Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Budget And Finance Committee 20240712

Remotely. Pursuant to the local, state and federal orders, declarations and directives. Committee members will attend through Video Conference and participate to the same extent as if they were physically present. Public comments available on each item on this agenda, and streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. Opportunity to speak are available via phone call, 4156150001. Access code 1457369773, again, 1457369773, then press pound and then press pound again. When connected, you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be muted and in listening mode only. When your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added to the speaker line. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, and turn down your television or radio. Public comment in either of the following ways, either email to myself, budget and finance Committee Clerk at linta. Wong and forwarded to supervisors and included as part of the official file. Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor agenda of june 16th unless otherwise stated. Thank you very much. Can you please call item number 1. Yes. Resolution authorizing office of the treasurer and Tax Collector to amend the software as a Service Agreement and support the contract with citybase, inc. , to an extended fiveyear term, two options to renew for a period of two years each, april 27, 2018, through april 16, 2023, not to exceed 37 million. Members who wish to provide Public Comment, call the number, access code, 1457369773, and pound and pound again. If you have not already done so, star three to speak, a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. Wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. Thank you very much, madam clerk. Colleagues, you may remember, we continued this item from last week. We have already heard the daily report and we have miss shaw here with us from the treasurer and Tax Collectors office. Upon my request, they have come back with a comparison of rates in neighboring counties and cities. Miss shaw. Thank you very much, thanks for inviting us back how we can answer critical questions how the contract shares. Im going to share the graph with you and not have technical difficulties this time. All right. Can you see that . Yes, we can. All right. Thanks. Im not going to do the presentation in totality, since you have heard that yesterday. Or last week, excuse me. Just a quick reminder, this is a contract for our credit card charges that are online. We do have the no fee for the safest way to pay and the fastest, and these funds that are part of this contract are either part of the very item that the person is saying they are added for taxes and fees so that the taxes and fees are not completed. Graph that was requested was really to make sure that our contract was competitive with our neighboring counties, from, you will see on the consumer or individual base charges, San Francisco is at the range along with two other counties, los angeles and santa clara, at 2. 25. And this is for nonbusiness fees. On the business side, range is much more vast, it ranges from 2. 25 all the way to 4. 25. Where it is at 2. 25, santa clara, as well as in youll see that, and los angeles, excuse me. Youll see they do not accept echecks in santa clara, or they charge the 2. 25 on the echecks as well. In addition, San Francisco is the only county that has a small ticket component of the contracts, which enables any charge of less than 10 to essentially have no fee on consumer items. This would be for copayments, clinic, zuckerberg parking fees, any really small ticket items, which we are very fortunate to have been able to negotiate where the other counties were not able to. How this materializes in our practical way is if you are paying for a dog license in alameda, 2. 5, with your credit card, 2. 5 of that would be going to cover the merchant fees. If you were paying for a dog license in san mateo, 2. 35, and San Francisco, 2. 25. On the flip, if you are paying for another tax in san mateo, upwards of 3 going towards the merchant fees. The range was variable in alameda, 2. 5 to 4. 25. San francisco is 2. 5, majority of entities do use echeck as an option for that. I am available for any questions that you may have regarding the rates and or the contract in terms and total. Thank you, miss shaw. Any comments or questions from my colleagues . I wanted to say thank you very much for the chart, its pretty interesting on our neighboring counties and i think that you know, i still want to say i think, i have to say for the record, that even though we are looking at these fees, that they are comparable to the neighboring counties, that Credit Card Companies are charging a fee for people to even have a card and also they are charging huge Interest Rates on people that have cards and not bpaying the balances, and i think we are a gift to them that we are actually giving them so much business by the nature of having to do government business. And so i think they are benefitting and again i just have to say for the record that i feel as though consumers are the ones actually gets the short end of the stick around what happens with the credit cards. So, having said that, lets open this up for Public Comment if you dont mind, madam clerk. Madam chair, operations is checking to see if there are any calls in the queue. Let us know if there are callers that are ready. If you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue for those already on hold. The system will indicate you have unmuted. Any callers who wish to comment on item number one. Madam chair, there are no callers who wish to speak. Thank you. Public comment is closed on number 1. Thank you for coming back. No comments or questions from my colleagues, seeing none, like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation, madam clerk, please have a roll call vote. [roll call vote taken] clerk three aye. Thank you very much. Item number 2, ordinance extending for additional two years, through july 1, 2022, authority under the charter to the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities commission to enter into Grant Agreements under the sfpuc Green Infrastructure Grant Program with terms of up to 20 years and without Commission Approval. