tncs and we're taking comment and feedback from the taxi industry. it's certainly available for public comment as well. from that, we will be making our recommendations for steps to take moving forward and we will use the hearing that out all have proposed holding as one of the essentially public hearings for that process and a way to vet community feedback as well as to vet any recommendations that we come forward with. so those are the budget items on items 5 and 6. item 5 is the result of a state law requirement that we -- for any overpayments that we have for parking citations, that we make known those overpayments and try to seek return of those funds to those who have overpaid for whatever reason. people do apparently overpay

citations. we went through the state-mandated process to do that and this is for citations from the years 2005 to 2015. and at the end of that process, there remain $4 million that state law, fortunately for the general fund, says accrues to general city revenues. with this item, you would be accepting that and i believe the budget office has and fit -- anticipated these revenues with regard to the budget they're preparing. and item 6 is an item -- somewhat of a technical change, but the board of supervisors authorized the sfmta to establish a commercial paper program for funding, just as you have with the transportation authority. there was a line of credit associated with that commercial paper program that was set to expire. through a competitive process, we got a better deal on that

line of credit. but because that line of credit was part of the approval that you provided, changing the letter of credit requires your approval and that's what's under item 6. so we would respectfully recommend your approval of items 5 and 6. i would be happy to answer any questions about those or the budget. >> supervisor cohen: colleagues, any questions? seeing none. i have a few questions. >> supervisor fewer: i want to comment on the $150,000 flexible funds for crossing guards. i'm in disagreement with supervisor sheehy that the funds should be flexible. i think the fact is that our children go to school every day, monday through friday, and even though i understand that you are making capital improvements, i don't think it's adequate enough. in my district, we have -- we

have requests for crossing guards on corridors that actually, i think, require a human being to stop the traffic. my husband was a traffic cop for nine years, a police officer for 35, but all he did was strict enforcement on a solo motorcyclist. people do not stop at stop signs people do not yield for pedestrians. he said he is able to give tickets one after another not yielding to pedestrians. when we think about our children going to school themselves, this is crucial. and i actually think that the proposal of having crossing guards on a 20-hour workweek with benefits, makes it an opportunity also for some of our seniors to gain employment that is not only worthwhile and socially fulfilling, but also meet some of the basic requirements of them to be able to live here in san francisco. i feel like this is a small opportunity that m.t.a. can accommodate in their $1.1

billion budget. we're talking about a cost of about $2 million. and i believe that you cannot put a pricetag on the cost of a child being injured going to school and so i am pushing m.t.a. to sink into their budget an additional $2 million to actually have those crossing guard jobs be something that is permanent. i'm hearing from crossing guards that if they call in sick, there is no one to take their place. i don't believe that upping the amount from 195 to 215 solves the problem of recruitment. i think that it's going to take something that is much more foundational to make this -- to make recruitment not so difficult and attract a more stable and realible work force without turnover and also, as i said before, supervisor yee and i are really looking at employment opportunities for

seniors. a part-time job like this, i believe, is actually, could be a absolute to some homelessness, but also to food insecurity for our seniors. i urge you and the board to really look closely at this and see if you can fit that into your budget. i realize you are going into negotiations next year with seiu, but i think that this at this time, especially when we start school in august, that we -- i want to see our crossing guards in all of our schools be fully staffed with crossing guards. we hear constant complaints also from parents about crossing streets even with their children as adults. i think because these crossing guards are very visible. they carry some authority with them and they don't cross just children. they cross everyone. they cross me when i'm crossing the street. so i'm looking to m.t.a. to actually see to it that this is in the budget.

and i want to address the taxi issue. the taxi issue in your report gives some recommendations, but there is no -- there is no relief for any sort of -- the financial responsibility on the medallions. to make the medallions have more value is not even addressing the issue that these people have taken out loans of $250,000. they come to our board meetings every tuesday. some of them have four and five children. they have lost their homes. they can't even feed their children. people are now -- they are working seven days a week. they're working all day and all night. this is the working class of san francisco. and i agree that m.t.a. had no say in the takeover of the tncs, but this has had an adverse effect on their lives and i feel like it is also very inhumane and heartless to not have a plan

