>> good morning, i am san francisco's director of transportation. we're here today to have a conversation about our budget. even though that you have a lot of other things on your minds. these are unprecedented times. many of you are having to deal

with children unexpectedly being at home and you are having to deal with worrying about how you will pay your rent or how to keep your families safe. we really appreciate that you've joined us here to talk about something that should be seemingly minor which is a government bureaucracy budget. but for us, nothing is more important than our budget. because it is the only relevant statement of our agency's values and it determines how we use our very, very limited resources in order to uphold the public good. public transportation plays a critical role in the unfolding of this health crisis and in the unfolding of what will be likely a long economic crisis. our job is to figure out how to steward our declining resources in order to therefore the services that essential workers need to have to get to work and in order to poise san francisco

for recovery, that's what we're here for. everything we do, whether it's muni, parking is connected with the health and safety of budget of san francisco. i want to introduce my colleague, victoria wise, who will facilitate this meeting. do you want to go over what we're doing today. >> thank you, jeff. good morning, everybody and almost afternoon. while we can't meet in-person we're grateful you are joining us today online and really appreciate that you are taking the time to provide input on our budget. it's especially important that we have public input and continue to have public input as we move our budget through the approval process. so, just a couple of logistical issues and housekeeping kind of stuff. this conversation is being broadcast live on our website, on our twitter page at sfmta underscore muni. on our facebook page and

youtube channel. and all the links are posted on our website at sfmta.com/budget. the way things will go, for this conversation, we're going to get to watch at 13-minute pre recorded video where jeff shares with you some of the challenges that we face in our budget and talks about what some of our proposals are taking a deeper dive no some of the issues that we've heard frankly quite a lot about like our muni fares. now, i want to tell you that this video is pre recorded three weeks ago before we had the health crisis that we're having now -- >> a lifetime ago. >> it feels like a lifetime ago, in deed. of course, needless to say, our agency's financial circumstances have changed significantly since that time. nevertheless, the video is still relevant because it talks about some of the challenges the agency is facing and some of our priorities and so, we will play

that video for you and it will be informative to the discussion and to some of the questions that we hope to get to you in the rest of the hour. speaking of questions, i wanted to share with you that there are different ways that you can interact with us. first of all, leave us au revoir mala voicemail or tweet us. and if you can, please hashtag that with sfmta's budget. definitely please send us an e-mail and leave a comment on youtube or facebook page. all those channels are being monitored and jeff and i will be seeing your questions and taking them and hopefully answering as many of them as we can and as time allows. i want to share with you that if you wanted to submit questions in chinese or spanish, feel free to do that. we have translators standing by. so they will translate the questions for jeff and i. we can't quite answer them in chinese or spanish but staff will be providing you answers in

follow-up after this conversation. so, again, thank you for joining us and without further adieu, if we can view the video, that would be great. >> welcome to the sfmta online budget open house. to provide your input or ask a question about the key transportation decisions to be made for fiscal years 2021-2022, please e-mail sfmtabudgte@ @ sfmta.com call 415-64-6222 or tweet at sfmta muni. [ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ]

[ speaking foreign language ] [ speaking foreign language ] i'm jeff tumlin. our agency is working on our next two-year budget, which is the yo ultimate reflex of our values. running a safe, equitable transportation system, reducing

our carbon footprint and creating a welcoming workplace with excellence service. the goals are important we're making progress on operationalizing the values but i also want to acknowledge that we're coming up short on several key issues. these include street safety, muni reliabilit reliability and. we will address these issues in our next two-year budget but we have tough choices to make. we recognize that we're in an extraordinary time without question, it will impact our budget outcomes. we must continue to plan and discuss the trade offs that we want to see reflected in the budget we passed within the next month. i'm going inform go over the details of the budget. if you want to see this content clearly or in another language, you can see it at sfmta.com/budget. we need to get back to basics. i ride transit in my bike everyday in san francisco and i

see these issues daily. especially i experience the most common frustration that muni is unreliable. muni service covers the city and is scheduled to run frequently it doesn't always show up when we expect. now that i've been on the job almost 100 days, i am seeing the roots of these problems. it includes the fact that we have a thousand job vacancies which means less transit service on the street to meet current demands, traffic fatalities are not decreasing fast enough and effect our most vulnerable populations the most. auto speeds have declined 20% over the last decade and while our investments and transit have helped some lines, our buses and trains have slowed by about 6%. i believe because of all these things, we're seeing a decline in our most efficient modes and an increase in driving. all of this means that few are people can move through our streets and grown house gas emissions continue to grow. we also have challenges with our budget. our costs, like yours, rise with

the cost of living but our revenues have not kept pace. our costs reflect the need to pay our workforce a living wage, which is particularly challenging given the housing shortage. as a result, as our budget grows, so does our structural deficit. in the next fiscal year, we're projected to have an operating gap of $66 million. we will need to close that gap in order to have a balanced budget. a lot of our revenue comes from transit fares and parking and traffic fees and fines. a significant portion, 35%, comes from the general fund. over time, we have become more and more dependent on the city's general fund. which ties service to the state of the economy. the agency structural funding deficit and the need for on going sources of funds is not new. in the last five years, there have been multiple task forces that have identified significant funding gaps in our transportation system moving

into the future. together, we're going to need to solve for that because our city has been growing and expected to continue to grow adding 73,000 housing units and 275,000 new jobs in the next 20 years and increasing the number of daily trips by 36% to almost $6 million in 2050. before we talk about the future and striving for higher standard of service, i need to focus on the nuts and bolts that keep san francisco running more reliably. the proposed budget reflects this by making strategic investments into the existing system as a down payment for the future while being fiscally part during these uncertain economic times. last year the city neighborhood the muni reliability working group. a team of experts and transit service who detailed where muni must invest to deliver the service they promised. they districted us to stabilize the current service and develop and fund plans for growth to

move towards a higher standard. this budget focuses on stabilizing the current service and this means, firstly, fixing our human resources department and getting more drivers on the road. second, increasing maintenance staff and car cleaners. third, increasing enforcement to keep transit and traffic flowing and fourth investing in reducing fatalities. these are strategic and critical investments to set the foundation for the future. that means implementing the rest of the muni row liability working group recommendations like increasing service by 6.5% and a variety of initiatives. making improvements based on the muni service equity strategy but i'll be honest, these will require new on going revenue streams. it's that simple. before we can talk about additional funding for transportation, you might be wondering can we deliver on our existing proposals? while this agency has had its struggles, we are at a turning point because we can demonstrate

where we've invested we have seen results. where we've made target investments in transit, we've seen ridership grow by 60%. where we've made safety 'em improvements we've had reduced injuries to zero. our plan is to continue delivering the kind of projects that have shown results that are reflected in our capital plan. as you know, the streets quick-build projects have been wildly successful, just look at our success in market street. following that success we have implement transit quickville projects and we have others in the works to improve transit, do state of good repair and implement vision zero. we're grateful to the voters for passing drop d to fund quick build projects and signal hardware upgrades like new and more visible traffic lights. in this current budget we're

