>> please mute yourself if you are not speaking. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> vice president tam. >> vice president tam. >> is here. >> commissioner alexander-tut is expected. commissioner bito. >> here. >> commissioner eppler. >> here. >> commissioner moss. >> here. >> and commissioner sommer. >> here. >> we have a quorum and next is the land acknowledgment. >> i'll speak to that. the building inspection commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral

homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with the traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities a tz care takeers of this place as well as for all people who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the relatives of the ramaytush ohlone and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people. >> thank you, commissioner. for members of the public who are calling in to listen, public comment call-in number is 415-655-0001. the access code is 2487 035 0988. and to raise your hand for a

public comment on specific agenda item, press star 3 when profrmented be i the meeting moderator -- when prompted by the meeting moderator. item 2, discussion and possible action on proposed budget of the department of building inspection for the fiscal year 2022/2023 and 2023/2024. >> why don't i hand it off to you there. thank you. good morning, good afternoon. >> you are on mute there. you should have the presenter duties. >> i am going to share my screen. can everyone see my screen? is it the full screen?

>> we don't see it yet. >> okay. >> i have to share. >> it is there. just make it larger. >> the one with something next to the slide. >> let me just switch. >> how about now? full screen? >> yes. >> okay. thank you, everyone. two years and i am still getting the hang of this. good afternoon, commissioners. deputy director for the

department of building inspection. and today is the budget meeting for the proposed 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 budget. let's get started. so just a recap at our first budget meeting we discussed budget basics and financial outlook, mayor's instructions and priorities. dbi priorities and as well as department revenues and expenditures and detailing the changes. at today's budget meeting we want to do a recap of the funding priorities and then we're going to get into more details and look at the budget at the division level and the section level and go over next steps and of course, we will need the big approval to submit the budget. so similar to all of our other budgets, basically our funding priorities are based on the strategic plan goals which focus on the core services of

reviewing plans and issuing permits, performing inspections and delivering high level customer service, implementing efficient and effective administrative practices an engaging our stakeholders. the budget will focus on the items and by doing that we are aligning ourselves with the mayor's instructions. this year the instructions are to get back to basics and focus on improving core service delivery with existing resources. and we discussed the way to do that is that the budget focuses on staffing and training. and we will continue to fill the vacancies and increasing training with a lot of department wide trainings and job specific professional development. we're going to be doing technology upgrades and focussing on equity to target the funds and also continuing to do education and outreach.

the new information is going to be the budget organization in the budget at a detailed level and the expenses at a high level. and this way we're showing you exactly how the divisions work. permit services, inspection services and administration. under these divisions are the different sections that are under the divisions. let's start with revenues. with the revenues here, projecting about $57 million in revenues. the first thing i want to bring up is this is a little bit different than what is in the your packet and presented on the january 26 meeting.

commissioner alexander-tut inquired about the vacancy and all the revenues we discussed at the first meeting is based on the six-month report of the current year. we will be adjusting these. based on the six months we had came up with a lower number for all of these. over the last week, i have had an opportunity to meet with the code enforcement section and we are really going to be beefing up code enforcement here bumped up over $140,000. the vacant building vacancy is bumped up to about $140,000. that is why now we're about $57 million. the revenues by division and administration at 2.8 million. inspection services 32.3 million. this is how that kind of looks.

inspection services from 56% and administration with 5% of the revenues. for inspection services, and i will be going back and forth to see the numbers, too. we are looking better for a lot of things and projecting almost $4 million than the current year budget because of increases and building permits and electrical permits. that is inspection services. for permit services we are at 39% or $22.1 million and that is due to primarily our major revenue source which is planned checking revenue. you see here to go from $16.1

and that is the increase there. for administration, we are projecting a decrease and that decrease is because of interest. we really don't have much to do with this interest and normally do what we collect in the prior year as the next year's budget. we don't have a lot of insight is that we are discussing for now that the revenues are declining and with the revenue declining quicker, we have had revenues declining as early as 18-19 the revenues were declining. a lot of times what was actually helping us is that, for instance, if you go back, that

