per -- last night i was at the transportation aityor community advisory committee, and one of your appointe 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 eases 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 prt ofome sort 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 cou try that and see what happ on amaller 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 the crossing guards at 20 hours a week? >> in terms of the disposition of those funds, that's in the hands of the board of supervisors. in terms of how we are schedugaking changesn e colleinve 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 is it possible fo t 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 provideonah a. create another challenge on the other side of that in your deliberati regarding the june 1st budget in the general fund. simplyneeds to balance as part of yourind 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 fhe u to 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 w sciu, the crossing guards to provide school service, we would have to do that from

within our budget, if not from ex fund one-time revenues, that's correct. >> i think mr. , 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 >> yes, i understanthat 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 funde 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 g question, supervisor, and i don't have the swer to >> supervisor cohen: must cost a lot if you don't have the answer. at y fingertips right now. >> i don't know if that's the case. but the way the charter provisions work, if the boar o supervisors reject.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, directorbhe commsioners 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 a

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 r 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 coller. srate? >> 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 undan >> 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 thercime 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 yo ice gets all >> 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 ovpaif dearack f tryweto contact you one more time. of that, two years during the budget process, we do a public outreach process, list all the people onhe t website who are potential refunders, once you t 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 thateople -- it's a fair question. le unknowin have done a good thing by paying the ticket, and we have the responsibility -- >> we would rather refund the ter multiple tries we see that to general fund.s us to put tha >> my follow-up question, what of violations are -- are most frequy overpaid? >> th 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 f and's, it could be a variety. but the parking meter violations are probably the biggest overhank>>ener much. to the b.l.a. team.

do you have a report on items 5 and 6? >>hav onhe commercial r. >> servisor cohen: ild love to hear your ughts. >> so, as you noted, the commercial paper program is $100 million and then the maximum 12% interest rate would addnot ar $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 ra p 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 $500,000er yar for theprogra then also the cost of authorizing, about 171,000, but the commercial

paper also is low interest loan pending issuance bd d oval recommend >> supervisor cohen: recommend approval. thank you four that recommendation. seeing that there are no further questions for item six and -- 5 and i think we should go to public comment, any member of the public like toom 5 and 6, pleasee 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 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 fundt fudget 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: dt 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 i 5 and 6 and mak i'llon to approve with the positive recommendation. may i take that without anerviupor y 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? wantedo 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 departmentsoth agreed with those recommendations, and i'm not sure if the committee -- budget recommendations concerning ptudge 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 ustandi that eptd 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 quetion was, the same

thingonhe lrhe -- >> supervisor cohen: no, that was not done for the library and the port. that's incorrect. ok. all right. department of thenvironment, welcome. >> thank you, good afternoon. supervisors and madam chair. thank you harose 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 t department of the environment? ou. right. 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 hearrtur >>supervisor cohen: yep, waiting to hear it. n pa 25, our recommended reductions to the budget total 194754, and 18-19.of t amount, 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: thayou. 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 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 contra for that item is used to assist on analysis of the performance of the depardt look at the solid waste functioning, the contract is not going to be happening t 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 dumpin >> 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 l dressers, couches, mattresses, that you see when people basically are ning rall you see it on the corner, it's very innoculous, people think they are doing aonderful thin d want to tak 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 ,ne area, and we eas in 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, t ta 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'tik it either. allghy oer quest? thank you. let's keep vi department building of inspection. then we'll hear from the retirement board. >> good afrnoon,pervisors, here on behalf of director tom

heely and on behalf of thedirto analyst, a the budget accepts the recommendations. >> supervisor cohen: can't let you go that easily. we have to ask you something. let'see her 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 buig 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 programshat t we'll implement. we have to reach out to over 25,000 small businesses or they have business t, to ensurh 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 mak an assumption that it will be in multiple languages. >> yes, all of our and languages. >> and scour every square inch of san fisco a make 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. >> tstiokyou. does thisso incde 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 at

s wson 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 t 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 spectors, permit clerks and engineers over the past 2, 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 havg interviews for more plumbing inspecto we expect to beiring 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 rem s same. >> what? >> 275. >> thank you. that's the actual authorized positions. however, because of number of retirements and vacancies, that's the way we recruit. so, we have vacancies, every month, this week alone,hree 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 incthase

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 inow that that will require fr an inspector to go out and seeh 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 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 ement.

we hiscuss this bef 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 toill vaety of leglative manes e a at have come across that we have to be able to do that with. >> ok, thank you. anthquestis, 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 m conrn 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 pastour 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 t build that upsin . eandave 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 yr alone, we had about 25 retirements. a lot of times what we have done in, for instance, on the permit y iortant was

tually whate enforcement and everything else, they are actually scheduling inspections, actually doing all the paperwork. f instance, for perm 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 th whate are working toward, and getting clos r 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 %he -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 the dayase 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 agreeith the budget analyst recommendations today. >> supervisor cohen: ok, thank you. i thi most of the cuts are from delays in hiring, some from reduction. a question that i asked the ourector last week, i hope have the answer for me. >> i don't have the answer. do know he's working with miss .

