(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Calendar : meeting of Budget Committee, Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco"

5 CLOSED 
STACKS 



m 



lENTlNTOnMATIO 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Nol lo be taken from lite Library 



*i 1 2 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 05718 3551 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/2calendarmeetingo1995sanf 



Sa" MINUTES doc! imcmto ncDT 

REGULAR MEETING 
vS °IH>. &7 BUDGET COMMITTEE flMp 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



SAM FF 



£/3> /qS~ PUBLIC LiBRAHY 



WEDNESDAY. MAY 3. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, WAR MEMORIAL BLDG. 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:05 P.M. 



CONSENT CALENDAR 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to 
be routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll 
call vote of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these 
items unless a member of the Committee or a member of the public so 
requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent 
Calendar and considered as a separate item 



a) File 28-95-8 . [Emergency Repairs] Resolution authorizing the 
expenditure of funds for emergency repairs at Harry W. Tracy Water 
Treatment Plant. (Public Utilities Commission) 

b) File 28-95-9 . [Emergency Repair, Post Street] Resolution authorizing 
the Director of the Department of Public Works to take necessary 
measures to protect the health, welfare and property of the citizens of 
San Francisco by performing the necessary work to replace a 
structurally inadequate sewer in Post Street between Lyon Street and 
Presidio Avenue. (Department of Public Works) 

c) File 101-94-44.1 . [Reserved Funds, Public Library] Consideration of 
release of reserved funds, Public Library, (Library Preservation Fund) in 
the amount of $10,000, for the purpose of funding window washing. 
(Contractor: Ward s Building Maintenance, Inc.) (Public Library) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE NP'UTES PAGE 2 



ACTION: ITEM C REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR. REMAINING 
ITEMS RECOMMENDED. 

File 101-94-44.1 . HEARING HELD. AMENDED. REDUCE 
RELEASE OF AMOUNT TO $9,700. APPROVED RELEASE OF 
$9,700. FILED. 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Debra 
Newman, representing Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. 
OPPOSED: None. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



GENERAL ITEMS 



File 97-95-20 . [In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority] Ordinance 
amending the Administrative Code by adding Chapter 70, consisting of 
Section 70.1 through 70.10, to establish a Public Authority pursuant to 
California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12301.6 to provide for the 
delivery of in-home supportive services. (Supervisors Shelley, Bierman, 
Ammiano, Alioto, Teng, Kennedy, Migden, Hallinan, Hsieh, Leal, Kaufman) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Supervisor Kevin Shelley, President of 
the Board. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Brian Cahill, General 
Manager, Department of Social Services; Debra Newman, representing Budget 
Analyst; Virginia Elizondo, Deputy City Attorney; Julie Marie, Department of 
Social Services; Anthony Nicco, Department of Social Services; Ed 
Harrington, Controller. IN SUPPORT: Donna Calame, Consultant IHSS 
Public Authority Project; Marie Jobling, IHSS Task Force; Dr. Harry 
Weinstein; Ethel Richardson, Homecare Worker; Commissioner Jane Morrison, 
Social Services Commission; Mike Smith, IHSS Consumer; Margaret Baran, 
Exec. Dir. IHSS Consortium; Peggy Coster, Homecare Consumer; Myra 
Howard, IHSS Worker; Karen Young Simmons, IHSS Consumer; Karen Sherr, 
SEIU, Local 250; Michael Kwok, IHSS Consumer; Vera Haile, Chairperson, 
IHSS Task Force; Bruce Allison, IHSS Worker; Laine Roberts, IHSS Consumer; 
Lucy Dean. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING 
SAME TITLE PRESENTED BY SUPERVISOR SHELLEY. 
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE ADOPTED. AMENDED. 
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE AS AMENDED RECOMMENDED. 
In Section 70.4 (c) add the following: "Any contract, grant or 
agreement between the Department of Social Services and the 
Authority shall be subject to the approval of the Board of 
Supervisors." (Supervisor Kaufman requested to be added as a 
co-sponsor.) 



VOTE: 3-0. 



7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 55 



3 1223 05718 3551 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M^'UTES PAGE 3 



3. File 97-95-22 . [Fees, Medical Examiner-Coroner] Ordinance amending the 
San Francisco Administrative Code by amending Section 8.14, authorizing the 
Medical Examiner-Coroner to charge fees for certain services. (Chief 
Medical Examiner-Coroner) 

Deleting - Search of Records $ 7.50 

Added - Storage of remains following 

completion of investigation of notification 

of family or funeral director of completed 

investigation, Medical Examiner-Coroner's 

cases, per day $ 25.00 

Added - Supporting documentation for 

results of forensic alcohol report $ 6.00/pg. 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENT ATrVES: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst, Dr. Boyd Stephens, Medical Examiner-Coroner. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 170-95-4.1 . [Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1995] Resolution authorizing 
and directing the sale of not to exceed $62,500,000 aggregate initial principal 
amount of one or more subseries of City and County of San Francisco Sewer 
Revenue Bonds, Series 1995; approving the forms of the Notice of Sale and 
the Notice of Intention to Sell relating thereto; authorizing the publication of 
the Notice of Intention to Sell; approving the form of the Official Statement; 
approving the forms of the Bond Reserve Fund Surety Policies; consenting to 
submission of bid by financial advisor; and authorizing official action. (Chief 
Administrative Officer) (COMPANION TO THE FOLLOWING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Tom Owen, Deputy 
City Attorney; Laura Wagner-Lockwood, Chief Administrative Office. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M^'UTES PAGE 4 

5. File 170-95-4 . [Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1995] Resolution providing for 
the issuance of not to exceed $62,500,000 aggregate Initial Principal amount 
of City and County of San Francisco Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1995 
(supplemental to Resolution No. 656-92, adopted August 3, 1992, and 
Resolution No. 58-94, adopted January 24, 1994), authorizing execution of 
Sales Certificate and amending certain provisions of Resolution No. 656-92 in 
connection therewith. (Chief Administrative Officer) COMPANION TO THE 
PRECEDING FILE) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Tom Owen, Deputy 
City Attorney; Laura Wagner-Lockwood, Chief Administrative Office. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
On Page 6, subsection (b) after entity), insert a sentence to read: 
"All cost of issuance shall be subject to appropriation by the Board 
of Supervisors before payment may be made hereunder." Replace 
"90" with "180". In subsection (c) after "Requisition of the City" 
add "together with a copy of the applicable appropriation 
ordinance of the Board of Supervisors,". 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 101-94-85 . Ordinance appropriating and rescinding $138,564, from 
salaries and fringe benefits to allow Trail Courts to create three (3) positions 
for the fiscal year 1994-95. (Budget Committee) (COMPANION TO THE 
FOLLOWING FILE) 

(Consideration Continued from 4/26/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst; Alan Carlson, Administrator, Superior Court; 
Kate Harrison, Fiscal Officer, Superior Court; Ed Harrington, Controller. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Reduce appropriation to $3,100 and delete 0676 Research 
Assistant and one (1) 0697 Judicial Clerk. AMENDED TrTLE: 
"Ordinance appropriating and rescinding $3,100, from salaries and 
fringe benefits to allow Trail Courts to create one (1) position for 
the fiscal year 1994-95. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M^UTES PAGE 5 



7. File 102-94-14 . [Public Employment, Superior Court] Ordinance amending 
Ordinance No. 293-94 (Annual Salary Ordinance 1994/95), Superior Court, 
reflecting the addition of three (3) positions (classification 0676 Research 
Assistant (1), 0697 Judicial Clerk (2). (Department of Human Resources) 
(COMPANION TO THE PRECEDING FILE) 

(Consideration Continued from 4/26/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst; Alan Carlson, Administrator, Superior Court; 
Kate Harrison, Fiscal Officer, Superior Court; Ed Harrington, Controller. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Delete 0676 Research Assistant and one (1) 0697 Judicial Clerk. 
AMENDED TITLE: "Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 293-94 
(Annual Salary Ordinance 1994/95), Superior Court, reflecting the 
addition of one (1) position (classification 0697 Judicial Clerk). 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 118-94-3 . [Hazardous Materials] Ordinance amending Part n, Chapter 5 
(Health Code), Article 21 of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending 
Sections 1114, 1115, 1161 and 1176 to exempt specified categories of medical 
practitioners from registration renewal, and to make technical changes 
concerning inspection forms and certain fees. (Supervisors Alioto, Hsieh, 
Kaufman and Bierman) 

(REFERRED FROM HEALTH. PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT 
COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 25. 1995. DUE TO FISCAL IMPACT.) 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman 
and Bierman requested to be added as co-sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M~ T UTES PAGE 6 



9. File 101-94-95 . [Appropriation - Police Department] Resolution urging the 
Mayor to urge the Police Commission to submit a supplemental appropriation 
to provide the Bomb Squad of the Police Department with a new 
Bomb-Disarming Robot, five (5) protective gear (bomb suits) for members of 
the Bomb Squad, and four (4) Starlight Scopes. (Supervisors Kaufman, Teng, 
Shelley, Hsieh, Bierman) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Captain Minasiani, 
Police Department; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; Ed 
Harrington, Controller. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend the "Resolved" clause to read: "Resolved, The Board of 
Supervisors urges the Mayor to urge the Police Commission to 
urge the Police Chief to effect a surplus fund transfer to provide 
for the purchase of a new bomb-disarming robot, two protective 
gear (bomb suits) for members of the Bomb Squad team, and 
upgrade of the department's existing bomb suit." AMENDED 
TITLE: "Urging the Mayor to urge the Police Commission to urge 
the Chief of Police to effect a surplus fund transfer to provide the 
Bomb Squad of the Police Department with a new 
Bomb-Disarming Robot, two Protective Gear (Bomb Suits) for 
members of the Bomb Squad, and upgrade of the Department's 
existing Bomb-Suit." (Supervisors Hsieh and Bierman requested to 
be added as co-sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING: 4:42 P.M. 






CITY AND COUNTY 



A 




Public Library, 'Documents (Dept. 

OF SAN FRANCfc^. %n( , ^^ 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

yVy BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street. Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



April 28, 1995 



TO: \\ Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECTt May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



BUSINESS-SCIENCE 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

WAY 2 |895 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item la - File 28-95-8 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds for 
emergency repairs at the Harry W. Tracy Water Treatment 
Plant. 

$100,000 

Water Department's Capital Improvement Program 

On March 9, 1995, there was a power outage in the 
transmission lines serving the Harry W. Tracy Water 
Treatment Plant. While PG&E was restoring the power, a 
very high voltage surge occurred which caused the surge 
protection equipment in the power supply room at the Plant 
to explode. Although the surge equipment protected the 
Plant's electrical equipment from damage by stopping the 
power supply, the surge protection equipment is also the 
mechanism to restore the power supply. As such, without the 
surge protection equipment, the Plant became inoperable 
because there was no method to restore the power supply to 
the Plant. 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



Comment: 



In accordance with provisions of Section 6.30 of the 
Administrative Code, the PUC initiated an expedited 
contracting procedure for (1) temporary emergency repairs to 
restore power, (2) an investigation into the cause of the power 
outage and power surge, and (3) permanent repairs based on 
the results of the investigation. The PUC selected General 
Electric, for the amount not to exceed $100,000. The PUC 
advises that neither General Electric, nor General Electric's 
subcontractor, is a MBE or a WBE firm. 

The PUC advises that the temporary emergency repair work 
at the Harry W. Tracy Water Treatment Plant began on 
March 12, 1995. The investigation, and the permanent 
repair work are estimated to be completed by May 30, 1995. 

The Attachment provided by Mr. Richard Brandt of the PUC 
shows the budget details for the emergency repairs, the 
investigation, and the permanent l-epairs. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



ORION MILLER 

tcaotMT 

Oe NNtS NORMAKOV 
C£t«6SIOtMT 
ARION E. OTSEA 

*.6(N SALMA 
J6CAT K. W6B86 



PUBUC UTILfTIES COMMISSION 
CITY ANO COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



HUNK M. JOHOAN. M4KM 
ANSON 8. MOttAN. CfttlAAi UAMJMf 



UTIUTCS ENGINEERING BUREAU 

fiMXARD E. 6ft ANDT. uauacJ* 




W»T» DCPAHJMfNT 



KETCH HETCHY 
WATER AMO POwtR 



Engineering and Construction by General Electric 
Invoices received to date: 

A. General Electric Labor $19,530.00 

B. Subcontractor (STT & Pajaro Electric) Labor 26,735.00 

C. Electrical Materials/Equipment 7,952.00 

Shipping for Item l.C 99.00 

Sales Tax (8.5%), Item l.C 675.94 

Subtotal 54,992.18 



2. General Electric Estimate for Remaining Work: 

A. General Electric Labor 

B. Subcontractor Labor 

C. Electrical Material (6 kV Surge Arresters 

and new busbars) 
Shipping for Item 2.C 
Sales Tax (8.5%) Item 2.C 
Subtotal 



$13,990.00 

23,320.00 

7,003.00 

100.00 

595.00 

45,007.00 



TOTAL (Not To Exceed) 



$100,000.00 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

Item lb - File 28-95-9 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of the Department of 
Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the 
health, welfare and property of the citizens of San Francisco 
by performing the necessary work to replace a structurally 
inadequate sewer at Post Street between Lyon Street and 
Presidio Avenue. 

$111,910 

Sewer Service Charge, Repair and Replacement Fund 

The DPW reports that on November 8, 1994 the Bureau of 
Street and Sewer Repair (BSSR) requested an emergency 
contract to repair a collapsed sewer at Post Street between 
Lyon Street and Presidio Avenue. 

In accordance with Section 6.3 of the Administrative Code, 
the DPW implemented an expedited contracting procedure 
and requested award of the contract to the lowest bidder, 
Harty Pipelines based on a bid amount of $99,355. However, 
the DPW reports that Harty Pipelines failed to satisfy 
subcontracting goals set by the Human Rights Commission 
(HRC) and the contract was therefore awarded to the second 
lowest bidder, P & M Pipelines. P & M Pipelines, an LBE 
firm, submitted a bid of $111,910, or $12,555 more than the 
bid by Harty Pipelines of $99,355. The DPW advises that 
construction on the sewer is expected to begin by May 21, 
1995 and estimates the total time necessary for the 
completion of the sewer repair at 35 days. According to Mr. 
P. T. Law of the DPW, temporary repairs to stabilize the 
sewer have already been made, using previously 
appropriated funds. 

1. Mr. Law advises that more than 30 emergency sewer 
repair contracts have been requested thus far in FY 1994-95, 
resulting in up to six-month delays before construction. Mr. 
Law further advises that an average of six emergency 
contracts are requested during a normal fiscal year, with 
delays before construction averaging two to three months. 

2. Mi - . Law reports that funds previously appropriated to the 
DPW's Sewer Repair and Replacement fund in the FY 1994- 
95 budget would he used to pay lor these repairs. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OKSri'KHVlSOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST /. 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

Item lc - File 101-94-44.1 

Department: Public Library 

Item: Release of reserved funds, (Library Preservation Fund), in 

the amount of $10,000 for the purpose of funding window 
washing. 

Amount: $10,000 

Source of Funds: Library Preservation Fund 

Description: In January of 1995, the Board of Supervisors placed $10,000 

on reserve to be used for window washing services for the 
Public Library and the 26 Public Library Branches, pending 
the selection of a contractor, the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractor and budget details (File 101-94-44). 

Mr. Richard Walsh of the Public Library advises that in 
January of 1995, the Public Library solicited two firms, 
recommended by the Purchasing Department, for window 
cleaning services. Mr. Walsh advises that the Public Library 
selected Ward's Building Maintenance, Inc. (WBM), as the 
only firm to submit a proposal in response to the Public 
Library's solicitation. Mr. Walsh advises that WBM would 
provide the proposed window cleaning services for the period 
beginning approximately May 8, 1995 through approximately 
May 26, 1995. WBM is a MBE/LBE firm. 

As specified in the contract, WBM will (1) clean all windows, 
skylights and interior glass partitions, both inside and 
outside of the 30 Public Library branches, (2) clean all 
interior and exterior windows located at 45 Hyde Street, the 
annex building for the Main Library, and (3) clean the 
interior and exterior of all ground level windows located at 
the Main Library located at 200 Larkin Street for a total cost 
of $9,700. 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Walsh advises that the windows for the Public 
Library branches have not been cleaned in five years, and the 
windows for 45 Hyde Street have not been cleaned in nine 
years. Mr. Walsh advises that WBM will only clean the 
ground level windows of the Main Library, since the Main 
Library will soon be relocating. 

2. As noted above, the contract cost for WBM is $9,700. As 
such, the proposed legislation should be amended to reduce 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

the proposed release of reserved funds from $10,000 to 
$9,700, a reduction of $300. 

Recommendations: 1. As noted in Comment 2 above, the proposed release of 
reserved funds, in the amount of $10,000, should be amended 
to $9,700 to reflect a decrease of $300. 

2. Approve the proposed release of reserved funds as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 97-95-20 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code 
by adding Chapter 70, consisting of Sections 70.1 through 
70.10, to establish a public authority pursuant to California 
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12301.6 to provide for 
the delivery of in-home supportive services. 

The proposed ordinance would establish a new entity, the In- 
Home Supportive Services Public Authority (IHSS Authority) 
which would perform certain functions with respect to the In- 
Home Supportive Services Program (IHSS). IHSS is an 
entitlement program, with some funding restrictions, which 
provides funding for low income seniors and disabled people 
to receive non-medical personal care and other household 
help in their homes from visiting workers. IHSS care can 
allow seniors and disabled people to remain in their own 
homes and thereby avoid unnecessary and expensive 
hospitalization or institutionalization. 

IHSS serves approximately 7,500 low-income clients in the 
City. Approximately 71 percent of IHSS clients are eligible 
for Federal funding through the Medicaid Personal Care 
Services Program (PCSP). Services for these IHSS clients 
are funded through Federal Medicaid funds (50 percent), 
State funds (32.5 percent), and local matching City funds 
(17.5 percent). For the remaining 29 percent of IHSS clients 
who are not eligible for Federal PCSP funds, IHSS services 
are funded through State funds (50 percent), and City funds 
(50 percent). The Federal government, therefore, matches 50 
percent of 71 percent of the overall cost of services for IHSS 
clients in tbe City. 

Administrative costs of tbe program for the 71 percent of 
IHSS clients who are PCSP-eligible are shared by the 
Federal government (35.5 percent), the State (35 percent) 
and the City (29.5 percent). Administrative costs for the 
remaining 29 percent of non-PCSP clients are shared by the 
State (50 percent) and the City (50 percent). The Federal 
government, therefore, matches 35.5 percent of 71 percent of 
the overall cost of administration for IHSS clients in the City. 

In FY 1994-95, $10,102,984 was budgeted for IHSS services 
from the City's General Fund through the Department of 
Social Services (DSS) budget. DSS reports that there have 
been significant savings in the IHSS program this year, and 
projects that approximately $8.8 million of the planned 



BOARD OF SUI'KKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



amount for services will be spent, or approximately $1.3 
million less than the amount budgeted. 

Currently, DSS is responsible for administration of IHSS. 
However, the wages, hours and other working conditions of 
IHSS workers are set in part by State law. IHSS workers 
function either as independent providers (88 percent of paid 
IHSS hours), or through a contract between DSS and one of 
two private providers, National Homecare Services (10 
percent of paid IHSS hours) or IHSS Consortium (2 percent 
of paid IHSS hours). Independent providers are paid the 
minimum wage of $4.25 per hour, National Homecare 
Services is paid $12.28 per hour, (with workers receiving 
approximately half that amount, $6.14, in wages), and the 
IHSS Consortium is paid $11.99 per hour, (with workers 
receiving approximately $5.25 in wages). IHSS workers who 
are independent providers are considered contract employees 
of the clients they serve and do not have sick leave, vacation 
or other benefits. IHSS workers under the National 
Homecare Services contract have sick leave, health 
insurance, vacation, and retirement benefits as negotiated 
through collective bargaining. The IHSS Consoilium also 
has sick leave, health insurance, vacation, and other benefits, 
however these workers are not represented by a bargaining 
unit at this time. 

IHSS clients may be placed with service providers from any 
of the three options listed above, but hours of service under 
the National Homecare Services and IHSS Consortium 
contracts are limited and are not always available to every 
client. Clients using IHSS services under National Homecare 
and the IHSS Consortium generally do so because they are 
less able to hire, supervise, and schedule their IHSS workers, 
according to Ms. Julie Murray of DSS. National Homecare 
and the IHSS Consortium hire, supervise, and schedule 
workers on behalf of these clients. 

According to DSS, the Commission on the Aging, and 
advocates for elders and the disabled, the varied funding 
sources, supervisory arrangements, low pay, and other 
factors in the IHSS program have created a situation which 
is confusing for IHSS workers and clients. Advocates report 
that there is little or no screening of independent providers, 
inadequate training, high turnover, difficulty in resolving 
administrative issues, and no clear source where either 
workers or individuals eligible for IHSS care can turn to for 
referrals or information. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



In 1993, in order to help resolve some of these issues, the 
State passed legislation authorizing counties to create public 
authorities to improve IHSS service delivery. In the Bay 
Area, both San Mateo and Alameda County have recently 
passed legislation to create IHSS public authorities to 
manage IHSS services. The proposed ordinance would create 
such an authority for San Francisco. 

The IHSS Authority would; 

a) Serve as the "employer of record" for IHSS workers for the 
purposes of collective bargaining and establishing wages, 
benefits and working conditions; 

b) Establish a Central Registry which would assist IHSS 
clients by providing an orientation to the program, screening 
IHSS workers, and listing information about workers, 
including their qualifications, language skills, and 
availability. The Central Registry would also assist IHSS 
workers by providing information about job availability, and 
helping IHSS workers to piece together full time employment 
from disparate job sites. IHSS clients would also retain the 
right to hire workers independent of the IHSS Authority's 
Central Registry, and use of the Registry by IHSS workers 
would be voluntary. 

c) Through the Central Registry, provide training, advocacy, 
and other support services to IHSS workers and clients. 

Under the proposed legislation, the IHSS Authority is the 
employer of IHSS workers for the purposes of collective 
bargaining. The State is the employer for the purposes of 
taxes, payroll, unemployment insurance, and worker's 
compensation. The individual recipient of IHSS services is 
the employer for the purposes of hiring, firing, and directing 
work. 

The IHSS Authority will be separate and distinct from the 
City and from the City's Department of Social Services, with 
its own governing body, financial arrangements, and 
insurance. The IHSS Authority would not be subject to 
control by the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, or other City 
officials over issues such as its budget, policies, or day-to-day 
operations. The City is not liable for the debts or other 
obligations of the IHSS Authority, and employees of the 
Authority will not be employees of the City (See Comments 
10 and 11 below). 



BOARD OF Sri'KKVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Creation of the IHSS Authority does not affect the powers of 
the City's Social Services Commission, Mayor, or Board of 
Supervisors to review and authorize the activities of the 
Department of Social Services. 

At this time, State regulations do not provide for funding to 
be transferred directly from State and Federal sources to the 
IHSS Authority. Therefore, under the proposed ordinance, in 
order to pay the operating costs of the IHSS Authority, the 
Department of Social Services will claim State and Federal 
funds in the IHSS program, combine those funds with City 
General Fund matching funds, and transfer funds to the 
Authority by contract or grant. According to Ms. Virginia 
Elizondo of the City Attorney's Office, the State will 
promulgate regulations formalizing this funding mechanism 
by the summer of 1995. 

The IHSS Authority would have an 11-member Board, 
appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Board of 
Supervisors is required to make its initial appointments of 
the seven consumer and worker members of the IHSS Board 
from a list of individuals recommended by the IHSS Task 
Force of Planning for Elders in the Central City. The IHSS 
Task Force of Planning for Elders in the Central City is a 
coalition of public agencies, senior and other consumer 
groups, labor union representatives, workers, and others 
interested in improving IHSS services. Appointments to the 
IHSS Authority Board must be made according to the 
following qualifications; 

• Two consumers of IHSS or other "personal assistance 
services," who are 60 or more years of age and represent 
oi-ganizations advocating for older people with disabilities; 

• Two consumers of IHSS or other "personal assistance 
services," who are between 18 and 60 years of age and 
represent organizations advocating for younger people with 
disabilities ; 

• One at-large consumer of IHSS or other "personal 
assistance services," 60 or more years of age; 

• One at-large consumer of IHSS or other "personal 
assistance services," between 18 and 60 years of age; 

• One worker who provides "personal assistance services"; 

• One Social Services Commissioner, recommended to the 
Board of Supervisors by the Social Services Commission; 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

• One Health Commissioner, recommended to the Board of 
Supervisors by the Health Commission; 

• One Commission on the Aging member, recommended to 
the Board of Supervisors by the Commission on the Aging; 

• One member of the Mayor's Disability Council, 
recommended to the Board of Supervisors by the Mayor. 

The governing body members will serve three year terms, 
except for the initial group of such members, who will draw 
lots designating 3 such members who will serve one year 
terms and 4 who will serve two year terms. No members will 
receive compensation for their service. 

Comments: 1. San Francisco received a one-time grant of $250,000 from 

the State in FY 1994-95 to study the feasibility of 
establishing an IHSS Authority for the City, and to begin 
implementation of the Authority. To date, $50,000 of these 
funds have been spent through a consultant contract between 
the City's Commission on the Aging and Planning for Elders 
in the Central City, (PECC) a non-profit organization. The 
remaining $200,000 is proposed to be used to fund a portion 
of the start-up costs for the IHSS Authority (See Comment 4 
below). 

2. Planning for Elders in the Central City has also received 
$25,000 in CDBG funds from the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development in FY 1994-95 to fund program 
design and development of a computer system for the IHSS 
Central Registry. Planning for Elders in the Central City 
currently has this project out for bid. 

3. As the IHSS program is currently set up, both wage costs 
and administrative costs of the IHSS program are usually 
partially funded by both the State and Federal governments 
according to certain conditions as described above. No cuts 
have been proposed in this program by the State, however, it 
is not yet known whether or not the State will pay its usual 
share of wages and administrative costs for the IHSS 
program under the IHSS Public Authority. At this time, the 
State has not yet approved funding for an increase in wages 
for IHSS workers in FY 1995-96, and has capped the City's 
administrative allocation for IHSS. If sufficient funds for 
IHSS are not appropriated in future years, the State may not 
participate in paying wage increases proposed for IHSS 
workers, and may nol participate in paying a full 35 percent 
of the IHSS Authority's operating costs in future years. The 

BOARD OF sri'KKY'lSOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 11 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Federal government is expected to continue to pay wages of 
IHSS workers for clients eligible for PCSP Medicaid funds at 
the same rate as in past years, however, it is not clear at this 
time whether or not the Federal government will continue to 
share the costs of IHSS administration under the IHSS 
Authority at the same rate as in past years. 

4. Ms. Donna Calame, the consultant for the IHSS Public 
Authority project under PECC, projects that the IHSS 
Authority that would be established by the proposed 
ordinance would incur start-up capital and operating costs 
for salaries, rent, and equipment, of approximately $460,000 
in each of the next two fiscal years. Because of the 
uncertainty regarding how much of the costs of the IHSS 
Authority will be shared by the State and Federal 
governments, the City's share of costs as proposed by DSS in 
these first two fiscal years is somewhat higher than the City's 
normal share of such costs for IHSS administration in past 
years. For FY 1995-96, the DSS has requested $250,000 in 
its General Fund budget, which is proposed to be combined 
with $87,500 in Federal funds, plus $122,000 of the 
remaining State grant funds mentioned above, to provide the 
first year's funding for the Authority of $459,500. For FY 
1996-97, the DSS would request approximately $257,500 in 
its General Fund budget, which is proposed to be combined 
with approximately $90,125 in Federal funds, plus the 
remaining $78,000 in State grant funds. A specific funding 
source for the remaining $34,275 to provide balance of the 
second year's funding for the Authority of $459,900 has not 
yet been identified, however, additional State or Federal 
funds might become available for this purpose, according to 
Ms. Calame. 