was made up of a code enforcement case. and so it kind of covered the actual charges for services because we were making up funding in other places. what is happening with the pandemic is the revenues have declined and interest and other things that are helping to make up the differences is going away at the same time. i will stop here if anyone has questions on revenues. >> through the chair, real quick, i know you are mentioning that the revenue is declining here. is there any protocol or plan in place to replenish the revenues? just so if we keep going in this

route, is there an action to bring us into the green here? >> i don't know why i am echoing. >> put yourself on mute, commissioner. try again now. so there is a plan. the plan is going to be that first and foremost we want to make sure that we are frugal with the fee payer's money and looking at the expenses to go over that in the next slide. and making sure that we are with the money and the perform. and that is on the expense side. on the revenue side n2015 we actually had a fee reduction. and as a part of that fee

reduction, we were to do a fee study within five years. and we were actually going to do that earlier, but it became the middle of the pandemic. and conducting a fee study to right size our fees. we want to right size our fees based on the expenses, too. that is where we are. we will not allowed to spend more than we have. we will be addressing that. and dbi is with a little general fund now to supplement, but 99.9% fee covered.

>> through the chair, may i ask a question? >> i can't read this very right -- i ask now and i am comparing. the biggest revenue streams are inspection services and permit services, right? >> and just as a general statement and i would say more projects means more fees and turning around those projects and expediting the projects would actually help that revenue stream, would it not? >> more projects will mean more fees, correct. >> related to the plan and building permits. those are the two largest ones. so these numbers have gone down because the number of permits have gone down as well as the valuation of the permits have gone down over the past few years. at one point we were collecting

$32 million in plan checking revenues. >> through the chair, one more quick question. >> go ahead, commissioner. >> thank you. and so i had a question with regard to the other department work orders. are those -- how are those payments collect and when are those collected? do we give them credit with the operating expenses. >> can you mute? >> that is under expenses and generally the way it works is we get billed every quarter from different departments. and that is the way it works. it isn't necessarily tied

directly to the revenues and the work orders providing services to d.b.i. and go along with d.b.i. services. and so the way it normally works is that for the most part we normally won't get work order billings until january or february, so a lot of times when we have our monthly report, i always say, oh, projections, budget, because we really don't have enough information and so normally it isn't until march that we have a good sense of what the expenses are going to be and explain about what the budget is and what the actual expenditures normally happens. we have been lucky that although the revenues have been declining and continue to decline are

extremely conservative in our revenue projections. and on the expense side, we have the budget and expenditure statements. we are not banking on those, but normally is rare that any department spends 100% of the budget because of things that happen. any other ruf questions? i will go on to ex-- any other revenue questions? i will go on to expenses. we just talked about this. here we have expenses by division. and there are also sections underneath it and this gives you an idea with inspection services

and we are at $91 million. and at $91 million with new revenues that are coming in. so just to go over a little bit of $25 million, yes, and is the administration is higher department wide things that are in administration. that is all work orders that are still there and you see management information systems at $9.6 million. and we budget everything there and that is for everything throughout the department. this supports permit services. and you see higher numbers there. go to the pie chart.

52% of the budget and equals $25 million and $27 million of the budget. inspection services if i go back pretty much remaining the same and $194,000 increase and is doing the stadium from the adopted budget pretty much. and inspect for administration and $1.1 million and that has a lot to do with, for instance, a large amount in the director's office. that is actually attributed to the things we talked about before focussing on training and strategic planning and improving the strategic plan and doing more outreach and that is why you see that increase there.

