our commitment to printing locally means 69 jobs, and millions of tax dollars. we pride ourselves on being the heartbeat of the community. our editorial team focuses on coverage for the city and county of san francisco. it's important and relevant to the residents of san francisco. as a free newspaper publication, both home delivered and available in 830 rack locations in san francisco, it reaches deep into our cities. our readers get tremendous access to local san francisco businesses through our advertising as well as local community events that we sponsor. even with the exponential increases in news print, we have still not raised our advertising rates for the city and county of san francisco. we are committed to continuing the same publication schedule for the city and county of san francisco. we provide flexible deadlines

for the clerks of the board and other departments. thank you very much and if you have any questions, i'd be more than happy to answer them. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. thank you for being the heartbeat of the community. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to make an amendment to include the sing tao daily and world journal publication of san francisco. i'd like to make a positive recommendation to 4 and 5 as amended. we can take that without objection. thank you very much. i forgot to make a motion to excuse supervisor stefani. if i can take that -- >> clerk: your intention is to excuse her from all the previous votes up to this point? >> chair fewer: yes. thank you very much. >> clerk: would we have to

rescind the votes for each of those? previously she's listed in each of the previous votes as absent. >> chair fewer: so do i need to make a motion to excuse her? >> clerk: if you want to list her as excused if absent? >> chair fewer: no, absent is fine. i think she'll be joining us shortly. i think we're on item number 7. >> clerk: that's correct. >> chair fewer: thank you please call item 7. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so we have mr. dan wade,

director of water capital projects for sfpuc. >> good morning, supervisors. >> chair fewer: good morning. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here to present the mountain tunnel improvement management services. it's contract number pro-0096 with aecom technical services. may i have the slides, please. so the mountain tunnel is a 19-mile long tunnel that transmits water from hetch hetchy reservoir within yosemite national park, part of the system that transmits the water 167 miles across the state to 2.7 million users in san francisco and the bay area. this map shows the location of the tunnel circled in yellow, and again, it's a 19-mile long tunnel that takes water from

early intake after the canyon power tunnel to priest reservoir prior to down through the valley. mountain tunnel was constructed in 1917 to -25, and it's been in service since that time. it transports water from early use to priest reservoir. there's about 12.5 miles that was lined with concrete lining that was installed when the original tunnel was constructed. over time, deterioration in the lining has been noted. there was an inspection in 2012 that caused significant concern, and so since that time, we have been planning

additional inspections, which we've done in 2017. we did two contracts at that time. one was to do urgent repairs on the tunnel in preparation of -- we did a full inspection of the tunnel, and we also did some urgent repairs on the most significant deterioration in the tunnel. we did another phase two of those urgent repairs in 2018 and 2019. so as part of that inspection, we were able to approve the mountain tunnel improvements project, which is a project to improve the tunnel and ensure operation for the next 100 years to provide reliable performance standards and provide water to the san francisco bay area. the base bid is estimated at about $140 million. that's not including

construction contingency. the reason the construction term is so long is it has to be done during outage periods so we can continue to supply water to the customers. this is a picture of the tunnel during the 2017 inspection when the tunnel was drained, and you can see repairs being made to the lining. the scope of this particular agreement is to provide construction management services for the seven-year construction contract, and the services are listed here. i won't read three all of these, but if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. our request is to authorize the sfpuc to execute contract 96 with aecom construction with a not to exceed contract value of $24.5 million and a not to exceed period of eight year.

i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so i think there is a b.l.a. report on this. >> yes. the board of supervisors is being asked to approve a seven year contract -- actually an eight-year contract between p.u.c. and aecom for $24.5 million. this is for project services for the mountain tunnel project which was been well described. aecom was selected through an r.f.p. process. we summarized it in our report. the total amount is for $24.5 contract. $23.5 million is for actual labor charges, which we show in our report, and we are recommending approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and i just have a question. the total project amount is 231,918,000, so you're asking us today for an allocation of

that money to be put towards the first phase -- is this the first request that we've had out of this project budget? >> no. so as part of the capital improvement program that this project is a part of, the sfpucs capital plan for the water enterprise and the power enterprise, this project has been approved as part of that plan in terms of the allocation of funding. this contract is a portion of that funding to -- to authorize the instruction management services. now the construction contract itself would not be authorized or approved by the sfpuc until the ceqa process is complete, so there'll be another opportunity for discretionary action at that time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item number 7? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a recommendation to move this forward with a positive recommendation to the board. take that without objection.