proposing one-time funds for vision zero education which is important in order to capitalized on the vision zero construction projects but to make a meaningful long-term change, we'll need sustained revenue for non capital vision zero work. now let's talk about fares. we know this is so important to so many of you. we have a current policy called indexing where fares go up and small amounts index to inflation and to the cost of living every year and in order to avoid huge sporadic increases. as a regular part of the budgeting process, we would have simply indexed all of our fares up at the same percentage. but, based on community feedback, particularly around the goal of equity, we've developed a number of new fares that requires some trade offs. all of these fares scenarios need to be what we called revenue-neutral. they cannot increase the budget gap, i talks about earlier, or force us to make transit service

cuts. so that's where the trade offs come in. i know this slide is complicated so let me walk you through it. the gray box are today's fares. the blue box is what would happen under our existing indexing policy where all fares increase by a percentage. the green and pink boxes show two different equity scenarios that result in free muni for all youth and there are full fare single riders are low income and 65% are minority. 37% of our single riders are low income and 66% are minority but to fund these equity options requires trade offs. in the green box we're paying through an increase in monthly

passes at a rate higher an indexing but matches other urban transit agencies. in the pink box, we're paying through eliminating most of the discount to clipper users. people who use clipper would pay almost the same fare as those paying in cash. our customers' feedback about equity included a call for free muni, not just for youth but for all transit riders. while the desire for that is not understandable, it will actually make our system less equitable and this sounds counter innu innutive, they constitute 20% of our budget. if we do not collect fares we'll eliminate 20% of our service with less service on our streets and more crowding, people that can afford it might switch to other modes like driving or taking uber or lyft. individuals who rely on muni and don't have access to alternatives will be stuck with transit that is much worse. let's talk about fines.

fine adjustments are guided by our safety values. behavior that is unsafe should carry a higher penalty than nuisances. certain safety-related violations were increased to the maximum amount allowed by state law. parking in a bike lane is going up 14%. riding a scooter on a sidewalk is going up by 39%. in addition to adjusting fines we're responding to widespread requests by increasing office and they can help manage and improved transit reliable to intersections and making sure cars aren't blocking blocking the transit vehicles. let's talk about parking demands. it used to ensure availability and manage demand not to maximize revenue but any revenue collected from parking goes back into the transportation system

specifically to fund transit. our policies state if there's high demand during a certain time period, we should raise prices to ensure one or two spaces are available when you want to go to your favorite restaurant or store. when demand is low, we lower parking meter prices. we recently looked at our parking policies and realized they were little outdated when it comes to evening metering and sunday metering. we know that the demand for parking in many commercial corridors is high in the evenings. that's why we're proposing extending the time that meeters are enforced to ensure that evening visitors can still find a space where they need one. we won't do this city wide or immediately. wore going to partner with local merchants associations to determine where the hours make the most sense and see how it works. we're also proposing enforcing parking meeters on sundays where we follow a similar community and data-driven process to make

sure it works for our residents, visitors and faith communities. so, back to the big budget picture. in order to stabilize current service, and make the critical investments to set the foundation for the future. we are proposing tim implement e working groups recommendations. along with other targeted investments. however, as i mentioned at the beginning, we have a structural deficit. a funding gap. in order to pay for these targeted investments, we will need to use some of our fund balance. a one-time source of money. this approach carries with it some amount of risk because it draws down our fund balance and in a recession, new services without new on going revenues or a fund balance would lead to service cuts. mormore over we have economic ts as a result of the coronavirus. but, we are at a moment in time

where not making these strategic investments would be a missed opportunity. because they are a down payment on the future of our transportation system and they support our values of a safe and equitable system. a reduction of our carbon footprint and creating a workculture with excellent customer service. it is up to all of us to get to the reliable and equitable system we need. for us at mta this means making the system we have better and showing you that with specific measurable improvements proposed in this budget. your travel will be easier and more reliable. and now i invite you to jin me fojoin mefor a discussion of ou. we have opened up the phone lines and monitoring all of our social media channels. please, share your comments and questions with us. thank you.

>> welcome back, everybody. thank you for joining us and i want to take this time to a apologize for the delay that we had in starting this chat about our budget. we ran about 15 minutes late. so our sincere apologies as we worked out some technical difficulties and got our arms around how to hold these public engagements in virtual reality. so again, our apologies and thank you for sticking with us during the delay. we will be extending, of course, how much time we spent with all of you by 15 minutes to make sure we have a full hour to cover all of your questions. so with that, i want to begin by saying clearly, jeff, the reality has completely changed for our budget in the last three weeks as a result of the pandemic. our sources of revenue, whether it's our fares or from our parking operations, are completely depleted and disappeared and we actually are

not sure when we'll see them come back. so, given our current reality that we're facing, what is the agency doing about it? >> yeah, so this is the thing that keeps me up late at night every night trying to figure out how we get through the ways in which the health crisis is turning into an unprecedented financial crisis for our agency? in addition to the revenue sources that we control, which fund the bulk of our budget, the city's general fund is also taking a huge hit. hotel taxes are down nearly to zero, retail sales are down significantly, business transfer taxes. so we know the city is in for tough economic times and we are doing everything that we can in order to really do two things, one, is preserve our workforce, make sure that we don't lose our people.

because we need our people to do the second thing we need to do which is to maintain critical services for the public. that said, we are trimming everywhere we can. we are dramatically reducing contracts and procurement and we're cutting every time everywhere except for the most essential workers like our car cleaners. the other thing that we're doing, which is a little eye chronic, is continuing our budget process. the one we start inside a very different economy just a couple of months ago. and that is the previous discussion about our budget were rooted in a conversation about what our agencies' values are. so that we can make decisions about how to spend our expected increase in revenues in order to improve services. ironically, all of the work that we've done around clarifying our values and understanding how to deal with tensions and trade offs. all of that work applies in a

time of cuts as it does in a time of expansion. so, we're wanting to move forward in these uncertain budget times because we need an essential reference point. we constructed this entire budget starting with clarity in our values and then a very deep conversation about how we address tensions and trade offs, particularly to deliver on an equity objective. we need those clarifications as the starting place for figuring out what it is that we're going to do moving forward. so, we know for certain that we're not going to be able to project perfectly the economic situation we're going to be in six months from now, a year from now, two years from now. so what we need, is clarity about how we make the hard choices. and that's why we are moving forward right now. we also know with a fair amount of certainty, well actually,

where beer going t we're going x months from now because we track our revenue streams and we know the trend lines. so we don't know to what degree this is going to trigger a national or global recession, but we know where things stand now and it's going to be a while before those revenue sources turn back to normal. that is what wore doing now. >> good. well speaking of revenue services, we all know that congress passed a federal reloaf package. there was $25 billion for transit agencies such as ours of which $1.3 billion to go to the bay area transit agencies. can you share with us what the plan is for those funds? >> first of all, we are so grateful to our congressional delegation in particularly speaker pelosi who fought hard to have the federal stimulus package include transit

operations. this is the kind of money that we most need. operating dollars are how we pay our workforce and our workforce is how we deliver service. what we're finding right now, wove got fiscal year that ends the end of june. we will lose about $200 million between the beginning of covid-19 and the end of june. the federal stimulus doesn't cover all of that so we'll use the big portion of the federal stimulus along with all of the other cuts that i talks about along with about 100 other small things in order to make sure that we can close out this fiscal year without layoffs. and we're going to be probably very rare among transit agencies that can get to the end of june without layoffs. other transit agencies that are highly fare box dependent, or don't have access to other sources of revenue are going to

have to make deeper cuts than we do. we're also really fortunate and we need to talk about this as well, thanks to the good management practices of my predecessors, including the whole budget office, the sfmta has a sizable reserve fund or a rainy day fund. it's now raining and we're going to have to tap our reserves in order to get through the beginning of the budget season in order or at the beginning of next year, the next fiscal year in order to be able to continue to deliver service. we t don't know what happens afr that. things are more uncertain the father out this gets. if we don't see some economic stablation or recovery soon?