the permit services is going up $1.8 million from the adopted budget. here is the pie chart. you can see inspection services and cost the most and bring in the most money. not cost covering now and inspection services and to take into consideration and even when we have our fee study and whoever selects the fee study, those are the kind of things they look at that are ordinarily code enforcement and housing inspection and not necessarily a 1:1. we are doing that with the

health and safety reasons and it doesn't mean you will capture all the cost. this is going back to the overall department because i don't think i shared this on january 16. salary fringe is the bulk of it and the next largest is the work orders. material rs and supplies are limited. the grants and the community-based organization partner. those are our partners and we fund and help housing and they help with code enforcement and with the professional services training and this is overhead and that is charged to the

department so because the work orders are a large part of the budget. to go back and the proposal now and increases that are there and what we discussed at several of the meetings is we will be working with the departments to see $25 million and in 2021 and given that there are savings, we want to go back to work with the

get in line and understand fully all what is covered. and that will be the focus of what we are working on to get the number down and going forward $25 million in work orders will not be sustainable. >> any have other questions on work order? >> i'm sorry, thank you. >> here are the next steps. we need to get approval for the budget today and working with the departments on the city departments to lower the work orders to get close in line from the current fiscal budget and

reviewing at $91 million budget and $57 million, we need about $34 million to budget. there is the funding available and if they remain at the levels they are now, in about two years we will have -- we will not be able to address this. however, we're not going to wait for two years. we are working on lowering expenses now. as i said before, we will be looking at time for us to look at a new fee study and there are things that will be happening before reserving are depleted. >> through the chair. >> please go ahead, commissioner bito. >> i couldn't find the unmute button fast enough. i wanted to ask what in 2019,

and we might have asked this question before, but i forgot but the adm permit center and allowing 1084 went from 1.3 million and is now projected at $5 million and projected to be almost $5.17 million. that is one question. i am pretty sure somebody asked this and digital service is at 3.89 which are relatively new work orders. and that is why you see them now to the permit center. in 19-20 we weren't in the permit center. and then 20-21, that is with the two are new and the disability

act and customer service center. >> disability access funding them because they assist us for the work needed for disabled access. and funding a little bit more there, and now going back to the $160,000 in the next two-year budget cycle. that is all the questions that i have. >> can you walk me through the lease pay to real estate column.

>> awe as rent. >> yes. >> the real estate one is a little confusing. if you look at prior years, that will include at 1660 mission and when we moved to new building, that is why you see the code there. if you look at the bottom, real estate services of $7.6 million. are you look at that one, too? >> yeah. i am. that is the amount budgeted in that new department. and went away after that.

that is for everything furniture and everything. there are and the jump is the move and not as dramatic in 2022. that is associated with that move. 650. at one point in 1920, we had a variety of leases that were included here. if you look at this one, this is

basically leases and parking our vehicles in some city stalls and that is why it's gone down and this is handling the parking aspect of the lease that real estate does for our city vehicles. that is from the same property. >> there isn't enough. we park at a different property. awe an i am good. >> you're welcome. >> that is my presentation. i am happy to answer any other questions.

>> commissioner, let's go to public comment and then we can circle back. is there public comment on this i a tem? press star 3 to speak. >> caller, you are unmuted. >> caller: thank you. my name is jerry. and my comments pertain to agenda item 2 materials and the one-page schedule i sent you yesterday. keeping the numbers at a high level, in 2019 the revenue

department was $84 million to look at three-year budgets of expenditures around $90 million which is $15 million more that was spent in 2019 when the revenue was $84 million, not $56 million and not $51 million. the consequence of this as that budget stands now, $106 million operating deficit. d.b.i. is an enterprise department which is 99% reliant on fee. there is the bottom line to

raise by $34 million or cut expenses by $34 million or a little bit of both. one of the questions that i have is how much more is being in the new operation or new location at 49 south van ness, how much more is it than when you were in the mission street location than in 2019? thank you. >> are there other callers? >> two more callers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. land use coalition and i am

calling in to raise serious questions about the proposed d.b.i. budget. there are numerous issues that cannot be summed up in my few minutes of public comment, but i am hoping that these issues that i am bringing up to your attention grab your attention. d.b.i.'s operating reserves are down to about $40 million. how can the management forecast a reduction in revenue without reducing expenses? what happens when there are no operating reserves left? the d.b.i. current expense and staffing levels of 270 full-time employees are not sustainable. forecasted total revenue of $52 million does not cover the forecasted $52 million of salaries and benefit expenses. this is the question is, are

