objection. and mr. newar is in agreement. mr. controller, will you please take note of the committee's sfwoention set the b.l.a. recommendation for this department? thank you very much for the job you do. it is a very, very hard job. >> thank you also. thank you to the mayor's budget office, the budget legislative analyst. it is a great process. >> yeah. they're fabulous, too. thank you very much. thanks. all right. [please stand by]

gonch . >> the department's proposed $216,282,082 budget is 1.6% less than the mayor's proposed budget. our proposed recommendations -- recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $368,667. of those, 265,717 are ongoing savings and 102,950 are ongoing savings. in addition, the b.l.a. recommended closing out unexpended encumbrances for total generated savings of

481,25 481,259. of the $291,577 in recommended reductions, 25 our understandi is we have agreement with the rec and parks department. >> chair fewer: mr. ginsberg, do we have agreement? >> that is correct. i do want to thank the b.l.a., in particular, juliet wilson, who worked with my staff, and in particular, kelly kirkpatrick, and severin

campbell. >> item number 10 permits the department to impose flexible pricing on guest berthing fees at our marina harbor. it's 30 days or less, and prime yearly used by regional and traveling boaters throughout the year. an example of the flex pricing would be a $2 current rate going to $4, and the $4 would be applied generally during the fall and early -- summer and early fall, when we have special events at the yacht harbor. the fee increase will allow us to provide greater service of events during high use.

item number 11 permits the department to apply flexible pricing at our specialty gardens and the coit tower. the plexible pricing would allow us to increase prices by 50% or lower prices by 25% only on nonresident adult fees. this flexible pricing would not apply to any residential fees or any nonsenior and new fees. the reasonables for the proposal is we want to ensure quality of service and quality of atmosphere at these specialty gardens and at coit tower. increasing fees will help us manage or encourage attendance at lower peak times to spread out the attendance so that we're not greatly impacted nor would the neighborhood around toyota tower be greatly impacted. item number 12 permitted the

department to apply a $1 surcharge on adult nonresident admission fees to the japanese tea garden. the funds will go into a maintenance fund to help repair the pagoda rehabilitation project. as many of you know, pagoda is falling into disrepair, and the cost of repair is estimates to be 1. -- estimated to be 1.5 to $2 million, and we're working with a renouned architectural firm to rehabilitate the pagoda. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so we don't have a b.l.a. report on these items, so any comments, questions from my colleagues. i will just open this up for public comment, then. are there any members of the

public that would like to comment on items 10, 11, and 12. >> fees, you've got fees all over the place. we just had a hearing at the beginning of the week where you're charging $1 a month. come to find out, it's $1 a year. then, you've got fees that you're proposing for the crookedest street in the world. how much you going to charge tourists to go to lombard street. you've got them for housing. you've got fees for residents and nonresidents. you've got fees for renting a brand-new studio apartment. you've got fees -- you cut in front of me to get an apartment, and then, you want to charge people that's born and raised and worked in san francisco and pay taxes, and

when you get an apartment, either you're paying a rate of $3,000 for the same type of apartment, but if i sneak in the united states and come in here illegally, i can get the same apartment for $3 a month, $3 a month for the first month's rent, and $3 a month for the last month's rent, and $3 a month for the deposit. you think that's fair? you see anything on the a.m.i. scale to say you've got to make this much money to be a tenant that's coming out of the mayor's office, a member of the equal housing opportunity organization, and you've got to pay $3 a month? how about the salvation army. you've got one that comes in here, a person that i helped. while in that shelter system,

he got a brand-new apartment in a complex with a swimming pool, and he's only paying $100 a month. how do you think that makes veterans feel? how do you think that makes disabled people feel? >> chair fewer: thank you, mra

for residents, not 5. eliminating public hearings on price increases at these places. i absolutely am not opposed to the notion of flexible pricing, negotiatable at peak demand. there may be a way to do that with parameters and at least real notice, ideally, for the public to comment before they're set in stone. one of the reason for raising or lowering the fees as written