we have been doing public outreach and a lot of people have participated in it so we tant lated all the feedback to date and i wanted to share the results with you. as you can see from the spy carts, there are four really main topics that we heard about and those were fares at 30%. a lot of people were interested in fares and asked us not to increase fares. we heard about the desire to see more muni service which would be great although as we discussed our economic situation is not looking very well so i'm be honest and say we can't provide additional muni service at this time. 15% folks talked about the extended meter hour proposal and a significant portion of the comments really asked us to look at our towing. and our fees on towing and maybe even our policy on towing.

at the top of the hour, the video that we shared really covered muni fares and service and covered the extended meter hours but what we hadn't talked about yet is the towing. can you talk about what is in our budget proposal as it relates to towing? >> this is a source of a lot of public comments. including some very passionate and very personal stories at the sfmta board meeting. staff lis listened to that carefully. many of us here at the agency, myself included, have spent time living in our cars. so, we understand how important this issue is. so one of the places where we're starting, is with the realization that sfmta loses a lot of money on the tow program. none of our tow fees cover our costs. so where we're starting is trying to minimize the amount of koeing we're doing. every place where we're towing

cars, we're asking why are we towing cars from there? so that we can shrink the size of the towing program and really minimize the number of tows where people are surprised by the tow. the other thing we heard a lot from is from individuals who have in the past or currently experiencing homelessness and had their cars towed. if you are in san francisco at this time and you are barely making it by being able to live in your car, the last thing we want is to force people out on the street. because we've towed their home. so we're wanting to eliminate that and under ep doin end up da safety hazard for individuals who are enrolled in city limit service we're eliminating the tow fee. it goes down and zero and we're

also reducing the tow and bot fees for folks who are low income or being towed for the first time, it's sort of a san francisco car owner right of passage to have your car towed once and then you learn not to do that again. we don't want to be punitive around our tow program. we want to keep the streets safe. so, there's a lot more detail you can see in the detail budget package at sfmta.com/budget and that outlines the details of this program. it's probably a pretty good example of how our agency values are reflect inside this budget in a pivot towards equity. >> i will go through some of the questions wore getting on youtube, hiedi p is asking, do parking permits go up by the

same amount as the muni fares and why is parking so much cheaper than a money' pass if we're frankly a transit-first city? >> so this is one of these things that drives me absolutely nuts in san francisco. so our residential parking permit stickers basically cost 30 cents a day. so, cars get deeply discounted rent when we have them park on city land on city streets. unfortunately, it's against the law for us to raise those permit prices because we are only allowed to charge what it costs to administer the program. so in some parts of san francisco and the west side and near the big universities, the residential parking permit program is a very useful tool that helps limit spill-over parking makes it easier for residents to find a parking year and it's working well and in the

more urban and his valley and we sell far more residential stickers than we have on street parking spaces. and so the residential sticker is just a hunting license and it doesn't actually provide any useful guarantees and someone coming home late at night can find the parking space any where near their house. one of the things wore going to want to do in the coming year is to ask some hard questions about where the residential permit program is working and where it's not and if we need to use new mechanisms to balance supply and demand, like changing the rules or the law so that we can use price to balance supply and demand and to have that price reflect the actual rent of that eight by 20-foot piece of city land that we're giving away for free. i certainly hear you. why are we charging nothing to

provide nearly free rent on very expensive city land while we charge $3 for thro three squaret of space on a bus. >> moving on though some other questions we have here. on twitter and i've actually heard similar questions from other people, with respect to charging for muni right now. the question goes, you know, you could do what san francisco and ac transit is doing free fares, public transportation is a public good but sfmta keeps running it like a business. why? i want to break that down a little bit. there's two separate questions in there i think. one is why don't we have free fares during this pandemic, during this health emergency. wouldn't it help keep our operators safe due to social distancing and that's question one and question number two, is a little bit more bigger in nature and we've heard this a lot during these budget conversations with the public. why don't we just offer free

muni for all? >> so i'm glad you actually brought that down into two questions. on the operator safety side, sfmta is unique among any transit agency until the united states in that our operators have not collected fares for years. we're proof of payment system. we've got clipper card reading machines at all doors. and more importantly, we have plexiglass security barrier that is pretty unique to sfmta. we have mandated that operators close the security barrier to separate them from the rest of the vehicle in order to protect them. we've also recent low changed the rules and collaboration with our partners of the transit workers union to direct passengers to use the rear doors, except for passengers who need the front door because they're in a wheelchair or they

need the kneeling to be able to step up into the bus. we're allowing our vulnerable passengers in the front, everyone else in the back. that's providing a far higher level of protection for our operators than it possible almost any other agency. so there's no needs for us to stop their collection which is basically the reason why agencies like ac transit stop fare collection is because they do have card readers in the back. the other question is different, why did we charge a muni fare at all. on part of this question is perfectly reasonable. we let people drive on our stress for fro. why do we charge people to take the most efficient form of transportation. part of the answer has to do with the way our budget is constructed and why we're having this conversation as part of the budget. free muni has a lot of popular appeal. i understand that. but our transit fares represent

