>> the entire funding for the west side would be included for this 2020 bond. is that right. >> for the entire -- the two pump stations. it is not in this 2020 bond, to my knowledge. >> that's right. there are two phases here as you have on the projected materialed. the phase one includes the

east-west connector for at the north of golden gate park. that is what we would be able to achieve if we bring additional funds forward to achieve that. but there's a construction schedule of limitations so to the same point as earlier. even if you funded everything. , tomorrow you wouldn't be able to deliver this any faster and this fetes onthis phase one will systems go toward achieving this and phase two would be in east of 2027. >> got it. thank you. so i have amendments. mr. scarpula, thank you very much. i have amendments here that i've also passed out to my colleagues and i would like to make sure that these details are reflected in the final capital plan. there's also an issue with the

money for efws as proposed. it's just not enough. bees, i've beeit's not enough te residents the protection it needs when it strikes. i was told it would take 25 million on top to close the gap on top of the 45 millions of water revenue bonds and 125 million from the easter of 2020 bond. i see an additional 25 million in the plan so that we have a total -- i see that i need, i still need $25 million and the plan so a total of 195 million dedicated to the west side for efws. i've asked the puc and capital planning stuff to identify an approach to what we need to deliver for efws on the west side, including the northern loop in the upcoming phase and i understand puc yesterday identified $10 million more, an

additional water revenue bond dollars that we can toward this and thank you so much to kelly for seeking out these funds and leaves 15 million for what we need on the west side and capital planning staff has roled recommended we pull 25 million from the plan and 2027 bond rather than ca cannibalize withn the bond and would allow us to deliver a couple of other fire department priorities for the system elsewhere in the city without raising property taxes. i would like to see those adjustments spelled out. so this is what my amendments -- i think everybody has a copy. this is in a nutshell, modify the narrative descriptions of the emergency firefighting water system programme to include the

later strategic direction for that programme on the west side as we heard here at committee. two, modify the efws funding descriptions, the infrastructure and street's financial table and puc financial able to show the puc's commitment of $10 million more to build efws for the west side. modify of geo programme to pull 25 million from the 2017 bond into the 202 2020 ether bond. however the funding descriptions, the public safety table and fire department able to show 140 million-dollar bond on west side and colleagues, the amendments are before you today. yes, president yi? >> i wanted to thank you for your leadership in pushing for this.

this is something that the west side people have been concerned about for a long time, probably a little less in my district because of the uphill order from the hill that comes downwards. anbut still, even with my own district, it's well covered. so thank you for pushing that. >> thank you, president yi. supervisor stephanie. >> yes, i like to second your motion and second the amendment and my side of lake street, thank you. so thank you. >> thank you to the puc. >> yes, and i want to say thank you so much to the firefighte po described everything to me in a way i could understand it. i knew nothing about this until a constituent of mine who was a deputy chief in the fire department was afraid he was going to burn also and brought this to my attention, so many, many meetings in the last two years, i couldn't tell you how many meetings i dragged the puc

to, to discuss this, and the fire department over and over and over again. i'm happy to have these amendments for us. thank you. i believe i've made a motion and there is a second. could we have a roll call vote, please. (roll call vote). there are five ayes. >> i would like to make a motion to continue this item as amended to the next budget and finance committee meeting of next week. i'm sorry, i don't know the date. >> madam chair, prior to voting on the continuum, can we have public comment? >> i'm so sorry, ilene has been waiting here and any other public speakers, come on up, please. >> you spoke before i did.

i've been a district 4 resident and attending capital plan meeting for over two years now. my particular interest is in fighting catastrophic fires in district 4. during the last election cycle, the water supply system was sometimes known as emergency firefighting emergency system was an issue. the residents of district 4 made it non-thaknown that they prefes would be dedicated, high pressure and youth saltwater and independent of the city's drinking water, high pressure meeting 300 psi and saltwaterring meeting ocean water and/or bay water. the voters of district 4 have been committed to these parameters. it's less than proposed time frame of 30 years. the voters of district 4 consistently support city-wide bond requests, even though they

mamay see no direct benefit andn example is the 82% approval of last november sea wall. well, i'm still urging the supervisors to support a dedicated high pressure saltwater version of awas in district 4 and urging the board to amend the ten-year capital plan to include the seismic ret toe fit of sunset reservoirs basin as only north basin has been retrofitted being the largest supply. sunset reservoir sits on a bluff and this represents a significant liability for the city. >> thank you very much. any other speakers on this item?

