[gavel]. >> chair fewer: the meeting will come to order. this is the june 6, 2019 special meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisors catherine stefani, raphael

mandelman, hillary ronen, and norman yee. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you. madam clerk, please read item number 1. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. president yee. that's okay. let's hear the b.l.a. report right now. thank you. >> good afternoon, chair fewer, members of the committee. dan goncher from the budget and

legislative analyst's office. -- 250,000 to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for projects in district 7. the proposed ordinance repropos reproposed $700,000. we recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any comments? questions? seeing none, yeah -- okay. sorry. i just that you hought i'd hea

the sponsor. let's open this up for public comment. anyone want to offer public comment? okay. seeing none, that's closed. i move to make a positive -- oh, president yee, would you like to comment on this item since all the work you put in around your participatory budgeting process? educate us on this. >> president yee: unfortunately, i didn't bring my notes on this, but okay. participatory budgeting. i wanted to make sure that we get the money out and allocated. took us a little longer this year in terms of getting our community process together, but this is our 6th year of doing this program. and in the past, we've allocated through add-backs to

fund this particular program in which we have different categories of funding. one of them being the pedestrian safety measures. generally, we put about $250,000 in that, and then, there's usually another 200 -- depending on the years, $200,000 to $300,000 for quality of life projects. generally, they're about $25,000 apiece. it goes from getting people ready for disaster preparedness to fixing up a school yard. actually in this case, we did something new this year, and actually, i was pleasantly surprised that people were interested. i talked about it at the board meeting before about activating play space, and whether it's on a sidewalk or some vacant lot. we actually are funding two projects in the district to do

that, and this should be kind of fun to see what happens. and in addition, we had the funding from t.a., and -- that we've had for a while, and we have so many pedestrian safety projects proposals that we made the decision to allocate almost all of it this year so that our grant total for projects -- i think we're going to have about 25 projects total. and the allocation's really nearly $1 million. so it should be a good thing. we had -- once again, we had over 2,000 people vote on these -- these items in which they probably did about -- when they actually voted for each item, they probably tallied

around 18,000 to 20,000 tallies. it's a goodyear. again, maybe people don't understand how hard it is to get 18,000 people to vote with no infrastructure. erica and others did great outreach. others have tried us before. i think the most that any district has gotten in terms of people voting is 400. so when you compare 400 approximate 2,000, that's a lot -- 400 with 2,000, that's a lot of work. so i just want to get the work out and get support. >> chair fewer: yeah. that's great. it's hard to get one person to vote. okay. i'd like to make a motion to recommend this to the full board with a positive

recommendation. can i have a second? >> president yee: second. >> chair fewer: okay. president yee. madam clerk, will you read items 2 and 3. >> clerk: item 2, resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the construction, being by significance, improvement -- acquisition, improvement, renovation and seismic retrofitting of the emergency firefighting water system, firefighting facilities and infrastructure, police facilities and infrastructure,

faciliti facilities for the department of emergency management's 911 call center, and other disaster response facilities and infrastructure for earthquake and public safety and related costs necessary for convenient for the foregoing purposes. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you. could i have the report please. >> good afternoon. dan ganchar from the budget analyst's office. providing for the levee and collection of taxes to pay the bond principal and interest, and waiving time limits under section 2.3434.

[inaudible] >> -- of the emergency firefighting water system, firefighting facilities and infrastructure, police facilities and infrastructure, police facilities for the department of emergency management's 911 call center and other disaster response facilities. in 2010, voters approved proposition b. which authorized $412 million to finance the construction, acquisition, improvement and retrofitting of police and fire facilities and replacement of the emergency firefighting water system. in june 2014, san francisco voters approved proposition a, which authorized the issuance of an additional $400 million

of eser bonds as well as new eser bond projects. as the 2010 and 2014 eser bonds have been appropriated, and you can see the breakdowns on table 6 of our report, the bond would be sold in six issuances between 2010 and 2028. total debt service payments are estimated to be $1.080 billion, including $628 million in principal with annual debt repayments of $353,000.

