the change we highlighted here is half of that money would be refunded. and i just want to say the reason that -- again, we've been working closely with d.b.i. in drafting this ordinance. the reason why we felt it was necessary to require payment immediately as opposed to 270 days is they're doing the work. the inspectors are going out and doing the inspection. when they go out and they get a complaint, hey, there's a vacant storefront that's unregistered, they send out an inspector, do the inspection. they're not getting the cost recou recouperated, all the owner has to do is say oh, i didn't know, put up a sign in the window, and they're off. however, in light of these suggestions from the small

business commission, we are exploring the idea or the possibility maybe of -- if it's possible to for -- whether -- when there's self-reported -- we're exploring this, so i don't know if this is the case, but if d.b.i. does not have to send out an inspector for a self-reported vacancy, and we can save those costs, then maybe at that point we can provide a grace period for payment for those businesses that self-report, but still require immediate payment within 30 days for those who do not register and have to be caught through a complaint. so that's a possible idea that we're exploring which i hope would satisfy the concerns from the small business commission, and again, that's just something that we're exploring now that we've heard these recommendations from yesterday. >> so commissioner clinch, just

to close out, self-report versus one that doesn't get the break. >> well, i guess the question for our attorney -- >> well, they're working out the language on that. that's a possibility. we could approve it based on those recommendations if you'd like. >> yeah. >> whatever you want. let's just see. >> yeah. so if it's complaint driven or -- >> i think that's a question, maybe, for the city attorney. again, this is very newly -- >> if we approve this today, that would be one of our recommendations, obviously. we can't guarantee that it's going to get there by the time it would be asked, but we, along with the business commission, have those concerns, but it's a friendly amendment. commissioner warsaw? >> yeah. one of the things that we're constantly doing is the frustrating position is we see a problem, and we hear egregious things that are really the extreme of what bad

actors do in that situation, and we feel we have to have a remedy for it. and what happens is a lot of good actors now have their life more costly or complicated or difficult. and the bad actors are with them, but they always seem to find a way around it anyhow. so in a situation like this, you know we talk about, you know, there are a number of properties that sit vacant for years and years and years. and i don't care if they're paying $711 registration a year, that doesn't solve the problem. they're doing a real harm to their commercial corridor. one of the basics of capitalism if you're offering something, and the market isn't telling you that it's worth it, then, you either adjust your price to find where the correct market

value is or not, and, you know, you either get the situation resolved or you continue to have it with the market telling you what you're asking is irrational or not competitive to market. what i keep hearing from small businesses is i was forced out because my rent was tripled. then, it sat there for five years empty because he was complete inflexible on i want this, and i don't care, i'd rather leave it empty. you know, while it's the property owner's right to say i will not rent it for any less than what i want, we have property rights, that's your responsibility, we also have to look at the impact that it has on the community when you have

these very long-term vacancies. and i really am challenged to think what would be the way to separate out the most intractable people who are just willing to let something sit there for years and years and year and incentivize them that this is creating impacts on your whole community beyond your individual rights that you need to be cognizant of. so i'm wondering if there's anything in this vacant property registration that can set standards whereby if it goes on much longer, you know, if it perpetuates, that there's

an escalation, because it clearly impacts the communities negatively. >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. as the commissioner points out, there are a multitude of issues and reasons that vacant storefronts remain vacants, and the problems that it causes. this ordinance is solely strictly designed to monitor and make sure the properties are modified and don't fall into disrespect, but in that sense, it would be difficult to accommodate other motives or purposes within the building code, as you mentioned, but there may be other legislative avenues for that. >> and i guess that's what i'm asking. it's not necessarily that this is a building code. unfortunately, we're discussing that in this context, so you're correct to clarify that.

