we have this is a drastic step forward in terms of equity, especially in the digital equity sense of insuring that language barriers, familiarity with technology, etc., aren't the barrier that prefrns you from accessing digital care from the department of public health. where is the money go to go past the funding grant and the other half of the one million will provide devices and equipment, aka, ipads, webcams and wefy

networks in our brick and mortar locations. so the providers themselves can connect. with your permission, we request to accept and extend this grant. >> thank you. is there a bla report on this item? >> no, chair haney, we cannot report on this item. >> colleagues, any questions or comments about this grant? and to enhance our ability to do that, which is obviously a good

thing. can we open this to public comment? >> greg, if you can pull down the slides please, thank you. operations, just checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment should press star 3 now to be added to the line to speak. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and that is the queue to begin your comments. do we have any callers? >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you much, mr. chair. >> pun lick comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation if we can have a roll call vote please. >> on the motion. yes, on the motion to forward to the full board as recommended.

vice chair safai. >> safai, aye. >> member mar? >> aye. >> mar, aye. >> chair haney? >> aye. >> haney, aye. we have three ayes. we will have a recommendation to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. we can actually go to item number three. please call item 3. >> item 3 is a resolution approving a third amendment to the emergency agreement between the human services agency and for the city's continued use of 143 hotel rooms and associated services located at the americana hotel on 121 7th street and for a total amount

not to exceed $16.4 million to extend the booking period for a potential total term of march 24, 2020 through october 9, 2022. and to authorize the director of hsa to enter into the modifications that do not increase the obligation to the smi and to call 615, the meeting

i.d. and to read itted into record and the basic idea is to bring this in conformity with

the supplement for the ordinance to extend to august 31.

>> the committee clerk and you do not have to read them into the record so that the public can understand and the committee if it wish cans move to approve the amendments. >> all right. the key change is extending through october 9 of this year. and increasing the funding to allow us to do that. we are maintaining the same amount of funding in the resolution which is $16 million. but $64,164 but we are revising

in accordance of section two that the board of supervisors hereby authorizes a third amendment to extend the term up to and including august 31, 2022 and authorizes further extension beyond all 31, provided that the the executive director must attain the approval of the board of supervisors by raising any applicable restrictions in the municipal code. that is the key change.

it asks for your approval. >> i can speak to the original resolution which was the resolution to i a prove the third amendment to the city's agreement for americana llc for the continued use with the hotel rooms and services and increasing that agreement amount

from $9.7 million and extending the term from november 15, 2021, so a retroactive approval and through with the contingency amount which is higher than we typically see to cover expected rest costs to reer to the condition as a shelter in place hotel which is required by the contact and it appeared reasonable with the contingency amounts appear reasonable in this case. because the current agreement expired in november 2021, we do recommend amending the resolution to clarify that the

board approval is retroactive and approve the resolution as amended. if this is continued to the committee, we can report on this at another meeting. i am happy to answer any questions. >> colleagues, are there any questions about that? is >> i don't see any hands raised. can we go to public comment on this item? >> thank you, chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are comments and for those already on hold, wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. do we have any callers? >> mr. clerk, there are no

callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed. and so this is the changes that have been sent to us and they were red into the record. so i want to move to amend the resolution as offered by hsa. can we have a roll call vote on that please? on the motion offered by vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. aaye. [roll call vote] with the increase in the

contract amount, that will be deemed substantive and we should continue the matter. >> excuse me. there is no change in the amount from the original resolution. >> just a change in the amount of time. >> correct. deputy city attorney? >> fs either a change in the contract about o or the extension of the term and this would be a substantive amendment. so what we are doing here, the original resolution to delay

until october 9. >> z i understand it, the further extension would be subject to board action to wave any applicable -- >> yes, we would not be -- we would not extend beyond august 31 without the board's ordinance. at this time if the contract is decreasing, it is not a substitute change. >> and just to be very clear, the purpose of the resolution is to increase the amount. the amendment to the resolution maintains the same dollar amount as the original resolution. awe and un. thank you. >> so do we continue it or approve it?

>> i think the committee can move it up to the full board if that is what it wants to do. >> i make a motion to move item 3 to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. >> on that motion to forward the resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. vice chair safai. >> aye. >> member mar. >> aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> we have three ayes. >> great. thank you so much. >> thank you. all right. mr. clerk, can you please call item 5. >> yes. item 5 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expand the grant increase in the amount of 350,000 for a total amount of approximately $3 million from

the c.d.c. integrated human immunodeficiency programs to support ending the h.i.v. epidemic in the united states for the period of august 1, 2021 through july 31, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting i.d. 2480 057 1739 and press pound twice. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmute and you may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you. and we have stephanie cohen from d.p.s. to present on this item.

>> thank you. on behalf of the with the health departments to support the h.i.v. epidemic in the united states. next slide. >> it's not going to advance. and with the epidemic is an initiative announced by the federal and is a coordinated effort from the federal agencies and is a 10-year that is that plan. to reduce h.i.v. and press star 5.

and to respond to h.i.v.. to reduce sexually transmitted infections. next slide. >> we were originally awarded this grant on august 1 and it is a five-year grant and can extend to 2030. the initial award was a total for 2.90 and going to the

community health equity to support the community-based h.i.v., hep-c and prevention work. in addition, we were awarded a competitive supplement called comp c which was for $450,000 to support the integration of h.i.v. prevention work at city clinic. and for fiscal year 2021, the comp c award increased by $350,000 so to a total of $800,000. starting in fiscal year 2021, the total award is 3.1 million per year for this grant. >> next slide. >> component and the competitive component city of which city clinic was one of seven sti clinics nationwide awarded this competitive supplement will support the project called project excel. in this -- this aims to really

integrate, fully integrate and optimize h.i.v. prevention services at the sti clinic. some of the main goals are to increase screening through the expansion of express visits, to increase press yup take and retention among populations disproportionately affected by h.i.v., next slide. to itch complement novel prep strategies including long acting and injectable prep and to disseminate best practices for long acting citywide. and lastly to optimize ethics and the enterprise slide and electronic health record to enhance h.i.v., hepatitis c and sti prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment at san francisco city clinic and throughout our san francisco department of public health systems of care. next slide. the reason for retroactivity of

the fiscal year 2021-2022 award is because we received the advise agreement with the increased funding for component c on october 13, 2021, for a project start date of august 1, 2021. revised grant award does not require the annual salary ordinance amendment. and with the approvals and with the legislation for introduction. next slide. happy to take any questions. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your work. is there a bla report on this item? >> no, chair haney, we did not report on this item. >> thank you. >> all right. and we open this u up to public comment please. >> yes, chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. member who is wish to provide

public comment, press star 3 to be added to the line to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been muted and that is your queue to begin your comments. do we have any callers? >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you much. mr. chair? >> public comment is now closed. thank you, again, so much for your leadership on this, and our continued work to end the h.i.v. epidemic here in san francisco and our leadership on that. and i am very proud to be a co-sponsor of this along with the mayor and supervisor mandelman. can -- i don't see any other hands raised or comments from colleagues, but you never know. so i am double checking. but with that, i want to make a motion to prove this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> on that motion to forward this resolution to the full

board with a positive recommendation, vice chair safai. >> aye. >> safai, aye. member mar. >> aye. >> mar, aye. >> chair haney. >> aye. >> haney, yay. we have three ayes. >> great. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> mr. clerk, can you please call item 6? >> clerk: item 6 is a resolution approving modification to fix based operator lease and operating agreement no. 07-0106 and signature flight support llc and the city and county of san francisco acting by and through the airport commission. to extend the term by an additional three years for a term to commence from october 1,2022 through september 30, 2025 for an estimated minimum annual guarantee of approximately $16.2 million during the first year of the additional term extension. members of the public who wish

to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2480 057 1739 and press pound twice. if you haven't already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. the 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. mr. chair? >> great. and welcome from the airport. >> thank you, chair haney, vice chair safai, member mar. the airport is seeking your approval for modification number 2 to an existing lease and operating agreement between sfo and signature flight support, extending the term by three years with an estimated minimum annual guarantee or m.a.g. of $16,246,762 for the first year. over the three-year term of the proposed lease extension,

signature would pay at least $48,740,286 in rent. and signature flight support llc is the current and sole operator of the fixed base operation or fbo located and approximately 12.76 acres on plot 42. the fbo is used to accommodate, store, and maintain general aviation, corporate, and other nonscheduled aircraft. this is an m.a.g. or percentage rent, whichever is greater. this modification will require signature to make significant sustainability improvements to install 55 solar powered covered parking stalls and at least four collect vehicle charging stations in the customer parking lot adjacent to the executive air terminal, offering industry standard sustainable aviation fuel, and replacing all fuel trucks in operation at the premises with low emission models. in 2017, the board of supervisors approved modification number 1 for five years beyond the lease and rfp expiration in 2017. and signature was required to

further renovate the executive air terminal building and hangars a and b. [please stand by] >> signature fixed base

operation which consist of services for private and charter flights including operately terminal and three hangars. it was federally procured in 2007. signatures going to top three proposals. the amendment extends the term through september 2025 for a total 18-year term and require signature and electric vehicle charging infrastructure and replace high emission fuel trucks. at the minimum guaranteed rent for the first year of this extension is approximately $16.2 million which result in rent of $48.7 million over the three-year extension term not including adjustment based on cpi. the airport is extending the lease rather than conducting a new r.f.p., itbelieves a new r.f.p. process will not result in higher rent.

we consider to be problematic for the board. happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: thank you. any questions or comments colleagues? open public comment. >> checking to see if there's callers in the queue. if you wish to provide comments press star 3 to be added to the line to speak. please wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: we'll close public comment. i want to a motion to move this item to the full board with positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote please. >> clerk: yes on that motion to forward the resolution to the full board.

[roll call vote]. we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. go to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> thank you supervisors >> chair haney: please call item 7. >> clerk: item number 7 is a resolution authorizing certain amendments to the indenture of trust and loan agreement relating to multifamily housing revenue bonds currently outstanding in a principal amount $216.5 million issued in 2017. for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition development and construction of a 29-none multifamily rental housing project located at 1601, 1675 and 1695 mariposa street,

210 arkansas street and 1600 and 1610, 18th street known as 1601 mariposa. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2480 057 1739. then press pound twice. if you haven't already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted to begin your comments.

mr. chair. >> chair haney: welcome mr. wilcox. >> good morning supervisors haney, safai and mar. i'm bond program manager with the mayor's office housing community development, mohcd. 1601 mariposa street a 299 unit mixed income new construction project located at the cornerrer of caroline and mariposa street. it includes mix of studios, one, two and three bedroom units. remainder of the units are market rate. for the amendments to the indenture trust on item 7, this request and authorization of a certain amendments to the

multifamily housing revenue notes but current principle of $216,575,000 which was used for the 2016 construction project. the fundamentals have not changed since mohcd presented the project. the project is in good fiscal health. the issuance is still conduit to financing with no recourse to the general fund. the project continues to be in compliance with all requirements for the issuance of debt including wage and l.b.e. requirements. the project developer collectively with the related companies in california, since the 2017 issuance, completed construction and leased up the property. they secured a commitment to move the 2017 bond into a longer term financing arrangement. this was the original intention

of the finance structure when the project closed on construction financing. this authorization allows the bonds to be recon figured. the proposed amendment will not change the regulatory agreement and the affordability requirement. the financing team has met several times and develop the omnibus amendment agreement in the package before you. the closing is targeted for march 16, 2022. here with me today is matthew kiker the developers for 1601 mariposa street. we be glad to ask you for any questions. we look forward to your support for 1601 mariposa. thank you.