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on this item should call 4156550001, 1457369773, then press pound and then press pound again. If you have not already done so, please press star three to line up to speak. It will indicate you have raised your hand. Wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and may begin your comments. Thank you very much. So today we have with us sarah bloom from sfpuc, and also megan . Hi, supervisor fewer, im also here. You are, ok. Great. So, colleagues, two people from sfpuc, megan and sarah. So, i just want to say before we start that im proud to sponsor this legislation for the Green Infrastructure program to revise the bill to turn the asphalt playgrounds for the places for kids to grow and learn in. Its in the interest of the children and School Communities and environment, as also reduces the storm water runoff and combine forces to improve performance. This legislation originally came to the Budget Committee when the program was new, and at that time the committee requested the delegate authority in the name of a transparent process. Now that we have seen a pilot, Successful Pilot year of implementation, i have confidence in the process and under the process of going through the commission can add months to the critical timeline and know the recipients of the Grant Program are not largely engineering of construction funds. These are Small Projects designed to support provements to the institution and its a Good Governance approach, not just for the city to ensure the return on investment but to lasting improvements to their property. With that, the floor is yours. Thank you, supervisor fewer. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. All right, here we go. My name is sarah bloom, Grant Program administrator for the Green Infrastructure Grant Program at the sfpuc, and walk you through how the first pilot year went and the approach for the current timeline for our applicants. Before we get started, i wanted to quickly review what Green Infrastructure is. Its a set of sustainable engineered storm Water Management tools designed to slow down and route storm water away from the sewer system, a variety of different Green Infrastructure, some like rain gardens or bioretention planters or green roof, or things like permeable pavement or rain barrels you may have in your home. And the puc has a longterm vision of managing a billion gallons of storm water, using Green Infrastructure by the year 2050. So using techniques to reach the goal, management ordinance, Capital Projects as part of the agency approach and supporting incentive and Grant Programs, thats the program im here to talk to you about today. So the program, we came to you in february of 2019 for the first round of delegated authority. We launched our Program Shortly after that. It encourages San Francisco Property Owners, both public and private, to design, build and maintain these Green Infrastructure installations on their properties. We have a maximum grant amount of 765,000 per acre managed, so the amount of funding is eligible on the storm water up to 2 million per project. And our Property Owners are responsible for 20 years of maintenance through a deed restriction on their property, and our ability to enter into that 20 years of maintenance is the reason why we are here with you today to request that delegated authority. So, we have been in, the program has been open for almost a year and a half now, and we have seen a wide variety of interest across the city, from a big variety of Property Owners, which is really great. We have used a combination of outreach tools in order to reach different properties. We have started with targeted property outreach, we did a g. I. F. Analysis of all the properties in the city with the most impervious surface, and let them know this was available. And worked with the city agency partners, rec part, and others, to look at the projects in the pipeline for their capital programs and to see which ones would be a good fit for this program. And we have also utilized our agency wide communication platform. Put information out on social media, emailed the listserv, Community Events and all of that helped get the word out to a wide variety of property types. We have also had a robust Technical Assistance program we launched as part of the Grant Program in 2019. Realizing that this is a pretty significant list, technical list for our Property Owners to be able to get into the application process, they have to do a lot of calculations on how much storm water they can manage, understand the drainage of their site, so working with our Property Owners going onsite visits, creating what we call opportunity analysis to help them understand what opportunities they have on their site. We have also been meeting with them to understand how to use the application template and all the calculations that are required. And to date we have had five awarded projects with one project in reserve, and so im going to go quickly through them so you can see who the grantee to date. First, Lafayette Elementary School in the richmond district. Utilize a dry creek