to address this financially. this burden, if they default on their loans, it affects their ability to ever get another loan, to get them out of another financial crisis. and so i'm asking the m.t.a. to come up with more than just a -- what was suggested in the report. i think i need something much more foundational. and until these issues are addressed, i personally cannot approve an m.t.a. budget. i know that our ability at the board and the way the charter is written gives me no option but to vote up or down the m.t.a. budget and knowing how the city depends on m.t.a. and people in my district are some of them wholly dependent on m.t.a. to get them to and from work, it pains me. but i think the two issues -- and i believe because i came before the m.t.a. board, before they even adopted a budget, to bring up these concerns, gave

enough headway time and also leeway time to come up with some solid suggestions that actually attack the problem that we're dealing with. and so i also wanted to mention that i would like to see an expansion of language access, meaning that expansion of language is available and including more languages for outreach and for surveys. and i think that when i held a hearing on language access ordinance, m.t.a., you spent very little of your budget, your $1.1 billion budget, on language access. for example, i have a russian population in my neighborhood that is dependent on public transportation and no one has asked them what their needs are in their native language. i just think that -- i understand that the m.t.a. has a huge budget and it's a huge job, but these main issues brought before the commission, i

actually feel like i am not getting a remedy or solution or anything that fully addresses the foundational issues. personally, i'm unable to approve a budget that doesn't show me some real solutions to these problems. and because i think they're really important to the livelihood of people in san francisco, it aligns with a vision zero goal. it affects every neighborhood. and it affects really the economy of people who are just trying to make a living here in san francisco. i see that we have other people on our list. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. i have a quick question about some of the fees that i noticed that were increasing as part of the budget. and some of those pertain to the on-street car share permit fee. how were the increases

determined? >> thank you for the question, through the chair, supervisor s thank you , all of our cost fees that we add up, labor costs and also labor costs, for the on-streetcar share program, for example, there's signage, there's paint for the curb, but largely, it's labor costs. so we add up all the costs and divide by the number of units that we anticipate. so for the car share program, the number of cars on the street. what we found in the last few years, is that the number of cars that were authorized under the program, the car share companies are not putting out as many as we had anticipated and some it's because of neighborhood concerns, parking loss, any other reasons. the demnominator is essentially

the same. that's why in part the costs go up and generally the costs of the increases and labor costs from the citywide and m.t.a. labor agreements bring the costs up. i have met with, both, my staff and one of the companies and found that there are some opportunities that we may have to reduce costs. there are a lot of staff time dealing with tows of car share vehicles that shouldn't have happened. so one of the things that we're looking at is how to fix the process so if that doesn't happen, we can reduce the amount of staff we need to have to manage the program, we would be able to reduce the fees, but we are committed as a principal of our budget that fees for programs like this do cover the

cost of administering the program, so we're not subsidizing essentially the programs. we don't want to have to reduce muni service to enable to private car share operators to have street access. we want the program to be successful, but we want it to cover its costs. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. >> supervisor yee: thank you, director. in regards to the $150,000 that you were talking about for the crossing guards to be flexible, just curious -- i heard that you say that it could be used for additional sites or some other usage. i guess -- i'm not too sure if the flexibility includes increasing hours to people so that they can go elsewhere -- as we sort of discussed last -- was

it last week, is it an idea that's completely off the books for your commission at this point? >> so the issue of expanding hours is not what's contemplated. what is contemplated here was creating slots for more schools or more intersections to have crossing guards. and then the flexibility is what i thought i had heard from the committee last week or at least maybe it was just from one member, such that if those weren't needed, because we have, with the additional 20, we will have filled all the known, outstanding needs that we have, that we would be able to flex those funds to other purposes consistent with getting kids to school safely. in terms of the change in hours or the structure of the crossing guard program, the city does have collective bargaining

agreement in place with 10-1. the crossing guards are covered under the city's labor contract, not the m.t.a.'s. they've raised this issue outside of the bargaining process. there is language in the collective bargaining agreement that establishes the process by which any such matter that comes up outside of the bargaining process is to be handled and we're fully committed to working through that process and engaging with seiu on a discussion about this. this didn't come up to me until fairly recently and i -- when it did, i wrote back, you know, responded in writing, saying that we're committed to exploring this with you. [please stand by]

per -- last night i was at the transportation authority community advisory committee, and one of your appointees was telling me even with the service we added is so crowded often she cannot get on, why can't we add more service. so, we have a lot of demands on the resources of agency from a lot of different areas that we serve and the budget is a reflection of our best attempt to balance the different interests and meet the most