is the weather, so my question there would be whether the fees would go up today because of foggy weather or down today because of foggy weather or up last week because of 90° days, or lower them. so because of those reasons -- [inaudible] >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? public comment is now closed. president yee? >> president yee: so for rec and park, i wasn't reading it completely the same way as mr. gollinger was stating it. these fees, is it up and down on a daily basis or maybe we want to change it for the next year. that's one question. and then, the other one is that

is it common practice in other place to s places to have sort of a dual pricing for residents and nonresidents? >> thank you very much, president. let me start with the first one. it's many cultural attractions across the country do have pricing for residents and nonreces nonresidents, and that's a policy that we have here in san francisco. and in a sense, the cost per visit is subsidized by nonresidents who view the attractions. you have to view this in the context because all of our attractions are quite inexpensive. our fees are written into the

park code without much flexibility to make adjustments over time, and it's one of the reason that mr. gollinger notes in the park code, the last time the park code was written, it said $7, and the park code does allow for some cost of living adjustments every year to all of our fees, so after a while, these things grow stale. so this legislation actually provides a modicum of flexibility to increase prices and to decrease prices. the point of that is to incentivize behavior, and the people surrounding the attraction have a happier experience and the customers have a happier experience. mr. gollinger made some valid points about the legislation. we'd be happy to do it today, write an amendment that would

write a 60-day notice to make change in the price that would need to be approved. you incentivize behavior so that not everybody shows up at coit tower at 5:00 on friday by having a gap when it's most expensive to visit and lease expen expensive to visit, and that's set by you. so i would be comfortable amending the legislation that says there would need to be a 60-day notice for any increase.

there should -- should be, and we agree to a notice period for any increase within that flexible pricing range. >> president yee: i would support the amendment. >> chair fewer: supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. yes, a request for a hearing on the gig economy and uber and lyft, and i think -- >> this is not that. >> supervisor mandelman: what we do not want to have is a situation where somehow the city and county of san francisco is seeing high volume, and then, the rates shoot up. we want to be tech savvy and efficient, but i don't think we want to be as tech savvy and efficient as the private

sector. >> we agree that was not our intent, and i think mr. gollinger's concern about a couple of sentences in the legislation are reasonable. and i would support the amend requiring the 60-day notice period to make sure and to make it fully transparent that that is not our intent and that would not be permitted under the legislation. we would, however, again, like to be able to make the prices lower without that notice period. >> chair fewer: sure. any other comments? questions? so mr. ginsberg, i actually would like to see something that is actually more -- isn't as arbitrary as maybe weather. so for example, i am not opposed to the fees being increased, as you know. i do think, though, that when people are planning a trip there, and especially these are tourists, these are not san francisco residents because san

francisco residents already have a reduced fee, and seniors and youth, right, and children. so i think what i would like to see in this amendment is more of a plan that says that it is not just up to the weather or your discretion for the day but maybe it's not an arbitrary. so maybe just as a suggestion, during the months of may till sept th september that the prices would surge, or certain holidays, that you would see. i just think that 50 days, especially for tourists -- this fee is just going to impact tourists, is that correct? >> yes. >> chair fewer: especially for tourists, i would say it's better to have a plan by day or

week so that doesn't change. people visiting san francisco are taking advantage of the cost of everything. in the summer months, there is a peak season and there is a nonpeak season. and i think you have done some research on when they're on peak seasons and when they're on nonpeak seasons. >> valid point, and i think ultimately, our plan would do that. and i think a lot of your concerns, for starters, would be addressed by the lengthy notice period. i think we would like a little bit of -- i really want to get a little bit away from the word surge. >> chair fewer: okay. i won't say surge. what do you want me to say? increase? >> it's just some flexibility in pricing. i want to remind the board we're very unique in the way that we tie the price of cultural attractions to

legislation and that they're embedded in the park code for years and years and years. it does make it cumbersome to sort of adjust to market conditions, to changes in the facility, and it's hard to come back -- this is a lot of process just to get here today. so i think that yes, i could -- supervisor, there would probably be a peak season, but we're also interested in using data to understand what days of the week we have the most amount of traffic and visitation, and what days are the least. so i think -- and i don't think we could bake that into the legislation itself. i don't think so, because i think those will change a little bit over time. >> chair fewer: so i actually think that this is something that i think your legislation says that you'll come back to the board in a year with a report, is that correct? >> if it says that, i'm happy to do that regardless. >> chair fewer: it says the