>> chair haney: thank you. i don't believe there's a b.l.a. report on this item. can we open this for public comment please? >> operations checking to see if there's callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment, please press star 3 now to be added to the line to speak. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. thank you so much again for your work on this mr. wilcox. i want to make a motion to move item 7 to the full board. roll call vote. >> clerk: on that motion to the full board with a positive recommendation. [roll call vote] we have three

ayes. >> chair haney: thank you so much. please call item 8. >> clerk: item 8 is an ordinance retroactively authorizing the public defender's office to accept a grant $750,000 from the board and state and community corrections to use the funds to support the resentencing of individuals under the penal code section 1170.01 to represent incarcerated persons under consideration for resentencing. identifying and recommending incarcerated persons who should be considered for resentencing and developing reentry and release plans for the period of

september 1, 2021 through september 1, 2024 and to amend the annual salary ordinance number 109-1 to provide for the addition of two grant funded positions one f.t.e. in class 8446 court alternative specialist and one f.t.e. in class 8173 legal assistant for the pdr resentencing program. members of the public wishing to provide public comment call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2480 057 1739. press pound twice. please wait for the system indicates you have been unmuted to begin your comments. >> chair haney: thank you.

we welcome ms. harris from the public defender's office. thank you very much. >> good morning everyone. thank you for having us here and to supervisor safai and staff for sponsoring this expenditure approval ordinance. i'm danielle harris i'm a long time public defender in san francisco. i'm directing the freedom project. freedom project launched two years ago. it is dedicated to recalling and reducing excessive sentences, wells ensuring successful transition for every person we assist and post-conviction systemic change. we aim to reduce california's prison population using all available tools. in two years, we've helped free

61 people. some of these folks were convicted under old laws but changed such that they couldn't be convicted today. others are serving time for enhancements that no longer exist. others are in their 50s and 60s still serving time for things they did as teens or young adults when the law didn't require consideration of youth as a sentencing factor. one of our first client, for example, was released at age 64 with third stage lung cancer. still serving time for a crime that happened when i was 19 years old, 44 years ago. with all parties agreeing his claim is innocent may be taken, because of folks like this, last year we helped draft and pass assembly bill to strengthen this recall and resentencing process. also last year, the state

legislature passed a few bills that in combination allocated $50 million to all counties, statewide in total, $50 million. each county receiving allocation catching up to where we were working on in san francisco. this is the first of two state allocations that will come before you this season. it's earmarked for the work that the freedom project does working to correct these unfair and inequitable sentencing. we'll hire paralegal to allow us to reach more people reunite more families and rebuild more communities to bulk up as well our ability to follow folks once released to help with all the things a person needs when they come out of prison after a long time from housing employment to

obtaining phone and personal items to securing benefits obtaining identification, accessing healthcare. i hope that serves helpful summary. this expenditure request. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chair haney: thank you for your work on this. this is incredibly important. i know as a continuation of the leadership of our public defender's office and innovative approaches to reducing mass incarceration and leading on justice reform and making sure people get the justice and representation they need and deserve. do we have a b.l.a. report on this item? can we open to public comment please. >> operations, checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, press star 3 now.

>> no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is closed. i want to make a motion to move item 8 to the full board. >> clerk: on that motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. [roll call vote] we have three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you. please call item 9.

>> clerk: item 9 is an ordinance the de-appropriating $85,000 to the department of children youth and families and reappropriating $85,000 to the department of public works for street maintenance and cleaning for fiscal year 2021-2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2480 057 1739. press pound twice. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. >> chair haney: thank you. we have very own vice chair safai on this item. >> supervisor safai: in the flesh. thank you, chair. this is a pretty straightforward de-appropriation and

reappropriation. we had money that we're going to do something in partnership with dcyf that will not happen this year. we are trying to finally get a free clinic built and there was very unusual discovery as part of the project that there was an underground stairwell in the past that the electrical transformer needed to be built. thank goodness we have this money. this is going to be filled. it will allow the clinic to get electricity in a expedited manner. it's been a arduous process through pg&e and public works and d.b.i. it has been unbelievable. thank goodness, this $85,000 is there. i need to read some amendment into the record.

it's very straightforward. page 2 line 22-23. we're going to strike 207990dpw/operations and add 229840dpw operations. page 29, strike 60, 70 programmatic project add building structure and improvement. age 3 line 2-4. add 20694. you all received these amendments. the clerk distributed them. appreciate your support.

i make a motion to accept these amendments and send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair haney: great. before we take that, can we go to public comment. >> clerk: operations, just checking if there are any callers in the queue. member of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, please press star 3 now to be added to the line so speak. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. >> we have no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is now closed. can we take a roll call vote please.

>> clerk: on the motion by vice chair safai oaccept the amendment. [roll call vote] we have three ayes. >> chair haney: thank you. now can we move this to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. roll call vote please. >> clerk: on that motion to forward to full board. [roll call vote] we have three ayes. >> chair haney: great. thank you. thank you vice chair safai. mr. clerk, please call item 10. >> clerk: a hearing on the ongoing staffing shortages at

san francisco general hospital members. public who wish to provide public comment, should call (415)655-0001. meeting i.d. 2480 057 1739 press found twice. please dial star 3 to line up to speak. you may begin your comments. >> chair haney: thank you. this is an item that supervisor safai and i called. we are going to be continuing it. can we take public comment. >> clerk: yes. operations checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, press star 3 now to be added to speak.

>> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair haney: public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to continue this item on budget and finance committee meeting on march 2nd. >> clerk: on that motion to continue this hearing to the march 2nd meeting. [roll call vote]. we have three ayes. >> chair haney: we will hear that item on march 2nd. are there any other items today? >> clerk: that concludes your business. >> chair haney: great. this meeting is adjourned. thank you.

>> i am so happy. african-americans in the military from the revolutionary war to the present, even though they have not had the basic civil rights in america. they don't know their history. in the military the most sacrifice as anyone in this country to be willing to lay down your blood and fight. i believe that all african-americans have served because they love this country and the hope that the citizens.

>> after my fire in my apartment and losing everything, the red cross gave us a list of agencies in the city to reach out to and i signed up for the below-market

rate program. i got my certificate and started applying and won the housing lottery. [♪♪♪] >> the current lottery program began in 2016. but there have been lot rows that have happened for affordable housing in the city for much longer than that. it was -- there was no standard practice. for non-profit organizations that were providing affordable housing with low in the city, they all did their lotteries on their own. private developers that include in their buildings affordable units, those are the city we've been monitoring for some time since 1992. we did it with something like this. where people were given circus

tickets. we game into 291st century in 2016 and started doing electronic lotteries. at the same time, we started electronic applications systems. called dalia. the lottery is completely free. you can apply two ways. you can submit a paper application, which you can download from the listing itself. if you apply online, it will take five minutes. you can make it easier creating an account. to get to dalia, you log on to housing.sfgov.org. >> i have lived in san francisco for almost 42 years. i was born here in the hayes valley. >> i applied for the san francisco affordable housing lottery three times. >> since 2016, we've had about

265 electronic lotteries and almost 2,000 people have got their home through the lottery system. if you go into the listing, you can actually just press lottery results and you put in your lottery number and it will tell you exactly how you ranked. >> for some people, signing up for it was going to be a challenge. there is a digital divide here and especially when you are trying to help low and very low income people. so we began providing digital assistance for folks to go in and get help. >> along with the income and the residency requirements, we also required someone who is trying to buy the home to be a first time home buyer and there's also an educational component that consists of an orientation that they need to attend, a first-time home buyer workshop

and a one-on-one counseling session with the housing councilor. >> sometimes we have to go through 10 applicants before they shouldn't be discouraged if they have a low lottery number. they still might get a value for an available, affordable housing unit. >> we have a variety of lottery programs. the four that you will most often see are what we call c.o.p., the certificate of preference program, the dthp which is the displaced penance housing preference program. the neighborhood resident housing program and the live worth preference. >> i moved in my new home february 25th and 2019. the neighborhood preference program really helped me achieve that goal and that dream was with eventually wind up staying

in san francisco. >> the next steps, after finding out how well you did in the lottery and especially if you ranked really well you will be contacted by the leasing agent. you have to submit those document and income and asset qualify and you have to pass the credit and rental screening and the background and when you qualify for the unit, you can chose the unit and hopefully sign that lease. all city sponsored affordable housing comes through the system and has an electronic lottery. every week there's a listing on dalia. something that people can apply for. >> it's a bit hard to predict how long it will take for someone to be able to move into a unit. let's say the lottery has happened. several factors go into that and mainly how many units are in the project, right. and how well you ranked and what

preference bucket you were in. >> this particular building was brand new and really this is the one that i wanted out of everything i applied for. in my mind, i was like how am i going to win this? i did and when you get that notice that you won, it's like at first, it's surreal and you don't believe it and it sinks in, yeah, it happened. >> some of our buildings are pretty spectacular. they have key less entry now. they have a court yard where they play movies during the weekends, they have another master kitchen and space where people can throw parties. >> mayor breed has a plan for over 10,000 new units between now and 2025. we will start construction on about 2,000 new units just in 2020. >> we also have a very big

portfolio like over 25,000 units across the city. and life happens to people. people move. so we have a very large number of rerentals and resales of units every year. >> best thing about working for the affordable housing program is that we know that we're making a difference and we actually see that difference on a day-to-day basis. >> being back in the neighborhood i grew up in, it's a wonderful experience. >> it's a long process to get through. well worth it when you get to the other side. i could not be happier. [♪♪♪]

>> this is the february 16th, 2022, budget appropriations committee meeting. i'm matt haney, chair of the committee and i'm joined by president walton, supervisors safai, ronen and mar. mr. clerk, do you have announcements? >> yes, mr. chair. the minutes will reflect that committee members participated in this remote meeting through video conference to the same extent as though physically present and public access to city services is essential and invite public participation in the following ways. public comment is available on every item on the agenda and on

cable and website is streaming the public call in number. each member will be allowed two minutes to speak, opportunities to speak during public comment period available by calling 415-655-0001 with the meeting id 2480 057 1739. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 7 to be put in line. you may submit public comment by e-mailing myself brent jalipa.

and any items that acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor's agenda march 1st unless otherwise stated. mr. chair, that completes my comments. >> thank you. we have our first item, which is item 1. >> clerk: item 1 is a resolution adopting a fixed two year budget

cycle for fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 defining terms and setting deadlines. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, should call 415-655-0001 and enter 2480 057 1739. press pound twice and then star 3. >> supervisor haney: thank you. we have ashley from the mayor's budget office. welcome back.

>> they had fixed two year budgets in the previous budget cycle and will be part of the mayor's proposed budget which she will introduce may first. happy to answer any questions and we have the controller's office to address technical questions you may have.