but i guess my question to supervisor and mr. fragosi, are there other ways, are there other remedies? you know, we look to work with our legislative partners to make sure when these situations arise, that, you know, between our enforcement of code within the pervasive what you can do, what you can legislatively prescribe, and what the city attorney can do in terms of enforcement all really come together effectively to really deal with the core problem. people want us to solve problems, and it's very frustrating to them when we say it's not our job. we all have good reasons why we

have limits to what we can do, but finding ways to better work in partnership and in concert to get the legislative, administrative, and enforcement teams all on the same page when we see really clear problems, you know, really is -- is what -- you know i mean hope we can do. as commissioner mccarthy pointed out, if it's a question of interpretation of use, and we can broaden that to really encourage people to find ways to make the properties more attractive and rentable, that's fabulous. if we can work with the small business commission to facilitate all their wonderful work on trying to make it easier to do business and have more viable commercial

corridors, that's great. so i guess what i'm really looking for is maybe not what we're going to vote on today, but how can we really work with you to really see the big goal and be partners with you in moving every element of it in concert so that we're really accomplishing what we want to do. >> yeah, yeah. i completely agree, and that's why -- you know, i just want to mention again. it's not -- we don't pretend this one ordinance is going to solve this very complex issue of vacant storefronts. we think it's part of the solution. we think it's a very important part of the solution, but again, we are very supportive of other efforts that are going on as part of this larger strategy, and we're committed to continuing to do that. these are issues that we're talking about that we're grappling with, we've been

grappling with for months and months now, since i've been with the supervisor. we feel after many months of discussion, working with the small business commission, and office of workforce, in pointing them and being able to directly connect them with the resources that we can offer the them that maybe they're not taking advantage of it today, while it won't solve the whole problem, but it will make a difference. we'd appreciate your support in this legislation so we can take a step in the right direction. >> thank you. >> thank you so much, mr. fragosi, for all the extra time you give us. thank you, director andrizzi, for coming here. i think we're at the time where

we need to call it. commissioner clinch, you give some thoughts what way you'd like to frame a friendly amendment? >> yeah. i'd say my motion would be to approve, but with the amendment that self-reporters are given a prorated rebait if they rent in a -- in less time, and the other amendment was having to do with -- i guess that was it. >> yeah, it was self-reporting versus nonreporting. >> yeah. >> city attorney, would you -- is that clear, what you are -- would you -- >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. the commission can recommend approval with suggestions or potential amendments such as this, and the -- the requirement is that the commission consider the proposal so obviously we can -- the commission cannot mandate

additions, but these would be recommendations. >> okay. so with that -- >> so it's a yes or no vote, then. >> so it's a yes or no vote with the friendly amendment on the yes, if you wanted that. so what i propose is to take vote based on commissioner clinch's friendly amendment that self-reporting would not have to pay -- would get 30 days? >> 30 days, yeah, but prorated return. >> would get 30 days to pay but with a prorated return. is that it? >> yes. >> as a recommendation to this. so call the question. >> okay. so there's a motion and is there a second? >> second. >> okay. i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call]

>> motion carries unanimously. our next item is item six, discussion and possible action regarding proposed ordinance, file number 181108 amendmenting the police code to require sellers or landlords of real property in san francisco to disclose to buyers or tenants that the property is located within the flood risk zone delineated on the san francisco public utilities commission's 100-year storm flood risk map, in addition to other requirements. >> thank you. and thank you for waiting. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. my name is sarah minnick, and i work in the wastewater enterprise of the san francisco public utilities commission? i'm here to speak to you today about the 100-year storm flood risk disclosure ordinance? and give a little bit of background on this proposed

ordinance? so if we could bring up the slides? thank you. the flood risk disclosure ordinance is part of a broader city family strategy to increase flood resilience citywide, and our definition of resilience is the capacity to anticipate risk, limit impact, and recover quickly when damage occurs from flooding events. and this multipronged process includes capital projects, it includes collection system, maintenance, but it also includes a suite of programatic strategies, and this program falls into that category. i'll just start with quickly outlining what the purpose of the map is. the map identifies parcels in san francisco that are likely to be subject to flood risk in

a 100-year storm? and what that does is to just give property owners and renters useful information that they can base decisions on. we want people to be able to make informed decisions about their property and their belongings, so that is the intention of this map? of course it's also the foup foundation for the ordinance that we have before you, which is the disclosure ordinance. just really quickly, so you know what the map is based upon? we undertook a technical effort utilizing our hydrologic model which includes the 100-year design storm, and we have elevation, slope, perviousness, etc., all reflected in our hydrologic model, as well as infrastructure, pipes,