critical needs and i believe that the additional, now two increases to the proposal for crossing guards and conjunction with all of the other work we do in terms of education and engineering and enforcement around the schools is a reasonable step forward and we remain as committed as you do to making sure that our kids and everybody can get to and from the school safely. >> supervisor yee: i appreciate you have to balance all these demands. i would like to make a suggestion and maybe outside of the bargaining activities. can we actually do a pilot project of some sort to test out whether it's feasible to move some of these crossing guards after they finished their hours at the public school and may or may not be services for seniors two blocks away, whether or not

we could try that and see what happens on a smaller scale? part of the reason why i keep on bringing it up with the seniors is that we are, i think we are going to have a hearing on this to look at why there are so many of the collisions that are happening to seniors and fatalities, and since we know that's happening, seems like one of the potential assistance to reducing that would be crossing guards for the seniors. i don't know if that's true, i don't have any data about that, i'm just going on intuition. so, for me this, i'm motivated for not just one reason, but a couple reasons to try this out. >> yes, thank you. and through the chair, i appreciate that and that may well be a very good way for us to test that. i think we would want to first

evaluate to see if your intuition matches the data and the knowledge that we are able to glean. and it's something that we can certainly explore with sciu consistent with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement process. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> thank you very much. again, mr. reskin, wondering on item 5, up to 4 million, could we not take that and fund the crossing guards at 20 hours a week? >> in terms of the disposition of those funds, that's fully in the hands of the board of supervisors. in terms of how we are scheduling or making changes in the collective bargaining process, that's something that there is a process that the city and sciu have agreed to go through when there are issues such as a request for this kind of change and that process would need to be honored. that's a contract that was also approved by the board of

supervisors. >> is it possible for this board to say we would take 2 million out and put it into a fund that you are going to put $150,000 in to decide to ensure that there would be funds to hire these crossing guards at 20 hours a week? >> so, again, the disposition of these funds is wholly in the board of supervisors. if you approve the item, the dollars fall to the general fund and falls in your jurisdiction how you see fit. >> i see the controller standing up. >> good morning, supervisors. he is correct. this really is a choice before the board in june. to the extent that you reduce this transfer to the general fund and leave these funds with the m.t.a., it would provide additional resources with the m.t.a. create another challenge on the other side of that in your deliberations regarding the june 1st budget in the general fund.

simply needs to balance as part of your kind of final determinations about how you want to spend general fund money. >> and a one-time source of funds, going forward, we could expect the numbers to be probably a fifth of what these are, so, if we were to use these funds for this agency or any other agency, we would we creating a shortfall in the out years as well. >> only other option then for you to find the money in your $1.1 billion budget, is that correct? >> that is correct? >> right. so, we -- we could cut muni service, for example, to fund, to pay should we renegotiate

with sciu, the crossing guards to provide school service, we would have to do that from within our budget, if not from excess general fund one-time revenues, that's correct. >> i think mr. reskin, the proper wording is allocate funds to adequately staff the current demand for crossing guards to serve school students on a daily basis of when schools are operating. >> yes, i understand that. i believe what we have proposed does that, but i -- >> you have answered the question. >> supervisor cohen: so, i have a quick question, i want to direct to probably ben. ben, what would be the general fund cost if we were to kick in to absorb the operational costs of m.t.a.?

if m.t.a., their budget was not funded. i'm hesitant to go down this line of questioning, but on the record, a considerable chunk of money coming from the general fund. if we do not approve m.t.a. budget, that means the general fund would have to kick in. because life does need to keep going, the wheels need to keep going on the bus, so how much would that actually cost us? >> it's a good question, supervisor, and i don't have the answer to it. >> supervisor cohen: must cost a lot if you don't have the answer. at your fingertips right here, right now. >> i don't know if that's the case. but the way the charter provisions work, if the board of supervisors reject the m.t.a. budget, charter provides the controllers office is to make continuing provisions from the general fund for services. >> thank you very much. i want to be clear and on the record, not only for you, director, but also to the commissioners and the folks

listening and watching. i am not interested in moving in that direction. i am interested in making sure that we are asking thoughtful questions as it relates to the m.t.a. budget. particularly paying close and careful attention to particularly the revenue arm of the m.s.a. and the contributions that it makes to the city. so, i want to talk a little about item six now. item 6 authorizes five-year, $100 million a year credit for capital financing. b.l.a. report, 12% increase, 12% interest rate on this commercial paper. is that -- is that standard, or is that high? oh, hello, is that standard, or high, and what's driving this interest rate? >> good morning, supervisors, thank you for asking the question. 12% is the standard rate in all the city and all the commercial payment programs, p.u.c., a max