the proposed issuances are consistent with the city's policies to keep the property tax rate for the city's general objections bonds we -- general obligations bonds below the 2005-2006 rate. on table 2, you can see we show the proposed used for the eser bonds. approval of the proposed resolution 19-0500 requires two thirds or more of the supervisors' approval and approval by the mayor. in addition, this $628 million bond would require approval by san francisco voters, and our recommendation is this is a policy decision for the board of supervisors. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have naomi kelly here as city administrator and also charles figueris from

public works. >> with good afternoon, supervisors, naomi kelly, city administrator. i am pleased here talk to talk about eser 2020. eser is part of the g.o. bond program and is used to address the city's critical public safety infrastructure. there are fire and police stations, there's the emergency firefighters water system, and the 911 call center which are components of the eser 2020, and all of these are critical in how do we respond to a major earthquake. this is reviewed and laid out in our bond, which was passed april 30. i want to acknowledge supervisor stefani for her support on our public safety agencies and of the eser program generally. we are asking you to recommend

eser 2020 bond of $628.5 million for the upcoming march 2020 ballot to improve and upgrade critical infrastructure and first responder facilities are needed to protect the city. $275 million will go to seismically upgrading selected fire houses and replacing the firefighter academy and training facility. $120.8 million for the continuation of seismically upgraded district police stations and police support facilities, $70 million for making seismic improvements to disaster response facilities, and $9 million for the renovation of the existing 911 call center. this will be the third installment of the eser bond program, which the other two

bond programs being overwhelmingly approved by the voters in 2010 and 2014. if we are to have response facilities, we have to fix them now as part of this program. due to careful planning, the property tax rate will not increase as a result of eser 2020 because the city only issues new bonds once previous bonds have been paid down. in light of recent natural disasters up north and living in earthquake country, it is imperative that we develop long-term plans in order to ensure that we are protecting infrastructure and keeping san francisco and his residents, workers, and visitors safe. i would like to roy charles guerra now up to talk about

eser 2020. we look forward to answering any questions that you may have. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is charles yaris, and i am the current eser bond manager beginning in 2020 and the current time. the five components are as illustrated here. three of the components align with how we have addressed first responders needs in previous bonds, which is to say the participation of emergency, police, fire, and the participating water system. two new components here are the disaster response facility and the 911 call center. we all know that we live in earthquake country, rather, and that the big one is just around the corner, but there are smaller earthquakes as well that we need to anticipate and be prepared to in a sense survive. the two previous bonds have set about to strengthen our infrastructure and facilities for first responders so that

they're not negatively affected by an earthquake such that they would not be able to deploy effectively their personnel and their equipment. we accomplished quite a bit since we launched our eser bond program in 2010. the public safety building in mission bay which houses police headquarters, relocated district station as well as district four to serve the mission bay and beyond. new medical examiner facility that was inaugurated late last year. we have inaugurated two others, station on marina and greenwich in cow hollow. we have strengthened the historic water system, and we're now seeking to set about

expanding in a sense, the reach, the effect, the positive effect of this system. our project locations have spanned throughout the city. we have sought to address all of those facilities and infrastructure that were most in need of remediation or replacement, so in that way, we ensure that there's parity in the city in order for first responders to deploy effectively for those who call for service. the emergency firefighting water system is a very unique system. i'm sure you're familiar with it. it historically was called the awss, the auxiliary water service system. it was originally installed in 1913, but we needed to bring it to a system of modern functionality, which we started to do in 2010 and we will

continue in the wake of this next bond. there are some projects underway currently, the motorcycle police crime lab is beginning construction this summer and will be completed in two years time. fireboat station 35 at pier 22 1/2 is expected to finish construction this summer and be inaugurated next year. so our scope of work overview for eser 2020 is among these various components. again, i think it was previously described, but our intent again is to ensure that we create reliable facilities, resilient facilities that can best serve the needs of our fellow residents in the city

when they need that first responder attention and action. there is great need among all these facilities, and so how we set about seeking to prioritize them is in its simplest consideration founded on what is the state of condition and what is the importance relative to its tactical necessity, its blending of great effectiveness and deployment in first responders. i should say we've had great collaboration with all of the departments with which we've worked since 2010 in getting to the right projects and setting about realizing those. similarly, on the efws, very complex engineering enterprise managed directly by the public utilities commission staff. it is intended to, as i said earlier, bring around our

historic system to a state of very reliable readiness and as well to expand it in locations where it has historically not been evident or robustly present. well, you all know the capital plan so i won't belabor that. suffice it to say that the next opportunity to begin to turn the corner on our infrastructure facility needs for first responders, that next phase is slated for 2027. our city is growing, and with more growth, more residents, more sort of lucky residents of this city, we will have continued need for first responder service and the departments that support that reliability of service. this is about safeguarding our city, scity that we all know ad love, and i'm now available for

any questions that you might have. thank you. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any questions? comments? seeing none, i would like to personally thank harlan kelly for working so closely with my office to ensure our participation and our voice in the 2020 eser bond, and so thank you so much, mr. kelly. we don't have any questions or comments, then i'd like to take these items -- vote on these two items separately -- >> clerk: madam -- >> chair fewer: oh, public comment. mr. wright, would anyone like to offer public comment on items number 3 and 4, and this is about the public safety eser bond? >> clerk: madam chair, it's items 2 and 3. >> well, you're confusing me.