these grants relevant to d.b.i. mission and operation? should the grants be charged to the general fund? how can d.b.i. award the grants while sustaining such huge losses? there are too many questionable practices in the various city's offices and charges $3 million for real estate appraisal. why is the assessor charging d.b.i. for real estate appraisal? the residents of san francisco look to the department to do the right thing before rubber stamping a budget that is not sustainable. i appreciate if the commissioners ask the questions and give the public answers for

the questions that you want to know. >> thank you, ma'am. if you could wrap up your comments. >> are there more callers? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bruce bowen and i would like to express my real alarm regarding the d.b.i. growing operating losses. most extraordinary to me is as i review the supporting material and the proposed power point is boilerplate review funds and balances depleted in two years

based on the apparent complacency has declined on that operating income at a you growing rate and soon to be in excess of $100 million. by aggressively addressing what appears to be a serious impending finance b financial crisis at d.b.i. thank you. >> there are no more callers. >> okay. >> commissioners, we have closed public comment. >> thank you so much, terrace, for generating the slides and all the information to depleting

revenue. as far as you mention in 2015 in the midth of the pandemic that wasn't able to be performed. i would like to know when that fee audit will happen again and what are the findings of that. when that happens, can you please let us know? >> and get a contractor to assist with the fee study. >> how long does that normally take? >> could you mute for a second please? >> thank you. so in 2015, and october of 2015, we reduced our -- we implemented the new fee schedule. and it took a little less than a

year and so we took one fiscal year and by the following fiscal year it is a fee study and work with a vendor to come to the commission and also has to be approved by the building code that will be updated, too. prior to reduction, what are percentage were the fees at that time? >> it ranges. but at a minimum, there was a 7% reduction. and then for other fees, they were reduced 2030, some maybe as high as 40%. at least 20, 25, up to 30%. it just depends on fee. it was a wholesale fee study. it wasn't if we go back to -- i don't know if i am still sharing

my screen, but we have a lot of fees. if you go back to the fees, it just depends on which fees. at a minimum, at least most of them were reduced by 7% and others were reduced based on the methodology that the vendor used. >> thank you. no further questions for me at this time. >> thank you. >> commissioner, where am i at? commissioner alexander-tut, are you there? >> she won't be able to make it. she had a family emergency. >> commissioner bito please. >> i guess edon't really have a question. i have more of a comment. if the reduction in the revenues and the last three years are fairly obvious due to the pandemic, but moving forward

which is what we are looking at and how do you increase revenue given something out of the department's control and making the permitting and inspection process utilizing technology and epr, allowing their customers to do as many of these things online and to expedite their permits. i think they are ways to create efficiencies in the department so i think that this budget review is important to understanding how to look at that commission as a whole. when we look at the operations of d.b.i. >> thank you, commissioner. >> thank you, commissioner mccarthy. thank you for this report and

update. >> and the question is around the transfer orders and while i understand that we're going to see how to reduce those and the commission and public that are most concerning to us

superficially. with the services that get done to talk to them. and i don't have a dollar amount of each of those, but the other conversation is that the revenuing are declining. so people will have to listen and there may not be funding to do ul a those things. personally i don't think that will be a drastic, so i have heard a lot of the comments and it is alarming, believe me, i am an extremely conservative person. no one in finance likes to hear they need this amount of money

to budget. is the alternative going to reduce the budget to be put aside? that is where we are now. i can't -- sorry i don't have a better answer for you. and that is just kind of where we are at this point in time. and that what we want to do is and if this was 2025 and there

that the things that need to happen will help us with this, too, but at this point we're not recommending we make drastic cuts because we have the funding to allow us to kind of bridge until we get to a point where we lower expenses and increase revenues. >> i appreciate that and get this back to a balanced or reserved replenishing state as soon as we can. and i don't want to shortchange anything that produces efficiencies and from the interdepartmental headquarters.