>> jessie stoudt, district distd i represent the san francisco jail coalition and thank you for the safety improvement projects that are included. i was very glad to hear from the planning committee today that the $417 million for hrj consolidation does not necessarily include building a new jail but i would still ask that the committee -- the board of supervisors not spend money to increase san francisco's capacity for incarcerates. i see in the capital plan on page 162, that we're still considering reactivating county jail 6. i would ask the board of supervisors to impose any money to reopen this jail an invest in

closing county jail 4. since there's still no decisions yet about where the people would live who currently live there, the hundreds of people who are currently incarcerated there, even though we have the extensive plans for people who work there will go instead, it will be much better to hear first about where people will get to go. i disagree with the previous characterizations that sanfrancisco does not have control over people in the jail and how many people are incarcerated for how long and certainly the san francisco police department is a direct indicater in how many people will be incarcerated in san francisco. the san francisco district attorney has authority to demand lesser sentence for people so that fewer people are incarcerated for less time. overall, i would ask the board of supervisors incarcerate fewer

people in sanfrancisco. >> thank you very much, any other speakers. seeing none, public comment is closed. so i believe i made a motion and a second and everyone voted to approve it. to go to the full -- to be continued to the next meeting as amended. >> is there a second? >> oh, supervisor mendelman. do we need a roll call vote? >> no. >> thank you very much. madam clerk, can you call the next item? >> item number 4, resolution adopting the fiscal use through 2024. >> we have kelly kirkpatrick here and anyone from the controller's department?

>> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'll walk you through a brief presentation and happy to answer questions you have. i'll be providing the update, the five-year financial plan published in march. the five-year financial plan is a join publication between the mayor's budget office, controller's office as well as budget office, which projects the deficits over the next five years. in particular, focusing on the next two years, which is our chief charge of balancing for this upcoming budget cycle, which will be -- we will pass off to you on june 1st. my assumptions under the plan,

we consider this to be a base-case projection. meaning we take current policies and staffing levels as they exist and protect either revenue growth and not assuming large policy shifts. revenue in the plan is continued to grow, particularly strong in the first two years of the budget, but with tapering growth in the outer years due to constraints. the plan also assumes salary and benefit costs, including increases to pens an pension and healthcare and inflationary increases which we've updated and i'll update what the change is from our january plan.

the march update, it has a combined two-year deficit of $156 million and that's that 30.6 million in fiscal year 1920 and 125.5 million in fiscal year 2021. this is $115 million improvement from the $270 million deficit in january. i will share the significant changes related to that in the next slide, but notably, the structural deficit that we noted in the five-year, the difference of the projected revenue growth expected to growth by 170 million by the end of the plan is outpaced by expected expenditure growth to grow by $1.4 billion leaving about a $700 million projected deficit.

so what's changed since january? largely, it is revenue updates driven by two main factors, a balance identified by the controllers' office in the current year, the sixth manufactur-monthdriven by revenn budgeted at the department of public health due to higher patient census and revenue at the hospital largely. additionally increased projections on transfer tax, both in the current year, higher transfer tax than budgeted. and additionally an update in the five-year financial plan based on the strength of year-to-date transfer tax. that is offset by increased -- i'm going to skip to the bullet under salary and benefit. provided pension contributions. the plan assumes that the city will receive a 7.4% return on our investment to help support

our pension plan and when we were assembling the numbers, the latest numbers to date, we were achieving 1% return on the pension plan. we have made some increases since then to help close the deficit, marching closer to 7% but still not quite at the 7.4. we've modestly updated the cpi assumptions which impact wage assumptions within the plan. they're still hovering at 3% over the five-year projection, but changed modestly as an example in fiscal year 1920. our january report had a cpi of 2.8% and this march update has 2.97%. we utilize a combined department of finance projection for cpi and that is our past practice and we continue to use that for both wage assumptions and