5. If no Federal matching funds become available for start- 
up costs of the IHSS Authority in the next two years, the 
City's potential cost could be as much as 3337,500 ($250,000 
plus $87,500) in FY 1995-96 and $347,625 ($257,500 plus 
$90,125) in FY 1996-97, or a total of 3685,125 for the two 
years. If the State and Federal government continue to pay 
approximately the same portion of IHSS administrative costs 
which they have paid in the past, as advocates of the IHSS 
Authority proposal expect, the City's cost for FY 1995-96 
would be approximately 3162,700, (not S250.000) and for FY 
1996-97, $162,800, (not 3257,500) based on approximately 
35.4 percent (combining costs of both PCSP and non-PCSP 
client caseloads) of the projected operating costs of the IHSS 
Authority in those two fiscal years. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



6. After the first two fiscal years, costs for start-up of the 
IHSS Authority will end. According to Ms. Calame, ongoing 
operating costs for the IHSS Authority, including the Central 
Registry service, are expected to be approximately $394,000 
annually beginning in 1997-98. As described above, 
administrative costs in the IHSS program are usually paid 
35.5 percent by the Federal government, 35 percent by the 
State government, and 29.5 percent by the City for most of 
the client caseload. However, according to DSS, the 
Department does not expect that the State will participate in 
sharing the increased administrative costs of the IHSS 
Authority, and it is unclear whether or not the Federal 
government will participate; either or both of which would 
increase the City's costs. As such, approval of the proposed 
ordinance potentially creates a new, ongoing cost to the City's 
General Fund beginning in FY 1997-98 of as much as 
$394,000 per year for the IHSS Authority's operating costs. 
If the State and Federal governments do share this cost, as 
advocates for the IHSS Authority proposal expect, the City's 
cost could decrease to as low as $140,000 annually (35.4 
percent of $394,000). 

7. In 1994-95, the City's share of the wage costs to pay IHSS 
workers in San Francisco was 17.5 percent for PCSP clients, 
and 50 percent for non-PCSP clients. The DSS has requested 
$8,940,043 in FY 1995-96 to pay IHSS wages, a decrease of 
$1,162,941 from FY 1994-95. This amount includes an 
updated estimate of the actual costs of the program, and an 
increase of $1.3 million, in order to be able to increase the 
wages of all IHSS workers. These funds are drawn from the 
City's General Fund. The State must approve a new wage 
rate before either the State or Federal governments will 
participate in a wage increase. If a higher wage is approved, 
the State has not indicated that it will participate in the 
wage increase, however, according to the currently approved 
State plan for the IHSS program, the Federal government 
will provide matching funds for the PCSP portion of the 
caseload (71 percent). If there are no Federal or State 
matching funds, the $1.3 million in City funds translates into 
a 22<Z per hour increase for all IHSS workers in FY 1995-96. 
If there is a Federal match, the increase would be 34c per 
hour. 

8. As noted above, wages for IHSS workers are partially paid 
by the State and Federal governments according to eligibility 
requirements. However, the State has nut indicated that it 
will participate in a wage increase for IHSS workers, and the 
Federal government only pays wages for approximately 71 
percent of (Ik- City's IHSS caseload. Taken together, these 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



two factors make it likely that the City will be responsible for 
paying an increasing percentage of future wages for IHSS 
workers. As such, approval of the proposed ordinance 
potentially creates a new, ongoing cost of an indeterminate 
amount to the City's General Fund for payment of wages to 
IHSS workers. It should be noted that the cost to the City of 
wa ges for IHSS workers could rise in this manner in future 
years whether or not the IHSS Authority is created. 

9. Under the proposed legislation, the IHSS Authority would 
have the authority to set wage rates for IHSS workers. Wage 
rates set by the Authority must also be approved by the 
State. Wage rates by the IHSS Authority would not be 
subject to review by the Mayor or Board of Supervisors. 
While the IHSS Authority would have no direct power to 
obligate City funds, this wage setting power means that the 
IHSS Authority could increase the amount of funds needed 
from the City's General Fund to pay IHSS workers. 
However, the City is not obligated to pay increased wages for 
IHSS workers, and limits on City appropriations of these 
funds would have to be factored into any collective bargaining 
process conducted between the IHSS Authority and the 
workers. 

10. The City Attorney's Office has advised that although the 
legislation has been drafted so that the IHSS Authority is not 
the employer of IHSS workers for the purposes of worker 
supervision, and would therefore not be liable for possible 
negligence of such workers, it is possible that the IHSS 
Authority could be named in litigation resulting from the 
operation of the Central Registry of IHSS workers. Unless 
and until such cases were decided in court, the City Attorney 
cannot guarantee that the IHSS Authority would be 
protected from liability. 

11. The City Attorney's Office has advised that although 
every effort has been made in drafting this legislation, and 
the State statute, to protect the City against liability for the 
IHSS Authority's debts and activities, it is possible that the 
City could be named in litigation resulting from actions of the 
IHSS Authority. Unless and until such cases were decided in 
court, the City Attorney cannot guarantee that the City 
would be protected from liability. 

12. In summary, the IHSS Public Authority which would be 
created by the proposed ordinance would serve as the 
employer of IHSS workers for the purposes of collective 
bargaining, and would work to improve conditions for IHSS 
workers and clients by operating a Central Registry, and by 

BOARD OF SUPKRVISORS u 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

training and screening IHSS workers. The IHSS Authority 
will be legally separate and distinct from the City, and will 
receive funds from the City through a contract or grant 
relationship. The IHSS Authority's operating costs will be 
approximately $460,000 annually for the first two years, and 
$394,000 in the following years. If the State and Federal 
governments participate in financing the IHSS Authority's 
costs at the same rate as other administrative costs of IHSS, 
the City's share of the ongoing cost of the IHSS Authority 
could be as low as $140,000 annually. However, if State and 
Federal participation does not continue at the same rate, the 
City's share of costs would be higher. The City currently 
pays approximately $9 million for its share of the cost of 
IHSS services, and, depending on future State and Federal 
participation in paying for IHSS services, the amount of 
funds needed from the City for IHSS services in the future 
could increase. The amount of funds to be appropriated from 
the City's General Fund for IHSS services would continue to 
be subject to review and approval by City officials. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance, which would create a 
separate legal entity, known as the In-Home Supportive 
Services Public Authority, to be the employer of record for 
IHSS workers in the City and to operate a Central Registry 
of IHSS workers, is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



iOAKI) OF SIPKKVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



Item 



- File 97-95-22 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner (Medical 
Examiner) 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code 
by amending Section 8.14 to authorize the Chief Medical 
Examiner-Coroner to adjust fees for certain services. 

Currently, the Department of the Medical Examiner-Coroner 
(Medical Examiner) charges a fee for the searching of records 
of deceased persons but does not presently charge a fee for 
the preparation of reports on forensic alcohol analysis 
performed on living persons. Forensic alcohol analysis 
details the level of alcohol or illicit substances present in a 
person and is commonly requested by attorneys in Driving 
Under the Influence (DUI) cases. Further, the Chief Medical 
Examiner-Coroner does not presently charge a fee to 
responsible parties (primarily funeral directors) for the 
storage of the remains of the deceased prior to cremation and 
burial. 

The proposed ordinance would (1) delete the current $7.50 fee 
charged for searching the records of the deceased, (2) add a 
$6.00 per page fee for the preparation of forensic alcohol 
reports, and (3) add a $25.00 per day fee for the storage of 
remains . 

1. According to Mr. Herb Hawley of the Department of the 
Medical Examiner-Coroner, the City Attorney's Office has 
informed the Department that its current charge of $7.50 for 
the searching of records of the deceased is in violation of the 
City's Sunshine Ordinance, Section 67.1 of the Municipal 
Code, which prohibits fees for the searching of records, and 
therefore must be discontinued. Mr. Hawley notes that a 
separate fee of $7.50 per one to two page report, equal to that 
of other Bay Area counties, is presently charged for the 
copying of such records, and that this latter fee does not 
violate the Sunshine Ordinance. 

2. The proposed new fee of $6.00 per page for the preparation 
of forensic alcohol reports would be imposed in order to 
recover costs in accordance with the attached cost schedule 
provided by Mr. Hawley. Mr. Hawley notes that the fee for a 
forensic alcohol report would not be charged to those 
attorneys with court subpoenas, which represent an 
estimated - r )0 percent of all such request: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



3. Mr. Hawley advises that an increase in cremation has 
lessened the need for pre-funeral preparations of the 
deceased by funeral directors, increasing the length of time 
the deceased are left in the County's storage facility and 
resulting in storage capacity problems. Mr. Hawley advises 
that the purpose of the proposed new storage fee of $25.00 
per day is to encourage responsible parties to take possession 
of the deceased sooner, in order to alleviate storage capacity 
problems. According to Mr. Hawley, area funeral directors 
would be informed, by written notice, of the proposed fee, 
which would be charged to them only after notification of the 
survivors of the deceased and the completion of an 
investigation by the Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner. 

4. The estimated increase in annual revenues from this 
proposed legislation is as follows: 



Service 
Search of . . 
Records of 
Deceased Persons $7.50 



Amount of Amount of 
Current Fee Proposed Fee 



Preparation of 
Forensic Alcohol 
Analysis Reports 



-0- 



-0- 



$6.00/page 



Increase 
Estimated (Decrease) 
Annual in Annual 

Units Revenues 



20 requests ($ 150.00) 



300 pages 1,800.00 



Storage of Remains 

of Deceased Persons 

Prior to Burial 

or Cremation -0- $25.00/day 

Total Estimated Increase in Annual Revenues 



200 days 



5.000.00 
$6,650.00 



5. Any increased revenues would be deposited to the Chief 
Medical Examiner-Coroner's Revenue Account, offsetting the 
Department's General Fund budgeted expenses. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



17 



City and County of San Francisco Chief Medical Examiner • Coroner 




April 18, 1995 



Mr. Jerome Sayre 

Budget Analyst 

Board of Supervisors 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Mr. Sayre: 

Preparation of a forensic alcohol report requires time to (1) 
gather and reduce data from information rolls, (2) redact names and 
other identifying information of adjacent samples, and (3) access and 
copy Police Department records. This work can only be done by an 
Assistant Forensic Toxicologist and requires a miniiaim of two hours. 
The total report is approximately 10 pages. 

The $6 per page charge was estimated as follows: 

Minimum Asst. Forensic 

Preparation Toxicologist - Total Copying Total 

Time Hourly wage Labor Post Cost Report Cost 

2 hours x $28.83/hour = $57.67 + $1.10(10 pages = $58.77 

@ .11/page) 

Minimum cost per page ($58.77/10 pages) $5.88 

Proposed cost per page $6.00 

Based on our study of the time and materials involved, I believe 
a reasonable cost for this work would be $6 per paga. 



Si nee r 




Exa"ain: 



BGS:sk/5266C 



15)553 1694 Hall of Justice. 850 Bcvant Street San Francisco. C A 94103 

ACCRtDIFED NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



later than October 1, 2025. Interest would be paid 
semiannually on April 1 and October 1 of each year. 

• Establish (1) an Interest Fund to receive all accrued 
interest on the sale of Series 1995 Bonds; (2) a Bond 
Reserve Fund to assume debt service payments in the 
event that the City is unable to cover debt service (the 
Bond Reserve Fund can consist of legal investments, a 
Bond Reserve Surety Policy or a Letter of Credit); (3) a 
Construction Fund to pay construction and other project 
costs; (4) a Series 1995 Sinking Fund, which would pay off 
bonds as they mature; and (5) an Expense Account to pay 
for all costs incidental to the issuance of Series 1995 
Bonds. 

• Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to 
execute a Bond Reserve Surety Policy with respect to the 
Series 1995 Bonds. A Bond Reserve Surety Policy is an 
insurance policy under which the insurer assumes debt 
service payments for the City if the City is unable to cover 
debt service. The Bond Reserve Surety Policy is one of the 
alternatives that can be used by the City to fund the 
previously-cited Bond Reserve Fund. 

• Approve forms of official notice relating to the sale of 
these bonds and direct the publication of such notice. The 
sale is scheduled to be held on or about June 6, 1995. 

• Approve the purchase contract form. 

• Approve the official statement relating to these bonds. 
Copies of the official statement containing the specifics of 
the bond sale would be available to all bidders. 

• Consent to the submission of bids by the financial 
consultants and authorize official action. Bonds would be 
awarded to the bidder whose bid represents the lowest 
interest cost to the City. 

• Grant general authority to City officers to take necessary 
actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, 
sale and delivery of Series 1995 Bonds as well as 
authorize reimbursement of expenditures. 

The principal and interest on the proposed Series 1995 
General Purpose Sewer Revenue Bonds are payable solely 
from the net revenues (revenues received through Sewer 
Service Charges and interest earnings thereon, less operating 
costs) of the Clean Water Program. The General Fund of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



Comments: 



City is not liable and the credit or taxing power of the City is 
not pledged for the payment of the proposed Series 1995 
Sewer Revenue Bonds or their interest. 

The Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 656-92 on 
August 3, 1992. Resolution No. 656-92 provides that the 
process of issuing any further Sewer Revenue Bond series is 
to be accomplished as a supplemental resolution to 
Resolution No. 656-92. Subsequently, on January 24, 1994, 
the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 58-94, 
which provided for the issuance and sale of $190,000,000 in 
Series 1994 General Purpose Sewer Revenue Refunding 
Bonds 1 . Resolution No. 58-94 was approved as a 
supplemental resolution to Resolution No. 656-92. The 
proposed resolution (File 170-95-4) would be approved as a 
supplemental resolution to both Resolution No. 656-92 and 
Resolution No. 58-94, in accordance with the provisions of 
Resolution No. 656-92. 

In addition, the proposed resolution (File 170-95-4) would 
amend Resolution No. 656-92 to add new definitions and to 
clarify certain existing provisions. 

1. Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's Office states 
that the cost of issuing the Series 1995 Sewer Revenue 
Bonds, including fees for private bond counsel and financial 
advisors and the services of the CAO and the City Attorney, 
is expected to be approximately $315,000. Ms. Wagner- 
Lockwood indicates that funds to cover such costs would be 
deposited from the bond proceeds into the previously-cited 
Expense Account. According to Ms. Wagner-Lockwood, the 
proposed resolutions would authorize the expenditure of up 
to S3 15,000 in bond proceeds by the CAO for the costs 
associated with bond issuance. As such, the expenditure of 
bond proceeds for bond issuance costs would not require 
separate appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

2. All future appropriations of these Bond Fund monies for 
purposes other than for bond issuance costs would be subject 
to the separate appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors through supplemental appropriation ordinances 
or through the annual budget process. 

The Budget Analyst suggests that the Budget Committee 
may wish to amend the proposed leg! lation to require thai 



1 General Purpose Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds are issued for the purpo e of refunding a portion 
of previously sold Sewer Revenue Bonds in order t<> achieve debl servi e avings from a reduced 
interest ran- payable on the bonds. 

HOARD OFSl I'KRVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



expenditures of bond proceeds for bond issuance costs also be 
subject to separate appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. The proposed resolution (File 170-95-4.1) states that the 
bonds would not exceed a maximum interest rate of 12 
percent. However, Ms. Wagner-Lockwood reports that the 
bonds would most likely be sold at an interest rate of 
approximately six percent. 

4. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood reports that the average annual 
debt service for the Series 1995 Sewer Revenue Bonds is 
estimated to be $3.77 million. 

5. There are currently $511,995,000 in outstanding Sewer 
Revenue Bonds for the Clean Water Program (Series 1991, 
1992 and 1994). According to the Department of Public 
Works (DPW) schedule of cash flow requirements for projects 
included in the voter-approved $146,075,000 Sewer Revenue 
Bond program, funds for the various projects will be required 
over a six-year period. Ms. Ann Carey of DPW indicates that 
the impact of the issuance and sale of the subject $62.5 
million in Series 1995 Sewer Revenue Bonds on the Sewer 
Service Charge will be an increase of approximately one-half 
of one percent (0.5 percent) each year for five years beginning 
in FY 1995-96. A separate Sewer Service Charge rate 
resolution, which provides for an increase in the Sewer 
Service Charge to cover debt service on the Series 1995 
Sewer Revenue Bonds, has been submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors for approval. 



Recommendations: 1. Approve the proposed resolutions. 



2. Amendment of the proposed resolutions, in accordance 
with Comment No. 2 above, is a policy matter for the Board 
of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

Items 6 and 7 - Files 101-94-85 & 102-94-14 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its April 26, 1995 
Committee meeting. 



Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 



Trial Courts 

Supplemental Appropriation ordinance appropriating and 
rescinding $138,564 from salaries and fringe benefits to create 
three new positions (101-94-85). 

Ordinance amending the 1994-95 Annual Salary Ordinance to 
reflect the addition of three new positions (1 FTE 676 Research 
Assistant, 2 FTE 697 Judicial Clerks) (102-94-14) 

$138,564 



Source of Funds: Reappropriation of surplus funds in the Trial Courts 1994-95 
Budget 

Description: The Trial Courts are requesting that $138,564 in surplus 

monies be rescinded from Permanent Salaries and Fringe 
Benefits in the Trial Court's existing FY 1994-95 budget, and 
reappropriated for 12 months funding to support three new 
positions: one Research Assistant and two Judicial Clerks. 

The Superior Court is requesting funding for two new Judicial 
Clerks and one new Research Assistant to perform additional 
work created by the new "Three Strikes You're Out" sanction, 
which specifies that persons convicted of three or more felonies 
must serve jail time. The Presiding Judge advises that the 
number of felony proceedings is expected to grow 22 percent in 
FY 1994-95, because defendants are less willing to plead guilty 
knowing that a guilty plea automatically results in jail time 
(see Comment 3). The new positions would research motions, 
maintain and retrieve records, and provide information to 
prosecutors within and outside the jurisdiction of the County. 
The costs of the salaries and fringe benefits for these positions 
for the period May 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995 are as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

Personnel 

676 Research Assistant Atty. 

(1 FTE) $46,067 

697 Judicial Clerk 

(2 FTEs) 68 f 069 

Total Permanent Salaries $114,136 

Fringe Benefits, at 21 percent 23.969 

Total Salary and Fringe Benefits $138,105 

Comment: 1. The total amount of salaries and fringe benefits for the three 

requested positions noted here is $459 less than the amount of 
$138,564 requested by the Superior Court because of slight 
errors on the part of the Superior Court in calculating the total 
annual salary, based on a bi-weekly salary for the Research 
Assistant of $1,765 and, for the Judicial Clerks, $1,304. 
Therefore, the proposed Supplemental Appropriation 
Ordinance should be reduced by $459 to reflect this lower 
need. In addition, the Superior Court would only be able to fill 
these positions for June (one month) of Fiscal Year 1994-95. 
Therefore, this request should be reduced by an additional 
$126,596, to reflect the costs for one month instead of 12 
months of salary and benefits, or $11,509, rather than full year 
costs of $138,105. 

2. As noted above, funds for this supplemental appropriation 
would come from a reappropriation of existing surplus monies 
in the Trial Court's 1994-95 budget. However, it should be 
noted that the addition of the three new positions would result 
in on-going additional annual costs for the Superior Court of 
$138,105 based on FY 1994-95 salary levels. 

3. According to Ms. Harrison, the requested Judicial Clerks 
would perform entry-level clerical activities necessary to 
provide proof of prior strikes, including pulling files and 
making photocopies, in response to requests from the San 
Francisco District Attorney and other California jurisdictions. 
Whereas 30 requests for information on prior convictions were 
received daily before three strikes, 50 daily requests are now 
being received. The Superior Court is currently a month 
behind in these activities. 

The Research Assistant Attorney is an entry-level attorney 
position to research motions pertaining to Three Strikes, Ms. 
Harrison advises. Such motions might include constitutional 
challenges to the Three Strikes legislation, challenges specific 
to previous strikes in an individual case, and challenges to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

what cases are classified as "violent felonies" (at least one of 
the three strikes must be "violent" for the law to apply). Ms. 
Harrison advises that research of such motions should be 
completed at least three days in advance of a hearing, to allow 
the Judge sufficient time to review the information. Currently, 
research is not always completed in time for a hearing, which 
causes the hearing to be continued. Ms. Harrison advises that 
such continuances require additional resources, because a 
hearing must be held a second time for the same case. 
Currently, the Court receives Temporary Salary funds for one 
half-time Research Assistant Attorney. If the proposed new 
full-time Research Assistant Attorney position is approved, the 
courts should reduce their FY 1995-96 Temporary Salary 
account to eliminate the existing half-time position. 

4. The State of California Legislative Analyst's Office 
conducted a survey of 42 California counties to determine the 
impact of "Three Strikes." The Legislative Analyst's Office 
reported on January 6, 1995, that, prior to "Three Strikes," 94 
percent of all felony cases Statewide were disposed of through 
plea bargaining. After "Three Strikes," only 14 percent of all 
second-strike cases, and six percent of all third-strike cases 
have been disposed of through plea bargaining. The Legislative 
Analyst's Office also reported that the number of jury trials 
has increased Statewide due to "Three Strikes." These findings 
of the State Legislative Analyst's Office support the Superior 
Court's claim that the number of cases going to trial, and thus 
the workload, has increased as a result of "Three Strikes." 

5. The reason the Trial Courts did not wait to include these 
new positions in its FY 1995-96 budget request is that the 
Trial Courts originated this supplemental appropriation 
request in February, 1995, because the above activities are 
increasingly in arrears, according to Ms. Harrison. The Court's 
supplemental appropriation request was held pending 
approval by the Mayor's Office of a related supplemental 
appropriation request for the Public Defender's Office. 

6. As part of the presently ongoing Zero Base budget analysis 
for Fiscal Year 1995-96, the Budget Analyst is currently 
analyzing cost savings that have been realized and additional 
savings that could be achieved by the Municipal and Superior 
Courts through consolidation efforts. 

Recornmendations: 1. Reduce the proposed Supplemental Appropriation 
Ordinance by $127,055, from $138,564 to $11,509, to reflect a 
reduction of $459 to correct an arithmetic error and to support 
the cost for one month rather than full-year salary and fringe 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



benefit costs for the proposed three new positions (101-94-85) 
requested by the Superior Court. 

2. If the proposed new full-time Research Assistant Attorney 
position is approved, the Trial Courts should reduce their FY 
1995-96 Temporary Salary account to eliminate the existing 
half-time position. 

3. Approval of the proposed Supplemental Appropriation 
Ordinance, as amended, and of the proposed amendment to the 
1994-95 Annual Salary Ordinance, which would add three new 
permanent positions to perform additional work associated 
with "Three Strikes," are policy matters for the Board of 
Supervisors (Files 101-94-85 and 102-94-14). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

Item 8 - File 118-94-3 

Note: This item was referred from the Health, Public Safety and Environment 
Committee at its meeting of April 25, 1995, due to the fiscal impact of the 
proposed ordinance. 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter 5 (Health Code), 

Article 21 of the Municipal Code, by amending Sections 1110, 
1114, 1115, 1161, and 1176 to exempt specified categories of 
medical practitioners from registration renewal, and to make 
technical changes concerning inspection forms and certain 
fees. 

Description: The proposed amendments to Part II, Chapter 5 (Health 

Code), Article 21 of the Municipal Code are divided into the 
three following categories: (1) Registration Renewal 
Requirement Changes, (2) Self-Inspection Form Changes, 
and (3) Technical Changes to Fee Schedule. These three 
categories are described as follows: 

Registration Renewal Requirement Changes 

Currently, Section 2, Part II, Chapter 5 (Health Code), 
Article 21, Section 1115 of the Municipal Code requires 
certain businesses that handle hazardous materials to obtain 
a Certificate of Registration from the Health Department and 
renew these Certificates of Registration every two years. The 
proposed ordinance to amend the Health Code would provide 
that a physician, dentist, podiatrist, veterinarian, or 
pharmacist, who is required to obtain a Certificate of 
Registration solely because he or she operates an 
establishment that handles oxygen or nitrous oxide or both, 
would be exempt from filing a renewal application and 
paying a biennial renewal fee. This exemption would only be 
valid as long as the total container capacity or combined total 
container capacity of oxygen or nitrous oxide or both, is less 
than one thousand cubic feet at standard temperature and 
pressure. If the capacity of the oxygen or nitrous oxide 
container is equal to or greater than one thousand cubic feet 
at standard temperature and pressure, then the business 
would not qualify for the exemption. 

Dr. Larry Meredith, of the Department of Public Health 
advises that the proposed amendment would not compromise 
public safety because these medical practitioners are trained 
in how to safely handle these gases. In addition, Dr. 
Meredith advises that State law provides that these medical 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



practitioners are not required to renew their Certificates of 
Registration for handling hazardous gases. 

Ms. Sue Cone of the Department of Public Health advises 
that approval of the proposed ordinance would result in an 
estimated reduction of $14,000 annually, or $28,000 
biennially, in revenues generated through the biennial 
renewal of 70 Certificates of Registration, at $400 per 
Certificate. 

Self-Inspection Form Changes 

Currently, Section 2, Part II, Chapter 5 (Health Code), 
Article 21, Section 1161 of the Municipal Code requires 
regulated businesses to conduct quarterly self-inspections of 
their hazardous materials storage facility to assure 
compliance with Article 21, and to maintain logs or file 
reports of these inspections using forms provided by the 
Director of Health. The proposed amendment to the 
Municipal Code would allow businesses to maintain logs or 
file reports of these inspections using either the forms 
provided by the Director of Health , or on alternate form 
provided that the alternate forms contain all of the 
information found on the forms provided by the Director. 

Dr. Meredith states that many business have established 
their own safety inspection forms, and find it easier to 
integrate new items into their existing format than to adopt 
DPH's format. Dr. Meredith advises that this proposed 
amendment would not have any fiscal impact to the City. 

Technical Changes to Fee Schedule 

Temporary Certificate of Registration : The proposed 
amendment would reduce the cost of a Temporary Certificate 
of Registration from $170.00 to $85.00. Ms. Cone advises 
that DPH has determined that the cost for this temporary 
registration, which is only valid for a three-month period, is 
excessive. Ms. Cone advises that in the past year, DPH has 
only processed two Temporary Certificates of Registration. 
As such, Ms. Cone advises that the proposed reduction would 
have minimal revenue loss to the City. 

Miscellaneous Other Fee Schedules 

Currently the Health Code provides that the Fire 
Department, which conducts inspections of Underground 
Storage Tanks located in such places as houses, businesses, 
and gasoline stations, is paid $36.00 per hour for their 
inspection services. The proposed amendment to the Health 
Code would increase the hourly rate from S36.00 per hour to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 



$62.50 per hour in order to recover the Fire Department's 
current costs. 

If the proposed fee increase is approved, then (1) the cost of 
the application fee for Underground Storage Tank (UST) 
repair, modification, removal or closure approval, and up to 
three hours of field inspection per site, provided by the 
Department of Public Health and the Fire Department would 
increase from $363.00 to $442.50 to reflect the increase in the 
Fire Department's costs, (2) the hourly inspection fee for the 
Fire Department for hours exceeding the three hours 
included in the application fee would increase from $36.00 
per hour to $62.50 per hour, and (3) the Fire Department's 
hourly rate for inspections for permit issuance or renewals 
that are not required by the Fire Code, but are required by 
the State's Health and Safety Code, for example in some 
businesses, would increase from $36.00 per hour to $62.50 
per hour. 

Ms. Cone advises that DPH currently removes an estimated 
35 Underground Service Tanks per month. If each applicant 
paid an additional $79.50 ($442.50-$363.00) per application 
fee, then the proposed increase in fees would generate an 
estimated additional $33,390 annually ($79.50 x 35 x 12 
mos). Ms. Cone advises that the Fire Department rarely 
exceeds the three hours provided for in the application fee, so 
this increase in the Fire Department's hourly rate would 
have minimal fiscal impact. In addition, Ms. Cone advises 
the proposed increase in hourly rates for the Fire 
Department to conduct inspections for permit issuances or 
renewals that are required by the State's Health and Safety 
Code, but are not required by the Fire Code, would have 
minimal fiscal impact since such inspections are not normally 
done. 

Additional Fees as Penalties 

According to Ms. Cone, the policy of DPH is to charge a late 
fee at a rate equal to 100 percent of the initial fee. Ms. Cone 
advises that this has served as a successful incentive for 
businesses to meet deadlines for obtaining UST and Acutely 
Hazardous Material (AHM) permits. The proposed ordinance 
would reduce the late fee for failing to obtain a UST permit 
in a timely manner from $170.00 to $85.00. Ms. Cone advises 
that the UST permit is excessive at its current cost. The 
proposed fee of $85.00 would be equal to 100 percent of the 
cost of the initial fee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

!9 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 3, 1995 

In addition, the proposed ordinance would add the following 
fee of $85.00 for the failure to timely register a temporary 
storage facility . The proposed ordinance would delete the 
following: ((failure to timely obtain a permit for a freight 
forwarding and freight transportation service facility)) 
because, as Ms. Cone advises, permits are not required for a 
freight forwarding and freight transportation service facility. 