commissioner moss. >> no questions at this time. thank you for your presentation. >> thank you. commissioner sommer, please. >> i think i have a with the larger expenses than revenues and is the approach that this is a budget built in and that are reducing and aligning expenses and you are not guessing at larger numbers that are going to happen and looking at previous clear actuals and trying to align the forthcoming budgets

with that. and pulling a lot of leverage to sort of balance this out. my question is, so we have a reserve fund right now. we're cutting into that. that is what it's there for. so we are not at the point to make drastic cuts or more drastic things to make these changes. at what point does that happen? or would that happen? i am a hopeful person. i think there are things that are going to happen on a variety of fronts that would bring this back into alignment the way we are wanting it to. and if it didn't and whatever continued to happen, what is the point that we have this discussion and how does that work? >> this is a two-year budget. 2022-2023 and 2023-2024.

however, for all intents an purposes, the focus is on 2022-2023. next year when we come back to do 23-24, by then we are not going to propose to keep the budget at $91 million if revenues are $57 million. you can't make that proposal, right? that is between now and then, and to your point before, trying to right size it and some of the expenses have not really especially in the work orders, the budget has been higher and some of them even if they did spend x-amount of money going forward, that is probably not going to be able to do that. and there may be another way to try to find a way to cover those costs. what i would say is in 2022 over

the next fiscal year we really will have to look at the expenses. and the other thing is to make clear with everyone that there is with no one budgets on what may happen. i don't want to dismiss this because it is concerning, but it's been concerning for a few years. we have been down this path for a while now. as i said earlier, the revenues have been declining for a long time. and it's been kind of masked a little bit because we had some other revenues. let me give you an example.

in 2021 we were noo theory supposed to collect -- let's see. let me look at it. collect $46 million but we collected $56 million. and estimating we're collecting 57. ic a few people mention 51. that is the difference and eventually the hope is we will continue to see the numbers go up again. the reason they used to be that and i remember when i made it to d.b.i., that was unheard of. we don't know if that will

happen again and this is the storm brewing and that continues to reserve to set aside to assist with our things and look at the expenses and revenues, too. >> you are welcome. this is important to have the reserve fund and take our time. but i would -- i am a little bit concerned about the fact that we are not taking a more firmer action at this present time.

i know we are walking towards that in the 202-2023 and will you be coming back to the commission -- when will you be back again? if this is going the right direction or still kind of the planning. >> i will be next week to do the monthly revenue report to give you an idea of revenues and expenses where they are now. and normally we use those to make a projection. on the budget, the way it will work is that the budget is going to be submitted to the mayor's office on 2/22 and normally the way it works is we give you an update and any reductions in

revenues at the with the updates along that way. i am not happy about spending $34 million of reserve funds, but the alternative is to cut the budget by $34 million. so where do we do that? and i am open to suggestions and where will we do that at this point given where we're trying to get over the next year or two. >> i guess, obviously you and i talked about this. and i always felt that the work orders were increasing and increasing and never really felt that is so many different departments and almost

necessarily have to come back to get reductions here. if rob is there, can i get your advice on something here please? the city attorney please. >> yes, per president mccarthy. >> obviously we have to approve this budget today and that is what we've got to do. is there any recommendation to give to us on behalf to say on behalf of the commission to kind of stress our concern that there needs to be kind of aggressive approach to reductions made in this year's budget that we are putting forward? and we are really stressing that it is not sustainable. and as terrace says, nobody is happy about the fact we are dipping into the rainy day fund with the large amount. is there anything that you can

help us to attach to this and go firmly on the record there with the controller's office there? >> i think the actually direction is to the department. it would be forwarding this budget along with the direction that the department look into all methods possible in certain areas or concerns and to increase revenues in some way. and it would have to be qualitative language in that sense to the areas to give the expect the direction to work. i don't think the building inspection commission can give direction to other departments and the controller and any other entity other than the department itself. okay. thank you for that clarification. >> and in reference to the

interdepartmental work services the work orders. a different direction there. and that is reflective of the different departments there. if you want a specific direction to determine ways to reduce expenditures to the extent to meet the budget concerns. >> is there somebody there to help me with the language there? commissioner bito? >> you want to seek conditional language to this approval? to reduce expenditures and increase revenues. is that what you are asking, president mccarthy?