>> supervisor haney: i don't have any questions on this item. colleagues, not seeing any unless somebody is reaching for to raise their hand? president walton -- no? okay. can we open this up for public comment please. >> clerk: operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item, press star 3 to be added to the line to speak. those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you can start your comments. >> we have no callers in the queue. >> supervisor haney: thank you. public comment is closed. make a motion to move item 1 to the full board with a positive

recognition and we need a second. seconded by president walton. roll call vote please. (roll call vote) we have five ayes. >> supervisor haney: thank you. something tells me we'll see ashley on the future items on this commission. mr. clerk, please call items 2 and 3 together. >> clerk: item 2 is a hearing to receive updates on the city's

five year financial plan. item 3 is a hearing to receive updates on the mayor's budget fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call 415-655-0001 and meeting id, 2480 057 1739. then press pound twice. if you haven't done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you can start your comments. mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: thank you. all right. >> i'm going to talk to you today about the budget outlook and mayor's budget instructions. mr. clerk, if you could please

give me screen sharing

capabilities. are you seeing a funny version of it with notes? okay. great. okay. so, like i said, i'm here to present the fiscal outlook and mayor's priorities and budget instructions for the upcoming budget. looking back, obviously covid had stark consequences for the budget and local economy resulting in massive revenue

loss and historically high budget short falls during the last two budget cycles. through prudent use of reserves and massive funding from the federal government, we were able to preserve this budget. we took a conservative approach to spending and constrained many costs. the great news, our financial forecast has improved since the time of our last forecast and adopted budget due to a few significant factors and in fact, that forecast has improved so significantly, we are projecting a surplus in the upcoming budget year with modest short falls in the out years. as always, we're mindful of the risks and uncertainties that remain and that could significantly impact the

forecast. for the upcoming two budget years, we project a surplus of $108.1 million. this is really an unprecedented forecast, particularly compared to recent years as demonstrated on this chart and is driven by a number of key improvements. the first being overall growth and available general fund revenues. secondly, we are realizing significant reduction in costs associated with our pensions and lastly, we have made responsible one time investments that don't contribute to ongoing cost growth. in this budget, the mayor will be focused on restoring the vibrancy of the city through clean and safe streets and we'll continue to be focused on the recovery of the economy, residents and workforce and ensure dollars are delivering meaningful outcomes for those

who need it most. after two years of uncertainty and constant adaptation, we have a moment to breathe and evaluate what works, what didn't, what we need more of and what we need less of. unlike past years, there are no mandatory reductions or cut targets but we are not asking departments to grow despite the projected surplus. the focus this year will be on improving service delivery without adding net new costs. now i'll get into a few of the details that sit under the projections and five year financial forecast update. so, the budget instructions and forecast are based on our latest financial forecast we issued in january, known as the joint report, a joint publication authored by the mayor's budget office, board's budget and

legislative analyst. the report examines revenue and expenditure trends for the remaining four years of the last five year financial plan 2023-2026. a few key assumptions to note. in revenue, the report assumes strength and improvement in some local taxes, notably property and real property transfer taxes but further weakness in others, particularly are more economically sensitive revenues, business, hotels and sales that signals lingering challenges with economic recovery. the forecast assumes that we utilize federal disaster relief sources, notably fema and american rescue plan dollars over a longer period of time and it recognizes anticipated year end fund balance from the current fiscal year and assumes it is utilized as a source in

later years of the forecast. the forecast applies cpi to open labor contracts, miscellaneous unions will have open contracts starting next fiscal years and safety unions starting in fiscal 24 and it incorporates action by the retirement board to lower our assumed rate of return on pension investments from 7.4 to 7.2% and assumes we pay down our outstanding liabilities over a shorter period of time. and lastly, it makes a number of assumptions around various city wide and department costs including cpi. funding levels in accordance with the adopted capital plan and other updates to known costs throughout the city.

as you can see, the top line here the projected growth is exceeding the projected cost growth or uses line in the first two years of the budget, which is driving that surplus and then you see some modest short falls projected in the out years. this chart illustrates our structural deficit or the fourth year deficit at the time of budget instructions going back to 2017. it is the long-term projected gap between revenue and expenditure growth and we are required to balance the first two years of the projection each budget cycle but long-term financial planning keeps us

focused on longer impacts. you can see the structural deficit was fairly significant, as high as 700 million back in december 2017 but now projected to be about 150 million. why has it come down so significantly? there are hundreds of changes that sit beneath the forecast. the real drivers of reduced structural deficit are growth in overall general fund revenue and significant reduction in expected cost growth, driven by reduced employer pension contributions. the medium blue line, i don't know if you can see my curser

shows that we expected the general fund revenue to look like pre-pandemic. you can see it is growing but modestly. what actually happened to our revenues at that time is this dark blue line. you can see we actually lost about $1.4 billion of revenue due to covid and we're seeing the same recover in the projection, the dotted dark blue line but not to pre-pandemic levels. what is driving the improved revenue forecast, the new sources we're including in the forecast compared to pre-covid such as federal relief dollars and other voted adopted taxes not known pre-pandemic.

it limited initiatives with ongoing costs. one of the biggest drivers of this, reduction in assumed contribution to pension. so this chart seeks to illustrate the change in the pension contribution overtime, what we thought it was going to look like and what we project it may look like now. going back to fiscal 08, this time last year represented by the lighter blue line, we expected employer contributions to be around $400 million in each year of the forecast. in the last fiscal year, our pension investments returned over 30% and as a result, we are

able to recognize the strong investment returns and reduce contribution by about $170 million in the final year of the forecast. just as the market yielded

incredible returns that have driven down the city's contribution to employee pension, any assumed rate of return could drive cost above what is included in the projection. as always, we are carefully tracking to see if there are any state or local ballot measures to impact local revenues and direct new costs. and still subject to legislative changes at the state level, for now we're assuming status quo. it is a significant revenue source for us. we're aware of any changes that may come associated with that. now to a little bit on the mayor's policy priorities and instructions she issued to departments. as i mentioned previously, the mayor's top priority for the upcoming budget will be around restoring the vibrancy of the city and making san francisco a

place people want to come back to, bringing residents, tourists and office workers back to downtown and our public spaces and continue to focus on small businesses and focusing on housing production as a means of economic recovery. the budget, despite the good news is not going to mean growing for the sake of growing and the mayor to be focused on core service delivery, reprioritizing existing resources to things that are working well and accountability and ensuring dollars are being prioritized for the highest and best use and they are delivering results for those who need it most. the mayor instructed departments

not to grow their general fund support but rather repurpose and reprioritize within their existing budget. as i have mentioned, we are focused on improving core service delivery and focusing on programs that work and deliver results and all of the financial information i have shared with you today is focused on the city's general fund, the non general fund departments are expected to balance within their own projections. as you just heard in item 1, the following departments will be submitting a fixed two year budget and then this year the mayor will introduce a subset of non general fund departments on may 1st and those are listed here. and then the full budget will be available and submitted to you on june 1st. as a reminder, per the budget

legislation that was passed a number of years ago, all departments have requirements around public meetings and centralzation of budget documents on the controller's website and we will be back to you before the end of april with a formalized list of budget priorities from the mayor. to conclude, we have improved financial forecast, which is driven by overall growth and our available general fund revenue and significant reduced costs due to pensions. however, there are a number of risks and uncertainties that have the ability to dramatically alter this forecast. for the upcoming budget, we are not directing departments to make reductions but not asking departments to add necessarily but focusing on core service delivery and reprioritizing with

existing budgets and the mayor's policy priority for the upcoming budget will be vibrancy, recovery, accountability and equity. with that, i'm happy to take questions. thank you. >> supervisor haney: thank you. and i apologize for supervisor safai jumping in the middle and taking credit for all of it. now you're on mute. >> supervisor safai: i wasn't taking credit for all of it. your welcome was dedicated to page number 12, pension contributions. we have been working very hard at the retirement fund, which i'm sure you all know, i was just elevated to be the president just recently. very happy about that. we're going to be working really

hard to continue that trend but all jokes aside, we made a strategic decision on the employee contribution rate. we talked and we're making very thoughtful contributions and investments to continue the trend of growth. hopefully we can drive that employer contribution down even further with better returns but it has been a good couple of years. i'm very happy that we are almost this close to hiring our new ceo/cio who contributed to the conversation. the question i have for you was on 216, the budget instructions. particularly the line that talks about no mandatory reductions but don't support general fund increases. we were at a rally about vacant

positions, that is a really big concern. we had a hearing recently, public service and neighborhood safety, it came to our attention that over 500 plus positions in the department of public works were vacant. any of those positions contribute to the mayor's stated goal of trying to, i guess the words you all put, restoring vibrancy in terms of street conditions and we don't have staffing in some of these departments. how are we going to fulfill that goal? the budget related question is, the money is allocated and -- >> uh-huh. >> supervisor safai: what is the plan to fill the positions to help achieve this goal? >> that's a great question. thank you for asking it. so, yes, we are seeing some pretty significant vacancy rates across a number of city departments and in fact, the

mayor's instructions are to fill the vacancies that you have budget for. made that very clear to departments, she wants departments to fill the vacancies. coming out of two years of a budget crunch coming out of the pandemic, we had initially instituted a hiring freeze to help deal with some of the financial uncertainty but now given the improved forecast we have seen, that is no longer the case. that is no longer the situation we're in. we have given expressed direction to departments, if you have budget for positions, you should fill them. and so, i think it's a multi facetted problem we are working to get our arms around to understand how it is we can fill vacancies. i think it is something that will probably be a feature of this upcoming budget, identifying ways to address that vacancy rate. filling the positions is essential to meeting some of the

priorities that the mayor laid out. >> supervisor safai: thank you. that is graduate to hear. i think that's the first i have heard that. that is wonderful. we're going to be working diligently, we called for a working group with hr and public works and organized labor to try to accelerate that process. we'll come back with recommendations. if you can go back to slide 8, i know you were having to go through it quickly. i think that's one of the crucial slides. it talks about baselines and reserves, that doesn't make sense to me. it looks like it says short fall but i know we have money in reserves. >> i can walk you through how the table works.

the table you are referring to shows the year over year change from the prior year. it's not like cumulative total. when you see a negative number in baselines and reserves, compared to the prior year, we're making contributions to baselines and reserves of that amount. so, a negative number is a cost. so as our revenues grow, we have to make increased contributions to our baselines, rules laid out in the charter. >> supervisor safai: okay, got it. >> this is showing general fund contribution to baselines and reserves. it feels like a cost to the general fund because every dollar that comes in, we have to make a contribution according to the charter. >> supervisor safai: and then if

you go to the first line, sources increase and decrease -- can you walk through that line? it makes a big jump from 2022-23 to 26. can you explain that? >> i also have the controller's office who can jump in and make any comments on the revenue. like i said, it's comparing to the prior year, so i don't know if michelle, you want to make comments on some of the major contributing factors to that growth. >> supervisor safai: so this is about sources, the first line, sources increase and decrease. >> positive means that the revenue is projected to grow over the four years of the

forecast. >> it includes new voter approved taxes, so these would include executive compensation, prop i, the increase to the transfer tax rate and we kind of assume that normalizes at a higher level. and also -- >> supervisor safai: what level does that normalize at? what factor do you use for the normal? >> i think we assume about 450 million ongoing but not total for taxes. not just the effect of that measure. but let me get back to you.

recently approved vote measures -- until we have actual results from receipts, our practice is to use the number we put in the voter information pamphlet and in this case, we assumed -- we advised voters in that document that the measure would be approximately 100 million per year. we assume 60, 80, 100 and 100 million for this forecast. >> supervisor safai: great. >> and completely eliminating the payroll tax and had slight increases to different industry gross receipt tax rates and

overall projected to slightly increase revenue. >> supervisor safai: thank you. those are my two big questions. assuming the growth from sources, you have the baseline contributions, what is the -- then when you factor all those in, the final line of projected cumulative surplus is what you believe ends up being after all of the things are factored in. so salary and benefits takes quite a bit and baseline reserves takes quite a bit and then we're left with what you are projecting a couple years out, $150 million short fall? >> that's right.

>> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. that's all my questions for now. i know colleagues have other questions. >> supervisor haney: thank you supervisor. president walton? >> president walton: thank you supervisor haney. this is like a question and statement. i guess if we look at the budget forecast for say the past six to 10 years, it seems that every so -- every few years we show a deficit of a large number, but then we always get some great news around budget season where we have surpluses and -- i mean, i'm just wondering if there's a way to forecast differently so we can approach the budget every year from an optimistic standpoint versus doom and gloom standpoint,

knowing that we typically have opportunities during budget season that turn out for the better. >> yeah, thank you for that question. what i would say is we are constantly updating the forecast using the information we have available to us at the time. and, you know, given how dynamic the forecast can be, it is precisely why we update it so frequently. this forecast we put out in january, we're going to update again in a couple of -- we're already in the process of reevaluating it. we have really used the best information we have at the time and then update it with new information as it comes in. >> president walton: i appreciate a lot of the things done during the pandemic to increase revenue and obviously as volatile it could be in the future, it is something helpful

to us here in the city for the last few years. thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor haney: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. i was giggling as supervisor safai was asking his first question, it was like he was reading my mind and i had flashbacks to last year's budget where we agreed more than we had ever agreed. they stay open and unfilled for years. so i am glad to hear that's a priority this year. i'm just wondering if there's any departments where that

general advice differed slightly. for example, you know, whether it's public works or behavioral health -- is there any area where the mayor is saying in general, we don't want you to grow the budget, look for savings in other areas to the extent you want to add anything new, but for this one major priority, i'm actually asking you to grow your budget in this targeted way for x reason. and the biggest thing that comes to mind are the issues that we all deal with every day, cleanliness of our streets, homelessness and the continued reform of the governmental health system. >> thank you for that question. the mayor did not issue any instructions to one department or another to grow. however, i expect over the

course of the next couple of months, based on the mayor's priorities and just frankly affordability, there will be investments in certain areas but no one department was given different instructions other than what i have presented to you today. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. >> supervisor haney: i wonder if there's anything you can share about and maybe the controller's office about anything we know or how you're thinking about that source of revenue.