non-wage pressures. as it relates to city-wide costs, there have been changes to debt services and real estate due to changes in debt issuance schedule and projected leases, as well as updates to the timing of housing projects online for the local subsidy programme that have shifted some of the numbers within the report. this year we spent quite a bit of time on thinking about other factors outside of those projecteprojected deficits thatd have impact on the city's ability to balance and there's potential upside and risks to the city's finances and i'll outline those here and the report is 8 pages compared to the 100 page report but i'll give you a highlight on some. the controls office included in the report projected future

revenue augus augmentation fundo fund our schools. as you all know, we recently received $415 million in the current year, which was two fiscal years' worth and going forward the controller's office projects to be 150 to $200 million ongoing. barring legislative changes or funding allocation changes at the state. there are a number of reasons why we have not included this into the projected deficits. one, volatility due to both funding formulas as well as property tax. we'll shift potentially the magnitude of the revenue and legislative risks at the state. since we've joined this excess group at the state, we've nearly doubled the potential losses to

the state and so, we're trying to do the cautious approach of not knowing when the state may take a run at that money and so we've left it out of the projections at this time and keeping a close eye to determine whether or not within this upcoming budget cycle or state level if they make any changes to the fifthin funding formulas. this would justify set the cost shift borne by us from the 2016 change to the cost-sharing model

between the state and counties for the ihss programme. just tor context, following that cost shift, the city and our projected upcoming deficit in fiscal year '20 and '21, we are paying an additional $125 million more than we anticipated prior to the cost shift. in the january proposed budget, hsa estimates the potential of partial roll-back of that in the governor's budget is $28 million. so a 28% reduction but still we have to balance around it. but other potential upside that i think is really a bright spot in the governor's budget and in alignment with city-wide priority, both the mayors and yours are around housing and homelessness and the proposed budget, of course, you have to wait to see what happened

mid-may and the government outlined $750 million for housing state-wide, $500 million for production and $250 million for planning. additionally, towards homelessness, these are one-time sources. for homelessness, about $300 million one time for shelters and 200 million for meeting shelter goals and housing goals as incentives. it is to be determined what the allocations will be and what the parameters for receiving that funding will be. so we'll have a much better sense in may about what percentage san francisco may receive and for what type of specific programming. it was very high level in january. >> just a clarifying question through the chair, that state-wide, though. >> oh, state-wide, for the whole state. >> thank you. >> we will get a portion of it and to be determined what portion we will get.

>> the largest economy in the world, that's like pittance. definitely much more significant impact than -- or at least potential investment than the past couple of budgets from the state. [ laughter ] >> labour assumptions, labour negotiations should they deviate as it relates to wag wage incres at the cpi, a 1% increase or decrease, but 1% variance from our assumptions is $23 million from 1% of general funds and that's a compounding number if you had a 1% increase for the next three years, that would be 23, 46 and $69 million so material cost impacts depending on how negotiations shake out. the housing authority, we have not assumed within the five-year

financial plan any costs of either helping to shore up the voucher programme going forward or any other associated costs with the city assuming the essential functions as outlined by hud in the last month. contained within the five-year financial plan is an assumption for the mco provisions that were passed by the mayor and the board this past fall related to the base-wage increases for both ihss workers and contracted city workers, namely nonprofits. most recently the controller's office has released an analysis and i believe recommendations from a working group that was formed following those conversations by, i believe, resolution of the board that a range of potential impaction costs either vertical wage pressures or wage pressures for workers who are not on city contracts to be two to 20 million, depending on the depths of the wage compaction that policy makers would like to

