$70 million a year under the proposed ordinance. there's a lot in there for us to celebrate. supervisor tang, i believe you have something you want to share? >> yes. thank you so much. thank you to the puc for bringing this to us. this is very exciting to see the uptake in this program. i do have a couple of amendments that i'm going to make on behalf of supervisor peskin. [brief transition in captioning]

>> actually, just a question. could you put it back up? does this program -- is this program offered to p.u.c. customers beyond san francisco? >> this program is only offered within the jurisdictiontal boundaries of city and county of san francisco. >> any reason why we couldn't offer to all the customers? >> we could expand the program at the direction of the governing bodies. yes. we have chosen -- we have chosen not to. staying within our city, our

city foot print so far. >> when you say "government bodies" -- >> yourselfs. >> ok. [laughter] i didn't know if you meant -- >> well, if -- expansion -- we would pursue expansion if we were directed to by the board of supervisors to actually consummate an expansion. it would require other governing bodies to authorize that. to agree. for example, a service territory that we're trying to expand into would need to agree and we would need to receive certification from the california public utilities commission that that expansion is authorized. >> are there any reasons why we shouldn't? >> at this point, we're focused on making sure we meet the objective of serving all of san francisco. once we have a full program serving all of san francisco, it might be appropriate for the city to consider expanding to

other jurisdictions. i would note that all of the counties contiguous to us are already launching programs of their own. so marin, san mateo, alameda, for example, all have programs. that are either operating or about to operate. >> ok. so, there's really no need for us to expand this? >> at this time, i don't see a need. i see a need to make sure that we expand to meet all of san francisco's needs in the near term. >> ok. if -- if you ever think that we need to -- we need to do this legislatively in san francisco, let us know. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you very much. it's interesting how far we've come. i remember as a candidate filling out questionnaires as to whether or not i support c.c.a. and i always was very enthusiastic and have always

said yes and how much slack that i've gotten. it reels really good to be here to be discussing this policy as we continue to move forward and provide a great service and not only a great service, but a clean and efficient way to receive energy. i believe supervisor tang has made a series of motions. let's take her -- she made one motion. to accept some amendments. if we could take that motion without objection. we'll take without objection. thank you very much. >> i'll make a motion to send forth item as amed to the full board with recommendation. >> as amended, it goes to the full board without objection. all right. we're off. let's move on. all right. let's see madame clerk, what's next? item three. please call it. >> item number three, resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute amendment number two to agreement number cs-109 to continue providing additional engineering service in support

of the westside recycled water project, increasing the agreement by $2.5 million for a total not to exceed agreement of $8 million. >> all right. thank you. so, we have -- let's see here. i'm sorry. welcome. the floor is yours. >> good morning. barbara palacio, project manager for the recycled water project. thank you, committee chair and supervisors for allowing us to make today's pregnancy about proposed amendment number two to contract cs-109, specialized engineering services, recycled water projects. the westside recycled water project will produce an annual average 1.6 million gallons per day of high-quality recycled water to be used for irrigation and another nonpotable uses. recycled water will be used to irrigate and fill the lakes in golden gate park as well as

irrigation of lincoln park golf course and including the golf course and nation fall cemetery. the project includes the construction of any treatment facility within the oceanside treatment plant. approximately 7.7 miles of new pipeline, mostly within city streets. a new reservoir and pump station in golden gate park and irrigation system modifications within golden gate park and lincoln park. they initiated contract cs-109 for design and construction of the eastside recycled water project as well as to provide as-needed support to other recycled water efforts and project by the sfpuc such as the sharp park and harding park recycled water projects. the project was -- the contract was awarded in october of 2010 to a joint venture of kennedy-jenks consultants, water resources engineering. for a total amount of $3.7

million and a duration of six years. in december of 15, the sfpuc approved amendment number one, which increased the agreement amount by $1.8 million and included a time extension of three years. this would provide engineering support during bidding and construction phase, provide technical support in assess. -- assessment of the irrigation systems as well as provide regulatory per mying process support. today we seek your approval of the proposed resolution to approve the second amendment to the existing contract. this this amendment was approved by the sfpuc in november of 2017 and would increase the agreement by $2.5 million and include a time extension of three years. this amendment would address the detailed design and engineering support during bidding and construction phases of the irrigation system modsfication work as well as

