around permitting that's primarily aimed at much larger existing businesses. so, for example, as we speak, one of our teams in our businesses services group is working with a larger manufacturer that's circling on how to permit their new co2 machine. so that's an ongoing area of support. very different from working with small businesses and sort of working with them on the continuum from when they start and when they get up and running. the last thing i will say is we are intentionally going to deploy them to the permit center and that's actually to mitigate the risk that we end up to processes and approaches to permitting. the belief is they will be tethered but also able to engage and both the generalist as well as these two small
10:48 pm
business specialists can certainly share and learn best practices from each other. so we, again, very much appreciate the deep thinking on the part of the b.l.a.. we do maintain that these are exceptionally important positions right now and we would offer our recommendation that you would support them. >> thank you, director sofis for that. and then i had one other question regarding recommendations for the b. l.a. and the $500,000 for the -- that's budgeted for the broken window fund on reserve until the legislation of supervisor mandelman introduced is -- that's related to this is resolved. my question is we already have, as you know, we created a similar -- actually.
10:49 pm
district 5. that's more through the district attorney's office, but through the budget surplus supplemental appropriation, the board did allocate a million dollars which did provide compensation to small businesses that have been victims of property crime and i know the department's working to get that program up and running, hopefully soon. i guess my question is for this $500,000 that's in the budget for a can it also be considered just expanding an existing program that's already very similar rather than just creating another new program. >> thank you for that question, supervisor. so, yes, that is the intent that we actually can kind of stand this up at the same time. director pascal, do you want to
10:50 pm
talk about the mechanics particularly on the 500k reserve. >> sure. through the chair, financial officer for the office of work p.s. force development. i think the one thing i would echo, the one question that we would have as a department is how this $500,000 would integrate with the pending legislation because there is i think specific parameters in terms of requirements around the amount of money that would be provided to these businesses. so i think that was the piece that i did want to differentiate here because there was specific reference to the fund which is although it's tied to the supplemental that you had mentioned, i think there are differences that should be noted there.
10:51 pm
so we'd be glad to work with your office and other members of the board to kind of clarify direction in terms of the best approach here given the overlap i think between the two. >> supervisor mar: thank you. thank you for that. thanks, chair haney. >> chairman: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you. supervisor mar asked most of my questions and you answered them. and thank you for getting back to me with that wonderful data. i was just wondering, is there a certain type of business or complexity that will be required for these specialists to step in or are they going to help sort of any business? if you could kind of explain? walk us through how it works. let's say your business and you don't have a big construction project and you don't have complicated cannabis or liquor
10:52 pm
licenses, you know, i'm assuming there's a route for noncomplicated businesses and then there's a route for businesses that have to navigate state and local allows and attend regulatory agencies. if you can kind of walk us through in general and specifically who these two specialists will be working with. >> sure. so the goal, supervisor, is that we can help any would be small business coming in the door. and i think the good news is we have had at oewd over many years, i think a lot of experience with very young, very small businesses, but also a lot of sector based experience of small and medium sized businesses. so the starting point is really to understand to your point what sector that business is in. because as you know, trying to open a food and beverage company let alone that has abc involved and trying to open a
10:53 pm
small service based business. if they are providing massage. there's a set of permitting around there. if they are providing a nail salon, of course, has its own set for the business of requirements. we would start in the beginning with really understanding what the business segment is that the person or the family or the small company is trying to go in to and really map from there what our the different permitting stock points are going to be required. now, of course, if they are also trying to move into a if physical space. there's permitting around the physicality of the space is something we would have to take into account. i know we have so many stories. certain permits taken care of and then they get held up with a health inspection or
10:54 pm
something that they left out. so i think having deep sector based understanding while still satisfying our goal of being able to help any small business that comes in the door, it's critical. and then the last piece and this is where, again, i think it's very wise that these two positions sit at the permit center is staying with that business all the way until they get open. which is not something that currently happening and i think it will be an important feedback loop to see where are people getting stuck because i think one of the biggest challenges right now is we don't know where everyone gets stuck unless they come back to us. we don't have that data. so how can we be solving for. so i would also pause it that another important reason that we want these to connect is so we have a feedback loop and we
10:55 pm
can start to as we say manufacturing, manage the bottlenecks. we have an idea where some of those bottlenecks are. but we don't currently have the data that we will have with these two positions. >> and the nine positions that mr. goncher referred to in the permit center, what do those do? is it a similar job and we're looking to add two? or are those positions distinct? >> well, i would recommend we would need to call back the city administrator to talk about the vision for those roles, but in our collaboration between our departments, our understanding is it's much more of walk in and get help with your permitting issue as opposed to from the beginning to all the way opening your business kind of a lens. so they are generalists who are
10:56 pm