rate that all the agreements use as a standard max rate. we have never been close to that, but we, all city departments include that. >> who sets that standard max rate? >> the office of public finance is the one that helped us determine that rate, and i think it's based on, and maybe ben can answer that question. >> we'll defer to the controller. who sets that rate? >> just to be clear, this rate, memory serves correctly, actual borrowing rate on the actual commercial program paper we have in place for the city and the m.t.a. is much, much lower than that. hovering at or below 1% interest in recent years. >> considerably lower. >> creating a legal ceiling. >> i understand. >> i think it's a state, the state legislation that it's a 12% rate that's the maximum rate that local governments can charge, and the city basically used that for all the commercial

programs. >> all right. thank you. next question is actually related to item five. what kind of outreach for people who have overpaid parking tickets? kind of a simple question but one that my office gets all the time. >> so, if you have overpaid, we send you a letter initially saying you haveover paid, please let us know you want the money back, so we send you initial notice, 60 days after you have overpaid. if we don't hear back from you, we try to contact you one more time. of that, two years during the budget process, we do a public outreach process, list all the people on the website who are potential refunders, once again, third time you can get your money back. >> where can we get it -- >> m.t.a. website. we do do outreach group, we do

it on the tv, we do it on the radio. and then we post it also. >> to be fair, i've never heard it on the radio, or on the television. >> i just wanted to make sure that people -- it's a fair question. people overpay unknowingly, they have done a good thing by paying the ticket, and we have the responsibility -- >> we would rather refund the money to the individual. after multiple tries we see that the state requires us to put the funds back to general fund. >> my follow-up question, what types of violations are -- are most frequently overpaid? >> the biggest citation is a parking meter and street sweeping as a result of that. and sometimes they are multiple citations so people think they have paid for one, and it's, it

could be a variety. but the parking meter violations are probably the biggest overpayment. >> thank you very much. to the b.l.a. team. do you have a report on items 5 and 6? >> we have a report on the commercial paper. >> supervisor cohen: i would love to hear your thoughts. >> so, as you noted, the commercial paper program is $100 million and then the maximum 12% interest rate would add another $9 million, so what the board is up to 109 million. pointed out that 12% interest rate maximum, you see that in all this type of legislation, and it's not the actual interest rate that would be paid. on page, sorry, get to the page of the report. there are annual fees that go with the commercial paper program. somehow i lost that page. yes, page six of the report, i'm

sorry. close to $500,000 per year for the program, and then also the cost of authorizing, about 171,000, but the commercial paper also is low interest loan pending issuance of bond and other debt and we recommend approval. >> supervisor cohen: recommend approval. thank you four that recommendation. seeing that there are no further questions for item six and -- 5 and 6, i think we should go to public comment, any member of the public like to comment on 5 and 6, please come up to the podium. 5 and 6. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. b.l.a. has made a recommendation. >> supervisor yee: for item 5, in terms of the transfer to general funds, is that already accounted for in the mayor's budget?

>> you don't mind me answering, kelly kirkpatrick. committing the mayor's budget on june 1st and we are considering it as a source to help balance the general fund for that budget and more details will be provided on june 1st, but we are considering that a general fund balancing source. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: don't worry, june 1st, all living for june 1st. some for june 5th, too, i might add. certainly in this committee, this world is living for june 1st. ok. so, the b.l.a. made a recommendation as it relates to item 6. can we take that recommendation without objection? >> i don't believe it's a recommendation to amend, just to approve. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much, appreciate that. let's take items 5 and 6 together and i'll make a motion to approve with the positive recommendation. may i take that without objection? and supervisor yee second that motion. without objection, thank you. >> items 5 and 6 adopted without

objection with supervisor sheehy being absent. >> supervisor cohen: that's right. >> clerk: excused. >> supervisor cohen: he's excused. next up will be the environment. department of the environment. are you guys ready? >> supervisor yee: madam chair? i wanted to ask you, did you accept the recommendations on both the port and the library? i know you did on the airport. >> supervisor cohen: the port and the library? >> the departments both agreed with those recommendations, and i'm not sure if the committee -- budget recommendations concerning the port budget and the budget recommendations concerning the library budget. >> item 4 is the library -- >> this is items 1, 2, and -- >> supervisor cohen: i see what you are saying. we have, i don't think we took action on that, correct me if i'm wrong. >> that's my understanding that you did accept the recommendations regarding the airport budget.