address. and then, finally, we don't assume ballot measures, the cost of potential ballot measures. the only one with a fiscal impact is free city college which is a $15 million a year programme escalating each year. finally, we don't assume a recession within the five-year planning which would materially impact the city's deficit and we are notably and almost tied, nearing tying the expansion in u.s. history. so we're mindful of future year risks. with ha, i'm happ that, i'm hapr any questions. >> president yi. >> can you brush on these ballot measures? what are you talking about? city colleges? >> the own one that has a financial impact, that has qualified for the ballot at this time is the free city college baseline and that is $15 million

a year and it escalates in outer years, should that pass. it would be an additional baseline. >> why would that? what financial impact would that have in i thought we already have funding for that. the city's current free-city programme is about 5.2 or 5.$5 million for the school programme plu. plus there's a summer programme about $6 million. so that is taken to appropriation every year but the difference is about $10 million. so there would be at least that much difference than the current budget. >> yes, supervisor -- president yi? i mean, i can see why you it in there and why you wouldn't it in there, because it was that much funding available before. it was never allocated.

>> so are you saying there's a president source. >> i thought this -- wasn't this the prop w? >> yes. >> -- that the city passed awhile back in which there was the adequate funding to fund at that level. at that time, we chose not to, so it's kind of strange to it in there as a factor. >> controller, i think the key point on miss kirkpatrick is making we try to highlight in the report is that the projection is of what we know. but there are factors that will change the row injection, of prg those will be future ballot measures which are unknown. and so the city college is one example of a ballot measure that we have not assumed the cost of and there will be other

americans going forward to the future ballots that will change the forecast. some may be additional costs. some of those may be revenue sources that have not yet been approve builapproved by the vot. so to clarify, this expense is not included in the projections that we talked through earlier, nor are other futures that the board may choose to place before the voters. >> thank you. >> supervisor mendleman. >> thank you, chair. actually, sense you brought it up, my recollect ion and we

would provide certainty into obviate the need and i wonder if you had an update on those those negotiations might be going. >> the mire's education adviser is engaging with public youth and family and as well as city college to mou out the details. >> any other comments, yeses? no. ok, have you finished your presentation. >> i have. >> that's great. i wanted to comment to say that this is good news, actually, that from our january projections, that it's $117 million --

>> is 15 115 i think. >> i just have to say that is very, very good. thank you very much. >> i think the good news is because, you know, this budget committee -- >> a budget committee. we have very little to do with that, actually. are there any members that would like to speak on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed and this is an informational item, i believe. >> this is a resolution? >> a resolution.

>> so we'll just make a motion to move this to the full board, seconded by president yi and can we take that without objection? thank you very much and madam clerk, can you call item number 5. >> ordinance appropriating 398,000 to overtime in the fire department, appropriating 5 5.7 million, mandatory fringe benefits and capital projects and appropriatating 5.7 million to overtile and professional services in the sheriff's office and overtime in fs-puc to promote overi'm. overtime. >> miss kirkpatrick is back.

these three departments are seeking your approval to essentially move funding from the departmental savings in the case of the fire department's revenue to neutrally meet the need, cost new neutrally meet te need. it's 6.$1 million. it is moving money within departmental's existing budgets. >> last year this included more

departments, as well, including the department of emergency management and wealth over $14 million and two years ago, the overtime supplemental was over $25 million and included more departments. the city is making progress toward accurately budgeting over time in these departments, introducinintroducing overall vf plummettasettlemental needs year year. the department partners have been diligent in the analysis city-wide to be the one supplemental this year before the board and that is our goal. high level, the fire department is seeking appropriation authority for about $400,000 related to 10b overtime needs for expedited and off-hour facility inspections, for coverage of special events. the public utilities commission is seeking $1.3 million for both

the water and waste water enterprises to deal and cover current year staffing shortages at those two divisions and utilized to meet staffing -- needed operating staffing levels to respond to emergencies such as water main breaks and flooding during the rainy season. finally the sheriff's office is seeking to appropriate $4.5 million to deappropriate salary savings as well as capital funding projects that have been delayed to meet operational needs related to training, as well as electronic monitoring duties, due to bail reform and progress and court cases, the volume of individuals utilizing electronic monitoring increased significantly, so the department needs to move additional funding into the electronic monitoring contract to meet that need. with that, i will end my