structures, etc. we then combine that with a g.i.s. mapping system to make that spatial across our city. what we did was identify areas that were deemed to be at risk of contiguous flooding in a 100-year storm event? what we mean by that is greater than 6 inches of flooding, and contiguous is deemed for this purpose to be greater than half a city block. so when you look at the 100-year flood risk map, and you see the areas in purple, that is how those -- those were defined. and you can see, not surprisingly, that these zones on the flood risk map closely coincide with our low lying areas city-wide. and in addition, they coincide with what were our historical

creeks and water ways which to this day represent the low areas in our city. you can see on our map, underlying the purple areas, we do have a light blue showing those historical water ways. just to flag, the highlighted hash lights are part of our separate stormwater systems and there were were not analyzed as part of this effort which is looking at the combined sewer. we also wanted to make sure that the public could really use this information, so we have these maps, you know, at the citywide scale, at the neighborhood scale, and then zoomable and searchable per address as you can see on this slide. so if folks want to go to sfwater.org/floodmaps, they would be able to search for any

location and understand any risks inside or outside the flood zone. >> we did want to make sure we had a lot of resources for the public. in addition, we sent out over 4,000 letters during this process so that folks who are going to be included in this map would know ahead of time, so we sent them out a letter before the map went to our commission? we have again sent out a letter after that process stating that the map would be part of this disclosure ordinance were it to pass, so we've been mailing these folks regularly and also providing frequently asked questions, and we have a direct e-mail and phone line specifically for this project that folks can use. we can do citywide outreach in a couple of different ways. we did public availability sessions, where the public

could come and speak with technical staff about the map in an ad hoc manner, meaning they would drive the conversation, ask the questions they wanted to ask in an informal setting? we also did formal presentations in five public neighborhood where people could come and listen to a for more formal presentation and ask their questions there, as well. when we went to the commission, we did acknowledge the need for a parcel review process? so we now have created that. what we understand is that all of this information is based on our -- our model, which is very, very accurate and state of the art. however, as we all know, things may differ on the ground, there may be a wall, there may be a difference in elevation, so we did want to provide a parcel review process when one or more of the following applies. if a parcel's ground elevation is entirely above the flood

risk elevation and if that can be shown or if there is a barrier on the parcel that is diverting the stormwater away from it, then those are two examples where a parcel could be removed from the flood risk map. so this slide just reflects the details of the parcel review process that we did want to share with you. i'm happy to answer more details questions, but you can see here that we do have an application and then p.u.c. staff, both hiydraulic modeler and technical folk would review that and try to understand if those two prior conditions were indeed the case. this has really been a city family effort, so i wanted to pause to thank our d.b.i. participants in this -- in this process?

we had -- it kirk means originally as part of this process for about 1.5 years, and now we're pleased that cyril, tom, and steve have joined recent meetings and have given a lot of excellent feedback and help. and in fact, tom has provided me with the language that the c.a.c. provided after we presented this information to them, as well. this -- basically, this same presentation. they do recommend the adoption of the ordinance with one amendment. they had a great idea that during the disclosure process there should always be a date stamp on the map, and so we had submitted that back to our city attorneys, that piece of advice that we got, and so i wanted to reflect on the record here, and i wanted to thank the staff for

their contribution there. of course, this ordinance, once we get down into implementation, should it pass, has a new question on the 3-r report? flooding is a hazard, so in this sense, we would be adding a proposed question, which is is the building located within the proposed flood risk boundaries delineated on 100-year storm flood risk map? so that's essentially the impact of it at a practical level. in order for this to function well, the p.u.c. would obviously provide d.b.i. with a complete blolist, block and pl numbers for the properties that are in the flood risk zone and also be responsible for updating the list in the event that we would have to rerun the model or remove a property from