don't have the information at this time. >> additional cost police officers and the long-term how that will reflect and man test n tpension. again, i think in four years we'll have something like 250 cops fo farrell's budget is approved. trying to finds out whe are. might have to read off notes to get you the per 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 cnt assumptions per year after the budget, and that .s included in the cost anng beyd thatld subject to, you know, the changes in our returns and any other policies or changesn ihe economy. but generally under our current assumptions, it's $2.7 million for thers outside the budget 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 abou 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 ve,get the exact number, 25 police officers hired., my q look at the, when you look at the overall budget, do you take into consideration the long-term costs? i know you te conderation the c 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 drawn benefits. i'm just wondering if there is coordination between the retirement board 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, we befe 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 pag o59 recommended reductions total 410332, that's an 18-19, that au , 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, recnded 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, c you call ms 8-13 in conjunction with the p.u.c. presentation. >> clerk: item ordinance, $340 million hetch hetchy revenue, cap-and-e, 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 it 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. u., why don't you share with us. >> i have a few comments. chair cohen,e ommes sandler, c.f.o. of the p.u.c. so, the sixmsteefore you, 8-13, late to our two-year capital budgets for the

enterprise, hetch hetchy water and power, water enterprise and wastewater enterprise. andt week the genal ger riewed 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 ns ap water mains.wastwater is

th primarily s.s.i.p. phase one, as well as replacement of sewer mains. and r and r generally. so, items8, 9, and 10 appropriate the sources and the uses for the capital plan. and items 11, 12, 13, authorize e ithuance of revenue bonds or other forms of indebtedness to fund a portion ofhosethe capiograms 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 flexibil t debt >>upervisor cohen: thank you, approach your presentation. let's pivot toart legislative analyst, if there

are any thoughts. particularly interested in hearing from yound also from you, the p.u.c. presentation last week indicated that there were 13 new f.t.e and the b.l.a. report has it at36.26. 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 i the report. , 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 powern. 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

p.u.c. does have a debt coverage for issuance of the bonds. all of them fn 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. ncrea rdo 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 tover both the sewer, wastewater enterprise. for the water, on page 19 of our report we th the, there's combined water and sewer bill.

residential bill is about $106, $48 is water, and 5 is alprf the bonds and the operating expenses for the water enterprise would increase those by about $4 per year in 18-19, dt additnal $5 in 19-20. we summarize it on page -- wastewater, excuse me, on page 27, against theombined 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 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 that's consistent with their new two-year capital projects. but what happenshe por bonds, thingsan 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 th legistionesard, is the details on what the board is already authorized and what's outstanding. and so for each of these resolutions, ordinances, the bond approval ordinances, we do ask for the ordinances to be amended to have the general manager p.u.c. provide a written

report every two years when the p.u.c. brings forward their authorization in capital appropriation. so that in fact, the -- there is a report that details the total amount of bonds that have prev beely authorized. prusly been sold, the amount authorized and not yet sold, and authorized and no longer needed due to changes in products or financing or only issues. for each of these three pieces of legislation, authorizing bond, we request there be an amend to the ordinance. >>ersted amendment to the ordinance. >> so file 180450, make sure, file 180451, and i think probably 180452.

so, each of those would have that amendment in it. >> supervisor cohen: making recommendation, i see what you are saying. >> the same language in each 1, 180450, 180451, and 180452. and the specific language states amend the proposed ordinance to request the sfpuc general manager to provide a written report to the board of supervisors as part of the two-year budget review, detailing the total amount of the power of revenue bonds, wastewater revenue bonds, authorized under proposition e. the total amount sold, authorized, and unsold, and no longer needed due to changes in projects and project financing. >> can you reiterate the reasoning behind the recommendation? where are you suggestinthis? >> every year when we come and look at this, in two s, unlike when you have aerobgatio

habeen authorized. it's $400 million bonds, you know that's what's authorized. under proposition e, when it got approved, there's no cap on the amount the board can authorize. over the years as projects change and financing changes, becomes a huge difference between what's authorized and what has been sold and still needed, so you continue to pr n bonding authority and from our perspective, there isn't a t picture of what's previously been approved and how that has changed over time. so this is really providing full information to the board of supervisors when you exercise your authority to approve the bonds. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, appreciate that reasoning. all right. thank you. i assume you are in agreement. >> it's a sensible recommendation. >> supervisor cohen: we like to

do sensible things. supervisor fewer has a question for you. >> supervisor fewer: concerning your budget, andee that our b.l.a. has said that your recommended reductions to the proposed budget total is, over $6 million. and that over 3 million of that are ongoing savings and approximately 2.5 one-time savings in year two, recommending reductions of proposed budget total, over $4 million. so, i would like to make a proposal on how maybe some of the funds can be spent. you know, i think that i would like to propose that actually our districts receive more water filling stations. i think they are very popular in the neighborhoods. if you want people to switch from sugary beverages to water, it should be accessible in a lot

of the areas. i know there's an expansion program. i have an update on that, but i think there's more need than what your expansion program actually represents. so, this is my proposal today. i am proposing that for eight districts, that supervisor can choose maybe three sites with p.u.c., that might be more advantageous to have those filling stations put in. and then for districts, for example, supervisor cohen's district has areas that are food deserts, those districts would get five filling stations be those districts are, some of those districts are hit hard around sugary beverage consumption. so, i'm making a proposal that we set aside 480,000, i think that my etesta is between 13 and $20,000 for each filling station.