department shall provide an annual report to the budget and legislative analyst on the fees. mr. ginsberg, i hate to be so inflexible with you, but i think that leads to a little uncertainty, also, and i think people like to know what the fees are when they come to san francisco, and whether it's raining or not. i think you've done studies on which you see more rain, and how much vehicles you see. you'd like to leverage out the attendance days, and i understand, but i don't understand why we wouldn't be able to set it, rec and park, these are the fees, and this is the day, versus rather than it could change in 60 days. i don't think we're going to come to agreement on it at this

meeting here, so what i would like to do is actually make a recommendation to pass a positive recommendation for item number 10 and continue item 11 and 12 until next wednesday's budget and finance committee, which is the 26th. and i know mr. ginsberg, we have worked very closely in the past, and our relationship is collaborative, so we can continue this until wednesday. >> sure. >> chair fewer: okay. madam clerk, i'd like to make a motion to send item 10 with positive recommendation -- oh, i'm sorry, did you have a comment? [inaudible] >> could i make one point of

clarification, and obviously, we'll do whatever the committee wishes. one with the japanese tea garden, one is flexible pricing, and the other is pagoda repair. they're obviously separate, but -- your call -- if we could provide flexible pricing to provide a little bit more comfort on the parameters? >> chair fewer: mr. ginsberg, it is only continued to next wednesday. >> all right. >> chair fewer: so i'm respectfully asking for your patience. >> sure. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so i am making a motion to move

item 9 -- item 10, so we can move the item out of the board with a positive recommendation and 11 with -- positive recommendation to july 16. and then, i'd like to move to continue item 10 to june 26. >> president yee: with regards to the continuance, i assume you want something to happen in between? >> chair fewer: so i think we can have some language that amends it that -- i'm assuming that mr. ginsberg will also speak to other members of the committee for input, too.

>> president yee: sure. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. can i have a second, please? supervisor mandelman. we can take that without objection. again, mr. ginsberg, thank you for all your work and your staff, too. i so appreciate it. thank you very much. and then, mr. controller, would you please take note of the committee's intention to accept the b.l.a. recommendations for this department. thank you very much. i'm going to take a little something out of order. i see we have our treasurer, jo jo jo jose cisneros, here, so mr. b.l.a., would you give us your report before mr. cisneros gives us his report. >> i would be happy to.

the department's proposed $41,937,466 budget for fiscal year 20-21 is $610,053 less than the mayor's proposed fiscal year 20-21 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $274,050 in 19-20. of that in recommended reductions, $36,578 are ongoing savings, and $237,476 are one time savings. this would still allow 5.7%

increase in the department's fiscal year 19-20 budget. >> i'd like to thank the budget office and the mayor's office for their time, and we are in agreement with the budget. thank you for your time. >> chair fewer: thank you. can you take note of the committee's intention to approve the budget for this department. let's have our health services up now.

oh, i'm so sorry. apologies. could we have a b.l.a. report. >> yes. the department's proposed budget for 19-20 is 4.6% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget of $11,632,022. the department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is $486,387 or 4% more than the mayor's proposed 19-20 budget of 12,1$12,172,648. our recommended reductions to the budget total $82,420.

and of that 52,000 are ongoing savings, and the rest are one-time savings. this would still allow an increase of 3.9% of the department's fiscal year 19-20 budget. our recommendations to the proposed budget total $62,605 in 20-21, they're all ongoing savings and none are one-time savings. that would still allow an increase of 3.5%. our understanding is that we have full agreement with the health service system. >> chair fewer: hello. welcome, miss yant. >> hello. abbie yant with the health

services. we are in agreement. >> chair fewer: thank you very much for your service. i'd like to take out of order our public libraries. could we have librarian michael lambert come up. could we please hear a report on our public libraries -- oh, i'm sorry, madam clerk, can you please call items 13 and 14. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. b.l.a. report, and and is there a b.l.a. report on items 13 and 14, also. >> we do not have reports on items 13 and 14. >> chair fewer: okay. we'll just hear about the budget.