>> supervisor cohen: but did not take a vote. >> you did on the airport. >> clerk: the vote was rescinded. no actions at this time. >> my question was, the same thing on the library and the -- >> supervisor cohen: no, that was not done for the library and the port. that's incorrect. ok. all right. department of the environment, welcome. >> thank you, good afternoon. supervisors and madam chair. thank you harvey rose and kerry tam from the board budget legislative analyst office, kelly and chris from the mayor's budget analyst, and pleased to say we accept the recommendation and have no challenges. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much for being here. colleagues, do you have any other questions for the department of the environment? all right. thank you. we can take public comment --

actually, no. we'll move on, already taken public comment. >> clerk: public comment has been taken on these items already. >> supervisor cohen: mr. rose. >> you want to hear our report on the environment? >> supervisor cohen: yep, waiting to hear it. >> on page 25, our recommended reductions to the budget total 194754, and 18-19. of that amount, 94,300 ongoing savings, 100,454, 1-time savings, and for 19-20, recommended reductions total 94300, and all of those are ongoing savings. and as i understand it, the department does concur with the recommended reductions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i have a question for the director. it has to do with the solid waste contract. specific, what does the solid waste contract recommended for reduction do?

>> specifically, illegal? dumping-related? >> i'm just trying to find that particular item in here. i apologize for that. the solid waste contract, i do not -- what is the dollar amount on that, and then i can find it. >> sure, hold on a minute. i can look for that. mr. rose, do you have that information? >> yes. >> page -- you are correct, madam chair. page 26. other professional services. and the reduction is going from 94,940, to 38156, and based on historical expenditure and the projection for the new year. >> that's professional. professional service contract for that item is used to assist on analysis of the performance of the department and to look at

the solid waste functioning, the contract is not going to be happening this year. that item is not up for renewal. >> supervisor cohen: are there any campaigns or any kind of outreach or -- >> oh, yes. >> supervisor cohen: things maybe in the pipeline when it comes to heightening people's awareness of illegal dumping? >> in terms of the illegal dumping, that's in our budget, our program areas for environmental justice and impound account for the 0 waste program, where we work very close with the housing authority. we also work with the bayview hunters point neighborhood through a particular task force. ivan task force, to set up cameras and to work with neighborhoods and public works and the public health department to attack illegal dumping in that neighborhood in particular. >> supervisor cohen: in what way do you partner with recology? >> partnership with recology, identifying, using the public works hot spots information to

find out where are the areas of particular challenges and then to decide who can respond most quickly. recology, the public works staff so we can take care of it. >> ok. and so i am very sensitive to the large items like dressers, couches, mattresses, that you see when people basically are moving, moving out, generally. you see it on the corner, and it's very innoculous, people think they are doing a wonderful thing, i don't know who would want to take someone else's mattress, that's my bias. >> when you were thinking illegal dumping i was thinking on the commercial sector, but your point is incredibly well taken. and we are way upping the outreach on the bulky item pick-up. we had not been promoting bulky item pick-up to a lot of the public housing areas in

particular, one area, and we have that option open to all in san francisco, so we are doing mailers, letting them know in the bill, and through the ad campaigns that they have the opportunity for free pick-up, it's part of their garbage rate twice a year. because you are right, they think well, somebody is going to take it away, and yes, somebody does, but in the interim, you have an eye sore and a hazard on the sidewalk. >> ok. i appreciate that, and glad to know you don't like it either. all right. any other questions? thank you. let's keep moving. department building of inspection. then we'll hear from the retirement board.