The proposed ordinance would be amended to specify the 
type of permit, costing $340, as follows: Failure to timely 
register or obtain an AHM permit, unless otherwise provided 
in this section. 

Comment: 1. In summary, the proposed ordinance would amend the 

Health Code to (1) exempt certain businesses from renewing 
Certificates of Registration, resulting in an estimated 
$14,000 annual reduction in revenues generated from 
renewals of Certificates of Registration, (2) allow businesses 
to use their own forms to document self-inspections of their 
hazardous waste material storage facilities, and (3) would 
increase the inspection fees of the Fire Department from 
$32.00 per hour to $62.50 per hour, generating an estimated 
additional $33,390 per year in UST application fees, and 
would decrease various late fees, so that the late fee is not 
greater than the cost of the initial fee. 

2. On April 25, 1995, the Health, Public Safety and 
Environment Committee approved the proposed ordinance. 
This ordinance was referred to this Budget Committee for 
consideration because the proposed amendments were 
determined to have a fiscal impact. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



- File 101-94-95 



Department: Police Department 

Item: Resolution urging the Mayor to urge the Police Commission 

to submit a supplemental appropriation request to provide 
the bomb squad of the Police Department with a new bomb- 
disarming robot, five protective uniforms (bomb suits) for 
members of the bomb squad and four starlight scopes. 

Description: The proposed legislation states that the recent bombings of 

the Oklahoma City Federal Building and the World Trade 
Center Building in New York City, make it necessary for 
major American cities to be fully equipped to meet threats 
posed by terrorists, including having access to fully 
functioning and effective bomb disarming equipment and 
protective gear. 

The Police Department has a bomb squad under its Tactical 
Division, which is composed of seven team members. Captain 
Larry Minasian of the Tactical Division of the Police 
Department reports that the Police Department currently 
has one bomb-disarming robot. According to Captain 
Minasian, this robot, which is 25 years old, is out-dated and 
does not function properly. Captain Minasian also advises 
that the Police Department currently has only one protective 
uniform, which is designed to fit persons 5' 10" or over. 
Captain Minasian states that in order to have adequate 
protective gear for the members of the bomb squad, the Police 
Department needs to (1) purchase two (not five as indicated 
in the proposed resolution) additional protective uniforms 
and (2) upgrade the one existing protective uniform. Captain 
Minasian advises that such upgrade would involve adding a 
communication system, which would allow two-way 
communication between the technician working on the bomb 
and other members of the bomb squad. According to Captain 
Minasian, at least one of the two additional protective 
uniforms would be designed for persons under 5' 10". Captain 
Minasian further advises that the four starlight scopes noted 
above are not needed by the bomb squad in the performance 
of their work. As such, Captain Minasian believes that this 
equipment should not be included as a part of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation request. 

The Police Department reports that the estimated cost for the 
proposed new robot and protective uniforms and for the 
upgrade of the existing protective uniform, is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



3] 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 3, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Bomb-Disarming Robot $100,000 

Protective Uniforms (2 @ $14,000 each) 28,000 

Upgrade of Protective Uniform 7 f 500 

Total $135,500 

Captain Minasian advises that there would be no additional 
annual maintenance costs for the new robot and no 
additional annual training costs associated with the 
acquisition of the new robot or the protective uniforms. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. • — r>. . /? // 

/ftz~~ Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



32 



<* ~ MINUTES DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

~> r REGULAR MEETING 

C G f\ 0-7 BUDGET COMMITTEE AUG 2 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
$rX CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



s/,0 fys* 



WEDNESDAY. MAY 10. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, WAR MEMORIAL BLDG. 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:12 P.M. 

GENERAL ITEMS 



File 231-95-1 . [Initiating Proceedings to Form Assessment District] 
Resolution initiating proceedings pursuant to State law in order to form 
"PRIDE", a Benefit Assessment District to fund maintenance of park 
property. (Supervisors Hsieh, Bierman, Leal, Teng, Alioto) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ed Harrington, 
Controller; Mary Burns, General Manager, Recreation and Park Department; 
Debra Newman, representing Budget Analyst; Phil Arnold, Assistant General 
Manager, Recreation and Park Department. IN SUPPORT: Clayton 
Mansfield, Rec/Park Coalition; Dennis Antenore; Ron Miguel, President, 
Planning Association for the Richmond; Mila Visser't Hooft, Shared Art 
Studio; Steve Vardespino, President, Bike/Soccer Club; William Ryan, Lawn 
Bowling Club; Parker Maddux, Friends of Rec/Park; Isabel Wade, Urban 
Resources; Matt Etlinger; Patricial Walkup; Andrea Tischler; Sean Sweeney, 
Area Supervisor, Recreation and Park Department; Mary Gregory, President, 
Randall Museum Society; Nan McGuire, S.F. Beautiful; Howard Strassner; Bill 
Madison; Don Tull, Stern Grove on behalf of Patricia Kristof Moy; Jane Hart, 
Trust for Public Land; LaWanna Preston, Local 790; Nancy Cohrs, Rec/Park 
Advocates; Laurie Golmdan, Exec. Dir., Strybing Arboretum Society; 
Margaret Brodkin, Director, Coleman Advocates; Brian Lease, SF League of 
Urban Gardners; Greg Garr; Doug Wildman; Marybeth Wallace; Cecila 
Shepard; Marc Norton, SF for Tax Justice; Elsie Bandares; Betty Carmer; 
Sabrina Merlo, Urban Gardners. OPPOSED: Edith McMillian; Jim Frabris, SF 
Association of Realtors. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING 

SAME TITLE PRESENTED BY SUPERVISOR HSIEH. ADOPTED. 
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Kaufman dissenting.) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M^'UTES PAGE 2 



File 208-95-4 . [Urban Search and Rescue Task Force] Resolution urging the 
Mayor to urge the Fire Commission to immediately allocate funding to fully 
equip the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force for the current fiscal year. 
(Supervisors Hsieh, Kaufman, Bierman) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst; Deputy Chief Frank Cardinale, SF Fire 
Department; Ed Harrington, Controller; Teresa Serate, Budget Director, 
Office of the Mayor. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE PRESENTED 
BY SUPERVISOR HSIEH. ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE RECOMMENDED. AMENDED TITLE: "Urging the 
Mayor to urge the Fire Commission to immediately allocate 
funding to fully equip the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force for 
the current fiscal year, and urging the Mayor to include in his 
fiscal year 1995-96 budget the funding requested by the Fire 
Department for the Task Force." 

(Add Supervisor Bierman as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

FISCAL ITEMS 



3. File 101-94-96 . [Government Funding - Dept. Public Works] Ordinance 
appropriating $3,978,141 from the Clean Water Operating Fund (Rate 
Stabilization Fund) to allow the Department of Public Works to meet debt 
service requirements for fiscal year 1994-95. (Controller) RO #94230 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Kaufman absent.) 

4. File 101-94-97 . [Government Funding - Assessment Appeals Board] 
Ordinance appropriating $17,900 of Other Government Service Charges to 
allow the Board of Supervisors to pay fees and other compensation to Hearing 
Officers and Assessment Appeals Board members for fiscal year 1994-95. 
(Controller) RO #94229 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Kaufman absent.) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES PAGE 3 

RELEASE OF RESERVE 

5. File 101-92-60.8 . [Reserved Funds, Fire Department] Consideration of 
release of reserved funds, Fire Department, (1992 Prop C Bond Issue Fund) in 
the total amount of $1,115,482 for the purpose of funding construction 
contract, hazardous material abatement, and construction services of Fire 
Stations 23 and 16. (Dept. Public Works) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RELEASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,115,482 
APPROVED. FILED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

FEES 

6. File 97-95-26 . [Assessment Appeals Board] Ordinance amending 
Administrative Code 2B of the San Francisco Administrative Code by 
amending Section 2B.9 thereto to waive the filing fee for an application for 
reduction of assessment where the application is accompanied by a stipulation 
with the Assessor and the application is filed after the Assessment Appeals 
Board has reduced the assessment for a prior tax year, amending Section 
2B.10 to allow refund of only half of the hearing fee where the applicant 
prevails and obtains a reduction from the Assessment Appeals Board, 
amending Section 2B.12 to allow the Board of Supervisors to create a third 
Assessment Appeals Board where necessary to provide timely Assessment 
Appeal hearings, amending Section 2B.13 to allow Assessment Appeals Boards 
Nos. 2 and 3 to hear appeals involving property of any type on the secured or 
unsecured roll assessed at $30,000,000 or less, and amending Section 2B.18 to 
require the Assessment Appeals Board to accept recommendations of hearing 
officers as to which there is no timely objection. (Clerk of the Board) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO MAY 17, 1995, MEETING. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MT* T UTES PAGE 4 

7. File 97-95-27 . [Environmental Review Fees] Ordinance amending the 
Administrative Code by amending Section 31.36A, to institute new fees, 
increase fees, modify fees and extend the period certain fees are charged for 
environmental review procedures. (Department of City Planning) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst; Milton Edlin, Deputy Director of Planning, City 
Planning Department; Lu Blazej, Director of Planning, City Planning 
Department. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: Evelyn Wilson, SF Coalition 
for San Francisco Neighborhoods; Edith McMillian; Gg Piatt; John Barbey, SF 
Neighborhoods. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



8. File 115-95-2 . [Planning Fees and Initiation of Amendments] Ordinance 

amending Article 2, Article 3 and Article 3.54 of the City Planning Code by 
amending Sections 228.4, 302, 350 through 353, 355 through 358 to authorize 
citizens to request amendments to the City Planning Code, to impose new 
fees, change the amount of fees currently charged relating to Department of 
City Planning actions, activities and services. (Department of City Planning) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst; Milton Edlin, Deputy Director of Planning, City 
Planning Department; Lu Blazej, Director of Planning, City Planning 
Department. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: Evelyn Wilson, SF Coalition 
for San Francisco Neighborhoods; Edith McMillian; Gg Piatt; John Barbey, SF 
Neighborhoods. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
On Page 17, line 1, reduce Discretionary Review fee back to $125 
and delete "plus time and materials in excess of fee paid, to be 
paid by the requestor of Discretionary Review, total charge not to 
exceed five times the initial fee." On Page 27, line 22, reduce 
Landmark fee back to $250 and delete "for first four hours of 
fstaff time or fraction thereof, plus time and materials for each 
subsequent hour of staff time, total charge not to exceed five 
times the initial fee, without providing an estimate of cost. On 
Page 22, line 9, make clerical correction to repalce "11" with "11". 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MT* T UTES PAGE 5 

HEARINGS 

9. File 12-95-24.1 . [Taxes on Banks/Insurance Companies] Hearing to consider 
seeking a change in State law to permit San Francisco to directly tax banks 
and insurance companies instead of receiving in lieu payments from the State 
of California. (Supervisor Ammiano) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO MAY 17, 1995, MEETING. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



10. File 161-95-3 . [Redevelopment Agency Quarterly Report] Hearing to 
consider the Redevelopment Agency's Quarterly Financial Performance 
Report for the quarter ending December 31, 1994, in compliance with 
Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 330-94. (Redevelopment Agency) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst; Clifford Graves, Executive Director, 
Redevelopment Agency. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. FILED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 5:48 P.M. 



CITY AND COUNTY 



.01 




(Public Library, Documents QJept. 

OF SAN FRANCjg^. 3ant frdsOn 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



May 5, 1995 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 231-95-1 



DOCUMENTS DEF 
MY 9 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Recreation and Parks Department 



Resolution initiating proceedings pursuant to State law in 
order to form the Parks and Recreation Improvement District 
for Enhancements (PRIDE), a Benefit Assessment District to 
fund maintenance of park property. 

The proposed resolution would take the first step in the 
formation of a Benefit Assessment District in the City to 
provide funds for park maintenance and operations. 

State law permits jurisdictions to form special assessment 
districts that charge property owners for capital improvements 
and maintenance on nearby streets and parks. In most 
assessment districts, property owners are assessed 
proportionally based on the benefit to their property of the 
improvements. The Benefit Assessment District discussed by 
the proposed resolution would assess an amount from all 
property owners within the District (in this case, the entire 
City), based on the idea that parks benefit all properties 
Citywide, and would use those funds for park maintenance 
purposes Citywide. 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



In California, citywide assessment districts to fund park 
maintenance have been established in Oakland, Berkeley, 
Alameda, Hayward, Daly City, and other jurisdictions. The 
assessments on property in these jurisdictions range anywhere 
from $5 to over $100 per property. 

For the San Francisco Benefit Assessment District, the 
Department of Recreation and Parks is proposing an 
assessment of between $75 and $200 per parcel, depending on 
the size of the property and whether it is commercial or 
residential property. An amount would be assessed on all 
parcels in the City, with some possible exceptions. The amount 
of the assessment, and any exceptions to the assessment, 
would be addressed in an engineer's report that must be 
drafted as part of the process of establishing the district. This 
assessment would be in addition to the property tax currently 
paid by each property owner. 

Based on the approximately 167,000 parcels in the City, the 
Department estimates that the Benefit Assessment District 
would generate approximately $15.8 million per year in 
additional annual revenues. According to the Department, 
approximately $11 million of this could be used to offset 
General Fund support of the Recreation and Park Department 
and the remaining $4.8 million could be used to enhance 
Recreation and Park services. 

According to the Recreation and Park Department, because of 
the Open Space Fund, the 1987 Park Improvement Bond and 
the Golden Gate Park Infrastructure Bond, the Department 
currently has adequate funding for capital improvements. 
However, the Department reports that because of limits on 
General Fund support, and cuts in the Department's 
gardening, custodial, and other staff and budgets in the last 
five to ten years, the Department is not able to maintain the 
parks at the level of quality expected. Proceeds generated from 
the Benefit Assessment District would be used only for 
maintenance and operation of the parks, and cannot be used 
for recreation personnel, recreation services, or administrative 
costs. The Recreation and Park Department now receives 
approximately $20 million in General Fund support annually, 
and, as noted above, funds from the Benefit Assessment 
District could offset approximately $11 of that $20 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

The steps to establishing a Benefit Assessment District in San 
Francisco would involve: 

(a) The approval of the proposed subject resolution by the 
Board of Supervisors which would order an engineer's report 
for the District; 

(b) Preparation of the engineer's report, at an estimated cost of 
$80,000. If the District is established, some of the cost of the 
engineer's report can be funded from the assessed District 
funds. The Department reports that a private non-profit 
organization, Friends of Recreation and Park, may also be able 
to raise some part of these funds. No other specific funding 
sources have been identified for these funds. 

(c) Approval of the engineer's report and of a resolution of 
intent to form the assessment district by the Board of 
Supervisors; 

(d) Introduction by the Board of Supervisors of an ordinance 
forming the assessment district and levying the assessment; 

(e) If a majority of the property owners assessed do not protest 
the Benefit Assessment District in writing within a 45-day 
period after introduction of the ordinance, the ordinance can be 
adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and 

(0 If the Benefit Assessment District is established, State law 
requires an annual engineer's report to set the assessment 
rate. State law also requires that, as part of the annual 
process of setting the assessment rate, a 45-day period for 
property owners to protest the assessment is established 
between the issuance and the adoption of the engineer's report. 

According to State law, if an assessment is to be levied for 
Fiscal Year 1995-96, the ordinance creating the Benefit 
Assessment District must be adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors by July 1, or, with the approval of the Controller, 
by the third Monday in August, which is August 21, 1995. 

Comments: 1. The current tax rate is SI. 163 percent of assessed valuation, 

including both general property taxes and bond debt rates. On 
a residential property assessed at $300,000, the amount of 
property tax is approximately $3,489. These figures are for 
information purposes only; as noted above, an assessment 
under the Benefit Assessment District would not be based on 
property taxes, but on the benefit to be derived to property 
owners from the improvements. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



2. The assessment rates for this Benefit Assessment District 
would be proposed in the annual engineer's report, and would 
require approval by the Board of Supervisors. If the Board of 
Supervisors did not agree with the assessment proposed by the 
engineer's report, they could recommend a different 
assessment level as long as the assessment levels are related to 
the benefits provided by the district. The Board of Supervisor's 
annual resolution approving the assessment must also declare 
that not more is collected than the improvements funded by 
the Benefit Assessment District cost. 

3. Some Citywide and property taxes contain exceptions, such 
as those for churches or other non-profit institutions. 
However, any exceptions to the assessment in a Benefit 
Assessment District must be based on the benefit that is 
derived to those property owners from the Benefit Assessment 
District. The engineer's report must present and verify a 
formula for the assessment that is reasonably related to the 
benefit to be derived to property owners from the District. 

4. As with any other ordinance, a majority vote of the Board of 
Supervisors could modify or discontinue the ordinance creating 
the Benefit Assessment District. 

5. As noted above, State law requires that property owners 
have the opportunity annually to protest the assessment 
during a period of at least 45 days between the issuance and 
the adoption of the annual engineer's report. If, during this 
period, a majority of the assessed property owners object to the 
assessment in writing, the assessment cannot be levied, and 
the proceedings for the Benefit Assessment District must be 
abandoned. 

6. Many assessment districts, such as landscape and lighting 
districts, are created for a limited time period in order to 
provide sufficient funds to pay for a specific set of 
improvements. When the improvements are complete, the 
assessment district is discontinued. The Benefit Assessment 
District proposed for San Francisco parks would be created to 
fund ongoing operations and maintenance costs in the parks, 
and would have an indefinite lifetime. It should be noted that 
this revenue source is proposed to meet basic expenses for the 
Recreation and Park Department, and, in the event that the 
Benefit Assessment District is dissolved, another source for 
such funds would have to be identified. Further, given that the 
maintenance and operations costs for the City's parks are 
likely to increase over time, it is likely that the amount of the 
assessment would also increase. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

7. According to Mr. James Cumming of the City Attorney's 
Office, under rules and regulations adopted by the Rent Board, 
the cost of the property tax assessment levied under the 
Benefit Assessment District can be passed on from landlords to 
tenants. Tenant organizations in the City have initiated a 
lawsuit challenging these rules and regulations, which is 
currently before the Court of Appeals, according to Mr. 
Cumming. 

8. As noted above, the formation of the Benefit Assessment 
District requires an engineer's report. The Recreation and 
Park Department estimates that this report will cost 
approximately $80,000. According to Mr. Arnold, the report 
would be done by a private firm under contract to the City. If 
the District is. established, some of the cost of the engineer's 
report can be funded from the assessed District funds. 
However, if the District is not established, no funds would be 
available from this source. As noted above, the Department 
reports that a private organization, Friends of Recreation and 
Park, may also be able to raise some part of these funds. No 
other specific funding sources have been identified for these 
funds. 

9. As noted above, the funds raised by the Benefit Assessment 
District could generate approximately $15.8 million in FY 
1995-96, approximately $11 million of which could be used to 
offset General Fund monies now budgeted for the Recreation 
and Parks Department, or approximately 55 percent of the 
Department's overall General Fund budget of $20 million. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 

Item 2 -File 208-95-4 

Item: Resolution urging the Mayor to urge the Fire Commission to 

immediately allocate funding to fully equip the Urban Search 
and Rescue Task Force for the current Fiscal Year 

Description: The Fire Department has been in the process of developing 

an Urban Search and Rescue Task Force, under the 
guidelines provided by the Federal Emergency Management 
Association (FEMA), and State Office of Emergency Services 
(OES), since May of 1994. The purpose of the Task Force is 
to locate and extricate victims trapped in collapsed buildings, 
primarily of heavy concrete construction. The Task Force is 
composed of 62 positions, (186 individuals - three per 
position), divided into four major functional groups: (1) 
Search, (2) Rescue, (3) Medical, and (4) Technical. The Task 
Force members are recruited from a variety of City 
Departments, including Search, Rescue, and HazMat 
specialists from the Fire Department, paramedics and 
emergency room doctors from the Department of Public 
Health, structural engineers from the Bureau of Building 
Inspections, heavy rigging specialists from the Department of 
Public works, and computer and video experts from the 
Department of Electricity. In addition, search dog handlers 
are to be recruited from volunteer organizations. 

FEMA provides training, and cost reimbursements to 25 
Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces across the country, 
eight of which are in California, and three of which are in 
Northern California. The State OES currently provides 
equipment, training, and cost reimbursements to the eight 
Task Forces in California. In order to be recognized by 
FEMA and OES as a Urban Search and Rescue Task Force, 
which would enable the City to receive training, equipment, 
and cost reimbursements, the City's Task Force must 
purchase a minimum level of training, materials, supplies, 
and equipment to demonstrate to FEMA and OES that the 
City is committed to supporting the development and 
operation of a Task Force. Chief Frank Cardinale of the Fire 
Department, advises that the cost to purchase this minimum 
level of training, materials, supplies, and equipment would 
be $133,174. The amount of $133,174, would provide (1) 
$42,810 for Training, (2) $57,070 for Materials and Supplies, 
including such items as rescue harnesses, rescue ropes, and 
medical supplies, and (3) $33,294 for Equipment, including 
circular saws, demolition hammers, and a generator. 

Chief Howard Slater of the Fire Department advises that the 
total amount of $133,174, required for the minimum 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



purchase of training, materials, supplies, and equipment, 
would be provided through surplus funds in the Fire 
Department's Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget. Chief Slater 
advises that the Fire Department will submit a supplemental 
appropriation request to reappropriate $133,174 from 
Personal Services, including salaries, benefits, and overtime 
pay, to be used for the Task Force. Chief Slater advises that 
the Fire Department has submitted a request to the Mayor's 
Office for an additional amount of $125,179 to be used for 
training, materials, supplies, and equipment, to be added to 
the Fire Department's proposed Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget 
request for the Task Force. Chief Cardinale advises that the 
cost of the Task Force would decrease significantly after 1996 
because the Task Force would have obtained the necessary 
equipment, materials, and supplies. According to Chief 
Cardinale, the majority of the future costs for the Task Force, 
beyond Fiscal Year 1995-96, would be used for training and 
equipment maintenance. 

1. Chief Cardinale advises that if the City's Task Force is 
recognized by OES, then OES would provide the City with 
$100,000 for additional equipment and training beyond what 
is currently requested in the Fiscal Year 1994-95 and Fiscal 
Year 1995-96 budgets. In addition, Chief Cardinale advises, 
that although the main goal of the Task Force is to provide 
services within San Francisco, if the Task Force is called to 
service in other cities, or states, all of the costs associated 
with travel, lodging, local replacement staff (overtime pay), 
etc., the City would automatically be reimbursed 100 percent 
by either OES, FEMA or both. 

2. Chief Cardinale advises that at the Fire Commission's 
meeting on April 25, 1995, the Fire Commission authorized 
the amount of $133,174 to be used for the purchase of 
training, materials, supplies, and equipment. In addition, 
the Fire Department approved the Fire Department's request 
for additional Task Force funding in their Fiscal Year 1995- 
96 budget. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy decision for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 Budget Committee 



Item 



- File 101-94-96 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating 
$3,978,141 from the Clean Water Operating Fund (Rate 
Stabilization Fund) to allow the Department of Public Works 
to meet debt service requirements for Fiscal Year 1994-95. 

$3,978,141 

Clean Water Operating Fund - Rate Stabilization Fund 
(consists of savings from refinancing of prior bond funds) 

The DPW reports that the DPWs Clean Water Enterprise 
currently has a total of $511,995,000 of Series 1991, 1992 
and 1994 Sewer Revenue Bonds outstanding. The 1991 Sewer 
Revenue Bond, which was- approved by the San Francisco 
voters, and the 1992 and 1994 refunded Sewer Service Bonds 
ai-e being used to pay for the completion of projects under the 
Sewer System Master Plan. To repay the bonds, the DPW 
makes ten principal and ten interest deposits annually to the 
fiscal agent, Bank of America. According to the DPW, the 
principal deposits must be made in ten equal installments 
prior to the payment date of October 1 and the interest 
deposits must be made in five equal installments prior to the 
October 1 payment date and in five equal payments prior to 
the April 1 payment date. Principal payments are made 
annually on October 1 and interest payments are made semi- 
annually on April 1 and October 1 by the fiscal agent to the 
bond holders. 

The DPW reports that historically, the DPW has (1) began 
making the first of the ten principal deposits against the 
following year's October 1 payment date in November of the 
preceding year (e. g., the first principal deposit against the 
October 1, 1995 payment date was made in November, 1994) 
and (2) began making the first of the five interest deposits 
against the April 1 payment date in November of the 
preceding year (e. g., the first interest deposit against the 
April 1, 1995 payment date was made in November of 1994). 
However, Ms. Ann Carey of the DPW advises that the DPW 
was recently informed by Bond Counsel, Orrick, Herrington, 
and Sutcliffe, that, in order to be in strict compliance with 
Bond Resolution 656-92, the DPW must (1) begin making 
principal deposits in October for the following yeai-'s October 
1 payment date and (2) begin making interest deposits in 
October for the following year's April 1 payment date. 
According to the DPW, as a result of moving the deposit 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 Budget Committee 

schedule up by one month for the principal and interest 
deposits, the DPW must make eleven principal and interest 
deposits in FY 1994-95. This would be a one-time adjustment. 
According to the DPW, in subsequent years, principal and 
interest deposits will return to the annual ten deposit cycle 
with nine deposits for each being made in the final year of 
debt service. 

The DPW advises that the requested total of $3,978,141 
would be used by the DPW to make the eleventh principal 
deposit in the amount of $1,148,000 and the eleventh interest 
deposit in the amount of $2,830,141, in June of 1995. 

Comment: The DPW advises that the current balance in the Clean 

Water's Rate Stabilization Fund is $30 million. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 

Item 4 -File 101-94-97 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) 

Ordinance appropriating $17,900 from Assessment Appeals 
Board unbudgeted revenues to allow the Board of 
Supervisors to pay compensation to hearing officers and 
Assessment Appeals Board members for the FY 1994-95. 

$17,900 

Assessment Appeals Board Revenues 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate the amount of 
$17,900 from AAB revenues to pay for salaries for Board 
members and hearing officers for the remainder of FY 1994- 
95. 

The Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) hears appeals from 
property owners who dispute assessments of property value 
determined by the Assessor's Office, and the resulting tax 
liability. Currently, there are two Assessment Appeals 
Boards of three members each. Members are selected by the 
Board of Supervisors from applicants involved in related 
fields. 

Ms. Marilyn Cosentino of the AAB advises that the severe 
downturn in San Francisco real estate values and limited 
reductions in assessment by the Assessor have resulted in a 
sharp rise in appeals to the AAB since 1993 and a severe 
backlog of cases. Ms. Cosentino further advises that State 
law provides that the taxpayer's opinion of value will prevail 
if an appeal is not decided within two years of filing, possibly 
resulting in a sharp fall in revenues to the City. According to 
Ms. Cosentino, the two current Assessment Appeals Boards 
have had to maintain an abnormally heavy workload to meet 
this two-year deadline, due to the backlog of cases. 

1. The FY 1994-95 budget for the AAB is $115,000 for 191.5 
hearing days. According to Ms. Cosentino, the severe backlog 
of cases has made it necessary to schedule 30 more hearing 
days than the 191.5 days previously budgeted for FY 1994-95, 
resulting in a projected 221.5 hearing days for 1994-95. The 
subject appropriation of $17,900 represents the deficiency 
between the FY 1994-95 budget of $115,000 for 191.5 hearing 
days, and the FY 1994-95 projected total expenditures of 
$132,900 for 221.5 hearing days ($132,900 less $115,000 
equals $17,900). This projected expenditure of $132,900 
includes $94,500 in actual expenditures from July 1, 1994 to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 



April 30, 1995 and $38,400 in projected expenditures from 
May 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995 as follows: 



FY 1994-95 

Budget 

$115,000 



Actual 

Expenditures 
July 1 - Aoril 30 
$94,500 



Projected 
Expenditures 
Mav 1- June 30 
$38,400 



Projected Total Estimated 

Expenditures Budget 

July 1 - June 30 Deficiency 

$132,900 ($17,900) 



2. Mr. Victor Young of the AAB reports that unbudgeted AAB 
revenues would be the source of funds for the proposed 
$17,900 request. Mr. Young reports that AAB revenues come 
from fees for (a) filing appeals, (b) conducting hearings and 
(c) preparing Findings of Fact reports. Findings of Fact 
reports are used in appeals of AAB decisions to the Superior 
Court. According to Mr. Young, AAB revenues for FY 1994- 
95 will total an estimated $204,250, or $53,250 more than the 
$151,000 budgeted. Unbudgeted revenues remaining after 
the subject appropriation of $17,900 would return to the 
General Fund at the close of the fiscal year. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



11 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 

Item 5 - File 101-92-60.8 

Department: Fire Department 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Item: Requesting the release of reseiwed funds from the Fire 

Department 1992 Prop C Bond Issue Fund, in the total 
amount of $1,115,482, for the purpose of funding a 
construction contract, hazardous material abatement, and 
construction services of Fire Stations 23 and 16. 