thank you. >> the departmented proposed $173,808,645 budget for fiscal year 19-20 is $13,196,155 or 8.2% more than the original fiscal year 18-19 budget -- 2018-19 budget of $118,612,490. the proposed budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is 4.6% less than the mayor's proposed but jess of $173,645,808. our recommended reductions total $24,500 in fiscal year 2019-20. of the $424,500 in recommended

reductions, $306,700 are ongoing. this would still allow 7.5% increase in the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. we also have recommended reductions for fiscal year 2020-21, and those total $547,000. of that 547,000 in recommended reductions, 367,000 are ongoing saves, and the rest are ongoing savings. our understanding is we have

glee agreement awith the library. >> cha >> chair fewer: mr. librarian, would you like to comment on the proposed budget? >> the annual grant award from the friends of the library allows the library to enhance the level of service we provide to the community. we're proud to have an enhanced relationship with the friends of the san francisco public library. our gift is structured with a mix of unconstructed support and drawdowns. some of the highlights include $100,000 in grant funding for the summer stride program,

$23,500 for programs at the main library, $25,000 for the one city, one book program. and i'd like to highlight this year's title is "there, there" by tommy orange. ultimately, this grant funding allows the library to fulfill our vision to foster shared experiences for a more connected community. i appreciate the budget and finance committee's consideration of the resolution authorizing the san francisco public library to accept and expend the annual grand award totaling $807,820 for f.y. 20. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and thank you very much to the friends of the san francisco public library.

>> library staff appreciates this opportunity to present a recommendation to eliminate the punitive practice of charging overdue fines for library materials. as background, the library partnered with the office of the treasurer and tax collector financial justice project to study the impact of overdue fines on our community. the resulting white paper found that overdue fines restrict access to library services, exacerbate inequality and disproportionately impact communities of college, residents without college degrees, and residents already struggling with the high cost of living and poverty. the san francisco public library's mission is to provide free and equal access to public service. leveeing overdue fines is

antith antitheticcal to our missions. as you can see on this chart, 11.2% of patrons in the bayview are unable to borrow materials. the fiscal impact on the library's budget is negligeibl. it's worth noting the practice of collecting this revenue creates unnecessary conflict between patrons and staff and requires an inefficient use of staff time that would be better used on direct public service. with the board's approval, the san francisco public library

would join many of our regional and national peers who have already gone fine free, including berkeley, contra costa county, and san diego. marine and i are more than happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: no questions, just excitement. i just wanted to let you know that -- how much i admire this work, and you know, both of yours and the treasurer's office. it -- you know, the library is one of the last great benefits that you have for just living in the country and being able to access something so

extraordinary and programs and any book that you can imagine that's ever been published, actually, and the fact that we're working to constantly make it easier and expand access and eliminate punitive measur measur measures around our library is so extraordinary and i want to thank you very much. >> chair fewer: president yee? >> president yee: in regards to fines, have there been any study that eliminating the fines in the length of time that books get returned? >> absolutely. there's been considerable analysis and lots of literature, particularly as this movement has gained momentum. our partnership with the san francisco financial justice project yielded a white paper. there was a yellow from the u.c. berkeley fellow of public

policy that did extensive analysis on this. it --

[inaudible] >> chair fewer: i would like to say, i truly support this. this is progressive, this is forward thinking, and absolutely, this is what we should be doing. this is absolutely of the right thing to do. and i am of the bloef that tele majority of people want to return their items. especially in my neighborhood.