preparing the resingh ld waterments operations plan, standard operating procedures for the new treatment facility and pump station. and that is all i have. >> well, thank you for that presentation. let's hear from the budget legislative analyst office. >> if this is an extension of an existing agreement for engineering services for the westside recycled water project, it's subject to board of supervisor's approval because it extends the agreement for up to 12 years through 2022. we do show the expenditures that are expected under the amended agreement and recommend approval. >> thank you very much. let's hear what the public has to say. we'll go into public comment at this time. any member of the public, come on up. step on up. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. supervisor yee? >> yeah. i'm more than happy to support this.

since this new facility would be in my district. and i'm happy to serve the rest of the city. >> thank you. >> new system. [laughter] >> all right. thank you. just to recap, the project will construct the following, a recycled water treatment facility at the oceanside water pollution control plant, a new pump station and underground recycled water storage reservoir at golden gate park's existing central reservoir and also a new recycle distribution pipeline. so is there a motion to accept this and we can send to the full board? >> we will make a motion to accept this. and move it to full board for positive recommendation. >> thank you. we can take that without objection. there it is. please call items four and five together. >> item number four, ordinance reappropriating $4.1 billion of the improvement costs at 179th street for the renovation of the building at 440 turk street

for department of homelessness and supportive housing. item number five, hearing to consider the reserve fund to the department of homelessness and supportive housing in the amount of $1.. 7 million for the 440 turk street project. >> ok. thank you. so, colleagues, yesterday you may recall we had a robust conversation at the full board about the emergency declaration regarding 440 turk. particularly conversations about the process. ultimately the board has decided to continue this item until january. so, seeing that these two items are directly related to 440 turk, i want to propose that we should also continue item five and send item four forward, particularly without a recommendation. and i'll take up a motion for this. by just wanted to open up and indicate exactly where my thoughts are on this. we have a presentation from the

domestic of homelessness and supportive housing, welcome back. i think you are the director of finance. >> that is correct. >> please introduce yourself and the floor is yours. >> good morning, madame chair, members of the committee. i'm g.g. whitley, deputy director for admin and finance. i have a presentation prepared. i can do that or just answer questions. >> no. no. we'll take your presentation. >> so good morning again. as you recall, we were here over a year ago with the purchase of 440 turk street, a property owned by the san francisco housing authority. it is 25500 square feet and the board and the federal government have, prior to today, approved the purchase price for $5 million. a little bit about the existing conditions of the building. this is based on analysis done

by the department of public works. it's currently a parcel that has three condos as part of it, including a residential area for affordable housing. we share the centralized building systems with 430 turk street, including all of the gas, fire alarm-sprinkler systems as part of purchasing the building. there has been a recent update to the boiler system and the related pumps and currently there is no central air conditioning and the elevator in the building needs some work. as you can see from the picture, it's a unique building with a unique layout and the openness and the flexibility of the floor plan are limited by structural walls and some columns in the building. that as well as the elevator repair has been a driving cost and some of the tenant

improvement costs. this is just an artist rendering done by the department of public works as to what the proposed use may look like in terms of work stations and office space on the top floor, conference room space as well as access point on the first floor for clients. as you heard yesterday, this is really the access point. not only to our department, but to our coordinated access point centrally located in the city that would provide other amenities potentially. as i was saying, the top floor would be h.s.h. headquarters, the top floor would be staff office space for the majority of our employees. open during business hours. the bottom floor, the first floor, would be the coordinated entry access point as well as meeting space for client appointments, intakes. the access point itself can accommodate up to 30 to 50 clients and although the details are still to be worked

out, we've been proposing 12 hour a day site, seven days per week. the site would include some limited showers, washer/dryers, storage facilities. for clients going through coordinated entry intake and that is really what we've envisioned in matching clients to the appropriate intervention that they need immediately to help resolve their homelessness. some of the building upgrades that are part of the construction budget include changes to the interior partitions, to create a more open layout, especially on the top floor where we can put work stations, a new ceiling system with carpet, painting and finishes. plumbing upgrades, especially in the ground floor where the bathrooms need to be created and showers put in. new lighting and controls that are required by building code.