>> this is an area of greatest uncertainty to me. the information we have to form our projections is pretty limited at this moment. we do rely heavily on experience of preparing tax bills and going out and doing their work. and what a measure could bring in. in this case, it's -- there's not a whole lot of -- not very much to go on out in the world in terms of other jurisdictions doing this exact thing. i think there's a lot of learning to do. but as a practice, we have included in the projections the information we provided in the

voter information pamphlet. >> supervisor haney: thank you. i anxiously await the first year of us collecting those and see what we learn from it and making sure it is effective. supervisor mar and then back to supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i had an answer to your question. i just got a briefing on this yesterday. sorry -- i was multi tasking. my understanding is that we are including $60 million in the second year. >> supervisor haney: that's my understanding. and then the third year, we're saying 100 million. >> supervisor ronen: okay. yes.

>> supervisor haney: supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: yeah, i just had a few additional questions. actually first of all, i wanted to just say that yeah, it is obviously very encouraging and helpful to see the budget, the fiscal forecast being presented right now, especially given what we dealt with over the past few years with such a huge deficit at this time. and now projecting an actual surplus over the next few years. so just want to thank the mayor's office and controller's office and all of us for getting to this point. i think we're now looking ahead at a much more hopeful budget outlook. i just wanted to understand -- i had a question around the

structural deficit. i'm looking at the slide on page 9. so it looks like that's showing significant reduction in our structural deficit from the last several years to 149 million looking ahead and i just wanted to see if you could comment on that, the significance of that and i'm just curious what is sort of our goal, our plan around the structural deficit. >> i'm happy to try and take that. your question was to just kind of comment on the structural deficit and our plans, what is our target. every forecast and particularly every budget as we adopt ongoing

solutions, that gets factored in and that's why you see the variation in the structural deficit overtime as ongoing revenues improve or ongoing cost savings. in this forecast, what is really driving that reduction in the structural deficit is the ongoing revenue that we have been able to recognize since before covid. prop i and prop l are included. on the expenditure side of the equation, you see a major reduction in the expected costs due to the reduced employer contribution pension. that is what is happening in the short term.

the goal for the ongoing structural deficit, this is -- you know, i think this is pretty impressive and sort of feels like functionally, in this projection we don't have a structural deficit given how modest it is. so we'll see as part of this upcoming budget to the extent that we adopt ongoing spending without including ongoing revenue to support it. we'll see those numbers creep up. but i think this is -- without a stated policy, a very modest structural deficit like the one we have projected is very helpful and significant for the city. >> supervisor mar: thank you. do you know if there -- or when was the last time we had a structural deficit this low or

was there a time we had no structural deficit? >> i would have to get back to you on that. i know the city has only been doing the long-term financial forecasting since just after the prior recession. we may only be able to see back another 12 years or so. i'm happy to look into it and get back to you. >> supervisor mar: appreciate it. the structural deficit figure, that doesn't include reserves? >> it does not assume any use of reserves that hasn't already been adopted in the currently adopted budget. >> supervisor mar: i'd be interested in knowing the state of our reserves right now, too. i don't know if that is going to be part of another presentation

today. have they grown or declined? >> maybe i can make a global comment and then michelle from the controller's office can maybe comment more specifically. we have modestly used reserves over the last few years. we have been fortunate to not have to have them for the times we really needed them and then have only needed to use a modest amount in the last two budgets. >> i was just looking at our six month report reserve table. i think if you looked at our reserves overtime, you would see

that during the recession, we have drawn on some of our economic reserves in the past couple of years the way they are designed to be used. those would be our budget stabilization reserves. and then in response to the pandemic, we have been kind of each year, we deal with the risks we see coming and so it has been slightly different every year. i would be happy to kind of get back to you with a multi year look at that. we have a significant spend down in reserves in the current year. about 370 million in fiscal year 22 and smaller spend down appropriated in the budget year of about 14 million. so, we are spending them to meet

the needs we see and that spending level should go down overtime. let me send you kind of a table that i think will show a multi year look at it that might be more in tune with your question. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> supervisor haney: thank you. all right. well, i'm not seeing anyone else at the moment. can we go to public comment, please. >> clerk: operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment, press star 3. if you are on hold, wait until the system says you have been unmuted. do we have callers? >> we have one caller in the

queue. >> clerk: thank you much. please begin. >> thank you. good afternoon. so, on items 2 and 3, i agree that the fund balance and projections reflect good fiscal discipline at city hall, both ends, up and down stairs. let's keep up the good work on that. i agree with the central focus on basic services within existing means and not growing programs substantially. i think it's wise to limit salary growth through mou negotiations, not zero but nothing like 10% over two or three years which some agencies are doing as a result of recruitment issues. rather than increasing position fts in departments, i would work to fill human resources and

other vacant positions. vacancies are extremely high, perhaps the highest i have ever seen with huge recruitment and retention challenges in many departments. i believe the controller's office is going to report on that more on item 4. using retired employees through proposition f or other means can help and where there are limitations on that through existing mou's, i would discuss side letters or try to amend the mou's and reduce the restrictions so more use of retirees is possible. there are key areas that require certain certification, skills, experience that simply can't be performed by others and i'm pretty sure not everyone is going to work on the regular day off or overtime and that may result in more critical public

services having staffing challenges. i think the relatively new administrative code requirements have been working well. we could talk about that another time. i do think those have been working well. and finally, how do we get a sense of the decreasing unfunded pension and post retirement benefit cost. i know they are going down but i know both areas are not fully funded long-term and i wonder if it is possible to get a report on where those percentages are and how they are getting closer to 100% funding. thank you. >> supervisor haney: public comment is now closed. i make a motion to file items 2 and 3.

is there a second? seconded by supervisor ronen. (roll call vote) we have five ayes. >> supervisor haney: great. these hearings will be filed. mr. clerk, can you please call item 4? >> clerk: item 4, a hearing to receive updates on the fiscal year 2022-2023 six month budget status report. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call

415-655-0001 meeting id 2480 057 1739. >> supervisor haney: great. we have michelle from the controller's office. >> may i request the ability to share my screen please. can you see the presentation? >> supervisor haney: yes. >> thank you. this is a quick one page summary of the results of the six month

review at the bottom right corner, we are projecting a $32.7 million increase in the current year ending balance from the projections just discussed that were issued in the five year forecast recently. i'll go through the lines and explain the largest changes. improvement in our projected ending balance. on the revenue side, we have a couple of things happening, we have prop i again contributing more transfer tax than we projected at the last look just looking at month to month receipts, increased projection for that. that is off set in part by spending some of the fema reimbursement revenue. i'll talk about more what is

going on in departments, for the most part, there are two things happening. some revenue good news, more significantly sales tax at the state level as well as vacancies and that is playing out in a lot of ways depending on the type of operation we are talking about.

we have seen from prior previous reports it will result in some positions and departments backfilled in overtime and cost of that, probably 10-20 million dollars, not including expenses incurred at the hospitals. this is a look at the general fund, city-wide revenues. a few things to highlight. the changes are marginal, property transfer tax again, larger transactions, fewer large transactions but worth more money each one of them bringing in more transfer tax. and i think initial budget, the projections for kind of the airport and concession revenue from there is on the conservative side and airport has increased the projection part of which comes to the general fund and off set by

spending some of the fema revenue we projected in the five year financial plan. net a slight decrease across the sources. the blue bars are the number of transactions, the number of buildings that sell. the red line is the amount of revenue that the transactions worth more than $10 million represents. blue is the number of sales at that price. red is what they generate. you can see for the first time, the number of transactions is going down -- part of that is just sheer size of some of these recent transactions.

i'll start with the surpluses. in public health and hsa, both are benefitting from higher than projected levels of sales tax. those revenues and projections are from the state budget and they have increased their projections and we brought up ours as well.

at the human services agency, it's combination of increased revenue and that staff is spending their time is different under covid, they don't have to spend much time on medcal eligibility. police and fire departments, reporting a short fall here because the supplemental appropriation that closes the gap is pending at the board of

supervisors. until that is approved, we have a short fall here. generally in many departments including these here. this is the other side of vacancies, we have seen a dramatic increase and shift in cost of workers comp claims. we think some of it is just attributed to folks working longer hours and sometimes working overtime or trying to do more to cover for some

vacancies. this has been touched upon today in the meeting i think, but the city is grappling with a multi year hiring short fall for a couple of reasons. the city shifted all of its energy and focus toward pandemic response and we implemented a hiring freeze, so have those vacancies never filled and then in addition, we have the market we're competing with employers who are also attempting to fill vacancies. market to hiring. and also human resources staff have seen a significant change in what constitutes their job.

they are spending a good amount of time on health and safety measures, checking vaccination statuses, etc cetera, contact tracing, you name it. so much of the work has had to shift towards those activities for the emergency response that everything has had to wait and i think that's part of the reason as well. a note about our emergency response budgets. the current fiscal year to date, we have budgeted just under $165 million to departments and it assumes the project before

the board, we assume that is approved and that will fund this program until the end of the current fiscal year. in addition, as our office notifies you monthly of any kind of emergency appropriations made, the mayor has appropriated $7.4 million for outreach and ambassador expenditures at the department of economic and workforce development and emergency management has shifted $2 million from the covid emergency to tenderloin emergency. eluding to some of the uncertainties we face, the pandemic will determine what happens in our economy and our finances as well. we continue to see uncertainty

in hotel taxes and i'll talk about that in a second. we'll do a close look in the next forecast for the update to the five year fiscal plan looking at property tax, and also big focus on updating the business projections and return to office and sort of continued high level of work from home. we have the forecasting conference coming up and we're going to use the input we get from that to rethink what we have projected. >> supervisor haney: all right. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. a couple of questions.

the 2 million that was transferred from the covid emergency to the tenderloin emergency, what was that used for? >> let me look it up quickly. >> i'm happy to explain what i do know. my recollection is that that was $2 million that had been previously budgeted for covid in the department of emergency and so, that was repurposed for costs associated with the linkage center. i would be happy to provide you more specifics unless michelle is pulling them up right now. >> that's what i have. we can follow up with more on

that 2 million. >> supervisor ronen: okay. that would be great, thank you. how does it work with the police and fire overages. are they overages or requests for additional funds for the future. what happens for instance if the board does not approve the supplemental? >> these are projected overages for the current year, given what we can see and so under the charter, the controller has kind of a duty to when there's a recognized short fall, to develop a plan to close that short fall. it rarely comes to pass just because it's a nuclear option,

not the option that policy makers would choose to have -- we're calling it sort of -- it's a plan b because i think the general preference for policy makers to make that call. but our duty is to kind of look at the departments and see any expenditure authority we can freeze, be it for anything unspent to date. this could include closing contracts -- to identify what

is the second option to identify the sources. >> supervisor ronen: what were the drivers of those additional costs that were not anticipated? >> a lot of it -- it's a multitude of factors but i think it is kind of coming back to levels of vacancy at the same time you have a lot of hours for the covid sick pay. especially the fire department. there are fixed posts, so every time you have a firefighter who can't come to work, you have the same shift filled at time and a half. and that is extremely high usage of covid sick pay, perhaps unsurprising given they are high

areas of level contact and nature of the work is not desk work. extremely high uses of covid sick leave. i would say that is probably the biggest factor. >> supervisor ronen: okay. thank you. those are my questions. >> supervisor haney: any other questions or comments? we'll go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you chair haney. we are checking for callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, press star 3. if you are on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that is your queue to begin your comments.

