>> good afternoon. this is the ann moeller case caen. i'm the president of the san francisco public utilities commission. i would like to call this to order. towe.(role call).

>> we have a quorum. >> could you please read the announcement. >> don't to you covid-19 health emergency and given the public health regulars issued by the san francisco department of public health, they have lifted restrictions. this meeting is held via teleconference and held by s sfg tv. please be aware there's a brief lag time between what is being viewed on sfg-tv. i would like to extend our thanks to the staff for the assistance of this meeting. if you wish to make public comment on an item dial (888)273-3658, access code

310-7452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1-0 to be added to the speaker line and you will hear an automated voice that when tell you when it's your turn to speak and your two-minute speaking time will begin. these instructions will be repeated. if they haven't done so, i'll ask the commission and staff to mute their microphones to minimize background noise. your first order of business is approval of the minutes of may 26th, 2020. >> commissioners, before you, you have the minutes of may 26th, 2020. are there any corrections or discussion on the minutes? hearing none, madam secretary, could you please open to public comment?

>> anyone in the public who wishes to make a comment on may 26th, 20 dial (888)273-3658, access code 310-7452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1-0 to be added to the speaker line and i would like to remind everybody, this item is for approval of the minutes. nowdo we have any callers? >> there are no callers in the queue. approval of the minutes is closed. >> may i have a motion and a second on the minutes' approval?

>> approval. >> second. >> can you take a role call vote. (role call). >> i think you're muted, commissioner. commissioner maxwell, your microphone is muted. >> maybe raise your hand.

commissioner maxwell, at the top, you'll see four buttons and one looks like a small microphone, tap it once to un-mute. >> perhaps while we're working that out, could you give us a thumbs up or thumbs down to approve? >> , yeah, i couldn't see you ad it went blank and i couldn't communicate or see you. i'm back. >> how do you vote on the minutes? >> yes, aye.

>> commissioner paulson. >> aye. >> thank you, we have five ayes. >> the motion carries. next item, please. >> madam president, item 4 is general public comment and member of the public may address the commission on matters within the commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda by dialing (888)273-3658 and access code 310-7452 and pound followed by pond again. dial 1-0 to be added to the speaker line.

mr. moderator, do we have callers? >> there are multiple callers in the cue. queue. >> you have four questions remaining. >> commissioners, my name is francisca depasta and today i want to talk about blatant racism. i viewed the funeral of george floyd and it brings memories of the discrimination that we are witnessing in district 10. 10, blatant discrimination.

(indiscernible). >> even as i'm speaking, you don't have your act together because i'm hearing funny sounds on the system. anyway, i'll be watching the presentations and giving my comments on what you perceive being the best interests of the community and what i perceive to be the best interests of the community because i have a track

record attending most of your meetings and witnessed the shenanigans. thank you very much. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> question: thank you, chair. (indiscernible). >> question: just briefly, the work of this commission, in the era of covid-19 i hope it will pass sooner rather than later and want us to continue to play

the long game aspirational goals. recently it was started at forming a municipal utility's district and i support this commission being not only a purveyor of generation of clean electricity, but to become an operator of infrastructure. i am concerned about high electric rates in san francisco and i know that you as a commission are doing your part to help. by offering valued propositions for generations. i ask your continued advocacy in being able to be involved in the delivery side of the house, as well, because the public process that you afford will be able to help to reduce the electric rate

in san francisco. gun, again, i ask for your contd advocacy as you continue the work in bringing clean, greener and less expensive power to san francisco. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> question: hello, commissioners. thank you for allowing me to speak with you today. my name is elaine challenger. i'm a member of the san m matteo bike council and we have had many discussions about the problem and possible solutions i'm going to discuss today. and last year, the san matteo board of supervisors requested a grand januaryery repor jury repe gravity of the problem. they agreed something needs to

be done. here is the set-up. beautiful open space, sunny views of the reservoirs and hills, a relatively safe path on sawyer camp trail and kinata road and a hell hole of cars trying to pass between k irinata road where cyclists are expected to travel with cars at high speeds along highways. on top of that, cyclists cross merging traffic and a gravel shoulder. cyclists are hit frequently. on may 1st, i witnessed a cyclist hit and the worst thing for me was this collision was predictable and it will happen again and again until we fix this problem. so here is my ask, the pc has existing roads on the land surrounding lower skyline 9 92 d

kinata road that would give cyclists a safe path. i'm asking you to allow access to connect skyline to kinata road. there are land use issues and a greater need now to accommodate the rising number of cyclists. you can reach me at saferbikelanes@icloud.com and the san matteo b-pack invites to our next virtual meeting. thank you so muc much. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: good afternoon, commissioners. this is peter dreckmeyer. there was a new rule that will

gut the states for the water quality certifications. my opinion, this is the worse attack of many from the trump administration on california's quality of life. but right now, california desperately needs agencies leak the sf puc to stand up to trump. february 25th, commissioner vitor opposed the trump administration's buy love cal bl administration for the delta. thank you. you've been a great leader. three and a half months have passed and still nothing has come back to the commission. please step up on the vital issues. today i ask you to not just oppose the latest epa rule of degradation to our environment but to sue the trump administration. this would send a clear message. i hope you will agendaize agends

for your next meeting. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: i'm a resident of san matteo. it's reported my city's average use is 86 gallons of water per person and in contrast, san francisco is 46 gallons per day. according to the integrated information system, the bay area is in a moderate drought. but even though there's ample storage, usage will be high this year. especially at a time when delta water levels are not repennished, for the habitat to sustain part of our economy such as salmon, there's a lot of room for better water management.

so the focus on the specific opportunity, i would like sf puc to be working with wholesale buyers to show them best practises and improve water demand management. sf puc water conservation is not what we see down here. we should all come together on this and communicate that it's a better -- that it's a community priority to manage water better and why. but sf puc needs to be the main driver on that. thank you. >> thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> public comment on item 4 is closed. >> madam secretary, could you please read the next item. >> madam president, the next

order of business is item 5, communication. >> commissioners, any comments on communications? >> madam president, a couple items. last meeting, commissioner maxwell ask about a request i made of staff to develop a water budget work sheet. i've provided a repan an expanso the commission and i wanted to say if anyone wanted a copy, if you contact the commission secretary, she'll be glad to send them a copy. the other comment is on 5d, the alternate water supply quarterly report. number one, i thought it was an excellent report.

this presented a thought process behind it and i thought that was very positive an positive and u. the take away for me on that, there's a table on page 4 of the report that it's a pie chart and basically says that in a worse case scenario, what we would be looking for is 100 mgd of supply and we have identified about 75. and those are very round numbers, leaving about 25 mgd with no identified solutions at this point. so in terms of responding to commissioner vietor's request about what do if we had to meet the requirements of the delta plan, we're short on that and we need to identify additional

projects of that at least in theory might help bridge that gap. but again, i thought it was very positive. on the water budget, this kind of goes hand in glove with that report and i would also hope that, perhaps, by as early as the next meeting, we could have something to show in that respect. thank you. now. >> commissioner, could you other commissioners have copies of the additional thoughts you had, the personal point that you made? >> that has already been distributed to the commission by the commission secretary. it's fairly brief, about two or three perhaps and it has a narrative and there's to numbers involved on it, but it does lay out the basic thought process i

was looking for. >> this was briefed but very well done and you could understand it, so thank you. >> through the chair, i also appreciated the effort that went into the report. i'd like to request, especially because of commissioner moran's interest in leadership on the water supply budget work -- i don't know what it looks like, but at the next meeting, so that it's not just in communications but some kind of workshop so that we can dialogue and ask questions of staff if need be, especially when commissioner moran is a little further along in his thoughts and maybe already now, but i feel like that is a better way for me to kind of digest and process, to actually have a presentation,

have someone kind of walk us through the high-level points and to say that it looks like there's a 25 mgd delta, what do we do about it or what have you? >> any other comments on the subject? mr. kelly, could you comment on 5f, which is your report on contracts? this is the first time it's being present aske and presentee to draw attention to the report that is in communications. >> yes, so 5f is a report of all of the contracts that are delegated, that you have delegated under my authority to approve. in the act of transparency, we

wanted to provide a list of contracts and they hav who theyn awarded to and bring that out so everyone can see all of the activities that have been delegated to me and not go to the commission. so that's the purpose of the report. we're going to submit this quarterly so that you can keep track of all of the contracts that we have let out under my authority. so that's what the purpose of this report is, is to increase transparency. is that mean to say, ann, or do you need mor? >> yes, yes, so we'll be seeing this quarterly and we'll be seeing it under communications. you certainly didn't do much

between january and march. [ laughter ] >> oh, dear. any other comments by the commissioners on communications? could you please open this to public comment? >> members of the public who wish to provide comment on item 5, communications, dial (888)273-3658 and access code 310-7452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1-0 to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any

callers? >> there are multiple calls. >> thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> question: thank you. i'm going to talk to you about the clean tower sf report and i thank you for presenting it. it's very clear and it looks like we're doing a lot of good things. we are thinking about our customers by keeping covid-19 and all of its attended issues in mind. thank you for having good relief in place to help the people of san francisco, to keep them in this program, which is clean power sf. it shows leadership and

protection and respect for the brand. and so, please continue with that. when i went to look at various rates, i appreciate you all publishing the rate. there are two support rates involved. other than that, i appreciate your continuing work and i look forward to frequent reports and conversations about this program. thank you. >> thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining.

>> question: this is peter dreckmyer. i sent you a couple of letters yesterday. the one on the water supply budget work sheet that commissioner moran has requested. and regarding 5d, i agree, it's a well-written report. but i feel it's based on an old way of thinking. and this is in no way a criticism of staff. i think paula does great work, but trying to work within policy that is dated. and so i'm very enthusiastic about the water supply budget work sheet. i think we will have a much better understanding of water supply, issues related to that. so i hope you get a chap chanceo look at my letter. i requested there be a backgrounder included with that, so the elements are clear on how the system works and water rights. so information about the baker act, the 1995 flow schedule and

i requested that there be information in there to look at the history of water entitlements and demand and storage level and so annual entitlements, tourist demand over the years and how much water was remaining in storage at the end of the year. i think that will be very helpful in transformin determiny moving forward. i hope there will be an opportunity to for the public to ennaturengage in using this too. some of the factors to be considered are entitlements but alternative supplies, demand is we know demand is much lower than it was projected. new storage could be included and level of rationing and taking a look at the off-ramps and all of that is explained in my letter and i look forward to bringing this issue back in a

couple of week. >> thank you, caller. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: so commissioners, on the water issue, i have requested several times to contract the tribes who have a vested interest in the reverse and the water which they consider water which we stole from them. so much like the racism that we are witnessing today, this issue happened during a time where

congressmen could make bills with other areas an, steal the water and bring it to san francisco. that's ashame. you need to make it right. we have some telling you what is right and what is wrong you like to do wrong. right now, they cannot speak for themselves. i said this before. we need to hear from the tribes. , the indigenous people, who were here for 15,000 years, unlike the strangers who came here from 400 years ago and screwed up everything. we need to hear from the tribes.

this pandemic is something we should reflect upon. >> thank you, caller. your time is up. thank you so much for your comments. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> there aren't any more callers in the queue, madam secretary. >> that closes public comment on item 5, communications. >> madam chair, i have a question on 5d, i'm sorry. is it ok if i ask it? >> of course. >> 5c is the bay area watershed and rights of way wildfire preparedness and i just wanted to know if there is someone who can answer that. is there a particular goal? is there a place we're trying to get to in being prepared for

wildfires in these watershed areas? >> this is steve ritchie, assistant general manager for water and i would like to ask tim ramirez to respond to that question and he's on the loin. the line. >> thank you for the question. we try every year to do the work that is outlined in the report, so what we've tried to do is to describe the entirety of the preparation work that needs to be done, the mowing, the massty case, vegetation and we're on track to do that. in general, we try to get all of this work done by july 4th. we use that date for a couple different reasons and some are

obviously, perhaps, associated with the holiday and others are based more on the vegetation and its growth, which is highly variable. so we're generally on track to get all of that work done and we're also -- there's a couple of updates from the memo. we're hoping to have our prescribed burn next week at san andreas dam, and i will be sure to get an update when i have that schedule down. we'll be working through the details and i think we'll able to get these things done on schedule in the next few weeks and then we'll be as best prepared as we can be to fight the fires, help fight the fires that undoubtedly will happen. we've had both meetings remotely like this one and thanks to brad and lee and it went very well, all things considered. we're in as good of a spot as we

can be at this point. >> great, thank you, and thank you for the update. >> commissioners, before we move on, is there any further discussion of any of the items under communications? madam secretary, the next item, please. >> madam president, the next item is item 6, report of a general manager? >> good afternoon, commissioners. before i jump into the covid agency-wide update, i want to recognise our black community. today george floyd was laid to rest following his tragic killing by minneapolis police department on may 25th. mayor breed asked all city employees to hold a moment of silence for a full eight minutes and 46 seconds at noon today to

mourn his loss. to mourn in this. this is the same amount of time that a minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into mr. floyd's neck until he died. last week, i sent a statement of my reflection on george floyd's murder and in it, i shared my experience and invited their staff to share this. over the last week, i received a ton of emails everyday from staff sharing their stories with me. i think this is important for a step in laying the foundation for identifying what the puc can do to create a work environment where employees of all race can strive and still respect it. as we move forward, i wanted to make sure that we take an approach that goes beyond lip service and instead puts in the

hard work to understand how systemic racism is showing up at the puc. once we understand this better, we can identify and make concrete changes to address any system and behaviours at the puc that allows for this to occur. i believe it's possible to make change that we want to see in the world, at the puc. i invite the commission to work with us on what we can do, big or small, to make a difference. on a positive note, we want to make great progress. we've been making great progress on building up or business continuity plan and this effort goes way beyond how and when we return to our regular work site. it will drop into end of aspect of what we to and how we do it

now and also into the future. we need to maintain a healthy workplace, maintain collaborative decision-making, region the way we work, keep employees informed and maintain an effective workforce. the newest work coming out of this team in the coming weeks is finalized in how we mark facilities for proper social distancing, launching an it lending library for remote employees to borrow desk chairs, keyboards and other basic office equipment and issue an update --

and update our telecommunication agreements. we are also developing this plan in coordination with the reopening plan. the city direction to all departments is to continue what we're doing. that means that employees who are telecommuting now, well telecommute regardless of when the shelter-in-place is lifted. from a timely perspective, we are anticipating employees telecommuting and to continue to ddo so over the next 12 to 18 months. there are sole factors that could shorten or extend this. some teams may report back sooner. we will not bring remote employees back to the work site before august 31st. that will give us time to make sure we do this right and also

for employees to plan out their summer work schedules. when we do begin to bring employees back, we'll start with those who are absolutely on site to complete their work. employees engagement is another topic to all of this work. i'm happy to report that our workforce is very engaged with us and more than 1100 employees participate in the first employee engagement service in may and provided great feedback on how we're communicating in decisions we're making. we plan to follow up with the survey in the coming weeks. we held several virtual all-hands meeting including our very first agency-wide virtual

all-hands' meeting two weeks ago. over 1200 employees participated in the meeting, which is nearly half of our workforce. we plan to use virtual technology to engage our employees on the work ahead. we will share that information with the commissioners so that we can have an opportunity, so that you can have an opportunity to participate. while we continue to push forward with this effort to meet the needs of employees, we're responding to the needs of our customers. the latest numbers on the emergency customer assistance program show we have received over 3800 applications since launching in may, which, i think, is remarkable. this effort automatically extends the programs to the current enrollees and provide criteria for new enroleees. enr.

work is underway for nonprofit customers. by continuing to do work with our customer's employees, city partners and others, we will look to move forward from these tough times in a better and responsive agency. i just want to thank you again for your support on all of the efforts and i look forward to working with the commission over the weeks and months ahead. thank you so much. >> your statement was very moving and i think it would be

good to submit that to the editor. i think everybody would like to hear your statement and i want you to know, and i'm speaking for the commission as a whole and i'm sure you would all be in agreement with me, but certainly anything we can do to aid in this, we're 100% there for you. and for the cause. and so i just wanted you to know that and with that, any discussion about the first part of mr. kelly's report? seeingnone, madam secretary, could you please open this up for public comment. >> operator: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on 6a, update on operations during covid-19 emergency, dial (888)273-3658,

access code 310-7452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1-0 to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, are there any callers. >> there are multiple callers in the cue. queue. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> question: first and foremost, today we had a funeral of george floyd. and all over the world, people

are thinking about racism. so here in san francisco, we must ask ourselves, we have a mayor who is black and we have police chief who is black and we have a city administrator who is back, we have a general manager from the sfpuc who is black and we have several other blacks who hole pretty good positions and we have to ask ourselves, we have blacks here in san francisco who are less than 5% of the population and why are they in dire straits? this is what we about the to ask ourselves. got to ask ourselves. now, we have many middle-class blacks living in tents. they're suffering and i'm on the

frontline. i can do a little bit, but i have others who can help us. if yosan francisco public utilis commission should ask themselves, all of the commissioners, what have they done, concretely done to elevate the condition of those who live in tents? you sha g should go to city haly to see the tents in front of city hall. they don't even follow the cdc rules. that is the worst type of congregate living. we have to ask ourselves as human beings -- >> thank you, caller, your time has expired. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: this is peter

dreckmyer. i read this statement about george floyd and it's highlighted and i thought the statement was excellent and conveyed what a lot of us shared and made me proud of the puc and mr. kelly and i hope, too, it will be published for greater distribution. thank you, mr. kelly. >> thank you, caller. madam secretary, there are to more callers in the cue. queue. >> public comment on 6a is now closed. general manag manager, next ite. >> this is the sewer system improvement program quarterly update. steve robertson. can i do an audio check to make sure everyone can hear me ok? >> coming in loud and clear.

