you have 15 minutes. it was 1106 and 1130. now good morning. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the may 22nd, 2024 meeting of the budget and appropriation committee. i'm supervisor connie chan, chair of

the committee. i'm joined by, supervisor myrna melgar and shamann walton and today, supervisor matt dorsey has been temporarily appointed to replace president aaron peskin, our clerk. it's brant saliba. i would like to thank jamie ivatury for from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcement? thank you, madam chair. just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings, should you have any documents to be included as part of the file. this should be submitted to myself. the clerk, public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda, when your item of interest comes up in public comment is called, please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right, my left along those curtains and while not necessary to provide public comment, we do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the tray by the television, to your left by the doors. if you wish to be accurately recorded for the minutes. alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing

in either of the following ways. he mailed them to myself, the budget and appropriations committee clerk hat brant d.o.j. a l i p a at sfc gov. org if you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file, you may also send your written comments via us postal service to our office in city hall at one doctor carlton b goodlett place, room 244 san francisco, california 94 102. and due to the memorial day holiday act, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of june 4th unless otherwise stated. madam chair, thank you. i just wanted to say that given the fact the volume of today's agenda and that numbers of city departments are going to come back to make their presentation, as well as trailing legislation, i would like to limit today's public comments to one minute. and so with that, before we get

started, i want to let people know that what to expect for today, for the remaining of agenda. item number one is a piece of legislation, the sponsor is supervisor sherman walton, which i'm a co-sponsor to, this actually, this item has already been approved and recommended, by the rules committee. but since it has a fiscal impact. so that's why it has to be scheduled to be heard by this committee as well. and this item we will take normally, like, like a regular item that we do on agenda. however next we will hear item two and eight, which are what we call, budget trailing legislation associated with the may propose budget. and since item two applies to multiple departments and item eight applies to, a department that does not have a bla report, budget and legislative analyst report, we will take those two items separately. finally we will call items three through

five together and hear the budget and legislative analyst report on their recommendation and hear back from the departments. there are also additional budget trailing legislation, which are items six through 13. and i will also call those up together with the department that it is affiliated of it is affiliated with. and so with that, mr. clerk, please call item number one. yes, madam chair, item number one is an ordinance amending the administrative code to amend the language access ordinance to clarify department's responsibilities, to provide language access service services to members of the public and to clarify the role of the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs in administering the language access ordinance to require language access service to be provided in chinese, spanish, filipino, and any other language for which the requisite number of persons qualify. has a substantial number of limited english proficient persons. to

lower the threshold amount for the requisite number of persons needed to meet the definition of substantial number of limited english proficient persons to amend the formula for determining when the language becomes eligible for language access services. to require departments to translate signage. to require departments to translate digital content provided on digital platforms. to clarify that crisis situations also includes, but is not limited to, pandemics, refugee relief, and disaster related activities is to require departments that provide emergency response services in the event of a crisis, situation or disaster related services involving an immediate threat of serious harm, mass casualties, conditions of natural disaster or conditions posing extreme peril to the safety of persons and property. to provide language access services. to rename the annual compliance plan to annual compliance report. to impose requirements for the language access ordinance. summary report to

require departments to inform members of the public of their right to file a complaint and of a process for providing feedback on the department's language access services to require office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs to create a know your rights brochure. to require departments posting notice of the availability of language access services and a know your rights brochure to require departments to budget and plan for delivery of language access services. to require office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs to prepare an investigation. summary report of each investigation that will include findings and recommendations to address the issues raised, and to create and maintain a website for the posting of investigation summary reports, and to delete the financial disclosure requirement for immigrant rights commission members. madam chair, thank you. and, supervisor sherman walton, would you like to make opening remarks? thank

you so much, chair chan. and as chair chan stated, we actually did, address these changes in rules committee and just really excited about the opportunity to do everything we can to provide language access for more communities in san francisco. this will strengthen the current language access ordinance that we have in place, lower the threshold, provide more opportunities for more languages to be, utilized across city departments, but also puts in ways and strategies for city departments to be able to comply and does a lot to make sure that our, our departments are going to be held accountable for providing this access through the language access ordinance or the language ordinance access. so i'm just excited about these changes, and i want to thank, of course, oca, for working with us on this. the office and

immigrant affairs commission, for working with us on this, and of course, all communities who came to the hearings that we had at the rules committee and also came to the rally to express their gratitude and thank you for us increasing language access here in san francisco. so thank you so much, to everyone who's worked on this with our office, a special shout out to my chief of staff, natalie g. and again, thank you so much, chair chan, for making sure that this was heard today. of course, supervisor melgar, thank you, chair chan, first, i want to, profusely thank supervisor walton for his continuing work on this issue. i think language access is a just, crucial, fundamental component of full civic participation, by the totality of our san francisco population, that being said, i do worry that we are literally not putting our money where our

mouth is, because we struggle with language access, a lot, not just in written communication with folks, tax bills, you know, all kinds of things, but also, here in these chambers, to appropriately staff, the need for translation. and so i am wondering, how this, you know, going forward will affect the budget for oca or if there are other ways that we are looking at funding, you know, the new state mandates, or the expanding need for language access, because, you know, i know some of the state stuff came out after oca had submitted its budget to the mayor. so i'm just i mean, you know, it may be something this committee has to address, but i wanted to say both that i, think that we here in this, chambers are very

committed to this issue and to full participation. and i worry that we say these things, but then we don't actually, you know, fund it as we should. thank you. and so super visor walton. thank you, chair chan. and thank you, supervisor melgar , for bringing up one of the major issues and concerns about actually achieving complete access when it comes to making sure that all of our, our language needs are met, we are having conversations about hiring the appropriate staff, of course. to hold departments accountable during this budget process. but another thing, and i do just want to note that we've had conversations our office with several city departments because the requirements and these new amendments are going to require that our departments really take the time to step up and provide

language access opportunities in their printed materials on their website, and making sure that forms are available. and the languages here, that are most spoken and most needed in the city. and so we do have a long way to go in terms of getting the resources to achieve complete compliance, and definitely want to make sure that that's known. but these amendments are intent of course, is to make sure that we are intentional about addressing the language access needs that exist here in the city. but we are going to work to get some positions in place during this budget process to help us do a better job as we continue to move forward. but thank you for bringing that up, because that has always been the case. we've never completely put the resources in place that are needed to achieve complete compliance. yes. thank you, supervisor walton. i'm going to call up on to the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs to make a brief presentation on the legislation,

and which and then we will then go to the bla report, which actually has indication about the fiscal impact. thank you. thank you. good morning, george rivas with the office of civic engagement, immigrant affairs. good morning, supervisors chair chan, i won't go into a lot of the details because a lot of the details have already been shared. so we'll go right directly into, maybe we can do the second to the last slide just to give you a picture of, like, where we're at currently the one before that. and then we can go into the details of what we would need minimally, to implement some of the amendments that we, proposed or considered. so, here's a chart reflecting the current staffing levels at oca that provide language access services, our unit includes three language specialists, one per current required language and a language access assistant. these roles are supervised by the language language services supervisor. our policy and civic engagement officer role supervises the language services

supervisor and our language access data and research specialist, which is currently vacant. this is the unit that provides capacity building and support to city departments and provides supplemental services. oversees the city's citywide vendor contracting list for language services as well, and then this next slide, the elements proposed would expand and deepen the unit's responsibilities and activities. as mentioned by supervisor walton, for example, implementing amendments would require more frequent, individualized, customized training and technical assistance provided to department staff. the amendments would also result in changes to language access complaints, resulting in additional communication and other administrative tasks for processing and reporting. those complaints, based on the changes proposed here, are the minimum resources that i foresee oca would need in order to implement the main amendments being proposed. this includes upgrading two existing positions and adding two new positions.

