includes an allocation for the mayor's summer youth program. we have an overtime budget of $5,000, and generally speaking we manage it very well. we have never exceeded that in any budget year in the last 15 years. and also thanks in part to supervisor avalos's effort, we are confident that we will bring the monthly retirement board meetings to a chamber here in city hall so they will be televised live. and we have money in the budget to support that. and we conduct committee me meetings and we have the money in the budget for televising those meetings. i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you, any questions? move on to the next report, please. >> members of the committee,

does the department have comments? >> will you come up the budget analyst has made a few recommendations to your budget. why don't we go through your report and ask afterwards. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee. on page 5 of our report, we state that the recommended deductions, of the 1.06 million and 706 are ongoing savings and 937 are one-time. and allowing an increase of 17.1% of the department's 14-15 budget. our recommended reductions total 689,five 17, and in 15-16, all of which are ongoing savings. my understanding, supervisors that the department did concur

or has concurred with our recommendations. however i want to point out one recommendation on page -- actually it's on page 7, it's the last recommendation that we made. it's a recommended deduction of $945,360. we were advised that the real estate division had some questions about that, and we are happy to work with the real estate division regarding a tenant improvement of 945,360 if the director so directs. >> director. >> i couldn't have said it better, we believe we're in agreement and were notified by the real estate division, and their concerns, and prepared to work with the budget analyst and come back next week.

hopefully with a recommendation to respect. >> to be gray, and you are in agreement and real estate affects you, don't get me wrong, that's a question and leave it open until next week. to give your office the time to discuss. >> exactly, and if the committee wanted to and up to the committee -- okay. just leave it like that. >> okay. >> okay, colleagues any questions? supervisor avalos. >> just for director huwis, appreciate the effort to televise and do so in city hall, probably just like a phone call away to start off the discussions, thank you. just if you could summarize your work doing more work in staff, but yet still maintaining

consultants. that was mentioned in the budget analyst report. how do you see that trend moving towards the in-house staff replacing consultants? do you have expect to have a high level of consultants in years to come or the model for future years? >> supervisor, thank you for the question. the retirement board understands that we are a $19 billion fund. and we always had a model of all of our investment recommendations were consultant driven. and over the years we have had to build staff to support the implementation of certain programs. the retirement board understands now that it's more important for them to invest in a more staff driven. having staff doing the heavy lifting, and have a consultant there in a secondary role. you are absolutely correct. this is not going to happen, there is not a matching offset

for the consultant fees until we have the staff to do the heavy lifting. we anticipate over time as staff is built and becomes more engrained in the process. and the model now is that there is a part of the budget that the board of supervisors doesn't see. but we have had increases in our travel expenses. because now staff members are expected to be out of the office. visiting their managers, and doing the due diligence probably 10 days out of every month. that was not the model and relied on consultants do that, and to answer your question we hope to reduce the role of the consultant and the fees. but the retirement board has made a decision that they want to invest in staff. we want to build a staff structure where we can have the interest of very qualified people and have them stay. typically you know they can make

a good portfolio manager and make multiples of money. more money working in private industry. so what we are trying to do is build a structure and career path, and trying to keep then longer than three to five years and want to build a strong team. thank you for the question and a direction that the board has seriously considered and decided to pursue. the staffing for the investment division will now be 22, with these new positions. and you know three years ago it was seven. and as again to be responsible for the investment of a $19 billion fund, 22 is still a very sparse showing. but i think it's a move in the right direction. and the board obviously has directed us to provide a budget that will support that. over the years i have seen discussions about going into

strategies. their first question is if we have the internal resources to support it, and if yes, they would proceed and if no, they would back away. we are trying to build capacity for the board to go in any direction they want to go. >> if i can put in-house staff that you bring on in 15 years, if you can have staff with understanding and expertise in the carbon bubble. >> absolutely. >> i was excited about the university of stanford, last week they invested interest which is exciting. there are trends out there that our entire report system can get on. >> and we are also bringing on a city hall fella that will be working with staff investment, as well as operational staff. as coming up with more of an