20% of our budget so in order to provide free muni for everyone, we would have to eliminate 20% of our transit service. when we talk to our riders we've been having a lot of conversations over the last month with our riders, one of the things is o super clear to almost everyone we talk t. when we ask a question, do you want fro or better muni? almost universally, the priority is better, faster, frequent, reliable service. and this question is even more important when you actually look at demographic of our riders. san francisco is unusual, particularly here in the united states, in that most of our riders actually have moderate to high incomes. so if we cut service in order to

provide free fares for everyone, what we're actually doing is subsidizing rich people by cutting service to poor people. this creates terribly inequitable outcomes because rich people have other choices. if transit were cut for me, i could ride my fancy bike or take a taxi in order to get to work. lower income people don't have those choices. so in order to actually create a more equitable system, we have to prioritize better service, more importantly, if we're going to be we need to direct toes to the people who need it the most and providing free transit service to lowest income people and to our local children and homeless people who need it the most. so what we're trying to do is to

create a budget that is less about popular appeal and more about actual social equity outcomes. in the long run, i would hope we don't have to make that zero sum choice. that we don't have to choice che between better service and fro fares. we have to make that choice. in a utopian san francisco we would have the resource we see needs to deliver excellent transit service that san francisco needs and not have to rely on our fares. >> we're a long ways from that and in order to fund it we have to have a conversation about difficult topics like downtown congestion pricing. so if you are interested in how we might actually make free transit work, go to the website, the san francisco county transportation authority, our sister agency, which is leading

a downtown congestion pricing strategy as well. if you google downtown congestion pricing that study will come up and tell you how you can participate and actually, maybe, coming up with a transportation system, that is what san francisco needs and is far more equitable than what we've got now. >> you just mentioned possibly taking a taxi which is great so we would be remised if we didn't talk about our taxi industry. it was suffering way before the health crisis happened and many people have asked us online and in other forums through out many months, what is our agency doing to really support this very important industry if. >> so i want to make it really clear i am a huge fan of the san francisco taxicab industry and i am committed to ensuring a viable financially path forward for the taxi industry that

provides a living wage for taxi drivers. this is more important to me give the fact we have no regulatory control over uber and lyft and uber and lyft are not finding a way to serve our wheelchair passengers in a way that the taxis do. they also are not contributing enough compared to the impacts that they create on our streets. so i want to make sure that the taxi industry can compete successfully on particularly in an economic return and so, we are doing alt-right now a lot rd including the fees taxi drivers pay for their permits and so on. i'm trying to increase the use of taxis for city trips so we can save money by getting rid of our fleet vehicles and having city department trips taken on

taxicabs. we are working really hard, given the complex reality that the taxi operators are experiencing with the san francisco federal credit union that holds the loans they have on their taxi medallions and trying to get the credit union to defer payment on some of those loans during this particular economic crisis. we're lowering insurance requirements so that the operators can save some money and we're changing a lot of the small rules necessary to make it easier for taxi operators to get by. we are also ready. once the legal situation with the san francisco federal credit union is resolved, to ensure that there is a strong market for taxi medallions again and that we make the system work and we make it competitive. >> moving on to some of our

other questions from desert flyer, we have, i have trouble getting around at night on the sidewalks because all the cars are parked on the sidewalks. staff told me they only enforce when i complain. can you budget for proactive enforcement, please. >> yes. so one thing, there's a lot of rumors out there, let me make it really clear. it's never legal to park a car on a san francisco sidewalk. you should not do that. you should not do that for two minutes while you are running in. please, do not park on the sidewalks, particularly now as we need to create space for social distancing as people walk around san francisco. there is still some communications old views from previous eras where it was tolerate. it's not in this injury is in t-

>> so our buses aren't stuck in congestion and they're now working to deal with traffic and help out most of the city hospitals and they're doing 100 things dealing with logistics and delivering supplies for covid-19 and we love our parking control officers. it's unclear how many of them we will be able to afford and if we do afford them, whether they'll be able to bring in enough revenue as economy starts to recover in order to cover their costs but also to expand their services. one of the limitations we have is the parking control officer shifts are concentrated in the times when the meeters are running. and where they're based is

around where we have them do enforcement with high traffic or high numbers of parking meeters. sometimes it takes us a while to be able to send them out to the neighborhoods to deal with complaints and sometimes you have to to have any around to send them out. we're asking increasingly for them to cite on site and so rather than waiting for calls, to site vehicles blocking the pedestrian way. this is another way in which sfmta is being clear about its values and operationalizing those values. i can't promise that i'm going to fix in that of that fast but we're pointing in that direction. >> excellent. i'm going to go to yevette. do you know when the equity -- our neighborhoods have been long neglected and many housing

projects as we know are pending in the area of which will create of course in influx in people and demand for additional service. i hope the agency devotes time energy to this part of san francisco. >> i'm really glad you raised this question. there's a couple questions i urge all of you to look at. one is the muni equity strategy and another is a little bit -- it includes the greater bayview is the bayview community plan which is a key guiding document. there's also another set of documents you can find called the muni forward program. you can see, for example, the huge improvements that we've made on the nine san bruno in order to improve speed, reliability and frequency on the nine, that has been met with a huge increase in ridership and we hoped to solve the crowding problems on the nine but what

we've done is created a lot of new nine riders which is good but we still need to do more. so one of the relation we want to adopt this expansion budget is because the expansion budget focused on efforts on neighborhoods that needed the most where our residents have the fewest transportation choices. changes really significant changes on the 29 sunset which serves all of the southern neighborhoods including bayview and all the way out to really all of the schools and the southern half of the city including city college and sfus and to baker beach in richmond so improvements to the 56 in order to make it more reliability.

right now, i believe the 56 only has one bus on it so when there's a surface problem on that bus, it basically destroys service in the 56 and making it super unreliable. we're not going to fund those improvements any time soon, what our values does is tells us where we should and should not make service cuts. we're committed to if we have to make service cuts, the last place we make cuts is in the neighborhoods with the few events mobility choices and that particularly means parts of district 10 and 11. that, yes, we acknowledge have been neglected in the past and we want to correct for that. we're not able to make the expansion correction any time soon but we can help with, you

know, not having it loss more and then setting up conditions to allow our services where people need it the most to be the first that come back and get expanded. so, that's probably more dough tail that you want and not the full answer you want but it's a commitment we've made to the neighborhoods that need service the most. >> absolutely. i'm going to come of our phone lines and tim is asking us by phone, can you discuss the status of crossing guards and what is ahead for them in the next budget cycle and he is asking what are the chances of expanding the program to 20 hours per week of service? tim is referencing the fact that currently crossing guards to work a full 20 hours, they work 12 and a half hours in the morning for schools and in the afternoon when kids leave so he is asking if we're going to expand the program and or go to 20 hours? >> yes, this is a good question and it's interesting trade off question.

so we've got about 200 crossing guards. we have about 200 crossing guards all over the city and their schedules are concentrated at the beginning of school and the end of school and they're very popular. they're much beloved in the community and i say high to harvey milk academy crossing guards. or at least i did when there was still school in session. and, so part of the question is, do we use our limited resources in order to expand the number of crossing guards and the number of schools that they can serve or to expand their hours. in talking to the crossing guards, most of them are retired people. they're doing this to keep busy and contribute to their community. they and the schools were really clear that they wanted to see more crossing guards and more schools rather than paying

crossing guards during the middle of the day. frankly we don't have that much work to do for them that our parking control officers couldn't do so it's a situation where given limited resources, expanding the program best serves the public good >> back to twitter, zack is asking us, hi, sfmta seems relevant to recess the budget in six months when we have a more realistic picture of the state and transit and people can participate more. do you have any thoughts of that? >> the city has a sort of fixed two-year budget cycle and the official budget we adopt on this schedule is the leverage point for all future changes. we know that we are not going to