>> i'll share my screen. and give that a second to come up. >> you can see the 2-point the

billion dollar$2.9 billionand fr we closed at 37.1 i 37.1, making progress. we now have what you can see the the blue part of the pie chart at the top, 18 projects in what we call preconstruction, planning decision and award phases. the largest and all green area representing construction shows 16 projects and then in the grey area to the left, there are 36 projects for which we've moved into the close-out and completed phases of the project. we had some discussions and now with covid, we're meeting virtually and at today's meeting there's an update and that's a separate item on the agenda and i thought it may be appropriate for a slightly different format,

focusing on the program metrics and this will keep the presentation brief. i have nine slides and we welcome your feedback as we speltewelcome your feedback. you can see photos where the contractors have been implementing safe-working guidelines in response to the covid-19 pandemic. and since many of us can't go to the site to see the progress, because it is real, we thought we could bring the site to you and we have some very recent aerial drill footage from may 28th to just the end of

last month. while the video is playing, i believe this will be muted so we'll ask questions later. now we're flying over what is now being demolished as the former asphalt plant. we get closer to gerald and impressive footage to see san francisco laid out like this and we're flying over the former site, which has demolished.

as we pass over large white tanks, those are the oxygen facility and you can see the headworks facility coming into play, sort of in the middle of your screen now where the camera rotates around and you can also see the existing part of that building on the left that's still intact. but on the right, the building has gone and demolished seeing some red containers and the crane there.

if we can see my screen again where construction continues. >> your slide is back in the screen. construction continues across the city and we've shown a few photos and the photo on the left is a combined sewer discharge project and this quarter three of the four csd's and there's the area to roughen up for concrete for a protective coating. the photo in the middle is set green infrastructure. this completed piping and the

photo shows grading operations have commenced for the north-end of the project site. on the right, it shows ocean-side plant and this shows the demolition of the gas holding tank that was completed this quarter and continuing with the theme of demolition. you can see i have a reference for cost expect expenditures to date, current forecasted cost and the cost variance between budget and forecast and you can see a variance at the bottom right of $679 million and the majority of which is from eye bo

solids and headworks and we'll cover in the next presentation. then table 3.2. they provide a summary for the additional projects who are added to the program at the end of 2018. we initiated these projects into ssip that were not in phase one but were produced at the large budget cycle as part of the ten-year capital plan and they are positively for flood resilience and so they're tracked separately in the report. and you can see in this case, a variance at the bottom right of $108 million. so the report helps us to understand the cost safer varias using the health of each project and this table shows a summary and this quarter, rar we're

reporting 17 projects, meaning the forecasted cost in the approved budget and there are five projects we would say need attention, indicating that those forecasted costs are over the approved budget and by greater than 1% or less than 10% and 15 projects with forecasted costs over the approved budget which falls into the exceeding limit. in february, we talked a lot about market conditions and other factors impacting our projects. the ssip was last rebaselined in 2018 and we had been attending to rebaseline again after the ten-year capital plan and two-year budget were approved, but, unfortunately, as we've wee been talking, covid-19 delayed some of our plans. hence, there are no projects which meet the respiratory expose i would say it is not good, but to some extent we can

appreciate why.

(please stand by).

>> i'm going to stop sharing the screen so i can see folks. yes, it's one of the unknowns we're wrestling with. we have no crystal ball. these are unprecedented times. i think a lot of us at p.u.c. look back to days when the market did turn down, and we

were able, to some extent, to take advantage of that. our times are very different now, and when they're unstable, like any economy, there is a risk they could go up or down, and we don't know how cities, countries, and communities will respond, so we need to adapt and make it sustainable as we move forward. we need to use the information we have to be ready. >> if i may, the other thing that we are paying close attention to is the way businesses cooperate. you know, being social distancing and stuff like that,

will go down, so we're balancing that versus, you know, maybe, a lot of construction that is scheduled will be cancelled because of the finances, so we're, you know, sort of unclear how that will balance, but the main thing that i've constructed all the folks is that we didn't want to come out with any new contracts during the period of time of where we had a lot of uncertainty until we had the -- you know, work with the building trade and the unions and come up with some protocol. so i think the building industry, they are doing an outstanding job of making their sites really safe and efficient. you know, they just really embraced it, and i think they're doing a bang-up job of keeping their sites safe, and

hopefully, we'll see that. thank you. >> i have a question. do you think that's why the e.p.a. loans went down so significantly? they were at 309, and now, i read they're possibly at 1.85. is that a stimulus or do you think that's just the way the market is right now? >> commissioner maxwell, this is richard from finance, and i will be covering the loans later on in the agenda, items 12 and 13. interest rates are historically much lower than they were on

the first loan, so we're taking advantage of that. >> thank you. >> anyone else have a question or comment? >> yeah. commissioner paulsen with a couple of questions. one, that was a really good snapshot, including that aerial of really what is happening in the big piece and also, you know, a good favor of some of the other stuff that's going on, and as my colleague, commissioner maxwell said, the economics of this time are totally unprecedented. this isn't like 2008 where things crashed and whatever. you get wall street booming and because of, of course, so much work that we've done in the bay

area, wsip and ssip are necessary work. so some of the other constraints in private sector area construction aren't having -- well, i shouldn't say that because i don't know this -- aren't probably under the same types of scrutiny. cost shouldn't be discussed in this room as we move forward, and i don't expect it to be a part of what we're going to have to administer as we approve projects and move things forward. and i did have a question in there, and maybe it'll come up in the next presentation.

>> mr. robinson, i have just a general question upon reviewing the proposed summaries, and i have taken out all of the southeast, but our other projects, i'm just curious as to why they're running so late. 24 months late, 11 months late, there's quite a few. i'm just wondering if you could give me a general comment on that. >> sure. my initial response would be the schedule response is challenged, and as i was mull -- mulling it over and

thinking about the impact of covid, we did have some impact with the virus and the shelter in place, by mid-march, i mentioned that we would have intended to run a rebate program around this time frame had covid not hit, so now, we're looking at these in more detail, so now, it's more alarming and more things popping up in red than we would like it to be, so we'll be taking a look at more of these things in the future to see if there'll be more green.

>> i have a question. i was looking at my notes and this was from 10,000 feet, but when we talk about ssip, am i right that what i heard and saw in the slides is that the entirety of the project, 38% of it, you know, is complete or almost complete. there are 32 projects that are -- you know, you can see they're on their way to close down, and there's 16 other projects that are ready to be -- you know, they're in preconstruction and design, what's going on. when people look and say what's going on, any way? 38% complete, 32 are about done, and we've got 16 more that are in the pipeline that we'll be managing. is that a fair -- is that a fair back-of-envelope

statement? >> yes, i think so, commissioner. the intent of that pie chart is really to provide a snapshot of the progress of the through. that number, that $2.97 billion has not changed, but we look forward to the advertising of the projects, and we want to think how we best report that. >> okay. thank you. >> madam president, if i might when i was looking through the report, as others have commented, there were a whole lot of red dots in there, and i was trying to get a sense of what that was about, and i expected to see a lot of

covid-related delays, and so i -- actually, relatively little of that, that there were a lot of other factors, you know, like dealing with multiagency projects, one where i think it was the unified school district actually didn't have the legal capacity to review contracts. i think it would be helpful, to me, any way, if you could group what some of those are. we've had some discussion about it, but also look to -- you know, these are the factors that are making our planning, you know, less reliable than we would hope. you know, how do we think about those factors? can we do, what are we doing to address them? so aside from just rebaselining, if we can get a

wind of the underlying causes and have that discussion, i think that would be helpful. >> yes, thank you. >> also -- this is harlan. some projects, when we found out -- when we've got from 35 to 65, we've seen a significant increase. we purposely thought about looking at what we can do to bring the costs under control. you want to think about how you can bring this project back into alignment, so we realized that there were great opportunities to reduce this budget down, and we took the time to do so. so we took the time to redesign

stuff so we can be more reasonable with the costs, so i just wanted to point that out, but i agree with you, commissioner moran, that we should group them into these categories, you know, ones that just fell behind because of scoping, bringing in the budget. [inaudible] >> -- john, at the following meeting. i think we would all look forward to seeing that. >> yeah, that would be great.

>> any other comments, commissioners? madam secretary, could you please open this to public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide comment on item 6-b, dial one, and then zero, to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there is one caller in the queue.

>> clerk: thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> oh, good. commissioners, i know the presenter. i've met him a couple of times, and i can see he's taken a military approach to this project, but there's a lot of history, and now, we have mr. robinson, who was handed a project. and the public needs to know that initially this project

supposed to cost $6 billion, and now, we are looking at $15 billion. and if you are a commissioner, and you are looking at a projective sum of $16 billion, you have to have some justification. this project still has the stench that goes as far as two miles down. how can we resolve this as soon as possible? and for how many customers, people that endure the stench? so you can come up with statistics, 28% or 34% or whatever is complete. but how are you best addressing

quality of life issues? how can you get rid of the stench? >> operator: thank you, caller. your time is up. >> clerk: are there any other callers? >> operator: there are no other callers, madam secretary. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is closed. >> commissioners, any further discussion? next item, please. >> clerk: madam president, the next order of business is item 7, sewer system improvement ledger project update. >> thank you, president caen, commissioners.

firing up my screen again to share. [inaudible] >> it's been a while since we provided updates on our major projects in the southeast area, so we thought it would be appropriate to briefly cover the biosolids had works and the community center at 1550 evans, even though the center is not part of the sewer system improvement program, it is still part of our wastewater capital plan, and all three projects are very active in the community right now. in these challenging times, we need stability, and we are literally working together, building foundations. our construction has continued during the covid-19 shelter in place, and we can say that demolition is complete. we have torn down the old and need to complete the new. as harlan said, we are recovering, but we also have an opportunity to reimagine our

future and recognize that as we are talking about our market conditions and economy that will continue to change. we have three project managers, but in the interests of time, i will present all three projects and will make them available for questions. you can see some of these, and we last presented an update in february, where we took a hard look at how the costs increased, and how we were able to make the project affordable again. as we showed you back then,

this slide shows the new proposed budget project that we had forecasted. the approved budget baseline is $1.27 billion. that's an increase of the 400 million that we talked about, and so hence, we have one of those red dots. the first bullet is about design, redesign, and construction going on concurrently. it's the benefit of the construction manager general contractor, cmgc that we talked about. final documents are scheduled in early 2021, prioritized for what needs to happen for construction. second bullet celebrates completely of demolition like we saw in the flyover earlier. project schedule at the bottom. this, again, shows the same completion by 2027 that we presented back in february as a red dot, but it is holding

stable, hence, our cost production, it is holding stable. so for the same response to market conditions and cmgc, we now have greater clarity of what it will take to do a megaproject of this side, and it is better to know now so we can adapt. so since the major project milestone is the demolition of central shops, i will risk showing in the same way a small video. this is shorter, and it is a time lapse of demolition of central shots, and you can see literally the speed with which those buildings came down, so bear with me a second while i fire up the video. it is coming through momentarily.

the three web cams that are installed for the construction of the project document, record, and observe over time, you'll see one of those trees disappeared. our view is clearer now, and you can see one of the buildings start to go. the process of demolition takes the first out, and the second, and now, a little bit of a remainder, and now you can see what it looks like with both those buildings gone, and the site clears. we'll stop sharing and go back to...issues and challenges that we summarize in the report, a

lot of these were very consistent. we just talked a little bit about them, as well. construction and impact associated with the market conditions, and we mentioned back in february, as well. and then, of course, the covid impacts, covid-19. unlike the question we had earlier, we opted in the quarterly report to put a programatic response. there were a few cases for individual projects that we called out where there was a very specific cause for concern. in this case, pg&e power supply to that end that we demolished remained in place, and pg&e struggled to respond to that request to disconnect power so work could continue.

modifications to the contract that we talked about in february. now that we looked at the cost reduction efforts and how even some of the terms of that contract changed. the next big lift for the project, now that the facilities have been demolished. closure of jerold street in fall, and there's $6 million of construction to be advertised in the next year as we work on the next phase of construction on this project. next, we have the southeast head works project. you can see on this some really

amazing photographs and construction in some really small, constrained spaces. the quarterly report shows a budget of $418 million, so what you're seeing now is a forecast of $200 million more, even with some reconfiguration of scope and price reduction, a more accurate projection.

we have reached 95% construction completion and expecting to reach final by september. scope three is the main head works, the largest of three construction, which includes fine bar screens, grit, and handling systems in order to control. we've given notice to proceed and p.p. has started the drill operations this week. as we previously reported late last year, the cost of head works was trending higher. continues to do so for the same reasons we talked about today -- market conditions, etc. in our cost reduction efforts, we have worked together to provide the least expensive

alternatives, and as a result, we reconfigured those scopes from a brand-new 50 n.g.d. pump station to rehabilitate the new pump station. project schedule at the bottom gets a green star, so that's good news. it is on schedule. there's a huge effort by the team to keep it on schedule. it's critical for success and what happens to the entire plan, and same thing, you know, second slide on this project to think about, how those costs impact the project about literally structural concrete, process piping, and electrical resources, but also covid-19 safety requirements.

this is not a huge income. heavy lift around the drill piers and foundation construction. we've changed our path, and you can see in the slide, a 3-d model of the construction station rehabilitation work. the head works construction project continues to be making great progress overall. in addition to supporting the heavy construction, we will be bringing our project design and contract amendments to you for approve as well as the cmgcs,

as well. thirdly, last, certainly not least, the southeast community center at 1550 evans, the project gets a green star, but we are experiencing the market conditions that we are experiencing across the line as a whole. we will know the moment those trade packages are awarded. [inaudible] >> demolition and grading is complete, like you can just about see, but you can see where the piling operation is going on, and now we're literally building those foundations. 92% of those trade packages have been awarded, so we're well underway. the project schedule gets a green star, on schedule, doing what it needs to do. from issues and challenges perspective in the quarterly

report, we talked about similar concerns. this project, also, too, had challenges with pg&e being able to disconnect, scheduled for last month, excited and proud to, to be able to say with lots of effort. pg&e did disconnect that power, and also for this package, acknowledging that we're currently on budget, but those trade packages are still trending higher than we had hoped. so as we look ahead, you can see a rendering that we might be familiar with on the screen, and now, you can see a more recent rendering that has been produced, with a few looking across third street. we are working with the utilities, pg&e, to allow that to be progressed, and we will look towards the contract amendment to adjust to our changing conditions. so to finish, this is a screen

shot, my last slide, from aerial drone footage of the last presentation. it highlights our three projects, really interesting panorama. there's a lot going on at coordination of these projects and ensuring their impact on the community is a positive one. it's a big undertaking, and we may not always get it right. these are challenging times that we've been talking about, and for lots of different reasons. a huge thanks and lots of appreciation goes out to the entire team, especially to our frontline construction workers, who are keeping us moving forward. so this includes our project update on all three of these. we'll of course be coming back in the future to cover more regular meetings, but we're happy to answer any questions now if you have them.