>> i believe. i guess so. particularly in the work order. we are approving with conditions that the work orders or expenditures are reduced by, do we want to say a certain percentage? for recorder or by end of next year. and i think there has to be some target goals for it. how much are we over budget? >> the total amount? >> no, the percentage. and percent amount right now. how much are we over budget? >> i'm sorry. i have to do the math. the $34 is how much of the $91? >> like 34, 35 percent.

and it is too much to put them on the spot and i think the question is to come up with a plan to reduce expenditures. by the next meeting nor a couple of months or something like that. how does that sound? >> very cognizant of the deputy director to weigh in to see what would be doable to work towards the right direction there. i know we're going to be doing it and just kind of want something more formative from the commission attached to the budget. and anything to suggest that would be fair and equitable? >> if we are focussing on expenditures and with the specific expenditures that the commission is interested, we can give us a target. i guess. give us a target but we would have to still work with the

departments to reduce that target. if you use expenditures, give us a target and all expenditures pretty much the only place we have to look in expenditures will be salaries and work orders. and you have seen the budget and see the makeup of the budget and $600,000 in materials and supplies and cutting that is not going to get us where we need to go. there are only two places that we can reduce expenditures and that will be work orders and that will be salaries. and i am not sure as far as coming up with new revenues, we can't come up with new revenues. we can only come up with the projections shown. hopefully over the next two months, because this is based on six months, city wide, but march we get a nine-month revenue estimate and hopefully that will bump us up a little bit, but not by $34 million.

i don't think that is going to happen. in this instance, we have to only focus on expenditures because we can't bank on finding that much more revenues. and they do see what they need to use of the reserves. and $34 million is a lot of reserves. >> how do we reduce that? to reduce the reserve and the amount of usage we are on the reserve. is that unfair to say that in the work orders from across the board? a goal that the commission would like the staff to do? that is discussing.

>> i'm sorry. is that a direction to me? >> we will understand that that will require us to work with others and don't forget that is the direction we need to work on. and as i said before, there are automatic savings already in the work orders. we've -- i will be reviewing a report over the next day or so of the past three years of all the workers and what the actuals are. that is a good place to start. knots going to get us to $34 million, but that is the place

to start. >> and deputy city attorney, this terminology, i am not sure a conditional approval is possible. the budget has to pass or not pass and be passed along. it can't have a potential for it to be vetoed after the fact or a condition not met. it may pass along with direction to do other items and then you can determine whether or not that direction is met after the fact. it wouldn't disapprove the budget as approved today. or if you felt you had enough information, i suppose you could enter line items and x things out and reduce item numbers. but i think you're getting the direction from staff that that is not necessarily the type of certainty or possible at this point to unilaterally change the percentages. so i would -- i think where the commission, if i had to sum up what i have heard, it is more of a direction to staff to reduce

by a certain percentage and to explore and come up with a plan >> what if we don't approve the budget today? >> this is a xhe for the city attorney. >> the commission's charge to approve the budget or have a budget to pass along to the mayor. i am not sure on the deadlines for the mayor. to when these need to go in and maybe you can speak to that. and certainly you can disapprove a budget. i am not sure where that would be. >> i think the budget has to be

approved by the commission and our budget will be submitted to the mayor on february 22. so i am not really sure if we do submit a budget without the commission approval, i am not clear on that. and we have to submit a budget by the 22nd. to me we need to find a budget that the commission is comfortable in approving. >> president mccarthy, should we go around the other commissioners to get feedback? >> that would be a good idea. >> commissioner, i am going to do a circle one more time here. >> see if you have anymore to add. >> i am comfortable with approving the budget because i think that you share the sentiment and obviously we don't want to dip into the revenue here, but at the same time we

can't cut the budget. you are going to present to us again next year for the following year's budget, correct, and at that time we can gauge if there is something we need to do. >> yes. actually, for 23-24, yes, we'll present that. but even before then, throughout this budget process, we submit to the mayor and the mayor will submit to the department in may. and throughout all that time, we will have updates as we have had before with the budget. i will give you an update on what to know is happening in the budget. >> thank you. >> commissioner d. >> i don't know if you noticed. i am here. i have a question for rob if i can participate since i wasn't here for the beginning of the