thank you very much. please note that supervisor stefani has joined us. >> clerk: that's right. >> chair fewer: and mr. clerk, can you please call item number 8. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have carolyn mccormick from the mayor's office of housing and community development. >> hi. i put folders in the inbox right there. >> chair fewer: thank you very

much. >> all right. good morning, supervisors. my name is carolyn mccormick with the mayor's office of housing and community development, and i work on our small sites program. and today, i am requesting your approval of a not to exceed loan amount for six small sites projects for a loan amount not to exceed $48,656,000. your approval is necessary on these projects because the loan term on the loans is 40 years. as background on our small sites program, we -- since we launched our program in 2014, our portfolio has grown to 29

buildings, 211 residential units, and 13 commercial spaces, and we currently have 18 buildings, 164 units, and 20 commercial spaces in our pipeline. the core of our program continues to focus on acquisition and rehabilitation of five to 25-unit buildings and s.r.o.s, and we facilitation this by acquiring loans to rehabilitate the building. so a little bit about who we serve with our program. the target a.m.i. for small sites is 80% building wide average while also allowing an individual household to go to 120%, so that's sort of the max program cap, but we require the

building to maintain an 80% average? you'll note from this graph that 75% of the households in small sites buildings are below 80% a.m.i. average. our average is 50% a.m.i. we ensure these community assets remain affordable by recording a deed restriction with a term of no less than 75 years. they retain ownership by the sponsor, but we record that deed restriction on it. all six of these will be leveraging the seismic loan program as senior financing. the past program will enhance mohcd's ongoing preservation work under the small sites program. this resolution is also approving use of past funds. by replacing the more expensive conventional debt with low cost

long-term senior path financing, the city will significantly reduce borrowing costs and the need for other public resources such as f.f.p. i'll provide a little bit of background on the six projects that this resolution addresses? between june and august of this year, mohcd expects to close on transactions with c.c.cdc and a for a total of 69 units and 12 commercial spaces. you can see the locations of those buildings as well as the number of units in this map.

the buildings have already been acquired by meta and ccdc using bridge financing so that they could move quickly on the transactions in a competitive market like s.f.? and now mohcg is coming in to provide the permanent financing on these projects and also the deed restriction. the population serves in these buildings include seniors, low to moderate income households, monolingual households, and school aged children. the b.m.i. is between 40% and 45% a.m.i. so we have a lot of projects, and i'm not going to run through a deep dive of every single one, but just a few examples, this is 421 green. it's currently occupied by

long-standing monolingual multigenerational households, and mohcd has addressed tenant safety as well as quality of life improvements. you can see the before and after. in addition, they are constructing an accessory dwelling unit on the ground floor of the building, so there are increasing the supply of affordable housing. we'll have one extra unit here. and then, a second example -- i'll do a little bit more of a deep dive on. got 4830 mission street. meta is the sponsor. district 11, it's 21 units and six commercial spaces, and this building was built in 1990, so it wasn't subject to rent control, so we're really proud that we were able to put a permanent deed restriction on this one and preserve it for

low to moderate income households in the future. and then i'll just run through quickly. you've got 1201 paul, 17 units, one commercial. 3280 17th street. 1411 florida street, six units plus one a.d.u. being added, as well. and then, 65 woodward, six residential units in d-9, also meta. so with that, i recommend your approval of the resolution so that we can -- so mohcd can provide the permanent financing necessary to preserve these buildings as affordable housing, and i'm happy to answer your questions, as are my colleagues. thank you.

>> the board of supervisors is being asked to approve loans up to 40 years and up to $48.6 million for the six properties that were described by the representatives from the mayor's office. we show on page 28, table 2 of our report, we show the six properties in the loan amounts. so the loan is for about $48.4 million. our understanding is this includes a 10% contingency in case there are unforeseen site conditions that would require a greater loan amount. the other -- on page -- table 3, page 30 of our report, we do show the per unit cost of each of these projects that would be funded, and because some of these projects -- actually, the funding amount is over what was advertised in the notice of funding availability and over sort of the terms of -- for

each type of loan, we are considering this to be a possible matter for the board of supervisors. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public like to comment on this item? hello, mr. wright. >> you know, this is another example of how jacked -- two of you coming up here and talking about affordable housing. affordable for who? people in the same bracket as you? s.f. viewer, please. i'm real tired of this. you claim affordable housing, and you set the lowest requirement at the housing scale. that's $68,500 a year in order to be able to move into that apartment complex. so everybody's income that's

below that's below $68,950 a year is not included in the opportunity coming out of the mayor's office of housing. you're so deeply involved in your god damn discrimination, you discriminate against people with your own skin color because they're not the in the same income. i can't get you under skin color, but i can get you on discrimination for income. every housing that comes out of the mayor's office by making it too hard for most people to get

it. $103,450 in order to be a tenant in the building. you've got information from h.u.d., cite that says that every apartment is -- 15% of every complex is supposed to be for low-income or very low-income people, and you don't include that -- >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. this is a policy matter, and i checked, and i see no representation here from those supervisors where they're in their district, i move to continue this item -- oh, that's not how it works, i think. >> supervisor mandelman: coming in hot. >> chair fewer: the comp exceeds the original amount by $4.2 million, but not the