Source and Amount 
of Funds: 



Description: 



1992 Prop C Fire Protection Bond Issue Fund 

Series 1993D Bond Issue $303,600 

Series 1994D Bond Issue 811.882 

Total $1,115,482 

In November of 1992, the voters of San Francisco approved 
the Proposition C Fire Protection Bond Issue. A total of 
$40.8 million in General Obligation bonds were approved to 
finance improvement costs related to various Fire 
Department facilities. 

In May of 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
appropriation request of $15,204,533, from the Series 1993D 
bond sale, and in November of 1994, the Board of Supervisors 
approved an appropriation request of $9,400,000, from the 
Series 1994D bond sale, for such projects as seismic 
strengthening, disabled access, and the construction of 
separate bathrooms for male and female firefighters. The 
Board of Supervisors placed $10,788,125 and $4,630,882, 
respectively, on reserve pending the selection of contractors, 
the MBE/VVBE status of the contractors, and the contract 
cost details. The proposed l-elease of reserved funds, in the 
amount of $1,115,482 would be used to pay for (1) the 
construction contract at Fire Station No. 23 for such projects 
as seismic strengthening, and the modification of the 
electrical system, as well as DPW's cost for construction 
management services, and various renovations, including, 
asbestos abatement, and hazardous material abatement; and 
(2) DPW's costs for construction management services, and 
hazardous material abatement at Fire Station No. 16. 

DPW selected the second lowest bidder, Chiang CM. 
Construction, for an amount of $723,610 for the construction 
work at Fire Station No. 23. DPW did not award the contract 
to the lowest bidder, LEM Construction, Inc. because LEM 
Construction, [nc. did not meet the Human Rights 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 



Commission's (HRC) subcontracting goal of 6.8 percent WBE. 
Chiang CM. Construction met all of HRC's subcontracting 
goals. The funds to be expended are as follows: 

Fire Station No. 23 (1348 45th Ave.) 

Construction Contract - Chiang CM. 

Construction $723,610 

Construction Contingency (15.7%) 113,600 

Asbestos Abatement/Monitoring- DPW 33,673 
Construction Services (Management/ 

Inspection) - DPW 86,699 
Special Inspection/Material Testing - DPW 18,000 

Construction Administration 39,900 

Subtotal $1,015,482 

Fire Station No. 16 (2251 Greenwich St.) 

Asbestos Abatement/Monitoring- DPW $45,873 

Asbestos Contingency (15%) 6,897 
Construction Services (Management/ 

Inspection) - DPW 47.230 

Subtotal $ 100.000 

TOTAL $1,115,482 



Comments: 1. Mr. Peter Wong of DPW has provided the following 

contract cost details, including the MBE and WBE 
participation, for the $723,610 construction contract for Fire 
Station No. 23. It should be noted that the construction 
contract, in the amount of $723,610, is based on the two 
following components: (1) the base bid of $708,800, and (2) 
Alternate #1, in the amount of $14,810. Mr. Wong advises 
that all of the contractors submitted a bid for an additional 
project component to their base bid, called Alternate #1, to 
install a sprinkler system in Fire Station No. 23. The 
Alternate #1 bid would be funded in the event that DPW had 
sufficient funds. Mr. Wong advises that DPW was able to 
fund the Alternate #1 bid submitted by Chiang CM. 
Construction. However, Mr. Wong advises that the 
percentages of MBE and WBE participation are based on the 
base bid of $708,800. The contract cost details are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 



Prime Contractor. MBE/WBE (47.6%) 
Chiang CM. Construction 

(overall construction oversight, electrical) $337,646 



Subcontractors. MBE (27.9%) 




Chen's Plumbing, Inc. 


$31,900 


Yum's Mechanical 


107,000 


Majestic 


25,000 


Omega Roofing 


10,600 


Trini Chance Construction 


15,800 


City Lumber 


7.300 


Subtotal, MBE subcontractors 





197,600 

Subcontractor WBE (12.7%) 

Empire Electric Construction 89,900 



Other Subcontractors (11.8%) 




Byron Exp. 


$10,409 


Linoleum Larry 


8,475 


Concrete Structure 


8,700 


Mission City 


17,412 


City Lumber 


7,300 


Global 


3,741 


Shepard 


12,717 


J. Darden 


14.900 



Subtotal, non MBE/WBE Subcontractors 83.654 

TOTAL FIRE STATION NO. 23 CONTRACT $708,800 
(Contract total only includes the base bid) 

2. Mr. Mike Pierron of DPW advises that the proposed DPW 
Construction Services for Fire Station No. 16, budgeted for 
an amount of $47,230, would provide management and 
inspection services for (1) the Asbestos 
Abatement/Monitoring services, as shown in the proposed 
release of reserved funds, and (2) the construction contract 
services, which were recently funded for Fire Station No. 16, 
for an amount of $414,889 (101-92-60.7). 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

H 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 97-95-26 

Department: Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) 

Item: Ordinance amending Chapter 2B of the San Francisco 

Administrative Code by amending (1) Section 2B.9 to waive 
the filing fee for an application for a reduction in assessment 
in certain cases, (2) Section 2B.10 to allow the refund of only 
half the hearing fee if certain reductions in assessment are 
granted, (3) Section 2B.12 to allow the creation of a third 
Assessment Appeals Board, (4) Section 2B.13 to allow 
Assessment Appeals Boards Nos. 2 and 3 to hear appeals 
involving property of $30,000,000 or less and (5) Section 
2B.18 to require the Assessment Appeals Board to accept the 
recommendations of hearing officers. 

Description: The Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) hears appeals from 

property owners who dispute assessments of property value 
arrived at by the Assessor's Office, and the resulting tax 
liability. Currently, two Assessment Appeals Boards, of 
three members each, exist. Members are selected by the 
Board of Supervisors from applicants involved in related 
fields. 

Ms. Marilyn Cosentino of the AAB advises that the severe 
downturn in San Francisco real estate values and limited 
reductions in assessment by the Assessor have contributed to 
a sharp rise in appeals to the AAB since 1993, delaying the 
hearing of appeals and resulting in a severe backlog of cases. 
Ms. Cosentino further advises that State law provides that 
the taxpayer's opinion of value will prevail if an appeal is not 
decided within two years of filing, resulting in the possibility 
of a sharp fall in revenue to the City. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 2B of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code as follows: 

Section 2B.9 

Currently, Section 2B.9 of the Administrative Code allows 
the waiver of the filing fee of $30.00 for an application to the 
AAB only in indigent cases, in accordance with State law 
(California Government Code Section 68511.3). The proposed 
ordinance would add waivers of the filing fee for applications 
for which (1) the Assessor has recommended a reduced 
assessment in a written stipulation with the agreement of 
the City Attorney and the applicant, subject to formal AAB 
approval, (2) the applicant has requested the continuation of 
a reduced assessment granted by the Assessment Appeals 
Board in the previous tax year and (3) the applicant's opinion 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



of the correct assessment value is not less than the prior 
year's assessment and any automatic annual increase for 
inflation allowed by law. 

The Assessor's Office must reduce its official assessment of 
property value within a specified time period following a 
reduction of assessment by the AAB. If the Assessor's Office 
fails to do so, the official assessment reverts to its previous 
value and a separate appeal must be filed with the AAB to 
continue the reduction. 

Section 2B.10 

Currently, Section 2B.10 of the Administrative Code allows 
for a full refund of the hearing fee if the hearing results in 
certain reductions from the Assessor's assessment of property 
value. Hearing fees are based on a graded scale, increasing 
as the current assessed value of the property increases. The 
proposed ordinance would reduce the refund for such 
hearings to half the hearing fee. 

Section 2B.12 

Currently, Section 2B.12 of the Administrative Code allows 
for two Assessment Appeals Boards. The proposed ordinance 
would authorize the Board of Supervisors' creation of a third 
Assessment Appeals Board, if the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors certifies that such a third Board is necessary, to 
handle the increased number of applications filed since 1993. 
This third Assessment Appeals Board would continue 
operation until dissolved by ordinance by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Section 2B.13 

Currently, Section 2B.13 restricts most hearings of 
Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to applications involving 
smaller, residential properties or personal property less than 
$75,000. The proposed ordinance would allow Assessment 
Appeals Board No. 2, and a potential Assessment Appeals 
Board No. 3, to hear applications for properties assessed at 
up to $30,000,000, including commercial properties and 
larger residential properties. 

Section 2B.18 

Currently, Section 2B.18 allows the AAB to accept or reject 
the recommendation of a Hearing Officer on certain 
applications. Hearing Officers, selected from AAB members, 
are responsible for making recommendations on reductions in 
assessment values after conducting pre-hearing interviews. 
Such interviews are limited to applications involving 
residential properties of four units or less. The proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



i 6 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

ordinance would require the AAB to accept the 
recommendation of the Hearing Officer provided that the 
applicant agrees with this recommendation. Ms. Cosentino 
advises that this practice would expedite the hearing process 
and is common in other Bay Area counties. 

Comment: 1. According to Ms. Cosentino, the proposed amendment to 

Section 2B.9 would eliminate the payment of the filing fee for 
applicants who find it necessary to file appeals with the AAB 
because the Assessor's Office is unable to process the 
previous year's reductions in assessment value before its 
authority to do so expires. Mr. David Busse of the Assessor's 
Office advises that since the Assessor's Office expects to 
process all the previous year's reductions in assessment value 
before its authority to do so expires, the proposed change in 
filing fee waivers would have a negligible effect on revenues 
to the City. 

2. Ms. Consentino reports that the AAB spends an extensive 
amount of time conducting hearings involving larger, 
commercial properties. She reports that the proposed 
reduction in refunds would compensate for this additional 
Board time. Mr. Victor Young of the AAB states that halving 
the hearing fee refund would reduce the current $14,000 in 
annual fee refunds to an estimated $7,000, resulting in 
$7,000 in additional revenue to the City annually. 

3. In February of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved 
legislation creating a second Assessment Appeals Board in 
order to process the severe backlog of cases. Ms. Cosentino 
reports that the two current Assessment Appeals Boards are 
likely to be sufficient to handle the present backlog of cases 
before the expiration of the two-year period obligating the 
City to accept the applicant's opinion of value. As noted 
above, Mr. Busse of the Assessor expects to be able to process 
all previous reductions in assessment before the time period 
to do so expires, eliminating the probability of an influx of 
future appeals to the AAB by property owners wishing to 
maintain these reductions. 

4. In the opinion of the Budget Analyst, Ms. Cosentino has 
not provided sufficient justification to warrant the creation of 
a third Assessment Appeals Board as proposed in the subject 
legislation. Ms. Cosentino does not agree with the opinion of 
the Budget Analyst concerning the amendment to Section 
2B.12 authorizing the creation of a third Assessment Appeals 
Board and advises that this amendment is necessary as a 
precautionary measure to deal with a possible influx in 
appeals in FY 1995-96. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

5. Ms. Cosentino estimates the costs for a third Assessment 
Appeals Board for FY 1995-96 to be $56,400. Ms. Cosentino 
advises that the $56,400 estimate is based on the assumption 
that this Board would hold hearings two days per week for 47 
weeks compensating each of the three members at $200 per 
day. Ms. Cosentino reports that the $56,400 would be 
requested in a future supplemental appropriation, subject to 
approval by the Board of Supervisors, if a third Assessment 
Appeals Board is certified as necessary by the Clerk of the 
Board. 

6. Ms. Cosentino advises that the amendment to Section 
2B.13, allowing Assessment Appeals Board No. 2, and a 
potential Assessment Appeals Board No. 3, to hear 
applications for properties assessed at up to $30,000,000, is 
designed to allow greater efficiency in scheduling hearings. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 97-95-27 



Department: Department of City Planning 

Item: Ordinance amending the Administrative Code by amending 

Section 31.36A, to institute new fees, increase fees, modify fees 
and extend the period certain fees are charged for 
environmental review procedures. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would amend Section 31.36A to 

change the fees for several types of permits, applications and 
review related to environmental reports that must be filed with 
the Department of City Planning. These changes are 
summarized in the table on the following pages. 

The proposed ordinance would also reduce and extend a 
temporally surcharge on fees that the Department of City 
Planning has added since 1991 in order to provide funds for 
development of a system to computerize the Department's 
processing of permit applications. The proposed ordinance 
would reduce this surcharge from 10 percent to 8.5 percent, 
and extend the time period for the surcharge through June 30, 
1996. Without this action, the surcharge would expire 
automatically on June 30, 1995. The Department projects that 
approximately $64,000 would be collected from the proposed 
surchai-ge on environmental reports, and approximately 
$259,000 on other types of reports (See File 115-95-2), for a 
total of $323,000 in FY 1995-96. 

Mr. Alec Bash of the Department of City Planning reports that 
this stage of the Department's computerization effort will be 
complete in June 1996. According to Mr. Bash, FY 1995-96 
will be the final year that the Department will fund 
computerization through this surcharge. 

The table on the following pages summarizes the changes to 
environmental procedures and fees that are contained in the 
proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SIJPKKVISQKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



19 



§ 

'■0 



o 



a 1 



0) 

O 
O 
+■> 

9 



o 



§ 

•-d 
I 

c 
o 

"43 



^ 

A 

$ 



Estimates to be provided 
for time and materials fees 
that would exceed two 
times the initial fee 
amount 


Estimates to be provided 
for time and materials fees 
that would exceed thi-ee 
times the initial fee 
amount 




Estimates to be provided 
where the total fee would 
exceed two times the 
initial EIR fee 


Estimates to be provided 
where the total fee would 
exceed two times the 
initial project fee 


Estimates to be provided 
where the total fee would 
exceed two times the 
initial fee 


Fee would be $950, plus 
cost of time and materials 
over that amount, limited 
to two times the initial fee 
amount unless estimate 
provided 


Fee would be the cost of 
time and materials to 
review the revisions, 
limited to three times the 
initial fee amount unless 
estimate provided 


Establishing a limit on the 
total fee of three times the 
initial fee for the project 


Fee equal to one-third of 
that for a full EIR on a 
project with the lowest 
level of construction cost, 
plus time and materials 
not to exceed two times the 
initial EIR fee, unless 
estimate provided 


Establishing a limit on the 
total fee of two times the 
initial project fee, unless 
estimate provided 


Establishing a limit on the 
total fee of two times the 
initial fee, unless estimate 
provided 


o 

CO 

CD 
CD 


CO 

X 
co 

CO 
CD 

-3 

"v3 

CO 

o 
C 
•o 

CD 

O 
"O 

CD fi> 
T3 ^ 

O en 

o.2 


Fees specified according to 
construction cost of 
project, plus time and 
materials 


Fee equal to one-third of 
that for a full EIR on the 
project, plus time and 
materials costs 


Fee equal to one-half of 
that for a full EIR on the 
project, plus cost of time 
and materials 


Fee equal to two-thirds of 
that for a full EIR on the 
project, plus cost of time 
and materials 


Initial environmental 
review of a project with no 
construction costs 


Review of significant 
revisions to a project 
where an application is 
already on file 


Preparation of an 
environmental impact 
report 


Addendum to a previously- 
certified Environmental 
Impact Report 


Preparation of a 
supplement to a Draft or 
certified Environmental 
Impact Report 


Preparation of a 
subsequent Environmental 
Impact Report 



20 



§ 
•-a 

5 



G 

a 



o 
O 
-t-> 

C 
9) 



o 



§ 

•J 

I 

s 
o 

13 



s -31 






T3 O 




CU 3 
-O O 


cu 3 

-a o 




T32 

CU 3 

■a o 




Administrator 
11 on City or other 
on agencies to 
account six months 


co 
-u 
co 
O 
o 


c2 

a> 

X 
-u 

o 






be provi 
tal fee w 
imes the 




2 » ** 

P-c2 co 

^ 3 


"^ ^ cu 
> *^ r! 
P oS 
3-,o±; co 

X co h 
-^ .3 




> ^ 

2 « 

"3 
n CO 


o 


T3 

-3 

3 

T3 
3 
3 






o o -u 




O O+J 


o o +-> 




O O 


o 








tes t 
the t 
two 


0) 


CO CD > n, 


CO CU > 




CO cu 
CU r- 


i— r 


co" 
U 

3 


3 

o 
'-3 

CJ 






CO r— 

a <d y 

S 2 o; 


"co 


CO — 

r-i O) *3 i — ' 

3 5- CU CO 


CO m 

<-■ CU T 3 

£ S cu 


'co 


CO 

£ 2 


CU 


3 ° o o 


CD 

u 


_o 






Esti: 
whe 
exce 


'£ 


•t< a> cu -rt 

*J i- cj 

co X r; • — 

W 5 S.£ 


•r- cu cu 
CO -C C- 

W ^ cu 


"c 


•rH CU 

co -3 
W 5 


CU 
CD 
X 
cu 


S c«S3 

i5 3 ° ° 

N C o o 


3 
C 


o 

CJ 
c_ 
O 






CU CD 




a> cu 


cu cu 




CD 










T3"^ 




x -e 




-^ t5 


-G ~3~ 




x; 




cu c cu 






CD ."S 




on t 
the 

tima 




ex- £ 
o +»•£ 






-1_> CO 

3 cu 

^^ 
.-£ 3 




bJD o ^ 








cu 
X! 


*) "i m 




jj CO CO 


.U CO CO 






U' C co 






3 cO 


^^ ° 


.h a) o 




.,-. CD CD 


■ ^ CU CU 






5-< O s_ 






O CO 
CJ CO 
CO cu 


>, CO +J 


£ £ co 

•!-<•<-< co 




£ 3 

C C co 


C C co 




.io 


CU 


3 g 3 
co >_l cu 






h -3 gn 
W+ 3 S 


'-' ■*" cu 

CO o ■— ^ 




— ' *° CU 


— ' ■" CD 

cO o •—* 




— i o 
C0°. 


-a 


3 G) >h 






'•8 S 


g h bo 

cu 'Q co 
'h g X 






.5 <^ - 


St- - 






> 

o 


^ tt 3 
ho co 
3 t3 3 >> 






CD 3 

X +j 






p. 


.3 3 .3 co 






2 g 

^ £ 

cu cu 

CD CD 


*j 3 o 


Establish 
total fee o 
initial fee 
provided 


_c o m 
« cuc^^ 

S'at-Si > 

w -s - s 2 

W 3.S a 


c ° ° 
CO 'p •« > 

W S.S a 


_3 O 

CO CU 

W S 


cu 
-u 

3 

£ 

CO 

cu 


asfS 

m CJ CO 

W o 3 ^3 






OT3^ 

cj cu cu 

. > CO 

S cu o cu 

+3 X o ^ 

CU CJ s-, ,9 
X 3 P.O 


c 

CO 
0) 

a 

o 




-a 
(2 

CO 


<u 




CO 

■c 




CO 

xi 






cu 

X 


bJD 
q 3 3 




CU 

s 

O 


'-3 
o 

-4-J 
CO 




<u 

£ 

c 

o 

£ 




co 
co 

cu 

-3 
-3 
3 






o 

^-> 
-3 

CD 
"3 

-a 


£ 2 

^ tsj 3 

b v. s 

o o C 

. C+-, Q 


CO 

o 

o 

CO J2 

j£ CO 




CO 

o 
o 

CO CO 


O co 
CJ ■— « 

CO .ii 

— « o 

CX 4J 






o 

co 

cu 
o 
"3 






3 ^3 

CO 3 

i—i O 


.£ co'i 

3 § O 
+j X co 


"cL'C 




~Ph-~ 


°" £ 




o 








•^3- jO) 


nj cu rj cu 

JJ 73 ft _CJ 

0, 1'S C 


<2- 




S co 


o 




CO 




cu a; 

-3 ^ 






O O 

CD 'w 




m C 




O 




O C" 

O .2 






CU CO 


Ah S a 


<& 3 




<y> £ 


ee- co 




o 








fc X 


3 fii 3 co 


o 




CU 

CO 


CU CO 




"co 

3 


O 


co 

CU 






CJ 

X 

3 

"3 
3 








i3 5 


■C D- 




cu 


c 


CD 








tion of a pro 
a negative 
n has been 




V3 cd 

's ,- > 

g< ? 

/ c3 — 
^=! 3 


C— I > r- 

o CU c 
CO ~ 

>> £ ° 

CO .— CO 


— 


£ w o 

c 2.-3 

P 3 "3 
■H J) C^ 
> 3 O cO 
3 CD c-> > 


c— 
CU 

3 
"3 "P 

£ S 

3 > 










o c « 


C -i _£. 


u 


CD 3 


CO g 


CO ° 






.£ 3 
3 O 






3 ° c 

o -^ £ 

V3 a £ 

CO g c 

3 s 2 

o W > 


7t zr r r> 

CD 


-;j 


b£ _, 


co CX 


CU c-— ■ 
CXD o 








-evalua 
• which 
claratio 


a 
u 

CO 

... 

cu 


'- X. o 

S3 5 

7? CD CU 

5 'o 1 ^ 




.£ § 

2 3 

■33 

o . 


3 D. 

CD *-> 
CO o 
O CD 

O-'c? 


ll 

CJ H-l 
CJ 

CU CD 
■*-> . — ■ 






5? 

SI 

o<2 




°i o <u 

C£ c2 T3 


5. 


£ ^ c5 


o t. C 

Uao 


7. 


§ £ 


3 s- 
5 a. 


1 — 1 CJ 






'2 c 





00 



C5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting- 
Comments: 1. As described above, the proposed ordinance would extend 
for one year a temporary surcharge which the Department has 
applied to all fees in order to provide funds for computerization 
of application processes. The proposed surcharge would expire 
automatically on June 30, 1996, and i-enewal after that date 
would requii-e action by the Board of Supervisors. A budget for 
the approximately $323,000 in total funds that will be 
generated by this surcharge must be reviewed and approved by 
the Board of Supervisors as part of the FY 1995-96 budget 
process. As noted above, FY 1995-96 will be the final year that 
the Department will fund computerization through this 
surcharge, according to Mr. Bash. 

2. Mr. Bash reports that the changes proposed in the 
ordinance will make the fees under the Planning Code more 
accurately reflect and recover the City's actual costs for 
reviewing, processing and approving applications and other 
actions. 

3. Where the Code calls for the Department to provide an 
estimate to applicants, such estimate will be provided without 
cost. Hourly rates to be used in such estimates will depend on 
the billing rate of the staff to be assigned to the project. 

4. According to Mr. Bash, the changes in fees under the 
proposed ordinance are in order to make the cost of 
environmental reports more predictable, consistent, and fair 
for all applicants. Mr. Bash reports that in the cases where the 
proposed ordinance establishes a new limit on the cost of time 
and materials that may be charged to applicants, in most cases 
the cost of time and materials would not reach the limit set. 
These limits are being proposed in order to give applicants a 
clear limit on the potential cost to process an application, and 
should not significantly affect the Department's ability to cover 
its costs. 

5. Mr. Bash reports that the Department does not anticipate 
that fee changes under the proposed ordinance will 
significantly affect the amount of revenues collected by the 
City from such fees. In FY 1994-95, the Department projects 
that they will collect a total, net of the surcharge noted above, 
of $3,795,000 in fees. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 8 -File 115-95-2 

Item: Ordinance amending Article 2, Article 3 and Article 3.5A of the 

Municipal Code (City Planning Code) to authorize citizens to 
request amendments to the City Planning Code, to impose new 
fees, and to change the amount of fees currently charged for 
Department of City Planning actions, activities and services. 

Description: The proposed ordinance amending Article 2, Article 3, and Article 

3.5A of the Municipal Code (City Planning Code) proposes a 
variety of changes, which can be divided into the following 
categories: (1) Authorization for Citizens to Request 
Amendments to the City Planning Code, (2) Continuation of the 
Computerization Surcharge on City Planning Fees, and, (3) Fees 
to be Changed or Specified. 

Authorization for Citizens to Request Amendments to the 
City Planning Code 

Currently, only the Board of Supervisors and the Planning 
Commission may propose amendments to the text of the Planning 
Code. The proposed ordinance would allow property owners, 
residents, and commercial lessees to propose such changes. The 
Planning Commission would then be required to consider the 
proposed amendment as part of their normal public hearing and 
decision-making process. 

Continuation of Computerization Surcharge 

The Department of City Planning has added a 10 percent 
temporary surcharge on all fees since 1991 in order to provide 
funds for development of a system to computerize the 
Department's processing of permit applications. The proposed 
ordinance would reduce this surcharge to 8.5 percent, and extend 
the time period for the surcharge through June 30, 1996. 
Without this action, the surcharge would expire automatically on 
June 30, 1995. The Department projects that approximately 
$259,000 would be collected from the proposed surcharge on the 
reports detailed under this proposed ordinance, and 
approximately $64,000 from environmental reports (See File 97- 
95-27), for a total of $323,000 in FY 1995-96. Mr. Alec Bash of 
the Department of City Planning reports that this stage of the 
Department's computerization effort will be complete in June 
1996. According to Mr. Basil, FY 1995-96 will be the final year 
that the Department will fund computerization through this 
surcharge. 

The table on the following pages summarizes the changes to 
planning procedures and fees that are contained in the proposed 
ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



■a 



s 

o 

•43 

I 

O 

c 
o 
•43 



1 



Estimates will be provided 
for projects requiring more 
than 4 hours 














Specifying a cost of $36 per 
half hour or fraction 
thereof 


$300 fee will be increased to 
a $600 fee, plus time and 
materials, and moved to 
another part of the Code 


G 



-a 

CD 

en en 

CO '■G 

-O .2 

^ CD 
CO -u 

ft CO 

en £ 

tft T3 

B.S 

G 2 

si 


Exemption will be 
discontinued, time and 
materials fee will apply 



+-> 

13 

cr 

CD 

T3 

CD 
-ft 

3 CD 

rM CD 

J2 <+-, 

CO r-3 

-^ CO 

,-H _G 

B a> 
p— 1 +j 


Limit established of $1,000, 
unless an estimate is 
provided 


Limit established of $1,000, 
unless an estimate is 
provided 


T3 
CD 
Sfi 
"0 

CD 
ft 

en 
en 
CO 
£ 

en 

O 


O 

55 


T3 

CD 

bo 

EJ 

J=, 

CJ 

en 

co 

CD 

eS 

O 
O 

CO 


Non-profits pay 75% of 
normal fees, based on 
construction cost 


G 
O 

«X3 

ft 

C 

CD 
X 

CD 

en 

C en 
O CD 

■— CD 

S.t3 

^g 
ft 5 

< ft 


No limit to cost of time and 
materials charged in 
addition to initial fee 





1 




Cost of City Planning 
Staff Time for research, 
data, site inspections 


Application for 
exemption to Zoning 
Administrator's service 
station conversion 
determination 


Application for permit 
to construct affordable 
housing by a non-profit 


Application for permit 
to construct affordable 
housing financed 50% 

or more by the City 


Staff monitoring of 
conditions of project 
approval 


Staff review and advice 
on policy and code 
compliance prior to 
application 


Written determination 
by the Zoning 
Administrator 



« a 

co Vl -' ^_> 



* o £ 

£;-. cd 
P. ° 

T) tn a) 
d CD 

«j CJ 

0) R J) 

6 •Jo' 

ifl CO ?-> 

t- 1 cd Oh 



a> . — I 
£ a 



£ ° 

*-" CO 



5 s 



«— * — *^ ~ J 



J=3 CD 

—. co 

-3 £ 

i-1 CO 



a. 
9. 'a 



— 

a 



o co 

O co 

t, C a 
o 3 x) 

"£^g 

C3 _C3 oo 

CO ■*■> jj 

^ CD C3 

-^ _C C 

-*-" - VC 
aJ ca cd 



o ™ 

lO co 

.-« w 

— CD 

o a ' 
•a cd 

^ r-l tt 
C0« 



— i <D 

cC -»-> 



W 



£ "<=> 

-u cd co 
o °c?i>r 

■C Oh.&^ 

Ch t^ <<-i 
O ^0 o 

CO -. CD 



■C ^ -~ 

CD aj .^x 

co -u -a 

s;s-S 

CO -u > 



co 

0) CD c 

£ 6 § 

fl o a 

o is CD 

_, -^ +5 
^ Ci_ co 

^^ a 

co co +3 

33 8 

-2 3 g 

6 c 

M a 

■~ c « 

J a<2 



— Cj: t3 



-^ 


>, 






CO 


o 






o 


- 


4-) 


— 










£ 


a 




n 


CD 


« 


P, 


bn 


CUO 


c 


r 






— 


— 


rz 




1 


< 


pQ 



CD „ 

£ ** co 



■E CD 

o S 

_C CO 



a co 

CO g 

60- C 



£ co '_c 

XI CD CD 

w "S -^ 

»H CO h>o 

JQ £ co 

CO _ CD 

-T3 r; 

co f- C 

W co +3 



"»^ 

CO H3 
CO .h 
CD > 

-£ 8 



"* £-* <4_ 

rH CO o 

CM -^ CD 

Ct-i CD 

o °j=: 



a a< 



l*H CJ 

CD CO 
CD ch 



CO ,S 

CD +3 



<^ S 

co c 

a ^ 

cd © 

CD U 

XI CD 

co ^2 

CO c 

JD CD 



01 



co »*h 

CD CD 
CD CO 



O CO 
c3« 

t> CD 
^3- CO 

o £ 

o -a 
o a 

CM CO 

^ 2 
£ 

o .a 



cd a 

s-S 



a > 

O «3 



a 

CO 
CO 

co T3 
CD CD 

a > 



a ^ cd 



CD O- 



-r c *a co 



aW 



2 co 
3 £ 

a 

C3 



■a s 

CD '^3 
J3 w 



Sh 



2S 

1 - 

> c 

> o 

^ ° 

co a 

-a o 

CD CD 

(h CO 



SI 






|g 



DO Ph 



— 
a 
cd 



X 



_a jn 
Dh CO 

o 'C 

O CD 
" CO 



— 



a c 



_a co 



cd 

€/> £ 



a co 

^ CD 

— < -u 

O CO 

Z £ 



H 



a 
o 

CD CD 

a 3 

CD CO ^j> 
O O CD 

w " 'o 5 

CO CD i- 
j? ^ CD 
CD O , 

« 0) o 

CD CO -^ 

CD CO g 

Ph X! CJ 



a 

«x 
a -w 

^'$ 

0~ CO 

€^-"E 

° rt 

CD C 

cd a 
a co 



CO CD 

•fi £ 

W+3 



co a w 

^ O o 

S-o ° 

(DC 
CD CO o 
t CD CO -.-. 