meeting. >> go ahead. >> you can certainly listen in. i don't know at what point you entered and whether you have sufficient information to vote on the budget. obviously we had two meetings here. so i don't know when you entered in. if you are here during the vote, you need to vote one way or the other. there is no way to abstain. >> this is our second meeting. i did not come in the n during the presentation but i did hear the questions. if anyone has concerns about participation, i am open to hearing that, but what happens this comment is accessible. -- is acceptable. one is the fee study that was

discussed and the other is this work order question. this is our budget as of now in timeline and to address the budget with the strategist. and with the competition until may to see how we are doing on the work orders. that would be my way of moving the timeline. as well as in writing and the two priorities and that be sent to the mayor's office, etc.

we are not solving the budget deficit and need to make progress to make sure that we are in alignment where we need to be so right now we have the reserves to pass this budget cycle and make sure this is the last cycle we dip into the budget. >> i want to echo what everyone has been saying.

i do also want to point out that the san francisco updated housing element will be voted on by next year. no matter who you vote for or whatnot, san francisco has to zone for 82,000 more housing units. a so whenever you spend reserves, you want to be able to say can we look to the future to replenish them? andic that this is a reality -- i think it is a reality that we have never seen before. for the first time ever the state of california has a bunch of sticks if you don't zone for and build the unit. so as far as future revenue and planning goes, i want to ask to take a look at what the 82,000 units would mean for future fees. it would go a long way to assauging fear and whatnot from the public about spending our reserves.

i am comfortable with passing the budget for that as well. >> thank you for that. >> that was helpful. thank you, commissioner moss. i agree with sentiments that have been noted. and the one thing that i wanted to mention the fee study and last year that took a year to fall into place. and if we are meeting in one year again, and having these meetings in a year, and you present to us each meeting. so it seems to me that there will have to be more conversations throughout the year than perhaps there have been. maybe because this is a large

looking issue and avenues to calm down and either cut salaries or cut work orders. an otherwise there is no options. there has to be options at some point. that is the ongoing discussion. i appreciate this conversation and will listen hard at the upcoming meetings about the budget updates. thank you. >> and i feel the same way. we have said on the record what we feel and what has to be done. i am a little bit wary about the future with inflation as in the industry to get the building and

projects ready so a little concerned that it might take time to get the revenue back. i would that we have stressed to go forward. i believe we have to approve this budget today and the different departments and the work order to be strong there. and really kind of get whatever savings any way we can get. so to see where we can make progress in the work orders area. with that, madam secretary, call the question. >> one more comment through the chair. >> do we want to -- based on all

the feedback from coalesce a directive to d.b.i. and figure out a directive that doesn't sound like a conditional with directive to d.b.i. with the approval of the budget. some of the things that i have heard is that there is what to see is a plan in front of us when we check in that looks at strategies that reduces the work orders. talking about reducing salaries has a bigger impact. and the directive that colesses a lot of comments that we have provided as feedback. i am all for that to make that

movement. make a motion that it is the budget priorities to incollude a timeline and assessment and strategy for reducing the work orders.

>> you didn't say if you were approaching the budget. >> i thought we were doing two things. the entire intention was not to make it conditional. setting priorities but not as a condition to approve the budget. i got it the articulate and moving forward by 50% in

2023-2024. perhaps q3 or q4 of 2022. although there is a start all over again. the second year is just a base. and so we pass a two-year budget, but in 23-24 and what we

talked about is if revenues are looking at doing those things and just because it's the base budget, you go from there. you raise it, lower it, do whatever based on the revenues that you have available. to request a strategy to reduce the deficit by 50% in the 23-24 budget, is that the correct timeline?