presentation, but we'll have department answer any more specific questions should you have them and the bla has a report. i'm sorry, president yi. >> members of the committee, supervisor, the proposed amended office, sea revenues totaling $6,149,053 is on page 1 of our report. the professional services in the sheriff's office, overtime in the san francisco p utility's commission and overtime in the fire department. approval of the proposed appropriation if the sheriff's office requires a vote from all supervisors from section 1.99c. in table 2 on page 9 of the report, the sheriff's office has

a $4,450,000 surplus in -- sorry, has 4,450,000 in surplus salaries, fringe benefits, capital projects and facility's maintenance due to a staffing deficit, as well as projected excess overtime due to new requirements established by the policing goals, proposition 63 and increase in court ordered electronic monitoring caseload. the department is requesting an additional 450,000 for professional services for an existing contract with leaders. as detailed in table 3 of page 11 of our report, the fire department has 398,561 in overtime service fee revenues that exceed budgeted revenues in the department's fiscal

year '18-'19 budget as well as overtime expenditures of $398,561 due to higher anticipateanticipated level of y and inspections for permits needed to for construction. on page 4, the sanfrancisco public utility's commission has $1,300,392 in surplus salaries due to vacant positions and projected excess overtime expenditures of $1,300,492 due to staffing shortages impacting the ability of the water prize division to meet staffing levels and response to emergencies, as well as planning and preparationests to membership myself flooding to the rainy season and we recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. >> president yi. >> yes. is anyone from puc here?

>> i don't think in past i have seen this amount of money into overtime for puc and i started thinking why is that. and it's because of a shortage of staffing and when i look at how many suppositions that could potential have, this 1.3 million, what's going on? what kind of staffing are we short in and why aren't we recruiting because i don't thins that the shortage in staffing seems to be positions that people can fill.

>> right. s that a good point, president yi. one component about $650,000 of the proposed supplemental is related to flsa payments. so fair labour standard's act, the city repeatly revised the policy under which we administer overtime and there have been retroactive payments due to that. and so, since it was recently changed, the puc budgeted as well as they thought. payments were needed but they've cost a bit more than anticipated. so that's about half of that. the puc themselves can speak to the other kind of shortage and staffing related to the other pieces of it. >> thank you. president yi, i'll divide the two enterprises requesting overtime, water and waste water and i'll start by asking the assistant general manager of water, steve ritchie about the enterprise staffing questions and then after steve, i'll ask

our other waste water head. >> thank you, john. steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water at the puc. on the water side, our major staffing shortages were in water treat plant operators and the reason we're suffering shortages has been a long delay in getting a list developed for both those classifications. there were issues between dar and the unions and so they delayed for about two years the actual recruitment process in terms of the establishing lists. the exams were finally given late last fall and we started to fill vacancies now but they existed for quite a period of time. >> so are these positions still vacant? >> we started filling them for the water treatment plan operators and filled half of the positions. >> what's the total number of

positions? >> i don't have the total number of positions. but the total number of vacancies in the division, i believe, was about 12 positions of water treatment operators. we've filled six now and so we have six more left to fill. for the plumber positions, those were primarily plumbers working in the city distribution division, the folks who respond to main breaks and things like that. and so i believe we've filled two-third of those positions. >> and how many? >> those numbers i don't have off the top of my head, but the bebest of my recollection, we hd 12 to 15 vacancies. for the waste water positions, are they blue collar positions or what are they? >> i'll turn that over to our assistant general manager for waste water.