54 S 
S « o 

Oh O 






o 
pq 



PQ 



e£ £ 

CD CD 

Oh. 



a o £ o 
a n .2 ° 



a a 
o o 
OO 



O. *J 
Oh'- 

a ? 



CD cj 
Oh -a 

oj £ 

co a 

d a 



-a " 
a T3| 
o c 



a *j 

CJ CD 

Oh 

a "O 
o to 

CO CD 

o a 
o- c 
>, o 



Oh 



a a 

o CU 



a *a 



« 



a ^ 

£ « 

.2 a 

H-J CJ 

a ia 

CD £ 

■^ Bf 

<1 co 



P 



Oh'^3 

^ « a 
i- <a co 



o o 



a .a 
2 fi 



p 



CJ 




a 


a 


U, 


o 




a 


; ) 


c 

73 


H-J 

a 
u 


o 
a 






r 




u 


-j 




p 




X 


a 


> 



09 

a ^ 
£ a 



> CD . 

S m ^ 

O *T CD a 

CJ <, (_ CO 



So 


H 


£ 1^ 


•-d 


o ci) 


1 


■^ 3 


S 


'O lO 


c 


3 CX. 


Q 


PQ ^ 


•-a 


o _ 


3 


O i-H 


?g 


B >» 


a 


<D CO 


a 


^S 


< 



Estimates to be provided for 
projects where cost would 
exceed $1,000 




Limit on time and 
materials cost of five times 
the initial fee of $285 


Estimates to be provided for 
projects where time and 
materials cost exceed two 
times the initial fee 


CD 

si 

to 

CD 

£ 

CD CO 

_£ ft 

«> CD 
O <~ 

.15 "S 

£5 
3.5 


Limit on time and 
materials cost of five times 
the initial fee 


Limit on time and 
materials cost of three 
times the initial fee 


Establish a limit of $1,000 
unless an estimate is 
provided 


Establish a limit on time 
and materials cost of five 
times the initial fee 


Increase to $285 for first 
four hours, plus time and 
materials 


Establish a limit on time 
and materials of two times 
the initial fee unless an 
estimate is provided 


Applicants to be charged 
the full cost of time and 
materials in excess of the 
initial fee paid 


•g cd 

C CD 

CO <— 

CD *— 

2 

5 CO 
«j CO 

to g 

"3, « 

^■.2 

O CD 
» ^ 

in £ 


City agencies' initial fees 
will be capped at the fee for 
projects with construction 
costs of $5 million for 
Commission applications 
and $10 million for building 
permits 


3 

o 
jG 
•~ 
a> 

a 
c- 

CO 

cu 

CD 


c 


£ 8 

— ' to 

§1 

-13 CD 

co 2 

- C 
CD 

CD T3 
^ C 

!o 

■ rt CD 

C.J 


Fee of $250 for first four 
hours, plus time and 
materials in excess of four 
hours 


c 

CO jj 

CD "3 

«-g 

.2 

00 ■£ 

CD 
- CO 

€/3- 2 

.a "a 

s 2 

fe c 


to 

1c 
-t-> 

to 

CO 

CD 

T3 

CO 

co > 

CD CD 

O »- 

-a <*- 



6 J? 


CM 

"o 

CD 
JD 


Fee set by schedule based 
on construction cost of the 
project 


£ 

S-. 
CD 
(X 
C4-1 

O 

bD 
C 

CJ 

CD to 

s: c 


^j "co 
- 

CQ £ 


Fire, Police and Health 
Department permit 
application review 



J3 

CO 

> 

CD 

co 

CD 
£ g 

J4 

2 * 

C u 

-0 — 
c 0. 

CO O. 

J < 




Q. 
to 

5 


Review of significant 
revisions to conditional 
use, variance, or coastal 
zone permit application 
already on file 


Discretionary review 
Request of Commission 
for public hearing on 

permit applications 


a 

co 

CD 

3 

cr 

£ * 
> 

C CD 
CD *■■ 

bo^ 
co 

*■§ 

O ft 



1 

o 

I 

P 



CCCh 

feW 

00 



o 

PQ 



pq 



o 

§ 
"43 

5 



I 



-3 
o 
O 
+-> 

G 
cy 



U 



§ 
•43 

I 

C 

o 

'43 






co 




CO 


CD 




CD 


.IS 




.Sa 


-4-> U 




4-> CO 


nd 

f two 
.nless 


CD 


> s-g 




d «*- d -c 1 


CC O ^ 


'> 

O 


co o d > 


me 
:ost 

fee, 


u 

a. 


3 to CD fe 


•l-H t» 


CO 


■1H O ~" CO 


4^ , 1 




-l-> _ , 1 .ri 


c ™ * 


o 


f> CO 


° .* "S 


4-9 


Q CO 4J *j 


.Ti CD .£ 


CO 
g 


" -r -d co 

.« CD .d H 


C "cO CD 


4-3 


C (8 a) 4J 


3 £5 


CO 

cu 


•t! c X co 
i— J C -u CD 


CO 

d 




, and 
first 
of 
nd 


° 8 
o ° 




CD CD - CO 
ti) Si c 


CD CO 
€/3- ' — ' 




° fe "£ £ 


. CO 




r-l -O O .^ 


O !_ 




[^^ C3 4J 




&$ lO tfcj co 






c£ C3 




co B 




Cm 1/1 - __ 


-c -o 




_CD O 5- CD ^2 
CO CD 3 S CO 


.2 c 

CO o> 






min 
a fe 
r he 
ffti 
teri 


+* d 

co d 

H "43 




•j- 4J _3 CO CO 

7^, CD o ■"-> C 






4-> 






CO 






t_ -tJ 






u <- C o C 










O O CO "t CO 






^ ,- .ti CD 
° O «- o -rt ^ 






»— 1 ■- C r=- ^ £ 






^ "o '-o d T3 O 






c/^ 5, CD ^. • — 






c-_ £| V) T3 ~ T- 






q o_- z! . w ° i u 












CD "- CX r O co <u 


O 




t£ ° _*" « ^ 


co 




.. CO CD CO O CO 


co 




has 
our 
tim 
rial 
cati 
?ss 


O 




CD -C m_ CD ^ [j 


0] 

cd 




T3 c ^ t4 Cu-C 


fe 




LJ j-3 co C cO cO 


CO O 




« K 15 










.2 c co >, 


CO -i-> 




— -75 .2 -O ^ 
CO g 3 d ■> 


CO CD 




"X3 c cr co -r-l 


B a 9 




bstan 
or de 

ing re 
the L 

ion Ai 


Adm 
natio 
static 


d 


5 


CO o — o S 


Zoning 
determi 
service 


■•/j 

:-- 
•••J 
'. ■ 
C 
o 
o 


Fee for 
alterati 
of a bui 
review 1 
Preserv 
Board 



CO 



pq 



27 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comments: 1. As described above, the proposed ordinance would extend for 

one year a temporary surcharge which the Department has 
applied to all fees in order to provide funds for computerization 
of application processes. The proposed surcharge would expire 
automatically on June 30, 1996, and renewal after that date 
would require action by the Board of Supervisors. A budget for 
the approximately $323,000 in total funds that will be generated 
by this surcharge must be reviewed and approved by the Board 
of Supervisors as part of the FY 1995-96 budget process. As 
noted above, FY 1995-96 will be the final year that the 
Department will fund computerization through this surcharge, 
according to Mr. Bash. 

2. Mr. Bash reports that the changes proposed in the ordinance 
will make the fees under the Planning Code more accurately 
reflect and recover the City's actual costs for reviewing, 
processing and approving applications and other actions. 

3. Where the Code calls for the Department to provide an 
estimate to applicants, such estimate will be provided without 
cost. Hourly rates to be used in such estimates will depend on 
the billing rate of the staff to be assigned to the project. 

4. Mr. Bash reports that the Department does not anticipate 
that the fee changes under the proposed ordinance will 
significantly affect the amount of revenues collected by the City 
from such fees. In FY 1994-95, the Department projects that 
they will collect a total, net of the surcharge noted above, of 
$3,795,000 in fees. 

5. Mr. Bash notes that where fees are going up, such as in the 
request for discretionary Commission review of a permit, and in 
the application for Historic Landmark status, the increased fees 
would be expected to slightly decrease the number of those types 
of applications. 

6. According to Mr. Bash, the changes in fees under the 
proposed ordinance are in order to make the cost of applications 
and reports more predictable, consistent, and fair for all 
applicants. Mr. Bash reports that in the cases where the 
proposed ordinance establishes a new limit on the cost of time 
and materials that may be charged to applicants, in most cases 
the cost of time and materials would not reach the limit set. 
These limits are being proposed in order to give applicants a 
clear limit on the potential cost to process an application, and 
should not significantly affect the Department's ability to cover 
its costs. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 

Item 9 - File 12-95-24.1 

1. This item is a request for a hearing to consider seeking a change in State 
law to permit San Francisco to directly tax banks, savings and loan associations and 
insurance companies instead of receiving an in-lieu payment from the State of 
California. 

2. State law currently exempts banks, savings and loan associations and 
insurance companies from the payment of local taxes. Instead, the banks and 
savings and loan associations pay a State Bank Tax and the insurance companies 
pay a State Premiums Tax "in-lieu" of the City's Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax and 
Unsecured Property Tax. The proposed hearing would be to consider authorizing 
the City's State lobbyist to advocate for State legislation that would pex-mit the City 
to impose local taxes on banks, savings and loan associations and insurance 
companies, by repealing the current State taxes payable by banks, savings and loan 
associations and insurance companies. 

3. According to Mr. George Ramsey of the' State Franchise Tax Board, as a 
result of a change in State law in 1978, the State no longer makes in-lieu payments 
to cities from the revenues that the State collects through the State Bank Tax and 
the State Premiums Tax. 

4. Currently, businesses subject to the City's Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax 
must pay the higher of either 1.5 percent of their total payroll or, for most 
businesses, $3.00 per $1,000 of gross receipts (0.3 percent), except for businesses 
with a calculated tax liability of $2,500 or less which are exempt from this tax. In 
addition, businesses subject to the City's Unsecured Property Tax must pay $1.15 
for every $100 of property value (1.15 percent). 

5. The Franchise Tax Board reports that the current State Bank Tax is two 
percent of net income. Based on data provided by the Franchise Tax Board, San 
Francisco could be eligible to receive approximately $4.9 million in Gross Receipts 
Tax revenues per year if the City were able to tax banks and savings and loan 
associations directly. 

6. The State Board of Equalization (BOE) reports that the State Premiums 
Tax is 2.35 percent of gross premiums. Based on data provided by the Franchise 
Tax Board, San Francisco could be eligible to receive approximately $3.7 million in 
Gross Receipts Tax revenues per year if the City were able to tax insurance 
companies directly. 

7. As of the writing of this report, it was not possible to determine the 
potential revenue that could accrue to the City resulting from the imposition of the 
City's Unsecured Property Tax on banks, savings :\m\ loan associations and 
insurance companies. 

8. Currently, under State law, all counties impose an Unsecured Property 
Tax at the rate of at least $1.00 for every $100 of property value ( 1 .0 percent), plus 
an additional percentage to account for bonded indebtedness. In addition, according 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 10, 1995 

to the Tax Collector's Office, while several other municipalities in California besides 
San Francisco impose a Gross Receipts Tax, the rates vai-y from municipality to 
municipality. The Tax Collector's Office advises that few other municipalities in 
California have a Payroll Tax, as San Francisco does. It is uncertain whether 
banks, savings and loan associations and insurance companies would transfer their 
operations to areas outside of San Francisco to avoid the City's Gross 
Receipts/Payroll Tax and Unsecured Property Tax, or whether other municipalities 
would impose a Gross Receipts/Payroll Tax and Unsecured Property Tax on banks, 
savings and loan associations and insurance companies at rates comparable to San 
Francisco. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 161-95-3 

Department: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Hearing to consider the San Francisco Redevelopment 

Agency's quarterly financial performance report for the 
quarter ending December 31, 1994, in compliance with 
Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 330-94 

Description: The Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 330-94 in 

April of 1994, requiring that the Redevelopment Agency 
provide a quarterly report to the Board of Supervisors on the 
Agency's fiscal condition and performance and on temporary 
personnel assignments that have been extended, or may be 
extended, beyond six months. Resolution No. 330-94 also 
requires that periodic public hearings be held by the Board of 
Supervisors to consider the status of all Redevelopment 
Agency programs. The first such quarterly report, dated 
October 4, 1994, submitted by the SFRA to the Board of 
Supervisors, covers the SFRA's entire fiscal year 1993-94 
budget and programs. 

The first quarter report for fiscal year 1994-95 was submitted 
by the SFRA to the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 
1994. The subject quarterly report is for the second quarter 
of fiscal year 1994-95 and is organized as follows: 

1. A section consisting of 17 pages showing the project name, 
work item description, line-item explanation, 
status/comments, approved budget, actual expenditure, 
encumbered expenditure, and remaining expenditure 
amounts for the second quarter of fiscal year 1994-95 for the 
programs/projects as shown below: 

Yerba Buena Center 
Rincon Point - South Beach 
Hunters Point 
India Basin 
Western Addition 
South Bayshore 
Hunters Point Shipyard 
South of Market 
Citywide Housing Program 
South Beach Harbor 
Central Relocation Services 
Economic Development 
Arts Center and Gardens 
Federal Office Building 
Golden Gateway 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



31 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Treasure Island 
Transbay Terminal 

2. A one page financial summary is included of budgeted 
versus actual expenditures for each program or project with 
the exceptions of South Bayshore and Central Relocation 
Services. In addition, such financial information is included 
for the Redevelopment Agency's Personnel and 
Administration Divisions. 

3. Also included is a single paragraph report on temporary 
employments exceeding six months in duration. 

Comments: 1. The Budget Analyst previously made a number of 

recommendations concerning the content and format of the 
SFRA's quarterly financial reports. Mr. Clifford Graves, 
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, reported 
that he concurred with the reporting changes recommended 
by the Budget Analyst. 

2. Attached to this report are three formats suggested by the 
Budget Analyst that could serve as the basis for the SFRA's 
submission of its quarterly reports to the Board of 
Supervisors. The format shown as Attachment I (Project 
Status), which is the most essential format, combines 
project/program cost, funding, schedule, and performance 
information in a concise manner. The format shown as 
Attachment II (Status of Projects) provides a history of the 
essential elements of information reported on in Attachment 
I for all projects/programs, thus providing accountability for 
previous reporting. Attachment III (Financial Summary) is a 
format for reporting on financial and budgetary information. 

3. With respect to the content and formatting of the SFRA's 
second quarter report for fiscal year 1994-95, the report does 
not show the initiated project date, scheduled completion 
date, original cost estimate, current cost estimate, funding 
source, project description, key personnel, and operating vs. 
capital costs for each project. 

4. The SFRA reports that they have attempted to implement 
the Budget Analyst's recommendations regarding format and 
content. In the opinion of the Budget Analyst, the SFRA's 
second quarter report for fiscal year 1994-95 does not fully 
incorporate all of the suggestions in the three attachments. 
Modifying the formats of the SFRA quarterly reports to fully 
reflect the recommendations of the Budget Analyst in the 
three attachments would provide the Board of Supervisors 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



with a more complete and full disclosure of SFRA's projects 
and the related pertinent financial data. 

5. Regarding the SFRA budgeted versus actual expenditures 
for the FY 1994-95 second quarter report, it should be noted 
that the following expenditures, including encumbrances 
have been incurred against the revised FY 1994-95 budgets 
for the projects shown below: 



Project 

Yerba Buena 
Rincon Point 
Hunters Point 
India Basin 
Western Addition 
South Bayshore 
Hunters Point Shipyard 
South of Market 
Citywide Housing * 
South Beach Harbor 
Central Relocation 
Economic Development 
Arts Center and Gardens 
Federal Office Building 
Golden Gateway 
Treasure Island 
Trans Bay Terminal 
Personnel and Admin. 
Totals 



* Includes Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS 
(HOPWA) 

6. As reported by the SFRA, only $17,184,710 of the 
$115,949,583 or approximately 15 percent of the available 
budget for FY 1994-95 for the projects shown has been 
expended or encumbered as of the end of the second quarter 
of FY 1994-95. Mr. Gamble reports that an expenditure rate 
of 15 percent is normal for the second quarter of the fiscal 
year, considering that a significant portion of the budgeted 
FY 1994-95 funds are for multi-year capital projects whose 
balance will be carried over into the next fiscal year. 

7. Regarding temporary personnel assignments that have 
extended, or may be extended beyond six months, the SFRA 
reports that one temporary Attorney I being used primarily 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Revised 
FY 1994-95 


Expended 
and 


Budget 


Encumbered 


$ 56,284,000 

3,024,000 

2,515,000 

292,000 

8,416,000 




$ 749,386 
114,891 
114,070 


222,927 




2,135,464 

5,075,000 

15,368,000 

2,815,000 




129,750 

71,308 

3,321,407 

2,095,618 




1,832,000 

5,090,000 

2,210,000 

450,000 

892,027 

400,000 

9.151.092 

$115,949,583 


889,786 

4,640,971 



16,403 

268,302 



4.549.891 

$17,184,710 



33 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 10, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



to assist in the setup of the Housing Opportunities for People 
with AIDS Program (HOPWA) and one temporary part-time 
Data Processing Assistant are anticipated to continue their 
temporary assignments through FY 1994-95. 




hj Harvey 



M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



ch;.:<-iU 1 





PROJECT STATUS 




Quartcr/FY 


TITLE: 








DATE PROJECT INITIATED: 


PROJECT DESCRIPTION 


SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE: 


ORIGINAL COST ESTIMATE 


CURRENT COST ESTIMATE: 


FUNDING SOURCE: 









CUMULA- 


J 


A |S 


O 


N |D 


J 


F 


M 


A 


M 


J 


J 




TIVE COSTS 










1 
















Previous 


zssenlial Element of Information 


Current 


(.000) 










1 
















$1200 






1 


















































SI 000 




i 



















































On Schedule 




$600 
























































Within Cost 




$400 




























Adequate Funding 
































$200 
































_j 




Meeting Service Level 












1 















Milestones 



Key Personnel: 






1 




! i i 
















i 

i 




! 1 i 
















1 




















j 




i | i 






















■I 1 i 


























i 












| 














i 












1 




































! i 
























I i 






1 




1 


! 




! i 




1 




Project Hiehliphts 



tacnment II 



1 

1 

s 

PROJECT 




STATUS OF PROJECTS 

FY 1994-95 FY 1995-96 
1 II III IV i II III IV 


FY 1996-97 
1 II III IV 




S 

c 

F 
P 


f I i 


: 1 ! 


}■ | j 










S 
lc ; 

If ! 
p 






_...: i _ __i _ 




! ] | - 


! 4- I 












:S ! 






- •- : — 




c 




1 f- j 




if i 






p 










: s [ 






'" : " " : f ' 




!C ! 




- 1 j -4 




F 
P 












j s I 








iC ! 










IF ! 










p 




- 






s 










:C : 










F ; 










P 










is i 

:C \ 












- \ j -\ 


- - j 1 f - 




If ; 






p 






s 

! c 1 

F 












\ ] -}•:- 










S 

c 

F 
P 
























S= SCHEDULE . 

ocosr 

F= FUNOING 
I P= PERFORMANCE (SERVICE LEVEL) 


; - 



o 



(X 
O 



o 




bo 



O 



O 



T3 
as 






hi 



pq 



a! -a 
C o 
•.-■ CO 
hn-r 



O C- 



W 



' j 



O 



PQ 



E-i 



C C ai 



3 
pq 

*- a 3 
>-* cc; co 



o 



PQ 



as 

(X, 



O rQ 

pu << "55 _ 

in C^l 

u e: pq ^ 

-e ^ as t-> 



O 



o 



G) 



CO 

a?.H 
?S 

Oco 
to •« as c3 

"WftC 

Jn «o S 

C as , 



CO 



03 

So. 



C g 6.H 
a) p a) ^-> 

3 QJ 



-a 

c 

OS 
S-. 

O 



<u o CT r- 



_ ,' r 



MINUTES 
REGULAR MEETING 



BUDGET COMMITTEE DOC imc k , Tp 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

-- ~' 

WEDNESDAY. MAY 17. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, WAR MEMORIAL BLDG. 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 



TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:12 P.M. 

FISCAL ITEMS 



File 101-94-98 . [Appropriation - Municipal Railway] Ordinance 
appropriating $8,859,766 to the Municipal Railway to offset shortfalls in 
passenger fare revenues, claims and judgements, materials and supplies, 
workers compensation and services to City Attorney, funded from General 
Reserve ($5,259,766), Transit Impact Development Fund ($2,100,000) and San 
Francisco County Transportation Authority ($1,500,000) for fiscal year 
1994-95; subject of previous budgetary denial and providing for ratification of 
action previously taken. (Public Transportation Commission) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Phil Adams, General Manager, 
Transportation Department; Teresa Serate, Budget Director, Office of the 
Mayor. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



2. File 101-94-102 . [Appropriation - Department of Public Health-Mental 

Health] Ordinance appropriating $1,138,290 of Medi-Cal revenue to medical 
services contracts to allow the Department of Public Health-Mental Health 
to expand drug Medi-Cal Eligible Substance Abuse Programs for fiscal year 
1994-95. Providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Supervisor 
Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Department of Public Health/Mental Health. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M T NUTES PAGE 2 

FEES 



3. File 97-95-26 . [Assessment Appeals Board] Ordinance amending 

Administrative Code 2B of the San Francisco Administrative Code by 
amending Section 2B.9 thereto to waive the filing fee for an application for 
reduction of assessment where the application is accompanied by a stipulation 
with the Assessor and the application is filed after the Assessment Appeals 
Board has reduced the assessment for a prior tax year, amending Section 
2B.10 to allow refund of only half of the hearing fee where the applicant 
prevails and obtains a reduction from the Assessment Appeals Board, 
amending Section 2B.12 to allow the Board of Supervisors to create a third 
Assessment Appeals Board where necessary to provide timely Assessment 
Appeal hearings, amending Section 2B.13 to allow Assessment Appeals Boards 
Nos. 2 and 3 to hear appeals involving property of any type on the secured or 
unsecured roll assessed at $30,000,000 or less, and amending Section 2B.18 to 
require the Assessment Appeals Board to accept recommendations of hearing 
officers as to which there is no timely objection. (Clerk of the Board) 

(Consideration Continued from 5/10/95) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE 

PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY SUPERVISOR KAUFMAN. 
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE ADOPTED. CONSIDERATION 
CONTINUED TO MAY 24, 1995, MEETING. AMENDED TITLE: 
"Amending Chapter 2B of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
by amending Section 2B.9 thereto to waive the filing fee for an 
application for reduction of assessment where the application is 
accopmanied by a stipulation with the Assessor and the application 
is filed after the Assessment Appeals Board has reduced the 
assessment for a prior tax year, amending Section 2B.10 to allow 
refund of only half of the hearing fee where the applicant prevails 
and obtains a reduction from the Assessment Appeals Board, 
amending Section 2B.13 to allow Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 
to hear appeals involving property of any type on the Secured or 
Unsecured Roll assessed at $20,000,000 or less, excluding 
properties in certain designated Assessor's Blocks and possessory 
interests, and amending Section 2B.18 to require the Assessment 
Appeals Board to accept recommendations of hearing officers as 
to which there is no timely objection." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M^MUTES PAGE 3 

HEARINGS 



4. File 12-95-24.1 . [Taxes on Banks/Insurance Companies] Hearing to consider 
seeking a change in State law to permit San Francisco to directly tax banks 
and insurance companies instead of receiving in lieu payments from the State 
of California. (Supervisor Ammiano) 

(Consideration Continued from 5/10/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Joseph van es 
Ballesteros, representing Supervisor Tom Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller. IN SUPPORT: Mark Martin, San 
Franciscans for Tax Justice; Dale Butler, Local 250; Andy Secida, Senior 
Action Network; Salmen Goos, Haight/Ashbury Council; Rosa Simpson, Gray 
Panthers; Robert Laman. PARTIAL SUPPORT: Steve Nessier, California 
Banker's Assocation. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL 
OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



5. File 165-95-4.1 . [Tax Collector Audit] Hearing to consider the findings and 
recommendations contained in the Budget Analyst's Audit dated April 1995 on 
the Tax Collector's Office. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Debra Newman, Budget Analsyt; 
Richard Sullivan, Tax Collector; Carl Frieman, Director, Animal Care and 
Control Department. IN SUPPORT: Lynda Treadway, Municipal Resource 
Consultants; David Barlow, United Taxicab Workers. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL 
OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 3:55 P.M. 



C7 

\«H? La- ) 



CITY AND COUNTY 




(Public LiBrant, 'Documents (Dept. 
Attn: Jane Hudson 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 

RECEIVED my 1 7 1995 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



May 12, 1995 



TO: 



/ 



Budget Committee 



FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



DO™ tMPNTS DEP " 
MAY 1 9 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 - File 101-94-98 



Department: 

Item: 



Amount and 
Source of Fluids: 



Description: 



Public Transportation Commission (PTC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$8,859,766 to the Municipal Railway (MUNI) to offset 
shortfalls in passenger fare revenues, judgments and claims, 
materials and supplies, workers compensation and services of 
the City Attorney, funded from the General Fund Reserve 
($5,259,766), Transit Impact Development Funds 
($2,100,000) and the San Francisco County Transportation 
Authority ($1,500,000); the subject of previous budgetary 
denial and providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 



General Fund Reserve $5,259,766 

Transit Impact Development Funds 2,100,000 

San Francisco County Transportation Authority 1.500 000 

Total $8,859,766 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate funding in order to offset a projected funding 
shortfall in the Municipal Railway's (MUNI) FY 1994-95 
budget resulting from (a) a shortfall in projected passenger 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



fare revenues and (b) overspending in four expenditure 
categories, as follows: 

Shortfall in Passenger Fare Revenues $3,683,766 

Budget Deficiencies in: 

Judgments and Claims 1,100,000 

Materials and Supplies 1,500,000 

Workers Compensation 2,110,000 

Services of the City Attorney 466.000 

Total $8,859,766 

These projected shortfalls are described in detail below. 