are there any members of the public that would like to comment on these items? mr. wright. >> public library, they're not saying anything about their computer department. i've been going to the law library and the public library well over 30 years. that's one of the reasons i'm such a strong advocate in well over several different areas of law. personal injury law, corporate law, the americans with disabilities act law, state law, federal law, criminal law, all these areas of law, landlord-tenant law -- had to represent myself as my own attorney on 850 bryant street,

and falsely charged and put in jail. social security law. i put numerous people in social security by using their library facilities and getting people the benefits they need because of social security and lifetime security for the rest of their lives. and about the law library, they're pretty modest, too. they pointed out how they give services to people who are economically disadvantaged, and they come there on emergencies when they have to defend themselves, but they also provide services to people who are members of the bar and also law students and paralegal students who come in there with their homework assignments and use their facilities, too. in fact, their budgets should be increased, and i'd like to see them open up seven days a week like they used to be when i was a kid and going into the law library all the time. i got into the business of

going to a field trip to the federal building as a kid and been going to the court and the system ever since. >> this funding is provided by friends for programs that we have traditionally supported in the past, along with new initiatives, staff development, grants for branch libraries and innovative programs throughout the system. the friends of the san francisco library is a diverse community of families, individuals, and institutions who love our san francisco public library and work to make

it exceptional. our mission is to support. strengthen and advocate for san francisco public libraries. the l.p.f., library preservation fund has been strongly supported by our city's electorate since it was enacted in 1994. and we are pleased that the hard work of the staff has brought about the library of

the year by the gail library journal of 2018. we think that relationships between businesses, residents, community, and the library is one of the reasons why our library is so successful, and a beacon of recognition and generosity. >> chair fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. so i'd like to make a motion to move item 13 and 14 to the full board meeting of july 16. could i get -- with a positive recommendation. could i get a second, please.

supervisor mandelman. can take that without objection. thank you very much. since we're in agreement with the budget legislative analyst's report, can you take note that it's the intention of the department to accept the budget. please. so out of order, let's take the war memorial. >> dan gonchar with the budget and legislative analyst's office. the proposed budget for fiscal year 2019-2020 is .6% more than the original budget.

the department's proposed $31,942,171 budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is 4,320,775 or 15.6% more than the mayor's proposed budget of $27,621,396. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $44,933 in fiscal year 19-20. of those, all are ongoing saves, none are one-time savings. this would still allow an increase of .4% of the department's fiscal year 19-20 budget. our recommended reductions to the budget for fiscal year 20-21 total $38,702.

. all of those reductions are ongoing savings, and would still allow an increase of 15.5% of the department's fiscal year 20-21 budget. >> chair fewer: miss murray. >> yes, supervisor fewer. beth murray, war memorial. we are in agreement with the budget. >> chair fewer: thank you. mr. controller, can you please take note of the committee's intent to set the recommendations for this department. and miss murray, a very happy retirement. >> thank you very much. >> chair fewer: okay. let's get the arts commission up here. could we have a b.l.a. report on the arts commission.

>> the department's budget for 2019-20 is 22.1% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget of $22,941,493. the department's proposed $25,900,084 is 7.6% less than the mayor's proposed 2019-2020 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $109,281 in fiscal year 2019-20. all of the $109,281 in

recommended reductions are one-time savings. this would still allow an increase of 21.6% of the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. we also have reserve recommendations total of $6,213,000 in fiscal year 19-20, all of which are one-time. we have no recommendations for fiscal year 20-21 budget. our understanding is we do have agreement with the department, but please correct me if i am wrong. >> we are in agreement. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you very much. mr. controller, can you please take note of this committee's recommendation to accept the b.l.a. recommendation, please. thank you very much, mr. haney, good to see you. okay. can we get the office of economic and workforce development, and i believe we have mr. joaquin torres here. can we hear the b.l.a.s report

here. >> yes. the budget for this department is 26.7% more than the 2018-19 budget. the department's proposed $70,033,820 for fiscal year 20-21 is 17.3% less than the mayor's proposed fiscal 19-20 budget of $84,731,821. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $17,330 in fiscal year 19-20. of the $723,330, 251,594 are ongoing savings, and the rest are one-time savings. these reductions would still

allow an increase of 16,539,007 or 24.5% of the department's fiscal year 19-20 budget. in addition, we recommend closing out prior unexpended encumbrances of $321,494. of this amount, $221,494 are derived from general funds for total savings of $100,000. we also have recommended reductions to the proposed fiscal year 2020-2021 budget, and that those total $298,793. all of that of recommended reductions in fiscal year 20-21 are ongoing savings. our understanding is we do have