guess our revenue numbers precisely and they become the leverage point that we pivot from when making other justments the budget is a policy document so it establishes the values that then inform how we deal with the inevitable tensions trade off of how we allocate limited resources in order to best achieve the public goods. we want to adopt the policy framework and we want to adopt critical policy-related measures lick fares and fines and penalties. we want to do that now. we will likely need to make adjustments as we go along. we certainly will not be able to spend for proposals and money to spend. because if budget does not

balance, we will layoff our workforce and that's the last thing i want to do on my watch. >> absolutely. more from twitter. sarah green wald is asking did mta have an emergency plan what has mta learned from this pandemic and she's asking how are you making this budget process accessibility to the public now? some, for example, do not have internet access. >> these are all good questions. one of the things that i'm so grateful for being at this agency for is that my predecessor and our current budget office have set aside a substantial rainy day fund. a reserve fund for when there was a catastrophe. we have one and that reserve fund is going to save amount of jobs. and i'm so grateful for it. the other advantage is the

leadership of mayor london bredd and the fact we are a city department and we have arguably the best municipal health department in the country. so, their leadership meant that san francisco got started on the shut down sooner than any other place did and that is saving us. it's also meant we've been able to collaborate with the department of public-health to have really clear plans in place for what happens when, as we knew would be inevitable, sfmta employees tested positive for covid-19. are we activated? our department emergency operations center promptly entered the crisis. we've been collaborating on a daily basis with the department of public-health getting approval and guidance from them on all the details in order to protect our workforce and to do

contingency planning for what happens. so, i am really proud and i cannot claim credit for any of this but i'm proud that my colleagues have done such excellent advanced planning that is making our agency more secure in this crisis than almost any of our other counterparts. i've lost track of the other part of this question? >> in terms of having access to public process in the ages where wore basically doing everything digitally and of course as we know, some folks don't have access to the internet. >> this is something we want to be sensitive too. sincsince covid-19, we were proy as an agency having the biggest online presence. we've been hosting our board meetings online and this is our second community town hall that we've done online. we've also been doing a whole array of online community

organization meetings and for the public meetings, including this one, we know not everyone has internet. most people have access to a telephone. so all of our public meetings, including this one, there's a dial-in number for people who can't get online and can't see our faces can still hear the text and can call in on their telephone. in fact we're getting a significant number of people picking up their phone and calling in. all of those phone calls are transcribed for us and vick has been reading some of them. we want to make sure people have a real opportunity to participate and we have been reliant for some of our community-based organizations, like so many can and the social equity organizations have been participating by phone as well and we have still early in the crisis did some in-person

meetings with social distance. >> i have a question from youtube. can you raise the tickets for safety violations and for r.p.p.s? >> yes. so this is another complicated question. again, if you go to sfmta.com/budget, you will see all of the details proposals for how we're making adjustments to our citation fees and fines. some of those fee and fine categories we have control over and many of them we do not. there are limits controlled by the state government where we can't razor lower and the rules are complicated. what we've tried to do is think about fees fines, well, first of all, the objective of fees and fines should never be either revenue nor should they be punitive. our primary objective should be getting people to pay their fair share and to do the right thing.

that's the only reason why we have fees and fines. to the extent that we have fees and fines we want to make sure that we look at them with an equity len lense. so a fine for something jeopardizing safety of vulnerable users should be higher for the fine that is annn annoyance. over staying your time limit for your parking space, your meter, should be greater than the fine for not paying your $3 muni fares for your three square feet of space. we're trying to make sense of all of them to the extent that we can. ultimately, we know that fixing the equity problems in fees and fines requires a state legislative strategy because the most important once we do not

have control over. it's one of the reasons why the sfmta has been leading in order to make sure that those fines for things that are jeopardizing the safety of vulnerable user are increased. and that it's a fine for stuff that is an annoyance are reduced at the state level and we have an equity framework that would allow san francisco to adopt and take it a couple steps further. as you can see i'm passionate about this topic and really frustrated that we don't have the control that we need as a municipality in order to get it all right. >> where we do have control, we've been very diligent and for example, we are increasing fares for people double parking in a bike lane which is a complete safety violation. >> to the state maximum. >> and similarly, where we have people riding scooters on the sidewalks, that fine is going up as well. so, very good. we're closing in on our time.

and i just wanted to take a minute and clarify a little bit about the tow policy and say the fee for first time tow is eliminated for individuals experiencing homelessness. certified by and the first tow fee is still in place for most others. although it was reduced for low income individuals. so just wanted to clarify that point. we're at 12:47. i just want to acknowledge again that we ran a little bit late and apologized for that and we answered quite a few questions and there are questions remaining that we will follow-up with folks that asked us after this meeting in the next couple of days, should you hear from us. but to be respectful of everyone's time, just want to go ahead and close question do you have any closing thoughts and remarks given where we are where the budget and health pandemic. >> first of all, thank you for

putting up with this long conversation. your input is important to us and it's very much shaped the work that we've done so far. i want to repeat. that the only relevant statement of any organizations' values is its budget. this is an incredibly important exercise for us and whether our revenues are collapsing or expanding, we can make good decisions about how we use our limited resources to uphold the public good if we're clear about our values and if we understand how to make the difficult trade offs. for me, i can promise to continue to update the public to be fully transparent and really to be brutally honest. this is going to be a really, really difficult two years. perhaps unprecedented in the last 100 years. and the only way we're going to get through this is by being honest, by being transparent, by engaging with the public and by coming back to our core values

to make the tough choices. so thank you all for joining us. and we'll be back with more information as history unfolds. >> thank you. >> and good bye.. >> the meeting has started. >> the meeting will come to

order. this is the april 8th meeting of budget and finance committee. i am calling it to order at 10:00 a.m. it is a rescheduled meeting at 10:05 a.m. and the meeting scheduled for 10:10 a.m. there are other supervisors present. will you please identify yourself. >> anybody else who is not on the budget and appropriations committee? thank you very much. i would like to thank daniel williams from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any

announcements? >> yes, the covid-19 health emergency and to protect city employees and the public the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. members will participate remotely. this is taken pursuant to the state way stay at home order. all proceeding local and state and federal orders and directives. committee members will attend through video conference or telephone and participate to the extent as if they were physically comment. comments will be available on each item. channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streaming at the top of the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. you can call (888)204-5984.

