prior with the old owner, princely, all of those individuals are gone, how the building was vacated you are probably aware that those individuals that were not offered a first right of refusal did seek out their rights on the legal rights under that and i know that that was an issue that was going on, and at least one of these properties. that is why the logs are an important thing, with respect to the other individuals in the property will be a little different story. and however, any of those records that we get as a result of the hotel conversion ordinance is a matter of public record and so anyone wanting to look at those records are more than happy to provide them for the issues that you mentioned. >> or get our cop folks.

>> yes, we do have the monthly meetings with them and they are aware of these issues and also working with them as i speak. on the issues that i mentioned with respect to concerns over residential hotels having wholesale conversion to use. and i just was on the phone with the central city klabive on this issue last week and so we are pro-active on that. this is a non-profit. >> it was previously owned by a non-profit. it is not currently owned by a non-profit. >> they sold it in august of 2013. >> okay. and it is empty? >> it is empty? >> no, it is now reoccupied. >> it is occupied. >> right. >> and so i think that yeah, i just want to make sure that somehow, where the cop or some other way, we can be in touch

with those tenants. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. and commissioners through the chair, for questions, because of the people we can take everybody in order then. >> thank you for that up there. >> is there any follow up on this commissioner walker? >> i think that we may hear if there is continuing issues with this, or if we need to do anything to address the bigger picture, i think that we will be interested in hearing that from the housing commission. i think that the sros are protected. a lot of low income housing is.

to make sure that the rules are followed. >> okay. >> if you can keep us updated about this. >> absolutely. if any of these cases do not get if the repairs are not being made on the good faith and in a timely way, then you know we will be pursuing that course as well. and we work with the property owner on site to be sure that we can get the things done as quickly as possible. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there passed public comment on this. >> yes. >> okay. >> which item. >> we will go to item 9. 9, discussion and possible action to approve the legislation to extend the 6 month fee reduction, in 164-14, until the completing of the dbi

fee study and the board of supervisor's adoption of new fee schedule. >> good morning, commissioners tara madison, deputy director of finance administration. and back in june the commission approved a temporary fee reduction of 7 percent for staff services. and the fees that are for the staff services and that was done as a bridge because the department is under going a comprehensive study with the controller's office managing it with the outside of the reporting consultant and the hope was that the study will have been completed and the new fee schedule will be in place, however, every month i have been coming to the commission and giving an up date on what is going on and it is taking a lot longer than anticipated for the variety of reasons that we talked about before and the

nature and consultant not maybe with the large projects not accustomed to working with those large projects and then, there were some questions about methodology and so the controller has had the questions and so we will have to extend the fee study and not be completed for a while. >> the 7 percent reduction is schedule to end at the end of february and the request is that given that we have to change the fees is to extend that 7 percent for an additional amount of time until the fee study is completed the hope that is will be completed before the end of the fiscal year, that is the request and right now, the fee study, if purely the 7 percent based on that will cost about 3.5 million dollars. and when we go over for, i guess it is the monthly revenue report you will see that, and that is the estimate of what

the cost is for your $3.5 million. and so we will be collecting a little bit less than what we actually budgeted. and the impact of that fiscal year would not be a very great for a variety of reasons, and historically we have under spent our budget and so there would not be any reason for us to go and spend more >> i will be happy to answer the questions. >> commissioner mar? >> so, i understood why we make this 7 percent cut last year. because the fee study was not done. however, my understanding was that we started moving the city started moving to come out with a new fee schedule last august. that is when we gave it a 6

month extension. and so, i feel like i don't want to give it open and just like the other projects like the permit tracking and everything else if we give it an open-ended extension they will take their time and so i want to know when is the date, the fee schedule is going to be done projected date? and i would to be more inclined to give it a shorter extension to maybe force our own department and the controller's office to move to make sure that the fees get the new fee schedule is done in a timely fashion, because it has been almost and it has been six months and one of the last speakers who spoke about the fee schedule said that we used to up date every six months and so this has been over 60 months since we have had the last fee schedule done, at least. >> so i just want to know where it is at. >> so where it is, is that and

awaiting the final review, to give us a copy of the proposal would be. once they give us that final review we will come back to the commission and see what the recommendations are. i don't personally see where it is in anybody's best interest to delay the fee study, based on the 7 percent because i will be honest with you for some of the fees, the reduction may be lower than that and in some ways it will be the best interest to get it done and may be each bigger reductions so this is just a nature of the fee stud j taking loner and i came in on the study late and i think that it may have started before august, we have been working with them and it has

taken a little bit longer, and i did talk to the controller's office, mike contacted the controller's office on monday explaining that i will northbound front of commission and requesting the 7 percent, and they could not give me a deadline of at this point in time the hope is that the study will be done before the end of the physical year or for a variety of reasons, but particularly before the end of the fiscal year because the hope is that we are going to put those fees in place for next fiscal year. and the hope to be done too, so that i will have to know what the 15, 16 budget will be based on. so we are moving with the fees but it is taking longer than anyone anticipated and at this point, dbi has to wait for the direction from the controller's office.