what do you want me to speak on? >> chair fewer: yes, sir. >> my name is brad edwards, district 11. chair fewer, president yee, others, one somewhat tangential part to this is the offices of the treasurer and tax collector has to administer municipal debt, effectuate the servicing of the debt. wh when we have, say, a lot of these, and we have a lot of these from the sugary drinks tax, the continuation of the payroll tax, i just want to ensure that we also think about them having adequate resources to -- to dispense all the duties that we have charged them with. and i hope that as we do all of these, we remember that there

is that aspect, as well. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, sir. any other public speakers? mr. wright. >> yeah, i object -- you got my time here, right? i object to this part where you say property tax increases, especially the part to residential tenants. the tenants already having a hard time enough to survive here in the city as it is. and about security and the treatment of the landlords, you're further giving them opportunity to make it harder for people to survive in the city. so i object to that, but everything else seems all right to me. and i want to speak up where you've got the police department involved. i want to say i object to how the police chief has been treated by the union.

he's been asked to resign and he's got good control over his staff. a good example was when that female was driving that car, and the whole police station at the tenderloin rushed out with the history of the police officers. that could have been an easy excuse for each and every police officer to unload their firearm and murder that female, and not one cop shot not one god damn bullet. where if that was the past police chiefs whose skin color was not black, that lady would have gotten murdered in the same manner that mario woods got murdered, the way that hispanics g hispanics got murdered in the woods, and all those other people got killed. you didn't do anything about the god damn racist text messages that was going on under the other police chief, and you're going to try to mess with him on the first

controversy that's taking place in this administration. that cops didn't shot that woman because they've got a police chief that won't go for it. you tell the union president to resign, and tell him to pay his union dues, mr. smart ass. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. >> i was wondering if i could talk to you on the budget and infrastructure a little broader in general. pg&e's institutional investors presumably have received tax breaks in regards to utility maintenance. the power grid may be near the end of this utility cycle. in my opinion any price above minimal cost might be

considered as capital inflation or it may be a house full of smoke and mirrors. the company is presently on the hook for an estimated $11 billion to $30 billion. consumers and taxpayers would not save any of the energy or any money on the deal. they would pay higher taxes, they would pay higher rates, the first on the purchase and the latter on consumption.

i certainly hope my facts are accurate, but you should determine the matter for yourselves. i would be curious to know the strike price if i am correct. at previous board boxes fell into the direction to install a sewer site on the bridge, and they stuck to their comment, rather than to appear politically decisive. >> chair fewer: thank you. any other members of the public like to speak on this? seeing none, public comment is now closed. so colleagues, i'd like to take this in two parts. one to make a motion to pass this to the full board with a positive recommendation. can i have a second? >> clerk: as a committee report? >> chair fewer: as a committee report, thank you very much. and we can take seconded by supervisor stefani. we can take that without objection. thank you very much.

on item number 3, i'd like to vote on simple amendment. i gave a copy to each of you, page 3, lines 8 and 9, very simply, it is a little language difference. so can we first vote on those amendments? second by president yee, without objection. and then, continue item number 3 until the meeting next week -- as amended. second by supervisor raphael mandelman. thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call items 4 and 5 together. >> clerk: yes. item 4 is a resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand the construction, development, acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, preservation and repair of affordable housing improvements and

related costs necessary or convenient to be financed through bond indebtedness in an amount not to compete $500 million. authorizing landlords to pass through 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants, providing for the levy and collection of taxes. item number is an ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the city and county of san francisco on tuesday, november 5, 2019 for the purpose of submitting to san francisco voters a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness not to exceed $500 million to finance the construction, development, acquisition, improvement, rehabilitation, preservation, and repair of affordable housing improvement and relates costs necessary or convenient to the foregoing purposes.

>> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have someone from housing development to speak here today. would you like us to start with the b.l.a. report first? >> yes plea, please, that woul great. >> chair fewer: okay. can we have the b.l.a. part. >> dan gonchar with the budget and legislative analyst's office. >> file 19-0495 is a proposed ordinance that would call for a special election to be held in san francisco on november 5, 2019. in order to submit to san francisco voters a proposition to incur not to exceed $500

million of bond indebtedness. proposition a was approved by the voters in 2015, provided for the issuance of $310 million in general obligation bonds for affordable housing in the city. table 1 on page 11 of our report shows the budget for that 2015 affordable housing bond. the proposed ordinance would involve placing a new proposition on the november 2019 ballot to approve the issuance of $500 million in general obligation bonds for affordable housing in the city. of that, $150 million would be allocated to new housing. $200 million would be allocated to construction, development,

acquisition, and improvement and rehabilitation and residenc reservation of existing housing. on table 2 on page 12 of our report outlines the possible uses for the proposed 2019 affordable housing bond. the estimated repayment of the bond over 20 years is $897 million of which $397 million is interest and $500 million is principle. estimated annual payments would be $40 million.

approval of the proposed ordinance and resolution is a policy decision for the board of supervisors. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. miss hartley, are we ready? >> good afternoon, supervisors. kate hartley, director of the san francisco mayor's office of housing and community development. let's see...i think if we can get the -- thank you. we are very pleased to be here today to present the 2019 general obligation bond for affordable housing. it began as a $500 million bond, and we are expecting to use those funds in a wide variety of ways for predevelopment to jump start new developments, land acquisitions, the preservations of existing buildings as an antidisplacement measure, homes for teachers, and pay downs for

households, and new construction. we expect these will serve families, seniors, individuals, people experiencing homelessness, people who are struggling to stay in san francisco, working and housed but still struggling, middle-income households who would like to set down roots with a home purchase. we believe this will help prevent homelessness, help address climate change issues by keeping people in san francisco and close to their jobs and also of course to generally keep the city diverse and vibrant. the bond categories were set for low-income housing, senior housing, middle-income housing and preservation in the middle-income category.

and again, we started with $500 million. there were several stakeholders meetings, community meetings, and a great deal of discussion that resulted in these allocations that you see before you. we are very happy to say that we now are fortunate enough to have not $500 million to allocate, but $600 million to allocate among the various categories, and those allocations are currently under discussion by supervisors and the mayor's office. i know that everyone is anxious to get to public comment, and so i'll just be very brief in going through the categories for those who are not familiar with how the original allocations were made. the first is $150 million for public housing to continue on the work that we have done with the public transformation of public housing is really a promise fulfilled.

we have the last two remaining large distressed public housing sites, sunnydale and potrero. these funds will enable us to do emergency repairs. as many saw last week at the mayor's budget announcement, we'll replace every single unit 1:1, and we have new net housing. we leverage our funds with tax credits and other funds with the state and federal government. we serve a wide variety of households, and many vulnerable households. these funds will serve everybody from working families, people experiencing homelessness, transition aged youth, veterans, and more.

you can see if you're in housing at 30% a.m.i. and you have to be out on the market looking for housing, it's virtually impossible to afford an apartment. we have strong antidisplacement going on, and we want to further strengthen that, to $30 million was committed to convert permanent housing into affordable housing. and middle-income households, we have a very successful down payment assistance loan program. we also have a subset of those programs called the teacher next door program, and so we want to serve middle-income households with refunding the down payment assistance loan program and teacher next door. and you can see how difficult it is pork our working families

in san francisco to buy a home. the affordability gap is huge. and finally, our senior housing. i think we're all in agreement with our ageing population, we want to serve seniors better and serve more seniors, especially those on fixed incomes are particularly vulnerable. the original allocation was $90 million for this category, and it would serve -- it would provide funds for new construction. we want to use those as efficiently as possible so we'll leverage other funds, and we can also serve seniors in existing buildings, as well. we will be needing to make amendments because of the additional $100 million available. you can see the calendar here,

so the decision-making process has some approval. we'll distribute the funds in tranches over time, and we hope to have all the funds disbursed and working within five years of the original issuance. and that is my presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. questions? president yee? >> president yee: no questions. just want to add to the comments and how exciting it is to number one focus on the affordable housing bond and for us to have grown it from $300

million to $500 million. sometimes you get comfortable and say oh, we're done. and there's an additional $100 million. i know that my office and additional offices have been in discussion with the mayor's office to figure out how to divide up that $100 million to add to the $500 million. so today, there won't be any amendments made, but we actually need to make amendments. but since we don't know the exact numbers in terms of the categories we have, we're hoping to get that done by next week. that's one of my goals, to work with everybody including the mayor's office to make that happen. and then, the other thing, i

know many of my colleagues were very concerned about whether or not labor was going to be able to work out an agreement in regards to this particular bond measure. and i met with some of the labor folks this morning, and they were telling me that they're really close to coming up with a concept that they agreed to, and that they would have a sign -- would have some agreement for us in writing. and i don't know if, miss hartley, if it's okay for me to mention this at this point, but i think it's good to put on the record, that there's some agreement that's been made to mitigate some of the concerns of the labor folks in regards to the bond measure. so that's good news because i