upgrading. in 1823. role to a manager. one classification would be reflective of the increased requirements of this role, including managing a larger team and more responsibilities. increased team activities and increased engagement with community and policy makers. the amendments will also result in additional data analysis responsibilities for oca, for example, working more closely with departments and recommending programmatic and operational changes in response to the complaints data compliant compliance data. the role would also have additional responsibilities related to being lead investigators. so now we have to work more closely with departments and investigate the complaints and provide systemic recommendations to those departments. upgrading 1840 role to an 1824 classification will reflect the increased responsibility. on the topic of new positions, we would want to see the additional training officer to the language access unit team through. our team does provide some annual trainings to departments

throughout the year. we anticipate more frequent, more customized training to departments based on their needs and compliance. lastly, the lao language amendments were also lower the threshold to 6000. we project at. at least one new language will be added in 2026, the knees and would become a required language, which we will need at least one new specialist to fulfill that duty in our office, to provide support to departments and also fill any gaps in the city's translation interpretation requests. and i'm here for any questions, and i'm joined by some of my colleagues from the office and also by katie prelature, from the city administrator's office. good morning, madam chair. members of the committee, dan gonzales with the budget and legislative analyst's office. item one is a proposed ordinance that would amend chapter 91 of the administrative code to add new requirement to the language access ordinance. the proposed

ordinance would make several changes as listed on page two of our report. the primary incremental fiscal impacts of the new language access requirements are. the new signage requirements, the new digital content translation requirements, reducing the threshold number of speakers for requiring language access services, which will likely require citywide document translations into vietnamese. starting in 2026, and new staff for the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs exhibit one, on page three of our report shows our estimate of the citywide costs for the new requirements. we estimate $730,000 in new translation costs in calendar year 2025, and $1,695,000 in new translation costs in calendar year 2026. in addition, oca reports it will need four position reclassifications and three new staff, with a total cost of approximately $6,000. starting in fiscal year 2425, we will evaluate all position changes if

they are included in the mayor's proposed budget for the next two years, and we do consider approval of the proposed ordinance to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. thank you. thank you. i don't have any other, questions at the moment, and so let's go to public. i don't see any name on the roster. so let's go to public comments on this item. yes, madam chair, we now invite members of the public who have joined us today who wish to speak on this item. number one, now is your opportunity to approach the lectern and address this committee. oh, and as the chair did, state, i will start your time for one minute. thank you. supervisor tran and your supervisors here, my name is josé and i'm from chinese for affirmative action. i'm here to support, you know, this, your budget from oca. and thank you again, you know, for supervisor warden's office and natalie for working with the community, the language access network, nsf to

improve and strengthen our language access, you know, for our immigrant community in the city. so we encourage city department all to look into the new amendment and how it will impact on the budget, you know, priorities and we encourage the city department to prioritize language access, especially in this, you know, challenging budget year. thank you. and thank you for addressing this committee. and if there are no further speakers, madam chair, that completes our queue. thank you. seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed, supervisor walton, would you. yeah thank you again, chair chan. and thanks again to oca, the, immigrants rights commission. of course, my chief of staff and entire community for the work, as you can see, the fiscal impacts that were presented from the bla obviously, this is a dream scenario. if we were able to achieve this through the budget process, we're still having conversations with the mayor's office, still going through

negotiations in terms of trying to achieve, what has been presented for us. but most certainly these changes are necessary, and most certainly this is a good use of our resources. and we're still having negotiations. but i would love to move this forward, to the full board with recommendation. second, and with that, a roll call, please. actually, i ahead of that vote, madam chair, if i could get a quick motion to excuse supervisor peskin from this meeting. oh, yes, my apologies, colleagues, and let's, i make the motion to excuse supervisor or president peskin a roll call, please. i need a second. second by supervisor walton and on that motion, by chair chan, seconded by member walton, that, supervisor peskin be excused from today's meeting. vice chair mandelman. mandelman. absent member. melgar. melgar a member.

walton. walton i member. dorsey dorsey i chair. chan i chan i now we have four eyes with vice chair mandelman on that motion to excuse us. and now on the motion by member walton. seconded by chair chan to forward this ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation. vice chair mandelman mandelman. absent. member. melgar. melgar i member. walton. walton i member. dorsey dorsey i chair. chan i chan i we have four eyes with vice chair mandelman absent. thank you. and the motion passes. and so with that, mr. clerk, please call item number two. yes. item number two is a resolution concurring with the comptroller certification. that department services previously approved can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees for the following services as security information and guest services. parking operations. shuttle bus services for the airport. citations paratransit parking

meter collection. security. towing transit shelter. cleaning services for the municipal transportation agency. janitorial and security services for the port and security services for the public utilities commission. madam chair, thank you. and today we have comptroller's office here. good morning, chair chan. members of the committee, i'm devin mccauley, comptroller's office. citywide budget manager. as you're aware, the charter permits the city to contract out city services, provided that the controller's office certifies that they can be provided at a more cost effective rate. and the board concurs. we call this proposition js, as that's the voter authorization that enables it. this item is that authorization for various services that accompanying the may 1st proposed budget. there's usually sensitivities to new proposition js that arise during the budget process. i'll note that for this item, there is no new contracting out proposals. these are all long standing ones. thank you. i'll be happy to take any questions. thank

you. and it has now i believe really becomes a routine, no changes from the previous approve prop j contract. and so let's go to public comment on this item. yes. if there are any members of the public in the chamber today that wish to address this committee regarding this item number two, please approach the lectern. madam chair, we have no speakers. thank you. seeing no public comments. public comment is now closed. and, colleagues, i would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and the roll call, please. oh wait a second, second, second by supervisor walton and the roll call, please hang on that motion to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. oh sorry on that motion by chair chan, seconded by member walton to forward to the full board, vice chair mandelman mandelman. absent member. melgar. melgar i member walton i walton i member. dorsey. dorsey i chair chan i

chan i we have four eyes with vice chair mandelman absent. thank you. and the motion passes. and with that, mr. clerk, let's call item number eight. yes, madam chair, item number eight is an ordinance amending the administrative code to adjust surcharges on fees imposed, under the planning and building codes for actions that may be appealed to the board of appeals, authorizing the controller to make future adjustments to ensure that the costs of the board of appeals services are covered without producing revenue, which is significantly more than such costs, and affirming the planning department's determination. under the california environmental quality act. madam chair, thank you. i have we have four appeals here. okay, good afternoon, chair chan and the members of the board. my name is alec long, and i'm the legal assistant for the board of

appeals. and i want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to address, the department's proposed legislation. the board of appeals is a self supporting department where 98% of the revenue comes from permit surcharge fees and 2% of the revenue comes from the, appeal filing fees. the surcharges are imposed on permits based on each department's equitable share of the board's cost. the proposed legislation on proposed legislation is designated to reduce the dependency of the board of appeals funds from the city's general fund, and adjusting surcharges and equitable manner, and generating a significant revenue. together, the board of appeals filing fees to meet the department's operating expenses. we are proposing an increase of surcharges from the dbi and planning department permits from $39 to $44. and if you have any questions, i'm here to answer them. thank you, i don't see any

name on the roster. let's go to public comments on this item. thank you. yes. if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number eight, kindly approach the lectern. madam chair, we have no speakers. thank you. seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed. and colleagues, i would like to, move this item to full board with recommendation. second, by supervisor dorsey, a roll call, please. and on that motion by chair chan, seconded by member dorsey, that this ordinance be forwarded to the full board with the positive recommendation. vice chair mandelman mandelman. absent. member. melgar. melgar i, member walton. walton i member. dorsey dorsey i chair chan i chan i we have four eyes with vice chair mandelman absent. thank you. and the motion passes. and with that, mr. clerk, let's, please call items three through five all together. yes, madam. chair,

item numbers three, four, and five. consider the mayor's may proposed budget for the airport commission. board of appeals, department of building inspection, child support services, department of the environment. law. library. municipal transportation agency. port public library, san francisco public utilities commission, the residential rent stabilization and arbitration board, and retirement system for fiscal years 2024 to 2025 and 2025 to 2026. item number four is the proposed budget and appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures as of may 1st, 2024, and item number five is the proposed annual salary ordinance enumerating positions hindi proposed budget and appropriation ordinance. madam chair, thank you. and so the format it's going to go for these items specifically is that we will go through the bla for to talk about the

recommendations and then we'll go to the department whether you accept the recommendation or not. and then we'll just keep on going to the next city department. so with that we'll have mr. launcher. sorry, madam chair, which department are we starting? sorry airport. okay. our recommendations for the airport are summarized on page four of our budget report, our recommended reductions to the proposed budget. total $7,768,711 in fiscal year 24, 25. all of these recommended reductions are one time savings and would still allow an increase of over 750 million, or 57.5, in the department's budget. in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended encumbrances of $7,251,104. our recommended reductions to the proposed

budget totaled 680,000 680,900. in fiscal year 2526, all of which are one time savings. and we it's our understanding that we have agreement with the department. thank you. and we have our, sfo director here. thank you. good morning, madam chair. members of the committee, i'm pleased to share that we are in agreement with the bla's recommendations, and we greatly appreciate the partnering approach with mr. gonzales and eliza pugh of his staff. so thank you very much. and thank you. thank you for bringing the, parade and coming in. and we really appreciate the animals. and if you haven't seen the animals, please go to the hall and it will make you feel better for the day. and thank you. we wanted to, do that as an expression of appreciation of all the support we get from the city departments and city hall. so we're pleased to be here this morning with our with our wag

brigade. thank you. and thank you so much, director, for all your work and leadership. and with that, we will go to the next department is retirement system. retirement. yes. thank you. thank you, madam chair, our recommendations are the summary of our recommendations for the retirement system are summarized on page 54 of our report. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $8,806,476 in fiscal year 24. 25 of that amount, $289,607 are ongoing savings, and $8,516,869 are one time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $1,249,151, or 2.4, in the department's fiscal year 2425 budget. in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended encumbrances of $1,640,009. our recommended