for a quick background on the waste water enterprise, it's not that different than the water. it basically boils down to two groups for the waste water enterprise, roughly speaking, and that's operation's staff that actually run the plants 24/7 and then the maintenance staff that does the maintenance on those facilities. those two areas make up approximately 250 employees and we're averaging about a 25 to 30% shortage in terms of plans staffing levels versus actual. now that situation has developed over many years for a number of situations or a number of factors, i should say. so the correlation, if you want to call it that, was a match between the staffing gap and the unplanned overtime are actually quite close. the unplanned overtime is asking

existing staff to fill the gaps for sort of the structural short-fall in the operations and maintenance. so that's the answer to your questions about the nature of the jobs. these are both frontline operational jobs. near not clerical or lab or anything like that. these would be the staff that are operating the plants 24/7 and doing the preventive and main omaintenance on facilitiess well. >> i'm asking this line of questions because i think probably i made the assumption that positions are good -- better than middle income or at least middle income blue collar type jobs in which there seems to be plenty of people that we could find in those positions. and considering we're losing our

blue collar-type jobs and middle-income jobs in sanfrancisco, it seems like we should do a better job than that. i don't know how to expedite it. do you have any plans? >> others can speak to that as well, but there's quite an extensive bit of work. and steve can speak to the water end of things, but generally speaking for both waste water and water industry utility workers were just in a severe chronic shortage across the industry because of some long-term dem grap demographics. there's a huge amount of outflow and contrary to the examination, they don't have the highest entry, we have an incredibly

difficult time recruiting people into these positions and that's not unique to sanfrancisco. this is a workforce shortage that the industry sees across california and at varying degrees across the country. so we're competing for very much the same set of skillsets as other major private industries in terms of heavy instruments on control, mechanical systems and so forth, so we're this an extremely competitive labour market and for some of the reasons steve mentioned, which are structural to our hiring process, we're at a severe disadvantage this the hiring environment when it comes to trying to retap retain and recrt people in these areas. >> you may already have this system, but if just a severe shortage in which these are not the highest entry level positions, do you have

internships for-up people to foo have a pathway into these positions and if you do, can you build a capacity to increase the number of young people that can enter this? >> the answer to that is yes. we're working hard to essentially improve the on-ramps or ways people can come into this area. as i think you're aware, there's a somewhat complicated consideration i won't comment on that has do with the city-wide apprentice programme and that apprentice programme does impact one of our primary entry level career paths, which is the stationary engineer's programme. separate from that, there's a number of avenues from that, but those are all in flux right now. i think primarily the apprentice

programme and i won't comment because that's labour negotiations. i think there's -- i'm not the only one that probably feels this way, that with lik i wouldo see how puc -- not just puc -- i don't want to just pick on puc, but certainly there's an opportunity here to really support some of the young people coming up and would fit right into this type of position where they work with their hands or whatever. so i hope that the puc could actually a number of resources into developing this programme. >> thank you very pitch. much. any other questions or comments from colleagues? i have one question. i have a question for the

sheriff's department. last year we had an issue and i see you have nearly filled all of your vacancies. could you give us a two-sentence update, basically, about where you are in the hiring? >> well, since fiscal '15-'16 within the year sheriff came in, we have hired 236 sworn officers. we're back up to the staffing levels ha we had in fiscal yea year '12-13. we are giving new security and training requir requirements any to balance that out with

overtime while keeping our budget at the level that was authorized by this body. >> so what is your optimum staffing level? >> well, in terms of overtime, really, think the optimum level would be to be working roughly 10% overtime. i think that's a level that is manageable operationally. when i started, which was just about three years ago, we were averaging around 30% in the jails. we have brought that down to 20% and still have a ways go and have made significant progress. >> thank you very much. i think last year when you came before us, there were many of your labour partners that were complaining about mandatory overtime. so i want to say congratulations for filling your vacancies. last year you had a significant amount of vacancies in your department. >> the department has done a lot of work and the sheriff has been

very supportive of that. >> thank you to the sheriff. thank you. any more questions? none. would someone like to make a motion? public comment? michael, so sorry. any speakers. mr. wright? >> that's ok, dear. you talk about waste water. you should be talking about wasting money. you got well over a thousand city employees that's been working five, ten, 15, 20 and 25 years and you violate their constitutional right, claiming your equal opportunity employer but you categorize their jobs and exempt, so you don't have to give them full medical benefits and contribute no money into their pension plan. i'm going to back you up before you start giving money for expenditures to overtime for employees that's getting the type of benefits that's people that are exempt that's not getting pagetting paid.