the map, and so we wanted to make sure to do as many functions as possible that would minimize the administrative burden of this action on -- on d.b.i. so with, that i'll conclude these remarks and just take questions from you all, any questions you may have about this effort on this rainy day. >> commissioner? >> two things. one is i like what you said toward the closing about the practical impact is not that great. just answering your question, so it seems it's not that severe. but second question is for the parcel review process, is there a fee associated with that? >> we have determined at this time to not have a fee per out, when we went to the -- our, when we went to the commission. we find ourselves coming up, if

this ordinance does go forward in sort of a pilot year, and what we determined was to see, you know, how many of these parcel review processes come to the floor based on this project and that we would reassess in a year or so to see how we're doing. we also recognize that this is new for property owners, and while some have received it very positively as the public policy side of it, others have it concerned, so we -- have had concerns, so we decided we would wait until tafter the pilot year and reassess that question. >> thank you. >> mm-hmm. >> commissioner warshaw. >> first off, i want to thank you for this. i have a lot of interesting in going through this and checking

out where my house is, and how it related. it was very easy to work with, and i'm a tech no-phobtechnoph can do it, anybody can do it. once you do this, what does it do to the insurance of the homeowner? >> it's a great question? so the insurance that's available, san francisco does participate in the fema insurance program. however, just to be very clear, this map is different from fema's map because what we're showing here is the risk of flooding due to precipitation, not coastal or river flooding as the fema map shows? that being said, because we

participate as a city in the flood insurance program, all of these people would be able to get affordable flood insurance. i checked on this this morning because i figured it would come up. the average cost is about $137 per year for a single-family residential. commercial can be as low as 500 a year, but it really does depend on the structure and the content, so i don't want to quote any specific amount does. but we do have a frequently asked questions regarding insurance specifically on our flood maps website. the other question that folks ask is is the insurance cost going to be stable or will it go up because of this? again, it is helpful that we are participating in fema because the flood rates that i just quoted are set nationally by fema and are looking at overall flood risk because many

of these properties -- all of these properties are not in the firm maps, which are, again, the fema maps of the coastial and rivering flooding. they're going to get lower rates than the high coastal and rivering flooding. that being said, we can't predict what the rates are. they could be set higher next year, but we don't expect them spiking wildly because it is a nationally set price. >> okay. so moving on, i was a little surprised when you said it doesn't relate to rivers, but then, when i looked at glen park, hayes creek, you see remnants where rivers really were that are the impacted, even if they're now submerged, and we're even in conversations

about opening up some of the existing covered creeks. >> absolutely. just to give a little more nuance to my comment on that, fema is looking at rivering flooding and coastal flooding, meaning flooding that's going to come back out from a river onto shores, what we're looking at is rain water falling on our city, you know, and not being able to drain. that being said, it is related to rivers in terms of the topography because although they are now buried, they do still represent the low parts of our city, and we are going to see more flooding there than in other places but mostly because of its relationship to the surrounding area and not so much, you know, water that's coming out of it per se. does -- does that difference make sense? >> yeah. yeah. >> okay. >> and as we go through different sewer rebuilding

programs, do we have, you know, mitigation just based on that? so for instance, i noticed, you know, vanness right in the civic center area, there's a major sewer rebuilding. does that in and of it efself, it's a sewer flood risk, so does that impact services. >> the level of service is different from the magnitude of storm that we're talking about with this effort. so our level of service for how much water can go into our pipes is a five-year, three-hour storm, which is very industry standard.

same as chicago, same as new york city. so our goal is to accommodate the rain from a five year, three hour storm. much of our sewer pipe will reduce that flooding and it will meet that level of service. however in the event of a 100-year storm, which is what we're talking about here, it would be extraordinarily costly and -- you know, utilities nationwide don't do it. it's just more considered more of an act of god situation or something when you're talking about the 100-year flood, and that is why we have worked with our city family partners to come up with programatic strategies such as this to acknowledge there are 100-year storms. >> but to the layman, and i'm as layman as anybody here, all