no callers in the queue. >> supervisor haney: public comment is closed. >> supervisor safai: i just wanted to ask one question about the workers compensation claims. are those related to, the process that people put in claims for covid leave? is it related to covid? >> it is but it probably benefits from a longer discussion with workers comp administrator. what i understand from our colleagues at the department of human resources who administer the claims, the first thing they

do is draw down covid sick pay and then other leave they have. when they have exhausted those, you start to see more covid related workers comp claims. that's my understanding. they're linked in that way. >> supervisor safai: that was my understanding, too. i just wanted to see if that was the information you had gotten from the department of human resources. 11.4 million in overages and that was city wide or just departments you show? >> just general fund city wide. >> supervisor safai: just the departments you showed on your slide? >> there's a longer list. >> supervisor safai: okay. that makes sense. what i added up on your slide was 10.8. you said 11.4. maybe those were the main

departments and then a few more that added up to about 600,000. >> exactly. >> supervisor safai: thank you. that was my only question. thank you mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: absolutely. all right. well, i want to make a motion to file this hearing. anybody have a second please? seconded by supervisor ronen. roll call vote please. (roll call vote)

>> supervisor haney: great. this will be filed. mr. clerk, can you please call item 5. >> clerk: item 5 is the hearing to receive updates on the city's economy, financial condition and other issues. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001. meeting id is 2480 057 1739. then press pound twice. if you haven't done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. the prompt will indicate you have raised your hand, wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you can start your comments. mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: great, thank you. and we have ashley from the mayor's budget office to present on this item. welcome again. >> hi chair haney. i don't believe we have any particular update for this item

for this week. this item, i think we'll use in future meetings should any kind of unexpected updates come up that are not -- we don't have a hearing previously scheduled for. nothing more to report beyond the items we have spoken to this week. >> supervisor haney: thank you. colleagues, any questions on this very broad hearing that we'll be revisiting. not seeing any, can we open for public comment please. >> clerk: the operator is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide comment on the item, press star 3 now. those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, that is your queue to start your comments. any members of the public who wish to speak? >> we have no callers in the

queue. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair. >> supervisor haney: public comment is closed. i am going to make a motion to continue item 5 to the call of the chair. can we have a second for that? seconded by president walton. and roll call vote please. (roll call vote) great. this will be continued to the call of the chair and again, i want to appreciate the controller's office and ashley

for your work and work of the staff and we look forward to the budget process this year and this is sort of our formal first step together, having this meeting and we'll see each other much more often over the next few weeks. thank you again everyone for these presentations and for your work. mr. clerk, any other items before us today? >> clerk: we have no further business. >> supervisor haney: this meeting is adjourned. thank you everyone.

>> we have private and public gardens throughout the garden tour. all of the gardens are volunteers. the only requirement is you're willing to show your garden for a day. so we have gardens that vary from all stages of development and all gardens, family gardens,

private gardens, some of them as small as postage stamps and others pretty expansive. it's a variety -- all of the world is represented in our gardens here in the portola. >> i have been coming to the portola garden tour for the past seven or eight years ever since i learned about it because it is the most important event of the neighborhood, and the reason it is so important is because it links this neighborhood back to its history. in the early 1800s the portola was farmland. the region's flowers were grown in this neighborhood. if you wanted flowers anywhere future bay area, you would come to this area to get them. in the past decade, the area has tried to reclaim its roots as the garden district.

one of the ways it has done that is through the portola garden tour, where neighbors open their gardens open their gardens to people of san francisco so they can share that history. >> when i started meeting with the neighbors and seeing their gardens, i came up with this idea that it would be a great idea to fundraise. we started doing this as a fund-raiser. since we established it, we awarded 23 scholarships and six work projects for the students. >> the scholarship programs that we have developed in association with the portola is just a win-win-win situation all around. >> the scholarship program is important because it helps people to be able to tin in their situation and afford to

take classes. >> i was not sure how i would stay in san francisco. it is so expensive here. i prayed so i would receive enough so i could stay in san francisco and finish my school, which is fantastic, because i don't know where else i would have gone to finish. >> the scholarships make the difference between students being able to stay here in the city and take classes and having to go somewhere else. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> you come into someone's home and it's they're private and personal space. it's all about them and really their garden and in the city and urban environment, the garden is the extension of their indoor environment, their outdoor living room. >> why are you here at this garden core? it's amazing and i volunteer

here every year. this is fantastic. it's a beautiful day. you walk around and look at gardens. you meet people that love gardens. it's fantastic. >> the portola garden tour is the last saturday in september every year. mark your calendars every year. >> he is a real leader that listens and knows how to bring people together. brought this department together like never before. i am so excited to be swearing in the next chief of the san francisco fire department, ladies and gentlemen, let's welcome, jeanine nicholson.

(applause). >> i grew up total tomboy, athlete. i loved a good crisis, a good challenge. i grew up across the street from the fire station. my dad used to take me there to vote. i never saw any female firefighters because there weren't any in the 1970s. i didn't know i could be a fire fighter. when i moved to san francisco in 1990, some things opened up. i saw women doing things they hadn't been doing when i was growing up. one thing was firefighting. a woman recruited me at the gay-pride parade in 1991. it was a perfect fit. i liked using my brain, body,

working as a team, figuring things out, troubleshooting and coming up with different ways to solve a problem. in terms of coming in after another female chief, i don't think anybody says that about men. you are coming in after another man, chief, what is that like. i understand why it is asked. it is unusual to have a woman in this position. i think san francisco is a trailblazer in that way in terms of showing the world what can happen and what other people who may not look like what you think the fire chief should look like how they can be successful. be asked me about being the first lbgq i have an understands because there are little queer kids that see me. i worked my way up.

i came in january of 1994. i built relationships over the years, and i spent 24 years in the field, as we call it. working out of firehouses. the fire department is a family. we live together, eat together, sleep in the same dorm together, go to crazy calls together, dangerous calls and we have to look out for one another. when i was burned in a fire years ago and i felt responsible, i felt awful. i didn't want to talk to any of my civilian friends. they couldn't understand what i was going through. the firefighters knew, they understood. they had been there. it is a different relationship. we have to rely on one another. in terms of me being the chief of the department, i am really trying to maintain an open relationship with all of our members in the field so myself and my deputy chiefs, one of the

priorities i had was for each of us to go around to different fire stations to make sure we hit all within the first three or four months to start a conversation. that hasn't been there for a while. part of the reason that i am getting along well with the field now is because i was there. i worked there. people know me and because i know what we need. i know what they need to be successful. >> i have known jeanine nicholson since we worked together at station 15. i have always held her in the highest regard. since she is the chief she has infused the department with optimism. she is easy to approach and is concerned with the firefighters and paramedics. i appreciate that she is concerned with the issues

relevant to the fire department today. >> there is a retired captain who started the cancer prevention foundation 10 years ago because he had cancer and he noticed fellow firefighters were getting cancer. he started looking into it. in 2012 i was diagnosed with breast canner, and some of my fellow firefighters noticed there are a lot of women in the san francisco fire department, premenopausal in their 40s getting breast cancer. it was a higher rate than the general population. we were working with workers comp to make it flow more easily for our members so they didn't have to worry about the paper work when they go through chemo. the turnout gear was covered with suit.

it was a badge to have that all over your coat and face and helmet. the dirtier you were the harder you worked. that is a cancer causeser. it -- casser. it is not -- cancer causer. there islassic everywhere. we had to reduce our exposure. we washed our gear more often, we didn't take gear where we were eating or sleeping. we started decontaminating ourselves at the fire scene after the fire was out. going back to the fire station and then taking a shower. i have taught, worked on the decontamination policy to be sure that gets through. it is not if or when. it is who is the next person. it is like a cancer sniper out there. who is going to get it next.

one of the things i love about the fire department. it is always a team effort. you are my family. i love the city and department and i love being of service. i vow to work hard -- to work hard to carry out the vision of the san francisco fire department and to move us forward in a positive way. if i were to give a little advice to women and queer kids, find people to support you. keep putting one foot in front of the other and keep trying. you never know what door is going to open next. you really don't. you really don't.

>> chair preston: good morning. welcome to the february 17, 2022 regular meeting of government audit and oversight committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am dean preston joined by supervisor chan and mandelman. the committee clerk is john carroll. our thanks to sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk. do you have announcements? >> thank you. the minutes will reflect committee members are participating through video conference as if physically present in a meeting home. the board recognizes public access is essential and invites public participation.

public comment is available on each item on the agenda. sfgovtv cable channel 26 is streaming the call-in number on the screen at this time. each speaker is allowed up to two minutes to speak. your opportunity to speak will be available via phone by dialing 415-655-0001. the meeting id for today is 24910382305. after you enter the id press pound twice to connect to the discussions. your line will be in listening mode. when your item comes up on the agenda dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak for that item. call from quiet location to speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television, radio

or streaming device for today's proceedings. you may submit public comment in writing. send an e-mail to the audit and committee clerk. john.carroll at sfgovtv or send in writing by u.s. postal service to the clerk's office room 244 city hall at 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place 94102. what is commenting on the item on the agenda will be communicated to the board of supervisors and members of the committee specifically. mr. chair, items today are to appear on the agenda of march 1,

2022. >> we have been joined by supervisor mandelman. welcome. go ahead and call first item. >> resolution determining the annexation of property to city and county of san francisco community facilities district 2014-1. transit bay center and determining and confirming annexation process. call the call-in number 415-655-0001 if this is your item of interest. enter id24910382305. press pound twice, press star 3 to enter queue to speak. system prompt will indicate you are unmuted. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. we are joined by and will hear from the controller's office.

i believe my notes say by looking and i am not sure who is presenting. you have 10 minutes on this item. welcome. >> i am going to go ahead and share my screen here. you can all see that. thank you, chair preston. good morning, supervisors. i am the development by nance specialist -- finance specialist. the resolution for consideration before i confirms annexation of 75 howard street in to the city transbay community facilities district and confirms the district annexation process. as reminder in fiscal year 2015, the board of supervisors authorized the formation of the transbay community facilities district or cfd2014-1.

whereby new large developments in the cfd would help fund the transit center and public infrastructure to support growth and development of the neighborhood. as part of the district formation the board approved bonds not to exceed $1.4 billion, of which approximately $514 million has been issued to date. they are secured by special taxes on taxable buildings in the district. pursuant to the joint facilities agreement between city and transbay joint powers, approximately 82.6% of special tax proceeds will be used to finance the transit center. remaining 17.4% to finance capital improvements in the area including streetscape, transportation enhancements and open space. the district and the future

annexation area covering the entire plan area denoted by red outline consists of 14 gross acres downtown san francisco. only those buildings identified in green are currently subject to the special tax levy. however properties within the red boundary that receive a zoning bonus to exceed nine-one are required to annex to the cfd to participate in funding of the authorized facilities. projects utilizing the bonus are condition projects. those already included in the cfd not taxable are in blue. in the future annexation area that need to annex into the cfd are outlined in orange. we are here to request confirmation of the annexation of 75 howard street located on the right of the map into the

cfd. in addition to confirming the annexation of 75 howard street, the resolution confirms the process for annexing into the cfd which was established at district formation. resolution of formation approved in 2014 identified the follow legal requirements to annex. delivery of executed unanimous approval to office of public finance. notice of special tax lean for the annexing property and office of public finance confirms these items are received in accordance with requirements under the resolution of formation. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer questions from committee members.

mark blake, city attorney and director of the office of finance present and available for questions. >> chair preston: i want to thank and recognize our committee members, supervisor mandelman served as currently vice chair, am i correct? vice chair of the board. thank you for your word, supervisor mandelman. questions, colleagues before we move to public comment on this item? supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair preston. i just want to understand a bit of technical and i want to be educated on this. how do we determine these areas that are to be included? the properties to be annexed

into the district? >> those are properties of the future annexation area utilizing the zoning bonus. they are required. [indiscernable] >> i am sorry. what is the zoning bonus? >> exceeding a area ratio of 9-1. >> thank you. let's go ahead and open up public comment on this item. >> thank you. we are working with jim smith from the department of technology checking to see if we have callers in the queue. for those watching on cable channel 26 or through sfgovtv or through wherever please call in by following instructions on your screen.