reductions to the proposed budget total $630,367 in fiscal year 2526, all of which are ongoing savings and our reserve recommendation for fiscal year 2526. total $1,115,390, all of which are one time reserves. i believe we have, agreement with the department. thank you. thank you. and we have retirement here, thank you, chair chan. and the committee. thank you to carrie tam and the bla analyst, as well as to fisher zoo in the mayor's office. we are in agreement with the recommendation. thank you. we appreciate it. and, thank you so much for your service. and so with that, with the next department is public library. and mr. clerk, please also call up item six. that is the trailing legislation for the library. yes. item number six is the resolution authorizing the san francisco public library to accept and expand a grant in the

amount of approximately 1 million of in-kind gifts, services and cash monies from the friends and foundation of the san francisco public library for direct support for a variety of public programs and services. in fiscal year 2024 to 2025. madam chair, thank you, and thank you. thank you, madam chair. our recommendations for the public library are summarized on page 29 of our report. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $726,610 in fiscal year 24. 25. of that amount, $282,330 are ongoing savings and $444,280 are one time savings. in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended encumbrances of $16,107.72. our policy recommendations total $116,639 in fiscal year 2425, all of which are ongoing. our recommended reductions to the

proposed budget total $283,080 in fiscal year 2526, all of which are ongoing savings and would still allow an increase of about 0.6% in the department's budget. our policy recommendations total $120,608 in fiscal year 25, 26, all of which are ongoing. our understanding is that we have agreement with the department on all of the recommendations, with the exception of, i believe, the policy recommendation, which is on page 32 of our report. and if i could just briefly describe that, that recommendation for you, it is a proposed upward substitution of, half of an fte of a library page as 3602 classification and half of an fte of, a 1202 personnel clerk, to combine into a0922 manager one and we consider this to be a

policy matter for the board of supervisors with these substitutions, the department proposes to create a new manager. one position to act as a safety officer to lead osha and ada efforts. department wide, the function has been provided by to the public library by the department of public health via an interdepartmental work order. the department has told us that dph, plans to sunset the safety officer, work order services at the end of the current year and that they need, a coordinator and expert on osha requirements and compliance, the positions are currently vacant, and we do note in recent years that growth in the manager and deputy director positions across the city have outpaced total position growth overall. and although these classifications play an important role, they are more expensive per position than frontline workers. and we are flagging that for the board as a policy consideration. thank you. thank you and i just want to say like standard wise, like, you know, before i hand it back to

you, it's just we're just in a space where at least i think with the budget and legislative analyst report that came out earlier of this year that really indicate, you know, we're being hiring manager positions twice at the rate of any line workers, it is really even with and it's not library, it's just across the board for the entire city. so it's a very difficult decision to say once we set a precedent and say, yes, go ahead and upgrade this one manager and then not, not another. and even i would say that we have this conversation early on with the language access and that we know that it's as a general fund, the departments, that they're going to come back and we're going to have those conversations to it later on. and so i just want to put it in context that we're we're being, you know, thoughtful and we're just thinking about all across the board, not just to the library, because we do love the library, and so and i'm, of course, open discussion among colleagues to see what your thoughts are, but definitely wanted to see what is

the library response and help us understand, you know, given the fact that you now no longer have the work order with the department of public health, which understandably so that you now need to have this position. however, the existing position is vacant, and that what is the need to upgrade it to a manager position? thank you, chair chan. supervisors, i am joined again today by the library cfo, mike fernandez, and our chief operating officer, maureen singleton. you know, we really appreciate the opportunity to present both the library's trailing legislation for the fy 2526 budget, as well as update you on our progress, on our discussions with the budget and legislative analyst office. i am pleased to report that we have come to agreement with the board's legislative analyst office on all of their recommendations, that being said, you did highlight the one policy item under review as background. again just to

reinforce the department of public health, let us know that they are sunsetting their service to the library. that provided subject matter expertise and access to their occupational safety officer, who coordinates and advises on workplace safety issues covered by cal osha. to address this gap and to ensure our library workers continue to have the occupational safety and training resources they need to do their work. we did identify some vacant positions for prospective substitution. our proposed substitution, plus the reduction of the dpa work order and our budget, actually represent that's an annual cost savings of $12,694. we do respectfully ask for your approval of the proposed substitution for an 0922 manager, one to create the occupational safety and ada manager for the library. this position will help our department remain in legal compliance with all the workplace safety protections required by state law. it will also be critical to our

compliance with the americans with disabilities act at the library. so we really appreciate your consideration. do you want to also, i don't see any name on the roster right now for that question. i do have more of that. but then let's go to item six for your, accept and expand grant. thank you, chair chan. the library also appreciates your consideration of our annual accept and expense legislation to approve the annual grant award provided by the friends and foundation of the san francisco public library, who are in attendance today for this annual gift from friends enhances the level of service we're able to provide to the community and funds all of the library's signature programs that our community has come to cherish and enjoy every year. the one city, one book, night of ideas, summer stride, our branch open house events including the potrero art exhibition this coming weekend, and all the programing coming out of our affinity centers, including the hormel lgbtq plus center, the chinese center, and our african

american center. this funding also supports innovation and invest in our staff through a variety of employee engagement initiatives. with friends support, we're also able to acquire where rare, historical and valuable collections for our san francisco history center and book arts and special collections that would not otherwise be possible. the fy 25 grant, totaling $1,080,375, represents a 5% increase over last year's grant. we're so fortunate to have such a strong partnership with our friends of the library, and we're truly grateful for their support, so i really appreciate your consideration to approve the accept and expend for the friends annual grant to the library. thank you. and that this item needs to go to public comment. and so let's go to public comments on this item. yes. if we have members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number six. now is your opportunity to address this committee. hello everyone. i'm

emily garvey, the new executive director of friends of the san francisco public library. as investors, advocates and champions of the library, we hope these funds help uphold the values of equity, inclusion and free access for all san franciscans. these funds, as city librarian michael lampert said, support programs like one city, one book, summer stride, stem and learning programs for children and teens grants to bring programing to every branch in the system, and much more. these grassroots funds come from a community proud of our library system. thank you. thank you much, emily garvey. and if we have no further speakers, madam chair, that completes our queue. thank you. seeing no more public comments for item six. public comment is now closed. vice chair mandelman, thank you, chair chan. and i guess, you know, my inclination on this

item, maybe not terribly surprising. i mean, i do think that osha and ada compliance feel kind of like need to haves rather than want to haves, and this does seem like a need that is being created. well, first of all, by laws that, the library has you know, has is not responsible for and by actions of other departments. and i would be, you know, inclined to let them have this one. understood thank you. and, confirming that i just want to confirm before the bla that because i think the library mentioned with this, up, upward substitution, it's an annual of $12,000, of additional costs. and so i'm just trying to understand it's cost savings actually cost savings. when you add the reduction in our work order plus the substitution, there's an annual cost savings. madam chair. yeah, we are not

disputing the short run cost savings. we believe in the long term there could be an additional cost, but we're not. we have nothing else to add or dispute. what is what was said. understood. so i think that what i think that again, i just want to be in context. i think generally speaking, when it comes to management position, we understand that at times that there could be a short term saving, like this one, now that we have, it's really the long call, long term cost of pension, health care that we understand. but i'm going to concede to vice chair mandelman. request. should i say request? yes. okay and so with that, thank you for your time today. and so i did i already move the item six. not yet. thank you. i need to dispose item six, colleagues, i would like to move item six to full board. do i full bore or do i hold it? i full board, full board, colleagues, i would like

to move item six to full board with recommendation. second, and on that motion by chair chan, i saw seconded by vice chair mandelman, to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. vice chair mandelman i mandelman i member melgar. melgar i member walton walton i member. dorsey dorsey i church and i chan i we have five ayes. thank you. and item six the motion passes and with that the next department that we have is port. madam chair, members of the committee are a summary of our recommendations for the port are on page 21 of page 21 of our report. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $461,488 in fiscal year 2425. of that amount,

155,000 are ongoing savings and 306,488 are one time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of approximately 7.15 million, or 4.8, in the department's fiscal year 2425 budget. in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended encumbrances of $219,579. our recommended reduction to the proposed budget totaled 227,040 and $47 in fiscal year 2526. of that amount, $155,000 are ongoing savings and $72,047 are one time savings. our understanding is that we have agreement with the department on all recommendations. thank you. thank you. and then before i do call on the port, though, let's also call item number seven. yes item number seven is a resolution retroactively authorizing the port of san francisco to accept and expand the grant award in the amount of approximately 118,000 from the department of homeland security's 2021 port security grant program, including

approximately 45,000 of emergency preparedness and response training. approximately 49,000 for cctv refresh and approximately 25,000 for cctv remote access for the period of september 1st, 2021 through august 31st, 2024. madam chair, thank you. and so we have a support here. thank you, chair chan, thank you to the budget analyst's office, we are in agreement with all their recommendations to our budget. thank you. and would you like to also speak on item seven, the accept and expand grant? certainly, in we regularly receive grants from the department of homeland security, tragically, our, our security director passed away on the job, back in 2021. and due to some staff error, we did not catch this particular item that needed to be appropriated. and, we have since staffed up and now have a

full time security manager who noticed the discrepancy. and so we're asking your permission to now appropriate these funds so we can deploy them along the waterfront for the security items that were mentioned. thank you. and, let's go to public comments on item seven. yes. if we have any members in the chamber who wish to address this committee regarding this item number seven, now's your opportunity to approach the lectern. madam chair, we have no speakers seeing no speaker for seeing no public comments for item seven. now that public comment is closed for item seven. and with that, colleagues , i would like to move item seven to full board with recommendation seven. second and the roll call, please. and on that motion by chair chan, seconded by vice chair mandelman to afford this resolution to the full board with the positive recommendation, vice chair mandelman mandelman i. member. melgar. melgar i member. walton.