integrate -- integral approach so that the board can consider climate risks and if we invest our money with certain managers after a time that we allow those folks to invest. we anticipate that will be a high-priority initiative over the next year, to bring back to the board policy that would include environmental issues and climate risks. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any questions? okay, thank you. much appreciated. at this point in time we will move on to the mta, thank you for being with us. >> thank you, good morning, chairperson farrell and members of the committee, ed riskin from mta, i was here a month ago and gave you a preview where things

have headed. things have largely stayed in place and report what happened on may 1, and happy to take questions with a presentation and can takes questions as you wish. to remind you the budget development process and everything we do is guided by our vision, goals and values, which are shown here on the slide. this is the framework in which we go about developing the budget, making operational decisions and policy decisions and of course budget decisions. this slide just shows some of the magnitude or the breadth of what the agency is responsible for, a lot of service and a lot of assets and parts of the transportation system that the voters have placed in our care. and that's what is being able to serve all of these needs, or

what is driving our budget. i may have covered this last time, but it bears repeating in term s of muni, dh is the line share of the department and budget, this slide gives a picture of who we are serving, i like to think of muni as the transit service for 100%. we are definitely serving low income and very, low income people that don't have choices of how to get around the safety. the safety net service, the transportation is what people need to get to school and jobs. and this data shows, and based on a survey of 22,000 customers, and it shows that we have a lot of very low-income folks that ride muni and a pretty large percentage that don't own a vehicle, and likely don't have a lot of choices of how to get around town.

one good thing we have found over the years from the rider survey that we do every two or three years, generally, that satisfaction with muni service is positive and increasing. it's maybe not where we want it to be, but coming up on two-thirds of folks saying that they are giving an excellent or good rating to their satisfaction with muni. that's something to feel good about. we do on an average weekday have more than 700,000 people boarding, it's a lot of people that we move around every day, and the one time when you have a bad experience is what resonates with you, and these numbers reflect by and large for the number of folks we are moving, we are doing so in a way that people are happy with. when we ask what do people want to see improved on muni. you can see kind of not surprising that the big ones are on-time performance and frequent

service. but also cleanliness and crowding and reliability. and these are some things that we are trying to address with this budget, both capital and operating budgets. so supervisor avalos started a conversation a number of months ago about the equity of the service delivery of muni and of transportation service generally. and out of that process he convened a number of stakeholders, we have been working with that group over the last four or five months. and have developed a new framework for analyzing the equity of our service delivery. it's a process that we actually have formalized, brought it to our board of directors a week ago. they have adopted it. and so it will now be a part of what we do on an ongoing basis. what it does is look at a

neighborhood basis of certain neighborhoods in the city, and look at performance characteristics of muni service in those neighborhoods. things such as on-time performance, gaps, crowding, and customer satisfaction, travel time. things that are important to muni riders, and what it does is compare to the system-wide average. and the idea being that to the extent that in any particular neighborhood we're not delivering the same level of service to another part of the city that we take action such as increasing the service or capital project to provide for service delivery. we would use this data and share it publicly to make corrections. and next slide is a sample of

analys analysis, a couple of different neighborhoods and you see the metrics that we look at. and again as we do this process each year, we make adjustments that we are providing equitable access and focusing on the neighborhoods that are lower income and transit dependent. >> let me jump in, i want to thank you and your staff for doing this analysis, julie chrisbon was leading the effort and we were meeting with transit justice people and directly with you and alicia (inaudible) as well. i want to say thank you for that effort. i like the idea of focusing on on-time pitcheerformance and th level of riders. and also looking at the investment of capital made around the city.

i have talked about this for years since i have been in office. the level of capital investments in district 11 and i would say district 11 is pretty minimal. there is capital investments that have gone in towards the green yard, and the facilities. but there hasn't been a lot of capital improvements that have come to make the experience of riders on the lines, mission, geneva or san jose, minor things here. and i see other parts of san francisco remarkable changing before my eyes. i think that's good. but we have to make sure that neighborhoods where we are so car dependent that we make those investments to provide a better alternative to people getting in their cars and riding muni.