bed and rain gardens to manage runoff from their schoolyard and project is in construction. We are excited to report should be complete by the end of the summer. So, we are excited to see the momentum starting even this quickly. Our second grantee was Betsy Carmichael middle school. Also using a combination of rain gardens to manage runoff from the School Building and the play yard created as part of their bond program. This project is also in construction and should be complete by the end of the summer. Our third award is st. Thomas moore school. A School Brotherhood way nelake merced, and a wide range of technology. Try to educate the students what Green Infrastructure is. And they have rain gardens and more. And this is in design. Our next is Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox church a couple blocks away on brotherhood wait from st. Thomas moore, and a series of rain gardens to manage runoff from the Recreation Center and parking lot. And this project is in the initiation phase. Our fifth project is another school, in the sunset, and this school needed, their Basketball Court had reached the end of its useful life, so they were interested in upgrading that facility along with other areas of the school, so they will actually be installing a permeable pavement Basketball Court, the first one in San Francisco. So we are excited to see that installation go in and also doing a combination of rain gardens and rainwise landscaping on the outside of the school. And the last project, which is currently pending commission award, is Crocker Amazon parking lot. Parking lot next to the heavily used Crocker Amazon soccer fields, and rec park is going to be building a rain garden at the front of the parking lot to help improve the front area and manage storm water from the adjacent parking lot. And so with all those projects combined, once they are built, theyll be actually removing over 3 million gallons of storm water from the sewer system each year, we are excited about that performance, and total almost seven acres of surface removed out of the system. And to date, the Program Budget is at 12 million, so we originally had 8 million when we came to you in february of 2019, and through a reappropriation, our commission added additional 4 million to our budget, and so from that 12 million, we have set aside just over 500, almost 600,000 for administration, and that includes what we have spent so far today, and the cost we think it will take us to get to the end of fiscal year 2022. We have the amount of funds that have been reserved for the six project, almost 5 million, and a Program Contingency that we are holding to help support the projects through construction in case we have any unforeseen conditions that may need additional funding to complete the project. And so with those taken out, we currently today have about 6 million left in awards for future projects over the next two years. And so i want to review with you all a couple of lessons we have learned from our pilot year. We have learned a lot of technical lessons, but excited to report the Property Owners who have come into the program so far we are reaching o ut with Technical Assistance, positive feedback from them and through the application surveys that they are excited to participate and to be a part of this program. We have also heard our Technical Assistance is really appreciated during the project phase and critical in helping the grantees and Property Owners get through the application process. We will continue to provide those services as well. One of the other things we learned and the reason we are here today with the request to remove that Commission Work flow is that our Grant Administration is taking longer than we expected. Realize the delegated authority to the commission that was put into the legislation in 2019 actually is triggering two Commission Approvals because of Environmental Review requirements. So the commission is unable to award the grant in its entirety without having completed environment review, and that cannot be completed until the design is completed. So a bit of the chicken and egg scenario. We are going to the commission to initially award the grant and disperse funding only for planning and design and then we go back to the commission when the design is complete and Environmental Review completed in order to release funding for construction. So, we are currently doing two Commission Approvals for each grant project. And we have also found that our grantees have limited resources, unable to move quickly through the administrative process, its causing the projects to stall and lose momentum, and some cases leaving the grantees in uncomfortable situations, maybe contracted with an engineer who they need in order to complete the design and maybe they have some outstanding invoices and we are unable to help them move quickly through the first process. And seen the administrative challenges are having acute impact on the school project, and thats because they have a tight timeline for implication and construction, so they need to do construction in the summer months when the students are not in school so very narrow windows the projects need to be set up for. First two school projects, you can see here, the timeline of application diverse payment, like the project setup timeline. Those were 10 and 7 months because the School District knew they had to be going into construction this summer. It took us so long to set the projects up the School District was actually completely done with design by the time we were able to initiate the first payment. And we were fortunate, since they are an institutional partner, they could find other costs to cover in the enter recommend but not all of the