a.d.a. upgrades to the restrooms as well as the elevator and to upgrade the hvac system within the building. what you see before you here are the total estimated project costs. the project is estimated to be $12.86 million. $5 million of that is the negotiated purchase price the purchase will close either later this month or in early january. $6.1 million for the rehabilitation antenanl improvement costs that i just mentioned and $1.7 million allocated for furniture, fixtures, equipment. that is the staff space for work stations. the i.t. wiring. all of the client access spaces and furniture and appliance, etc. there are two main sources for the project.

the general obligation band first issuance funding has already been appropriated. that's $4.85 million. $2.2 million in future geobond proceeds when the second issuance goes forward for that bond. you may recall from the 2016 item on the ballot that part of the public health and safety bond -- part of the public health geo bond had $20 million for homeless shelter repairs as well as new client serving spaces. and finally $5.8 million in general fund money, including funds for ff&e. based on analysis done with public works, 63% of the rehab and purchase cost are allocated to the proportion of the building that's really going to serve clients or support homeless services access point. the ordinance that you are reviewing today really allows

the department to move general fund money within its already approved '17-'18 budget. there is no additional general fund impact because of this motion, but you may recall from both the budget process in june and then the subsequent lease that was before you for office space for our department, we had already appropriated through the budget process over $4 million for leasing antenanl improvement costs of another site on 9th street. what this ordinance allows the department to do is shift that funding. much of that general fund is already appropriated for the dp's office space for another site and reappropriated to the 440 turk street project. so that that project can move forward for the dual uses that i mentioned earlier. the second item is committee action to release the reserves

that were put on reserve during the budget process for furniture and fixture and equipment. that was $1.7 million. as i said, that includes i.t. costs, work stations, computers, new telephones, all of the furniture and equipment that will be needed for clients to access the access point. and those costs were based on actual costs, either from clients serving furniture that we used in other navigation centers or costs we spent to replace washer/dryers at our shelter -- within our shelter or other recent city projects like the medical examiner's office. that concludes my presentation. if there are any additional questions, i'm happy to take those now. >> thank you for your presentation and bringing clarity and elevating the urgency of the nature and the

mission of the organization of your department. i appreciate it. a sobering reminder. colleagues, do we have any questions? >> i don't have any questions at this point. but just in light of the discussion that happened at the board of supervisors yesterday, i mean i really enjoyed the presentation. i think it is a matter of talking to all the colleagues here and making sure that everyone is on the same page about the plans. so, pending public comment i do agree with supervisor cohen that i would like to send this out to the full board without recommendation first and then let this item catch up with the others that are still pending that we'll discuss in the new year. >> thank you, supervisors. thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the items. and we're happy to support as we need. >> i appreciate that. we're going to pivot to the b.l.a. and hear their report. >> there are two pieces of legislation before you. one is a ordinance appropriating $4.1 million in general fund moneys to this project.

another is a release of reserves so $1.7 million for furniture, fixtures and equipment for the project. the details of the expendituress are on page 22 and page 23 of our report. i believe ms. whitley has gone over the expenditure details. we are recommending a reduction in the release of reserves by a little more than $390,000. this reduction is based on our estimated costs for purchasing computers and telephones for 118 staff to be relocated to 440 turk street and actual recent costs for technology equipment and other furnishing bids and such for furniture for the project. so the reduction would be from the current amount of $1.7 million that is on reserve to 1309775. we do recommend approval of the reappropriatation and, as i said, we're recommending a reduction in the reserves. >> thank you very much. we can respect and take those

amendments -- or are youer recommendations. thank you very much. colleagues, do you have any last remarks? >> so, the funding for the items that would be spend on would be if the 440 turk proposed project is accepted. i imagine that the funding -- you wouldn't need this funding until things were renovated first. >> that is correct, supervisor. through the chair, given the discussion yesterday about the emergency declaration, and pending discussions on mow quickly the project could move forward, we would be in a holding pattern until that decision was made. >> but this -- this -- this funding wouldn't hold up the project if it were to move forward immediately.