>> in approving this two-year budget, you look at strategies this year to reduce the second year's deficit. the budget document is not getting changed. what we are doing >> we are making a request. we can't make it conditional. we are making a request as part of approving the budget.

so we don't get in trouble with the deputy city attorney. if we put it as a request, the way i understood it, we can approve this budget with that request or directive. but it can't be conditioned. so that sound like it could be conditional. >> deputy attorney. i don't want us to get too bogged down in the terminology. what i want to be clear is approval of the budget without any type of language that would imply that that approval can be rescinded or disapproved if a condition isn't met in the future. that is where i mean by conditional. i think you can attach directives and ask for some timelines for additional information to help for a future planning, but you have to at this point say this budget expenditure is approved for

passed along to the mayor and isn't contingent upon any future conditions. >> okay. okay. i am clear on that. commissioners, i was trying to make sure we didn't get ourselves into trouble. every time one of us talks and to say about that and doesn't pass muster. >> sometimes it is splitting hairs and the motion on the second with the clarification from the deputy director madison that we are approving the budget with the directive that they will look at strategies this year to reduce the -- to reduce the expend sures and second year

of this budget. 23-24. >> if i may, through the chair. >> please go ahead. >> commissioner bito, you said a 50% number before, and if i wasn't sure that i was on board with that per se. you didn't repeat it just now. >> i would say 50%. so thank you. >> i don't know. do you have another suggestion, commissioner sommer? >> i think that compared to -- the numbers we see right now are going to change. so we say 50% compared to right now, and that means something but really what that would mean is still a $17 million deficit, which i don't know that we can handle that per se. we haven't sort of, in my mind at least, haven't gone ahead to the next year and had this conversation. how much is reserve is left after this year. we're not going to know because we we don't know how many we are using. it is too many dominos ahead to

pick a percent. i don't know if that makes sense. so not to split hair, but make it more qualitative as someone suggested. maybe that is with more meaning to me. to approach it with a target to take chunks out of it. and trying to provide the percentage target. and amenable and open to other suggestions. and that was the strategy.

>> and okay. what we should do is vote on the budget and then we should vote on take another vote on what to attach to this recommendations going forward. call the question on the budget, madam secretary. >> is there a motion to approve the proposed budget of the department of building inspection for fiscal year 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. >> motion to approve. is there a second? >> a roll call vote on this motion. president mccarthy. >> vice president tam.

that motion carries you nan mousily. -- carries unanimously. >> i think the goal is to reduce the deficit and anyway that can be done and as i said, pennies from heaven, any dollar. and i think it's kind of a tall ask with the 50%. so to just stress that we are all aboard as a commission to be concerned about the future and hoping that everybody is taking this very seriously. for a lot of reasons. that is kind of really what i

want. to close out today. to reword it? >> if elizabeth wants to -- i'm sorry, if the commissioner warrants to restate it and commissioner bito statement the amendment and call the roll call vote. >> did we vote on the budget? >> yes, the budget itself is approved. >> okay. now we are on the -- i make a motion that the policy of d.b.i. to develop a strategy and make a

timeline to reduce the deficit using the following to strategies by adjusting the fee schedule and two, by creating a strategy to lower the work orders. do we want to have the quarterly meeting one in there? and to monitor the -- by the use to reduce the work orders. >> can i get a second on that so there is a by the roll call vote.

>> [roll call vote] >> thank you. that motion carries unanimously. so is there any further discussion? if not, we will be onto adjournment. >> thank you, commissioners. awe thank you.

>> flyshaker pool was a public pool located on sloat boulevard near great highway. it operated from 1925 to 1971 and was one of the largest pools in the world. after decades of use, less people visited. the pool deteriorated and was demolished in 2000. built by herbert flyshaker, pumps from the pacific ocean that were filtered and heated

filled the pool. aside from the recreational activities, many schools held swim meets there. the delia flyshaker memorial building was on the west side of the pool. it had locker rooms with a sun room and mini hospital. in 1995, a storm damaged one of the pipes that flowed to the ocean. maintenance was not met, and the pool had to close. in 1999, the pool was filled with sand and gravel. in 2000, the space became a spot for the san francisco zoo. these are some memories that many families remember swimming at flyshaker pool.

>> good morning and welcome to the rescheduled rules committee for today, valentine's day, february 14th, 2022. i am the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair. >> --, can we hold for a moment. i am hearing from your office that we may have an online issue with san francisco government t.v. not working. if you don't mind pausing momentarily while we check on that. >> take your time.