>> commissioners. >> madam chair -- yes, madam chair. on the closure of jails, how long will it be closed, and what are you doing to mitigate the traffic issue? that's a thoroughfare directly to the freeway for trucks, for the community, so what are you doing to mitigate that issue? >> thank you. let me just stop sharing the screen, and i may ask the project manager to chime in for a second. we know that there's been signaturout reach to impact -- signature outreach to impact traffic flow to jerold. th

there has been a lot of engagement, but i wonder if carolyn include c carolyn chu can speak to some of the efforts that we've been making. >> and also, i want something in writing about the mitigation, the plans that you have that's best for routing. there's a lot that goes on in that area, and what's the best mitigation for that. >> yes. >> hi, everyone. can you hear me? this is carolyn chu, p.m. for the biosolids project. commissioner, you asked a very good question. we are developing plans and looking at detour routes and plans for closure across jerold. we're kind of closing gerald to control that worker and neighborhood safety during the course of construction. i think the planning process, as steve said, you know, we're

looking at the duration of the construction, but -- and we are working closely with sfmta, as well, to develop those plans, and one other thing was we are also, you know, concurrent with that, doing a lot of advance outreach in coordination and letting the local neighbors and visitors know -- we haven't gone up there yet, but we're working with our p.u.c. team to develop that outreach strategy to make sure that, to the extent possible, we want to minimize the impact to the local neighborhood, but understanding that we do need to close jerold because of the construction work that we just showed you. >> okay. i think i'd like to see your outreach schedule and what you plan to do, and i think it's also important to know that, you know, there's only a couple

ways to get out of bayview. you don't have -- third street is not one of them, so those ramps are extremely important. so yeah, any way -- i lost my train of thought, but i'd like to see that. also, when you say fall, that's only a couple of months now. we're almost in july, august, september, october, that's maybe only three months, and you don't seem to be that far along the way for such a huge undertaking. >> so i would say i understand, commissioner, i hear you. what i've captured and written down is a written rule box mitigation plan around jerold. >> and i'm concerned around your timing. you said fall. fall, for me, is september, and

that's only a couple of months. >> but i don't know if -- i know, you made -- carolyn may want to share the conversations with a lot of communities way in advance because we want them to know what -- the impacts to their businesses, so it's not like we haven't started the conversation. juliet and i were involved early working with public works and a whole bunch of folks to try and get their input, so any way, i think it's part of this ro -- as part of this robust plan, we should give a timeline of all the things that we've done and all the things that we plan to do so we can just paint the big picture. it's not that we could have done more -- >> i'm not trying to make a judgment on what you've done or haven't done. i'm just asking that since you're saying that it's coming

up in the fall, you say you've done outreach, but i'd like to know what's become of the outreach. if you're going to close this for two years, and it's a major thoroughfare to get to the freeway, and people do it every morning, i'm sure that you have, but there's some things that you can say that people are looking at. oakville streets you're going to advance, oakville is one of them. it seems to me if you're going to be talking about october, that's in a couple of months, that's what i'd like to see. but what have you come up with, the actual plan, is what i'd like to see. and then secondly, you mentioned you're keeping the old -- you're revamping the old odor control or whatever it was, and i'm just concerned

about odor, since odor was one of the huge issues of the community. so if we're revamping something, is that in any way going to have a -- any way be less than what it would be if it were new. >> yeah, i can help clarify, clear up some confusion there. there were two significant changes where the rehabilitations of the lift station, the pump station that literally lifts the flow into the head works facility, we're not rehabilitating an existing odor control facility. it is brand-new, state of the art. by changing the view from the pump station, it allows us to modify both the location and the position, and it will still hold them to the same standard, so we're not rehabilitating

anode or control facility. it will be grand new. >> okay. and then back on the traffic control, we're not meeting in august, august 11, and september is right around the corner for fall, so how soon can you give me that robust plan that you're talking about as far as traffic and so on? people are going to be getting back to work, people are going to be getting more school buses and so on, so when do you think you can get that back to me? end of june? >> if i remember, a traffic study has been completed. analysis is complete, and i feel like we can get something like that done relatively soon. carolyn? >> yes. we can share with you what we submitted as a preliminary

draft, sfmta, because they're part of that process, that street closure, so we can provide that information you providyou -- we provided them, and then you can ask questions. >> i guess what i'd like to see is what the m.t.a. has come up with, how they're going to reroute, what that's going to look like for the community. that's my main interest. so i understand what you're going to do. i want to understand what they come up with, with what they're going to do, and how they're going to mitigate that.

okay. i guess we're not -- i'm not really interested in what you're sharing with them, i'm interested in what they come back with. i'm assuming you already shared it. now what have you call come back with, i guess that's what i want to see. preliminarily, what have you come up with? >> with the desire to see what it will actually look like and what we have come up with together with m.t.a.? >> but preliminarily. i'm not sure it's all worked out yet. >> i'll look into that with carolyn and when it's going to get there, and make sure you have that within the timeline. >> thank you. thank you. >> commissioners, any other questions? comments? >> i see one. >> yeah, i just wanted to chime in there. and so in addition to that, i think it would be helpful to understand sort of what the

outreach has been and how the community has responded, as well. [inaudible] >> -- for the alternative transportation and what the response has been, so the communications piece, i think, as well, would be helpful. >> commissioner viator, i think i heard most of that, but i think it was what outreach has occurred to today and what would the plan look like? >> yeah, specifically on the plan. so has the plan been presented to the community and how have they responded? are they following the plan, or they're upset and say great? that alternative will work fine. >> okay. thank you. >> yeah, i gijust wanted to al add because we're doing

outreach in certain groups, so we just wanted to, you know, highlight their concerns and how we're mitigating their concern, and then, we will provide them. >> madam secretary, could you please open this to public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide comments on item 7, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452, and pound, followed by pound again. dial one, then zero, to be added to the speaker line.

mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there is one caller in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> commissioners, let me speak to the outreach. if the outreach is controlled by dwayne jones, miranda jones, and as i heard the man saying, they had one meeting at a community church, bluffed the people. please don't bluff the people. the demographics of the bayview

have changed drastically. latinx, chinese, white, asian, and if you don't look at it that way, you're not going to do it justice. as for people moving from one area to another area by cars, by the bus, by the light rail bus that is now being repaired, you all have no clue what is happening. you commissioners have no clue what is happening. and from me listening to this other woman that's chiming in, she has absolutely no clue what is happening.

get your act together. besides, you have a contract with emerson, the emerson contract. i read it all, and we have an investigation, with some names being spewed out. you all are asking to be investigated. you all are asking to be investigated by the federal bureau of investigation. >> operator: thank you, caller. your two minutes have expired. madam secretary, there are no other callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. that closes public comment on item number 7. >> commissioners, any further discussion on this topic? mr. robinson, thank you very much for your presentation and for bringing us up to date. >> thank you. >> next item, please. >> clerk: madam president,

next item is item 8, new commission business. >> any new business? vice president viator? >> thank you. so i didn't know whether to bring this up after harlan made -- the general manager made his statements about the letter that he sent or now, but i -- as i believe most of us all were, were extremely disturbed by what happened with george floyd and the video, and the ensuing uprising has been helpful in that once again, we are having to strike out and fight against structural racism that is present, i believe, in our society. and i believe quite strongly that we as a commission, not just our general manager, should make some kind of a statement and take a position, and i would like to propose

that we do that via a resolution that does state several of the policies and the work that we have done in the past but really pushes us to double down and go even further, so take a stand against systemic racism and oppressive violence, and to also recognize that covid-19 disproportionately hitting communities of color, so recovery is going to be a challenge, especially because systemic racism is prevalent. i think as an institution, there are things that we can do to show our commitment that we are already doing as a p.u.c., and especially under our leadership, under general manag manager kelly's leadership, but i don't know if we're doing

enough implicit bias trainings with the staff, if we're doing as much as we really could for black and brown people. i also think that we could be doing more to review our own practices and policies to make sure that we're not inadvertently behaving in ways that promote or advance racism in any way, and i just would not feel right if i did not say something in that vein in this commission and state what we've done to combat structural racism and do as much as we can to avoid it in the future. >> this is commissioner paul

sopau paulson. i would like to volunteer to be on that committee. what i do is i fight for social and economic justice. i also live in a world where we waste more trees than anything else in the history of the earth, and actually doing something is obviously what at least i think about when things put together. and as i've done this on other sides, i don't want a bunch of platitudes out there.

harlan, it was a very well drafted statement, so i appreciate that on behalf -- as a commissioner, and your leadership on that, but i want to make sure that we say something that we mean. not just a condemnation, but do something affirmative because there's a lot of things that we're putting into judgment right now, but what are we going to do about it? i don't feel like just being a signature on a great looking piece of paper. if that's something the commission wants to do, is going to do, i want to be a part of that. i've got my commissioner hat on when i say this, so if you're going to do something like that, it's got to be as commissioners on the public utilities commission that has a statement about what, you know, we've been entrusted to do.

so i've gone on longer than i expected to, but i just -- i don't want to spin wheels on this stuff in these incredibly challenging times. >> madam secretary, i would like to turn to you on this. >> clerk: yes. because this item has not been agendized, i'd recommend against further discussion of what you want, and i'd recommend this be placed as a future agenda item. >> madam chair? >> yes. >> i'd like to have a report from h.r.c. on the status of

black and brown people on the p.u.c. who are working, especially the status of black and brown women, where are they in management? are they on the lower side, labor side, where are they? i'd like to see something like that in writing. >> well, i would like to put this in motion, so would this be something that -- well, mr. kelley, what do you think? >> madam chair, i was thinking of, like, a report or something that we could see, so it would be sort of like a report, i guess. >> yes, i understand. i wasn't reflecting to what your statement was. no, i was just talking about we could not really discuss this now because it's not on the

agenda, but that doesn't mean that we can't start something that we can discuss the next meeting, so i'm turning to you, mr. kelly, in terms of is this something that a.g.m. ellis would start to put together? >> yes. i think this is something that i would personally be involved with, and i hope that it will be something that a whole bunch of folks will participate in. we recognize the things that we've done, but we need to talk about what else we can do. and i just wanted to get back on it because, you know, to have meaningful change, it will take time to understand what the changes you need to make that are meaningful. so we can start the dialogue,

and then, when we agendize it, we can have a deeper dive on this conversation because i do have some deep thoughts about things that we may want to put in there. >> i'm not quite sure i'm getting it. are you talking about a report or resolution? i don't know how long that would take to find out where the state and status of black and brown people are in the p.u.c.? i mean, you have who they are and where they are, and, you know, to see what jobs they have, and then, we go -- that's one -- maybe that's one tool we can use to -- for the other. >> so commissioner, i just want to let you know, i wasn't referring to your -- >> okay. thank you. >> we're going to talk to sheryl davis and see what information she has. we do have some of that information so we can

cross-reference, and so we can provide that information to you. i was just referring to the first request. >> yeah, and that can help, actually, with the first request, when we know where people are. mm-hmm. thank you. >> and just to sort of refine it without discussing it, you know, my hope is that at the next meeting, we can have some kind of a statement document led by our general manager and with our support as a commission that would really outline what we as a commission and as an institution could really do to help bring to life and advance some of the points that the general manager brought up in his letter, but to really be of support to him because i think it's really po important, and to the entire p.u.c. team, because it would drive us, to commissioner paulson's point, to more than a

really lofty statement, but what it can do to help us advance the issue. >> yes, i think we can all help on that, so let's move forward to the next meeting. okay. any further comments? so any other new business? madam secretary, please open public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to comment on new commission business, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452 and pound and pound again. dial one and then zero to be added to the speaker line.

mr. moderator, do we have any calls? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 8 is now closed. >> next item, please. >> clerk: madam president, your next order of business is item 9, consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a

separate item. >> commissioners, are there any items you wish to review? could you open this up for public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to comment, dial 888-273-3758, 3107452, and pound, and pound again. dial one, and then zero to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 9, consent calendar, is now closed. >> may i have a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar? >> so moved. >> second.

>> thank you very much. madam secretary, please call the roll vote. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: your next item is item 10, approve amend number 2 to agreement number cs-389 and authorize the general manager to execute this agreement, increasing the agreement amount by $21 million and increasing the agreement duration for two years for a total not to exceed of $54,500,000 and a total agreement of 11 years subject

to the board of supervisors approval. this will be presented by kathy how. >> good morning, commissioners. kathy how. as program director for wastewater capital, this program is to request that we increase the dollar amount for carollo engineers. that would allow them to do the design of the existing station at the southeast plant, rather than constructioning a -- constructing a new $50 million gallon lift station and would allow them to do a design of the head works odor control facility and also look at the drill pier test program to optimize the foundation design with the cmgc contractor.

so i can answer any questions. >> any questions? seeing none, could you open this up to public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 10, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452, and pound, followed by pound again. dine one and zero to -- dial one and zero to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 10 is now closed. >> may i have a motion and a second on this item? >> move to approve.

>> second. >> madam secretary, roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> the motion carries. next item. >> clerk: next item is item 11, adopt resolution rescinding commission resolution number 20-0091 adopted on may 12, 2020, and approving the water supply assessment for the proposed san francisco gate way project. this will be presented by mr. ritchie. >> yeah, commissioners, steve

ritchie. on may 12, you approved the resolution for this project. in that, there was a mistake for which i need to take responsibility in that an item was not contained in the agenda item, so it's recommended that we bring it back to the commission with the full item intact for consideration. it's a water project down in the bayview. this is merely to provide it to the planning department so they can do a ceqa review on the project. >> any questions? any discussion on the topic? madam secretary, please open to public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 11, dial

888-273-3658, access code 3107452, and pound, followed by pound again. dial one, and then zero, to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, we do have callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> operator: one question remaining. >> hello. as you know, i'm concerned about san francisco approval so much development while at the same time the state water board -- [inaudible] >> i'm also concerned about the jobs-housing imbalance -- [inaudible] >> project, which is jobs

heavy. [inaudible] >> -- there will be a lot of pressure to build more housing which will take even more water. i encourage you to do two things. a breakdown between projected jobs and housing build, and projected water demand will be required as the city catches up on housing required by the project. nerd, consider the cumulative impacts of the project on water supply. also, development is driving the need to develop more expensive alternate ti expensive alternative water supplies. perhaps new development should pay for the more expensive alternative water supplies that they'll require. thank you.

>> clerk: do we have any other callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 11 is now closed. >> commissioners, is there any further discussion on this item? >> yeah, i have a -- [inaudible] >> may i have a -- okay. >> yeah, i'm still in the same position on this one, and peter got on that a little bit. i just don't understand, the accumulative impacts of development on our water supply is just the elephant in the room. i'm starting to get a graph on the report, and that's why i cutoff this. if we indeed need to comply with the state mandate, and we keep moving forward with these water supply assessments, these

developments, i don't understand where we're going to get the water for the fish. so until i have a better understanding of the water supply both for the developments and the fish, i'm not going to support the w.s.a. >> okay. any further -- >> this is commissioner paulson. i just want to remind myself and everybody else that we are not the planning commission. therefore, i will be voting for this because i believe, you know, that is what the professionals have put together as the assessment as to what is going on. what is going on in terms of development is a separate item. thank you. >> commissioner moran? >> thank you. the last time i looked at this, i mentioned the issue of

materiality, and i didn't have any members at the time. i do now. just setting the stage. our full retail demand is somewhere in the order of 60 or 70 m.g.d. the impact of the delta plan on our supply would be somewhere in the area of 93 m.g.d. the impact on this -- of this project, as i got the number from staff is .000849 m.g.d., so i don't see where there's any combination of circumstances where this project would affect either our ability to provide water to our customers or to provide fish flow. so from that standpoint, from

the materiality standpoint, i'll be supporting this resolution again. >>

question is absolutely the right question. i just don't think that -- i think when we -- when we get there, kind of reading the crystal ball and having a sense of the numbers out there, i don't think it's going to have a significant effect on any project that we're going to take or it wouldn't be a determining factor for fish flow. and that remains to be proven as we go forward, but that is my sense of it and why i'm very comfortable supporting this. >> any other comments? may i have a motion, please.