Shortfall in Passenger Fare Revenues ($3.683.766) 

MUNI originally projected a shortfall in passenger fare 
revenues of approximately $3.7 million for FY 1994-95. 
According to MUNI, this shortfall is primarily due to a 
reduction in Fast Pass sales, cable car revenues, discount 
fare revenues and Youth Pass sales. The proposed ordinance 
would offset the projected $3,683,766 shortfall in passenger 
fare revenues with $3,683,766 in General Fund Reserve 
monies, to be appropriated to MUNI's Operating Fund. 

The table below shows MUNI's estimated shortfall in 
passenger fare revenues for FY 1994-95, as of April 1, 1995: 

FY 1994-95 Actual Revenues Projected Revenues Total Estimated 
Budget 7/1/94-3/31/95 4/1/95 - 6/30/95 Shortfall 

$93,998,438 $67,855,852 $22,739,569 $3,403,017 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected 
revenue shortfall is $3,403,017, the supplemental request for 
passenger fares is $3,683,766, or $280,749 more than the 
projected revenue shortfall (See Comment No. 5). 

Judgments and Claims ($1.100.000) 

MUNI's current year budget for judgments and claims is 
$7,512,000. As of March 31, 1995, MUNI had already 
expended $7,278,609 (97 percent) of its judgments and claims 
budget. 

The table below, based on data provided by MUNI, shows a 
summary of the estimated budget deficiency in MUNI's 
judgments and claims budget for FY 1994-95: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



Description Number Amount 

Claims already paid through 3/31795 1,121 $7,278,609 
Unpaid settled claims to be paid between 

4/1/95 and 6/30/95 350 1,725,040 
Unpaid claims awaiting approval for 

payment 5 181,136 

Estimated amount of other pending claims* 175 643.650 

Total 1994-95 Claims Paid or Pending 1,651 $9,828,435 

Less: 

1994-95 Budget for Judgments and Claims (7.512.000) 

Estimated Shortfall in Judgments and Claims $2,316,435 

The City Attorney's Office advises that this estimate, as prepared by 
MUNI, appears low. As of the writing of this report, the City Attorney 's 
Office could not provide an estimate of the amount that may actually be 
needed for pending claims. 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $2,316,435, the supplemental request for 
judgments and claims is only $1,100,000, thereby leaving a 
remaining budget deficiency of $1,216,435 (See Comment No. 

5). 

Materials and Supplies ($1.500.000) 

Although MUNI's Maintenance Division spent approximately 
$12.3 million for materials and supplies in FY 1993-94, the 
Maintenance Division's FY 1994-95 budget for materials and 
supplies was only $10.8 million, as recommended by the 
Mayor's Office. As a result, MUNI's Maintenance Division 
originally projected a $1.5 million deficit in its materials and 
supplies budget for FY 1994-95. According to Mr. Fred 
Howell of MUNI, the appropriation of the requested funds 
would permit MUNI to continue materials and supplies 
purchasing, thereby preventing further delays in bus repair. 

This request for $1.5 million, to be funded by a grant from 
the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, would 
be used to purchase parts for (a) Light Rail Vehicles 
($1,097,000), (b) diesel buses ($305,000) and (c) trolley buses 
($98,000). 

The table below shows the estimated budget deficiency in 
MUNI's total materials and supplies budget for FY 1994-95, 
based on MUNI's anticipated need for vehicle parts from May 
1, 1995 through June 30, 1995: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



FY 1994-95 Actual Expenditures Projected Expenditures Total Estimated 
Budget 7/1/94 - 4/30/95 5/1/95 - 6/30/95 Shortfall 

$17,046,706 $17,194,039 $1,830,161 $1,977,494 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $1,977,494, the supplemental request for 
materials and supplies is only $1,500,000, thereby leaving a 
remaining budget deficiency of $477,494 (See Comment No. 
5). 

Workers Compensation ($2.110.000) 

Despite a declining number of workers compensation claims, 
MUNI is projecting a shortfall of $2,110,000 in its workers 
compensation budget. MUNI advises that this overspending 
is due in part to (a) a 21 percent increase in the statutory 
temporary disability rate from $336 to $406 per week 
imposed by the California Legislature and (b) an increase in 
the average payment from $5,148 per claim in 1993-94 to 
$7,535 per claim in FY 1994-95. 

The table below, based on data provided by MUNI, shows a 
summary of the estimated budget deficiency in MUNI's 
workers compensation budget for FY 1994-95: 

Description 



Number 


Amount 


892 


$6,719,768 


297 


2.239.923 


1,189 


$8,959,691 


n 


(6.371.789) 


ition 


$2,587,902 



Claims already paid through 3/31/95 
Unpaid settled claims to be paid between 
4/1/95 and 6/30/95 

Total 1994-95 Claims Paid or Pending 

Less: 

1994-95 Budget for Workers Compensation 

Estimated Shortfall in Workers Compensation 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $2,587,902, the supplemental request for 
workers compensation is only $2,110,000, thereby leaving a 
remaining budget deficiency of $477,902 (See Comment No. 

5). 

During the FY 1994-95 budget review, the Budget Analyst 
estimated that the overall General Fund budget for workers 
compensation, as submitted by the Mayor's Office, was 
underbudgeted by $2.9 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 

Services of the Citv Attorney ($466.000) 
The City Attorney provides services to MUNI related to 
claims, judgments and other legal matters. According to Mr. 
Howell, MUNI originally projected a shortfall of $466,000 in 
this expenditure category because this account has 
historically been underbudgeted by the Mayor's Office. 

The average hourly rates for the City Attorney's Office range 
from $100 to $112 per hour, which provide for attorneys' 
salaries and fringe benefits and for overhead expenses. The 
City Attorney's Office advises that approximately 40 
attorneys are involved in general litigation for MUNI. This 
supplemental request of $466,000 would provide between 
4,161 and 4,660 hours of service from the City Attorney's 
Office over an approximately six-week period (from May 23, 
1995 through June 30, 1995). 

The table below shows the estimated funding shortfall for 
services of the City Attorney's Office for FY 1994-95, based on 
data provided by the City Attorney's Office: 

FY 1994-95 Actual Expenditures Projected Expenditures Total Estimated 
Budget 7/1/94-3/31/95 4/1/95 - 6/30/95 Shortfall 

$2,356,040 $2,131,486 $710,495 $485,941 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $485,941, the supplemental request for services 
of the City Attorney's Office is only $466,000, thereby leaving 
a remaining budget deficiency of $19,941 (See Comment No. 
5). 

Comments: 1. MUNI has applied for a $1.5 million grant from the San 

Francisco County Transportation Authority to finance the 
Maintenance Division's projected deficit in materials and 
supplies for FY 1994-95. MUNI advises that this grant 
application has received approval from the Transportation 
Authority. 

2. MUNI has identified $2.1 million in surplus Transit 
Impact Development Funds available from the Woods Project 
that could be used to offset MUNI's projected funding 
shortfall. The Woods Project involved the purchase of Port 
property to accommodate various maintenance functions. 
However, because the Port property was not available for 
acquisition, MUNI instead acquired property at 700 
Pennsylvania Street to accommodate those maintenance 
functions, leaving a surplus of approximately $2.1 million for 
the Woods Project. As such, according to Mr. Howell, this 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDCxET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



$2.1 million in Transit Impact Development Funds originally 
earmarked for the Woods Project is no longer needed and can 
instead be used to partially offset MUNI's projected operating 
deficit for FY 1994-95. * The transfer of these funds from the 
Woods Project to MUNI's operating budget was approved by 
the Public Transportation Commission at its meeting of 
February 14, 1995. 

3. According to Mr. Howell, expenditures have been incurred 
against the proposed supplemental appropriation for workers 
compensation, judgments and claims and materials and 
supplies. As such, the proposed ordinance provides for 
ratification of action previously taken. 

4. The funds being requested in this supplemental 
appropriation ordinance were previously denied by the 
Mayor's Office during the FY 1994-95 budget process. As 
such, the approval of this supplemental appropriation 
ordinance would require two-thirds vote by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

5. Based on the most recent projected passenger fare 
revenues shortfall of $3,403,017, the Budget Analyst notes 
that the supplemental request for passenger fare revenues of 
$3,683,766 could be reduced by $280,749 to $3,403,017. 
However, even with the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance of $8,859,766, MUNI still faces a projected budget 
deficiency of $2,191,772 in (a) judgments and claims 
($1,216,435), (b) materials and supplies ($477,494), (c) 
workers compensation ($477,902) and (d) services of the City 
Attorney's Office ($19,941). 

As such, at the request of MUNI, the Budget Analyst 
recommends, subject to the approval by the Mayor, that this 
surplus request in passenger fare revenues of $280,749, as 
determined by the Budget Analyst, be used to partially offset 
MUNI's projected budget deficiency of $1,216,435 in 
judgments and claims. MUNI advises that the remaining 
projected budget deficiency in judgments and claims of 
$935,686 ($1,216,435 less $280,749) would be carried forward 
and paid by the FY 1995-96 budget. 

6. Mr. Richard Hillis of the Mayor's Office advises that the 
Mayor's Office concurs with the Budget Analyst's 
recommendation to reduce MUNI's request for Passenger 
Fare Revenues by $280,749 and to use such funds for the 



According to Mr. Howell, Transit Impact Development Funds may be used for both capital and 
operating expenses. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



purpose of increasing MUNI's request for Judgements and 
Claims by $280,749, in order partially offset MUNI's 
projected deficit in this account of $1,216,435. Mr. Hillis 
advises that the Mayor's Office will prepare a letter to the 
Controller's Office requesting that the proposed supplemental 
appropriation request be amended to reflect the $280,769 
reduction in Passenger Fare Revenues and the increase by 
$280,769 in the Judgements and Claims account. 

7. Mr. Howell advises that, with respect to the remaining 
projected deficiencies in materials and supplies, workers 
compensation and services of the City Attorney's Office of 
$975,337, MUNI will attempt to absorb these projected 
budget deficiencies within its existing budget. However, 
according to Mr. Howell, any remaining budget deficiencies 
in these three accounts at the end of FY 1994-95 would be 
carried forward to the FY 1995-96 budget. 

8. In summary, the Budget Analyst recommends the 
following changes to the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance: 



Category 



Supplemental 
Appropriation 
Supplemental 



Amount Budget Analyst's 

Recommended by Recommended 

Budget Analyst Change 



Passenger Fare Revenues $3,683,766 



Judgments and Claims 
Materials and Supplies 
Workers Compensation 
City Attorney Services 
Total 



1,100,000 

1,500,000 

2,110,000 

466.000 

$8,859,766 



$3,403,017 

1,380,749 

1,500,000 

2,110,000 

466.000 

$8,859,766 



($280,749) 

280,749 





Q 

$0 



Recommendations : 



1. Reduce the supplemental appropriation request for 
Passenger Fare Revenues by $280,749, the amount of surplus 
as determined by the Budget Analyst, and increase the 
supplemental appropriation request for Judgments and 
Claims by $280,749, in accordance with the table above, 
subject to the approval of the Mayor's Office. 

2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 101-94-102 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Health 

Ordinance appropriating $1,138,290 of Medi-Cal revenue to 
medical services contracts to allow the Department of Public 
Health to expand Drug Medi-Cal eligible substance abuse 
programs for Fiscal Year 1994-95. Providing for ratification of 
action previously taken. 

$1,138,290 



Source of Funds: Federal funds, through State Medi-Cal reimbursement 

Description: The proposed ordinance would appropriate $1,138,290 in Medi- 

Cal revenues for substance abuse programs for the period April 
1, 1995 through June 30, 1995. The funds to be appropriated 
by this ordinance would be used to fund expanded substance 
abuse services including methadone maintenance, outpatient 
day treatment, and residential treatment programs provided 
by 14 non-profit organizations currently under contract to the 
Department of Public Health (DPH). 

The requested $1,138,290 is available from the Federal 
government, through the State, and represents the Federal 
government's share of the costs of Medi-Cal services. The 
State matching fund portion of these funds has already been 
appropriated to the Department of Public Health's FY 1994-95 
budget. There are no City matching funds required, as the cost 
of these programs is shared 50/50 by the State and Federal 
governments. 

The expanded substance abuse programs funded under the 
proposed ordinance are in accordance with a court order under 
the Sobky vs. Smoley lawsuit, which requires that the State 
make methadone treatment available on demand to Medi-Cal- 
eligible clients. The State has interpreted this court order to 
mean that other Drug Medi-Cal services normally reimbursed 
by Medi-Cal must also be available. As such, the proposed 
appropriation would fund not only methadone maintenance, 
but a variety of drug and alcohol treatment programs. 

All of the providers receiving this funding have current 
contracts with DPH which determine rates and other 
conditions of providing Medi-Cal substance abuse services. 
Because of delays by the State in transferring Federal funds to 
the City, DPH has already been billed by providers for these 
services. As such, the ordinance provides for ratification of 
action previously taken. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



The Federal funds dedicated to these programs through Drug Medi-Cal in FY 1994- 
95 are as follows: 



Original 
FY 1994-95 
Provider Budget 


Increase in 

FY 1994-95 

Budget 


Total 
Amount 


Increased 
Services to 
be Provided* 


Bay Area Addiction, $1,780,177 
Research & Treatment 
(BAART) 


$879,145 


$2,659,322 


Methadone; 
117,690 units 
632 Clients 


Bayview Hunter's Point 
Methadone Maintenance 


355,420 


20,420 


375,840 


Methadone; 

2,734 units, 15 clients 


Haight Ashbury Free Clinics 


371,368 


63,632 


435,000 


Outpatient detox; 
1,178 units, 50 clients 


IRIS Center 


181,882 


21,275 


203,157 


Outpatient & day 
treatment; 536 units, 
30 women 


UCSF SFGH Substance Abuse 
PACE Program 


23,358 


5,000 


28,358 


Methadone; 680 units, 
4 clients 


UCSF SFGH Substance Abuse 
Ward 93 Methadone Clinic 


384,800 


14,800 


399,600 


Methadone; 

1,982 units, 12 clients 


Walden House/Day Treatment 
Adolescent Aftercare 


200,200 


72,800 


273,000 


Outpatient aftercare; 
1,120 units, 32 clients 


Westside Methadone and Inner 
City Treatment Programs 


472,560 


37,200 


509,760 


Methadone & 
outpatient; 3,295 units, 
28 clients 


Women's Alcoholism Center 
Aviva House/Lee Woodward 
Center 


128,397 


24,018 


152,415 


Residential units; 241 
Outpatient units; 284, 
15 women and children 



Totals 



$3,898,162 $1,138,290 



$5,036,452 



* The number of treatment units available in the programs 
listed above are based on DPH's estimate of the need for 
various substance abuse programs. The Department is 
currently analyzing the actual usage of these programs, and 
will use this information to shift funds among Medi-Cal eligible 
programs to meet the demand. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Jim Still well of the DPH, prior to the 

Sobky vs. Smoley court order, the City was able to use some 
discretion in determining how much of its State General Fund 
grant for drug and alcohol programs was used to match 
Federal funds in the Medi-Cal program, and in that way cap 
the amount of Drug Medi-Cal services which were available. 
Prior to Sobky vs. Smoley , the amount of the State grant used 
for these services was approximately $1.35 million out of a 
total annual grant of approximately $3.3 million, or 40 percent 
of the State grant. Under the court order, in future fiscal 
years, virtually all of the City's annual State General Fund 
grant for drug and alcohol programs will have to be used to 
match Federal funds and provide Drug Medi-Cal services. As 
such, the State General Fund grant monies will not be 
available for the Department's other drug and alcohol 
programs that serve clients who are not eligible for Medi-Cal. 

2. Because State General Fund monies will not be available in 
FY 1995-96 for non Medi-Cal-eligible drug and alcohol 
programs, the Department is; a) working with providers of the 
other programs to get them certified to take Medi-Cal clients, 
b) working with clients to ensure that all Medi-Cal-eligible 
individuals successfully register for Medi-Cal benefits, and, c) 
analyzing client populations and waiting lists to insure that 
Medi-Cal recipients are using only Medi-Cal funded treatment 
slots. Mr. Stillwell estimates that by the end of FY 1994-95, 
one-half to three-fourths of the treatment slots lost because 
State General Fund monies are not available will be replaced 
by increased Medi-Cal program and client eligibility through 
the efforts described above. The remaining treatment slots will 
either have to be absorbed under the Department's City 
General Fund budget, or discontinued in FY 1995-96, 
according to Mr. Stillwell. Because many different funding 
sources in FY 1995-96 will affect these programs, the 
Department has not yet determined exactly what level of 
treatment services will be available. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 97-95-26 

NOTE: This item was continued at the May 10, 1995 Budget Committee meeting. 

Department: Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending Chapter 2B of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by amending (1) Section 2B.9 to waive 
the filing fee for an application for a reduction in assessment 
in certain cases, (2) Section 2B.10 to allow the refund of only 
half the hearing fee if certain reductions in assessment are 
granted, (3) Section 2B.13 to allow Assessment Appeals 
Boards No. 2 to hear appeals involving property of any type 
of $20,000,000 or less except in certain designated areas and 
(4) Section 2B.18 to require the Assessment Appeals Board to 
accept the recommendations of hearing officers. 

An Amendment of the Whole to the proposed ordinance has 
been drafted and will be introduced at the Budget Committee 
meeting on May 17, 1995. This report reflects the 
Amendment of the Whole. 

The Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) hears appeals from 
property owners who dispute assessments of property value 
arrived at by the Assessor's Office, and the resulting tax 
liability. Currently, two Assessment Appeals Boards, of 
three members each, exist. Members are selected by the 
Board of Supervisors from applicants involved in related 
fields. 

Ms. Marilyn Cosentino of the AAB advises that the severe 
downturn in San Francisco real estate values and limited 
reductions in assessment by the Assessor have contributed to 
a sharp rise in appeals to the AAB since 1993, delaying the 
hearing of appeals and resulting in a severe backlog of cases. 
Ms. Cosentino further advises that State law provides that 
the taxpayer's opinion of value will prevail if an appeal is not 
decided within two years of filing, resulting in the possibility 
of a sharp fall in revenue to the City. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 2B of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code as follows: 

Section 2B.9 

Currently, Section 2B.9 of the Administrative Code allows 
the waiver of the filing fee of $30.00 for an application to the 
AAB only in indigent cases, in accordance with State law 
(California Government Code Section 68511.3). The proposed 
ordinance would add waivers of the filing fee for applications 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



for which (1) the Assessor has recommended a reduced 
assessment in a written stipulation with the agreement of 
the City Attorney and the applicant, subject to formal AAB 
approval, (2) the applicant has requested the continuation of 
a reduced assessment granted by the Assessment Appeals 
Board in the previous tax year and (3) the applicant's opinion 
of the correct assessment value is not less than the prior 
year's assessment and any automatic annual increase for 
inflation allowed by law. 

The Assessor's Office must reduce its official assessment of 
property value within a specified time period following a 
reduction of assessment by the AAB. If the Assessor's Office 
fails to do so, the official assessment reverts to its previous 
value and a separate appeal must be filed with the AAB to 
continue the reduction. 

Section 2B. 10 

Currently, Section 2B.10 of the Administrative Code allows 
for a full refund of the hearing fee if the hearing results in 
certain reductions from the Assessor's assessment of property 
value. Hearing fees are based on a graded scale, increasing 
as the current assessed value of the property increases. The 
proposed ordinance would reduce the refund for such 
hearings to half the hearing fee. 

Section 2B. 13 

Currently, Section 2B.13 puts no limitations on the 
applications Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 may hear and 
restricts most hearings of Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to 
applications involving smaller, residential properties or 
personal property less than $75,000. The proposed ordinance 
would allow Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to hear 
applications involving properties assessed at up to 
$20,000,000 except those properties located in certain 
designated areas in the City's financial district and along 
Van Ness Avenue. 

Section 2B. 18 

Currently, Section 2B.18 allows the AAB to accept or reject 
the recommendation of a Hearing Officer on certain 
applications. Hearing Officers, selected from AAB members, 
are responsible for making recommendations on reductions in 
assessment values after conducting pre-hearing interviews. 
Such interviews are limited to applications involving 
residential properties of four units or less. The proposed 
ordinance would require the AAB to accept the 
recommendation of the Hearing Officer, provided that the 
applicant agrees with this recommendation. Ms. Cosentino 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



advises that this practice would expedite the hearing process 
and is common in other Bay Area counties. 

1. According to Ms. Cosentino, the proposed amendment to 
Section 2B.9 would eliminate the payment of the filing fee for 
applicants who find it necessary to file appeals with the AAB 
because the Assessor's Office is unable to process the 
previous year's reductions in assessment value before its 
authority to do so expires. Mr. David Busse of the Assessor's 
Office advises that since the Assessor's Office expects to 
process all the previous year's reductions in assessment value 
before its authority to do so expires, the proposed change in 
filing fee waivers would have a negligible effect on revenues 
to the City. 

2. Ms. Consentino reports that the AAB spends an extensive 
amount of time conducting hearings involving larger 
commercial properties. She reports that the proposed 
reduction in refunds would compensate for this additional 
Board time. Mr. Victor Young of the AAB states that halving 
the hearing fee refund would reduce the current $14,000 in 
annual fee refunds to an estimated $7,000, resulting in 
$7,000 in additional revenue to the City annually. 

3. Ms. Cosentino advises that the proposed amendment to 
Section 2B.13, allowing Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to 
hear applications involving properties assessed at up to 
$20,000,000, except in certain designated areas, is designed 
to allow greater efficiency in scheduling hearings. Such 
improved efficiency should eliminate the present backlog of 
cases before the expiration of the two-year period, after which 
the City is obligated to accept the applicant's opinion of 
value. Ms. Cosentino further advises that appeals involving 
properties in the designated areas would be heard only by 
Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 to utilize the expertise of 
Board No. 1 in assessing the larger commercial properties 
located in these areas. 

4. Ms. Cosentino advises that the total estimated cost for 
Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 in FY 1994-95 is $42,000. 
She further advises that the total estimated cost for Board 
No. 2 in FY 1995-96, based on approval of the proposed 
amendment allowing more appeals to be heard by Board No. 
2, would be $78,000 or $36,000 more than the current 
budgeted amount. 

Approval of the proposed Amendment of the Whole to the 
proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 

Item 4 -File 12-95-24.1 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of May 
10, 1995. 

1. This item is a request for a hearing to consider seeking a change in State 
law to permit San Francisco to directly tax banks, savings and loan associations and 
insurance companies instead of receiving an in-lieu payment from the State of 
California. 

2. State law currently exempts banks, savings and loan associations and 
insurance companies from the payment of local taxes. Instead, the banks and 
savings and loan associations pay a State Bank Tax and the insurance companies 
pay a State Premiums Tax "in-lieu" of the City's Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax and 
Unsecured Property Tax 1 . The proposed hearing would be to consider authorizing 
the City's State lobbyist to advocate for State legislation that would permit the City 
to impose local taxes on banks, savings and loan associations and insurance 
companies, by repealing the current State taxes payable by banks, savings and loan 
associations and insurance companies. 

3. According to Mr. George Ramsey of the State Franchise Tax Board, as a 
result of a change in State law in 1978, the State no longer makes in-lieu payments 
to cities from the revenues that the State collects through the State Bank Tax and 
the State Premiums Tax. 

4. Currently, businesses subject to the City's Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax 
must pay the higher of either 1.5 percent of their total payroll or, for most 
businesses, $3.00 per $1,000 of gross receipts (0.3 percent), except for businesses 
with a calculated tax liability of $2,500 or less which are exempt from this tax. In 
addition, businesses subject to the City's Unsecured Property Tax must pay $1.15 
for every $100 of property value (1.15 percent). 

5. The Franchise Tax Board reports that the current State Bank Tax is two 
percent of net income. Based on data provided by the Franchise Tax Board, San 
Francisco could be eligible to receive approximately $4.9 million in Gross Receipts 
Tax revenues per year if the City were able to tax banks and savings and loan 
associations directly. 

6. The State Board of Equalization (BOE) reports that the State Premiums 
Tax is 2.35 percent of gross premiums. Based on data provided by the Franchise 
Tax Board, San Francisco could be eligible to receive approximately $3.7 million in 
Gross Receipts Tax revenues per year if the City were able to tax insurance 
companies directly. 



1 The Unsecured Property Tax is a business tax assessed on property used in the operation of a 
business, such as furniture, computer equipment and lighting fixtures, whereas the Real Property 
Tax is a tax assessed on land and buildings. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 

7. As of the writing of this report, it was not possible to determine the 
potential revenue that could accrue to the City resulting from the imposition of the 
City's Unsecured Property Tax on banks, savings and loan associations and 
insurance companies. 

8. Currently, under State law, all counties impose an Unsecured Property 
Tax at the rate of at least $1.00 for every $100 of property value (1.0 percent), plus 
an additional percentage to account for bonded indebtedness. In addition, according 
to the Tax Collector's Office, while several other municipalities in California besides 
San Francisco impose a Gross Receipts Tax, the rates vary from municipality to 
municipality. The Tax Collector's Office advises that few other municipalities in 
California have a Payroll Tax, as San Francisco does. It is uncertain whether 
banks, savings and loan associations and insurance companies would transfer their 
operations to areas outside of San Francisco to avoid the City's Gross 
Receipts/Payroll Tax and Unsecured Property Tax, or whether other municipalities 
would impose a Gross Receipts/Payroll Tax and Unsecured Property Tax on banks, 
savings and loan associations and insurance companies at rates comparable to San 
Francisco. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 5- File 165-95-4.1 

Item: Hearing to consider the findings and recommendations 

contained in the Budget Analyst's Management Audit dated 
April, 1995 of the Tax Collector's Office. 

Description: In response to a request from the Board of Supervisors, the 

Budget Analyst conducted a comprehensive management audit 
of the Tax Collector's Office. The final management audit report 
was submitted to the Board of Supervisors on April 25, 1995 and 
contains eleven findings and 81 recommendations. The major 
sections of the report are as follows: 

Introduction 

Section 1.1: Accounting and Statements 
Section 1.2: Automation 
Section 1.3: Taxpayer Assistance 

Sectionll.l: Licensing 
Section II. 2: Dog Licenses 

Section III.l: Business tax Auditing 
Section HI. 2: Review of City Park Audit 
Section III. 3: Business Registration 
Section III. 4: Taxicab Drivers 

Section IV. 1: Delinquent Collections Process: Business Tax 
Section IV.2: Collections Process 

Full implementation of the recommendations contained in this 
managment audit would decrease the Tax Collector's overall 
costs and increase revenues by a net amount of approximately 
$7.1 million to $16 million annually for the City. Depending on 
future legal opinions of the City Attorney and policy decisions of 
the Board of Supervisors, the City could realize an additional 
$3.5 million to $6.9 million of one-time payments as a result of 
delinquent Business Taxes and Registration Fees owed to the 
City by taxicab companies or its drivers. Implementation of the 
recommendations contained in our report would require an 
additional estimated one-time net cost of $215,426. 

These estimated savings do not include an additional $14.3 
million annually from Payroll and Gross Receipts Taxes owed to 
the City. These taxes are owed to the City because an estimated 
9,376 to 53,376 businesses are not registered with the Tax 
Collector's Office and therefore do not pay taxes. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

lfi 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 




J6r\ Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



^> 



or 



/<?r 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 97-95-26 



(PuBUc Libraru, (Documents (Dept. 
REVISED Attn: Jcuui. 9{udson 



NOTE: This item was continued at the May 10, 1995 Budget Committee meeting. 



I 



Department: Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) 

Item: Ordinance amending Chapter 2B of the San Francisco 

Administrative Code by amending (1) Section 2B.9 to waive 
the filing fee for an application for a reduction in assessment 
in certain cases, (2) Section 2B.10 to allow the refund of only 
half the hearing fee if certain reductions in assessment are 
granted, (3) Section 2B.13 to allow Assessment Appeals 
Boards No. 2 to hear appeals involving property of less than 
$20,000,000 except in certain designated areas and (4) 
Section 2B.18 to require the Assessment Appeals Board to 
accept the recommendations of hearing officers. 