able to go fact find and way find but not necessarily positions that are focused on taking a business from the start all the way through the point where it opens, but i see the city administrator office is -- so maybe he will 0 pine right now at this perfect moment in time. >> supervisor ronen: that was so kind of you to stick around longer than you have to. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen: you get a gold star for that. >> because i -- we definitely support these positions. we've been in conversations with director sofis and others about the value of these unique positions separate from the work that the customer service staff do and as director sofis stated. the permit is really the front end as you walk in the door. [please stand by]
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
. >> the beauty of the permit
10:59 pm
center is for the more straightforward cases, treating them similarly to early-stage, give them a sense of where they need to go, send them on their way. i would argue i would like to follow up and make sure they have the business open -- >> i'm sorry, i'm late for a meeting with the mayor. i'm going to jump off and come back. sorry about that. we don't like to keep her waiting. i'll be back. >> supervisor haney: okay. i think we need to move forward on this. president walton? >> president walton: did the office of small business request the support? >> it came from small business in collaboration with the rest
11:00 pm
of the team and what they would be doing. >> president walton: who would they report to? >> the office of small business, accountable to the office of small business but physically deployed in the permit center. >> president walton: would the positions address special permits for events and walk smaller organizations through the process? >> absolutely. we know there are certain small businesses that rely on events as part of their revenue. i think it would be very important, particularly for small businesses that have that as part of their business model. >> president walton: thank you.
11:01 pm
>> thank you supervisor. >> supervisor haney: okay. i think where we are going to leave this is we'll accept that all of the recommendations other than the policy ones and continue the conversation about the policy recommendations and make final decisions before or at the hearing on monday. so it's our intention to accept the budget with the bla recommendation. we'll talk soon. >> thank you. >> supervisor haney: madam clerk, can you please call item 7 and 8? >> clerk: item 7 creating 20.7 million and producing appropriations by 272.3 million.
11:02 pm
it would require 59.6 million for a 10 million in the airport commission and 3.7 million in the port commissions appropriation pursuant to 911.3. addition of 24 positions fiscal year 2021-2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items call 415-655-0001, meeting id, 146 678 0558 and then press pound twice. if you haven't done so, press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then make comments. >> supervisor haney: we have the controller who is going to present on these items. and puc, airport and port are
11:03 pm
here on stand by if we have questions. >> good morning chair haney and members of the committee. i wanted to provide brief context for the supplemental appropriations in front of you and as you noted, there are folks from the three departments included available. every other year, the board, the finance committee or appropriations committee approves a resolution that identifies the departments with fixed budgets for the coming two year period and identifies the thresholds in which point the changes would come back to the committee. the departments that were identified were the airport, port and puc. any changes in revenues or expenditures positive or negative greater than 5% for non
11:04 pm
general fund funds would come back to the committee. so, as you may hear from the departments, in the supplemental before you, the puc's budget is increasing. any time there's an increase, that amount of the increase needs to come to get board approval. and then both the airport and port are reducing budgets by more than the 5% threshold. that was just what i wanted to provide context and i believe the folks from the departments are here as you noted. >> supervisor haney: thank you. are there bla reports on the item? >> yes, there are. so an ordinance appropriating an additional $20.7 million to the public utilities commission and
11:05 pm
reduces the airport budget by $272.4 million and 17.4 million at the port. we show the details of the budget changes on page 16 of our report. >>. >> we do have a recommendation on file, the salary ordinance legislation to number one, delete fte position and change
11:06 pm
0.77 fte to 0932 but approve the legislation as amended and approve file 210651. my understanding is that the puc is in agreement to the changes. i'm happy to answer questions. >> supervisor haney: i don't see any questions or comments. madam clerk, can you open it up to public comment for items 7 and 8. this is specifically on the puc airport and port and some of the amendments to their appropriations. >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are members in the queue. press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you have
11:07 pm
been unmuted. are there any callers who wish to comment on items 7 and 8? >> we have one caller in queue. >> clerk: please unmute that caller. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. i am the chair of the san francisco public utilities commission citizens advisory committee and i have the opportunity to be on the san francisco african american reparations committee. i'm specifically calling in support of the budget and fte allocation for the public utilities commission. i like many of you believe these positions or some of these resources will go specifically to aligning with racial equity
11:08 pm
in order to measure and implement many of the plans put in place. i want to thank you in advance for helping move forward on the commitment to racial equity. with no positions dedicated to the work, it will help recognize the racial equity plan. i wanted to add in 2019 as the voice of citizens of san francisco, to the sfpuc, the cac passed a resolution to support the racial equity work that the puc was doing. the outlined areas we wanted to see happen, first, more robust systems to monitor equity and to allocate at least one position within the human resources services to be responsible for this work. with the passage of this, and i
11:09 pm