>> can i just point out one thing? these projects are the projects that you want to move forward because of the water conservation that it has, and all the systems and stormwater management and stuff like that, so these projects are very small incremental because the usage is the way we want to move projects in the future, so i just want to throw that out there, as well. >> very good. again, may i have a motion? >> so moved. >> i'll second the item. >> i will second -- okay. thank you very much. madam secretary, roll call vote. [roll call]

>> clerk: you have three ayes, two noes. >> the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: madam president, would you like me to read 12 and 13 together? >> yes, please do. >> clerk: thank you. i'd 12, approve a water infrastructure finance and innovation wifia loan agreement with the united states environmental protection agency in the amount of $699,242,023 to replace the existing 2018 wifia loan agreement in the same amount for the wastewater enterprise's biosolids digester facilities project for the purpose of reducing the loan interest rate from 3.09% to an

estimated 1.84% interest rate, and item 13, approve a new water infrastructure finance and innovation act loan agreement with the united states e.p.a. in an amount up to 525 million, both of which are projects of the sewer system improvement program located at the southeast treatment plan, and they'll be introduced by mr. sandler. >> although the items are quite interrelated, they will require separate actions from you two today. by way of background, in 2018, the p.u.c. executed a wifia loan with the united states environmental protection agency. wifia is an acronym for the water infrastructure finance

and innovation act and provides low interest loans to municipalities for qualified wastewater projects. the 2018 loan, which is in the approximate amount of $699 million, partially funded the biosolids project. it was executed at an interest rate of 3.09%, which at the time was a very low interest rate relative to where the market was at the time and relative to what we would have been paying had we issued revenue bonds, which is our default long-term funding mechanism, so it looked real good back in 2018. so the first of your two items, item number 12, asks you to approve a replacement to the 2018 loan, or a reexecution that will reduce the interest rate to a level representative of today's interest rate environment, which is much, much lower than where rates

were when we executed the 2018 loan. in today's market, the rate on a loan would be approximately 1.86%, almost half of the interest rate on the 2018. all the terms and conditions on the loan, including the $699 million loan amount, would remain the same as the 2018 loan. the second of your two items, item number 13, asks you to approve a new wifia loan in an amount not to exceed $525 million. this will provide funding for two projects at the southeast treatment plan, the head works plan, and partial funding of the estimated incremental cost related to the biosolids redesign. it will have an interest rate

of 1.86%. at these rates, the wifia loan will save taxpayers approximately 336 million over the life of the loan for the first wifia loan, and the second will save taxpayers approximately $275 million over the live of the loan. should you approve these two loans today, we expect to execute them this friday, june 12. that concludes my introduction to these items, and i'm happy to take any questions. thank you. >> commissioners, any questions? comments? sounds like great news to me. madam secretary, please open public comment.

>> clerk: i'm sorry about that. members of the public who wish to make public comment on items 12 and/or 13, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452, and pound, followed by pound again. dial one, then zero, to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on items 12 and

13 are closed. >> so we are going to be voting on these separately, so first, i would like a motion and a second on item 12. >> so moved. >> second. >> okay. >> i'm sorry. who was the first? >> tim. >> who made the motion? >> paulson. >> commissioner paulson. commissioner maxwell seconded. >> roll call -- oh, you're doing the roll call. >> clerk: yes. [roll call]

>> clerk: you have five ayes. >> the motion carries. now i need a motion and a second on item 13. >> move to approve item 13. >> second. >> may i have a roll call vote? [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 14, adopt a resolution, one, accepting the report on the san francisco p.u.c. wildfire mitigation plan

in accordance with the p.u. c-section 8387 c, and two, accept the version of the sfpuc wildfire mitigation plan, to be committed to the california wildfire safety advisory board prior to july 1, 2020. this will be presented by steven ritchie. >> good afternoon, commissioners. an independent evaluation was conducted earlier this year, and completed, and the independent evaluator made some recommendations for minor modifications to the plan, so the plan is now brought back to you because you're required by law to accept the independent

evaluator's plan. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners, any questions? comments? madam secretary, could you please call for public comment? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 14, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452, and pound, and pound again. dial one, and then zero, to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 14 is

now closed. >> may i have a motion and second on item 14? >> move to approve. >> second. >> madam secretary, a roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: you have five ayes. >> the motion carries. madam secretary, could you please read the items that we are going to consider in closed session? >> clerk: item -- i'm sorry.

item 17, existing unlitigated claims, item 18, existing unlitigated claim, item 19, state water board cases, sacramento superior court jcc 5013, originally filed on january 10, 2019 in tuolomne county superior court, case number cu 62094, and item 20, conferring with or receiving advice from city attorney rathering existing litigation in which a -- regarding existing litigation in which the city is the petitioner and pacific gas and electric is an adverse party. >> please call for public comment.

>> clerk: members of the public who wish to make public comment on closed session items 17 through 20, dial 888-273-3658, access code 3107452, and then pound, and pound again. dial one, and then zero to be added to the speaker line. mr. moderator, do we have callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on closed session items 17 through 20 and now closed. -- 20 is now closed. >> next item? >> clerk: item 16 is a motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding matters listed as

conference with legal council. >> move to assert. >> may i have a motion -- >> second. >> -- and a second, please. madam secretary, a roll call vote, please. [roll call] >> clerk: we have five ayes. >> the motion carries. >> madam president, excuse me, but may we take a five-minute break or a three-minute break? >> that is exactly what i was

going to ask. >> great. >> and is there any reason we can't take a five-minute break? >> no, madam president. my recommendation is we go into closed session first and then take a break. >> okay. we'll go into closed session and take a break. so we are now going to go into closed session. >> all right. moving everybody now.

>> the bicycle coalition was giving away 33 bicycles so i applied. i was happy to receive one of them. >> the community bike build program is the san francisco coalition's way of spreading the joy of biking and freedom of biking to residents who may not have access to affordable

transportation. the city has an ordinance that we worked with them on back in 2014 that requires city agency goes to give organizations like the san francisco bicycle organization a chance to take bicycles abandoned and put them to good use or find new homes for them. the partnerships with organizations generally with organizations that are working with low income individuals or families or people who are transportation dependent. we ask them to identify individuals who would greatly benefit from a bicycle. we make a list of people and their heights to match them to a bicycle that would suit their lifestyle and age and height. >> bicycle i received has impacted my life so greatly. it is not only a form of recreation. it is also a means of getting connected with the community

through bike rides and it is also just a feeling of freedom. i really appreciate it. i am very thankful. >> we teach a class. they have to attend a one hour class. things like how to change lanes, how to make a left turn, right turn, how to ride around cars. after that class, then we would give everyone a test chance -- chance to test ride. >> we are giving them as a way to get around the city. >> just the joy of like seeing people test drive the bicycles in the small area, there is no real word. i guess enjoyable is a word i could use. that doesn't describe the kind of warm feelings you feel in

your heart giving someone that sense of freedom and maybe they haven't ridden a bike in years. these folks are older than the normal crowd of people we give bicycles away to. take my picture on my bike. that was a great experience. there were smiles all around. the recipients, myself, supervisor, everyone was happy to be a part of this joyous occasion. at the end we normally do a group ride to see people ride off with these huge smiles on their faces is a great experience. >> if someone is interested in volunteering, we have a special section on the website sf bike.org/volunteer you can sign up for both events. we have given away 855 bicycles,

376 last year. we are growing each and every year. i hope to top that 376 this year. we frequently do events in bayview. the spaces are for people to come and work on their own bikes or learn skills and give them access to something that they may not have had access to. >> for me this is a fun way to get outside and be active. most of the time the kids will be in the house. this is a fun way to do something. >> you get fresh air and you don't just stay in the house all day. iit is a good way to exercise. >> the bicycle coalition has a bicycle program for every community in san francisco. it is connecting the young, older community. it is a wonderful outlet for the community to come together to have some good clean fun.

it has opened to many doors to the young people that will usually might not have a bicycle. i have seen them and they are thankful and i am thankful for this program. to order. june 10, 2020, regular budget finance committee meeting. i am sandra fewer, chair, joined by supervisor walton and mandelman. i would like to thank sfgovtv for broadcasting the tv. >> due to the covid-19 health emergency and protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed.

however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. pursuant to the local, state and federal orders, declarations and directives. committee members will attend through video conference and participate to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comments available on each item on this agenda, and streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. opportunity to speak are available via phone call, 415-615-0001. access code 1457369773, again, 1457369773, then press pound and then press pound again.

when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your television or radio. public comment in either of the following ways, either email to myself, budget and finance committee clerk at linta.wong -- and forwarded to supervisors and included as part of the official file. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor agenda of june 16th unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. can you please call item number 1. >> yes. resolution authorizing office of the treasurer and tax collector

to amend the software as a service agreement and support the contract with citybase, inc., to an extended five-year term, two options to renew for a period of two years each, april 27, 2018, through april 16, 2023, not to exceed 37 million. members who wish to provide public comment, call the number, access code, 1457369773, and pound and pound again. if you have not already done so, star three to speak, a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> thank you very much, madam clerk. colleagues, you may remember, we continued this item from last week. we have already heard the daily report and we have miss shaw here with us from the treasurer and tax collector's office.

upon my request, they have come back with a comparison of rates in neighboring counties and cities. miss shaw. >> thank you very much, thanks for inviting us back how we can answer critical questions how the contract shares. i'm going to share the graph with you and not have technical difficulties this time. all right. can you see that? >> yes, we can. >> all right. thanks. i'm not going to do the presentation in totality, since you have heard that yesterday. or last week, excuse me. just a quick reminder, this is a contract for our credit card charges that are online. we do have the no fee for the safest way to pay and the fastest, and these funds that are part of this contract are either part of the very item that the person is saying they

are added for taxes and fees so that the taxes and fees are not completed. graph that was requested was really to make sure that our contract was competitive with our neighboring counties, from, you will see on the consumer or individual base charges, san francisco is at the range along with two other counties, los angeles and santa clara, at 2.25. and this is for nonbusiness fees. on the business side, range is much more vast, it ranges from 2.25 all the way to 4.25. where it is at 2.25, santa clara, as well as in -- you'll see that, and los angeles, excuse me. you'll see they do not accept

e-checks in santa clara, or they charge the 2.25 on the e-checks as well. in addition, san francisco is the only county that has a small ticket component of the contracts, which enables any charge of less than $10 to essentially have no fee on consumer items. this would be for co-payments, clinic, zuckerberg parking fees, any really small ticket items, which we are very fortunate to have been able to negotiate where the other counties were not able to. how this materializes in our practical way is if you are paying for a dog license in alameda, 2.5, with your credit card, 2.5 of that would be going to cover the merchant fees. if you were paying for a dog license in san mateo, 2.35, and san francisco, 2.25. on the flip, if you are paying

for another tax in san mateo, upwards of 3% going towards the merchant fees. the range was variable in alameda, 2.5 to 4.25. san francisco is 2.5, majority of entities do use e-check as an option for that. i am available for any questions that you may have regarding the rates and/or the contract in terms and total. >> thank you, miss shaw. any comments or questions from my colleagues? i wanted to say thank you very much for the chart, it's pretty interesting on our neighboring counties and i think that you know, i still want to say i think, i have to say for the record, that even though we are looking at these fees, that they are comparable to the neighboring counties, that credit card companies are charging a fee for people to

even have a card and also they are charging huge interest rates on people that have cards and not bpaying the balances, and i think we are a gift to them that we are actually giving them so much business by the nature of having to do government business. and so i think they are benefitting and again i just have to say for the record that i feel as though consumers are the ones actually gets the short end of the stick around what happens with the credit cards. so, having said that, let's open this up for public comment if you don't mind, madam clerk. >> madam chair, operations is checking to see if there are any calls in the queue. let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue for those already on hold. the system will indicate you have unmuted.

any callers who wish to comment on item number one. >> madam chair, there are no callers who wish to speak. >> thank you. public comment is closed on number 1. thank you for coming back. no comments or questions from my colleagues, seeing none, like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation, madam clerk, please have a roll call vote. [roll call vote taken] >> clerk: three aye. thank you very much. >> item number 2, ordinance extending for additional two years, through july 1, 2022, authority under the charter to the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to enter into grant

agreements under the sfpuc green infrastructure grant program with terms of up to 20 years and without commission approval. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 4156550001, 1457369773, then press pound and then press pound again. if you have not already done so, please press star three to line up to speak. it will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and may begin your comments. >> thank you very much. so today we have with us sarah bloom from sfpuc, and also megan? >> hi, supervisor fewer, i'm also here. >> you are, ok. great. so, colleagues, two people from sfpuc, megan and sarah.

so, i just want to say before we start that i'm proud to sponsor this legislation for the green infrastructure program to revise the bill to turn the asphalt playgrounds for the places for kids to grow and learn in. it's in the interest of the children and school communities and environment, as also reduces the storm water runoff and combine forces to improve performance. this legislation originally came to the budget committee when the program was new, and at that time the committee requested the delegate authority in the name of a transparent process. now that we have seen a pilot, successful pilot year of implementation, i have confidence in the process and under the process of going through the commission can add months to the critical timeline and know the recipients of the grant program are not largely engineering of construction

funds. these are small projects designed to support provements to the institution and it's a good governance approach, not just for the city to ensure the return on investment but to lasting improvements to their property. with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor fewer. >> thank you for the opportunity to present today. all right, here we go. my name is sarah bloom, grant program administrator for the green infrastructure grant program at the sfpuc, and walk you through how the first pilot year went and the approach for the current timeline for our applicants. before we get started, i wanted to quickly review what green infrastructure is.

it's a set of sustainable engineered storm water management tools designed to slow down and route storm water away from the sewer system, a variety of different green infrastructure, some like rain gardens or bioretention planters or green roof, or things like permeable pavement or rain barrels you may have in your home. and the puc has a long-term vision of managing a billion gallons of storm water, using green infrastructure by the year 2050. so using techniques to reach the goal, management ordinance, capital projects as part of the agency approach and supporting incentive and grant programs, that's the program i'm here to talk to you about today. so the program, we came to you in february of 2019 for the first round of delegated authority. we launched our program shortly after that. it encourages san francisco

property owners, both public and private, to design, build and maintain these green infrastructure installations on their properties. we have a maximum grant amount of $765,000 per acre managed, so the amount of funding is eligible on the storm water up to $2 million per project. and our property owners are responsible for 20 years of maintenance through a deed restriction on their property, and our ability to enter into that 20 years of maintenance is the reason why we are here with you today to request that delegated authority. so, we have been in, the program has been open for almost a year and a half now, and we have seen a wide variety of interest across the city, from a big variety of property owners, which is really great. we have used a combination of outreach tools in order to reach different properties. we have started with targeted property outreach, we did a

g.i.f. analysis of all the properties in the city with the most impervious surface, and let them know this was available. and worked with the city agency partners, rec part, and others, to look at the projects in the pipeline for their capital programs and to see which ones would be a good fit for this program. and we have also utilized our agency wide communication platform. put information out on social media, emailed the listserv, community events and all of that helped get the word out to a wide variety of property types. we have also had a robust technical assistance program we launched as part of the grant program in 2019. realizing that this is a pretty significant list, technical list for our property owners to be able to get into the application process, they have to do a lot of calculations on how much storm water they can manage, understand the drainage of their

site, so working with our property owners going on-site visits, creating what we call opportunity analysis to help them understand what opportunities they have on their site. we have also been meeting with them to understand how to use the application template and all the calculations that are required. and to date we have had five awarded projects with one project in reserve, and so i'm going to go quickly through them so you can see who the grantee to date. first, lafayette elementary school in the richmond district. utilize a dry creek bed and rain gardens to manage runoff from their schoolyard and project is in construction. we are excited to report should be complete by the end of the summer. so, we are excited to see the momentum starting even this quickly. our second grantee was betsy carmichael middle school. also using a combination of rain gardens to manage runoff from the school building and the play

yard created as part of their bond program. this project is also in construction and should be complete by the end of the summer. our third award is st. thomas moore school. a school brotherhood way nelake merced, and a wide range of technology. try to educate the students what green infrastructure is. and they have rain gardens and more. and this is in design. our next is holy trinity greek orthodox church a couple blocks away on brotherhood wait from st. thomas moore, and a series of rain gardens to manage runoff from the recreation center and parking lot. and this project is in the initiation phase.