(888)204-5984 access code 350-1008. when connected public comment is open and dial one and zero to be added to the cue to speak. speak clearly and slowly and turndown your television or radio. alternatively yo you make public comment by e-mailing myself sfgovtv at lindawong at sfgovtv. if you submit by e-mail it will be included as part of the official file. finally, items acted upon today will appear on the april 14th

board of supervisors for consideration unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. madam clerk can you call items one and two together. items one and two on the regular budget and finance agenda authorizing the treasure to secure a short term line of credit in an amount not to exceed $20 million for the purpose of providing short term emergency unsecured loans to small businesses in san francisco that are unable to meet rent or mortgage costs. item two. $20 million of short term load proceeds and $600,000 to to t the office of the treasure and tax collector. individual loans for small businesses impacted by

sars-cov-2. >> the items from last week's agenda. >> at last week's meeting i announced i worked with oewd to create $10 million small business package launched within days. also, last week the committee granted my request for one week continuance. just to be sure that we had this up and running before filing the ordinances. oewd has done amazing work and moved to add $1 million to replenish the small business grant fund. after the enormous credit on monday evening they went live with the launch of hardship emergency loan program with $4.5 million available immediately and $4.5 million to be added within the month. i am especially grateful that

oewd is partnering with community bank organizations to get the word out and that district nine as well as mainstream launch and working solutions are participating to get the fundings to the most vulnerable communities. i am so grateful to oewd director and his hardworking staff who made this happen so quickly to help small business in crisis across the city. i also want to thank amy from my staff who has been working tirelessly to fight for and on behalf of small businesses in the city. today i asked that these two items be filed. >> i will let yo you make a motn to file these items. any public comment?

any members of the public like to make a comment? is there anyone on the cue? >> madam chair, please allow me a second to check the cue. >> supervisor yee. >> good morning everybody. hold on. i just want to make a simple comment. i want to thank supervisor ronen for spearheading this effort and working to make this happen. thank you, supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton. >> i want to thank supervisor ronen for taking the lead and working with the ma the mayor'se

to make this possible. one of the things we are fighting for to make sure from prioritization standpoint that the grant funding reaches all areas of san francisco. we have a lot of businesses suffering and need the support. i have been having conversations with oewd about how to administer the grant funding. i appreciate everyone for working closely together to come up with the solution. thanks again. >> anyone in the cue for public comment? >> madam chair, there are no callers waiting to speak. >> i would like to add thank you to supervisor ronen. i am assuming that you are working to get the word out to the chinese speaking small businesses and working through the chinese chamber of commerce and african-american chamber of

commerce. >> i made a motion to file this item. >> second. >> thank you. roll call vote please. on the motion to file items one and two. supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. thank you very much. >> i am sorry, supervisor fewer. you have to do that over. i seconded. i am not on that particular committee. >> that's right. i am corrected. shall we rescind that vote. >> you don't need a second. >> i only need a second when it is five members, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> because supervisor yee seconded do we have to do another vote on that?

>> it is recommended that we take another vote. >> i make a motion to resend to- tto rescind the vote. >> the motion to rescind the vote. >> fewer aye. >> walton aye, three ayes. >> thank you very much. now, i make a motion to file this item and another roll call vote. >> on the motion supervisor walton. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> can you please call item three. >> resolution approving second

modification much the grant between the city and low income investment fund for the provision of child care facilities and technical assistance to support the city's implementation of the san francisco city-wide plan for early care and education and to extend the term up to two years for a total term of july 1, 2017 to june 30, 2022 and to increase the grant amount by $37.2 million resulting in a revised total grand of $66.3 million to commence following board approval. members of the public should call the number across the screen and press one and zero to line up to speak. >> thank you, madam clerk. we have a request from the office of early care and education to continue this item for one week. i would like to make a motion to continue the item. before we do that, we will hear public comment. it is open for public comment. if anyone would like to comment please call the number and press one and zero.

>> operation please let us know if there are callers that are ready. >> madam chair, there are no callers. >> thank you very much. i make a motion to continue this for one week. roll call vote please. >> walton. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> fewer. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> item four. ordinance retroactively authorizing the department of emergency management to accept a $1.4 million grant from the united states department of home lansecured for the realnal catastrophic grant program for october 1, 2019 through june 30, 2020 and amending the ordinance

to provide for the two grant funded part-time positions. members of the public who wish to comment call the number on the screen and press one and zero to line up to speak. >> do we have the department of emergency management on? >> yes marry landers from the department of emergency management. >> yes from the emergency management department. >> thank you very much. would you like to give us a report, please? >> yes, please. the legislation before you is to accept and expands funding for the regional catastrophic preparedness grant program and amend the salary ordinance to add two-part time positions. the project is for regional support for a logistics and

supply chain management project to develop commodity points of distribution throughout the 12 counties in the san francisco bay area. two-part time positions will manage the project and the contractor. i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. any questions? seeing none we will open up for public comment. any members of the public to comment on item 4. please call the number and press one zero to get in the cue. >> madam chair, i have one caller.. >> you have two minutes. hello, caller.

does the caller need assistance. >> can you hear? >> it appears he might have hung up. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed. i would like to make a motion to move this for positive recommendation. roll call vote. >> walton. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> fewer. >> aye. >> three ayes. >> madam clerk, can you please read the first item on one, two,

three for the budget appropriations committee. >> clarification i couldn't hear you very well. >> my apologies. could you call the first item on the budget appropriations committee. >> one. to review the budget process and related updates for fiscal year 2020 and 2021-22, requesting the controllers office and the budget and legislative analyst report. members of public should call the number across the screen and press one and zero to line up to speak. >> thank you very much. i believe today we have with us the mayor's budget director kelly kirkpatrick and our controller. are you there?

>> yes, chair fewer. i am the budget director and i believe the controller is also on. i will kickoff the presentation with a screen share. i also shared a copy by e-mail with the members of the committee and aids should you want to follow along. give me one second. >> can you see the presentation? >> no, it is not up on the screen. >> okay. give me one second.

it is my own laptop. this is my last try. otherwise, i will kick it to ben to pull up the presentation. i apologize. it is showing up on my screen. is it showing up on other folks? >> supervisors you can't see it, is that correct. >> no. >> ben. let me unscreen share. i believe i stopped sharing my screen.

>> yes, i can see it now. so today the controller and i will walk through a summary of current year spending -- sorry. covid-19 relating spending by city departments as well as refined numbers from state and federal resources. this is all work in progress at all times. this is the updates since last week. we will also speak to some estimates related to alternative housing and give two funding rereceived to date and walk through the timelines. to begin on city spending for covid to date, departments will

spend an estimated 50 to $100 million for core operations related to covid response. vast majority is anticipated at the department of public health related to increased staffing, ppe as well as transportation needed for individuals. to date the departments have gotten money out the door of $15 million, and this includes $10 million for staffing. we have spent, i think there is some accounting here checks out the door for $2 million. department of public health has funding in the cue and pays to spend 10s of millions related to ppe and testing and safety equipment. we have announced the grant program which is reallocation of current year funding. of course, there is a couple million dollars for the it needs

and additional supplies for our vulnerable populations. we are working and the controller's office is leading the reimburse meant to the extent possible for these costs to fema recovery to help us offset those costs. ben will walk through the next couple of slides. >> sure. good morning. we are working to get our arms around the costs related to the event. we are working with the departments to forecast the number of different expenses. those include medical staffing by facilities, temporary housing, including hotels there be a significant cost. inspection and contact tracing programs throughout the city.