thank all of the supervisors here currently, we really sort of see this as momentum moving forward the goals around racial equity and sfpuc. thank you for your hard work and the impact you will have and continue to have on the city of san francisco. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. any other callers in the queue? >> no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor haney: public comment is closed. thank you for calling in and for your service. to the caller. and i wanted to make a motion to move the amendments on item 8. is there a second? >> supervisor safai: second. >> supervisor haney: roll call vote on the amendment. >> clerk: (roll call vote)
11:10 pm
there are four ayes. >> supervisor haney: i want to make a motion to move items 7 and 8 to the full board on july 13th with a positive recommendation as amended. is there a second? >> supervisor safai: seconded. >> clerk: (roll call vote) there are four ayes. >> supervisor haney: great. it will go to the full board as amended. thank you so much. madam clerk, items 9 and 10
11:11 pm
together. >> clerk: resolution concurring with the controller sir active indication that department services can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work for security services for department of public health. item 10, resolution with the controllers specification that previous services can be performed by project contractor with similar work. members of the public who wish to provide public comment shall call 415-655-0001 and id 146 678 0558. then press pound twice. if you haven't done the so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have unmuted and then you can start your comments. >> supervisor haney: thank you. pass it over to controller and
11:12 pm
dph. >> good morning again chair haney and members of the committee. i'm going to provide a brief overview of both of these items before you. the second of the two items is contract of services previously approved and the resolution contains 19 different services in various city departments that have had long standing analysis from our office showing that the services are less expensive to provide as contracted out services and the departments are listed there. the other item before you and i understand there are people from the department of public health available, is what we refer to as a new service. this is to initiate contracting out security services in some clinics for the department of public health. >> supervisor haney: thank you.
11:13 pm
and i think dph is here to present on that item. >> greg wagner from the department of public health. at our hearing earlier this week, you heard from us on our proposal for changing our security and safety services at our hospitals and clinics, that we discussed at the hearing. one component of that proposal is in our primary care and behavioral health clinics, there are four clinics that currently have a sheriff's deputy posted at the clinics and as part of our larger proposal, at those clinics, we are proposing to no longer have a deputy stationed there full time. there would still be patrol car support for issues requiring law enforcement. instead, would use a model that has been tested in some other
11:14 pm
sites and viewed as a best practice, to have a community-based partner provide safety services in those clinics. they would be connected to the clinic and patient population, trained in deescalation and available to help the patient experience and overall environment in the clinic. because that would be change involving no longer having the deputies on site and having the contracted community-based organization, it requires a prop j. the controller's office has included analysis in the packet before you and i will leave it at that for the moment. we do have the director of care for the department of health along with the budget staff.
11:15 pm
>> supervisor haney: thank you. colleagues, questions or comments? is there a bla report on this item? >> there is not. >> supervisor haney: i imagine there would be rfp for the services? you're on mute. >> that is correct and i want to
11:16 pm
invite the doctor to briefly describe the model in response to your question. >> good afternoon chair haney and members of the committee. i'm director of ambulatory care for the department of public health. yes, this is private security as we imagine, as many of us encounter in different retail settings and stuff. this is specialized client safety services. this is i think a relatively new service, the community organizations have developed to provide really a needed service in our healthcare environment. a service which is not law enforcement and which is not perceived to be serving law
11:17 pm
enforcement security. these are specialized and trained staff who are -- who deescalate and welcome people and help people navigate where they are going and again, really specialized in being able to help work with clients who come to our clinics who may not be happy with the services they're getting or may be confrontational with staff and can help defuse the situation. as i can attest from working with them from observing work
11:18 pm
with clients, i think it's staff and outpatients can attest to, they are excellent. they are people who really know how to talk to, how to interact with peers in the community and welcome people to our sites and they integrate themselves into the care team so they're trusted members of our clinic staff. so, i'll stop there and see if you have other questions. >> supervisor haney: great. i think that explains it. not seeing questions or comments from my colleagues. madam clerk, can we see if there's public comment on items 9 and 10? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, wait until
11:19 pm
the system indicates you have been unmuted. are there callers who wish to comment on items 9 and 10? >> we have one caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. please unmute that call. >> hello, i work at the senior center in the tenderloin and work with the public health clinic. we're the nonprofit next door and we have had a variety of safety issues over the year and variety of people working to help us with safety issues. and so we've found what we think is the right fit, which is we work with a group out of st. anthony's, client safety services. these are mostly formally homeless people. people who have been in the system and know the neighborhood. most importantly, people who
11:20 pm
know what it is like to be on the sidewalks and streets. i used to be called up at least two or three times a week to deal with incidents on the sidewalks and streets. i'm no longer called up anymore because we have this group here. every day of the year. so i just advocate for this peer-based approach to what the community group we're talking about. >> clerk: thank you for your comment, sir. any other callers in the queue? >> no more callers in the queue. >> supervisor haney: thank you. public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move items 9 and 10 to the full board meeting july 13th with a positive recommendation. is there a second? >> supervisor safai: second.