415-655-0001. id24910382305. press pound twice and star followed by 3 to enter queue to speak. for those on hold in the queue continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. you will be prompted with message that says your line is unmuted. do we have callers in the queue to provide public comment on agenda item 1? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> chair preston: thank you. with no callers in queue. public comment is closed. colleagues, unless there are time questions or comments, thank you for the presentations. i would like to move to send this item to the full board with

recommendation. >> clerk: on the motion that the resolution be recommended to the board of supervisors vice chair chan. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> preston. >> aye. >> there are three ayes. >> thank you, mr. clerk. motion passes. mr. clerk. go ahead and call item 2. >> item 2. hearing on municipal bike share and the budget legislative analyst report released today on public bike share. members of the public should call the call-in number 415-655-0001. meeting id is 24910382305. pound twice to connect to the meeting and press star 3 to speak. system prompt will indicate you raised your hand. wait until you are unmuted. i will repeat before we go the

public comment on this item. mr. chair. >> chair preston: thank you, mr. i do have some remarks before we dive in and some background on this item. last year in coordination in working with san francisco bicycle coalition i requested a report from the budget and legislative analyst to explore public alternatives to the private bike share model. i asked to lay out where we are today with bike share, the options going forward, and what other cities and jurisdictions have done and how they approached this issue and what is their experience. i am pleased today the bla has published their report. we will hear more about this. it is comprehensive. i think extremely valuable in

forming the discussions going forward on this issue. transportation in our city, like in other major cities in this country, is the largest source of carbon emissions we have. how we move folks within our city and region has profound impact not just on environment and reaching our climate goals but also on public safety and quality of life across the city. i think as we struggle to meet these climate goals and vision zero goals, i believe we need to prioritize to the greatest extent possible public control of our transportation system. when it comes to bike share and the reasons that long preside my climate office, we have a private for profit monopoly

system in san francisco and in our region. it has changed hands a number of times. we will talk about the current state of bike share in this hearing. i want to be clear that i don't see this hearing, this report about pointing fingersatic operators or decisions that have been made. they could have been made one way or the other to get us here today. my perspective is looking forward to taking a fresh look at bike share now that we have years of experience that we didn't have when these conversations began years ago and when decisions were made years ago. we can learn from the years of experience we have had as well as experience other cities have had. i want to make sure we are not just defaulting when the current agreements run out that we don't just default to renewing the same system because it is the one we know and are familiar

with. instead we make intentional decisions instead of based on data, facts and experience and what our vision for public transportation more broadly is and specifically around how bike share fits into that. i also want to be cognizant we want a larger bike system. my hope is we can get clarity where we want to head with bike share and also understanding that we will need to take that sense that we develop together of direction we want to head in to regional partners for input and regional collaboration. you know, that said if an elected official in san francisco i think we have to look at our system in san francisco and proactively chart a course. i think as we think about future transportation in our city, we

need to be bold. that means many things. it means embracing streets and continuing to call for full return to expansion of muni lines. it also means dramatically expanding the bike infrastructure including bike share. the current report goes into these issues. i will hear more from bla and m.t.a. i think this model raises significant concerns that are inherent in for profit model regardless who occupies that role. many reasons are more apparent during the pandemic. there are some conflicts in private ownership and operation. those conflicts are exacerbated when the private owner and operator is also the cars or

vehicles that are modes of transportation at odds with bike share. i also think this model lends itself to price increases and confusing structures of pricing and lack of affordability for riders. in addition one of the things that i am concerned about and want to hear more about is data sharing and transparency. another thing that comes along with private for profit controls can be and has shown to be at times lack of ability to get publicly get the information we need to assess the system. i also want to note the context. the pandemic has highlighted the importance of nonmotor rised transport. we have seen people and

colleagues i am sure in your district people have been scared of contracts covid-19 who have retreated or returnedtor many trips in private vehicles undoing a lot of years of progress out of concern for their own health but shifting back away from private vehicles is a challenge after two years of this. the crisis in public transportation now compounded the problem. we need to prioritize to get people back on to buses or bikes or walking in every way possible. a publicly owned bike share system is where the city can own the infrastructure and the programs are privated by nonprofit or private entity. these are significant

opportunities to pursue the goals of equity and affordability and ensure bike share is accessible for all and lining with other planning and transportation priorities. we will hear what other cities have done to take it. i think and certainly i know that other colleagues have positions as well. appreciate supervisor mar was interested in bike share wasn't able to join us. has been carefully monitoring this as well. i think we need to meet the demand for green transportation in the city and part of that is looking carefully at the possibility of municipal bike share plan. i just before i wrap up i want to reiterate that is my opinion. i think there are significant

benefits from municipal bike share. it is not unilateral. for me or under the agreements with m.t.c. for the city. today starts a crucial discussion and in the weeks and months to follow i look forward to engaging in conversations with our labor family and partners, further conversations with m.t.a., colleagues on the board. government stakeholders, public. regional partners, folks at transportation authority which supervisor mandelman chairs. and the m.t.a. and others. i think these conversations will be informed by this report and this discussion today. i really want to thank the bla for their work and outreach to many stakeholders in developing the report. with that, thank you for the

advocates who prompted this, bla for research, m.t.a. for working to administer the program. i want to first welcome the budget and legislative analyst and welcome. 15 minutes for your presentation. >> good morning, chair preston and members of the committee. campbell from the budget analyst. i have a brief presentation on our report on options for a public bike share program. i hope this will come up without a problem. we were asked to look at options for a bike share program in san francisco. this review covers a program that is owned and operated by the city.

one owned or operated by a private organization. it is the san francisco bike share and we looked at programs offered by other cities. san francisco bike share is part of the bay area bike share program regional program administered by the metropolitan transportation agreement. there are two governing agreements. one is the program extending to july 2027. this is between the system operator and m.t.c. the program agreement basic framework for the operator to deliver owned and operate the system. coordination agreement also extends to july 2027. between system operator, m.t.c. and participating cities. it gives exclusive rights to system operator as sole vendor

for the system. san francisco currently makes up 87% of the system. 3600 bikes and 255 docking stations. in looking at san francisco, as you look between the other cities are emeryville, berkeley, oakland and san jose. if you look between august and november 2021. san francisco had 700,000 rides compared to 800,000 rides regionally. a significant part of the system. when the system first started san francisco was half of the system. there is a change. the system is made up of members and casual riders. for members the fees are set the

agreement $13 per month. casual riders are set by the operators. there is no program agreement governing those fees. that is set by the system operator. three dollars unlocking and permanent fee after 30 minutes. fees are discounted for low income households. it is a big shift since we started the pandemic who is riding bikes. in 2017 from were 70,000 riders per month in san francisco. this in 2018. it added bikes. by 2018 there were 160,000

riders per month. in 2020 there was the introduction of e bikes. ridership spiked to 370,000 per month. after the pandemic there was a shift up until then members were the main riders. after the pandemic you see more casual riders. the ridership recovered since the start of the pandemic. casual riders can see a higher number than members. this goes to e-bikes. the increase in ridership when the e bikes were introduced. in 2020 m.t.a. entered the agreement for e bikes in san francisco. there are 200,000 and 1600e bikes in operation in san francisco. even with the reduction of bike ridership since the pandemic,

e-bikes continue to be a higher percentage of the bike rides compared to classic bikes. classic bikes make a quarter of all rides. this is thinking of the future of the program and the popularity of e-bikes. other cities. this shows comparison. san francisco and new york are similar. these systems it is private ownership of the assets of bikes, bike station and the private operations to the contract of municipalities. in washington, d.c., chicago and boston. they are all different. they own the public infrastructure, they own bikes and stations. they contract for operations and for the three cities washington, chicago and boston they are contracting with lift.

montreal is the only city that publicly owns and operates bike share program. if you look at comparison of the cities, montreal which is publicly owned and operated has a higher concentration of bicycles per 100,000 residents and rides. they have lower fees than other cities. the annual fee is $99 per year compared to san francisco $159. permanent is 20-cents per minute. the closer look at montreal the prior bike share system operator in montreal declared bankruptcy. at that time the city of montreal made the decision to purchase the assets. once purchasing the assets they funded nonprofit to operate the system. this is a nonprofit that was set

up by the city of montreal. the city of montreal is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the system. revenues are divided. 50% from membership and fees, 25% comes from advertising anchorporate sponsors. a quarter from the city of montreal. they pay an annual set fee based on the amount of equipment that is provided for the bike share program. the revenues. the city of boston is different. they have public ownership and have a contract with lift to operate privately. one of the interesting things it is air four city consortium.

in 2014-15 lyft said we want to purchase the assets. the city determined to make the policy goals of reducing congestion, carbon emissions it was better to own the system. each city owns the bike stations and becomes and contract with lyft for operations. this is actually made a somewhat different setup than san francisco. this can increase they have control over casual riders. no governing agreement on that. the program agreement governs the rates with increases. in boston they set the rates and maximum rates. they own and supervisor preston they own the data.

it cannot be owned for commercial use if the city controls the system data. in our report we looked at three options available to san francisco. one is city owned and operated bike share program. there would be public funding and acquisition and annual operating cost this. is the montreal model. b city owns assets and bikes and contracts with private operator for operations. this is the model in boston, toronto, washington, d.c. the current operation in san francisco which is the city contracts with the private entity for actual ownership and operation of the system. we did do estimates of potential costs for the city to own and operate the system. a lot of the basics are looking at costs like the montreal

experience. using that as basis for our estimates. we estimate the cost of purchasing assets would be $33.2 million. this is based on a larger system than currently exists in san francisco. right now it is 3600 bikes, 255 docking stations. we looked at expanding to 4500 bikes and 325 docking system. it would be a larger system. operating costs based on the operating model in montreal. it is larger. it is closed several months because you can't ride a bike in january in montreal. we estimated if the city were to staff operations it would be $12 million per year. if a nonprofit staffed $7 million per year. if you look at total annual

costs we estimate with depreciation, replacement and add enough costs and it system, nonprofit organization $13.3 million per year in operating costs. $18.2 million in operating costs. overall the system would be $33 million to purchase, $33.3 million to $18.2 million to operate. revenues based on montreal would be 50% rider fees, 25% public subsidy, 25% advertising anchorporate sponsors. if the city were to go here we estimate subsidy 3 to $4 million per year. i want to point out on the prior slide with montreal, montreal's actual cost to the riders are much, much less to san francisco.