walton i member. dorsey dorsey i chair. chan i chan i we have five ayes. thank you. and the motion passes. and with that i am going to go to sfpuc. and then also to call items. after. after. then we'll call item 11 through 13. ten. yes madam chair and members of the committee, our recommendations for the public utilities commission are summarized on page 38 of our report. a recommended reduction to the proposed budget. total $4,795,592 in fiscal year 24, 25 of that amount, $4,506,936 are ongoing savings, and $286,656

are one time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $232,138,474, or 13, in the department's fiscal year 2425 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $6,049,702 in fiscal year 25, 26. of that amount, $5,621,067 are ongoing savings, and $428,635 are one time savings. these recommendations sorry, these reductions would still allow an increase of 129,000 219,000 $129,219,384, or 6.6. 4, in the fiscal department's fiscal year 2526 budget. our understanding is that we have agreement on all of our recommendations with the department. thank you, madam chair, the bla is correct. we do have agreement on all of their recommendations and just to be clear, madam chair, it's the

trailing legislation is items ten through 13, not 11. so ten through 13. and i want to thank the bla for their help on the operating budget, we very much appreciate their working with us over the last several weeks. on the capital budget and debt authorization, nancy ham presented an overview of the capital budget and the ten year capital improvement plan last week. so we're not planning on making any formal presentation today, but we're also happy to answer any questions that you might have. but i apologize for the interruption, madam chair, i've yet to read 10 to 13. yeah. so let's go to, my apologies. no problem. let's call item ten. thank you for the correction. let's call the items 10 to 13, thank you much. and, and thank you, mr. herrera. one second, item numbers ten through 13. okay. item number ten is an ordinance appropriating all estimated capital project receipts and all estimated capital project expenditures for the public utilities commission for the fiscal year ending june

30th, 2025 and the fiscal year ending june 30th, 2026. item numbers 11 through 13. her ordinance is authorizing the issuance and sale of tax exempt or taxable revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the san francisco public utilities commission, declaring the official intent of the commission to reimburse itself with one or more issues of tax exempt or taxable bonds in or other forms of indebtedness, and ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith as defined in the respective ordinance. as item number 11 issues wastewater revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately 1.7 billion. to finance the cost of various capital wastewater projects benefiting the wastewater enterprise, pursuant to amendments to the charter enacted by the voters on november 5th, 2002, has proposition e and authorizing the issuance of wastewater revenue, refunding bonds and the retirement of outstanding

wastewater enterprise. commercial paper, item number 12 issues power revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately 293 million. to finance the costs of various capital projects benefiting the power enterprise. pursuant to amendments to the charter enacted by the voters on june 5th, 2018, has proposition a authorizing the issuance of power revenue, refunding bonds and the retirement of outstanding power enterprise commercial paper, item number 13 issues water revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately 1 billion. to finance the cost of various capital, water and hetch hetchy water projects benefiting the water enterprise. pursuant to amendments to the charter of the city and county enacted by the voters on november 5th, 2002, has proposition e and authorizing the issuance of water revenue refunding bonds and the retirement of outstanding water enterprise. commercial paper. madam chair,

thank you. please go ahead. thank you. okay. madam chair, as i was highlighting, we did discuss a little bit the ten year capital plan last week. nancy ham, our cfo, went over that with you. but i just want to highlight two things, chair chan, i know that you mentioned last week that you're interested in the water main replacement, program, so i want to highlight that we're investing $517 million towards local main replacement work in the ten year capital improvement plan, which is $156 million increase over the prior plan. secondly we flagged for your office and for the bla that we're requesting a $5 million, increase to file number 240455. the water revenue bond authorization for additional funds for the pine, lake main break emergency that was included in our capital plan, but it didn't make its way into, that piece of legislation. so i wanted to make sure that we flagged that for you. and, overall, the capital budget before you is the beginning of

our ten year capital improvement plan. that represents a major investment in san francisco and will ensure that we continue to meet our legal requirements and achieve our affordability goals, while building a utility of the future that is resilient economically vibrant, and equitable. and i'm joined by my executive team, and we're happy to take any questions that you might have. thank you. and colleagues. just a reminder that the pine lake emergency repair, we actually already approved that repair early on a couple of weeks ago. i believe, so with that, i think we are making amendments to add additional $5 million to include that repair. that is for the item. 13, in terms of the legislation and then for, rest so that is likely to have to be continue, because of the substantive amendment, you know, increasing the dollar amount, and the rest, we can actually, dispose today and to

vote on. and so that with that, let's go to public comment on items ten through 13. yes. if we have any members of the public who have joined us today who wish to address this committee regarding the public utilities commissions trailing legislation as items ten through 13, now's your opportunity to address this committee. eileen bogan will speak strongly, urging the committee to approve the puc budget and cip contingent on a full bla audit of both the financial and operations of the puc. with the puc paying for the full cost of any bla audits on the financial audit side, the bla should review these sustainability of 34 excuse me, 30% of operating revenue currently going to debt service with that increasing to 50% in five years, how prevalent was cost overruns in the wizard program and is there a pay to play allegations? on the

performance side, the puc is using inflated demand protection projections. why is the puc continuing to sue the state water resources control board rather than implement the bay delta plan, even though salmon populations on the tuolumne are plummeting, how does the recent epa lawsuit play into the puc operation plans? thank you. thank you much, eileen bogan, for addressing this committee. and again, we are taking public comment regarding the trailing legislation and not necessarily on on the pcs budget, but peter drekmeier, policy director for the tuolumne river trust, i hope you've seen my letters. i did not see them in the agenda packet. the sfpuc has an $8.5 billion in debt right now. the ten year capital plan is $11.8 billion, $3 billion more than last year. the budget will grow by 20% in just two years combined on water and wastewater rates will increase by 8% per

year for at least ten years, probably well beyond that. it's really imperative that the sfpuc be audited. please leverage your authority over the budget to force the sfpuc to pay for an audit. an independent audit. we would like to be involved in that. we have a lot of information to share. i've been working on these issues for 17 years. what does the sfpuc have to hide? a lot and i really wish we could have an opportunity to do a workshop on it, because there's an opportunity to save billions of dollars, 17 to $25 billion in unnecessary alternative water supplies. thank you. thank you much. peter drekmeier. and if we have any more speakers, please, please approach the lectern. good afternoon. my name is mary butterwick. i'm a resident of san francisco in district seven. please commission an independent

audit of the sfpuc financials. and it's extremely conservative. 8.5 year design drought. the primary tool used for managing flow releases in the tuolumne river. reducing the length of the design drought by one year and applying reasonable demand projections would substantially reduce the amount of expensive alternative water supplies that might be needed. in light of the recent sacramento superior court ruling in favor of the state water board's 2018 bay-delta plan update, i urge the city not to appeal the ruling, but rather work with the state to ensure flows in the tuolumne are consistent with the instream flow standards adopted by the state speaker's time. thank you. thank you much, mary butterwick. and if we have any more

speakers, now's your opportunity , madam chair. that completes our queue. thank you. public comment is now closed for items ten through 13. and my apologies, colleagues, these items do have a budget and legislative analyst report. and we will bring up mr. gunther. thank you, madam chair. item ten is an ordinance. appropriating $1,789,104,836 in fiscal year 24, 25 and about 1.8 million in fiscal year 2526 for capital project spending, items 11 through 13 are ordinances authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds for the wastewater, water, and power enterprises. the wastewater enterprise has four major capital improvement programs totaling 6 billion over the ten year period from fiscal year 24, 25 to fiscal year 20, fiscal

year 2033 34, as listed on page five of our report, the water enterprises fiscal ten year capital plan includes 1.6 billion for regional systems and 1.3 billion for the local system, totaling 2.9 billion hetch-hetchy waters ten year capital plan includes 270 237.3 million for water infrastructure, 290.8 million for power and 1 billion for joint water and power projects. hetch hetchy powers plan includes 1.2 billion for local power projects. the total ten year capital plan is 2.8 billion. the ten year capital plan for cleanpowersf totals 48.5 million, all of which is revenue funded, and for the local energy renewable program, which funds new solar and battery storage projects. the proposed appropriation ordinance ordinance appropriates 1.97 billion of wastewater bond proceeds as wastewater revenues and wastewater capacity fees to

various sewer system improvement program and wastewater projects, as shown in exhibit one on page nine of our report. in exhibit one, you'll see that the largest use by far is the biosolid digester project, at about $567 million. the proposed appropriation ordinance appropriates 1.06 billion of water revenue, bond proceeds, water revenues, and water capacity fees to various water projects, as shown in exhibit two on page ten of our report. the proposed appropriation ordinance appropriates 543.4 million of power revenue bonds, water revenue bonds, hetch hetchy revenues, and cap and trade revenues for water power and joint water power projects, as shown in exhibit three on page 11 of our report. finally, the proposed ordinance appropriation ordinance appropriates 1.1 million of cleanpowersf customer revenue for the local renewable energy program. we note that san francisco voters approved prop e in 2002 and proposition a in