>> so, i think if their recommendation to approve the ordinance without recommendation goes forward, that ordinance can catch up with any decision about the emergency declaration. the release of the reserves, i'm happy to come back in early january and have the committee take action on that. , is -- >> i guess my question was -- >> short answer, no. it will not hold it up. >> right. so, chair cohen, her opening statement wanted to continue the item here. and i believe supervisor tang, you are recommending that we don't hold it up at committee, but to bring it to full board? >> through the chair for item four, yes, i do recommend that we have everything discussed all at once. i think it totally makes sense.

>> considering -- i don't know what chair cohen is that the point, but i'm ok with leaving a desire at our committee by continuing the item. even though the -- at the end of the day, we might consider the whole project as an emergency. this funding is not needed until things are renovated so there is no urgency to be out of committee at this point. >> supervisor, i agree with you. so, what i was going to propose is that we continue item five and send forward without recommendation item four. so that we are teed up and still in a strong position should the declaration and the logistical stuff that supervisor kim wants worked out, we're in a strong position to move forward and meeting

our deadlines. is that something you are amenable -- >>ly support that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i'll make a motion to continue item five and look at item four. the motion passes without objection. thank you for your presentation. i think it is an elegant solution to a very difficult problem. please call item six and seven together. >> no comment on that? >> i'm sorry. i thought we did take public comment on it. my apologies. madame clerk, did we not take -- >> we have not. >> my apologies to you. do we need to take a motion to amend or open up for public comment? >> a motion. >> may i have a motion -- >> motion rescinded. >> a motion has been made by supervisor yee to rescind the vote on item four and five and take that without objection. thank you. public comment is now open. my apologies to you, please. the floor is yours. . >> even though this demonstration pertains to item four and five, i'd like to have it incorporated to number one, too. as you can see right here, the

mayor calculated that there is approximately $88.2 million deficit and by the same response, he wants each and every city department in the city to cut 5% of their expenditures on their continuance process of their departments. i'm bringing this up because this is very important, just like i brought up over a year ago that the tax breaks that twitter is getting as far as city taxes and payroll taxes i estimated that a minimum of $125 million a year is not being collected by the city. now this also applies to five other high-tech companies. as a result, that is the total of $3.1 billion a year of unchecked funds from high-tech companies, twitter and the other five companies that is

getting these high-tech tax breaks here in the city. now this has been in exist *ens for a minimum of seven years. that is a total of $217 billion, minimum, that's not been collected in city revenue funds. so, as a result, to put it on the backs of city departments, when the truth of the matter is that a great deal of preferential treatment pertaining to revenue is being given to these high-tech companies. i feel it's unjust. moreover, it's contributing to the high cost of rents and causing people are on fixed income to be priced out of being able to afford housing. and every time the mayor's office on housing comes up with accepting new applications, you make the requirement to move in these buildings at an income level of people who are on fixed income can't afford to move in. as a result, you got homeless people out in the street and

you claim that you wanted to take care of the homeless problem. in fact, it brings into question and demonstrates this is a price gouging. so i move to have -- [bell ringing] an audit of all these high-tech companies -- [audio stops] >> thank you. thank you. you raise an interesting point. perhapss the mayor's budget office could perhaps respond. just thoughtfully. let me rephrase the question for you. mayor lee gave budget instructions to his department heads to make a certain percentage of cuts. the question, if i heard correctly, was how do we make cuts but yet continue to expand our services for the homeless? did i hear that correctly? >> yeah. it's unjust to put millions of dollars in building navigation

centers, which does nothing but concentrate people who need permanent housing just like everybody here in the boardrooms and everybody -- >> ok. hold on. public comment -- your public comment time has expired. i wanted to make sure -- through the board rules i can't allow you anymore time to speak. but i wanted to answer the question as i hear it and give melissa an opportunity to address the concerns that you raised. >> thank you. the mayor's budget direct to and i'd love to respond to this in a couple of ways. the first thing to keep in mind is the target proposals that we ask for from departments are really just suggestions around how the mayor can make a decision around balancing the budget. we do not take those cuts and automatically implement them and way can tell you at least for mayor lee is that he had really prioritized efficiency proposals and revenue target proposals. he did not propose any service cuts in the past -- well i think in my year, actually, that he proposed a budget. and i had anticipated that that would be similar in this upcoming year.