ninety-nine dollars compared to $159. it is a big difference. the rationale for public ownership. why? we looked at m.t.c. program and the stated reason. the program agreement states that bike share system is alternative mode of public transportation, part of the public transportation system. the policy goal of bicycle goal is healthy and environmentally friendly and transportation option. considerations for implementation. we think material material model to be if the city wants a public owned and operated system. look at the montreal model with the purchase of the system assets and setting up nonprofit to run the system. in terms of the city of san

francisco specifically there are agreements in place between m.t.c. and lyft that do not expire until july 2027. early termination would require of lyft and participating cities about what their goal would be in an ongoing system. of course, the consideration of the cost of the system. that is the summary of my report. we are available for questions you may have. >> thank you, ms. campbell. i must say it is an incredible report. it was released this morning. most members of the public have not had a chance to fully read it. anyone interested i would urge

you to read it. i learned tremendous amount from it. i appreciate the research. i have a few questions and we will hear from m.t.a. as well. colleagues i don't know if you have questions. a couple things to touch on. the report discussions and i am curious if you can comment on our understanding of the current profitability now or in the future for lyft or the private bike share model. i should say and maybe you can comment on this as well. i understand we are a little limited we don't have access to and lyft does not share some of this data. i think the report really attempts to approximately make

estimates. if you can comment on the data you did have access to and the data question with lyft and you're inning of profitability now and looking forward. >> let me answer that in this way. i talked to other cities that had lyft as operators. the general sentiment in all cities is that it is an issue that lyft does not share data with public entities. everyone was upset about that in terms of lack of transparency. they were operating at a slight profit margin in many other cities. what lyft has claimed and m.t.a. can speak to this. they are losing money in san francisco. the reason they point to that is their claim there is a high rate

of vandalism and theft in san francisco. we can't verify this independently. they sent a graph to me that showed the vandalism cost of new york, chicago and san francisco. not per capital. in san francisco they claim is twice. there were no numbers. you couldn't see it. that is what we know. i think they are probably operating -- my suspicion they are operating at a slight loss in san francisco. >> chair preston: on this data question. one of the densest parts of the report is your many pages of trying to estimate things that frankly they could have sent

over. some of like the current cost of operating the system. i am curious. what struck me in the boston model where the city owns infrastructure and enters into a contract and has more control with what is used with the data. at least there seems to be more transparency. i am curious. what information are we not able to get in your request that you had to work around in the report because you couldn't get that information from lyft. >> lyft did not share any information. that is the case with all of the o cities. even boston s.we did speak to boston. that is indicated as a point of interest. they are the best example of the

municipality that has opted to own the infrastructure. they own all of the hardware. the contract with private operator t.there were more reasons. they wanted accountability and control. they wanted to have authority. boston has had lyft proposed increase. the city has to approve it. the other thing about boston. the laws in boston are such that the city has certain authorities over right-of-way and usage of streets. it would have been very cumbersome for the city and for the operator to have lyft trying to negotiate those things. it is like m.t.a. has certain powers and authorities.

that was part of the consideration. >> can you talk about on the issue. i guess on the issue for the board and other decision making bodies. just the goal of bike share program. i think you phrased it as looking at what the conflict might between a private company operating it and achieving those goals. i think the way it was framed in the report. that is the heart of the question for the public decision-makers. if that conflict does private operation conflict with those goals to an extent where the

public investment is needed? can you elaborate on that? what the goals are and how private ownership can conflict with those? >> it is in one way straightforward. private owner, lyft is motivated by profit, market share, competition with uber. with lyft it is not clear why they are trying to position themselves in this market. there is an obvious conflict of interest. the main business model is putting people to automobiles. it is on the surface a conflict between saying you operate the system to reduce auto traffic. on the other hand trying to

essentially -- uber and lyft claim they want to work with cities. there are questions to be asked. are they in favor of strong public transit system? public transit competes with their business model. they are not in line with that goal long-term of building up public transit system. then the general issue of transparency and accountability. an example is lyft recently made the complicated change with the pricing and rate fees that no one could understand and costs went up. there was a lot of push back. they finally made it a little clearer. they have usually uni lateral power to set the price. you could not do that in boston. in montreal it is a commitment from the public to subsidize the

bike share program to increase ridership. i think while in certain specific cases the interests of the city and lyft can align, i think in a more fundamental sense you cannot assume that to be the case. >> one of the things that has struck me in the report and the history of bike share here that the folks interested given what seemed to be fairly low profit margins if the folks interested in funding the bike share do have that general conflict that exists with private ownership to generate profit and that may not be aligned with consumer interest. the added investment in the alternative? we have noticeable that the main

lines of business are not bike share necessarily. the other thing i noticed in your report that i wasn't aware of is and maybe you can comment on this. our city, and i was struck by this. ridership in san francisco as compared to other cities on page 41 of your report. can you comment on that. how we compare to other cities on the tmc ridership side? >> i am not looking at the page. the next city down is washington, d.c. it is significantly higher. again, the question here is, one, pre-pandemic there was a

growing congestion problem linked to the tmc. would he know that. the other issue here is that bike share is generally seen as the potential competitor to tnc usage. again, it comes back to the point that lyft's fundamental profit center or what they hope for is around ride-based services, fuel based transport. there is this obvious conflict of interest. san francisco is the market potentially. their incentive is not to operate bike share in any way to interfere with the car services. >> that is part of the report

looks like san francisco versus new york in terms of the average per resident. can you also speak related? >> the overlap between the tnc market and the cycling, types of trips. that is another thing that is addressed in the report around that sort of shorter length within the city trips. i am curious to what extent you are able to tell two things competing for the same people on the same trips? is there some kind of segmentation? >> that is a very good question. that would involve a deeper level of analysis.

you would have to really detailed data to determine that. you know, with people going out with friends on friday night all jump on bike share as opposed to tnc? probably not. there are other places where obviously going to work or things like that, yes, it is clearly competitor and alternative. if you are traveling by yourself somewhere, that kind of thing. >> supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i have a couple questions. i want to thank you, chair preston, for asking for this report. it is very interesting. i want to thank the bla for their work on it.

it is interesting that san francisco and new york have chosen or bay area and new york have chosen the most private model and that is not necessarily the standard. there are these other ways of doing it. i am intrigued by this question about the cost to the operator. public or private, and the extent to which theft and property destruction are out of killter. it sounds like lyft is saying that is a major driver of costs in the city. i think you said twice as high as new york. that is not per capital, right? the new york program must be significantly larger, is that right? >> that is what they forwarded.

we had a meeting with them. again, it is the graph. it is fuzzy. there is no actual you can't read and they said this is the total cost. it could be completely fictitious for all i know. this is a repeated story. m.t.a. can certainly peak to this. >> assuming they are not misleading us. i don't see why they would. how much bigger is the new york program than ours? >> i would have to look that number up. probably on the border of twice as large. the new york program if you look is manhattan and brooklyn. >> our vandalism and cost of

theft are twice as large as theirs? >> according to lyft. >> the other question that will come up. it sounds like supervisor preston is pursuing that to go before any decisions have to get made. it seems like one of the issues in going forward with something other than what m.t.c. arranged last time is whether san francisco goes alone or whether there are some kind of regional accommodations or something. it seems like these other -- nobody else has this problem? the other systems are not like overlapping 15 different jurisdictions. >> boston there are now five cities that are part of the

consortium. they are integrated into the system. the difference is san francisco bay area has challenging and unique geography. there are issues pertaining to bike share in san francisco that are not the same as in other geographic areas. >> thank you. >> chair preston: one other thing and you mentioned this. can you elaborate with the staff in the various jurisdictions and i was struck by what seemed like a consensus. not necessarily around a particular model but the current arrangements and some inclination to move for into the public direction.

can you flush that out a little bit for us? >> sure. again, at the level of conveying this and these opinions. everyone i spoke to and i think it is fair for me to say staff at m.t.a. when we started doing this research expressed frustration with lack of accountability, with all of these issues that we have discussed. there is one city. i am not going to name who. but who prompted public ownership and public operating was bad. they thought they were pleased with their model. that was a general sentiment. there is frustration. i didn't uncover any evidence or story or intimation that lyft had ever done anything that was

particularly egregious, you know. i think there are changes in san francisco one of the more problems like that that can occur. it was more a general sentiment they were always dealing with half a deck of cards. they didn't have the policy levers that would allow them to pursue the kind of vision they wanted. i think that was a very strong general sentiment. >> chair preston: i do want to publicly thank the director spent time with you and has offered to talk with us as well as having that conversation to learn more about their experience. i think one of the things in the report and i think this is you interviewing him and characterized them as strong

proponents of the public model of really stating one thing that really stuck with me is the comment that he made about the only disadvantage of a municipal system is the cost. the initial cost of acquiring the infrastructure and the need for ongoing subsidy. as you said, you can break that down. there are many decisions around how much that subsidy is. you have laid out and ms. campbell laid out if we follow roughly the breakdown of montreal. 50% fees, 25% sponsorship, 25% subsidy. then you have the 13-$18 million total operating cost of which 3 to $4 million a year is the subsidy from the city. that is just i don't think --

you don't have to do it that way. you can double-double corporate sponsorships and have lower subsidy. there are decisions around cost. the landscape of the regional negotiation that needs to occur around what if san francisco wants things to go in a different direction what that means upon contract renewal or whenever that discussion happens. any other i wondered in your interview. any other major disadvantages to the public options here beyond the cost and the legal negotiations and buy in that

would need to occur? >> off my head i would say if something goes wrong or people are dissatisfied they will blame the city. it becomes like muni. other than that, no, there are the cost issues. i think that the one thing i would like to say in terms of thinking about this. it is very important to think of it as part of larger comprehensive policy shift like you were talking about earlier. bike share without other changes of dedicated bike lanes, it is embedded in the larger framework. i think that it could potentially make a lot of sense. if you don't have that larger commitment not just to subsidy but policy environment it could be setting something up for

policy failure. that is the main take away from the report. there are a lot of benefits. it needs to be fully supported in a comprehensive way. >> thank you. vice chair chan. >> supervisor chan: i would say that was exactly the point i wanted to make. listening to the conversation and looking at the data that i thought that, you know, in addition to the discussion around the pros and cons of the costs, you know, effectiveness of running an actual municipal bike share program is that we are now talking about what the board just did. about to ask the voters for $400 million of giobonds s.f.m.t.a. we are thinking about prop k

sales tax renewal in our city. some of those conversations we are thinking about connection annette works city-wide. that municipal bike share program, i support it. it is a bit more of a comprehensive part of it for me when i looked at private bike share the pricing for our constituents. the fact where they are located. they are located. [indiscernable] it is to a level where you are thinking about comprehensive activity city-wide and making sure these locations are equitable for our constituents. i would like to see a bit more

comprehensive streamlined coordinated effort to make a bike share program that is for all constituents. that is a worthwhile investment if we are truly one public transit city. bike is part of the public transit. that fulfills that goal. that is when we talk about being a public transit first city. it could expand beyond. bikes is part of public transit system. i think there is a conversation now about streamlining transited and there is an opportunity to talk about that extending to bike share as well. those are worthwhile conversations to be had. thank you so much for your presentation today and thank you, chair preston for leading this conversation. >> thank you.

why don't we hear from m.t.a. at this point. we are joined by adrian for the m.t.a. and expert on all things bike in san francisco. welcome. you have 10 minutes. >> thank you. i am adrian. thank you for analyzing our program. privileged to talk about bike share. the current bike share we have 270 stations in 35% of the city. two bikes, regular bikes and

e-bikes. we are part of a contract with four cities. berkeley and san jose and our own agreement which came later strapped to the original contract. it would be significant cost to exit these commitments. it is useful to see how it serves local and regional trips. the other day the bike share coordinator in oakland mentioned we have added a lot of jobs not housing. a lot of the trips are regional. it gets folks to transit. cars in the city congestion, lower admission and traffic fatalities. less cars on the road. m.t.c. centralized administration enforcing service quality and financial quality. we see the benefits. lower costs and union labor for

the transport labor. rebalances on the street are dependable workers. we are helping workers deserving a reasonable wage. we have seen a wild fluctuation due to the factors. system expansion, pandemic, pricing, new products. we have never been at the state. you can see one take away how ridership parallels growth in product options. with the extension ception of e-bike no extra fees. they had no fees. they are a newer product. they weren't part of the service in 2015. transit bike share is a service. opportunity to recalibrate what it includes. operating e bikes is more

costly. sometimes we see tweets is owned by lyft and expensive. if you don't like lyft ride bike share. we have had a lot of wins. most of the city is within five minute walks to bike share. 7 mitton trips. -- 7 million trips. low price. most affordable mobility around town at no cost to taxpayers. we have had expansion. bike share had unanimous board of supervisors support in 2015 it is slow going with individual districts. i am for bike share not here. decision making in public private partnership is hard. paul talked about this. m.t.a. wants to lower e-bike pricing, lyft needs to cover cost, reduce overhead.

incentives are not allowed. there are national factors theft and vandalism. the city, region and lyft all suffer. upon reflecting on the bla report the existing contracts and agreements and to also study what comes next with the regional effort more assistance from bla. we think there should be a look at supplemental programming, public funding bike he child youth or college age bike share. we need to figure out a sustainable source of finance. thanks for this opportunity to publicly imagine future of bike share in san francisco and the region. we are here to answer any questions. >> thank you for your presentation. just to get clarity on that last

slide when you said the agency recommends maintaining existing contracts. i want to be clear what we are talking about. if there is an existing contract in place through 2027, then that contract will either be renewed for another five or 10 years or not. decision not to renew would need to be made at the mtc level. when you said the recommendation of m.t.a. is maintaining existing contracts. you are talking about not trying to in any way terminate the existing contract through 2027. you are not expressing m.t.a. opinion on whether we should renewspaper the current arrangement beyond 2027. is that right?