2018, providing for the board of supervisors to authorize issuance of water power, wastewater revenue bonds, and other forms of debt, with two thirds approval of the board members as shown on page 12 of our report in exhibit four, the board has authorized $12,191,403,124, of which nine. $9,087,293,110 has been issued, and $3,104,110,014 is authorized, but not issued, approval of the proposed bond authorized authorization ordinances would increase the amount of bonds authorized in accordance with prop e and a to about $15.2 billion under fiscal impact. we note that the average annual debt service for the proposed $3 billion in a $3.05 billion in water, wastewater and power bonds over 30 years, is approximately 221.5 million, or

6.6 billion, in total debt service, excluding any capitalized interest for interim financing, the san francisco public utilities commission ten year financial plan projects that the water, wastewater, and hetch hetchy water and power enterprises will have sufficient net revenues and unrestricted fund balance to maintain debt service coverage ratios in compliance with the department's financial policies. we also note that in november of 2023, the public utilities commission adopted a new affordability policy, which establishes a non-binding affordability target that the average residential combined water and sewer bill should be no more than 3% of the typical household income, according to the ten year financial plan. the combined water and sewer bill would be 1.8% of the typical household income next year, rising to 2.7% in fiscal year 2033. 34, and therefore in compliance with the new affordable city policy. we also note in exhibit five on

page 13 of our report, the projected rate increases for each utility service for the next five fiscal years, based on the ten year financial plan. we have four policy considerations for the board, starting on page 14 of our report. the puc debt service coverage policy includes two formulas. the current coverage ratio does not explicitly include fund balance, which is consistent with how credit rating agencies and some puc creditors evaluate debt service coverage. however, according to the ten year capital plan, on advice of bond counsel, the puc may include appropriated fund balance in the calculation. a puc enterprise's current coverage, as it is funding it is a funding source for operating costs. all utility enterprises comply with the puc debt service coverage policies. the debt service coverage policy has not been updated since 2017, however, and the department is in the process of updating its financial policies. all puc policy updates remain subject to

commission consideration and approval. our second policy consideration that we highlight is related to the water main replacement, the water enterprises local water conveyance distribution system program has a goal of replacing 15 miles of water mains per year . since 20 fiscal year 20 1920, the puc has replaced an average of 7.7 miles of water. main replaced pipeline per year, according to puc staff. this pace is largely due to internal capacity constraints. the slow pace of joint agency trenching projects, and the unforeseeable site conditions underground rather than funding constraints. the proposed capital budget funds water main replacements at 12 miles per year, which is below the program goal 15 miles per year. the proposed 12 miles per year is an increase from last year's capital budget, which provided for 7.5 to 9 miles of replacement per year, accomplished by reallocating water main replacement funding along the better market street

project area for which work has been suspended. the board of supervisors has several options to help the puc increase its water main replacement delivery. it could one approve existing or new positions related to water main replacement in the water enterprise. operating budget two request the puc reevaluate the prioritization of water main replacement, which was last assessed in 2017, to include soil conditions and other factors that are not currently included in the puc. water main replacement strategy. and third, work with the puc to reallocate capital project funding for less essential projects. additional projects may be required to be added to the wastewater capital plan to meet federal and state regulation. funding for new projects would require an increase in wastewater rates, defunding planned projects, and or reducing the cost of planned capital projects. wastewater rate increases over the next ten years average 9.7% per year and assume wastewater operates with net negative revenues and uses fund balance to pay for

operating costs and debt service costs through fiscal year 2930, without which annual rate increases would be higher. there is little room to increase the wastewater rates within the confines of the affordability policy. the ten year financial plan forecast its combined water and sewer rates will be will reach 2.9% of the typical household income, just below the 3% policy goal. within the next 20 years, therefore successfully delivering all planned capital projects requires ongoing cost management. the board of supervisors should consider holding a hearing on the puc strategy to manage capital project cost escalations or requests a report from the puc and other chapter six departments on this topic by june 2026. the report should include recommendations on any legislative action the board should take to reform the city's procurement regulations. the final policy consideration we have in our report is regarding the revenue bond oversight committee. in 2002, voters approved proposition p, which created the puc revenue bond oversight committee to oversee puc revenue, bond spending. the

current sunset date for this committee is january 1st of 2025, though the board of supervisors may extend it through an ordinance amending the administrative code chapter five a. the original sunset date for the committee was january 1st, 2013, which the board has since extended. our recommendations include approving the puc s requested 5 million increase to file 20 4-0455, the revenue bond authorization related to the pine lake main break emergency. second, we recommend approving files 24 050453 24 0454 and 24 05455. the water, wastewater and power revenue bond authorization , as amended. third, we recommend approving file 24 0452, the appropriation ordinance pertaining to the puc, to the puc s two year capital budget, and finally, as i mentioned earlier, we recommend holding a hearing or requesting a report from the puc and the other chapter six departments by june of 2026 regarding

strategies to manage capital project cost escalations. the report should include recommendations on any legislative action the board of supervisors should take to reform the city's procurement regulations, and we're available for any questions. thank you. thank you. and supervisor melgar . thank you, chair chan. my questions were about that last recommendation, because cause i, you know, i think that our puc, has been, really progressive in terms of, you know, its environmental practices, and also mindful of our environmental justice values, but i do worry that, you know, we have a whole host of environmental issues that must be addressed, and that as we look at, the sort of, escalation of costs that down the line without a plan for, cost

containment or, you know, reworking our policies and procedures for procurement or, you know, whatever could go into this plan, that was going to get shortchanged is actually what we need to do, to control the you know, algae bloom or, you know, whatever we're putting into the ocean or any number of things that we need to do to preserve, you know, the environment. so i am wondering if you could speak about that, director herrera, about that last recommendation of. i'm fine with that recommendation. we have no problem with that recommendation, but i just would like to add we take environmental stewardship. just as seriously as anybody, here. so. and as if you go and look at our ten year capital plan and what is included, specifically, there are going to be a lot of environmental regulations that are coming down the pike that we have to live up to, and we're being trying to be proactive to, deal with them before they are

official. for example, let's talk about algae bloom in our ten year capital plan, there is a $1.5 billion, number that we put in there to deal with. nutrient reduction. that is the largest and most aggressive investment that you will have seen here in the bay. and i've made that proposal to the regional water quality control board ourselves, precisely because we want to get out in front of any environmental regulations that are going to come down the pike. so regulatory requirements, we know they're coming. we're going to be aggressive. we want to be a leader because that is a bay area wide issue, and we want to be a leader working with our bay area colleagues to, number one, show that we need to be aggressive on nutrient reduction . number two, be a leader in going out to seek any state or federal funding that we might need to in order to militate or mitigate the costs that ratepayers are going to have to

pay. but i do think that the recommendation made by the, the legislative analyst is a good thing for us. and for every other chapter six departments department to see what we can do internally to ensure that we are being as efficient as we can in keeping our costs under control. thank you, director herrera, let me be clear that i wasn't saying that you're not paying attention or taking it seriously, because i know that you are in your department has been has a very solid track record on that in the region and in our country, it was specifically about the increase in cost, particularly over last year, and so that that is my worry going forward. and, and i do look forward to, you know, the good work of your staff to present a plan to contain the cost because it's just good planning for the future. we have no problem with that. thank you. and so i think, then on behalf of this body, we

will be introducing a hearing request, i think perhaps it's really on a annual basis, starting with i know that this is really by 2026. so perhaps in the upcoming by the upcoming june 2025, we will have a hearing specifically for chapter six departments, including puc as a puc on the cost management as well as procurement regulation. really a series of recommendations of what the board can take, in terms of, i think, procurement of, regular actions or policies that can be changed for chapter six departments, but also, perhaps cost management, that that can be solved either through policies or some other ways, some other legislative tools. so with that, colleagues, i would like to first, amend item 13 to increase the $5 million to the water revenue bond authorization

that's related to the pine lake main break emergency. and so i'm going to because it's just a few items, i'm just going to take one amendment and one motion at a time. i know it takes us a little time, but i think that's make sure that we do this correctly. so with that second by vice chair mandelman and i would like a roll call on the increase. $5 million amount on item 13. and on that motion to amend number 13. so read by chair chan, seconded by vice chair mandelman vice chair mandelman mandelman i member melgar i. melgar i, member walton a, walton i member. dorsey. dorsey i chair chan i chan i we have five ayes. thank you. and that motion passes and with that, i'd like to continue, the item 13, to for one week. i will need to the next meeting.