grantees will have that luxury. And then we have also realized st. Thomas moore school, the third grant awardee, that took nine months from application to first payment and because they didnt have money to get started on design without our payment, that project actually ended up having to be pushed from summer 2020 to summer 2021, so a full year delay and that not only, you know, loses momentum for the project and is challenging for the community, but also has cost implications for the p. U. C. So any time we push out construction, costs and bid pricing, so its challenging to have the projects be pushed out. And so i wanted to share this graphic with you. Timeline of what we call application diverse payment. You can see we are at about nine months on average for each project, so we spend a lot of time with them in the beginning before this timeline even starts in this project visioning phase, helping them move through site visits and Technical Assistance and figuring out what they can do. The moment they are submitting the applications, these are the steps that its taking us to get to first payment so we have to review the applications, a lot of times we have edits as the puc since they are going in the Grant Agreement, so some back and forth there taking time. The grantee and the City Attorney need to negotiate the Grant Agreement so they go back and forth on edits, and we are not able to submit the Grant Agreement into the Commission Work flow until that negotiation is complete. So, we spend time doing that and then we submit it into the Commission Work flow, takes a month, month and a half in order to go through our internal process at the puc and bring us to the Commission Meeting. And once the Commission Meeting is complete, we go for signatures, and a lot of accounting that needs to happen. Once the Grant Agreement is signed, we have a month, month and a half to set up the grant in the Accounting System and issue the first payment. So our technical team, the team working on the program has spent a lot of time over the last couple months thinking about how we could improve this timeline and bring that time down to a more reasonable time frame, and we think we can get to five months using a combination of strategies, you know, removing the Commission Work flow and approval is only one of those, and so we are committed as a Program Administration to look at combining our application steps in the beginning, so getting rid of some of the earlier steps we are already doing through the project visioning. Also going to commit to expedited application review, so we are getting the applicants through the review process quicker, knowing they are going to have some changes to work through, so we are reducing that timeline as a team. With the removal of the Commission Work flow, that will save us one and a half months in the timeline, allowing us to work on other things instead of being in the Commission Work flow process. And then we are also working with our accounting teams to understand how we can collapse some of the accounting and city vendor processes in parallel with other grant requirements. So, we are going to work to get our grantees set up in the Accounting Systems and the vendor process, and in this revised timeline, once we get through the end, the final agreement would be sent to the general manager for review, if you would choose to award it, he would sign it and initiate the first payment. They think using these four strategies we are able to reduce the timeline from nine months on average down to five months, so almost by half. And then i wanted to assure you that even with the removal of this Commission Work flow in the application process, puc commission will have oversight, continue to improve the budget on a twoyear cycle, with the regular puc budget. Continue to have jurisdiction over the program rules, so ever to change the Eligibility Criteria or the way we wanted to award grants, would have to be approved by the commission. And commit to doing quarterly updates as we are with the board of supervisors, so quarterly updates who we are granting money to and the interested projects are and continue to request the delegated authority from you all, only for fixed period of time so that we can continue to come back to you and let you know how the program is going and the lessons we learned and how we are continuing to improve. So, with that ill say thank you and open up for any questions. Ok. Miss thomas seeing none, we have could we have the b. L. A. Thank you. Good morning, members of the committee. As has been discussed, ordinance would extend the delegation of authority for the Green Infrastructure project. Theres been discussion in this committee about removing the delegation of authority, not just from the board, but also from the commission itself and assigning it to the general manager. And when we reported on this in 2018 we did point out that without Commission Approval there was no public process. Now, i do want to say that if this committee, and if the board actually, for the reasons that the puc presented wish to delegate to the general manager rather than the commission, the legislation, ordinance before you does call for Quarterly Reports. We did receive one copy for the First Quarter of this year. Prior legislation from 2018 also had quarterly, a reporting requirement, Quarterly Reporting requirement. I dont know, miss bloom, and you may be able to say whether that happened or not. But alternative, if the committee does not want the commission to be required to approve these grants, alternative would be not only that the puc comply with the reporting requirement, but these reports be posted in the legislative file and so the public has access to them. Currently