>> that's right. >> appreciate that clarification. can you justlaborate on m.t.a.'s power over fees for both the manual bikes and the e-bikes? >> the regular pedal bike. the program agreement sets the annual membership rate. that is tied to consumer price index. it can go up but not in a significant way. the other part is e-bike pricing. there is an agreement for that where m.t.a. approves the

pricing proposal. in the past we had, i think, one or two amendments. during those we have approval power but we are also obligated to allow for financial sustainability operator that is part of the agreement. i really enjoyed the national other systems. across the board the bike share industry especially public side recognizes station less bike share and e-bikes add to the costs. places in new york city don't have any station less bikes right now. their systems are a little more predictable. operating costs are controlled. both of those assets we have which allows us to be city wide

have added to the overall costs. >> good morning, supervisor. streets with s.f.m.t.a. e bike pricing is complicated. it was not derm understand the original 10 year contract that did provide the right of first offer to lyft to provide e-bikes. whereas lyft basically there were no other options beyond lyft who could provide the bikes. in san francisco it went to court and in san francisco. [indiscernable] we are in a situation where the

regional agreement mandated lyft was the only provider but didn't provide the pricing. that is a 10 year contract that it did not determine the e bike pricing in the same way as pedal bike pricing. >> i understand there is a separate contract around implementation on the e-bikes that doesn't necessarily line up in timing with the broader agreement through 2027. we are looking at the e-bikes separate agreement and maybe either of you from m.t.a. can clarify. that runs through the end of 2024. >> that's right. they run through 2024. it is also separate and entangled with the regional contract. they hinge on the same key

performance indicators, service level related. service coverage area metric where bikes are supposed to be distributed across the city in stations and with the station less vehicles. they are easy to access. all of a sudden you have the metric using both where the stations are and the station less stations are. those are tied together. >> we have the opportunity to renegotiate the e-bike contract in 2024 but because of lyft regular first offer the only entity to negotiate within 2024 is lyft. we can renegotiate or reconsider the contract when it is up in 2024. >> got it. can i ask you. i am curious at a staff level do you engage with the staff and ask the other programs that have

been outline understand the bla report? i think that we are in such a different place than we were when the discussions five years or so or more happened. there is so much rich data out of other jurisdictions. are you in contact at staff level regularly? if so with which jurisdictions? i am particularly curious i am seeing nodding. i assume the answer is yes. does that cross into canada, material material. montreal? >> san francisco is a founding member in the industry professional group. national american bike share and scooter share organization. we have been a member.

we have good relationships with a lot of cities. it does include canadian cities. the once we talk to most have lyft operators to compare notes on products and the direction those cities are going. i would say bike share is in a very strange time in terms of the industry development. it is just changing so rapidly over the last decade in terms of what is relied upon. it was a real estate market that used advertising as revenue source. then it became sponsored model then sort of start up decision. there is a huge 2017 boom. we have been through a lot of phases. comparing with other cities. we regularly talk to new york

and chicago. we have been talking more to boston lately. we don't talk to as much canadian cities. as you can imagine the funding principles in those cities are different. there is often different geography. they run bikes nine months of the year. also, the ideas of funding models and revenue sources is radically different. >> i am sure we have some folks who want to weigh in from the public. let's open this item up for public comment. >> thank you, chair. we continue to work with the department of technology. i understand we have 20 callers

listening. eight have raised hands to speak. if you wish to join them, you can dial 415-655-0001 id24910382305 to join our meeting. after the id press star 3 to enter the queue to speak. for those already on hold in the queue please continue to wait until you are prompted to begin. your line will be unmuted. first caller, please. >> good morning, supervisors. district 6. i would like to thank the bla for the report and supervisor preston for leadership on this issue. we have seen how essential the

bike share system has been and how effective it is to get people to try greener points of transportation. a couple of comments. existing system is regional. it is important whatever we do here doesn't leave neighbors in the east bay and san jose behind. what is equitable for san francisco is not necessarily equitable for oakland. stabilizing the financial viability. we should develop a public ownership plan for the region. we have the most expensive bike share system in the world. report discussions the problem of utilization. it is important to ask if the high prices are the cause of low ridership. when e-bikes didn't cost extra they are tremendous ridership. between now and 2027 we should

give considering to addressing the high cost such as subsidizing the current system and seeking to avert future price increases by lyft. third, if the city owns the assets they need to address theft and vandalism and protect the property. the new bike systems has been subject to uses of delay. community input is important but we shouldn't allow the loudest voice in the room to delay this important city of transportation initiative for years. we need to ensure new bike share stations are installed without further delay. thank you. >> thank you for sharing your comments with the government audits and oversight committee. next caller.

>> good morning. david alexander. district 1. i am on the board of the bike coalition calling on behalf of my work with the family transportation network. thank you, chair preston for your leadership and the work on the topic is mine blowing. as moderator of webinar a few months ago about this topic. the regional experts it is on youtube under rft cam. the cost of selling a public subsidy to voters in san francisco is on our streets right now. i ride every day, my family rides every day. each night we talk about experiences. it is hostile for families. we need better infrastructure. it is too dangerous right now on

valencia. we need to get better infrastructure in the city to see a boom of rider to support this public subsidy. no protected bike lanes in district one. we are battling. we need leadership. i do support supervisor chan's comments during this hearing. thank you so much. have a great day. >> thank you for sharing your comments. next caller, please. >> good afternoon, chair preston and supervisors chanand mandelman. christopher light. program director at the san francisco bicycle coalition. i want to thank you for taking up this question of making bike share system publicly owned. i know there is a lot of complexity associated with this question. when the san francisco bicycle coalition began the bike share for all campaign with regional

partners in 2015, it was because we believed the absolute core value of the bike share system must be affordability, access and equity for all. we are glad that in the intervening years the ideas we supported and the name of the campaign were adopted to the current system. affordable programs are important, education is important, geographic distribution and maintenance are important. it would be hard to say affordability access and equity are core values of the current system. under ownership by the publicly traded for profit company other values compete. the shareholders have different priorities than city residents. i know the lyft and m.t.a. work together to align values and priorities. public need is caught in the

middle. i look forward to learning more in the weeks ahead. i want to highlight something that has come up several times. in the bay area bike share it was a regional one. the recognition there are deep regional needs for equitable access to sustainable transportation. please do continue to hold the regional needs in your mind as you consider options and have conversations with regional agencies to apply this regionally as well. thank you again. >> next caller, please. >> good morning. i am parker day, district 3. supporter and user of bike share. i have been a member of 8 years now. taken 2000 rides.

i found that a good bike share system should be reliable, affordable. it should compliment transit residential and business. it should have as few barriers as possible. it improves the community. it pushes back against the negatives that come with a region choked by cars. this is falling short. that is not surprising. it will never reach potential that bike share can provide if the primary focus is profit. look at the e bike rides in february 2020. it is like the ridership numbers were on a rocketship. there is a ton of demand if the price is right. this is before the pandemic. new pricing took effect and ridership fell off a cliff. it has gotten worse, pricing has. if i am going on a two mile trip

it is less expensive to take a lyft car than two lyft he bikes. that is not right. something needs to be done to move to a better bike share with free transfers on transit, affordable for everyone and goes to every corner of the region. it is obvious it will reap benefits for money invested in our bike share system. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> i moved to ok -- oak land ine past month. i think the bikes should be

accessible and affordable to all especially in chinatown and other neighborhoods. bike share system with e-bikes could transform the way people get around this san francisco and regionally. to that i would stress the government needs to work to make sure the bike network is for all. the regional strategy can be critical for equity across the region. thanks for taking on this climate action decision now we can create this for san francisco and in the bay area. i would like to have a better bike infrastructure system. sometimes they are on columbus way from north beach late at

night. coming from work to go to the mission area. it is what i don't like to see. [indiscernable] thank you for your time. have a great day. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hi, i am jay. i am a resident and i am on the expenditure advisory committee for d1. i want to call a couple things. one is cargo bike share and add andadapted bike share. other cities berlin, santo monaco with the family cargo

bike share available to families. they all have pilot programs for bike share that they will have zero interest in fostering in the city. i have been asking for a cargo bike share program to be part of the discussion since attending the permit workshop in 2019. second, for adaptive bike share one day each week in golden gate park does not represent what we should be doing in the city. lyft is not interested in more than what they are doing now. it is limited. five bikes for the entire city. please hold public input like available in milwaukee.

there is a program in 2017. same requirements for the bike share that you are applying to the scooter companies offering mobility as percentage of fleet available to all users in the city. thank you. i am done speaking. >> next caller, please. >> thank you. great work, staff. thank you to the supervisor for bringing this forward. i am cliff barger in potrero hill. i get around san francisco on bikes and muni. my own bikes and bike share. i have been a member since they opened the station around the corner from my apartment. for the last several years i was the chair of the caltrain bicycle advisory committee.

i recently became vice chair. my recollection is that fourth and king had the most trips to and from by bike share within the city before the pandemic. i strongly support the goals of municipal bike share. it is important as others noted we don't leave behind our regional neighbors. particularly as the now former chair of caltrain. it is clear to me how caltrain is going to struggle to get people to and from without a regional bike share. i hope that if we can get something throughmpc to work to expand beyond just the center of san francisco and oakland and berkeley but regionally the cities that haven't been able to attract bike share vendors.

please keep pushing for more accessible bike share. i know as someone who is able to afford membership and sometime willing to pay for e-bikes it is a transformative way to get around the city. i know sometimes there are costs that can deter a lot of riders. we need to make the roads safer and make e-bikes more affordable to get people around san francisco to show them a better way to get around town. >> sorry to cut you off. we have to limit all speakers to two minutes to make sure we are hearing for everyone for the same amount of time. thank you for sharing comments with the committee. next caller, please. >> this is laura district 9. i don't have much to add. i support the bicycle coalition

platform. it is important for us to get a bike share program that everyone can use. that is all. >> thank you. next caller. downtown community organizer for the bicycle coalition. thank you supervisor preston. the possibility of bike share is one we support. if we do it right we believe it can break down barriers to make it more affordable to underserved communities who don't have resources to access current system. as one born and raised in tenderloin and education in the neighborhood. i run up against folks wanting to be intentional about

sustainable modes of transportation but no space to store the bike or scooters. tenderloin has the lowest rate of car ownership. the majority rely on muni or walk. bike share would be suitable. it is not considered due to the miss true of for profit companies, lack of education and barriers of accessibility. the decision to move towards the municipal system is a few years away. we have supported bike share since day one. it is accessible, affordable and al luring for all in san francisco and complimentary to public transit. we look forward to working for a model that is supported by the most vulnerable communities because they are most impacted by climate change.