our fifth project is another school, in the sunset, and this school needed, their basketball court had reached the end of its useful life, so they were interested in upgrading that facility along with other areas of the school, so they will actually be installing a permeable pavement basketball court, the first one in san francisco. so we are excited to see that installation go in and also doing a combination of rain gardens and rain-wise landscaping on the outside of the school. and the last project, which is currently pending commission award, is crocker amazon parking lot. parking lot next to the heavily used crocker amazon soccer fields, and rec park is going to be building a rain garden at the front of the parking lot to help improve the front area and manage storm water from the adjacent parking lot. and so with all those projects combined, once they are built,

they'll be actually removing over 3 million gallons of storm water from the sewer system each year, we are excited about that performance, and total almost seven acres of surface removed out of the system. and to date, the program budget is at 12 million, so we originally had 8 million when we came to you in february of 2019, and through a reappropriation, our commission added additional 4 million to our budget, and so from that 12 million, we have set aside just over 500, almost 600,000 for administration, and that includes what we have spent so far today, and the cost we think it will take us to get to the end of fiscal year 2022. we have the amount of funds that have been reserved for the six project, almost $5 million, and a program contingency that we are holding to help support the projects through construction in case we have any unforeseen conditions that may need additional funding to complete the project. and so with those taken out, we

currently today have about 6 million left in awards for future projects over the next two years. and so i want to review with you all a couple of lessons we have learned from our pilot year. we have learned a lot of technical lessons, but excited to report the property owners who have come into the program so far we are reaching o ut with technical assistance, positive feedback from them and through the application surveys that they are excited to participate and to be a part of this program. we have also heard our technical assistance is really appreciated during the project phase and critical in helping the grantees and property owners get through the application process. we will continue to provide those services as well. one of the other things we learned and the reason we are here today with the request to remove that commission work flow is that our grant administration is taking longer than we expected. realize the delegated authority

to the commission that was put into the legislation in 2019 actually is triggering two commission approvals because of environmental review requirements. so the commission is unable to award the grant in its entirety without having completed environment review, and that cannot be completed until the design is completed. so a bit of the chicken and egg scenario. we are going to the commission to initially award the grant and disperse funding only for planning and design and then we go back to the commission when the design is complete and environmental review completed in order to release funding for construction. so, we are currently doing two commission approvals for each grant project. and we have also found that our grantees have limited resources, unable to move quickly through the administrative process, it's causing the projects to stall and lose momentum, and some cases leaving the grantees in uncomfortable situations, maybe contracted with an engineer who

they need in order to complete the design and maybe they have some outstanding invoices and we are unable to help them move quickly through the first process. and seen the administrative challenges are having acute impact on the school project, and that's because they have a tight timeline for implication and construction, so they need to do construction in the summer months when the students are not in school so very narrow windows the projects need to be set up for. first two school projects, you can see here, the timeline of application diverse payment, like the project set-up timeline. those were 10 and 7 months because the school district knew they had to be going into construction this summer. it took us so long to set the projects up the school district was actually completely done with design by the time we were able to initiate the first payment. and we were fortunate, since they are an institutional

partner, they could find other costs to cover in the enter recommend but not all of the grantees will have that luxury. and then we have also realized st. thomas moore school, the third grant awardee, that took nine months from application to first payment and because they didn't have money to get started on design without our payment, that project actually ended up having to be pushed from summer 2020 to summer 2021, so a full year delay and that not only, you know, loses momentum for the project and is challenging for the community, but also has cost implications for the p.u.c. so any time we push out construction, costs and bid pricing, so it's challenging to have the projects be pushed out. and so i wanted to share this graphic with you. timeline of what we call application diverse payment. you can see we are at about nine months on average for each

project, so we spend a lot of time with them in the beginning before this timeline even starts in this project visioning phase, helping them move through site visits and technical assistance and figuring out what they can do. the moment they are submitting the applications, these are the steps that it's taking us to get to first payment so we have to review the applications, a lot of times we have edits as the puc since they are going in the grant agreement, so some back and forth there taking time. the grantee and the city attorney need to negotiate the grant agreement so they go back and forth on edits, and we are not able to submit the grant agreement into the commission work flow until that negotiation is complete. so, we spend time doing that and then we submit it into the commission work flow, takes a month, month and a half in order to go through our internal process at the puc and bring us to the commission meeting. and once the commission meeting is complete, we go for

signatures, and a lot of accounting that needs to happen. once the grant agreement is signed, we have a month, month and a half to set up the grant in the accounting system and issue the first payment. so our technical team, the team working on the program has spent a lot of time over the last couple months thinking about how we could improve this timeline and bring that time down to a more reasonable time frame, and we think we can get to five months using a combination of strategies, you know, removing the commission work flow and approval is only one of those, and so we are committed as a program administration to look at combining our application steps in the beginning, so getting rid of some of the earlier steps we are already doing through the project visioning. also going to commit to expedited application review, so we are getting the applicants through the review process quicker, knowing they are going to have some changes to work through, so we are reducing that timeline as a team. with the removal of the commission work flow, that will

save us one and a half months in the timeline, allowing us to work on other things instead of being in the commission work flow process. and then we are also working with our accounting teams to understand how we can collapse some of the accounting and city vendor processes in parallel with other grant requirements. so, we are going to work to get our grantees set up in the accounting systems and the vendor process, and in this revised timeline, once we get through the end, the final agreement would be sent to the general manager for review, if you would choose to award it, he would sign it and initiate the first payment. they think using these four strategies we are able to reduce the timeline from nine months on average down to five months, so almost by half. and then i wanted to assure you that even with the removal of this commission work flow in the application process, puc commission will have oversight, continue to improve the budget on a two-year cycle, with the

regular puc budget. continue to have jurisdiction over the program rules, so ever to change the eligibility criteria or the way we wanted to award grants, would have to be approved by the commission. and commit to doing quarterly updates as we are with the board of supervisors, so quarterly updates who we are granting money to and the interested projects are and continue to request the delegated authority from you all, only for fixed period of time so that we can continue to come back to you and let you know how the program is going and the lessons we learned and how we are continuing to improve. so, with that i'll say thank you and open up for any questions. >> ok. miss thomas -- seeing none, we have -- could we have the b.l.a. -- thank you. >> good morning, members of the

committee. as has been discussed, ordinance would extend the delegation of authority for the green infrastructure project. there's been discussion in this committee about removing the delegation of authority, not just from the board, but also from the commission itself and assigning it to the general manager. and when we reported on this in 2018 we did point out that without commission approval there was no public process. now, i do want to say that if this committee, and if the board actually, for the reasons that the puc presented wish to delegate to the general manager rather than the commission, the legislation, ordinance before you does call for quarterly reports. we did receive one copy for the first quarter of this year. prior legislation from 2018 also had quarterly, a reporting

requirement, quarterly reporting requirement. i don't know, miss bloom, and you may be able to say whether that happened or not. but alternative, if the committee does not want the commission to be required to approve these grants, alternative would be not only that the puc comply with the reporting requirement, but these reports be posted in the legislative file and so the public has access to them. currently the only way we could get access is ask for it from the puc. and so that would be an alternative recommendation. approval of this ordinance is a policy matter because it does delegate board authority, and i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. so, miss campbell, then what we could do is request and add into the legislation the quarterly report be published. >> that's what i'm saying.

>> so miss bloom, was that already written into the legislation or something we would have to amend? >> i'm not sure the requirement for being posted is in the legislation. we would likely have to amend that. but the quarterly report is in there. >> okay. and are we abiding by the quarterly report? >> we did submit one quarterly report for this year. i think we may have been delayed in submitting the earlier quarterly reports, and so we will commit to making sure that that gets done, i'll be working with megan in the legislative analyst office to ensure we are not delayed in issuing those quarterly reports. >> ok. that's great. and looks as though perhaps an amend is, to the legislation, about posting the report publicly should be added to the legislation, but before we do that, let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on item number two? >> madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any

callers in the queue. let us know if there are any callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. let us know if there are callers who wish to comment on item number two. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed for item number 2. before -- any comments or questions from my colleagues? seeing none, i would like to just say to the puc that i would love to see more public schools on this list. the reason is that you know, our emphasis -- the majority of students are below the federal poverty line. these students also i feel like should be targeted in an equitable way the schools, because these items are used

also as part of environmental science projects and also learning. and so many of our students actually don't have that opportunity in the household in which they live to have this access to hands on gardening but also the experience of learning firsthand about our environment in this way. and so i would love to see more public schools on this list. having said that, i would like to ask our city attorney if we need to add the amendment, assuming that it is not that we would have the amendment be posted for the public. >> that's correct. that type of amendment would not but substantive. >> that's great. i would like to add an amendment to the legislation that states that the quarterly reports will be posted publicly for public review. and i think i can take that amendment on the floor or do i

need to have formal language for that? >> are you -- would you like for the reports possible posted on the puc website? >> miss campbell, you suggested on -- what vehicle to post it on, the quarterly report? >> well, we were thinking it could be posted in legistar, but may be more accessible on the puc website. >> i think the puc website is the place where people would naturally go to. >> i think you could -- we could, you could consider a very simple amendment today. if you look at page five of the legislation, which is where the reporting requirement is, subsection b, it now says starting with the quart -- beginning july 1, 2019, shall submit quarterly reports, all

grant agreements sfpuc has entered into in the prior quarter, and shall post such reports on its website. >> yes. that's perfect. >> yes. so, i think we would like to adopt that amendment and i would like to propose that before this committee to formally adopt before we actually pass this out of committee, so i would like to do it as amended. so, if you would not mind, madam city attorney, we could add that in, so i would like to make a motion to add that amendment into the legislation. could i have a roll call vote, please. >> on the amendment. [roll call vote taken] >> clerk: three aye. >> i would like to move to the

full board as amended and roll call vote, please. [roll call vote taken] >> clerk: three aye. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your presentation. read item number 3. >> resolution between the grant agreement amendment low income investment fund child care facilities and technical assistance for early care and education, up to two years for an total term of july 1, 2017, to june 30, 2022, by 37 million resulting in revised total grant of 66 million to commerce

following the board approval. call, and the access code, then press pound and press pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. prompts will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> thank you very much. today we have graham dobson from the office of early care and education and kim from the low income investment fund. the floor is yours. >> thank, supervisors. graham dobson from the office of early care and education, we are asking for the approval of a modification of our existing contract with the low income investment fund for extended grant fund for two additional years, for total of five years.

july 2017 to june 30, 2022. and additional amount of $37,926,045, plus contingency to administer the child care, the san francisco child care facilities fund. predevelopment, start-up and repair grants for child care facility development and provides facility technical assistance and support, project management and training. this contract includes funding from city-wide child care development impact fees, and these fees are charged to residential, hotel, and office development city-wide. the contract also includes the administration of additional interagency planning, capital new development grants. and these grants are funded through child care development impact fees that are restricted to expand child care capacity in

certain neighborhood area plans, such as market octavia, visitation valley, eastern neighborhoods and balboa park. this adds administration of additional revenue source of $6 million to the augmentation fund, allocated to support child care projects. investing for many, many years, current contract expires at the end of this month, so we are watching for this extension, and this budget modification to support the additional money we are getting through the funding, and kim is here as you know, and we would be happy to answer any questions about this contract. and the work. >> thank very much. seeing no comments from my colleagues or no comments or questions of my colleagues, please have the bla report. >> members of the committee,

proposed resolution extends the existing agreement between hsa and low income investment fund for child care facilities by two years to 2022 and the amount not to exceed amount of 63 million. summarized and uses the funds in the table on page 17 of our report. reduced not to exceed from 63 million to 61 million, this is really technical and accounts for contingency for prior years. we recommend approval of increased amount of 27.7 million, which are development fees and other nongeneral fund sources. we consider $8 million in increased general funds sources to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors, and available for any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. seeing no comments or questions from my colleagues, open this up for public comment, please.

>> madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if the callers are ready. if you have not already done so, press star three to be added. let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on this item. >> madam chair, no callers in the queue. >> motion to move it to the board with a positive recommendation. please have a roll call vote. >> i believe the bla recommends it to be amended. would you like to consider those amendments? >> oh, ok. any comments or questions, seeing none. let us vote on the amendments then suggested by the bla. >> on the motion to accept the

amendment suggested by the bla. [roll call vote taken] >> make a motion to move to the board as amended. could we have a roll call vote, please. [roll call vote taken] >> thank you very much. please call item number 4. >> resolution retroactively authorizes the office of the city administrator to accept expense funds in the amount of 150,000 from the federal emergency management agency for the hazard mitigation grant program to support san francisco 2019 update to the 2014 local hazard litigation plan for the

project period from september 16, 2019, through april 16, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-455-0001, access code, and press pound and pound, and you may begin your comments. >> thank you very much. today from the office of resilience and capital planning. >> welcome, melissa. >> good morning. >> we are asking for approval of retroactive exception expend of hazard mitigation grant program, grant from fema, for $150,000.

this grant funds our work to update the 2014 hazard mitigation plan. we are calling it the hazards and climate resilience plan. it has been led historically by the department of emergency management and this time around the office of resilience and capital planning. we updated the plan in partnership with dem, planning, department of the environment and public health. and grant to reimburse staff time spent on developing the plan. it includes staff time for hazards analysis of natural hazards, including analysis of climate change, and how climate change impacts a variety of our hazards in san francisco, including flooding, extreme heat and drought. it includes time for our strategy development process, recreated a comprehensive set of 95 strategies across infrastructure, buildings and communities. we also developed an interactive

strategy dashboard on our website, one san francisco.org, so members of the public and staff can sort through the strategies. it also supports time for our report writing and stakeholder engagement we did in the winter and fall, including presentations at several public meetings. it also supports our time that was spent addressing comments that came in from fema and others, and does require 25% match for the match we are using our contract with lower case productions. they helped us with material for community engagement, including a handout, a shorter and more accessible version of the report and our website update. the plan was tentatively approved by fema in april pending our local adoption, and the plan was recommended for approval at the land use and transportation committee monday,

june 8th. so that, open up to any questions. >> sure. there is no bla on this, i see no questions from my colleagues, or comments in the queue. open up for public comments. >> operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on item number four. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment for item 4 is closed. a visit to move it to the board with a positive recommendation. please have a roll call vote. [roll call vote taken]

>> thank you very much. madam clerk, any further business before us today? >> there is no further business. >> great, we are adjourned. thank you, bye.

>> >> good morning, everyone, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the june 10th, 2020, regular budget and appropriations committee meeting. i'm sandra lee fewer, chair of the budget and appropriations committee. i'm joined by committee members, supervisor shamann walton, and rafael mandelman, hillary ronen and northerlienorman yee. >> clerk: yes, madam clerk. due to the health emergency and to protect board members, and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this caution is taken pursuant to the various local, state and federal orders, declaration and directives, committee members attending the meet through video conferencing and participate in the meeting to the same extend as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda,

both channel 26 and sfgovtv.org. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are an opportunity to speak during public comment period are available via phone call by calling (415)655-000 (4. again (415)655-0001. access code 145 736 9773. again 145 736 9773. you will hear the meeting discussion and you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit

public comment in either of the following ways, email to myself, the budget and finance committee clerk, linda-wong @sfgog.org, if you mitt public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors. and will be included as part of the file. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda of june 16th, unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, clerk. can you please read item number 1. >> clerk: review the budget process and related updates for fiscal year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 and requesting the controller's office, mayor's office of public policy and finance and the budget and legislative analyst to report. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, should call (415)655-0001, access code 145 736 9773.

then press pound and then press pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk. today -- the mayor's budget office and our city controller. >> hi. good afternoon, supervisors. so ben and i are going to share the floor here. i'm going to provide you all with a brief update on the state budget. i will share my screen. okay. is everyone able to see that? >> supervisor fewer: yes.