and i will definitely be speaking with acting mayor breed about that. and just on the homelessness piece, so we are definitely looking at expanding navigation centers and have been for several months. obviously again, it is a little bit up in the air now exactly what will be happening. but i can tell you that that is not the only thing we were doing. there is many other things that have been funded in this budget and would have been funded in next year's budget around adding supportive housing units. so, the budget that you all approved last year included 172 new supportive housing units. in addition to funding for navigation centers, rental subsidies and many other centers. we we're not looking at it as a solution for the city. the department can go into more detail if you like, but we're looking at permanent solutions as well as temporary solutions. >> all right. thank you. thank you very much. i'm sorry, sir. this is not a forum for you to -- for us to go back and forth. it's just public comment. i've already benefit the --

bent the rules as it is. sir, i'm sorry. your time is up. your time is up. any other member of the public that would like to speak? ok. thank you very much. public comment is closed. i appreciate your comments. now, again, i want to reintroduce the motion to continue item five and send it forward without a recommendation. thank you. we'll take that without objection. thank you so much. now madame clerk, could you please call item six and seven together? >> yes. item number six, resolution approving amendment number two to department of public health contract for behavioral health services with richmond area multiservices inc. and rehabilitation program to extend the contract by two years and 10 months with a corresponding increase of approximately $13 million for a total amount not to exceed approximately $22.6 million. item number seven, resolution approving amendment number one to the department of public health contract for behavioral

health service for richmond area multiservices inc. for peer-to-peer employment program to extend the contract by go years and six months with a corresponding increase of $11.6 million for a total amount not to exceed approximately $20.8 million. >> thank you. [please stand by] >> so i guess my initial

question is does that mean they will not be doing the services, or will they continue as a contractor? we need to turn the mic on. >> they will continue. we're exercising an option under the existing solicitation that would allow us to extend the contract and the particular vocational training is providing training opportunities for mental health consumers to prepare them with support and coaching to hopefully succeed in a job that's not supported, just out in the real world. for this one, we accept the recommendation by the budget analyst office, which looks like a big reduction. it is a big reduction, but it's not impactful because it's reducing funding expenditure authority out of the time period

that's passed. >> thank you. you may continue with your overall presentation. >> i think you covered it. >> the more i have on this contra contract. i can speak on the other one. it's essentially the same vendor, richard area multi-services center. this request is to extend the contract by two years and six months, bringing the total term through june 30th, 2020, so essentially the same situation it's authorized under the existing rsp authority, and we're exercising an option to continue the contract. so this program is providing peer training and employment. these are actual employment opportunities where the peers have been hired to do the specific work.

the other pieces of pierce certificate program, which is providing training and background and specific skills targeted toward enabling consumers to work in our behavioral health collin -- clinics and primary care clinics which is in response to the affordable care act. also, it is an effective way to help people to navigate through the system to be able to work with other peers, and this also has a reduction in it that reflects the unused expenditure authority for the contract which has passed. so we're okay with the amendment. >> thank you very much. we' we're going to go to the bla and hear their thoughts. >> on page 28 of our report, we

recommend the reduction not to exceed from 22.6 million to 27 million. this is a reduction of 1.864 million. this is based on the actual contract expenditures over the remaining term. and then for item no. 7, on page 31, we recommend a reduction of 1.7 million from the requested 20.7 million to 19 million. again, this recommendation is based on actual expenditures to date and projected expenditures over the remaining term. we do recommend approval of both contracts. >> thank you. so summarize the recommendation, they're suggesting to amend the resolution not the exceed the amount by $1.7 million. this is from 20.7 million to 19 million to match the contract amendment before us. are you in agreement with that? >> yes. >> let's take public comment on

item no. 7. is there anyone who would like the speak. we're six and seven. let's get a motion out there. >> supervisor yee? >> supervisor norman yee: i will make a motion to make the amendments as outlined for both items six and seven and pass both of these items out with a positive recommendation, as amended. >> supervisor cohen: we'll do that without objection. no. 8. >> clerk: requesting controller's office and mayor's office to report. >> supervisor cohen: thanks for hearing this item today. it's an incredibly difficult time for us as a city. last year, i directed the budget analyst and controller's office to conduct a report on our process.