food service expansion, emergency responder's support programs including child care and others. then inspection and hygiene services. we are working on this daily as we speak. a lot of these costs will depend on the ultimate ark of the health emergency in san francisco. we will update you and include full estimated costs in the april projection update from our up the mayor's budget office. i know there were specific questions related to costs related to hotels. we did pull together some information related to costs and forecasts of expenses working with eoc in the last several days. the city currently has approximately 2000, 1977 hotel units currently under contract

or that the city expects to be in contract within the next couple of days. our preliminary estimate of the costs for the units for a 90 day period comes to about $35 million. that including the cost of the hotel lease itself, what security, janitorial and other support services at those facilities. our expectation is that fema will reimburse us for a significant portion of that cost. in particular, fema guidance at this point, which is evolving almost day-by-day at this point, is that fema will reimburse for either congregate or nonkong agree gat housinnoncongregate hl reimburse for housing costs

related to certain at risk individuals. they are defining for fema purposes over 65 and with certain medical conditions. the ultimate reimburse mat from fema will depend how we filthies units with who and whether or not those individuals are eligible for reimbursement under the fema program. our current estimate that we expect about $20 million potentially of the $35 million will be fema reimbursesible. i think the two categories here at least under current fema guidance are not reimbursable. first is for any first responder housing that the local government sets up unless those first responders are covid

positive or exposed. second broader housing programs that reach to the homeless or other congregate housing not in that vulnerable group are not currently reimbursable under currentfina guidance. that explains the difference. the estimate of the balance for the units under contract or will this week comes to $15 million. we would expect that cal will reimburse us for some portion of the fema eligible piece and some sources that we are tracking in the federal stimulus bill we hope to further reduce that. broader planning goals, shelter branch is working on at the moment is to get up to 7,000 units. well beyond what the city has

been able to get contracted to date. using estimate of cost from 2000 under contract, we would estimate the total three month cost of the larger universe is about $105 million, with about potentially $55 million of that claimable against fema, $50 million yet unsolved. one caveat on the numbers above is these don't yet currently include on site health services required at some of these units, depending on population served in different ones. we are estimating those costs but don't have them at this point. the other thing that is not on the page, of course, are other shelter expansion costs in congregate settings as opposed to housing.

i will pause for questions. >> supervisor ronen. >> thank you so much, mr. controller. how much is the shelter expansion costing? >> good question. i don't know that i have that number at my fingertips but i can certainly follow up immediately after the meeting with more information on that. >> that would be great. then the only shelter expansion, the administration's plan changes several times each day so it is hard to follow. my understanding right now is moscone west is the only shelter expansion. they mixed the plans for the other two at the tennis club and the palace of fine arts, correct? >> i am not certain of the

status of the tennis club or palace of fine arts. i will get back to you on that. i think you are correct. other than the fact there is some expansion of hours and services at the existing shelter system in the city. in terms of new shelter beds, the west is the significant one at this point. >> the major expense thus far is for moscone west? >> i believe so. i think the state has provided a certain number of trailers at a lesser expense. we can certainly pull together a summary for you of the shelter-related costs. >> that would be great. i would appreciate that. will fema be for 60 or 65 and older? >> i believe the current fema guidance is 65 and older, which differs somewhat from the city's

guidance of 60 and older as the vulnerable population. >> what are the other categories people that fema will reimburse anyone with out a home that is covid-19 positive? >> covid positive or exposed. then i believe those are the two primary categories above and beyond those that don't have the ability to self-quarantine and are over 65 with these health conditions. >> this is possibly not in your area of knowledge. if someone is sleeping in a congresacongregate area with soe positive would that be someone exposed?

>> i will get back to you on that one. >> thank you, ben. there is a pot of money from hud that we did not use. i believe it is in, you know, the tens of millions if not more. could we repurpose that for the hotel rooms? >> understanding all of these different revenue streams flowing down from the state and the feds is part of the puzzle we are putting together at the moment. there is an expansion of money through hud. the state itself has allocated funds for shelter and hotel use. we will receive a portion of those funds. there is changes and additional allocations ms. kirkpatrick will speak to regarding cvg and other funds. we are working to see what those

look like and how to maximize the use of dollars for the local response efforts, which includes both public house and what we are talking about. as we alluded to, there will be other moneys available to close some of the gaps you see on this chart. >> looking back at my notes. i guess there was a $5 million amount of money from hud that we can't spend now and that hud has issued a mega waiver that we can apply for to then use those funds for this purpose. i guess it is not in 10s of millions. i think it is around $5 million that you could look into reusing that money for this purpose, that would be great. >> will do. ms. kirkpatrick might have an

update later on some of the questions you are asking related to other revenue streams. >> my last question is that i am trying to find we are paying $197 perennities for each hotel room if you divide 1977 by $35 million for 90 days. that is the figure i got, is that right? >> let me do that same math. yes, i get a comparable number. that is not only for the room but also for security, cleaning and other services other than the health services provided on site. >> the reason i bring this up is because, as you know, supervisor

preston and haney hav secured hl rooms together with shelter providers and donations they fund raised. their overall rate is coming to about half of that. the shelter providers that they have emptied are providing the same services that they did to people when they were in the congregate setting so their contract remains the same to provide food and oversight and they have got that number cut in half. i am just wondering if we are doing all we can t to get the bg for our buck here. >> i have not reviewed the alternated model and i will be more than happy to. i think there would be -- i see that side-by-side comparison.

i would be happy to do so. >> i do think $197 is really high. i would love to see the breakdown of what we are actually paying to the hotels and for food and staffing, if that is possible if you could get that to me. >> we can pull that together for you. this is the very forecasting work that we are doing. getting to a more grand level. as we have more information i will provide it to you and other members of the board. >> it would be really helpful. i think especially supervisors preston and haney could sit down and show the city how to cut the number in half. that would be great if we could do that. thank you so much. >> supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair fewer. i have a simple question.

you have chosen to use a three month period as the basis for the calculations. i know you have got to start somewhere. i am wondering if there is any basis for picking that three months other than you have got to start somewhere. it could be shorter or longer, right? >> you are right. we are using this for a model. two months felt too short. longer than three months was too speculative. you are right, it is very uncertain. >> thank you. >> anyone else, comments or questions from colleagues at all? >> we will move to the next slide, if that is helpful. i promised a short update when we make presentations on philanthropy. as the committee know, the gift

was modified by the mayor's emergency declaration under that fund established to accept the city's response. emergency donations are accepted by my office and programmed expenditured are recommended by the eoc and then those expenditures are required to be approved by me, the city administrator and the emergency management director. our status on funds raised through april 5th, which is the last report i have from a couple days ago indicates we received $2.4 million in philanthropic gives there is another $6 million pledged that we expect to received in the coming weeks. no payouts have happened as of april 5th. the committee has approved two

allocations for the week ahead of that received money. $1.3 million for the small business relief program supervisor ronen spoke to earlier and $1 million for food secured. there are two accounts used for this. funds received into the city fund itself and additionally to encourage gifts from organizations that have by-laws or other restrictions that only permit them to make charitable contributions to 501 c-3s with the sf foundation and those are included in the totals here. that my short update on philanthropy. with that i can hand it back to ms. kirkpatrick to talk through other federal and state revenues we are tracking. >> any comments or questions for our controller?