think now it gives us a much clearer path forward to make sure that we're going to get our two dlsh thirds vo-thirds . so that's all i wanted to say, and i'm really looking forward to public comment. >> chair fewer: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thanks to president yee for continuing the work to get us this far. i just wanted to put on the record, as you all know, i've introduced legislation to create a new program to preserve and expand cooperative housing opportunities for people living with severe mental illness and substance use. and given that we have this extra $100 million in a bond, i would like to see even a small

portion go towards this really important type of housing available in our portfolio, so i wanted to mention that, as well as the preference that we would add some additional funding to predevelopment housing. given this type of housing not only for the people suffering most in our city but for many people experiencing homelessness, so i just wanted to put those two comments on the record. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i just wanted to say the affordable housing preservation fund, the $30 million, i think for the small sites program will help neighborhoods who are suffering from losing a lot of affordable housing.

in the last ten years, i've lost 500 units of affordable housing in my neighborhood, and i know that 500 units of affordable housing have not been built. i also wanted to mention senior housing, and how they are at a very low-income, and we are woefully unprepared for our emerging senior population. i think supervisor ronen, working on the m.c.o. with me helped us realize how the city is so ill prepared for this emerging population with a lot of needs, and a high need is housing. so i'd like to see more funding put towards senior housing, which i think is our social responsibility. but with that, if we have no more comments -- you still -- >> supervisor ronen: i still -- you sparked my memory, if you wouldn't mind if i just added one more comment. that also an important part

that i think i'd like to add in language somewhere, and i'm not sure where the appropriate place is, if it's in the reports that came out of the working group, if it's in the resolution or the ordinance, but i understand and respect supervisor fewer's -- or chair fewer's statement on economic balance, but i want to add especially for mine and especially the mission district, to add some language that in addition to geographic balance, that we need to also have some emphasis on neighborhoods where there's the greatest loss of existing protected housing. and i think that -- that that -- having both of those is sort of guiding principles of how this money will be spent is important. so i, again, will work with the chair of the committee to see

if -- where the most appropriate place is to add that language. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. yeah, i agree. i think those that have lost affordable housing and have not received adequate amount of public housing dollars. so let's open this up to public comment. any members of the public -- hello, mr. wright -- that would like to speak on this item? i can call some names, mr. wright, while you're getting together. [nam [names read] >> chair fewer: okay. so if those people can lineup.

mr. wright, you're first. come on down. >> i want to put this in the record, too, and i object to the mayor's office on housing. every time you say 100% affordable housing, and you set the a.m.i. requirement at 40%. now your demonstration took place earlier this week. you said affordable housing, and you're going to start off at 40% of the a.m.i. that means people, the lowest income, you've got to make $68,950 a year to be a tenant to live in the building. and if you're not making that much money, your application is rejected. i appreciate kate hartley coming up and talking about or below. that's a damn lie. in your application, if you're not making the bait rate where

they're starting the -- base rate where they're starting the a.m.i., that's a lie. you're not only doing it here, but you did it again at mission rock when jane kim was here. jane kim said that it's supposed to be 100% affordable housing, and 40% of the 100% pie is supposed to be for low-income people. yet when you have the calculations on the building, the lowest income is 36,300 a year, and the lowest percentage is 2%, and you've got instructions saying that 15% of the brand-new units is supposed to be for very low and low-income bracket people. 1,000 units at mission rock. that means that 225 units are

supposed to be included in the housing -- >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright, for educating us and reminding us. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is curtis bradford, and i'm chairman of the tenderloin people's congress. i know we're very excited about the idea of having this bond measure pass. we all know how desperately we need this money, and i'm really excited that we're going to be able to add that extra $100 million in there. but i just wanted to bring up a couple small thoughts when we're talking about how to disburse the money. thank you, supervisor ronen because i agree with you totally, some of the money for co -- some more money for co-op style housing for people coming out of treatment and people with housing issues is really

important. we need to build that up. you know, we're talking about mental health s.f. it's not going to work unless it's tied to housing. some other pieces, something with the tenderloin, we really need some money for some larger apartment building acquisition and s.r.o. building and acquisition. we're losing those properties regularly out of our neighborhood. and in a community where they're so vulnerable and they have no place else to go. affordable housing development is not going to happen in my neighborhood. the only way we're going to keep low-income people in my community is if we preserve low-income how's -- existing low-income housing now. we're seeing a real problem. we know the best solution is to acquire the properties and make them permanently affordable, as many as we can, but to do that,