original cost. so can there be a motion, please? >> supervisor mandelman: i move that we forward this to the full board with a positive recommendation with the unanimous sense of all three of us that we would love to see some of these projects in our districts. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. we can take that without objection. thank you very much, mr. clerk. mr. clerk, can you read agenda item number 9, please. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i think we have colleen del rosario with the mayor's office of housing and community

development. >> i am here today to request the authorization of expenditures of the soma community stablization fund dollars in the amount of $919,954 for services that address the destablization of residents for fiscal year 2019 through 2020. the c.a.c. unanimously approved the list of funding recommendations that you see before you in may. if approved, there would be a remaining balance of about $729,000. on behalf of mohcd, i respectfully request you approve the resolution before you, authorizing $919,954 in soma community stablization

funds, and if you have any questions about our projects or about our history, i'm happy to answer those, as well. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. could we have a b.l.a. report. >> the board of supervisors is being asked to approve the funding allocation for one year, $900,000 for the soma community stablization fund. the r.f.p. process and who bid and what their scores were are shown on page 34 and 35 of our report. the actual selected funding allocation for fiscal year 19-20 is shown on page 35 and 36 of our report. we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 9? >> this, too, is a further demonstration, and how come there is no type of stablization to provide housing

for the 8,011 people that are homeless out on the street with a combination of both mental and physical disabilities? you can't pain and claim the first thing that you're going to help the homeless when you're running for office? to answer supervisor stefani's question, what are we going to do? i showed you a project that houses 22,871 people. building trades will be working on this. when the census bureau goes out and does their count for homeless, there won't be any homeless in san francisco. but you keep doing the same thing. every stablization bond, every

housing bond is only for homeless. it took me years to stop you from giving hundreds of millions of dollars to twitter. they don't need no god damn break. the homeless people out on the street that i'm speaking out for all the time and you claim that you want to help, that's who i'm speaking out for. when are you going to stop this? you've got instructions at that mission rock that say 15% of that 1,500 apartment units is supposed to be for very low and low-income bracket people. 15% of 1,500 is 225, but yet, when it comes time to put in application, you make the lowest income about 45,000 $45 $55,000, and you make it a hispanic female, and you know she can't pay it. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr.

wright. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> chair fewer: yea. meeting adjourned. >> hi. my name is carmen chiu, san francisco's aelectricitied

assessor. today, i want to share with you a property tax savings programs for families called proposition 58. prop 58 was passed in 1986 and it was helped parents pass on their lower property tax base to their children. so how does this work? under california's prop 13 law, the value we use to calculate your property tax is limited to 2% growth peryear. but when ownership changes, prop 13 requires that we reassess properties to market value. if parents want to pass on their home or other property to their children, it would be considered a change in ownership. assuming the market value of your property has gone up, your children, the new owners, would pay taxes starting at that new higher level. that's where prop 58 comes in. prop 58 recognizes the transfer between parents and children so that instead of taxing your children at that new higher level, they get to keep your

lower prop 13 value. remember, prop 58 only applies to transfers between parents and children. here's how the law twines an eligible child. a biological child, a step child, child adopted before the age of 18, and a son-in-law or daughter-in-law. to benefit from this tax saving program, remember, you just have to apply. download the prop 58 form from our website and submit it to our office. now you may ask, is there a cap how much you can pass on. well, first, your principal residence can be excluded. other than that, the total tap of properties that can use this exclusion cannot exceed $1 million. this means for example if you have two other properties, each valued at $500,000, you can exclude both because they both fit under the $1 million cap. now what happens hwhen the totl

value you want to pass on exceeds $1 million. let's say you have four properties. three with current taxable value of $300,000 and one at $200,000, totaling $1.1 million in value. assuming that you decide to pass on properties one, two, and three, we would apply the exclusions on a first come, first served basis. you would deduct properties one, two, and three, and you would still have $100,000 left to pass on. what happens when you pass on the last property? this property, house four, has been existing value of 2 -- has an existing value of $200,000, and its existing property value is actually higher, $700,000. as i said, the value left in your cap is $100,000. when we first figure out your portion, we figure out the portion that can be excluded. we do that by dividing the exclusion value over the assessed value. in this case, it's 50%. this means 50% of the property

will remain at its existing value. meanwhile, the rest will be reassessed at market value. so the new taxable value for this property will be 50% of the existing value, which is 200,000, equaling 100,000, plus the portion reassessed to market value, which is 50% times $700,000, in other words, 350,000, with a total coming out to $450,000. a similar program is also available for prepping transfers fl interest r from grandparents to grandchildren. if you're interested in learning more visit our website or

[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