okay. yes. second. second by vice chair mandelman. very well. and the roll call on item 13 for a continuance to the next meeting. yes. and to on that motion to continue the ordinance and item number 13, as amended, to our june 5th meeting of this, of this committee vice chair mandelman i mandelman i member melgar. melgar i member walton walton i member. dorsey. dorsey i chair chan i chan i we have five ayes. thank you. and that motion passes and with that is to approve item. i'm sorry. my apologies. i think it's ten through to 12, as with the authorization of the revenue bond to include increase the dollar amount and as proposed. and so second, second by vice

chair mandelman and a roll call to approve items ten through 12. and on that motion to forward items ten through 12 to the full board with a positive recommendation, as as moved by chair chan, seconded by vice chair mandelman. vice chair mandelman i mandelman i member melgar. melgar i member. walton. walton i member. dorsey dorsey i chair. chan i chan i we have five ayes. thank you. and the motion passes so i believe we're done with sfpuc. oh yeah, of course, supervisor walton. thank you, chair chan. and thank you, director herrera, real quick, i know you said you agreed on the reductions from your ongoing savings and from one time savings. what are those from? i'm not sure i understand your ongoing savings for the agreement with the bla on the reductions in terms. well, what i have, laura bush, i think. are

you talking about personnel and positions? correct. yeah well, i was talking about is it personnel positions or what. what is it the pla could probably answer this, laura bush, the deputy chief. she definitely could. but this is for the puc. it's mostly positions. thank you, i don't know what the percentage is, but nearly all positions. are any of those positions, directly related to oversight of the cip program? the sip, sip, sip social and impact programs. yeah . i'm gonna hand over to someone who knows more about this. thank you. good afternoon. supervisors chelsea boilard from puc. the position on there is an administrative analyst that is proposed to be reduced from the community benefits program that is, dedicated to like, environmental justice and land use, and i believe that the puc,

the bla was looking at other kind of vacancies for that classification. so maybe i would turn it over to them. but i believe that that was the deletion was, was that administrative analyst position? thank you. okay. i'll get that later from bla. i don't need it now. thank you, thank you, shall we move on to, dbi or department of building inspection, okay. thank you. and then we also let's call item number nine. yes, madam chair, item number nine is an ordinance amending the building code to adjust fees charged by the department of building inspection and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act. madam chair, thank you, madam chair, and members of the committee, a summary of our recommendations for the department of building

inspection are on page 15 of our report. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $50,000 in fiscal year 2425. all of which are ongoing savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $1,594,969, or 1.9, in the department's fiscal year 2425 budget. our policy recommendation totals $44,637 in fiscal year 2425, all of which is ongoing. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $50,000 in fiscal year 2526. all of which were ongoing and would still allow an increase of about 4.4, or $3.8 million, in the department's fiscal year 2526 budget. our policy recommendation is total $46,353 in fiscal year 2526, all of which are ongoing. our understanding is that we have agreement with the department on the first three recommendations, but that we don't have agreement on the policy recommendation, which is found on page 17 of our

report. and i'll just briefly describe our our policy recommendation. it's dbi four is the number of the recommendation. and this is a proposed support, proposed upward substitution of a 1555 secretary to a0922 manager, one, so the department, states that so this position specifically is the commission serves as the commission secretary for the department's commission. and with the department told to us, is that there's a need for an upward substitution because the addition of expanded duties, such as managing the commission subcommittees, and that it manages and the position manages some staff, so we took a look at similar departments with, with commissions that have similar structure. and we looked at the department of the environment and juvenile probation commissions, and we found that

they have similarly classified secretary positions as, the department of the environment has a 1543 and the juvenile probation commission has a 1549. both of those positions manage subcommittees. in addition, while the commission secretary positions for the. so the department also told us that, their position is equivalent to the positions at the planning department and the department of public works and we so we took a look at those commissions as well. and what we found is, that those both of those positions are classified in the manager series as the positions. must those positions both serve more than one commission in the respective departments, and do, manage staff. and we also found that the, commission secretary positions in juvenile probation and environment do manage staff. so we do believe that, the upward substitution is not well

justified. and that's why we are including it as a policy recommendation for your consideration. we're available for any questions on this matter. thank you. thank you. have we call item number nine as well already? okay. thank you. so, director reardon, the floor is yours. please do address both the, 1555 secretary requesting for upward. upward. substitution to 0922 manager. i am. i have to say, i am not really, i'm not inclined at the moment, to agree to for the upward substitution, and but i'd love to hear more and also, please do, walk us through your building code, fee increase. thank you, thank you. and good afternoon, chair chan. and members of the budget and appropriations committee. patrick o'riordan, director of the department of building inspection, i would like to thank the budget at bla for

their work with us on on budget. and we are in agreement with, their recommendations. i would like to speak to the upward substitution of the 1555 to the 0922 position. this recommendation came from our building inspection commission. we did reach out to our the president of our building inspection commission to attend here today and speak on behalf of the recommendation to promote this position to an 0922 position. we have. i don't see, the president of our commission here today, i do believe that there will be additional duties associated with this upward substitution. for example, managing our code advisory committees and different subcommittees by way of, schedule meetings and or documenting minutes of those meetings. so, again, i, you

know, the recommendation didn't come from our department. this person reports to the building inspection commission, and i would prefer if the commission would speak to this upward, substitution vice chair mandelman, i guess from my perspective on on this item, i do, i do look at these, the non-general fund departments a little bit differently in this case, we aren't really hearing the argument for this upward substitution. so it feels like, i might request that we leave this sort of open and give the commissioners the opportunity to reach out to us and not make a final decision on that recommendation. so i'm going to look at our boa to make sure that we put a pin on this, on this request. and i, i, i'm open

to that conversation, and to have that discussion, i think that if i may add to that too, is that, you know, i think, clearly we're there's an effort to just do a comparison of the position itself and is, is that lateral comparison and that that's the results. and based on and i think that's a fairly objective, recommend motion from the bla all across the board. i do think that i would like to learn more for the additional duties, such as the community code enforcement programs and the advisory, like, what does that entail? and how does that subcommittee, would be much different, or as additional duties. so i look forward to having those conversations and better understanding. and so let's go to your, fee presentation, thank you, chair chan. i'm joined here today by,

christine gasparic. our assistant director, and alex koskinen from our executive team. christine is going to present on the trailing legislation in. good afternoon, chair chan. and members of the budget appropriations committee. i'm gonna advance the slide. so today you're considering an ordinance that amends the building code to adjust our fees based on the recommendations of a fee study performed by a consultant. if it passes, the new fees would go into effect later. this calendar year and are assumed in the department's proposed budget. dbi operates on a cost recovery model, and our fee structure was established in 2008. when the department is over recovering its costs, our fees go down and when we're under recovering, the fees need to go up. last year, as this fee study was being completed because of our budget deficit, we raised all fees by 15% until

we could complete the study. dvis. in order to determine the true cost of our services, the department engages a fee study consultant from time to time to calculate our cost to provide services and benchmark those costs against the fees of other building departments in the state. the fee study found that our fees were often lower than other big city building departments in california, and that we were under covering in many areas, so we plan to raise our fees responsibly so we can continue to support economic recovery. our plan is to phase the fee increases in over three years. we will use our reserves to make up the difference until we reach full cost recovery and the ordinance to raise our fees in the coming fiscal year reflects that. gradual increase. on this slide, the gray line is our expenditures, which reflects how our costs have increased over time. the orange line is our revenues, which dipped post pandemic, and our projected to recover to match our

expenditures in 2027. the yellow line is our reserves, which will stabilize us starting in 2027. thank you for your support and we're available for any questions. thank you. so i think the question that i do have, specifically, again, i want to go back to the community code enforcement program. we received a letter from the stakeholder indicating about, just wanted to understand how that program as an ongoing program will be funded and will would it be funded? and again, this is an enterprise agency, your majority driven or funded by fees collected, so help us understand , with that, with this fee increase, how will then the code enforcement community code enforcement program be funded? sure the cbo grants, are funded by the general fund, our fee

study consultant looked at, our operation, our regulatory responsibilities, and looked at cost recovery for our, our, mandated services, so did not include the cbo grants as part of the fee study. could you explain just please elaborate. the reasoning why it made the determination? because previous years, it's been funded by fees. i'm going to ask alex koskinen, our cfo. he he worked with the consultant on this to explain that further. sure. the consultant believed that the these programs were not mandated . they didn't see similar programs being done in other jurisdictions. and they believed that the funding should remain in the general fund rather than be the responsibility of dbi ratepayers. and then so with that, because how many how remind, remind, remind, remind,