Description: An Amendment of the Whole to the proposed ordinance has 

been drafted and will be introduced at the Budget Committee 
meeting on May 17, 1995. This report reflects the 
Amendment of the Whole. 



DOO JMF.NTS DEP' 
MAY 1 6 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



The Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) hears appeals from 
property owners who dispute assessments of property value 
arrived at by the Assessor's Office, and the resulting tax 
liability. Currently, two Assessment Appeals Boards, of 
three members each, exist. Members are selected by the 
Board of Supervisors from applicants involved in related 
fields. 

Ms. Marilyn Cosentino of the AAB advises that the severe 
downturn in San Francisco real estate values and limited 
reductions in assessment by the Assessor have contributed to 
a sharp rise in appeals to the AAB since 1993, delaying the 
hearing of appeals and resulting in a severe backlog of'cases. 
Ms. Cosentino further advises that State law provides that 
the taxpayer's opinion of value will prevail if an appeal is not 
decided within two years of filing, resulting in the possibility 
of a sharp fall in revenue to the City. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 2B of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code as follows: 

Section 2B.9 

Currently, Section 2B.9 of the Administrative Code allows 
the waiver of the filing fee of $30.00 for an application to the 
AAB only in indigent cases, in accordance with State law 
(California Government Code Section 68511.3). The proposed 
ordinance would add waivers of the filing fee for applications 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 






Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



for which (1) the Assessor has recommended a reduced 
assessment in a written stipulation with the agreement of 
the City Attorney and the applicant, subject to formal AAB 
approval, (2) the applicant has requested the continuation of 
a reduced assessment granted by the Assessment Appeals 
Board in the previous tax year and (3) the applicant's opinion 
of the correct assessment value is not less than the prior 
year's assessment and any automatic annual increase for 
inflation allowed by law. 

The Assessor's Office must reduce its official assessment of 
property value within a specified time period following a 
reduction of assessment by the AAB. If the Assessor's Office 
fails to do so, the official assessment reverts to its previous 
value and a separate appeal must be filed with the AAB to 
continue the reduction. 

Section 2B.10 

Currently, Section 2B.10 of the Administrative Code allows 
for a full refund of the hearing fee if the hearing results in 
certain reductions from the Assessor's assessment of property 
value. Hearing fees are based on a graded scale, increasing 
as the current assessed value of the property increases. The 
proposed ordinance would reduce the refund for such 
hearings to half the hearing fee. 

Section 2B.13 

Currently, Section 2B.13 puts no limitations on the 
applications Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 may hear and 
restricts most hearings of Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to 
applications involving smaller, residential properties or 
personal property less than $75,000. The proposed ordinance 
would allow Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to hear 
applications involving properties assessed at less than 
$20,000,000 except those properties located in certain 
designated areas in the City's financial district and along 
Van Ness Avenue. 

Section 2B.18 

Currently, Section 2B.18 allows the AAB to accept or reject 
the recommendation of a Hearing Officer on certain 
applications. Hearing Officers, selected from AAB members, 
are responsible for making recommendations on reductions in 
assessment values after conducting pre-hearing interviews. 
Such interviews are limited to applications involving 
residential properties of four units or less. The proposed 
ordinance would require the AAB to accept the 
recommendation of the Hearing Officer, provided that the 
applicant agrees with this recommendation. Ms. Cosentino 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



advises that this practice would expedite the hearing process 
and is common in other Bay Area counties. 

1. According to Ms. Cosentino, the proposed amendment to 
Section 2B.9 would eliminate the payment of the filing fee for 
applicants who find it necessary to file appeals with the AAB 
because the Assessor's Office is unable to process the 
previous year's reductions in assessment value before its 
authority to do so expires. Mr. David Busse of the Assessor's 
Office advises that since the Assessor's Office expects to 
process all the previous year's reductions in assessment value 
before its authority to do so expires, the proposed change in 
filing fee waivers would have a negligible effect on revenues 
to the City. 

2. Ms. Consentino reports that the AAB spends an extensive 
amount of time conducting hearings involving larger 
commercial properties. She reports that the proposed 
reduction in refunds would compensate for this additional 
Board time. Mr. Victor Young of the AAB states that halving 
the hearing fee refund would reduce the current $14,000 in 
annual fee refunds to an estimated $7,000, resulting in 
$7,000 in additional revenue to the City annually. 

3. Ms. Cosentino advises that the proposed amendment to 
Section 2B.13, allowing Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to 
hear applications involving properties assessed at less than 
$20,000,000, except in certain designated areas, is designed 
to allow greater efficiency in scheduling hearings. Such 
improved efficiency should eliminate the present backlog of 
cases before the expiration of the two-year period, after which 
the City is obligated to accept the applicant's opinion of 
value. Ms. Cosentino further advises that appeals involving 
properties in the designated areas would be heard only by 
Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 to utilize the expertise of 
Board No. 1 in assessing the larger commercial properties 
located in these areas. 

4. Ms. Cosentino advises that the total estimated cost for 
Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 in FY 1994-95 is $42,000. 
She further advises that the total estimated cost for Board 
No. 2 in FY 1995-96, based on approval of the proposed 
amendment allowing more appeals to be heard by Board No. 
2, would be $78,000 or $36,000 more than the current 
budgeted amount. 

Approval of the proposed Amendment of the Whole to the 
proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



CITY AND COUNTY 



n 



on 







(Public Library, (Documents (Dept. 

OF SAN FRANC rSCQ , *■ 

!ATm: Jane Hudson 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



REVISED 



May 16, 1995 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 17, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 101-94-98 



D OC IMPNTS DEr" 
MAY 1 3 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 

Item: 






Amount and 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Public Transportation Commission (PTC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$8,859,766 to the Municipal Railway (MUNI) to offset 
shortfalls in passenger fare revenues, judgments and claims, 
materials and supplies, workers compensation and services of 
the City Attorney, funded from the General Fund Reserve 
($5,259,766), Transit Impact Development Funds 
($2,100,000) and the San Francisco County Transportation 
Authority ($1,500,000); the subject of previous budgetary 
denial and providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 



General Fund Reserve $5,259,766 

Transit Impact Development Funds 2,100,000 

San Francisco County Transportation Authority 1,500,000 

Total $8,859,766 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate funding in order to offset a projected funding 
shortfall in the Municipal Railway's (MUNI) FY 1994-95 
budget resulting from (a) a shortfall in projected passenger 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



fare revenues and (b) overspending in four expenditure 
categories, as follows: 

Shortfall in Passenger Fare Revenues $3,683,766 

Budget Deficiencies in: 

Judgments and Claims 1,100,000 

Materials and Supplies 1,500,000 

Workers Compensation 2,110,000 

Services of the City Attorney 466.000 

Total $8,859,766 

These projected shortfalls are described in detail below. 

Shortfall in Passenger Fare Reven ues ($3.683.766) 

MUNI originally projected a shortfall in passenger fare 
revenues of approximately $3.7 million for FY 1994-95. 
According to MUNI, this shortfall is primarily due to a 
reduction in Fast Pass sales, cable car revenues, discount 
fare revenues and Youth Pass sales. The proposed ordinance 
would offset the projected $3,683,766 shortfall in passenger 
fare revenues with $3,683,766 in General Fund Reserve 
monies, to be appropriated to MUNFs Operating Fund. 

The table below shows MUNFs estimated shortfall in 
passenger fare revenues for FY 1994-95. as of April 1, 1995: 

FY 1994-95 Actual Revenues Projected Revenues Total Estimated 
Elidgel 7/1/94-3/31/95 4/1/95 - 6/30/95 Shflrjfell 

$93,998,438 $67,855,852 $22,739,569 $3,403,017 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected 
revenue shortfall is $3,403,017, the supplemental request for 
passenger fares is $3,683,766, or $280,749 more than the 
projected revenue shortfall (See Comment No. 5). 

Judgments and Claims ( $1.100.000) 

MUNFs current year budget for judgments and claims is 
$7,512,000. As of March 31, 1995, MUNI had already 
expended $7,278,609 (97 percent) of its judgments and claims 
budget. 

The table below, based on data provided by MUNI, shows a 
summary of the estimated budget deficiency in MUNFs 
judgments and claims budget for FY 1994-95: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



Description Number Amount 

Claims already paid through 3/31795 1,121 $7,278,609 
Unpaid settled claims to be paid between 

4/1/95 and 6/30/95 350 1,725,040 
Unpaid claims awaiting approval for 

payment 5 181,136 

Estimated amount of other pending claims* 175 643,650 

Total 1994-95 Claims Paid or Pending 1,651 $9,828,435 

Less: 

1994-95 Budget for Judgments and Claims (7.512,000) 

Estimated Shortfall in Judgments and Claims $2,316,435 

The City Attorney's Office advises that this estimate, as prepared by 
MUNI, appears low. As of the writing of this report, the City Attorney 's 
Office could not provide an estimate of the amount that may actually be 
needed for pending claims. 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $2,316,435, the supplemental request for 
judgments and claims is only $1,100,000, thereby leaving a 
remaining budget deficiency of $1,216,435 (See Comment No. 
5). 

Materials and Supplies ($1.500.000) 

Although MUNFs Maintenance Division spent approximately 
$12.3 million for materials and supplies in FY 1993-94, the 
Maintenance Division's FY 1994-95 budget for materials and 
supplies was only $10.8 million, as recommended by the 
Mayor's Office. As a result, MUNFs Maintenance Division 
originally projected a $1.5 million deficit in its materials and 
supplies budget for FY 1994-95. According to Mr. Fred 
Howell of MUNI, the appropriation of the requested funds 
would permit MUNI to continue materials and supplies 
purchasing, thereby preventing further delays in bus repair. 

This request for $1.5 million, to be funded by a grant from 
the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, would 
be used to purchase parts for (a) Light Rail Vehicles 
($1,097,000), (b) diesel buses ($305,000) and (c) trolley buses 
($98,000). 

The table below shows the estimated budget deficiency in 
MUNI's total materials and supplies budget for FY 1994-95. 
based on MUNI's anticipated need for vehicle parts from May 
I, 1995 through June 30, 1995: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



FY 1994-95 Actual Expenditures Projected Expenditures Total Estimated 
Budget 7/1/94 - 4/30/95 5/1795 - 6/30/95 Shortfall 

$17,046,706 $17,194,039 $1,830,161 $1,977,494 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $1,977,494, the supplemental request for 
materials and supplies is only $1,500,000, thereby leaving a 
remaining budget deficiency of $477,494 (See Comment No. 
5). 

Workers Compensation ($2.110.000) 

Despite a declining number of workers compensation claims, 
MUNI is projecting a shortfall of $2,110,000 in its workers 
compensation budget. MUNI advises that this overspending 
is due in part to (a) a 21 percent increase in the statutory 
temporary disability rate from $336 to $406 per week 
imposed by the California Legislature and (b) an increase in 
the average payment from $5,148 per claim in 1993-94 to 
$7,535 per claim in FY 1994-95. 

The table below, based on data provided by MUNI, shows a 
summary of the estimated budget deficiency in MUNI's 
workers compensation budget for FY 1994-95: 

Description Number Amount 

Claims already paid through 3/31/95 892 $6,719,768 

Unpaid settled claims to be paid between 
4/1/95 and 6/30/95 297 2.239.923 

Total 1994-95 Claims Paid or Pending 1,189 $8,959,691 

Less: 

1994-95 Budget for Workers Compensation (6.371.789) 

Estimated Shortfall in Workers Compensation $2,587,902 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $2,587,902, the supplemental request for 
workers compensation is only $2,110,000, thereby leaving a 
remaining budget deficiency of $477,902 (See Comment No. 
5). 

During the FY 1994-95 budget review, the Budget Analyst 
estimated that the overall General Fund budget for workers 
compensation, as submitted by the Mayor's Office, was 
underbudgeted by $2.9 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 

Service s of the City Attorney ($466.000) 

The City Attorney provides services to MUNI related to 
claims, judgments and other legal matters. According to Mr. 
Howell, MUNI originally projected a shortfall of $466,000 in 
this expenditure category because this account has 
historically been underbudgeted by the Mayor's Office. 

The average hourly rates for the City Attorney's Office range 
from $100 to $112 per hour, which provide for attorneys' 
salaries and fringe benefits and for overhead expenses. The 
City Attorney's Office advises that approximately 40 
attorneys are involved in general litigation for MUNI. This 
supplemental request of $466,000 would provide between 
4,161 and 4,660 hours of service from the City Attorney's 
Office over an approximately six-week period (from May 23, 
1995 through June 30, 1995). 

The table below shows the estimated funding shortfall for 
services of the City Attorney's Office for FY 1994-95, based on 
data provided by the City Attorney's Office: 

FY 1994-95 Actual Expenditures Projected Expenditures Total Estimated 
Budget 7/1/94-3/31/95 4/1/95 - 6/30/95 Shortfall 

$2,356,040 $2,131,486 $710,495 $485,941 

As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $485,941, the supplemental request for services 
of the City Attorney's Office is only $466,000, thereby leaving 
a remaining budget deficiency of $19,941 (See Comment No. 
5). 

Comments: 1. MUNI has applied for a $1.5 million grant from the San 

Francisco County Transportation Authority to finance the 
Maintenance Division's projected deficit in materials and 
supplies for FY 1994-95. MUNI advises that this grant 
application has received approval from the Transportation 
Authority. 

2. MUNI has identified $2.1 million in surplus Transit 
Impact Development Funds available from the Woods Project 
that could be used to offset MUNI's projected funding 
shortfall. The Woods Project involved the purchase of Port 
property to accommodate various maintenance functions. 
However, because the Port property was not available for 
acquisition, MUNI instead acquired property at 700 
Pennsylvania Street to accommodate those maintenance 
functions, leaving a surplus of approximately $2.1 million for 
the Woods Project. As such, according to Mr. Howell, this 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 



$2.1 million in Transit Impact Development Funds originally 
earmarked for the Woods Project is no longer needed and can 
instead be used to partially offset MUNI's projected operating 
deficit for FY 1994-95. 1 The transfer of these funds from the 
Woods Project to MUNI's operating budget was approved by 
the Public Transportation Commission at its meeting of 
February 14, 1995. 

3. According to Mr. Howell, expenditures have been incurred 
against the proposed supplemental appropriation for workers 
compensation, judgments and claims and materials and 
supplies. As such, the proposed ordinance provides for 
ratification of action previously taken. 

4. The funds being requested in this supplemental 
appropriation ordinance were previously denied by the 
Mayor's Office during the FY 1994-95 budget process. As 
such, the approval of this supplemental appropriation 
ordinance would require two-thirds vote by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

5. Based on the most recent projected passenger fare 
revenues shortfall of $3,403,017, the Budget Analyst notes 
that the supplemental request for passenger fare revenues of 
$3,683,766 could be reduced by $280,749 to $3,403,017. 
However, even with the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance of $8,859,766, MUNI still faces a projected budget 
deficiency of $2,191,772 in (a) judgments and claims 
($1,216,435), (b) materials and supplies ($477,494), (c) 
workers compensation ($477,902) and (d) services of the City 
Attorney's Office ($19,941). Mr. Howell advises that MUNI 
will attempt to absorb these projected budget deficiencies 
within its existing budget, but that any remaining budget 
deficiencies in these four accounts at the end of FY 1994-95 
would be carried forward and paid by the FY 1995-96 budget. 

The Budget Analyst had originally recommended that the 
surplus in passenger fare revenues of $280,749, as identified 
by the Budget Analyst, be used to partially offset MUNI's 
additional projected budget deficiency of $1,216,435 in 
judgments and claims. However, the Controller's Office has 
advised the Budget Analyst that, in accordance with the 
Charter, this surplus amount of $280,794 cannot be 
transferred from passenger fare revenues to another account 
without the prior approval of a second supplemental 



According to Mr. Howell, Transit Impact Development Funds may be used for both capital and 
operating expenses. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 17, 1995 

appropriation ordinance by the Public Transportation 
Commission. 

As such, at the request of MUNI, the Budget Analyst 
recommends instead that the surplus of $280,749 in 
passenger fare revenues be approved as is so that it may be 
used as needed to partially offset MUNI's remaining budget 
deficiency at the close of the 1994-95 fiscal year, thereby 
reducing the projected budget deficiency to be carried forward 
to the FY 1995-96 budget by $280,749, or from $2,191,772 to 
$1,911,023. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



REPORT TO THE 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



FY 1995-96 
ZERO-BASE BUDGET ANALYSIS 



qO^ MFNTS DEPT 
For full text: See call no. below: MAY 2 3 1995 

"timp- SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



. BUDGET ANALYST 

REF "> MAY 1995 

352.4979 

Sa52z 

1995/96 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 

May 22, 1995 



Honorable Tom Hsieh, Chair 

and Members of the Budget Committee 
City and County of San Francisco 
Room 235, City Hall 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



For full text 



352.4979 

Sa52z 

1995/96 



Dear Chair Hsieh, Supervisor Kaufman and Supervisor Bierman: 

We are pleased to transmit to you the results of our Zero-Base Budget Analysis for 
FY 1995-96. Working collaboratively with the Mayor's Office and management 
and staff of each department and program which we analyzed, we have reviewed 
FY 1995-96 expenditures and revenues of the Purchasing and the Recreation and 
Park Departments, performed an analysis of management and administrative 
support positions in General Fund and General Fund-Supported departments, 
and performed analyses of various other departmental and City- wide programs. 

The Budget Analyst has made a series of recommendations which, upon 
implementation, would reduce General Fund expenditures by an estimated 
$10,306,277 annually including at least $6,000,000 during FY 1995-96. It should be 
noted that our recommendations would not result in a reduction in the present 
level of services provided by the City and County. 

The Budget Analyst's recommendations include the deletion of administrative 
and attorney positions, the creation of a new revenue-producing position and 
certain downward reclassifications. However, the Budget Analyst recommends 
that all position deletions and reclassifications be implemented only as positions 
become vacant due to normal attrition within each Department, or by increases in 
salary savings which can be absorbed in the departments' existing budgets. In 
this manner, the Budget Analyst's recommendations can be fully implemented 
without any layoffs or any demotions of existing staff. 



C j- MINUTES DOCUMENTS DE^^ 

-_> r" REGULAR MEETING 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

^L'_L1C LJBfl 

WEDNESDAY. MAY 24. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, WAR MEMORIAL BLDG. 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:12 P.M. 



CONSENT CALENDAR 



All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to 
be routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll 
call vote of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these 
items unless a member of the Committee or a member of the public so 
requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent 
Calendar and considered as a separate item: 



a) File 101-92-11.4 . [Reserved Funds, Airport] Consideration of release 
of reserved funds, Airport, (1992-1993 Capital Improvement Project) 
totalling $35,977,753 ($236,660 for Airport Master Plan Construction 
Contract No. 3439; $17,711,093 for Contract No. 5826B; and 
$18,030,000 for noise insulation funding). (Airport) 

b) File 101-92-23.3 . [Reserved Funds, Department of Public Health - 
SFGH] Consideration of release of reserved funds, Department of 
Public Health, San Francisco General Hospital (capital improvement 
project), in the amount of $88,614, to pay for heating and ventilation 
repairs at the San Francisco General Hospital Wards 14 and 15. 
(Department of Public Health) 

c) File 101-92-60.9 . [Reserved Funds, Department of Public Works] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, Department of Public Works, 
(1992 Prop. C Bond Issue Fund) in the total amount of $498,000 for the 
purpose of funding construction contract, hazardous material abatement 
and construction services for Fire Station No. 9. (Department of Public 
Works) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MYITES PAGE 2 



d) File 101-94-6.3 . [Reserved Funds, Fire Department] Consideration of 
release of reserved funds, Fire Department, (1986 Fire Protection 
System Improvement Bond), in the amount of $68,485, for the purpose of 
awarding Contract No. 7540E which will allow for the 
Loomis/Oakdale/Industrial Streets AWSS repair work. (Fire Department) 

e) File 101-94-65.1 . [Reserved Funds, Chief Administrative Officer] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, Chief Administrative 
Officer, in the amount of $39,865.23, for the accumulated sick pay and 
vacation payment for Rudolf Nothenberg. (Chief Administrative 
Officer) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. ITEM (e) REMOVED FROM CONSENT 
CALENDAR. REMAINING ITEMS RECOMMENDED. 

File 101-094-65.1 . AMENDED. REDUCED AMOUNT OF 
RELEASE TO $31,652.98. APPROVED AS AMENDED. FILED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



REGULAR CALENDAR 
FISCAL ITEMS 



File 101-94-99 . [Appropriation - Adult Probation] Ordinance appropriating 
$270,000, Adult Probation Department, from the General Fund Reserve to 
salaries to allow the Adult Probation Department to maintain staffing for 
fiscal year 1994-95. (Controller) RO #94233 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Arlene Sause, Chief Adult Probation Officer; Ed Harrington, 
Controller. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MYITES PAGE 3 



File 101-94-100 . [Appropriation - Hetch Hetchy Water and Power] 
Ordinance appropriating $815,000, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power Operating 
Funds to a capital improvement project to repair the Early Intake Access 
Road at Early Lake, California for fiscal year 1994-95. (Controller) RO 
#94231 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Richard Grant, Manager of Utilities, Hetch Hetchy Water and 
Power. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Reduce appropriation to $745,139 and a Section 2 providing for 
ratification of action previously taken. AMENDED TITLE: 
"Appropriating $745,139 of Hetch Hetchy Water and Power 
Operating Funds to a capital improvement project to allow Hetch 
Hetchy to repair the Early Intake Access Road for fiscal year 
1994-95; providing for ratification of action previously taken." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



4. File 101-94-101 . [Appropriation - Department of Parking and Traffic] 

Ordinance appropriating $2,448,891, Department of Parking and Traffic, of 
Parking Meter Revenue Bond Proceeds and rescinding $300,000 from the 
Vallejo Street Garage Capital Project to reimburse the Parking Revenue Fund 
for advances of $596,554 and appropriate $2,152,337 to the San Francisco 
General Hospital Garage Capital Project for fiscal year 1994-95. 
(Controller) RO #94232 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Kevin Haggerty, Department of Parking and Traffic. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Place $1,465,070 on reserve pending contract details on the 
MBE/WBE status of contractors. AMENDED TITLE: 
"Appropriating $2,448,891 of Parking Meter Revenue Bond 
Proceeds and Rescinding $300,000 from the Vallejo Street Garage 
Capital Project to reimburse the Parking Revenue Fund for 
advances of $596,554 and appropriate $2,152,337 to the San 
Francisco General Hospital Garage Capital Project for fiscal year 
1994-95; placing $1,465,070 on reserve." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MYITES PAGE 4 



5. File 101-94-103 . [Appropriation - Department of Public Health] Ordinance 
appropriating $775,049, Department of Public Health, from the General Fund 
Reserve for costs associated with the 1994-95 Memorandum of Understanding 
for Staff Nurses and increased costs of nurses dental coverage in fiscal year 
1994-95; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Controller) 
RO #94245 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller, Monique Zumda, Department of Public 
Health/Mental Health. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 101-94-104 . [Appropriation - Department of Public Health-Mental 
Health] Ordinance appropriating $991,116, Department of Public 
Health-Mental Health of 1987 Mental health Facility Bond Interest Earning to 
the Mental Health Rehabilitation Skilled Nursing Facility Capital 
Improvement Project at the Department of Public Health-Mental Health for 
fiscal year 1994-95. (Controller) RO #94237 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

File 101-94-105 . [Appropriation - Sheriff's Department] Ordinance 
appropriating and rescinding $180,000, Sheriff's Department, to overtime for 
fiscal year 1994-95; subject of previous budgetary denial. (Controller) RO 
#94244 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Honorable Michael Hennessey, Sheriff. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; . IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MYITES PAGE 5 

8. File 101-94-106 . [Appropriation - Medical Examiner] Ordinance 

appropriating $97,000, Medical Examiner, from the General Fund Reserve to 
allow the Medical Examiner to purchase equipment for fiscal year 1994-95. 
(Controller) RO #94234 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Dr. Boyd Stephens, Medical Examiner. IN SUPPORT: None. 
OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



9. File 101-94-107 . [Appropriation - Port] Ordinance appropriating and 
transferring $2,993,539 from various Port funds to capital improvement 
projects at the Port of San Francisco for fiscal year 1994-95. (Controller) 
RO # 94252 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Ben Kutnick, Director of Administration, SF Port. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Place $2,993,539 on reserve pending details on MBE/WBE 
contractors. AMENDED TITLE: "Appropriating and transferring 
$2,993,539 from various Port funds to capital improvement 
projects at the Port of San Francisco for fiscal year 1994-95; 
placing $2,993,539 on reserve." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



10. File 101-94-108 . [Appropriation - Department of Public Works] Ordinance 
appropriating $9,340,000 from the Clean Water Operating Fund to a capital 
improvement project (sewer system improvements) at the Department of 
Public Works for fiscal year 1994-95. (Controller) RO #94251 

SPEAKER: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Place $6,174,154 on reserve for consultants not yet selected, 
MBE/WBE status and contract cost details. AMENDED TITLE: 
"Appropriating $9,350,000 from the Clean Water Operating Fund 
to a capital improvement project (sewer system improvements) at 
the Department of Public Works for fiscal year 1994-95; placing 
$6,174,154 on reserve." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MT* T UTES PAGE 6 

11. File 101-94-109 . [Appropriation - Civil Service Commission] Ordinance 
appropriating $300,000 from the General Fund Reserve to allow the Civil 
Service Commission to conduct a classification study for fiscal year 1994-95; 
placing $300,000 on reserve. (Controller) RO #94250 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

12. File 155-95-5 . [Reward Authorization] Ordinance authorizing payment of a 
$5,000 reward to Robert K. Winn and Robert K. Forest. (Police Department) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MP^JTES PAGE 7 

GENERAL ITEMS 



13. File 97-95-26 . [Assessment Appeals Board] Ordinance amending Chapter 2B 
of the San Francisco Administrative Code by amending Section 2B.9 thereto 
to waive the filing fee for an application for reduction of assessment where 
the application is accompanied by a stipulation with the Assessor and the 
application is filed after the Assessment Appeals Board has reduced the 
assessment for a prior tax year, amending Section 2B.10 to allow refund of 
only half of the hearing fee where the applicant prevails and obtains a 
reduction from the Assessment Appeals Board, amending Section 2B.13 to 
allow Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to hear appeals involving property of 
any type on the Secured or Unsecured Roll assessed at $20,000,000 or less, 
excluding properties in certain designated Assessor's Blocks and possessory 
interests, and amending Section 2B.18 to require the Assessment Appeals 
Board to accept recommendations of hearing officers as to which there is no 
timely objection. (Supervisor Kaufman) 

(Consideration continued from 5/17/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Marilyn Cosentino, Administrator, Assessment Appeals Board; Ed 
Harrinton, Controller; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
On Page 2, Delete proposed changes to Section 2B.9 (to remain as 
currently approved). AMENDED TITLE: "Amending Chapter 2B of 
the San Francisco Administrative Code by amending Section 2B.10 
to allow refund of only half of the hearing fee where the applicant 
prevails and obtains a reduction from the Assessment Appeals 
Board, amending Section 2B.13 to allow Assessment Appeals Board 
No. 2 to hear appeals involving property of any type on the 
Secured or Unsecured Roll assessed at $20,000,000 or less, 
excluding properties in certain designated Assessor's Blocks and 
possessory interests, and amending Section 2B.18 to require the 
Assessment Appeals Board to accept recommendations of hearing 
officers as to which there is no timely objection." 

VOTE: 3-0. 

14. File 168-95-1 . [Park and Open Space Fund, 1995-96] Resolution concurring 
with the general recommendations on the Park and Open Space Fund for fiscal 
year 1995-1996, reserving approval or disapproval on specific acquisitions. 
(Recreation and Park Dept.) 