>> commissioner walker. >> i will not be supporting an extension and i did not suppose the reduction in the first place and i think that we were asked to do this by the controller's office. and so i would we have done what they have asked. and they are and they have not. and on the timely fashion, and so, i won't be supporting an extension, just so i am just saying. >> okay. >> commissioner mar again. >> okay. >> so because the extension is good through the end of february, of 2015,; is that correct?? our last six month extension it is going to go through 2015. february. >> well, the original six months temporary fee reduction will end at the end of february. >> okay. so we have two more months. >> i would like to hear, a more

detailed report from the controller's office about when they expect to have the new fee schedule. so, because i am not inclined to support an extension either. but for the sake of harmony and for the sake of giving the controller a little bit more of a definitive report to us. i would actually like to postpone this item to january and if you can come back with someone from the controller's office can come back and say we will have this done by march, april, may, then, we can then discuss an extension based on that. that is my proposal. >> and it would give us time, because it is in place any way until the end of february. >> well, the first thing that i will go on the second part of your statement it will not give

us time in order for us to effect legislation that will be effective and we would not have a break-in, raise and lowering fees we would have to start getting the legislation and why it was introduced because we have to work through and john feel free to chime in, this means that we are actually amending the building code again. so we have to go to the finance committee and the board and so that is why we are doing that just now. and i understand everyone hesitantcy about extending, but i do want to stress that the department is sitting on a large surplus right now, based on the preliminary findings in the fee study, they are all not and everything is not d reductions will in many cases be higher than 7 percent. so this is a way of the department continuing down the path of that good faith effort of saying okay we know that we need to do something about our fees and we are going to put

this in as a bridge until we come up with a standard fees, and what change the entire fee schedule that will be my response on your second part and could you please, and the fact that if the controller could come in give you a better date.

>> commissioner lee? >> what i think that i am hearing is that we are just a little uncomfortable to just give you an open-ended extension. we are trying to figure out how much time does this process need? and any estimate? >> right, so originally i said that it was my hope that we would be done by the end of the fiscal year because we need to have the, i moon that i need the fees as much as anyone else. right now it is 7 percent, but there will be different percentages for each of the fees and so i need to have a firm grasp of what the revenues will be. the hope is that it will not extend until the end of this fiscal year, maybe another 6 months, i think that the reason that the request is that it is

just until the legislation comes in to effect is because we dent know how long it is going to take for the study and through the legislative process. >> there are only four more months. >> it would be up to six months, i hope that it will be less than that, and i hope that it will be done by the end of february. >> you are really asking for an

extension of four months, february to june. >> that is my hope, but i can and i have to confirm that with the consultant because dbi is not conducting this fee study, it is conducted by a consultant in the controller's office. >> commissioner walker and then mar. >> commissioner? >> sorry. >> you were listening. >> my own question was this, if we do not extend, then your anticipation is that at some time in march, fees will have to revert back up to a higher level. >> correct. >> until we could figure out how to get them back downed based on the study. >> well, fees --. >> the study and the legislation and so on. >> correct. so the fees or the schedule to go back to where they were before the 7 percent reduction, but we all know that once the fee study is completed that

there will be reductions, and there will be, you know, some minor tweaks here and there and so we will be doing you know changing the fees within a short amount of time, and that we are just waiting to final phase of a fee study and that is really, this bridge maybe the, and maybe i don't know i wasn't here in the beginning but maybe six months was a little aggressive and time line and thought that it was the study could be done in the six months but that just has not happened. >> commissioner mar, so actually i would like to get an opinion from the city attorney about whether my proposal would be unworkable if we heard this agenda item in january. would we give it enough time for us to make whatever decision we make and then to make the changes or whatever

for the fee, and the fees if they are to change and they may not. before the end of february. laps. >> john, from the city attorney's office. and i just as it stands now it will already be a very tight schedule to take, if there is an action from the commission today, to get legislation introduced at the board of supervisors, have it acted on, and have the mayor sign it and have it go into effect before the expiration of the existing 6 months temporary fee reduction. a possible work around for that is that you would add a provision to the legislation that makes it retroactive to the date the prior legislation

expired. so that there is not a gap, but what that tends to do is create uncertainty because if there are issues at the board of supervisors, the longer that gap is, it starts to raise questions, so dbi is or would be caught in a bit of a limbo, trying to figure out if they need to temporarily bring back the fees so their prior amounts and then maybe lower them again, which is what they were referring to. >> okay. >> commissioners i will weigh in now. i am on the other end because i understand that this issue is difficult for the department and it is kind of i say, it is kind of a strange headache to have but it bas something that we have to deal with, when the 7 percent came out i thought that it was too low and i thought that it should be more, but that said, i think that you have done a great presentation

here trying to explain the different dynamics of the world that you live in and i am sure that you would give us the time frame if you could guarantee that and you don't strike me as someone to give the time and not be able to back it up. i respect the positions of commissioner mar and walker. and all commissioners on this issue, wherever they fall or their vote falls for me, i think that this is something that we don't kind of cause any more disruption. and we as a commission are constantly having to adjust our positions on time frames. and i just think that i have accepted that.