the only way we could get access is ask for it from the puc. And so that would be an alternative recommendation. Approval of this ordinance is a policy matter because it does delegate board authority, and im available for any questions you may have. Thank you very much. So, miss campbell, then what we could do is request and add into the legislation the Quarterly Report be published. Thats what im saying. So miss bloom, was that already written into the legislation or something we would have to amend . Im not sure the requirement for being posted is in the legislation. We would likely have to amend that. But the Quarterly Report is in there. Okay. And are we abiding by the Quarterly Report . We did submit one Quarterly Report for this year. I think we may have been delayed in submitting the earlier Quarterly Reports, and so we will commit to making sure that that gets done, ill be working with megan in the legislative Analyst Office to ensure we are not delayed in issuing those Quarterly Reports. Ok. Thats great. And looks as though perhaps an amend is, to the legislation, about posting the report publicly should be added to the legislation, but before we do that, lets open this up for Public Comment. Any members of the public that would like to comment on item number two . Madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. Let us know if there are any callers that are ready. If you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue. For those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. Let us know if there are callers who wish to comment on item number two. Madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. Thank you very much. Public comment is now closed for item number 2. Before any comments or questions from my colleagues . Seeing none, i would like to just say to the puc that i would love to see more Public Schools on this list. The reason is that you know, our emphasis the majority of students are below the federal poverty line. These students also i feel like should be targeted in an equitable way the schools, because these items are used also as part of Environmental Science projects and also learning. And so many of our students actually dont have that opportunity in the household in which they live to have this access to hands on gardening but also the experience of learning firsthand about our environment in this way. And so i would love to see more Public Schools on this list. Having said that, i would like to ask our City Attorney if we need to add the amendment, assuming that it is not that we would have the amendment be posted for the public. Thats correct. That type of amendment would not but substantive. Thats great. I would like to add an amendment to the legislation that states that the Quarterly Reports will be posted publicly for public review. And i think i can take that amendment on the floor or do i need to have formal language for that . Are you would you like for the reports possible posted on the puc website . Miss campbell, you suggested on what vehicle to post it on, the Quarterly Report . Well, we were thinking it could be posted in legistar, but may be more accessible on the puc website. I think the puc website is the place where people would naturally go to. I think you could we could, you could consider a very simple amendment today. If you look at page five of the legislation, which is where the reporting requirement is, subsection b, it now says starting with the quart beginning july 1, 2019, shall submit Quarterly Reports, all Grant Agreements sfpuc has entered into in the prior quarter, and shall post such reports on its website. Yes. Thats perfect. Yes. So, i think we would like to adopt that amendment and i would like to propose that before this committee to formally adopt before we actually pass this out of committee, so i would like to do it as amended. So, if you would not mind, madam City Attorney, we could add that in, so i would like to make a motion to add that amendment into the legislation. Could i have a roll call vote, please. On the amendment. [roll call vote taken] clerk three aye. I would like to move to the full board as amended and roll call vote, please. [roll call vote taken] clerk three aye. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your presentation. Read item number 3. Resolution between the Grant Agreement amendment low Income Investment Fund Child Care facilities and Technical Assistance for early care and education, up to two years for an total term of july 1, 2017, to june 30, 2022, by 37 million resulting in revised total grant of 66 million to commerce following the board approval. Call, and the access code, then press pound and press pound again. If you have not already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. Prompts will indicate you have raised your hand. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. Thank you very much. Today we have Graham Dobson from the office of early care and education and kim from the low Income Investment fund. The floor is yours. Thank, supervisors. Graham dobson from the office of early care and education, we are asking for the approval of a modification of our existing contract with the low Income Investment fund for extended grant fund for two additional years, for total of five years. July 2017 to june 30, 2022. And additional amount of 37,926,045, plus contingency to administer the child care, the San Francisco child care facilities fund. Predevelopment, startup and repair grants for child Care Facility Development and provides facility Technical Assistance and support, project management and training. This contract includes funding from citywide Child Care Development impact fees, and these fees are charged to residential, hotel, and