seeing none, let's move on to ms. kirkpatrick. >> thank you. as we have been discussing, we believe that many of the costs we are incurring and we work to capture as many as we can will be reimbursesible through fema through the cares act $2.2 trillions. $45 billion of fema funding across the country is allocated. we will try to capture as much of that as possible and also work with state partners. also, as part of the cares act there was a coronavirus relief fund of $1.5 billion across the country that we estimate in san francisco will receive $150 million. the controller and i have walked through earlier, we have significant costs already outlined for various staffings

operations dph and ppe and testing depending on the patchwork of costs related to alternative housing. parameters around this funding are that it has to be for necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health of covid-19 budget costs unpresident l accounted for and -- unaccounted for. we are working to better understand the rule making and parameters around this. it is our understanding it is not a an apply for allocation this. is our best estimate. it doesn't at this time the rule making does not include lost revenue or backfill of lost revenue to city. we are exploring if that would be a possible use given the

projected shortfalls we released last week of 1.1 to $1.7 billion between the current year and upcoming two budget years. additional allocations we have better our arms wrapped around from last week i want to highlight. the m.t.a. estimates they will receive $300 million to $400 million from the cares act. that may be used to cover operating expenses making up revenue shortfalls and ppe and administrative leave costs due to personnel service reductions. airport estimates they will receive at least $200 million from the faa to cover operating expenses and make up for revenue shortfalls as well. we are tracking allocations as

supervisor ronen noted for various hud programs. cdbg homeless assistance grants which look to have eligible uses related to housing. as the controller noted we are working to figure out a variety of sources with the costs we have and this will definitely play apart for these housing needs. also, we are working with partners. it looks to be funding for law enforcement agencies to cover expenses related to covid and we are on the allocation for that, for the aging and disability services and trying to figure out the san francisco allocation for meal services and trying to understand support for healthcare system.

state emergency funds that has been made available, the governor allocated $150 million for homelessness specific and alternative housing costs. we now know that of is $100 million allocated for homelessness emergency spending, that our flexible dollars to address the homelessness needs we will get a $6 million allocation for that. the governor has included a $50 million state-wide funding pot for hotels and alternative housing. it is our understanding they will take in all needs across the state and moneys expended and figure out an allocation plan from there. there is no formula like with the emergency homeless funding which was based on the point in time count and various allocation cost models.

$50 million is something that we have to work with the state to figure out how much we would be eligible for across in san francisco. finally, looking forward eye eye are working on updates. the controller is working on refining the revenue projections from the updates we provided last week on the range of projected revenue shortfalls as it related to covid in the city. we will continue, i gave you a brief update on federal and state revenues. we will work to provide updates

and incorporate those into the april financial reporting updates. of course, the controller's office will continue to monitor through the nine month report underlying department revenue and expense trends to give a picture of where our financial positioning is better narrowed in on in the coming weeks. my office is working on a current year rebalancing plan to bring the current year short fals between 180 to $280 million into alignment. we will bring those rebalancing plans, i believe, in early may, late april for your consideration. in order to help us develop that current year rebalancing plan we

issued instructions which i walked through last week only allowing hiring positions for essential work related to health response, freezing and evaluating new programs which funding has not gone out the door yet. we will pull together a plan to balance those expenditure reductions and potential use every serves to try to balance the current year with an eye to offset together for the significant shortfalls we anticipate for the upcoming budget year as well. as always, this will be a work in progress. we will keep you updated as we move along. >> supervisor mandelman. >> that was left over from the last. >> no problem. any comments or questions for the controller or mayor's budget director?

president yee. >> in regards to the rebalancing plan you are talking about. i know that a lot of it will be a guesstimate, and are you anticipating that probably a few months after the fiscal year will you do a rebalance of the rebalance once you find out what funding is coming in? everything is up in the air right now. >> as you saw, that is a great question, it is a range as well. we will work to come up with contingency planning. my goal would be to do the exercise once and provide enough choices, but i will say we are in an every involving land scape

we will keep you evolved should we have to rebalance should something deviate from the anticipated shortfall. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen. >> thank you. have you been able to calculate cost savings from the reduction of work that the city is doing during this process? i know there is so much to get to. i wonder if there is any information related to that? >> the city has made a commitment to maintain city employment for city employees through may 3rd. we made the same commitment to our nonprofit providers. those costs are the same, perhaps there might be something due to slower hiring. that is what my team will work

on over the next couple works to capture some type of savings related to that for the rebalancing plan. >> that makes sense. thank you so much for doing that. what about we had talked about this at one earlier hearing? what about the capital projects? any updates about potential cost savings of capital projects we had planned on completing this year but were not longer going to do so? any updated information about that? >> no new updated information. my team is issuing instructions to departments this week to have them provide us with a variety of projects and the implications of canceling or pausing those. that is part of the rebalancing plan that we will bring you in

the next three weeks. >> i just had a couple more questions about the 2sf fund. i am not sure if that is for you. i am wondering if we could get some information. whatever you can share about who is giving with the donations. i know that i have been asking members of the public who want to help to give to this fund. i am sure they are giving, you know, in the smaller range, but given how many billionaires we have living in the city, i am curious who is it that is giving and at what level? >> i don't have that information with me, supervisor ronen. it is in discussions with the

city's attorney's office. let me add this to the list of things to get back to you with. we can talk about it in future weeks. [please stand by]

>>. >> supervisor walton: again, these are folks who are not qualifying for other state benefits. as you know, we had these pieces of legislation were cosponsored by supervisors peskin, supervisor haney, supervisor mar, supervisor safai, and supervisor preston, and i just wanted to thank them for understanding that this is a commitment that we have to make here as a city as we have populations that are being left out during this major health crisis. i also want to thank major rosenfeld making sure that there were funds in the general reserve because it is important in fighting for this lem legislation to be passed so 500

families a month would have $500 a month for food, necessities, and basic needs. i had a conversation with the mayor this morning, and she has committed $6 million to make sure that we have the resources to implement the components of what's proposed in this legislation, and she's also committed to making sure that we get to the $10 million, so i am going to move to continue all three items as we finalize the details and the plan and working with the mayor, knowing that we already have $6 million committed to fund the resources for the population. i'm excited to know we will be able to get the resources out the door quicker, not having to

do this legislatively and working with the executive branch. i do have some amendments that are not substantive for both ordinances, but i know that some other people may want to speak, so at this point, i will wait to propose these amendments. >> chair fewer: thank you, supervisor walton. i was mistaken, we do have a report for it. so before i take comments, may i please have the b.l.a. report. >> yes. good morning, chair. file 200339 and 200340 establish the covid emergency family relief fund, this would be a category 8 fund, which

means the fund would be disbursed without an appropriation approval by the board of supervisors. and then file 200341 appropriates $10 million from the general reserve. three, because this is a new program and new spending, we considered this a policy matter for the board, but we do have two recommendations from the board to clarify the ordinances the in the -- in the first, the way the propose is written, we recommend the ordinance be clarified it states that the controller can move money into the fund once the fund is formally established. and the other recommended is an amendment to all three ordinances related to