>> wonderful. okay. provide the committee with a brief update on happenings at the state level with their budget. so the governor issued his may revise on may 14th. and typically the may revise includes very minor changes to the budget proposed in january. but this year the may revise included significant reductions in response to the significant budget shortfalls, that were projected at the state level. so the state is projecting a $54 billion shortfall over two years. and that's compared to a $6 billion projected surplus from january. the total budget is $203 billion, and that is $19 billion less than the budget proposed in january. and a 9.3% decrease from the state's '19-'20 budget. the key contributor to that are,

of course, high employment rates, increased participation in social safety net programs. in order to balance the significant shortfall, the governor proposed to spend the entirety of the state's rainy day reserve over three years. he proposes to utilize cares act funding to access covid expenditures, proposes -- relies heavily on federal funding and outlines $15 billion worth of one-time and ongoing reductions, that would be triggered in the absence of additional federal funding. and it also makes technical changes to business tax collections, which yield about $4 billion for the state. key expenditure changes included in the governor's budget includes distributing $1.3 billion of cares act revenues to counties. we estimate that san francisco could receive about $20 million of that, which would be -- help

us offset the response costs that we've brought to you and outlined in our may budget outlook report, that we expect to arrange next year between $100 million and $500 million. the governor's budget also provides additional funding for project room key, which provides for isolation units and hotels for homeless individuals. it spends about $8.6 million on covid expenditures, eliminates the california division of juvenile justice, and also makes some reductions in public safety realignment revenues, that we get back at push-out to counties, due to declining sales tax revenue. and now the budget has kicked over to the legislature for approval by june 15th. at issue are a number of key areas, including the amount of covid spending, cuts to schools and safety net programs, there

was a proposal to expand medical to individuals, that is now proposed to be delayed. notably the legislature is grappling with alternatives for those $15 billion worth of trigger cuts that i spoke of earlier. the legislature is proposing to reduce those to $7 billion and delay them to october. and then, of course, of particular interest to us and the mayor's budget office and those of us on the committee, there are many discussions happening around s.f. and the future of that. and how that will be calculated. the controller has been very looped into those conversations and can provide an update, if anyone has questions about that. but we will know in short order what will happen at the state level in just a few short days. and, of course, my team is

tracking impacts of the state budget locally. happy to take any questions, if folks have them. >> supervisor fewer: yes. any questions from my colleagues? yes, president yee. >> supervisor yee: the slides that indicated some of the $20 million and other funding. can we -- >> sure. i'll go back. one second. which slide? oh, uh-huh. >> supervisor yee: so these amounts that we're looking at, is the only amount that's going to possibly impact san francisco is the $20 million? and i don't know about these other funds. >> yeah.

thanks. that's a great question. so in the governor's may revise, they are reallocating a portion of their cares act revenue out to counties. and our initial estimates for that it could be $20 million. as you know, cares act revenue is really restricted in how it can be used. and it must be used on, you know, direct covid response activities. the $750 million for project room key, we had already received a portion of that -- of about $7.4 million in an initial tranche of project roomkey. we're unsure how much san francisco could receive, if this proposal is maintained in the final state budget. but we'll certainly be tracking that, because as you know, we are -- we have many, you know, a lot of costs at the local level related to hotels.

so those are two big areas, you know, still some uncertainty the things we're tracking. and then, of course, there are many other impacts in departments that they are -- well, you know, they'll incorporate into departmental budget submission and we'll do our best to incorporate into the august budget. >> supervisor yee: at least the $20 million, has not been accounted for yet? >> no. >> supervisor yee: sort of a rebalancing? >> yes. this would be for next year, is our understanding. so it is not -- it would not help us rebalance in the current fiscal year. it's very restricted to cares act -- sorry, covid expenditures. so it would not offset any loss of local revenue. >> supervisor yee: okay. but if we had to spend local revenues on some of the things that we're doing right now,

that's related to the pandemic, this would offset that, right? >> yeah. so in our may 13th report, that we issued, we laid out what we expect to spend related to covid and the current year. at the time we had anticipated about $375 million. we note that we expect that much of that will be offset through fema reimbursement and cares act revenue. but that the expenditures in the current year will largely deplete any cares act funding, leaving very little for the upcoming year. so, you know, this $20 million will just be an additional source for us in next fiscal year, as we continue to spend on covid response. >> supervisor yee: okay. thank you. that helps. >> you're welcome. of course. >> supervisor ronen.

>> supervisor ronen: yes, thank you. ashley, can we go back to slide five? >> sure. >> supervisor ronen: make sure that's the right one. >> state legislature budget? >> supervisor ronen: i think so. yes. so this -- so can you get into a little bit more about what the trigger cuts are. >> sure. >> supervisor ronen: and following up on president yee's question, how they filter down to san francisco. >> sure. yeah. i can give you a few examples. there are many cuts that are included here in various degrees of impact on the city. so one cut that is assumed in the trigger reductions to state employees' wages, 10% cut for state employees.

there are also cuts to -- let me see. checking my notes. there is reduction to education spending in here as well, at all levels k-12 and at university level as well. i can provide you additional detail. i don't have it all off hand. >> supervisor ronen: that would be great. >> yeah. >> supervisor ronen: i would love to see specifically anything educational related. but any of those trigger cuts that will impact san francisco and how it would be great to understand that. >> yep. absolutely. >> supervisor ronen: and then you asked deliberations. has there been a place a call to the governor about the eraf, excess eraf? >> i mean, our team, our office is working incredibly closely with our state delegation. i can't speak specifically. i'm not sure if she has. but i know that we are in

constant contact with our state partners about this. so it is, of course, very important to us. and we are doing everything we can to preserve it. >> supervisor ronen: because, you know, yesterday the board of supervisors passed an imperative item unanimously with unanimous co-sponsorship, you know, voicing opposition to the trailer bill, that would eliminate the excess eraf, not only, you know, going forward but the current bill before us would apply retroactively. and make our budget deficit over the next several years significantly worse. and so i'm just -- if you -- i have talked to ben, who i know is working on this. but i'm just on the political side of this, i want to make sure that every city official is doing everything in our power to stop this.

but it's pretty outaimous. and i'm just wondering how much you've talked to our state delegation to to senator wiener, budget chair phil ting and what they're doing in their stance on this. the impact to san francisco is significant. >> yeah. ben, go ahead, thank you. >> i can answer some of these questions. obviously this is the most significant financial implication, single implication in the state budget for san francisco, the city and county. we have been work on this issue for the better part of two weeks now. i can say i've been on the phone multiple times a day with my peers in the affected counties with the state department of finance. and i have talked, as has the mayor's chief of staff, other members of the mayor's office, with every member of our delegation multiple times on this topic. so we are pushing it as hard as we can.

we have additional calls scheduled over the next couple of days, prior to the state budget going to print. we don't yet have a sense of where this bill will land. i concur with supervisor ronen and the mayor understands it as well, the financial implications here are very, very significant. it's $180 million, when we account for the retro activity bill in the bill. and then approximately $60 million going forward there an after. >> annually. >> annually. so i can assure you that it is the highest possible priority for everyone. >> supervisor ronen: no. >> on the virtual second floor. >> supervisor ronen: and i know that you are doing an extraordinary job. i cannot thank you enough, pen -- ben, for your advocacy. as far as i can tell it's been pretty quiet from our state delegation on this. and i did get a chance to talk to state -- you know, assembly

member budget committee director phil ting -- or chair phil ting. but it wasn't clear to me that there's an organized effort on the part of our representatives in state government to prevent the most significant budget impact to san francisco. and i just want to voice -- you don't have to respond. because that's not your role. i just want to voice that as a supervisor, that i would really hope that our state delegation would step up here, because this is incredibly serious and will directly result in significant impact on the services that we are providing to the most vulnerable people during this most difficult time. it's bothersome to me that we haven't heard more, you know, from our state elected officials

on this matter. and i would expect them to be fighting tooth and nail for san francisco. >> i can just add for flavor, it's -- there have been regular get-togethers of just not our delegation in san francisco, but the delegates from the other four counties as well. so the bay area delegation speaking together. this has been a top of the agenda for each of those meetings for the last several weeks. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. and just to both of you, you know, i'm sure all of my colleagues would agree with this. we are happy to help in any way that we possibly can, given, you know, ben that you're sort of taking the lead on behalf of the city, on bush pushing on this. please know you can come to me and i'm sure all of my colleagues feel this way, to help you in any way we can. >> thank you. >> thank you, supervisor.

>> supervisor fewer: supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, madam chair. i guess i would just, you know, pile on with the eraf. it is such an extraordinarily obnoxious proposal to take future funding away from san francisco, but past funding that we have received and already spent on a set of worthy projects. and now ask us, you know, years later to come up with, you know, with the money to pay -- after the rules have changed. it's just -- it's super, extraordinarily annoying. and it seems so unfair that even, you know, outnumbered as those of us counties that have been impacted by eraf in this particular way, just a fairness argument seems like i would hope it would have some sway in the legislature.

but i don't know. i would also just point out is eraf itself is an obnoxious measure going back to prior recessions and the state's inability to fund its obligations to fund education. and so deciding that it would take those funds away from local governments and pay for its fate obviously -- state obligations. eraf starts as a just really awful piece of public policy and then to have this additional hit at san francisco and other places, retroactively taking money from us that we had already in good faith and under assurances from the state spent as we would any other money that we receive to the city. so thank you, supervisor ronen, for your leadership on this. and, you know, our delegation is

trying to make this case. could we go back to the governor's may revise slide? >> yes. let me pull it up. which one? there's three. >> supervisor mandelman: that one. now it's actually the next one. >> okay. [laughter] all right. i want to -- i have questions on a few of these bullets. >> sure. >> supervisor mandelman: so when the state of california eliminates the california division of juvenile justice, that saves the state money in cost money, right? >> that is an excellent question. i don't -- our department of juvenile probation has reached

out to us with the impacts of this on them. it is not a cost savings for us. i think it pushes costs on to us. but i will need to confirm that with juvenile probation. i don't want to say the wrong thing. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. yeah. so, anyway, that's -- that's a thing for us to better understand. but, for example, realignment was generally, you know, a way of saving. in addition to the good state policy around getting folks out of the state prisons, also about pushing obligations down on to counties. and so the bullet about reduction in public safety realignment revenues, does that mean that after pushing the obligation down on to the counties, the state is now going to be giving us less money to bear those burdens, that have been passed on to us? >> that's right. that's right. >> supervisor mandelman: and do we have a sense of the scale of that? >> i believe it's about

$100 million of reduced revenues -- statewide. >> supervisor mandelman: right. >> or is it -- sorry. it could be the impact -- i would want to be extra sure about that. >> supervisor mandelman: $100 m- >> that doesn't seem like a lot. also obnoxious in one recession the state passes a whole bunch of obligations on to local governments. in the next recession, takes away the funding for the local governments to carry those obligations. okay. and then -- this is going to be a several months of being annoyed all the time. [laughter] and then i noticed -- i mean, i don't know how much you know about the $750 million of project roomkey. but i have heard that it can --

some of this is money that could be used for acquisition, not on the short-term of hotel rooms, but of hotels. >> yes, i believe that is correct. >> supervisor mandelman: but we don't know how much of it would come to san francisco? >> no, not yet. so the state had issued i believe an initial tranche of this of about $100 million, of which san francisco got $7.4 million. we're still unsure about future allocations to san francisco. >> supervisor mandelman: and what do we do with our $7.4 million, for our existing hotel program? >> yes. i believe that was used to offset our existing costs. >> supervisor mandelman: all right. so that's not -- hotels pot of money. okay. or has not been. i think those are my questions for now. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and then mr. rosenstiel, i think that you're up next.

>> i think so, madam chair. chair fewer asked our office to produce a summary with some information on prior recessions. to provide some context as you begin this season. i want to kind of briefly walk through that presentation, and take questions you might have. this email was emailed -- this presentation was emailed to all of you earlier today. this is showing you unemployment in the u.s. and san francisco over the last 30 years or so. and you can kind of -- you see here in gray bars the recession has occurred since 1990 in the u.s. san francisco is the orange bar here. you can see that the recession in the early '90s and then significantly in the dot com

bust in the early 2000s, unemployment in san francisco surged above the country. while the most recent recession, we actually remained less harmed than the country has a whole. so i'll focus on the last two recessions for some of this discussion. and while we call it the great recession, in terms of financial impacts to the city and county of san francisco, the dot com bust was actually more significant. you can see that play out here in the unemployment rate, which spiked above the nation and carried for longer than the recession that followed. so, first, touching on some of the experiences in the dot com bust. this is showing our major tax revenues in 2001 and 2002. and then through the period after that, which is really the period over which the city's finances stabilized it. the recession did take -- this recession did take a long time to recover from.

you can see the loss of about 3.6% of our general fund revenues in 01-02. similar to this time actually. it was heavily concentrated in some of our most sensitive hospitality-related revenues. so hotel tax, sales tax, property transfer tax, taking the biggest hits in that year, because, of course, this is the dot com is combined with september 11th in that year. so we had very steep dropoffs in revenue, similar to the drop-offs we're seeing today. then you can see that this is really kind of a u-shaped recession here. and san francisco. meaning that we fell in the first year of the recession. we basically dragged through '02-'03 with 1.1% growth off of that lower floor. then we began to see a recovery in '03-'04 and saw significant snap back in '04 and '05. this is the story of a u-shaped

recession. i'll highlight trends similar to what we talked about, really the current experience as well. you can see here that the property tax really held up well initially. and actually grew during every year of this recession. we really lost a significant amount of growth, but not immediately, in the second and third year of the recession, before bouncing back in the final year. this is some of our revenue experience in the dot com bust. that played through projected shortfalls that really carried for a period in the potrero. we had shortfalls in the preliminary years of the and they flew grew as we worked through it. that was related to two things. why would a recession that started in '01-'02 see the most projected shortfalls in '03-'04. the lagging tax revenues,

getting us in later years, one-time solutions used a bridge the gaps in the first years of the shortfall being exhausted, being left with kind of cliffs in later years. then lastlier a very significant labor concession in early years of this recession. that expired in '03-'04. the fourth factor during this potrero, at play throughout it, which is similar to the last conversation, related to state budget impacts, lingering throughout this. they were deferred until the second and third year of the recession. the same was occurring at the state level. the most significant cuts we saw from the state government were actually not in the first year, but in the second year. in terms of one of the questions that came to us was what did the mayor's budget instructions look like in that period of time? so kind of two things to highlight here i think.

one is that mid- year cuts were required in three out of these four years. so budgets were balanced, conditions changed, state budget changed and three rounds of mid-year cut instructions issued to departments, to manage the budget during this period. in terms of preparing standard fiscal year budgets, you can see the targets here. 5% in '01 hand and beginning to kind of curtail in '03-'04 in in all years, similar to the mayor's request this year, contingency plans were requested from departments by the mayor's office. in terms of some of the -- a couple of other highlights during this period, so the city did draw down heavily on the reserves during that period, off of a much lower reserve base. so the city drew about $48 million down on reserves during the dot com bust, or depleting about 40% of the balance of them.

obviously a much smaller number than we have today. in total fund balker which is immeasurable to reserves, but then also i think importantly here, capital project balances, that roll from one year to the next, are part of fund balance. and so you can see we had a very significant reduction in total fund balance, which is kind of a combination of that draw on reserves. also significantly reduced investments in capital during the dot com. the general fund workforce reduction during this period of time came to 8.5%. so almost 1400f.t.e.s reduced from the peak of the recession. many of those were vacant positions. but not all of them. layoffs occurred in both of the last two recessions. one of the questions we were asked is what have labor contracts looked like during the last two recessions? and so in the dot com bust,

there were really -- there were no wage increases in later yea years. the most significant labor concession, though, was that city employees at the beginning of the recession began to pay for their retirement pick-up, which is 7.5% retirement contributions the city was formally paying on their behalf. and that continues to this day. that translates to about a 6.9% reduction in pay -- the cost of a city. it feels like a 6.9 wage decrease. the city permitted more holidays during that time as part of the give. at the end of the recession, wage was restored to offset that really three-year giveback of the 7.5%.