11:21 pm
>> clerk: (roll call vote) five ayes. >> supervisor haney: thank you. thank you to dph. madam clerk, please call item 11. >> clerk: resolution concurring with the controller's establishment of the consumer price index for 2021 and adjusting the axis line tax by the same rate. members of the public who wish to provide public comment call 415-655-0001 and meeting id 146 678 0558 and then press pound twice. if you haven't done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.
11:22 pm
wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you can begin your comment. >> supervisor haney: great. controller's office. >> thank you chair haney. local code allows for inflationary adjustment increases so this increase is assumed in the proposed budget and we bring this to you every year with the budget. we have calculated 0.020%. i'm happy to take any questions. >> supervisor haney: questions and comments, colleague. not seeing any. madam clerk, is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are callers in the
11:23 pm
queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3 now. >> we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor haney: i'll make a motion to move item 11 to the full board meeting on july 13th with a positive recommendation. is there a second? >> supervisor ronen: second. >> clerk: (roll call vote) five ayes. >> supervisor haney: it will move to the full board. can you please call item 12?
11:24 pm
>> clerk: item 12 ordinance adopting the neighborhood beautician and clean up graffiti fund tax. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item call 415-655-0001. meeting id 146 678 0558. then press pound twice. if you haven't already done so, press star 3 to sign up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: once again, controller's office. >> thank you again. this is another adjustment we bring every year with the budget. local code allows taxpayers to designate a portion of gross receipts tax to the beautician and graffiti clean-up fund. now referred to as the community grant program. the code requires the controller
11:25 pm
to calculate the maximum percentage of tax liability that they can elect to contribute to the fund, so the fund will generally achieve a balance of a million dollars per year adjusted for inflation. the target was set many decades ago. and so that is what the piece of legislation is doing this year, sliding back that percentage. that's all. >> supervisor haney: is there a bla report on this item? >> there is not. >> supervisor haney: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: i wanted to take a moment to say i love the community challenge grants program. it has been something that has been so positive and gets residents of san francisco to get together and get creative about making improvements in
11:26 pm
their neighborhoods and i thought what a great time to talk about how fabulous the program is and how much i appreciate it. that's all. >> supervisor haney: thank you. ditto. any public comment on this item? >> clerk: checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold please wait until the system indicates you have been muted. are there callers who wish to comment on item 12? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor haney: i want to make a motion to move item 12 to the full board meeting on july 13th with a positive recommendation. is there a second? >> supervisor safai: second. >> supervisor haney: and can we take a roll call vote please?
11:27 pm
>> clerk: (roll call vote) five ayes. >> supervisor haney: great. it will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, can you please call item 13? >> clerk: item 13, ordinance authorizing the execution of certificates of participation on a taxable basis and aggregate principle amount not to exceed 67.5 million and certain projects within the county and city of san francisco and various related documents. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, call 415-655-0001
11:28 pm
meeting id, 146 678 0558. press pound twice. if you haven't done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until you have been unmuted and then start your comments. mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: thank you. once again, welcome to the controller's office. >> hello. from the office of capital planning but we do have the controller's office on as well to talk about the financial details. so good afternoon chair haney and committee members. we'll keep this pretty brief. brian strong would usually present this item but he is out of town. i'm joined by my colleague and we have a few slides. can you share the slides?