also, a further analysis on how other comparable counties conduct their budget processes. more specifically, i also wanted to look at see how the local processes were influenced by the state and federal budget process. what we learned, we learned several valuable lessons. from the moment it was sent out to when the departments honor those directions and at the end, what has become apparent is there are many things i think we can begin to enhance and improve and really fine tune our legislative budget process. so i want to signal to everyone that my goal this year is to learn from last year's process and make the immediate improvements to make this year's

process more efficient and a better experience for everyone, including our stakeholders. so today we have a hearing from the budget legislative analyst. we have a presentation from the controller's office, as well as the mayor's budget office, all whom have had a chance to review and had a response to various recommendations proposed by the bla and the controller. i'm grateful for their expertise and helping us in this area. first, i would like to bring up the budget legislative analysts to present their findings. thank you for being here. >> thank you. good morning, chair cohen and members of the committee. i will be presenting on the report of the budget review process. in response to a request from supervisor cohen's office, we conducted a survey of how comparable cities and counties conduct their budget processes.

these included california cities with mayors and other peer cities with similar characteristics to san francisco. in all, we surveyed eight california counties, six california cities, and nine u.s. cities. the primary areas of focus for our review included independent analysis and reporting, the two-year budget cycle, and the timing of the legislative bodies review. we reviewed major trends, particularly in the general fund over the past five years. our source document for this analysis was the city's comprehensive annual financial report. because the most recent financial statement is dated as of june 30th, 2016, the review period is from 11/12 to 15/16.

since fiscal year '11-12, revenues have increased from 3 billion to 5.8 billion and expenditures have increased from 3.1 billion to 4.3 billion. we found these actual operating results have been more favorable than projections. i apologize for this chart. some of the key got cut off. so the blue bars show budgeted revenues, and the red bars show budgeted expenditures. the green lines show actual revenues, and the purple lines show actual expenditures. what this table shows you is actual fund revenues have exceeded general fund revenues in each of the five years, and

actual general fund expenditures were lower than budgeted general fund expenditures in each of the five years. so this surplus year to year has provided a boost to the city's reserves. since the school year '11-12, the fund balance has increased from 456 million to over 1.4 billion, or 214%. the city's most discretionary fund balance, which is the unassigned fund balance that you see on that table, grew over 1,000% from 7 million to 242 million. this is, we would note, in addition to the other city reserves, which include the rainy day reserve. since 2000, there have been a few legislative efforts to address certain aspects of the budget review process, particularly related to the

board's role. in 2001, the board passed an ordinance requiring the mayor to submit a preliminary budget on april 1st and stated the intention of the board to establish a new budget timetable by september 2002. in 2002, that resolution followed, and it added a commitment of the board to include policy directives to the mayor. in 2005, the board passed a resolution to provide by the mayor on june 1st. it was not signed by the mayor. one proposed a new timetable for the budget in july with a march 1st preliminary budget, and a may 1st proposed budget. this did not pass. instead, in september, the resolution that did pass

reiterated the current schedule, which is the may 1st deadline for enterprise budget and june 1st for general fund. we would also note that the controller initiated a budget improvement project in 2008, which included a perth comprehensive stakeholder survey, and some of the key recommendations of that process included the integration of performance management into budgeting and the need for the mayor and the board to provide policy direction in advance of the budget process. to understand how san francisco's budget process compares to other cities, we surveyed 26 jurisdictions. we did not include a discussion of the process in our report because it's a difficult subject to survey since many aspects of this process are undocumented. we do believe that our

recommendation, which we'll discuss regarding policy priorities, addresses the issue. we reviewed how legislative bodies receive budget information and found that one-third produced independent analysis and review. several of these jurisdictions having offices similar to ours. we reviewed the reports produced by those offices that would be beneficial to this board in its review. some of the context provided in those reports includes citywide and department budget trends, budget risks, such as revenue sources that have not yet been approved, the status of prior-year projects for appropriations, and major initiatives and program changes. as you all know, in november of 2009, san francisco voters passed proposition a, which