and we will be able to do this sooner than later, and so with that my motion is i am vote to continue this. so if there is any other commissioners want to weigh in i would like to call the question. >> a motion and a second. >> all right, excuse me. the city's office, do you mean continue? >> up holding this. >> to up holding this and allowing for the extension. >> to what? >> excuse me. to what? >> okay, stop again here. >> motion to you need to state that you want to extend the 7-month fee reduction. >> that is the motion that i would like to make. >> you want to extend it for 6 more months. >> i want to extend it as called by item 9.

>> we need a second and take public comment. >> second. >> a motion and a second. to extend the fee reduction, is there any public comment? >> we will do a roll call vote. >> i just want to say that i am of the mind that if we know that we are going down then let's say recognize that it has been high and we are stepping down to determine where that bottom needs to rest, that why i am voting yes. on this item, roll call vote, president mccarthy. >> yes. >> mar. >> no. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> no.

>> and commissioner clinch he arrived, 10:45 >> can i vote? >> yes, you can vote. >> yes. >> on this motion would carry 4-2. >> okay. >> thank you. >> if we could go to item 5 now. >> okay >> director's report, 5 a, up date on dbi finances. >> good morning, commissioners, deputy director of finance and administration and before you is our november 2014 year to date financial report.

we can do a comparison of what occurred last year, so over all we are going down in the revenues, and we are about 4.4 million dollars less than we

were last year. and that is a 17 percent decrease in prior months you can see next chart shows permit activity. actually increasing, stays at about 4 percent higher than the prior year. what is happening, the high value projects are coming in lower that is what reflected when you see the actual revenues going down. remains robust and more permits now than last time, but the valuation is lower and the revenues are lower. on the expenditure side you see that we have a variance of 92 percent that we have spend $19 million less and this is based on a straight formula that really because we have to take everything into consideration in there and part of that is because there is something called transfer of the projects

about 30 million dollars, and that transfer has not happened. that is just an accounting function that happened at the controller's office level and last year they moved the money earlier so it was reflected but we expect that will happen. when you take that out of the equation we are spending more than we were spending last year, 2 million dollars more this year than in november than last year and that is reflected as i discussed before and doing the hiring, and we have increased some of our contractual services, training and so we are working on expending our revenues as we earn those revenues, because a lot of what has happened with the surplus, is that yes, revenue, come in higher but we have been able to put more money in the fund balance because we have not spent, we are working to make sure that

we spend those. >> is there no consideration that we need to move and invest in our future home kind of thing? as we take in 3.5 less and spend 2 million more you do that over a period of time we don't have that reserve to be able to have a plan for the future. >> there is consideration that certain things have to happen we have a reserve that is set aside. we are working on it. and no one is saying that we should be at a zero balance, the balance is so high is reason why we or doing this fee

study and the reason that we are looking to spend the funding. the goal is not to come up in a hole. we can try to possibly not spend all of our funding. we are projecting 3.5 less, we are going to end with $300,000 based on what the spending has been and work orders is one. we budget a lot of money in work orders not a lot of control. a lot of times the departments leave the money on the table and that is the same thing too. so i just want to understand that there is prior we have been stuck in the situation where we have not had enough no ony to sustain ourselves but at this point we can be proactive

in making sure that doing the long term revenue and making sure that we have enough money and balance that with the right amount of money. >> and i understand that too and i would like us to have the conversation too at some point about maybe adding staff to meet our goals of quick turn around. >> right. >> you know, more housing and inspections and all of that. i think that this city is experiencing a great construction sort of bananza right now. i don't see that, in our department, it is going to change, we are going to have maybe, some seismic projects and in-laws and all of that. but, i would just i'm supportive of us being ready for that. and really rather than looking at cutting services realizing that we still have some to public complaints to respond to about you know how quickly things turn around and how

quickly we work with planning. all of those things that we are talking about in the joint meeting and i think that is a good investment that the public would like too. >> right. >> and so i am sorry, i may not have been clear, i am not trying to cut the services and there is no reason to cut services. there is a way for us to have savings in this year without cutting services. i would assume that like one right now, based on our hiring plan right now projected to have $2 million in salary, because we are hiring.