when i ride muni and as i said before the meeting, you get on the bus and there is very little white people on the bus, very little middle class on the bus. it's not considered an option for many people, because they haven't seen a real commitment to changing the experience getting on the bus. i find it convenient time wise to get to city hall and get downtown. taking muni. but the experience getting around is not one commenceary with other neighborhoods in san francisco. because of the facilities we have to get there. i want to make sure that great work on on-time performance but there are also capital investments that need to be made. and the analysis of how we invest in capital needs to be seen through an equity lens as well to a greater extent. overall i want to thank you for this work, and it's more to do

around how we ensure that neighborhoods far from the downtown core and the essential core of the city can get better served with the capital investments we make. we don't have any complete streets in district 11. there are a lot of plans in place for pedestrian safety. but minimal things, spots here and there that are covered. but nothing comprehensive. i think we are feeling we are not getting well served in that regard from the rest of the city. frankly not much development but to see how development enabling in the core of the city can provide flexibility for funds to come to the outer parts of the city. >> thank you, i think there was a lot in there, a lot of good points. i think with regard to the capital investment, a couple of things. one, while this equity analysis

focused on transit. we are looking at our whole capital portfolio and getting more detailed information and report out more publicly in terms of investments by neighborhood or by supervisor district. specifically with regard to muni capital improvements and what we call the muni forward rapid network improvements, implementing that came out of the transit analysis. and we have looked at capital investments and how they affect the muni lines and who they are serving and geographical. and we can share that information with you, and those are fairly well spread out throughout the city, quite a bit in district 11. we have already looked at that for the muni right-of-way

capital investments and over time we will fold in the rest of the capital portfolio. that's a good segue to summarize that the capital budget does incorporate those right-of-way changes to help muni work throughout streets. and funding strategy for vision zero. and the highlights of the big one, the td recommends service increase and 10% increase in service for over two years. funding most of the te-recommended increase. on the revenue side great majority of our fines and fees continue to be indexed to provide revenues for the service increase and as we discussed yesterday, the budget includes the elimination of sunday parking. and briefly on the capital budget. >> people won't be able to park

in san francisco on sunday? there is a huge outcry to take away of parking. i was not happy to see the repeal of sunday metering i said before. we had it implemented and the sky did not fall. it's a mixed bag of what people's thoughts are about it. and how it affects commercial corridors and businesses. i think the chamber of commerce was supportive of sunday metering. i don't always align with the chamber of commerce. but i was happy to be so in this regard. could you say -- could you say what the reason behind all of it was? the repeal of sunday metering and how was the vote on your board for that? >> well, this was done, it was not a separate vote on sunday parking. it was part of the proposed

budget, so the vote was unanimous. there was i say a fair amount of reluctant misgiving or support with regard to the sunday park elimination, the sunday parking enforcement elimination. because i think it was doing what we set out to do when we implemented it, which was increase parking availability in metered parking spaces on sundays. we did analysis as we said when we implemented it in the first place. and the analysis said it was meeting that goal. there was however a lot of difference of opinion on the value of it overall. while it was meeting that one metric, that we set from a transportation standpoint. there were a lot of people with a lot of concern. it was a causing a lot of heartache for folks. the level of citations we issued on sundays was higher than of the rest of the week.

a lot of people were driving around san francisco and getting parking tickets on sundays. so ultimately the mayor in his state of the city speech, while we are happy to see that he endorsed putting vehicle license increase and the general obligation bond in this november. and he called going back to no sunday parking meter enforcement. and ultimately as a person elected to lead the city by the people of san francisco, i think my board wanted to pay heed to that call. very much mix of opinion on sunday parking. we heard more people say they didn't like it than they did. >> there seems like there is a mix of opinion also in the mayor's administration where there is far sighted responsible advisors saying different things. even trying to get money for

muni capital, and we talked about the vlf. and i can't get a full understanding what the interest of the mayor's office is around the vlf. so we can talk about that separately. i think that we haven't had a real strong leadership within the mayor's office to really be sound about our planning. we have to plan for the future. sunday metering i am sure will be back some day. it's a huge subsidy that we provide for cars in the city. and we have huge needs elsewhere. one of the needs is around affordablity. if we are cutting funds that can help with affordability, we make it difficult for people to use muni the way they need to. yesterday we had a hearing with low-income people in san francisco, and heart wrenching stories of what they face.