Office Development citywide. The contract also includes the administration of additional interagency planning, capital new development grants. And these grants are funded through Child Care Development impact fees that are restricted to expand child Care Capacity in certain neighborhood area plans, such as market octavia, visitation valley, eastern neighborhoods and balboa park. This adds administration of additional Revenue Source of 6 million to the augmentation fund, allocated to support child care projects. Investing for many, many years, current contract expires at the end of this month, so we are watching for this extension, and this budget modification to support the additional money we are getting through the funding, and kim is here as you know, and we would be happy to answer any questions about this contract. And the work. Thank very much. Seeing no comments from my colleagues or no comments or questions of my colleagues, please have the bla report. Members of the committee, proposed resolution extends the existing agreement between hsa and low Income Investment fund for child care facilities by two years to 2022 and the amount not to exceed amount of 63 million. Summarized and uses the funds in the table on page 17 of our report. Reduced not to exceed from 63 million to 61 million, this is really technical and accounts for contingency for prior years. We recommend approval of increased amount of 27. 7 million, which are Development Fees and other Nongeneral Fund sources. We consider 8 million in increased general funds sources to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors, and available for any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Seeing no comments or questions from my colleagues, open this up for Public Comment, please. Madam chair, operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. Operations, please let us know if the callers are ready. If you have not already done so, press star three to be added. Let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on this item. Madam chair, no callers in the queue. Motion to move it to the board with a positive recommendation. Please have a roll call vote. I believe the bla recommends it to be amended. Would you like to consider those amendments . Oh, ok. Any comments or questions, seeing none. Let us vote on the amendments then suggested by the bla. On the motion to accept the amendment suggested by the bla. [roll call vote taken] make a motion to move to the board as amended. Could we have a roll call vote, please. [roll call vote taken] thank you very much. Please call item number 4. Resolution retroactively authorizes the office of the city administrator to accept expense funds in the amount of 150,000 from the federal Emergency Management agency for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to support San Francisco 2019 update to the 2014 local hazard litigation plan for the project period from september 16, 2019, through april 16, 2022. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on this item should call 4154550001, access code, and press pound and pound, and you may begin your comments. Thank you very much. Today from the office of resilience and capital planning. Welcome, melissa. Good morning. We are asking for approval of retroactive exception expend of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, grant from fema, for 150,000. This grant funds our work to update the 2014 Hazard Mitigation plan. We are calling it the hazards and Climate Resilience plan. It has been led historically by the department of Emergency Management and this time around the office of resilience and capital planning. We updated the plan in partnership with dem, planning, department of the environment and public health. And grant to reimburse staff time spent on developing the plan. It includes staff time for hazards analysis of natural hazards, including analysis of Climate Change, and how Climate Change impacts a variety of our hazards in San Francisco, including flooding, extreme heat and drought. It includes time for our Strategy Development process, recreated a comprehensive set of 95 strategies across infrastructure, buildings and communities. We also developed an interactive strategy dashboard on our website, one San Francisco. Org, so members of the public and staff can sort through the strategies. It also supports time for our report writing and Stakeholder Engagement we did in the winter and fall, including presentations at several public meetings. It also supports our time that was spent addressing comments that came in from fema and others, and does require 25 match for the match we are using our contract with lower case productions. They helped us with material for community engagement, including a handout, a shorter and more accessible version of the report and our website update. The plan was tentatively approved by fema in april pending our local adoption, and the plan was recommended for approval at the land use and Transportation Committee monday, june 8th. So that, open up to any questions. Sure. There is no bla on this, i see no questions from my colleagues, or comments in the queue. Open up for Public Comments. Operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. Operations, please let us know if there are callers that are ready. If you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue. For those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. Let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment on item number four. Madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. Thank you very much. Public comment for item 4 is closed. A visit to move it to the board with a positive recommendation. Please have a roll call vote. [roll call vote taken]