agreement with the department. >> chair fewer: oh, we do? >> that's correct, with one clarifying option. i believe when it was -- considerations were made by the b.l.a. regarding the position for permit navigation for small businesses and cannabis equity applicants, it was listed that it was duplicative of the requests made by the office of cannabis. we do not believe that. they are a very separate function. we understand the concerns of both madam chair as well as the b.l.a. related position. we'd be happy to come back in the following year as we assess demand and have additional data to support request for the position. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. actually, that you requested two new positions, is that correct, in the permitting center? >> no, it was one position to support permit navigation through our office. >> chair fewer: and i thought there were two positions for cannabis. >> the other position is primarily to focus on workforce

and first source requirements to ensure that cannabis equity am plants that -- applicants that have gone through our training programs can benefit through the cannabis industry. >> chair fewer: okay. so any comments, questions through the board? yes. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: well, maybe a little more slowly, explain the difference between the two positions. so what would one person be doing and what would the other person be doing? >> so one would be processing applicants, building on the success of our open n.s.f. program to support all businesses through the -- small businesses through the permitting processing whether they're working with the planning department, department of building inspection, fire, health, and on and on. the other position that chair fewer made mention of is a

comment to support first-source requirements to ensure that individuals have the opportunity to have first access to those jobs that are created in the program. they will be beneficiaries of research -- >> supervisor mandelman: so these are not entrepreneurs -- [inaudible] >> supervisor mandelman: these are people that are employed in cannabis businesses. >> that is. >> supervisor mandelman: so one position is for people that are trying to get into the industry, the other is for people trying to get approved the applications that they need. >> there's about 121 locations. 200 applicants that are currently vying for them, and that role would support them through the process, in addition to other small businesses that would come to us for support. >> chair fewer: sir, because it's my -- so it's my belief,

also, that your office has people that are assisting small businesses with permitting, is that correct? >> that's correct. there's one position that supports small businesses through the permitting process. >> chair fewer: and this position is solely for cannabis. >> a portion of its portfolio would be to support those 121 locations in addition to small businesses at large. usually on average per year, it's about 100 small businesses that could be supported by every one small position. >> chair fewer: so have we opened up any small businesses with equity for cannabis? >> i don't have that information, but i can get that for you. >> chair fewer: yeah. i don't think we have. you know we just put in place an oversight committee for the industry of cannabis. what we're looking for is exactly this kind of recommendation if they feel

that is required for the budget. i have a tendency, quite frankly, to agree with the recommendations of our budget and legislative analyst. i am looking for consensus on my board -- president yee? [inaudible] >> chair fewer: okay. so i'm sorry, director, that we disagree on this position, but we note that your department is getting a $16 million increase, which your department is actually growing by 25%, and that is more growth than we're seeing in other departments. rightly so, you cover a lot of different areas over at

workforce development, including citybuild, which i love. i am in agreement with the report, so i want it known that we are going to be agreeing with the reductions. >> thank you very much. and last, we have the supervisor's budget, and we have angela calvillo here. mr. b.l.a., would you please give us a report.

>> certainly. the department's proposed $17,554,197 budget for fiscal year 20-21 is $285,467 or 1.7% more than the mayor's proposed 2019 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $25,000 in fiscal year 2019-20. of the $25,000 in recommended reductions, 25,000 are ongoing and $5,000 are one-time. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget for fiscal year 20-21 are $20,000. all of the $20,000 in recommended reductions are ongoing savings. this would still allow an increase of $265,467 or 1.5% of

the department's fiscal year 20-21 budget. our understanding is we have full agreement with the department. >> chair fewer: oh, miss calvillo, do we have full agreement? >> madam chair, we have full agreement, and we look forward to having all of your staff together with the actions of this committee. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i appreciate that. so mr. controller, can you please make note of the committee's intention to accept the note of this department. colleagues, so i have a little housekeeping here. i'd like to make a motion to rescind the vote for item 3. i believe the b.l.a. made a recommendation -- an amendment that we did not vote on and to approve. so could i have a -- a second, please, to rescind the vote. supervisor mandelman, and -- to

rescind the vote on item 3, we can take that without objection. thank you very much. [please stand by]