right? we're constantly being reminded, as governor brown -- former governor brown said, of the new abnormal that the 100-year is now the new abnormal, and so to what extent -- i understand your 1% chance of it occurring this year, but just speak to it in terms of the, you know, ecological issues that we're dealing with, and then, we have normal, and these are not necessarily -- >> yeah, that's an excellent point. we have had two storms since the year 2000 that have been 100-year storms. so while each year, it has a 1% chance of occurring, that does point mean that when it occurs one year, it's going to be 99 years before we have it again. it could happen the next year, so you bring up an excellent point. i think that's something that

we're going to experience more often. >> okay. a last point. you know, i keep getting to carrots and funding incentives. so here in building department, when we get a building that's undergoing major renovation or possibly even seismic upgrade, for example, since that's one of our major initiatives, do we tie it in with these flood risks, and, you know, almost have a mechanism whereby you're required to do seismic upgrades. you're almost required to be in a flood zone. here's a package and here's some incentives to be really proactive in addressing these things comprehensively. >> that's a great idea. i mean, we hadn't contemplated tieing it to seismic as of yet but i think i would definitely

bring that back to my colleagues and say what can we -- what can we do, how can we coordinate on this issue. i think that's a great point in addressing the multiple issues in one touch with the customer. we do have a flood water grant program to your point regarding incentives that eligible customers can apply for? but that being said, it's not coordinates, as you point out, with the seismic effort, for example. >> and that's where, yeah, we may be able to really help you because once you're tearing stuff up, it's the right time to do it. but if you didn't realize there's some other program that social securi s -- programs that have substan subsidi subsidies to help you with that. i'm sure staff would be willing to work with you on how to make

that happen. >> excellent. we'll agendaize that for our next interdepartmental meeting. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> just one question. on your outreach, particularly when it comes to the selling of these properties, a lot of this kind of disclosure packages that go out usually come from the brokerage firms and so on. have they weighed in on this as all at part -- >> we did present and provide materials to the san francisco realtors association, and of that quite large group, we did have

>> that is sort of our to-do list outreach as we move hopefully towards the board of supervisors. i would also say that sort of,

you know, it's an open question. obviously anyone can opine on it, the public policy goal versus, you know, what the lenders or title companies would say about it. i think our goal would be to outreach to them about hopefully their role but not to sort of say, like -- we want to inform people of their flood risk. just have people be

informed when they're making those decisions. >> well said. you okay? okay. we really appreciate your presentation here today. >> thank you for your

questions. i will take these items back, as well. >> public comment? >> is there public comment on these item? okay. seeing none, is there a motion? >> move to approve. >> move to approve. >> i would second. >> yeah. >> we approve of the flood zones. >> there's a motion and a second. i'll do a roll call vote. >> that is what it is, isn't it? [roll call] >> okay. motion carries unanimously. our next item is item seven, discussion and possible action regarding san francisco plumbing code section 1001.3. >> thank you. this is back again to us, yes? >> this one, i believe, is new, the other -- other one is the one you heard previously, the next item. >> oh, excuse me. >> seven is a form.

>> right. >> hello. i'm tom fessler, senior building inspector plumbing services. chief inspector steve pinelli wasn't able to make it today. he just asked me to present it to the commission. on december 12, the code advisory meeting approved and forwarded it to this commission as written. it's really a code section that was not placed in the 2016 code that should have been. it was in previous code language. that's really what it's about. it's about the -- it's requiring the building sewer or building drain shall have a building trap placed as near as possible to the curb line or immediately inside the sub --

sidewalk basement wall under the sidewalk. the trap size shall be a minimum 4 inches. it's just old language that needed to be placed back in. >> that's it? okay. thank you, tom. >> okay. any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> okay. do i have a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. we have a motion. i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call] >> okay. the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item eight, discussion and possible action

recording a proposed ordinance of technical building codes, technical existing codes and meter requirement for sexual construction dated december 8, 2018, and this is an item that was previously heard. >> yes. again, that's you again, tom. >> senior building inspector tom fessler. so the submetering inspections have been -- refined. there's some language they want