amended the city charter to transition to a two-year budget cycle for all departments. according to our survey, only three of the 23 use a two-year budget cycle. none of those are fixed. means that for each of the three jurisdictions there's some mid-cycle review or reappropriation. this indicates to us that the two-year fixed budgeted process is an uncommon practice. finally, we looked at the timing of the budget review and approval. we looked at major opportunities for legislative review and engagement and found that in some jurisdiction, there's a process by which the legislative body reviews a preliminary budget. some examples are alameda county, which reviews the maintenance of effort budget submitted by the county executive that speaks to some of the gaps that the county executive sees forthcoming. gives them an opportunity to

comment. in new york and portland, the preliminary budget is released in january and march, respectively, if for legislative bodies to begin review. we also found many jurisdictions provide policy direction to the executive office early in the budget development process. some examples of those are oakland, where the members submit a list of their priorities early in the winter. san diego, where the priorities are vetted such that there's some consent built before they're submitted to the mayor. in sacramento, where their budget office does sort of a feasibility analysis of recommendations and presents forward the ones that will be most feasible for implementation. we also looked at the timeline that these legislative bodies

have. we looked at those timelines as they're required by law and as they're implemented and practiced. we found there are 72 days on average for which the 23 bodies have to review the proposed budget. and that is compared to the current review period for san francisco, which is 60 days. in conclusion, we presented in our report three policy options for the board to consider. the first is to direct our office, the budget and legislative analysis to produce a budget overview report as part of our annual budget review in addition to the current reports that we produce that would look at some of those major citywide trends discussed. the second recommendation would be to amend the code to require the mayor to submit the proposed

budget for the city's general fund departments to the board no later than may 1st. the final recommendation is for the board to produce a list of annual policy priorities to submit to the mayor by february 1st for incorporation in the proposed budget. thank you. happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for the thorough present takes. supervisor yee has a few remarks. >> supervisor norman yee: thank you for your report and the options that you laid out. we'll take these options very serio seriously. they look to me like some things that can really benefit our process from the board of supervisors' perspective. i just want to ask one thing i

didn't get from this report. one of the major concerns we had from last year's budget process and on the previous is this whole -- how do we change if there's any possibility, this whole process of add backs. and this report doesn't seem to address that. is there a reason? >> i think there's a two-part answer to your question. the first part, in doing a survey, we were not able to identify other jurisdictions and how they did it because it's not really a documented process. so it wasn't really -- unlike some of the other things we speak about in the report, there was nothing we could point to that shows how other jurisdictions do it. the other piece of it is -- again, just reiterating, one of

the things we really focus on in this report is the idea of formally developing policy priorities and working for the board of supervisors to work with those early in the process. we see that actually is informing the budget as a whole, but also to the extent that we're reappropriating funds that were identified in june, that those could actually inform that process. and then ms. guma (phonetic) spoke about what other areas did. i'm going to have her add to that just a little bit. >> supervisor norman yee: thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor yee. in our survey, what we found were good examples in a couple of other jurisdictions about how our peer office supports their

legislative body in developing the policy priorities. i think particularly we thought that sacramento's process is something that would be a good model to consider here where the council members develop their list of priorities, and the budget analyst staff work with the council members and the departments to assess how feasible the implementation of those recommendations would actually be. they go through a process of evaluating the process and through that, they develop a final list of policy recommendations that's presented to the mayor for incorporation into the budget that's been cleared by the department. that's been -- you know there's some assurance that they will be actually able to move forward with those programs or expansion of programs that would be a policy priority.

>> supervisor cohen: do you have another follow-up? >> supervisor norman yee: yeah, i guess maybe one of the follow-ups we could have is have individual discussions between committee members and some of the sacramento's counsel. okay. that would be helpful. do you actually know who they are? >> the council members? we spoke with the budget analysts in sacramento who facilitate this process. if there was a meeting you would like arranged, we would be happy to do that. >> thank you. let's continue with the presentation. next up is mr. ben rosenfeld who is our city controller.