this is a simple table. and we have one at a later table just showing the level of board of supervisors add backs during the recession. the '03-'04 records have escaped our files. but for other years, these represent the general fund and non-general fund add-back totals that the board of supervisors moved. lower amounts we've seen in both better times and in more recent years. so flipping to the great recession briefly. this is that same view of how tax revenues performed from 2008-2009 to 2009-2010, this is a shorter period for this recession to kind of get back to trend line. the first year of the recession really transfer tax was the most significant loss that the city felt with losses in some of our major tax sales, hotel, business. you can see those same taxes

again follow that pattern of actually getting worse in the second year of the recession. and with basically no growth for two fiscal years, followed by return to kind of more normal growth rates of about 4%. recessions. projected shortfalls during this period of time, again lagging the beginning of the recession, in a trend that you see across the dot com bust, the most recently is true of this recession as well. there was significant cuts to straight and state funding to local governments during this period of time. a lot of -- the larger numbers you see from 2009, 2010 and beyond relate to state proposed budget cuts, many of which were ultimately adopted, some of which weren't. again in terms of mid-year

budget cuts were required in all three years, to manage the budget, not to the level that we recently experienced and not to the level of the dot com bust, but -- targets range from a low of 7.5% in the last year, basically of the recovery to a high of 12.5% '09-'10. again the mayor's office requested contingency plans in all years. similar percentages on this page to the dot com bust. a little bit over half of reserves drawn, during this recession. again a significant reduction in total fund balance. predominantly again being driven by reserves and slowing capital investment. 6.8% reduction in general fund f.t.e.s during this period of time. most of which were vacant, but

as i recall, a couple of hundred actual layoffs. layoff occurred. and the labor concession during the most recent recession amounted to basically a 4.6% two-year wage reduction, versus what had been previously negotiated. and in return, the city provided 12 days off unpaid furloughs basically. these are the add-back values in the fiscal year. you can see that the numbers are obviously fire than they were in the dot com bust. in particular, in the heart of the recession, '09-'10 and '10-'11. a couple of just quick observations, from my perspective and our perspective, basically that recession, both of the prior two recessions, took city finances approximately three to four years to get back

to equilibrium, back to the trend line that had been expected prior to the recession or dot com bust being a little bit longer, the great recession a little bit shorter. repeated mid-year adjustments have been required almost every year during recessions in recent past for the city. and i think that is likely to play out this time as well, given the level of uncertainty we have. the revenue decline, as we have experienced in the current fiscal year, are much sharper and more rapid than even during the dot com bust. held tax losses in the month of shelter-in-place were much more significant than they were in the month after september 11th, for example. and we see that across our major revenues as well. the other thing i think that's true this time, we have talked about the shape of the recovery, which is never certain at the beginning of a recession. but the shape of this recovery is motably less certain. -- notably less certain.

if there is good news, it's that we're better prepared this time than we were for either of the last two recessions that i have been through, working for the city. our reserves are in a substantially improved place. that was deliberate steps taken by mayor's and board of supervisors, following our experience in these two recessions to be prepared and built reserves. we have done that. one-time programs, capital investment and i.t. investments are also much higher heading into this recession. and so that will help us through this. and we certainly are in a better position than we were in the last two. similar to the last few recessions as well, though, we enter a recession with multiple-year closed labor contracts in front of us. and that certainly means less flexibility. those labor contracts in this recession and the prior two were negotiated at a better moment in time financially. and then extended into the future. in each of the last two recessions, labor partnered with

the city to restructure those contracts. and we will see what this time holds. but certainly having closed labor contracts, leaves less flexibility during that period. the average workforce reduction, during the last two recessions was about 7.5%. you can see that across the two recessions on average. if that's our experience this time, that would translate to a 1200f.t.e. reduction, against our current general fund workload. -- workforce. i think similar will be the -- this time is likely to be the state budget, which was a very significant driver of city deficits in the dot com bust, in the great recession, and as we have talked about in the previous moment. it is significantly worse as well in the states, over a long

period of time that almost inevitably leads to reductions in local government revenue available from the state. probably somewhat new, though, is just the level of importance of continued federal support during this recession. we certainly relied very heavily on stimulus funds during the last recession. than president obama and congress adopted funds to support local government. but the value of that support is much less than the risk we are talking about today, related to the requirement for really the city to have continued access to fema, cares funds and other federal stimulus programs to carry these significant new costs that we have heading into this recession. so thank you for indulging me with that presentation. and i would be happy to take any questions. >> supervisor fewer: yes. president yee.

>> supervisor yee: thanks for the preparation. when you talked about -- it seems that one thing you didn't talk about in your presentation, and maybe there was nothing to talk about, there was deficits and there were reductions in revenues. were they -- we're not in that situation right now. but actually before the pandemic, many of us started talking on revenue measures, in november. and, you know, so this is a possibility that things would go on the november ballot and maybe win. so did any of that happen during these other two recessions, where it helped or not help? >> yeah. i may get this fiscal year

wrong, hopefully i'll get the recession right. in the dot com bust, there was a significant tax proposal, upon which a budget was balanced actually. which was two taxes actually. sales tax and a business tax increase, that was taken to the voters in the mid-years of that program. those taxes failed. and one of those rounds of mid-year reductions that i mentioned was to offset the loss of that, that was assumed in the state budget. that was -- so the dot com bust we had limited success with voter-adopted tax increases in. in the last recession, there were several tax increases adopted over several years, that contributed to help. and i think as i recall, the most significant of those were two increases to the commercial property transfer tax in the city, that was placed before the

voters and both were approved. so as the recovery began, and we saw commercial real estate activity began, those were a source. >> supervisor yee: were those permanent increases at the time? >> yeah. those were -- those transfer tax increases are in perpetuity. there's no subset on them. >> supervisor yee: okay. that's helpful. >> of course. >> supervisor fewer: okay. supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. thank you so much for the presentation controller, rosenstiel. i have a question and you may have answered this and my apologies if you did. on slide 19 you start showing the average workforce reduction for prior recessions was 7.5%. and it looks like 1200f.t.e. to date. you're saying that was how many were lost or a number of 7.5%

today? >> that would be if we took -- if we had the same experience this time through. that is not what we have lost today. >> supervisor walton: got it. >> order of magnitude kind of. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> supervisor fewer: okay. any more comments or questions at all? so i have a few questions. and really just for clarification. it seems as though in the last two recessions, the dot com and also the great recession, is that we actually were able to help balance this whole budget by a combination of reserves and capital fund projec projects. it seems like those were the big pockets, is that right, that helps us to balance this a little?

yes. the furloughs and everything else, right? i mean, of course, you know, i could be wrong. that helps us actually to get out of the recession. because it seems as though the dot com one actually -- we bounced back, yes, in a couple of years. but we bounced back pretty big. and we're pretty healthy afterwards. when looking at what our deficit is going to be this year, compared to the deficit of the dot com and the great recession, actually we have our reserves proportionately more. does that -- is that a correct assessment? >> i think that's right. chair fewer, the kind of big pieces of the solution in both the dot com bust and the great recession really were, as you mentioned, they were kind of depletion of one-time resources available to us, like reserves or capital programs in both of

those recessions, labor concessions were a significant part of the balancing solutions. and then really lastly, at least in the dot com bust, service reductions and workforce reductions. so expenditure side reductions. we were left successful with revenue in that cycle. in the dot com bust -- or in the great recession, those three legs of that were paired with additional revenue, transfer tax and other increases that the voters adopted that helped greatly as well. and we did have some assistance in the great recession, in the form of federal stimulus revenue. but i think at the high level, those are kind of the big components. and then i think you're right. this time we are -- we are better prepared in terms of our reserve position. i think we will still face the same sorts of budget pressures

from the state, that we felt in each of those prior recessions, and we can expect to be feeling cuts in that one out of every $5 that we spend in the general fund that comes from d.c. or sacramento. and then at the end of the day, what the other legs of the stool are choices still to come from both the mayor and the board of supervisors. >> supervisor fewer: the f.t.e.s that we had, i think that was in the great recession. and then also there was a block of f.t.e.s also in the dot com. and you said that a lot of those were unfilled positions. could we get any more accounting about the percentages of unfilled positions versus actual layoffs of people? >> during the prior recessions, we having looked back for records related to layoffs. i can certainly get you detailed record about kind of changes in positions in the budget. records regarding layoffs are

harder to come by. the system that the city was using at that time was largely paper. as i recall, we're talking in the hundreds in each of those recessions. actually a lot of the negotiations and discussion with labor was basically larger wage concessions, in exchange for basically buying back layoffs, in particularly the dot com bust. that was very much the -- kind of the discussion. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. keeping jobs. keeping people in the jobs, first priority. and then later in the great recession. yeah. okay. got it. any more questions or comments at all from my colleagues? let's open this up for public comment. madam clerk, can you please call for public comment on item number 1. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the

queue. operations, please let us know if any callers are ready. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. if you're on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. please let us know if there are any callers who wish to speak on the item. >> yes, madam chair, i have two callers in the queue. i will queue the first caller. >> hello, callers. >> my name is francisco da costa. what i see in the deliberations is that very little is said about the taxpayer. so the federal government did do something that y'all did not pay attention to, didn't mention it at all. and that's what i call the bridge plan or the stimulus moneys that were infused into

the economy. and you supervisors, and that includes the mayor and especially the mayor's office of economic development, talk a lot about the stimulus money that was suppose to go to the small businesses. but let them down very badly. so we had two rounds. we haven't had any updates from the controller. how much or how many of our small businesses were helped. and we have no clue right now what exactly is happening. having said that, the federal government, through the capital emergency management agency, fema, is accommodating us. and from some of the comments i hear in general is like we

really want to get the maximum from fema. and that shouldn't be our mentality. our mentality should be to work hard and to be self-sufficient. the other thing i see is that we have too many upper management making too much. nobody should be making $400,000 a year. not even $250,000 a year. finally, let me remind you the disparity of san francisco has been compared to rwanda, a third-world country. rwanda. so we have to look at things -- very co -- good controller. thank you thank you for your comment next speaker. hello, speaker? >> hello. can you hear me.

>> clerk: yes. please begin. >> hi, it's david. several comments. first to the mayor's office. the revised budgeter outlook and department instructions, that was presented to committee on may 20th, along with today's presentation and for that matter the june 1st submittal, none of those documents are on the mayor's website. if you could arrange to put them there. perhaps under sfmayor.org/documents. that would be helpful. and to the -- linda, the committee clerk, when presentations like today's come in before the meeting, if those can be attached in registrar, that would allow the public to review them, as much as we would with a handout at the meeting. but because we're doing it in this crazy way, it's difficult for a member of the public, like myself, to refer to page 21 or

whatever of the presentation when we don't have access to it in the way that members apparently do. and just finally on this as to the schedule, i note that the m.t.a. budget isn't up for discussion until august 14th, since they adopted their budget in april, although there was press coverage today of an agreement to not increase fares. it seems to me that you could have the hearing on the m.t.a. budget prior to august. and for once allow the budget and legislative analyst to review the m.t.a. budget in detail, in a way they haven't done in 20 years and perhaps find some things and make some policy recommendations, since prop e passed in 1999. we haven't had that kind of detailed review of the m.t.a. and perhaps with this three-month delay in the process, we could take some time

and look at the m.t.a. more carefully and have both the budget and policy discussions. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> madam clerk, that completes the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment is now closed for item number 1. i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. could i have a second, please? >> ronen, second. >> supervisor fewer: thanks, supervisor ronen. roll call vote, please, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to consider this item to the call of the chair. supervisor walton? >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> supervisor yee? >> aye. >> supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> chair fewer >> aye. >> clerk: there are five ayes. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call

item number 2, 3 and 4 together. >> clerk: proposed interim budget and appropriation ordinance and estimated expenditures for departments of the city and county of san francisco as of june 1st, 2020 for the fiscal years ending jun, 2022. item number 3, proposed interim annual salary ordinances enumerating position in the annual budget and promise ordinance for the fiscal years ending june 30th, 2021 and june $30, 2022, continuing, creating or establishing these positions. and item number 4, approving the fiscal year proposed interim budgets of the office of community investment and infrastructure. operating as a special agency for the san francisco redevelopment agency. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call (415)655-0001 and access code 145 736 9773.

then press # and# again. please dial star three line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. you may begin your comments after you have been unmuted. >> supervisor fewer: yes. so we have again ashley from the mayor's budget office and ben rosenstiel. >> i can start briefly, mariah carey, with a brief description of what an interim budget is for the members of the committee and the public. and then we can talk through the details of what's in front of you today. as you know, the city's fiscal year runs -- begins each year on july 1st. but each year the charter calls on the payer and the board to adopt a budget by no later than august 1st. we have a one-month period where we need approval to continue to

spend money and operate the government. amp, employees, vendors, it's everything else. that's the purpose of the interim budget. each june the mayor adopt an interim budget for the one-month period, typically of just july. that terms us to carry over and continue operations during that one-month period. this year is atypical. we have a longer interim period, because of the delay in the city's budget process. so the interim budgets in front of you will carry the city spending forward from july 1st through october 1st. so the whole first quarter of the fiscal year. i think with the exceptions that we'll note a minute, generally speaking these interim budgets are status quo budgets. they reflect changes that are already been adopted by the mayor and the board in the previous year. they reflect changes in wages, benefits and other costs. and a more technical issues and those sorts of things. with that i'll turn it over to

ashley. >> thank you, ben. thank you, members of the committee. as ben noted, this is metropolitan to be a continuity budget, to allow those essential -- allow essential city spending and operations to continue, until the final budget is adopted by the mayor and the board in october. the exceptions that the controller referenced, the interim budget assumes wage delays for city employees, as triggered by the march joint report, and consistent with the language in our negotiated m.o.u.s, with our labor unions. it does not include the appropriation for the hourly increase for ihss and on july 1st. that's the ability to fund that wage increase in the upcoming fiscal year will be determined with the august budget deliberations. and similarly, the interim

budget does not assume a july 1st implementation of the 2.5% cost of doing business increase for non-profit providers. and any ability to fund that cost of doing business increase in the upcoming fiscal year will be contemplated during the august budget process. >> supervisor fewer: are you finished? oh, because now i'd like to call for the b.l.a., please, to have their presentation on items 2 and 3. thank you. >> good afternoon, chair fewer, members of the committee. i'm dan, i'm here to present our summary of review of the mayor's three-month interim budget. i'm going to share some slides that i have. okay. can everyone see the slides now?

>> we can't, dan. oh, i'm sorry. >> supervisor fewer: no. we can't. >> sorry. okay. sorry, about that. >> supervisor fewer: we saw it briefly. there we go. >> okay. okay. all right. all right. so just as a preface, we focused our review on the general fund portion of the budget. so as previously discussed, the charter and admin code did establish the city's budget timetable, including the approval of a one-month salary ordinance, to be approved no later than june 30th by the board each year. as ben had spoken about, the interim budget allows for city budgets to condition, with certain exceptions until the board of supervisors and mayor are able to adopt the annual appropriation ordinance and the annual salary ordinance by

july 31st every year. and, of course, as we all know, due to the significant revenue and budgetary impacts of the covid-19 pandemic, the interim budget has been expanded from one month, which is typically july, to three months this year, july, august and september. to allow more time to assess the revenue impacts of the covid-19 pandemic and make the difficult policy choices to balance the two-year budget. as ashley had mentioned, the proposed interim budget serves as a continuity budget to allow essential city spending and operations to continue on july 1st, until the final budget is adopted by the mayor and board of supervisors by october 1st. the mayor's interim transmittal letter, the interim budget has three changes from the previously adopted budget. and these include the wage delays for city employees, as triggered by the march joint report. a and negotiated memorandums of

understanding. second, no inclusion of appropriation for the gross hourly increase for the in-home supportive services, minimum compensation ordinance on july 1st. we did note that the mayor's transmittal letter is funding the wage increase, will be determined with the august budget deliberations and subject to the october appropriation levels. and, third, that there would be no july 1st implementation of the 2.5% cost of doing business increase for non-profit providers. and again the transmittal letter states that would be contemplated with the august budget deliberations. so in our report, we just had a couple of sections, in addition to that summary. one was to talk about other non-personnel changes that we noticed in the budget. these are kind of major changes that we were able to pick up. and then non--- and then

personnel changes. first, non-personnel changes. our review of the proposed interim non-personnel budget found that it largely does serve as the continuity budget as described in the mayor's transmittal letter. a review found that relative to the 2020-2021 budget be adopted on august 1st of last year, eight payments for in-home services program are declining by $4.7 million or 3%, due to a decrease in services, rumming in decreases to the human service agency's budget, as discussed in the may budget report. in addition, general fund support is declining for some baselines and reserves. the contribution to the general reserve is declining by $12.4 million, due to declines in general fund revenues, as permitted under admin code section 10.60b.