they should be taken care of first before you provide billions of dollars to employees on the receiving end of full benefits pertaining to healthcare and a retirement plan after this retire and stop working that job. because what you're doing, you're 100% pure as peein beingp crit and two-faced because you looked at the executive director for the director of health, embezzle the $700,000, $100,000 a year and when she get caught, you make her retire and lose her job and she retire and get her benefits as far as pension plans. that's i gues disgusting. she should be in jail for misappropriations of funds, tax evase, money laundering and bank fraud just like those poor little rich kids whose parents is paying money to get into

college and people are going the right way to get in can't get in and people not getting paid working 15, 20 years for the city. and about these vouchers and you not taking responsibilities for those housing authority. you took over that position and you can't leave those people in limbo without that voucher. >> thank you. thank you, mr. wright. wright. any other speakers. public comment is now closed. >> i think we can entertain a motion now. >> i'll move we forward this to the full board for recommendation. >> i second that. and we can take that without objection. thank you very much. madam clerk, do you have any other items before us today? >> there are no other items? >> we are journed. are adjourned.

>> my name is alan schumer. i am a fourth generation san franciscan. in december, this building will be 103 years of age. it is an incredibly rich, rich history. [♪]

>> my core responsibility as city hall historian is to keep the history of this building alive. i am also the tour program manager, and i chair the city advisory commission. i have two ways of looking at my life. i want it to be -- i wanted to be a fashion designer for the movies, and the other one, a political figure because i had some force from family members, so it was a constant battle between both.

i ended up, for many years, doing the fashion, not for the movies, but for for san franciscan his and then in turn, big changes, and now i am here. the work that i do at city hall makes my life a broader, a richer, more fulfilling than if i was doing something in the garment industry. i had the opportunity to develop relationships with my docents. it is almost like an extended family. i have formed incredible relationships with them, and also some of the people that come to take a tour. she was a dressmaker of the first order. i would go visit her, and it was

a special treat. i was a tiny little girl. i would go with my wool coat on and my special little dress because at that period in time, girls did not wear pants. the garment industry had the -- at the time that i was in it and i was a retailer, as well as the designer, was not particularly favourable to women. you will see the predominant designers, owners of huge complexes are huge stores were all male. women were sort of relegated to a lesser position, so that, you reached a point where it was a difficult to survive and survive financially. there was a woman by the name of diana. she was editor of the bazaar, and evoke, and went on and she

was a miraculous individual, but she had something that was a very unique. she classified it as a third i. will lewis brown junior, who was mayor of san francisco, and was the champion of reopening this building on january 5th of 1999. i believe he has not a third eye , but some kind of antenna attached to his head because he had the ability to go through this building almost on a daily basis during the restoration and corrects everything so that it would appear as it was when it opened in december of 1915. >> the board of supervisors approved that, i signed it into law. jeffrey heller, the city and county of san francisco oh, and

and your band of architects a great thing, just a great thing. >> to impart to the history of this building is remarkable. to see a person who comes in with a gloomy look on their face , and all of a sudden you start talking about this building, the gloomy look disappears and a smile registers across their face. with children, and i do mainly all of the children's tours, that is a totally different feeling because you are imparting knowledge that they have no idea where it came from, how it was developed, and you can start talking about how things were before we had computer screens, cell phones, lake in 1915, the mayor of san francisco used to answer the

telephone and he would say, good morning, this is the mayor. >> at times, my clothes make me feel powerful. powerful in a different sense. i am not the biggest person in the world, so therefore, i have to have something that would draw your eye to me. usually i do that through color, or just the simplicity of the look, or sometimes the complication of the look. i have had people say, do those shoes really match that outfit? retirement to me is a very strange words. i don't really ever want to retire because i would like to be able to impart the knowledge

that i have, the knowledge that i have learned and the ongoing honor of working in the people's palace. you want a long-term career, and you truly want to give something to do whatever you do, so long as you know that you are giving to someone or something you're then yourself. follow your passion and learn how to enrich the feelings along the way.

>> good morning, and welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority board. our clerk is mr. cantinia. would you please call the roll. [roll call] >> we have quorum.