>> good afternoon. members of the chair. ben rosenfeld. similar to the review madame chair asked regarding other practices, you asked us for a qualitative survey regarding the local process. so we worked through the process this fall and issued a report about six weeks ago now, which is available on our website, regarding our findings. so i will briefly touch of these here. generally speaking, though, we administered a survey to multiple stakeholders, including board members themselves, members of the mayor's office, members of the budget legislative analysts office, and

others who participate in the process, whether they represent advocacy processes and lastly surveyed a number of different department staff. we were fundamentally asking two different questions, which at a high level, which aspects of the board's approach from the budget process from your perspective is effective and what could be approved. it was broad across the responses, in terms of what was working well. for many respondents, schedule management was high on the list. the comments that the board is effectively conducting a process to meet its charter deadlines that result in both the committee proposing a budget to the full board, and the full board adopting a budget by the end of the july, as the charter requires. there was also a fair amount of feedback that the board's process did allow for a number of different opportunities for

public participation in the process, whether they be commenting in public comment on different proposed budgets or the mayor's proposed budget or a number of community members thought they had access to board members who were receptive to their concerns. when asked what aspects of the board's budget process could be improved, a number of different themes were reported. these varied between groups. generally peeking, they fall in these areas. transparency, the key parts of the budget process. time pressure, a number of different participants felt it lacked for adequate time to conduct tasks at hand. third, feedback from different

groups that the board's approach to the budget could be more policy focused and less line-item focused. fourth, that some specific example of communications could be improved so that different stakeholders had clear expectations of how the process was going to work. and, lastly, this cuts across several themes above, that the process the board uses to reallocate savings to different uses could use significant work. if we look at these responses as a percentage of each of the respondents, you see it here. so about 50% of respondents commented that both transparency could be improved and the prosect could be improved. if we look across different

stakeholder groups, so the left bars reflect -- i'm sorry this is somewhat washed out on the slides you have in front of you, but on the left, you see responses from the board members themselves and the offices. the middle bucket represents internal stakeholders, those within the government that are participating within the budget process, and the far right are the extent stakeholders that participate. you can see results varieded pretty significantly across these groups in terms of what people thought could use work. a couple of themes pop up. you can see here for all three groups, the addback process is reported as an area that could bear significant improvement. those who participate in the board's process, it was said that transparency could be improved. those are the key themes we see in the results we have. so some thoughts, and there's a

lot of different ways that the board could approach these questions. the board has approached the budget process differently over time. there are a lot of different ways to bite into these issues. these are some preliminary thoughts from our office. first is that there are a number of steps that the board could take to maximize their time, the time they have available to review the budget, to reduce the time crunch that falls in june into which the board really packs a tremendous amount of decision making. part of it could be as simple as it has the five-member committee begins in march. you could move that up and begin earlier in the process. as you know, the city's budget process really starts in november. there's a lot to talk about, if the board was willing, as early

as january. secondly, the balance between the may departments and the june departments is an important consideration, how you offload work from june. by maximizing the number of departments and the scale of the departments that the mayor submits to you for review in may, you can really pull a lot of work off of june, which makes more time available for other tasks. that was really fundamentally the design that was sought with the split-budget process, where half the budget comes in both may and june. that's something we could work with, both the budget analysts and the mayor's budget office as we frame this coming year's budget process, is seeing how much could really be pulled forward to may for submission. lastly, how you think about what you want to conduct in june and july, what business you're

trying to conduct, and how you can pull much of that work earlier into the presubmission timelines is critical. there would be a number of different ways to do that. similar to the budget and legislative analysts, there would also be ways to identify the policy priorities earlier in the process and begin work on them in a way that would probably provide for more meaningful outcomes in the process and also provide for transparent process. again, there would be a number of different ways to approach that question. we do see -- and this is a more technical set of recommendations that relate to some of the feedback from different groups. there are pieces of stakeholder education and training that could be enhanced during the process. that's something we heard from different groups. and then lastly, the addback process itself. there would be a number of different ways to approach this. i thought this chart was interesting because it tells