>> good afternoon, supervisors, here on behalf of director tom heely and on behalf of the director, thank the budget analyst, and the budget accepts the recommendations. >> supervisor cohen: can't let you go that easily. we have to ask you something. let's see here -- 1.6 budget increase in year 1, and 1.6 reduction in year two. you have 25.2 f.t.e. increase in year one, but year one, stable. budget changes are driven by tall building peer review. maybe you can talk about that and building entrance reform. >> yes. so, also with the successful business, that's legislation that director heely talked about the first meeting, basically one of our largest programs that we'll implement.

we have to reach out to over 25,000 small businesses or businesses throughout, to ensure that they have business entrances, and so we have included additional funding for outreach, for advertising and actually, we have started on that already. >> let me interject here. and in the outreach and advertising, i'm going to make an assumption that it will be in multiple languages. >> yes, all of our outreach and languages. >> and scour every square inch of san francisco and make sure that all neighborhoods get touched. >> yes. where there are small businesses, we first will start with the database of mailing out information, walking different business, neighborhood business corridors, we will visit what we normally do, go to different language radio stations. we print in different language neighborhoods, comprehensive. >> trick question for you. does this also include cannabis business? >> it can. it's a small business, so

it's -- if the type of business does not determine whether or not you are included, it's acceptable, if it's any type of business. >> thank you. appreciate that. sometimes when we think of the accessibility, we are thinking about retail shops or even a restaurant. so i'm just wondering if -- if you've narrowed your search or narrowed the scope as to what businesses you are going to be reaching out. sounds like it's going to be all small businesses, very, very broad. no one is going to be excluded. >> so the legislation is pretty broad and so we had not heard of any exclusions at this point. now, there will be ways as reaching out and there are going to be different tiers. so, the first thing to reach out to everyone to determine whether or not you are impacted by this or not, so, that's the first thing that we are doing. >> appreciate that. thank you. >> supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: yes, wondering in your budget proposal, are you able to hire more inspectors?

>> yes, we are able to hire more inspectors. we have been hiring inspectors, permit clerks and engineers over the past 2, 3 years. we have done very aggressive outreach, and so we will continue to do that. we are right now, i think this month we'll be having interviews for more plumbing inspectors. we expect to be hiring more electrical inspector, as well as building inspectors. in our proposal we did not increase our budget by 25 f.t.e., to clarify that. actual f.t.e. count remains the same. >> what? >> 275. >> thank you. that's the actual authorized positions. however, because of a number of retirements and vacancies, that's the way we recruit. so, we have vacancies, every month, this week alone, three different interviews, so recruitments throughout.

>> ok. do you plan to increase overall number of inspectors that go out, store fronts, code violations? >> the way we'll increase that, yes, by filling vacancies. but we have not actually increased the number of f.t.e., but have capacity in our already authorized budget to meet those increased because we have some vacancies. >> you know, in my district, we discovered 156 vacant store fronts and i know that that will require for an inspector to go out and see each one. so, i am wondering if in your budget that you might be adding more, not just filling the vacancies, but actually upping the amount that you have. allocated amount. >> well, so if you want to know if we are going to go from x number of inspectors to x plus inspector, yes, we are, but we are not doing that by increasing

our normal overall f.t.e. we have capacity, we had vacancies right now. so, yes, the answer is we do recognize code enforcement. we had discussed this before the code enforcement, one of our priorities. and so of course vacant store fronts would also in general so code enforcement, too. so, we are willing to fill positions, we know we have a variety of legislative mandates that have come across that we have to be able to do that with. >> ok, thank you. any other questions, colleagues? >> supervisor yee: a follow-up question. when you say you have some capacity because you are trying to fill positions, have you been, has the department always been underemployed in terms of not being able to fill positions, or was there a period where you actually had positions filled? because if that's, if the answer

is yes, then it seems still, the question that supervisor fewer raises, is also my concern is that even at capacity, if it were at capacity, there was -- there were complaints about not having enough inspectors to do the work that we need to have done in san francisco. >> yes, i understand the question. so, i've been with the department for the past four years or so and we have not been at capacity. and so that's why we had not requested additional. if you can recall during the down turn, the department had laid off a lot of employees, and we started to build that up by increasing the numbers. and so we have increased the numbers, and so what we have been trying to do, basically using the existing from those increases and filling them. what one of the challenges that we do have, and from this year

alone, we had about 25 retirements. a lot of times what we have done in, for instance, on the permit text, also very important was actually what code enforcement and everything else, they are actually scheduling inspections, actually doing all the paperwork. so, for instance, for permit text, we had a variety of permit tech 2's retire, so we had vacancy, we filled them with 1's, it's a good thing to have promotions, the best to do the vacancy. so, the short answer, we have not been at capacity yet and that's what we are working toward, and getting closer so every year we are able to balance a little bit more with the retirement, versus the aggressive hiring, too. and definitely focus on that for the coming year, too.