11:29 pm
>> i don't currently have permission as a presenter. >> in april the board approved the plan for certificates of participation for recovery stimulus and critical repairs. the item today are the specific project recommendations for the funds. we can go to the first slide. so, the recovery stimulus program is intended for shovel-ready projects to create stimulus and jobs and deliver additional benefits. so the recommended project for cop's are the san francisco wholesale produce department,
11:30 pm
pedestrian and streetscape improvement between 5th and 8th and new childcare center at zuckerberg san francisco general. and then for the critical repairs program -- next slide. the critical repairs program is intended to address short falls in the program which was cut about two thirds as a result of the pandemic. those that couldn't be funded are recommended for funding through the critical repairs program. the last slide. i'll pass it to luke who can go through the financials. >> thanks kate. so these are our certificates of participation, funding the multiple improvement project from the programs not to exceed
11:31 pm
67.5 including the project funding and reserves and other costs for the financing. this is our typical structure. we're estimating an annual lease payment around $5 million assuming cost for borrowing 4.7% for 20 years. >> thank you. >> supervisor haney: is there a bla report on this item? >> there is chair haney. so this proposed ordinance would authorize $57.5 million in certificates of participation to fund critical repair and stimulus projects in the plan starting on page 29 of the
11:32 pm
report. the spending plan includes $2 million for contingency to provide funding for potential future grants. now, staff did not identify prior instances of the city identifying debt for this purpose but if passed it could provide the city with capital grant opportunities that could require local matching funds. the annual debt service would average over the term of the debt and transaction consistent with the city debt policies so we recommend approval. >> supervisor haney: great. colleagues, questions or comments? not seeing any. can we open this up to public comment. >> clerk: yes. checking to see if there are callers in the queue. those who wish to provide
11:33 pm
comment press star 3 now. for those on hold wait until you have been unmuted. are there callers who wish to comment on item number 12? >> we have no callers in queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> supervisor haney: public comment is closed. i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation on july 13th. can we have a second please? seconded by safai. >> clerk: (roll call vote) there are five ayes. >> supervisor haney: this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation on the 13th. and thank you so much everyone for your work.
11:34 pm
and madam clerk, are there other items in front of us? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair, if you would please entertain a motion to recess this meeting to wednesday june 23rd at 10:00 a.m. that would be much appreciated. >> supervisor haney: did somebody move that? >> president walton: second. >> supervisor haney: madam clerk, roll call vote on the motion to recess this meeting to wednesday june 23rd at 10:00 a.m. >> clerk: (roll call vote) there are five ayes. >> supervisor haney: great. now, any other items in front of us today.
11:35 pm
>> clerk: no further business. >> supervisor haney: this meeting is recessed until june 23rd at 10:00 a.m. thank you colleagues.
11:36 pm
11:37 pm
11:38 pm
11:39 pm
11:40 pm
11:41 pm
11:42 pm
11:43 pm
11:44 pm
11:45 pm
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
>> once i got the hang of it a little bit, you know, like the first time, i never left the court. i just fell in love with it and any opportunity i had to get out there, you know, they didn't have to ask twice. you can always find me on the court. [♪♪♪] >> we have been able to participate in 12 athletics wheelchairs. they provide what is an expensive tool to facilitate basketball specifically. behind me are the amazing golden state road warriors, which are
11:48 pm
one of the most competitive adaptive basketball teams in the state led by its captain, chuck hill, who was a national paralympic and, and is now an assistant coach on the national big team. >> it is great to have this opportunity here in san francisco. we are the main hub of the bay area, which, you know, we should definitely have resources here. now that that is happening, you know, i i'm looking forward to that growing and spreading and helping spread the word that needs -- that these people are here for everyone. i think it is important for people with disabilities, as well as able-bodied, to be able to see and to try different sports, and to appreciate trying different things. >> people can come and check out this chairs and use them. but then also friday evening, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m.,
11:49 pm
it will be wheelchair basketball we will make sure it is available, and that way people can no that people will be coming to play at the same time. >> we offer a wide variety of adaptive and inclusion programming, but this is the first time we have had our own equipment. [♪♪♪]
11:50 pm
11:51 pm
11:52 pm
11:53 pm
11:54 pm
11:55 pm
11:56 pm
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
11:59 pm
12:00 am
[role call] [roll call] >> thank you. can you call roll? >> yes. i'll be calling roll for the board of directors. [roll call] >> directors, you have a quorum. thank you. >> ok.