and they are the ones most troubled by increases to muni. and to make a decision to put cars before people, low-income people is a real troubling one. especially in the age of wildfires going crazy in san diego, and we are in heat waves in san francisco. and we know that the climate change is real and we have to do our part of disincentives of driving and incentive of muni. and we need that in place. >> there is a lot in the budget that is an investment for muni and making it more affordable for people. i think while there is disagreement of the sunday metering enforcement and the big picture of the things we are doing to advance the things you

were speaking of. sorry -- >> much to say about your comments, supervisor avalos. i love the picture of you and the chamber of commerce teaming up on this one, and i will save my topics for another day. supervisor breed. >> thank you, from the beginning when mta discussed implementing sunday meters, i was opposed to it. and had to do with the church community and the fact that many seniors who attend church drive their cars mostly on sunday. it's kind of a tradition in my community, not necessarily driving, but church services. there is double-parking and meters and all of these things. i think the challenge for me was just how information was communicated to those churches. and those people who participate

in church. i think that -- and the other thing i felt that we are nickel diming people, that the mayor used in his speech, that i said first. i felt that way, we charge for everything and can we have one day where the city is not nickel and diming people. sunday meters was implemented. i wasn't a fan, i got two tickets. eventually what i did appreciate about it, i start to get used to it as a driver. and the meters have changed and made it easier to pay by phone and technology and a couple other things. but unfortunately this has not made it easy on seniors. and yes, there are low-income seniors who do have cars. the challenge for me is really the fact that, you know, even though we have sunday meters

andan andan andig -- and i guess they are going away. and i overcame it as a driver is for someone that had other ways to pay the meter. and having the extension of time on sunday. the downtown meters and that sort of thing i thought was appropriate. i don't know how we can make this work, but i do think that we should seriously explore the ability to have something that makes sense. but i also want to be considerate of the church community and just the challenges they face in terms of parking in the area on sundays. so i have mixed emotions about it. no, i don't want to pay the meter. but i am prepared to do my part. and like the ability and many of the merchants in my district appreciate the fact that folks that visit their businesses on sunday, have the ability to find

a parking space. so it has its plus and minuses. but yeah, as a driver, i want to get away to park for free, but i am willing to do my part. i think we need to strike a balance and put it out there and implement it and set it up. and get the public used to it and tear it away without a plan how we are going to make up those funds or phase it out or whatever we do. i don't want to continue down this path of arbitrary things to generate revenue or take it away. i prefer that we have an overall clear vision for transportation in the city and mota and when w pl lay out the plans and we do it with the appropriate plans. and take in consideration many folks that may be negatively

impacted by those plans. >> just a response as well, if we expand blue laws in san francisco, maybe we can make muni free for everyone on sundays. >> sounds like a great add-back proposal. all day everyday, free for everyone. quick question for you, if this does pass, when are sunday meters going to be gone? >> july 1. >> thanks. i think there were a lot of great comments there. i would leave it at that. just moving quickly into the capital budget. this is not really changed significantly since i was here last. the slide gives an overview, about $600 million a year. and you see how it breaks down. this shows the number of projects in it. i want to note that we are assuming the passage of the november measures that the mayor called for in the state of the

city speech, the bond and the vehicle (inaudible). and the mta board approved our two-year capital budget and bringing to the mta board next week, that should be publicly available probably today. gives a deep detail on every project in the full cip. just as a mentioned last time, if you look accumulatively over time, what it capital budget represents is a significant increase in investment and bike and pedestrian safety. and i know that has been an interest of many stakeholders and the board. i covered this last time, very significant investment in implementing walk first and implementing vision zero. significantly