>> page 19 of the report, recommended reductions, total 803,327 in 18-19. 303598 are one-time savings, allow increase of 445037, or 6/10% in the 18-19 budget. and 19-20, recommended reductions 498013, all of that amount is, our recommended reductions of ongoing savings. the department concur, shown on pages 20 through 22 of our report. >> real quick, reductions from

delays in hiring and then also the delay purchase of two vehicles, is that right? >> that is correct, madam chair. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> san francisco retirement. >> thank you for coming back. >> good afternoon, executive director for the retirement system. thank you, madam chair, supervisors. i would also like to thank the mayor's budget staff as well as the legislative analyst staff and helping us work with our budget, i'm pleased to report that we agree with the budget analyst recommendations today. >> supervisor cohen: ok, thank you. i think most of the cuts are from delays in hiring, some from reduction. a question that i asked the director last week, i hope you have the answer for me. >> i don't have the answer.

i do know he's working with miss bravelton on that. don't have the information at this time. >> additional cost police officers and the long-term how that will reflect and man test in the pension. again, i think in four years we'll have something like 250 cops fo farrell's budget is approved. trying to finds out what the costs are. >> might have to read off notes to get you the proper detail. but just wanted to assure you, so, within the upcoming two-year budget, the costs of pension-related contributions for the city are included. in the mayor's planned hiring plan, about $22 million over the two years of the budget. for staffing of that, about 3.5 million is related to

pension contributions. for future years, going beyond the budget, we make assumptions and coordination with the retirement board about returns and costs and so $2.7 million under current assumptions per year after the budget, and that is included in the cost projections we make. anything beyond that would be subject to, you know, the changes in our returns and any other policies or changes in the economy. but generally under our current assumptions, it's $2.7 million for the out years outside the budget for pension-related contributions for the city. >> supervisor cohen: that's pretty high. thank you. again on top of what we already are obligated to pay. let me ask a question to the b.l.a. mr. rose. when you make your recommendations, you ever take into consideration the long-term expense or the long-term costs

on the pension when we are hiring and bringing in f.t.e.s? is that factored in? >> actually, our -- sorry, madam chair, members of the committee. our budget analysis on the retirement system is consistent with all departments where we would only look at actual expenditures, prior experience, projected. >> supervisor cohen: my question isn't about the retirement board's budget. my question is more general. >> i see. >> many departments, for example, we heard that the port is going to be making a hire. we heard that, and you reviewed that the airport is going to have, forget the exact number, 25 police officers hired. so, my question is, when you look at the, when you look at the overall budget, do you take

into consideration the long-term costs? i know you take into consideration the cost of academy classes, i know you take into consideration the cars and all that stuff. but these people that we are adding to city employment will at some point retire and they will be expecting to draw down benefits. i'm just wondering if there is coordination between the retirement board and the request for new f.t.e.s. >> the retirement would be accounted for in the, each individual department does project their retirement costs. so that that is included in the budget. in terms of our specific analysis, it would not analyze that specifically. >> so i just want to recognize, at this point we have not heard from the police department and their particular budget. so, i'll reserve the rest of my

line of questioning so when this department comes before us. all right. and hopefully i'll have an answer, i'm sure i will, by, well before then. >> i know they are working on it. >> supervisor cohen: yeah, ok. something to constantly think about. all right. anything else that you want to present? >> no. >> supervisor cohen: and i think we heard from the budget legislative analyst on this? harvey, i think you've already -- you have any recommendation concerns? >> no, briefly on page 59, our recommended reductions total 410332, that's an 18-19, that amount, 50,782 are ongoing savings. and there are one time savings, allow increase of 14,108,150, or 14.5%, the department's budget. regarding 19-20, recommended

reductions 45180, all of that, those very deductions are ongoing savings, still allow for increase of 11.9 million, or 10.9% in the department's 19-20 budget. >> thank you very much. thank you. colleagues, any questions? go on to the p.u.c. thank you. and mr. clerk, could you call items 8-13 in conjunction with the p.u.c. presentation. >> clerk: item 8, ordinance, $340 million hetch hetchy revenue, cap-and-trade, and power revenue bonds, hetch hetchy capital improvement program. item 9, approximately $483 million of proceeds from revenue bonds state of california water resource control board revolving loan fund or grant fund, water