remind me again what is your percentage of fee and versus general fund in your entire budget. so dbi is entirely fee funded. we do not receive any general fund support for any other services. so then if you were to say then this program should be general fund, general fund funded. how is that going to work? so are you saying that you're going to eliminate the community, code enforcement program altogether? no. so this year, in the current year, budget for fiscal year 24, a transfer from general fund was budgeted to support the program. so we currently are receiving revenue from general fund to support the program. and that's a decision made by the mayor. i'm looking at our budget director, anna dunning, please. yeah. the dbi this proposed budget before you today assumes

a general fund transfer, to support some level of programing for that program. that's correct. and has it always been the case or was it previous year? was actually not general fund but actually fee funded. it's changed throughout the years. at some point i think this program may have started as an add back. it was in mokedi. it got transferred to dbi and the last few years dbi has undertaken this very careful and thorough study of all its fees to make sure they're appropriately budgeted and that dbi is recovering for the services that it offers. and as alex pointed out, the fee study proposal was to not continue funding this with fees, but that it was more appropriate with general fund. so that's currently what's reflected in the budget. thank you. supervisor melgar, thank you. so i think this is a very interesting conversation, and i wonder if we should take it up

sort of outside this particular item at some point, as you know, i served on the beq for five years, and also have a background in tenants rights. and so, you know, i think that in my mind that i've spoken to director reardon about this, you know, this program does save the department staff time and money because, you know, there are people who, speak language and, are trusted in the community that folks can call if they have habitability issues or any number of issues that can be triaged before things get, you know, to the point where an inspector has to go out and issue a citation or whatnot, like any number of things. so i do think that there's a cost savings by having this program. that being said, i do think it's, you know, sometimes the folks who are, you know, the, the staff people for cop are employed by the folks who own

the buildings. and i think that that is a structural issue that could be better in terms of that trust issue. so, i don't know that going forward. you know, i would say that has to be funded like this, you know, but at the same time, i fear that shifting it out of the way that we are currently funded during a deficit is a setup to eliminate the program. and i under no circumstances want that to happen because it is so valuable for the tenants. so this is why madam chair, i'm saying that perhaps we could just give it time and attention in terms of like how we fund it. you know, where in the structure of the city it should live. you know what? what all these things are. i also received the letters from the advocates like you did, and i understand, you know, the need for stability, and this valuable program, and at the same time, i'm not sure that, you know,

making it like, a permanent thing is, is a right thing to do, per se, i'm open to it. but again, i think that it just it's going to require maybe some more conversation and thoughtfulness about where this should live and where it could be funded, i do think that there is a very good argument to be made that this, you know, is an efficiency for the department. while it's still part of your department in your budget, it does save you money and staff, you know, time in having, you know, these nonprofits, you know, do this function. yeah. i simply wanted to add on an offer that this is a complicated financial and also legal question, and i encourage you all to consider perhaps a closed session with the city attorney or some internal conversations about sort of the legal challenges of funding the program just through fees. i think it's not it's not entirely clear to us. so what's proposed

in the budget today, is with is with general fund. thank you. so i think i'm going to ask a procedural question, giving a couple of things. one is that we're putting a pin on the 1555 secretary position for the upward substitution to the 0922. and now we have a further questions around, not not really the fee increase itself, which is i decide, an item number nine, but specifically about what the fee can fund and cannot fund, and which is part of really currently the dbi program. will it be technically like could we actually divide the question, parse out dbi. and with this item nine to be continued to the call chair. and then these two will then go with the general funded department's discussion. then and we dispose really the remaining of item 3 to 5, including the hearing to

be heard and file. is that even possible for today? deputy city attorney ann pearson, it sounds like you're trying to find a little bit more time to think about it. is it the fee legislation that would increase the fees or about the budget generally, about the department of building inspection budget in general, because it's both the current it's a current budget specifically on the policy recommendation for its position of 1555. secretary, commission, secretary, upward, you know, substitution to 0922. so that is really the department's budget. and then also separately, in the legislation of the fee increase. so i think i could advise you about the fee legislation and the board's authority and timing there. i'm not i haven't been involved in discussions about the time frame for the adoption of legislation relating to these early budgets. and so i don't

know if there would be an impact. if the budget were delayed. i might defer to dbi on that question, in terms of impact of budget were delayed, but i can say everything you're hearing today, we can continue to and discuss as part of the june budget process as trailing legislation there. so if that's your intent, i think that should be fine. and because i also think that, the enterprise agencies. but like when it comes to it's kind of like what we did last year, the planning and dbi was actually part of the general fund and budget or the june budget. i think we there's no time constraint. if i, if i'm correct about, approving this particular budget only reason i'm hesitating is because the initial fee proposal is important to balancing dbi budget throughout the next

fiscal year, and they need to get that those fee increases in place as soon as possible so that they have a fully supported operating budget next year. so i don't think another, but i don't think we're going to delay it beyond the actual june budget process. we're really making sure that it's part of the june budget discussion. we will be scheduling it with the. although i am trying to figure out the date and you know, and so that's the reason why i'm saying call to the chair to the call of the chair, but not not to say we're going to do this beyond the june budget process. i would just add that with respect to the fees legislation under the charter, there is a duty to act on that within 30 days. yes, i think we will be acting on that within 30 days, that is for sure, because today it's already may 22nd. mr. gonzales, thank you, madam chair, i just have one other option for the committee to

consider, that would be to potentially instead of accepting our recommendation, the policy recommendation as written, to instead put those funds on reserve. if you would like to extend the discussion and the impact of that, my understanding would be that the, the positions are vacant. they are funded at one full fte. so that could delay the filling of that position until you make your decision. but i just thought i would add that as another potential option. and then we are able to release that reserve in the event or not, if should we remain to be 1555, then we can actually stay with 1555. in the event we decide to do the upward substitution. an i believe you could take that action. thank you. so i think what we're going to do is we still have to go to public comment. it's just so sit tight for a minute. so i'm going to articulate the i what we're about to do. so to make sure

that, you know, before we go to public comments that that makes sense to everyone. what it sounds to me though is then we're going to instead of accepting the policy recommendation as as it's written, what we're going to do is put, this position on reserve, and for further discussion, during the budget process and then we're going to continue item number nine to the call chair, so that we can again be able to schedule this during the budget process, however, that this also allows us to dispose to really make decision and move forward with items. three through five. today, vice chair mandelman looks like the department has something to say. of course. sure, devin, can you please confirm i. i don't believe that a position the authority to hire a position can be put on reserve. it's filled with the current secretary. so it next year it will either be a

1555 or an 0922. you can put the delta in the 30,000 or so difference in salary on reserves. so we wouldn't be able to afford to fill it. but regarding the hiring authority, i think it's either one or the other. is it vacant or is it occupied right now? it's occupied by the current commission. so it's really putting the difference on reserve. yes. if you're talking about the dollars or to fund the position, the dollars could be placed on the reserve, not the authorization to hire the position. the position itself cannot be reserved, but the dollar certainly could be placed on reserve. right i think what we're doing is by putting the dollar on reserve, you're also technically putting the 0922 requisite position in like not in question at the moment. i only we only have the authority to put the dollar on reserve. we do not have the authority to say whether we eliminate zero 9 to 2 or not. and the only way you

could end up with the zero 9 to 2 is that you have the dollars to request. request for the position for 0922. am i correct? we would have to have clarity on which position is authorized and approved. so as it stands currently, if that's not the upward substitution is not approved, we would keep it at the current position 1555 and until such time that the upward substitution is approved, it would remain as it is today. okay is that clear? i mean, we're it's still it's still allowed for further discussion. sure. so if you just put the dollars on reserve, the aso will show 0922 the person sitting on the 0922 will be a 1555 until the dollars are released from reserve.