change moving forward. all the submetering has been removed. the rest of it is cleaning up old language. some of the calculations needed to be refined. there's places where, you know, code section numbers, misspellings, that sort of thing, it goes throughout it. other than the submetering, which has been removed, the language about fences, the state has fenced at 7 feet not requiring a building permit. san francisco is 6 feet, so it just amends that, cleans up that language, and that's really what this is about. >> okay. and so there's no fire issue on this, is there? fire department? >> no, it just has to do with

the building electrical housing code. it's just really kind of cleaning up code language before we go into the next code cycle, so we're not worrying about -- >> good housekeeping. >> yeah. >> okay. got it. thank you, tom. >> okay. >> public comment, please. >> okay. there is no public comment. roll call vote on item eight. >> hang on. move the question. >> moved. >> move to approve. >> okay. you're fast. second? >> second. >> all right. we'll do our vote. [ro [roll call] >> okay. motion carries unanimously. next item, item nine, update on sf permit, sf permit and project tracking system.

>> good morning. henry bartley from the department of technology. for the monthly update on the project. as i talked about last month, our focus this month has continued to be the fixing and retesting of the items that came out of the user acceptance testing cycle three. we are still in that cycle which will continue through the end of this month. daily, we're getting items that are fixed. we have the d.b.i. business users that are with us every day, testing to close out those items to ensure that we're taking care of the items that came out of u.a.t.-3. and we anticipate wrapping that up at the end of this month, and then, at the month of february , we will start our preparation activities for the next u.a.t. cycle, and that's where we will have a pretest that i also spoke about before that will be conducted by the p.m.o. team, which i'm part of, as well as our vendor, accela, to go through all of the use

cases before we go back and test, so that level of quality to make sure that the system is ready for the users to put through its spaces in that next round of u.a.t. the activities and progress besides the fixing and retesting, we are -- now that we're -- we've got two more rounds of u.a.t. that are planned. now that we're into that part of the project, we are bringing back -- i work on this with the communications director from d.b.i. all of our preparations that we had made prior for public outreach, for stakeholder outreach would include city hall and others involved in the process, bringing those back and getting our timetables set again for when we would pull the trigger on those events and activities once we have a date -- a confirmed date for go live. and that's really the changes and the -- the update and then the change in the status from

my last visit, and i'm happy to take questions. >> commissioner walker? >> i love having numbers of fixes and retesting numbers. >> so since -- since -- since -- a month, so since last month, we've had 350 items that have been fixed. as of yesterday morning, we've had -- we have 123 items that are still on the fix side, in progress, so those are in the pipeline to be fixed and actively being worked. and as of yesterday morning, we had 139 items that have made it out of the fix side and come over to where we could retest them. >> okay. great. that's helpful. i am getting a lot of interest from folks i talk to at city hall, so as soon as we can include them in sort of running through testing, i think that they will like that a lot, so

great. >> you are off the hook. >> thank you, sir. >> not quite. >> is there any public comment on item nine? >> for now. for now. >> no public comment on item nine. item ten, director's report, 10-a, update on d.b.i.'s finances. >> good afternoon, commissioners. taris madison, deputy director for the department of building inspection. and before you, you have two reports. the first one covers our revenue expenditures for 17-18.

that's july 1, 2017 through june 30, 2018. i'll just highlight a couple of items. so for the fiscal year that ended on june 30, 2018. for revenues, year over year, our revenues were about the same, $80 million, so we collected about 80 million in 17-18 compared to 80.9 million in the prior year. but when you drill down into the numbers, you can see there are some things that are happening, and one of the biggest things that's actually happening now is our charge for services. if you look at the first report, you'll see that we have charge for services, apartments, interest, all those things on the first thing of the report. our charges for services are basically going down. and the charges for services are basically all of our fees, and so new revenue is actually going down. so instead of it being a

difference of only 800,000, it's almost 4 million less. the reason that we're coming out roughly the same is because if you look at something -- if you see, for instance, interests and investments, we have interest of $2 million which never normally happens. i guess the city did a really good job with its investments in that year, so that kind of made up the difference. and additional, you'll see the deferred revenue adjustment, and we talk -- we've talked about this before. for permit -- for building permits and plan review, we collect all the fees up front, and then we do the work as it goes along. so now we're starting to earn -- as these projects get older and older and older, the revenues continue to earn, but overall, the moneys continue -- the new money continues to slow