revenue and water fees for the san francisco public utilities commission. water enterprise capital improvement. item number 10, approximately 1,000,000,217 million of proceeds from revenue funds, revolving loan fund, or grand fund, wastewater revenue and capacity funds, wastewater enterprise capital improvement program. 11, ordinance authorizing issuance and sale of tax exempt or taxable power revenue bond and other forms of indebtedness, not to exceed $154 million, item 12, ordinance authorized ordinance of tax exempt or taxable water revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the san francisco utility public

commission and not to exceed approximately $478 million. and item 13, ordinance to authorize issuance and sale of taxable wastewater revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the utilities commission, not to exceed $987 million. >> supervisor cohen: all right, thank you, appreciate that. items 8 through 13 really are authorizing revenue bonds aan associated appropriations for the capital projects for water, power, sewer at the p.u.c. they total, i think with power, specifically hetch hetchy and the cap-and-trade, $340 million. for water, $483 million, and then wastewater-sewer, 987 million. so, why don't you share with us. thank you. >> i have a few comments. chair cohen, committee members, eric sandler, c.f.o. of the

p.u.c. so, the six items before you, 8-13, relate to our two-year capital budgets for the enterprise, hetch hetchy water and power, water enterprise and wastewater enterprise. and last week the general manager reviewed a number of key capital programs and i discussed the vetting and adoption process and review process of the c.i.p., included the commission review, and the capital planning committee. in terms of a summary of the appropriations, hetch hetchy water and power, $350.02-year appropriation. some of the projects are the mountain tunnel project, rehab, and investments in local distribution assets. water, $483 million, 2-year appropriation. the project funded, completion of the water system improvement program, and then replacement

projects such as pipelines and pump stations and water mains. wastewater is $1.2 billion and that is primarily s.s.i.p. phase one, as well as replacement of sewer mains. and r and r generally. so, items 8, 9, and 10 appropriate the sources and the uses for the capital plan. and items 11, 12, 13, authorize the issuance of revenue bonds or other forms of indebtedness to fund a portion of those three capital programs. in addition, item 13 also authorizes the issuance of revenue refunding bonds, in case we can refinance our debt. debt is one of the largest expenses, and provides us the flexibility to refinance debt should it be economic.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you, approach your presentation. let's pivot to hear the budget legislative analyst, if there are any thoughts. particularly interested in hearing from you and also from you, the p.u.c. presentation last week indicated that there were 13 new f.t.e.s and the b.l.a. report has it at 36.26. so, i don't understand, maybe you can reconcile this for me. >> i think in those reports we don't actually look at the staffing in terms of the capital budget. that will be in the report. so, i want to go over these items, 8-13 briefly. we do spell out for each of them, an approval of bond authority for the hetchy power revenue bonds. for the water enterprise and the wastewater enterprise, and each

of them, a capital appropriation. and i will not go over those unless you request the information, but some general points. p.u.c. does have a debt coverage policy for issuance of the bonds. all of them fall in that existing policy. in terms of power revenue bonds, there is a rate increase that would apply to covering capital and operating costs for hetchy power. the increase redo summarize on page 12 of the report, general increase on electricity rates, general fund departments, half a cent for kilowatt hour, half a cent increase. in terms of the increase in water rates and sewer rates, this is for capital and operating costs to cover both the water enterprise and the sewer, wastewater enterprise.

for the water, on page 19 of our report we say that the, there's combined water and sewer bill. average residential bill is about $106, $48 is water, and 58 is sewer. approval of the bonds and the operating expenses for the water enterprise would increase those by about $4 per year in 18-19, and about an additional $5 in 19-20. we summarize it on page -- wastewater, excuse me, on page 27, against the combined bill for the sewer rate component. increase by $4 in 18-19, and 19-20. impact on the rates for these. in all three pieces with

legislation, the board is approving the issuance of the power bonds, wastewater bonds and the water bonds through proposition e, two-thirds vote of the board to approve the bonds. there is no cap on the amount of bonds that the board can authorize. p.u.c. practice is to come every two years and ask for an increase in bond authority that's consistent with their new two-year capital projects. but what happens to the prior bonds, things change. projects change, financing costs change. there are bonds that are allocated -- authorized but never sold or only sold over a long period of time. and what you are not seeing when the legislation comes forward, is the details on what the board is already authorized and what's outstanding. and so for each of these resolutions, ordinances, the