contributions to the recreation and parks baseline are declining by approximately $3 million, due to the charter provision, section 16.107. that allows suspension of growth in general fund support, when the budget deficit exceeds $200 million. this is reflected in decreased department overhead expenditures in the rec and parks budget. and contributions to the mission bay transportation improvement fund are declining by $1.8 million, due to declines in anticipated revenue associated with the golden state warriors stadium, resulting in corresponding reductions to expenditures to the mission bay transportation improvement project. as far as the personnel changes that we'd like to note, we found that general fund spending on salaries is declining by $35.3 million or 1.4%, due to the six-month delay in wage increases for city employees. and consistent with the projected budget deficit in the

march joint report and the language in the negotiated memorandum of understanding. general fund spending on fringe benefits is increasing by 1.1%, largely due to increases in retirement and health benefit costs, as projected in the january joint report. as well as the may budget outlook report. increases to retirement and health benefit costs are partially offset by $8 million in reductions to unfunded liability payments, as the city will not make an additional payment for the unfunded liability in fiscal year 2020-2021. the mayor's proposed interim budget contains no net increase in the full-time positions from the fiscal year 2020-2021 baseline budget adopted on august 1st, 2019. so the number of f.t.e.s approved was 20,039. and that same amount remains in the bugs. and one other thing that we did notice, while we were reviewing the personnel budget is that

there is a 0941 manager six position, that is -- was approved in the budget last year, as an interim -- sorry, as a technical adjustment. and it is being reassigned from general city administration to the city administrative's budget. the position has a total proposed fiscal year 2020-2021 budget of $280,214. that's salary costs and $78,153 in fringe benefits. and our understanding was it was assigned to general city responsibility, pending further decision on where to assign the position. so in our report, we do state that given the mayor's policy to freeze all non-essential hiring and the position has not been

previously approved as part of the city administrator's budget, we recommend the board either delete the position or put the salary and fringe benefits for this position on reserve, until it can be reviewed as part of the two-year fiscal year 2021-2022 proposal. we also noted in our report that the deputy city administrator has informed our office, as of monday, that the position has not been filled. and it's understanding that the city administrator's office has identified a candidate, but no formal offer has been made. we also note that a previous analysis conducted by our office, to implement the privacy first policy, was subsequently withdrawn, found that the proposed activities of the office of data privacy and the chief privacy officer are closely aligned with existing activities of the cybersecurity office, data s.f., committee on information technologien and the chief data officer, with responsibility for coordinating the city's data policy.

our analysis found that the department of technology, cybersecurity office, data s.f. and the mayor's office and the city administrator's office have policies and procedures in place for protecting privacy related to city information resources. and that a combined 22 full-time authorized personnel are employed in these offices. and just for reference, this chief privatcy officer -- the idea was to establish it to respond to the -- a charter amendment that was approved by voters on november 6th, 2018, to establish the city's privacy first policy, which laid out guiding principles for the adoption of privacy protective laws, regulations, policies and practices that relate to the collection, storage and share and use of personal information. and our final slide just again

has this -- a recommendation on that the board should consider either deleting the position for total general fund savings of $280,214 or place the appropriation for that amount on reserve, so that it can be reviewed as part of the fiscal year 2021-2022 two-year budget proposal, so that we can better determine if the position is needed. or whether this classification is still appropriate. to carry out the responsibilities of this position. and that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions, if there are any. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor ronen, i see you in the queue. >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you very much. so i, you know, supervisor -- or chair fewer and i several years ago worked very hard with the ihss workers to gain the salary wages over time. and while i recognize that

everyone is foregoing raises, because of how difficult this time is, i'm just wondering, given that there's almost -- not quite, but almost an equal amount -- that the amount of service reductions for ihss equals almost the amount of the increase in wages over the next three months. and i'm just wondering if, given that we could make an exception and find another place to cut. i know chair fewer cares deeply about this and has been working on finding an alternative. so i'd love to hear from her on this, as well as ashley and dan and ben. >> sure. go ahead, chair fewer. >> i was just going to note that

the $4.7 million in reductions, that's noted in the b.l.a. report, that is the reflection of that delay in the wage for the workers. is there a question? sorry. you froze, sorry. that is that amount. the b.l.a. reflected is the amount of the full year's worth of that $1 wage increase. >> supervisor ronen: i'm sorry. surface reduction. i thought it meant that there were just less people using the system? >> no. no. >> supervisor ronen: i see. >> yeah. just a correction to what the b.l.a. put in their report. that is that reduction is equal to the wage delay.

>> sorry for that confusion. >> supervisor ronen: no problem. >> supervisor fewer: so the total wage reduction is -- i mean, because of the salary increase, would be 4.7. so we were to actually take the m.c.o. off the table, that would be an additional $4.7 million that we would have to find somewhere else, is that correct? >> that's correct. that's the full year's worth of that amount. >> supervisor fewer: got it. to my colleagues, i think that i would like to continue -- i have a lot to say about this. and i'm wondering if any of my other colleagues, before i speak on this, have a comment about this reduction in the -- by the m.c.o.? >> thank you so much. >> supervisor ronen: so, sorry. so the 4.7 is over the entire fiscal year? >> that's right. yeah. and maybe the controller could

speak. the interim budget technically covers the whole year. although we only anticipate needing this version of it for the next three months. i'm sure the controller could more eloquently complain that nuance. >> supervisor ronen: so, for example, if we were to say that we would like -- until we figure out the long-term budget, that we would like to meet our commitment to the ihss workers for the next three months, what would be the cost of that? and is that the only amount that we would have to find, you know, reduce in the budget somewhere else. or the whole 4.7? >> i can speak to that, because it's -- it's related to the legislation itself. the board adopted. the way the language works in that ordinance, it says that the wage increase would proceed on this schedule, unless there's not an appropriation for it. in which case it does not

proceed. it says that if the budget includes an amount less than the full value of the year, it will directs my office to pro-rate the wage increase down. and so unfortunately i understand your question, supervisor ronen. but if you appropriate only the first quarter for the year, it will mean that one quarter of the wage increase would go into effect. not the full wage increase for one quarter of the year. does that make sense? >> supervisor ronen: i see. well, could we amend the legislation? >> i'm just curious -- >> supervisor ronen: so it's a quarter of $4.7 million, is the cost? right? >> supervisor fewer: supervisor ronen, we want to assume if we give the wage increase for a quarter of the year, that we would not actually

consider taking away that quarter -- i mean, the wage increase. and so i think we should assume that for the full amount of $4.7 million. and so i think that's my conversation, right after you spoke, is that, you know, i just have to say that i am frustrated that we are withholding ihss m.c.o. increases. because actually they are the lowest-paid workers in san francisco. they're making $16.50 an hour. and so to have us say we're not going to give the wage increase and we'll look at this with the full budget in mind. i actually don't think that they will get their fair share of the money. i think that's what we have seen before, is that the people that they take care of, actually have the lowest political clout in

this city. and i think they would get lost in this whole shuffle of, you know, with labor, how much the increases are, this labor union and that labor union. actually think because we are trying to do things in an equitable way, to preserve i think the livelihood of those people who are the most marginalized and these people, during covid-19 also we've relied on them heavily to serve these people in their homes, so they could actually shelter-in-place. and when i'm thinking -- so i am uncomfortable with actually postponing this wage increase. i'm not comfortable with the other postponements actually, too. this in particular particularly seems to ring at a different tome. it's a more inequitable way of balancing our budget. so i'm wondering if there are

other places that we could draw from, so that we are not rebalancing our, you know, the budget on the backs of our lowest-wage workers. and i know that we have an opportunity actually to continue in the current budget and allow us a little bit more time to be discussing maybe where we could be finding this money. so anyway. i'd like to open this up to my colleagues if they any questions or comments about this at all. so we can go back to this before we close out this meeting. and so let's hold this conversation and are there any members of this committee that would like to speak at this time or have any questions? >> supervisor ronen: chair fewer, if i could just say -- you said way more articulately

than i did. exactly what i wanted to say. i just wanted to say that i could not agree with you more. i would be happy to partner with you to try to find alternative places to find savings. so thank you. >> supervisor fewer: i actually think -- i'm wondering if we could put some other things on reserve. can we look at some other supplies and materials budgets that we can put on reserve. i just think that this group of people are the lowest-wage workers in san francisco. they already are struggling. most of them, as when we did our m.c.o. ordinances, we realized that, you know, 88% of these people are women of color. and they are one step from homelessness themselves. a dollar wage increase to them is significant. and i just -- especially during this time. so i'd like us to reconsider it.

before we go to that, i have other comments about some other things. i want to thank the b.l.a. for giving us the suggestion of putting the new chief privacy officer position on reserve during the interim budget period, which is a good compromise quite frankly, considering this was an issue going on by a charter amendment. and also i wanted to know that -- i wanted to ask ben and ashley also. can you talk about any assumptions regarding set-asides and business lines in the interim budget. i know that you're reducing the rec and park baseline. is there any other baseline that is -- that the ordinances actually allows us to take from the baselines? >> i can speak to that, chair

fewer. actually in the budget in front you, it reflects our revenue. it's reflected in the report. and with that revenue reflected, we adjusted all baselines, that are keyed off of those revenues. those baseline reductions have occurred in what's in front of you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. can you explain in the m.t.a. budget. going through this, page 174 it shows $22 million in if you parking meters. quite frankly, $240 million budget, that's 10% of the budget are parking meters temperature can you speak to this? th>> i don't know that i can spk to the specifics of it.

so the m.t.a. board adopted a budget in early days of shelter-in-place. and that's what's in front of you with a couple of items stripped out, given the delayed interim process. what's been delayed from the budget, given that this is a confy newt of government budget for the three-month period, is the fare increase. and that's been offset with reductions, reductions in b.m.g. has proposed it for the thee-month period. that will be included in the full budget that comes to you in september. but that has been stripped out. otherwise this reflects the m.t.a.'s budget proposal from that february meeting. >> supervisor fewer: precovid? >> very early days of covid. i think the m.t.a. board is likely to revisit the budget in front of you, prior to submitting their final proposal for your consideration in the kind of policy window in

september perfor -- in septembe. what you have in front of you, will be replaced by the m.t.a., prior to your action on the final budget. >> supervisor fewer: okay. i think that if m.t.a. is listening, i just want to say that, you know, at this time $22 million on parking meters, new, paing meters similarities a little ridiculous. quite frankly. and i just heard that the department of children and youth and families is reducing all grants during the interim budget. shouldn't that be part of the longer budget process? and are other departments also pulling back on contracts starting july 1st? >> i think -- i can try to speak to this. i think -- unless ashley would like to. there's a communication that went from dcyf that's in conflict with our citywide guidance regarding how to handle contracts during this period. it implies -- it implies that

the cost of doing business increases awarded last year are being dis-- rolled back and additionally an 8% reduction is being rolled through. that's inconsistent with citywide guidance. i know we've sent the note to dcyf to follow up on that. that's not the intent. it's certainly not reflected in the budget you have in front of you, which does not make those assumptions. so we node to close that loop to ensure that citywide guidance is adhered to by dcyf. >> supervisor fewer: we could get an update on that next. apparently perhaps it's just a mistake. and i saw -- i just -- i want to talk a little bit -- more about the m.t.o. before i do that, i want to open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on items

2, 3 and 4. madam clerk, can you please see if anyone is in the queue. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking to see if anyone is in the queue. operation, pleateplease let us y callers want to comment on items 2, 3 and 4. >> yes, madam clerk. there are two callers in the queue. i will queue the first caller. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. coon. >> clerk: hello, caller. >> supervisors, i want to talk about the in-home care folks that y'all are having some problems giving them a raise. and i've done some research on

the type of work that they do. and i can see that we can easily get some financing from the federal government, linked to the covid-19 virus. and we need to put ourselves in the shoes of these workers, who are laying down their lives, mostly helping seniors and those most vulnerable situations. i think our controller can figure out a way to get some assistance from the federal government. this is not impossible. other states are doing it. the other thing is we are the fifth largest economy, california. and we have to look at it if we can get some funding in some other way, rather than always put the most vulnerable population in a very difficult

position. i was listening a little bit to how funding is given to the non-profits. and i'm not satisfied with that. but i don't want to talk about it here for all the world to hear. i can address that -- those gimmicks in an article on my blog. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> clerk: please queue the next speaker. >> can you hear me now? >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> hi. it's david again. several points here. looking at the a.a.o. page 28, the funded positions summary by m.s.a. and department. i note in there for 2020-2021

for both the police and m.t.a., there are relatively significant increases in headcount. 173 and 153 or so. i assume that that's authorized positions during the interim period. but that that should be taken with the mayor's letter of june 1st, where it says that departments are instructed to continue to freeze non-essential hiring. so its position authorization, but not approval. i appreciate the b.l.a. analysis and summary of all of this. moving on to m.t.a. for a second, i'm not sure if the way this is all being presented is consistent with the seventh supplement to the mayor's declaration, dated march 31st, in particular paragraph 6c about

the m.t.a. interim budget that the board shall review and reject the interim budget within 30 days of receipt. you don't have a separate item to consider and review the m.t.a. interim budget, although ben just discussed some changes that apparently have been made and buried in here since the m.t.a. board approved. and just finally, on all of this, both the a.a.o. and the a.s.o., in my review in the last few days, i have not found for the last any number of years that i have looked at a signature page reflecting approval as informed by the city attorney. i have called back to a couple of people. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. public comment is now closed on items 2, 3 and 4. let us get back to, first, the

assistance from the -- well, no. let's talk about the m.c.o. first and ihss. i think we have a little time on this. and i think what i would like to do, and it's my understanding and the city attorney could probably give me some advice here, is that we could continue this for another week, without jeopardizing the timeline for the passage of this interim budget. and we can still keep the lights on, beginning july 1st. deputy city attorney, is that correct? >> yes, madam chair. we have advised that you could continue this item until next week. and then send the two ordinances to the full board the following week. and for a second read on the 30th, in compliance with the mayoral supplement. >> and i would just want to add,

madam chair, i think legally you have that authority. administrative it cuts it very close for us. the board of supervisors approves on that day, it still needs to be signed by the mayor and then we need to interface that budget, so that it's available to spend against the next morning. and so it is tight. we can make it work. but it will mean -- it will need to be early on the board agenda that day. so just to highlight there's a legal hand and implementation question here as well. >> supervisor fewer: all right. thank you. i appreciate the consideration of the accommodation. and it would have to be, as you're saying, it would have to be on the full board's agenda early on in the agenda, is that correct? okay. i think we have president yee present with us. and let's get his opinion, president yee. is that something that could be

possibly done at our full board meeting? >> supervisor yee: it could be done, if we are afraid of how close it might become. we have a t.a. meeting in the morning. we have a special meeting in the morning also. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. so i would like to say that i would like to give it some more time to give i a look. you put a lot of effort and time into this. and i know balancing the budget and we are on an incredible timeline. and also an incredible time in san francisco. however, i would like to give us one more last shot at this. i just don't feel right about balancing this budget on the backs of our lowest, lowest workers. and so i would appreciate that we would continue this item. but before i make a motion to continue this item, i'd like to

make a motion to actually adopt the recommendation from the b.l.a., putting the chief privacy officer position on reserve. and so i'd like to make a motion to adopt the recommendations from the b.l.a. to put the chief privacy officer position on reserve, during this interim budget period. >> clerk: is there a second? >> supervisor ronen: ronen second. >> supervisor fewer: could i have a roll call, vote, please. >> clerk: supervisor fewer. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor walton? supervisor walton?

supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor yee. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor ronen. >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor walton? supervisor walton is absent. there are farrierses. -- there are four ayes. >> i'd like to continue this item, as amended, to the next meeting of the budget and appropriations committee. could i have a second, please. >> second. chair fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> supervisor yee: can i get the date -- i want clarification on which date it would come to the board meeting. the full board meeting. >> supervisor fewer: do you have that? >> i have that, madam chair, to the president. so the first reading you were looking for this, because this is an ordinance, june 23rd. the important meeting to have it near the top of the agenda would

be on the second read on june 30th. >> supervisor yee: okay. and we do not have a t.a. meeting. so just -- >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, president yee. i believe that it was -- i have a motion on the floor to continue this item to the next budget and appropriations committee. and as amended. could i have a second, please. >> i thought it was seconded by president yee. >> i seconded it. >> supervisor fewer: he did. so sorry, president yee. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that motion, supervisor walton? supervisor walton absents. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> clerk: supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: aye. >> clerk: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: aye. >> clerk: chair fewer. >> supervisor fewer: aye.

>> clerk: there are four ayes. >> any more business before us today, madam clerk? >> there's no further business. >> supervisor fewer: we are adjourned. thank you, everyone.