down. >> so the new money is applications. >> correct. >> and there was a big article over christmas about the huge drop in new applications in the planning department and so on. i think the percentage was 40%, was it? they were predicting huge kind of off-the-cliff type of numbers, not just 10%. don't quote me on this, i know it was just dramatic. is that something that -- you are aware of that, obviously? >> yes, we are aware of that. >> and you ary communicati're with planning on that. >> we are aware of that, but usually, it's kind of a trickle that happens. it drops off there. even when we had the dot-com and then the later, but we had an anticipation. although the year over year is

about the same, the budget actual -- over the last three or four years, we have been 5e7ing this drop, and so we've already been conservative in budgeting our annual. this is after us actually increasing it because back in 2015, we started thinking about a reduction as well as rereduced our fees, and so we worked with the controller's office and reduced what our revenue estimates were drastically based on an anticipated decline but also based on the decline in our fees, but the -- but the revenues still continued to exceed, so we continued to lower and be -- our revenue continued to -- continued to keep our revenue estimates conservative, but we're still exceeding them. so i think in that regard, even if there is a big drop because we've been so conservative in what we've been doing, we should be okay. >> okay. >> in the short-term. >> thank you. >> okay. on the expenditure side, year offer year, we had some increases, and it was a bsh --

about an 11-million increase in the account that we setup in 2015, plus we moved some money in reserves. these are benefits for employees after retirement, and we could actually budget up to 32 million, and we had been more conservative at putting money in there, and we were at 16 million. now last year, the controller's office moved 10 million. so commissioner warshell, you're always wanting to know bh tha about that. so at the end of the year, we may be able to just move the remainor of the money in there and be okay with that. you see a new column that says carry forward, if we didn't

show that, you would see a balance forward of almost $7 million. at the end of last fiscal year, there were a lot of outstanding invoices that didn't make it to us for year-end close. this was citywide. so basically, that 4.27 million that he sue on the first page, those were invoices to c.b.o.s. it was also payments to other city departments for work order service of other departments. so although they look like savings, you can't include them as actual savings because they were already committed, so we carried them forward to this current year and we paid them. that's why when you look at that column, you see that there, because our savings would be overstated if we didn't do that because it would look like a lot more money that we had uncommitted that we actually have. so that's on 17-18. any questions on that one? okay. and then, our next report is monthly report for december

2018, and it basically gives the revenues and expenditures for july 2018 through december 2018. this one, basically, we're about -- at about the same place as we are last year. so we've made some preliminary estimates based on year-to-date, and it reflected some slowing from prior year, but still better than budget. we'll go forward and look at it a few more estimates. i'll probably follow up with my counterpart at the planning department. at the end of this month, i'll be coming to you in january , and we'll update it there, too. but basically, you've heard me say the same thing for a while now. it's decreasing, but slowly, and because we've been so

conservative, we're been expecting -- we've been expecting this for a while. and for expenditures, the same thing. compared to december 2017, we're up, and the main reason that we're up is because we've received a lot more services by the department, work order billings than we did in 2017. 2017 is kind of difficult to, on expenditures, to actually compare because remember that was the first year that we went to the new peoplesoft, and so some of the billings were a little bit later than expected, but overall, we seem to be doing well, and i'll keep you posted on our revenues because i know you're really interested in that. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> seeing none, next item. >> 10-b, update on state or recently enacted local legislation. >> good morning, again, commissioners, bill strong,

public and legislative affairs. since we already covered the supervisor fewer ordinance, i won't repeat that, but i will mention, as mr. fragosi did, that this other ordinance that the mayor and supervisor brown, which deals with streamlining of small business permits actually does relate to this package on vacant storefronts, that is still awaiting coming forward for scheduling of any kind of a hearing. but we do have the details on that, and because it amends the planning code and the police code, it actually doesn't affect the building code directly, it's with this more indirect effect. so i don't expect any recommendation from the code advisory committee on this, but we will continue to work closely with the supervisor and the mayor's office on that package. i do want to