so estimated at 20,000 for each fi stagon and actually expand it within ourdistricts. you can respond if you like or -- >> what >> absolutely possible and something in the jurisdiction of mitho do, once you have made reductions toes bo the district for different purpose, a question with the committee how you would like to workh p typically the budgetmittee has reallocated money back at the of junart ofr final deliberations on the budget, when you have all reductions de. at that time with the full ple.e,add-back listn ou a y suggeg,. rosenfield, wel do this in june. >> that would be my dius >> maybe in the meantime we e al nrsulogerind outat be, and what a program like that

would look like. >> tely >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i told you, s liv for june 1st. june 1st. hi, sf govtv. 'siss ving. one more item to ns .d ite and commendations we have heard. 1-t'seake publicomment this on items 8- , woune like to speak on these. ingenon public comment is closed. all right. and -- >> supervisor yee: motio am as recommended by b.l.a. foll o the items. >> supervisor cohen: let me help you out here. accept supervisor yee's adome clarity to it.

menre for the, items 2 and 3, i would l ta 1. ok. waer to items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, tions for amendments, i'm just making a motion to accept those amendments. >> supervisor cohen: ok. >> clents tme regaingte11,12, and 13. ch theb.l.a. made t'shahatdations to accept those. eesu saidake it without objection. second by supervisorn, nd with t objection. any other motions or any other ns tactiot you guy ulak >> supiso am motion itemsamended. todot.arvisor cohen: we do nee

also, if i'm not mistaken, mr. cler table item1. >> clerk: i believe just taking the sfpcaction, i d mno recnd item8 9, and 10. and to recommend items d 13 as thank you.n:l ght, supervisor yee, i understand that'sxact e what yu >> supervisor yee: yes. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor ye themotist seconded.rk: dopted with 7, a hearing on the t at themee. controller's nionthudget eporst f fiscal years 2017-18 and requesting the office ofollend th ces of b report. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. mr. >> we can present on the nine-month rt.

u procedurallou prob on items 2 and 3, want to acc the b recommendations. supercohen: th w i was trying to do, but i was unsuccessful, so -- mr. clark. ion the visor yee: i would m b.l.a. recommendation for those en for the items that were included in 2 and 3. >> supervisor cohen: awesome. i'll second that, and take it without objection. >> clerk: b.l.a. recommendations for items 2 and 3, have been oehyr ingbe excused from today's meeting. and may i suggest, i believe it was proposed that these matters be referred to the july 17th meeting of the full board. lerk: items 2nd 3, i think f thehair c continue them to the nwith the june 1st budgets in front of you. his p th committee.

>> that is right. >> clerk: items and 3, tho have been amended. and i believe the motion now is to continue tse matters to the sor cohat ts hair. and i 1s a tab itabled item. >> clerk: yes, to be heard and . >> svihen:t now, we will hear from item 7. lerk c 7 has called. >> supervisors asnow,rofcessues on how the city perfoing st t budget you ag we issued our last rejection report for the fiscal year we are ending. we call it the nine-month report. it's available on our website. you have copies in front of you and i have some on the stand next to me. i'll be veryf i hitting highlights from the report and take any questions you have. at a highleve -- most

recent projection indicates t tyeral fund will end with approximately $94 million more than we did in our six-month report. so siaificanro versus our last projection. the majority of this is related to good news in the department o publiheal. g dven by both patient revenue and a very significant and large one-time, $39 million payment associated with how ca act money flows to the city from the federal government. we have got, i'll hit some other revenue highlights in a minute. but tax revenues perng well, only modestly ahead of our prior projection. additionally, in terms of department spending, generally in line with the six-month mark, one exception. police department has had a series of very large worker's comp cases that have driven

their worker's comp costs up significantly, since the rction require about a $5 million reappropriation of other savings in the budget to cover this overage. will you likely see that coming in the near term. so, those are a few of the highlights from the report. obviously a lot more here, and i'll talk through some of them in a minute. big picture, $94 million improving balance at the end of the year, the typical practice of the city is tak that a puhe d projected deficit. if we do that, $137 million shortfall we projected, the three offices projected, just a few months ago, would climb to 4 million. so, significant reduction in the projected shortfall and additionally, our office will now update projected taxes into the new year, and i would r the

ta forecast, included in the mayor's june 1st budget, more likely to offset the remaining $37 million gap. so, this iwing some of the key componen versus our last projection, and where you see surpluses and deficits, versus that time. you can see the vast majority of the improvement of 94 million is t $84 million improvement again the vast major that iveny the department of public health and good news we are seeing there. tax revenues, city-wide revenue surplu of 21.4 million, and then a host of other smaller up and down. [please stand by]