item nine. until the call. the chair or no. yeah. you are. so i don't think we're approving anything. help us. oh vice chair mandelman. yeah. so i, i have i have a question. if this committee is continuing this item to a to a date that is less than 30 days from now, i mean, since the call of the chair with the understand that the call that the chair is bringing this back in sooner than 30 days from now. yep the reserve not reserve like what? bla. you set us down. i mean, mr. gonzales, you sent us down this path. why do we care? why do we need to figure out this reserve? because that would only be relevant if we

haven't resolved it after we've. i mean, that gives us more time to, like, think about this if we want to. but i have a feeling if we haven't been persuaded by the members of the building inspection commission, that we ought to agree to the upward substitution by you know, whenever we hear this in june, like, sorry, you're not getting your upward substitution, i think. so, i think the question is probably back to like deputy city attorney, like, help us understand if like, the option is available to us to divide the question which is pulled, you know, the dbi out its budget like and we continue both its budget and the item number nine, which is the fee to continue to the call chair, which really is expected to be scheduled along with the general fund departments to come back. it may be a separate call, like items and schedule and agenda dies on the on the agenda, but nonetheless, it's going to go with the entire budget, no, i don't think you can define divide the question on this budget, it's all part of a

package. so i don't think you can call out one line of it, and also, with respect to the fees legislation, i reminded the committee earlier that there's a 30 day deadline to act per the charter. that's relative to the submission of the document by the mayor, which happened on may 1st. so the 30 days is actually coming up, i think before your next meeting. thoughts. public comments. i'm i want to state out like i'm not i am not inclined to i am inclined to accept the bla recommend policy recommendation and not to have this increase to a zero 9 to 2 management position, that's that's kind of where i stand today, i am interested to hear

directly from the commission president about, about that, and , you know, for a later date, but, but they're not here, but we're our schedule. i feel like this is agendized, like it's clear you were aware and made aware. your i hope your commission president was also made aware that this was the budget and legislative analyst decision. and yet, you know, and then along with the fee, i think that we will let's continue this conversation. there's a truth be told, there's not really an authority where at this moment that the budget and, and appropriation committee can really amend the way that it's being funded, i think that it is a worthwhile conversation to be had, so colleagues so then my, my feeling is in the because the may 1st deadline, i really wanted to make sure that we, abide by that and to make sure we can get through this and that it is not our intention to

actually have the may 29th, budget and appropriation committee, we do not intend to have that so that we can get ready for actually a whole list of general fund department. so, so, colleagues, i if it's okay with you, then i'm going to accept the bla bla recommendation on this position, and that we, actually vote on this, fee with recommendation. and then we can also come back to really discuss how the community code program can be funded in the long haul. okay, okay. all right. second. thank you. like, it's good. so with that, colleagues, i also want to so we're done with dbi today. and then i just want to quickly brief you about the sfmta, i see that the sfmta team is here, but

it is not inclusive of the budget and legislative analyst report, if you have questions which we did have some questions, i want to point to you that the sfmta representative is here, as well as their cfo, brea mall. order. my order, like it has already provide you us as a body. answering all the questions that we may have that we had last time, so i want to point to you that and that, which i think, mr. clerk can put it on legislative file as well of her responses. yes, so with that, i don't see any other name on the roster. let's go to public comments for items three through five, actually, madam chair, we have yet to hold public comment on item nine. sorry. let's go to public comments on item night, yes. item. sorry if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number nine,

now's your opportunity. we. an item number nine is the ordinance, regarding the building code fee raises. good afternoon. supervisors. my name is pratibha taki and i work for tenderloin housing clinic. i oversee the community organizing department, which oversees two programs from dbi, which is central city collaborative and co-op program, we some of us are here because we had been since last year when we were totally cut through the fund from the from the dbi budget themselves. and we had to thank you for all of you to support us, to get the money back. we've been trying to work. i am pausing your time, but we're not talking about the dbi budget. we're opening public fees. yeah, i'm coming to that. okay, so the fee, the fees is based. i just want to give a thing. what i want to say is we

want to work with dbi staff to figure out how we can be back in their budget. but we understand this fee is what we are asking right now is if you approve this fees, at least for next year's fiscal year, that is 25, 25, 26. we want to be part of dbi budget. with this fee increase, because this year's budget general, general fund is funded through we are funded through general fund. so we want to make sure next year it is through us and also i want to basically say i'm more than happy to discuss with any of you about because i've been working in this program for 15 years. we've been funded through dbi all these years, so i don't understand why they're saying we were never funded before through their own budget. so i would eat my time to other folks here. thank you much for your comments. next speaker, please. good afternoon, chair chan. supervisors juan garcia with the sro families united collaborative, we urge you to vote and pass the

legislation as recommended. i completely agree, and most of us agree that we should definitely work with the department, but also figure out how we can either legislatively or some sort of programmatically return back to the budget at dbi. like my colleague pratibha mentioned, we have always been part of dpi's budget, whether it was through dpi or whether it was through themselves. so that's a bit of confusion. and the last thing i also wanted to point out , we've been working with the department on trying to figure out how we can get back in there. unfortunately, we haven't received a lot of collaboration with the city attorney's office, letting us know exactly which fees can and cannot fund these programs. so regardless of that, we urge you to go ahead and vote and allow the department to collect additional fees and work with us to figuring out how we can get back in there. thank you . thank you much for addressing this committee. next speaker,

please. hi. my name is becky. i'm the contracts and services director at casa. just cause, yes, it sounds like everyone understands the importance of our program. unfortunately the people leading the fee study did not understand, a program that's successful in san francisco should not be, like, dismissed because it doesn't exist in other cities. so we would like to request that the fees include the 6.5% increase, so that there is a chance and an ability for us to have time to work with dbi and have the funding in the department so that for next fiscal year, we can go back into their budget. if this continues to become general fund, it's really this program will disappear. it's at risk of no longer existing. and as folks say stated, it is a really hard, finance and deficit year. and so we need to make sure there's

strong funding for this program. thank you. thank you much, becky. next speaker hi, supervisors and chair chan. my name is sonica. i work at dolores street community services and i oversee the department that contains the mission sro collaborative. like becky said, i think we all understand the importance of these programs. and regardless of how other jurisdictions handle code enforcement, san francisco has a very particular set of material needs and conditions, whether it's sro housing stock and the immigrant and otherwise vulnerable tenants that live there. without us, there would be no way that dbi could handle the 20,000 calls, especially in language compliance with the language access ordinance, because we are the ones reaching tenants in their native languages, including spanish, chinese and others. so it's a great thing that we're taking steps to change the outdated fee structure. and we're again asking that you make sure to approve the fee increases so that we can continue working with dbi to be included in their budget. as pratibha mentioned, we've been included in that budget for a couple of decades now, so thanks. thank you much, anika. and if we have no further

speakers, pardon, madam chair, that completes our queue. thank you. seeing no more public comments for item nine. the public comment is now closed. and so with that we need to go to public comments for items 3 to 5. yes. if we have members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding the budgets as proposed and the items three through five for the departments, so listed, now's your opportunity. eileen bogan will speak strongly support the bla recommendation for a hearing this year for the puc. the us epa lawsuit is a point in case long standing allegations of pay to play contracting with a former general manager, indicted on federal charges. nutrient reduction is proposed for the bayside only, not for the

oceanside, which is subject to hypoxia and nutrient issues, as the puc has a dismal environmental track record on the tuolumne river, as shown by the collapsing salmon populations. again, strongly supporting the bla audits for this calendar year. not next year. thank you. thank you much, eileen bogan. and if we have no further speakers on items three and five, madam chair, that completes our queue. thank you. and for public comment is now closed for items three through five. and, first i would like to make the motion to move item nine to full board with recommendations on second by vice chair mandelman and a roll call please. and on that motion to forward the ordinance and item nine to the full board. pardon. with a positive recommendation, as moved by chair chan. seconded by vice

chair mandelman vice chair mandelman a mandelman i member. melgar. melgar i member. walton walton i member. dorsey member. dorsey. absent. chair. chan i chan i. we have four eyes with member. dorsey absent. thank you. and the motion passes. and with that, we'd like to move, make the motion to file item three as heard. and now file and second by vice chair mandelman and a roll call, please. and on that motion to file the hearing in item three, offered by chair chan. seconded by vice chair mandelman. vice chair mandelman mandelman i. member. melgar. melgar i member. walton walton i member. dorsey. member. dorsey absent. chan i chan i now we have four eyes. with member. dorsey absent and the motion passes. and with that, we will continue to item 4 to 5 to the

call chair. so that it's part of the budget, and, second by vice chair mandelman and roll call, please. and on that motion to continue the ordinances and items four and five, to the call of the chair, offered by chair and seconded by vice chair. mandelman vice chair. mandelman mandelman i member. melgar melgar i member. walton. walton i member. dorsey. member. dorsey. absent. chair chan i chan i we have four eyes with member. dorsey absent. and thank you. the motion passes. and with that, mr. clerk, do we have any other items before us today, madam chair, that concludes our business. thank you. and the meeting is adjourned. television

>> (music). >> my name is vet at a original artist based in san francisco. >> i love it i love it i've

never seen something else and we see how the people see which is happening and what is going on. kind of cool i wanted to be part of that. >> i saw it 2, 3, 4, 5 minutes you yeah. >> so we have you - yeah. i started going when i was young but not the type of kid would get food but this is something i really have been progressing on a talent from like other artists. >> this is amazing. >> this is so good yeah, it is so good like the artists. >> i love it. >> what a great project. >> part of the part for have i

grants. >> yeah. i love it. >> i serve in for 2 two years now and i really am fortunate to live in a place for art. >> an effort creating places it serve san francisco soul and that makes them want to see this place; right? with the experience of art in san jose experience in from the get-go sometimes our environmentalist has created tests but we have an opportunity for that and have artists in the storefront part of project you can walk in and experience and hoping we'll be there for a long time. >> this is the first farther easy way of going to spaces i

didn't know how it is really cool it would be and we're forced to be in the moment when we're test and creating something really cool. >> makes us feel good. >> as far (unintelligible) done all temporary and took them down i like the temporary aspect base (unintelligible) (microphone distorted) not permanent can enjoy it. >>