SPEAKER: DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENT ATWE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MYITES PAGE 8 



15. File 96-94-4 . [Sale of Surplus Property] Ordinance authorizing the sale of 
real property to Lillian L. Chen and Franklin K. Chen, as joint tenants, and 
adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate 
Department) 

SPEAKER: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Tony Delucchi, Director of Property, Real Estate Department. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



16. File 97-95-21 . [Grand Jury Reports - Hearings] Ordinance amending the 

Administrative Code by adding Section 2.10 to require a public hearing by the 
Board of Supervisors on reports submitted to them by the Grand Jury and 
requiring the Controller to report on the status of implementation of the 
recommendations. (Supervisors Hsieh, Bierman, Kaufman) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ed Harrington, 
Controller; Ms. Bernstein, Civil Grand Jury. IN SUPPORT: None. 
OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW 
TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY SUPERVISOR HSIEH. 
ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDED. 
NEW TITLE: "Amending Article II of Chapter 2 of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 2.10 thereto, to 
require a public hearing by the Board of Supervisors on reports 
submitted to them by the Civil Grand Jury and requiring the 
Controller to report on the status of implementation of the 
recommendations." 

(Add Supervisors Bierman and Kaufman as co-sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE MATTES PAGE 9 

HEARING 



17. File 100-95-5 . [Zero Base Budget] Hearing to consider the Zero Base Budget 
Analysis of the Budget Analyst. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIALS: Honorable Louise Renne, City Attorney, 
Honorable Arlo Smith, District Attorney, Honorable Jeff Brown, Public 
Defender; Honorable Richard Figone, Judge, Superior Court; Honorable 
Jerome Benson, Judge, Municipal Court. DEPARTMENTAL 
REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Debra Newman, 
representing Budget Analyst; Marvin Geistlinger, Director of Purchasing, 
Purchasing Department; Mary Burns, General Manager, Recreation and Park 
Department; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; Bill 
Courtwright, representing the Budget Analyst; Monique Zumda, representing 
Dr. Sandra Hernandez, Department of Public Health; Stan Jones, representing 
the Budget Analyst; Charlotte Martinez, Assistant District Attorney; Teri 
Jackson, Assistant District Attorney; Brian Cahill, General Manager, 
Department of Social Services; Ann Branston, Deputy Director for Financial 
Management and Administration, Department of Public Works; Tom Dorn, 
representing the Budget Analyst; Steve Nelson, representing the Chief 
Administrative Officer; Pippen Amy, Paramedic Division. NO POSITION 
TAKEN: Bob McDonald, Labor Union. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: 
None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL 
OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 6:10 P.M. 



0.01 



fcy/?^ 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Tub Lie Library, 'Documents T)ept. 

OFSANFRAN cMH^j JUM JudsOTl 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



May 22, 1995 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



■ 



A 



Item la - File 101-92-11.4 

Department: Airports Commission 

Item: Hearing requesting release of reserved funds, Airport, totalling 

$35,977,753, including $236,660 for Airport Master Plan 
construction contract #3439, $17,711,093 for Airport Master 
Plan construction contract #5826B, and $18,030,000 for noise 
insulation funding. 

Amount: $35,977,753 

Source of Funds: 1992 Airport Revenue Bonds 



Description: 



In December of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
ordinance appropriating $2.4 billion in Airport Revenue Bond 
funds for Near Term Master Plan Projects at the San Francisco 
International Airport. Of the $2.4 billion, $1,554,200,000 was 
placed on reserve for construction contracts pending the 
selection of contractors, the submission of budget details and 
the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 

In July of 1994, the Board of Supervisors released $51,792,700 
of this reserve (File 101-92-11.2) to fund the South San 
Francisco and San Bruno Home Insulation Project and 
construction of the Lot DD Parking Structure at San Bruno 

qqpi impimTS DEPT 
MAY 2 3 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Avenue and Route 101, leaving a balance of $1,502,407,300 
still on reserve for construction contracts. 

In October of 1994, the Board of Supervisors released 
$6,489,745 of this reserve (File 101-92-11.3) to fund initial 
construction and contingency costs of a new paved open air 
parking area for aircraft in the northwest section of the Airport 
(Plot 41 Hardstands Phase I), leaving a balance of 
$1,495,917,555 still on reserve. 

The proposed subject release of reserve in the amount of 
$35,977,753 would leave a balance of $1,459,939,802 on 
reserve and would fund: 

• Toxic cleanup and remediation of Plots 7, 8, and 10 in 
preparation for construction of the west field cargo complex on 
those sites ($236,660, Contract #3439). 

• Completion of the Plot 41 Hardstands (i.e., aircraft parking 
area) in the northwest corner of the Airport ($17,711,093 
Contract #5826B). 

• Noise insulation funding for 1,202 homes in South San 
Francisco, San Bruno, Daly City, and Millbrae. Under the 
Airport's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with these 
cities, the Airport must provide $15,000 per residence, or a 
total of $18,030,000 for noise insulation funding. In 
accordance with the MOU, these cities previously transferred 
noise easements to the Airport in exchange for the $15,000 per 
residential payment. 

Budget: Budgets for the three projects to be funded under this 

appropriation are shown below: 

Plots 7. 8. & 10 Toxic Cleanup and Remediation. 
Contract No. 3439 

Remediation $193,192 

Architecture, Engineering, Insp. (15% of contract) 28,979 

Contingency (7.5% of contract) 14.489 

Total $236,660 

The contractor for this project is Miller/Thompson 
Construction, Incorporated. Miller/Thompson is not an 
MBE/WBE firm. However, Miller/Thompson is subcontracting 
with the MBE firm of Marinship for approximately 15.6 
percent of this contract ($37,000 of the total $236,660), and the 
WBE firm of Double B&L for approximately 1.7 percent 
($4,000 of the total $236,660) of the contract amount. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Budget Committee 

May 24 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Item 8 - File 101-94-106 

Department: Medical Examiner 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Ordinance appropriating $97,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve to purchase equipment for FY 1994-95. 

$97,000 

General Fund Reserve (See Comment No. 1.) 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would fund 
purchase of the following equipment by the Medical 
Examiner: 

• Automated Gas Chromatograph ($62,000): The 
Medical Examiner conducts testing for blood-alcohol 
concentrations for all persons charged with driving under 
the influence of alcohol, as well as for parolees. Dr. Boyd 
G. Stephens, Chief Medical Examiner advises that the 
Medical Examiner conducts approximately 3,000 such 
tests each year. Mr. Herb Holly of the Medical Examiner's 
Office states that the current 20-year old equipment 
requires 1 FTE staff time, whereas purchase of the 
automated gas chromatograph should reduce the required 
staff time to approximately .5 FTE. The time savings 
would occur because the machine would automatically 
conduct multiple tests and perform a calculation that is 
now prepared manually. 

• Fingerprint Quality Facsimile (Fax) Machine ($5,000): 
The Medical Examiner has to transmit fingerprints of 
unidentified deceased persons to the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations (FBI) for comparison with missing persons 
fingerprints. Currently, the Medical Examiner has to use 
the Fax machine in the Police Department's (SFPD) crime 
laboratory, or send the fingerprints by Federal Express to 
Sacramento for transmission to the FBI. Mr. Herb Holly 
of the Medical Examiner's Office advises that the SFPD 
crime laboratory fax machine is often not available at 
night and over the weekend. The Medical Examiner 
proposes to purchase a fingerprint quality fax machine to 
facilitate more rapid identification of deceased persons. 

• Computer Equipment ($30,000): The Medical 
Examiner proposes to convert from a Wang computer 
system to a Local Area Network (LAN) system. A LAN is 
a personal computer (PC) based system with software that 
would enhance the statistical analysis and case tracking 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Budget Committee 

May 24 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



abilities of the Medical Examiner. Mr. Holly states that 
the Medical Examiner currently has no computerized 
records, because the Wang system cannot provide the 
required record-keeping functions. The $30,000 requested 
for computer equipment in this proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance would be used to obtain a one- 
year contract for equipment and service for the LAN 
system, which would be a transition year in which the 
existing Wang contract (which is included in the Medical 
Examiner's budget) would also have to be maintained. 

1. Dr. Stephens states that the equipment cost would be 
fully covered by the proceeds from payments previously 
received from the State for certain State mandated 
investigative procedures that the Medical Examiner must 
follow in cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). 
A $113,111 payment from the Maternal and Child Health 
Division of the State Department of Public Health has 
been received for such services performed between July 1, 
1990 (the effective date of the State legislation) and mid- 
1993, and deposited to the General Fund. The proposed 
ordinance would allocate $97,000 for purchase of 
equipment, as described above. Mr. John Madden of the 
Controller's Office states that the remaining $16,111 
($113,111 less $97,000) would remain in the General 
Fund Reserve. 

2. Mr. Madden advises that this payment from the State 
is unrestricted and can be used for any type of City 
expenditure. 

3. Dr. Stephens states that the requested equipment 
would assist the Medical Examiner's Office in achieving 
more efficient use of staff time. Dr. Stephens reports that 
the staff of the Medical Examiner's Office has been 
reduced from a total of 40 staff persons to 30 staff persons 
over the past five years. 

Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 9 



File 101-94-107 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Port 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating and 
transferring $2,993,539 from various Port funds to Capital 
Improvement Projects for the Port 

$2,993,539 

San Francisco Harbor Operating Fund $930,457 

Fire Insurance Proceeds 68,896 

1971 Harbor Improvement Bond Fund 1,932,900 

1958 Seawall Bond Fund 61.286 

Total $2,993,539 

The proposed supplemental appropriation request of 
$2,993,539 would be used by the Port to fund five capital 
improvement projects as follows: 

Project Amount 

Pier 35 Cruise Terminal Improvements $1,391,663 

Ferry Building Roof 250,000 

Pier 70 Upgrades 250,000 

Embarcadero Roadway Drainage 700,000 

Ferry Building Shear Wall 401.876 

Total $2,993,539 

The five proposed capital improvement projects are described 
below: 

Pier 35 Cruise Terminal Improvements ■ $1.391.663 

The Port advises that the Pier 35 Cruise Terminal facility is 
in need of renovation. The planned project improvements 
include (1) creating an opening between the Pier arches to 
allow for Bay views, (2) rebuilding the ramp , (3) installing an 
escalator, (4) interior design improvements, (5) a new roof 
and gutters, and (6) a passenger security system. According 
to the Port a portion of this project work will be performed in- 
house and a portion will be performed by an outside 
contractor. The Port advises that a contractor has not been 
selected to perform the contract portion of the construction 
work. Additionally, the Port advises that, as of the writing of 
this report, the Port has not developed the detailed costs for 
the work that will be performed in-house. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

y,3 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



The Port advises that the total estimated cost of this project 
is $1,850,000 or $458,337 more than the requested 
$1,391,663. According to the Port, the remaining balance of 
$458,337 will be paid for by previously appropriated 1984 
Port Revenue Bond Funds . 

Ferrv Building Roof - $250.000 

This project involves the replacement of nine sections of the 
Ferry Building roof, including reconstruction of gutters. 
Additionally, asbestos mitigation will be performed as part of 
the overall work. The Port advises that this project work will 
be performed by in-house staff. As of the writing of this 
report, the Port was unable to provide the detailed costs for 
this project . 

Pier 70 Upgrades - $250.000 

This project involves the repair and upgrade of five cranes 
and the small dry dock at Pier 70. The Port reports that the 
total estimated cost of this project is $2,000,000. According to 
the Port, the $250,000 represents the Port's match for a $1.5 
million Department of Commerce, Economic Development 
Agency (EDA) grant and a $250,000 grant from the 
California Trade and Commerce Agency, which will be used 
to fund this project. The Port advises that this work will be 
performed by in-house staff. As of the writing of this report, 
the Port was unable to provide the detailed costs for this 
project. 

Embarca dero Roadway Drainage- $700.000 

The project involves the construction of a new storm drain 
and sewer system in connection with the Waterfront 
Transportation Project on the Embarcadero. The Port advises 
that the total estimated cost of this project is $400 million. 
The $700,000 represents the Port's share of costs for this 
project. The remaining $399.3 million ($400 million less 
$700,000) will be paid for by Federal and State grant funds, 
State Rail Bond funds, and local Sales Tax.. The Port reports 
that these monies would be workordered to the Department 
of Public Works (DPW). Mr. John Pons of the DPW advises 
that the contractor has not, as yet, been selected for the 
Embarcadero Roadway Drainage Project, 

Ferrv Building Shear Wall - $401.876 

This project involves (1) the installation of new shear walls 
(walls which are reinforced with plywood to increase seismic 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

safety) in the Ferry Building, (2) the increase of the ground 
level opening in the Ferry Building tower, in order to 
facilitate access, (3) an increase in the wall thickness on the 
tower shear walls, (4) the provision of large openings on the 
shear wall on the Embarcadero facade, and (4) the relocation 
of a portion of the shear wall, in order to better accommodate 
the final proposed reconstruction of the Ferry Building. The 
Port has not selected a contractor to perform the construction 
work. 

Comment: As noted above, the contractors have not, as yet, been 

selected to perform the necessary work in connection with the 
proposed capital improvement projects. Additionally, the Port 
has not developed the specific budget details for the project 
work that is to be performed in-house. As such, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to place the entire $2,993,539 
on reserve pending (1) the Port's submission of the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors and the contract costs 
details and (2) the detailed costs for the project work that is 
to be performed in-house. 



Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to place the entire 
$2,993,539 on reserve, pending (1) the Port's submission of 
the MBE/WBE status of the contractors and the contract cost 
details and (2) the detailed costs for the project work that is 
to be performed in-house. 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 10 - File 101-94-108 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Ordinance appropriating $9,340,000 from the Department of 
Public Work's Clean Water Operating Fund to the 
Department of Public Work's Capital Improvement Project 
(Sewer System Improvements) for Fiscal Year 1994-95. 

$9,340,000 

FY 1994-95 Clean Water Operating Fund 

(Fund will be reimbursed out of proceeds of the 1995 Sewer 

Revenue Bonds) 

In November of 1994, the San Francisco electorate approved 
the issuance and sale of $146,075,000 of City and County 
General Purpose Sewer Revenue Bonds for the purpose of 
acquiring, constructing, improving and financing 
improvements to the existing municipal sewage treatment 
and disposal system, including (a) flood control 
improvements to the existing sewage system; (b) the 
rehabilitation and upgrade of sewer pipes, overflow 
structures, outfalls, pump stations and treatment plants; and 
(c) planning and design work on discharge alternatives 
required to meet new Regional Water Quality Control Board 
regulations. 

In May of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution authorizing and directing the sale of City and 
County of San Francisco Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1995, 
for an aggregate initial principal amount not to exceed 
$62,500,000, for the purpose of acquiring, improving and 
financing the City's municipal sewage treatment and disposal 
system. (File 170-95-4.1). According to Ms. Ann Carey of 
DPW, the sale of the 1995 Sewer Revenue Bonds is scheduled 
to occur at the end of June, 1995. 

On February 1, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution which provided that proceeds of the 1995 Sewer 
Revenue Bonds could be encumbered to reimburse 
expenditures incurred in connection with sewer system 
improvements prior to the issuance and sale of any series of 
Bonds (170-95-2). Ms. Carey advises that the projects, to be 
funded by the proposed supplemental appropriation, are 
scheduled to begin, pending approval of the proposed 
ordinance by the Board of Supervisors. As such, DPW is 
authorized to begin the proposed projects prior to the sale of 
the 1995 Sewer Revenue Bonds at the end of June, 1995. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Budget: 



The proposed supplemental appropriation would fund the 
following three categories of Sewer System Improvements (1) 
Collection System Improvements, (2) Major Rehabilitation 
and Upgrading of Existing Systems, and (3) Bayside 
Discharge Improvements for a total amount of $9,340,000. 
Attachment 1, provided by DPW, provides a description of 
each component project, and the cost for each project, within 
the categories Nos. 1, 2, 3, noted above. There are nine 
component projects within these categories, including (1) 
Flood Control Projects ($350,000), (2) Structurally 
Inadequate Sewers Projects ($2,280,000), (3) Bayside 
Distributed Control System Phase II ($3,500,000), (4) 
Southwest Ocean Outfall Rehabilitation Project ($200,000), 
(5) Northshore Pump Station Reliability Improvements 
($200,000), (6) Channel Pump Station Variable Speed 
Control Improvements Project ($110,000), (7) Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Plant (SEWPCP) Anaerobic 
Digestion Upgrade ($1,200,000), (8) North Point Wet- 
Weather Water Pollution Control Plant, Phase I ($900,000), 
and (9) Bayside Discharge Improvements ($600,000). 

Sewer Service Improvement Project: 

DPW Bureau of Engineering (30,170 hours 

@ approximately $62.5 per hour) $1,886,072 

DPW Bureau of Construction Management 

(2,290 hrs. @ approximately $64.5 per hour) 147,820 

DPW Bureau of Architecture (1,000 hours @ 

approximately 72.5 per hour) 72,479 

Real Estate Department (180 hours @ approx. 

$86 per hour) 15,475 

Department of Parking and Traffic (120 hours 

@ approximately $83.3 per hour) 10,000 

Department of City Planning, permits for 

Environmental Impact Review-fees based 

on project size 160,000 

Construction Consultants (See Comment No. 1) 1,224,000 

Construction Contractors (See Comment No. 2) 5.824,154 

TOTAL $9,340,000 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Manfred Wong of DPW advises that $1,224,000 of the 
proposed funds would be used to provide construction 
consultant services for four of the nine projects. Of this 
amount, Mr. Wong advises that six consultants have been 
selected to perform consulting work, for an amount of 
$874,000. Consultants for the remaining amount of $350,000 
($1,224,000 - $874,000) have not yet been selected. As such, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



an amount of $350,000 should be reserved pending the 
selection of the consultants, the MBEAVBE status of the 
consultants, and contract cost details. The following 
consultants have been selected: (1) Hydro-Consult Engineer 
($30,000), (2) Deleuw Cather ($110,000), (3) Business 
Development, Inc. ($15,000), (4) Site Assessment Consultants 
($30,000), (5) EIP Associates ($150,000), and (6) CH2M Hill, 
Inc. Consultants ($539,000). 

Ms. Wendy Iwata of DPW advises that Hydro-Consult 
Engineers entered into a Master Agreement with DPW, as 
part of a competitive process in 1989. Hydro-Consult 
Engineers is a one-person firm. Hydro-Consult Engineers is 
not an MBE or an WBE firm. Ms. Iwata advises that Hydro- 
Consult Engineers was selected for this project to conduct 
hydraulic analysis, for an amount of $30,000, based on 
Hydro-Consult Engineer's prior related, and specialized work 
experience with DPW. Hydro-Consult Engineers would 
provide approximately 389 hours of work at $77 per hour. 

Ms. Iwata advises that Deleuw Cather entered into a Master 
Agreement with DPW in 1980, through a competitive bid 
process, to provide services related to sewer system 
improvements and clean water projects. Deleuw Cather is 
not an MBE or WBE firm. Ms. Iwata advises that Deleuw 
Cather was selected for this project to conduct an analysis to 
determine the most effective method of waste water 
discharge, for an amount of $110,000, based on Deleuw 
Cather's prior related, and specialized work experience with 
DPW. Deleuw Cather would provide 300 hours of work at 
$100 per hour. Deleuw Cather would use one subcontractor, 
EPC Consultants, for an amount of $80,000. EPC 
Consultants is an MBE firm. EPC Consultants would 
provide 1,111 hours of design, support and coordination work 
at $72 per hour. 

Ms. Iwata advises that Business Development Inc. entered 
into a Master Agreement with DPW in 1989, on a sole-source 
basis, to provide community outreach to communities directly 
impacted by DPWs clean water projects, and sewer system 
improvement projects. The firm, Business Development Inc. 
is both located in and works with the Bayview Hunters Point 
community, which is directly impacted by these projects. 
Business Development Inc. is an MBE firm. Ms. Iwata 
advises that Business Development Inc. was selected for this 
project, for an amount of $15,000, in order to conduct 
community outreach in the Bayview Hunters Point area, 
based on Business Development Inc's prior related, and 
specialized work experience with DPW. Business 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
HUIHJET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Development Inc. would provide approximately 106 hours of 
work at $141.48 per hour. 

Ms. Iwata advises that the Site Assessment Consultants are 
an existing list of consultants that the Bureau of 
Construction Management (BCM) has selected through a 
competitive process. These consultants are used on a 
rotating basis to test soil for toxic materials, and to complete 
various components of the Environmental Impact Review 
(EIR) process. The amount of $30,000 has been determined 
by BCM, as the amount required to complete the required 
components of the EIR. 

Ms. Iwata advises that EIP Associates entered into a Master 
Agreement with DPW in 1988, through a competitive bid 
process, to prepare Environmental Impact Review reports. 
EIP Associates is not an MBE or WBE firm. Ms. Iwata 
advises that EIP Associates was selected for this project to 
prepare the EIR report for the Bayside Discharg e 
Improvement project, for an amount of $150,000, based on 
EIP Associate's prior related, and specialized work 
experience with DPW. EIP Associates would provide 
approximately 1,928 hours of work at $77 per hour for a total 
of $148,500. The remaining $1,500, for a total of $150,000, 
would be used for materials and supplies. 

Mr. Harland Kelly of DPW advises that CH2M Hill, Inc. 
Construction was selected through a competitive process in 
June of 1991 to design a Distribution Control System for the 
Bayside Sewer System facilities, which included the 
Southeast Water Pollution Control Treatment Plan. The 
Distribution Control System is used to monitor and provide 
computer control for the water pollution control facilities. 
CH2M Hill, Inc. is not an MBE or WBE firm. The proposed 
funds, in the amount of $539,000, would be used for the 
design of a Distribution Control System for the Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Treatment Plant, and for project 
management. CH2M Hill, Inc. would provide 5,900 hours of 
design work at $80 per hour, or $472,000, and 609 hours of 
project management at $110 per hour, or $67,000, for a total 
of $539,000. 

2. Mr. Wong advises that DPW has not yet selected 
contractors to provide services for the Construction phase of 
the projects. As such $5,824,154 should be reserved, pending 
the selection of the contractors, the MBEAVBE status of the 
contractors, and contract cost details. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance, to place $350,000 on 
reserve for Construction Consultants, as noted in Comment 
No. 1 above, and $5,824,154 on reserve for Construction 
Contractors, as noted above in Comment No. 2, for a total of 
$6,174,154. 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



A ttachment 
Fage 1 of 4 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

1. Collection System Improvements 

Over three quarters of the 900 miles of main and interceptor sewers in San Francisco are over 
50 years old. The growth and extension of residential and commercial users on the system 
have taken up sewer capacity meant to carry storm water flow. Some sewers were not 
designed to have adequate hydraulic capacity to accommodate a five-year storm, which is the 
current design standard, and flooding occurs. Such flooding can cause damage to private and 
public property. 

A. Flood Control Projects $350 000 

The Sunnydale Sewer Enlargement Project is one of the four projects identified 
in the bond issue. This project will alleviate flooding currently occurring on Kelloch, 
Velasco and Sunnydale Avenues. Work consists of new sewers to be constructed 
parallel to the existing sewers as follows: 

270 feet of 33" sewer on Schwerin Street from Velasco Avenue to Kelloch 

Avenue. 
D 683 feet of 48" sewer on the Velasco right-of-way from Kelloch Avenue to 

Tomaso Court. 
D 864 feet of 60" sewer on the Velasco right-of-way from Tomaso court to 

Talbert Street. 
D 382 feet of 60" sewer on Talbert Street from the Velasco right-of-way to 

Sunnydale Avenue. 
D 540 feet of 72" sewer on Sunnydale Avenue from Talbert Street to Bayshore 

Boulevard 
D 1,050 feet of 108" sewer on Sunnydale Avenue from Bayshore Boulevard to 

Tunnel Avenue. 
D 2,700 feet of 108" tunnel sewer on Tunnel Avenue from Sunnydale to Beatty 

Avenue and on Beatty from Tunnel Avenue to the Sunnydale Transport/Storage 

box sewer 

B Structurally Inadequate Sewers Projects 2,280,000 

Annually, about $7 million is expended in the replacement of pipe sewers in sizes 
from 12 to 36 inches. This work is funded through the Repair and Replacement 
program (R&R) In spite of this level of expenditure, there is a current and growing 
backlog of over 70 blocks of structurally inadequate sewers that are awaiting 
reconstruction New candidates are being added faster than they can be scheduled 
due to the limited R&R funding The following sewer replacement projects are 
awaiting design or construction funds 



v3.doc 03/03/95 \2:4(, I'M I'age 2 of 6 

41 



Attachment 
rage 2 of 4 



i. Turk Street, Larkin to Hyde, Class B Emergency Project, 
ii. Taylor Street, Lombard to Chestnut. 
Jones Street, Chestnut to Columbus, 
iii. Day Street, Dolores to Church. 

Randall Street, Chenery to Whetney. 

Dolores Street, 30th Street to Day. 
iv. Church Street, Cumberland to 20 th Street. 

25 th Street, Douglass to Diamond, 
v. Haight Street, Shrader to Cole. 

Lyon Street, Bush to Sutter, 
vi. Kirkham Street, 23rd to 26th Avenues, 
vii. Other as-needed emergency sewer repair work. 

2. Major Rehabilitation and Upgrading of Existing Systems 

The treatment plants, pump stations, outfalls and overflow structures around the City are of 
varying age and condition. Because these facilities are important in collecting, treating and 
discharging sewage, we must be certain that they function to comply with Federal or State 
permit requirements. 

A. Bayside Distributed Control System Phase II $3,500,000 

The wastewater facilities are intended to be linked and controlled via computer 
systems and telemetry. This allows for maximum use of facilities and a minimum of 
operating staff. The supervisory control computer system installed in the Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Plant (SEWPCP) in 1980 is obsolete, and neither the 
software nor the hardware can be repaired The Bayside Distributed Control 
System Phase II Project will replace the existing computer control system at the 
SEWPCP and ancillary facilities by completing installation of the Bayside Control 
System (Bayside I&C), which controls and monitors all Bayside wastewater 
facilities. 

B Southwest Ocean Outfall Rehabilitation Project 200 , 000 

The San Francisco Southwest Ocean Outfall (SWOO) was completed and began 
operation in 1986 The outfall was designed for significantly higher effluent flow 
rates than are presently experienced Sedimentation and observed sea life in portions 
of the diffuser suggests frequent and persistent sea water intrusion in the outfall 
diffuser section The buildup of sediment and saltwater intrusion can reduce the 
outfall capacity, which could then cause flooding at the Oceanside Water Pollution 
Control Plant (OWPCP) during wet weather events The Southwest Ocean Outfall 
Rehabilitation Project consists of the following: 



y.. f (13/1)3/95 12 4(. I'M !•«•<• 1 ol <• 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 4 

D Development of a methodology to clean the outfall and recover the sediment 

and trapped grease. 
D Contracting out the cleaning of the outfall. 
D Implementation of an engineering evaluation which includes pilot scale and full 

scale physical modeling of saltwater and sediment intrusion to determine the 

best way to prevent intrusion. 
D Installation of test saltwater prevention devices. 
D Implementation of a dye study of method of prevention initial dilution over one 

tidal cycle. 

C. Northshore Pump Station Reliability Improvements $200,000 

Northshore Pump Station needs improvements to its control and pumping systems. 
Currently the station is subject to flooding due to inadequacies of gate control and 
the large pump flywheel. The Northshore Pump Station Reliability 
Improvements Project consists of evaluation of and improvements to the influent 
channel, gates and flywheel as well as possible addition of a surge chamber. These 
changes will improve reliability of the pump station and make it easier to control. 

D. Channel Pump Station Variable Speed Control Improvements Project 110 , 000 

The Channel Pump Station was constructed in the 1970's and put into operation in 
the 1980's. The variable speed controls are old and in need of repair. Improving 
and/or replacing the existing variable speed controls will result in energy savings, 
decreased maintenance and increased reliability. The Channel Pump Station 
Variable Speed Control Improvements consist of improving and/or replacing the 
existing variable speed controls of the main lift pump motors. 

1,200,000 

E. SEWPCP Anaerobic Digestion Upgrade 

Anaerobic digestion is the breakdown of settled solid from the treatment process of 
concentrated organic nutrients (sludge) into biomass, water, methane and carbon 
dioxide. The SEWPCP has ten digesters which are large cylindrical vessels that 
contain the digestion process. It is estimated that one or two digesters need to be 
cleaned due to the buildup of inorganic debris. The digesters were constructed in 
1951 and rehabilitated in the 1960's. All of the digesters have structural cracks and 
concrete deterioration due to corrosion and the floating covers are past their useful 
life 

i. The SEWPCP Anaerobic Digestion Repair Project consists of cleaning and 

repairing two of the digesters to maintain service 
ii The SEWPCP Anaerobic Digestion Upgrade Project consists of replacing 

five of the ten existing cylindrical digesters with new egg-shaped units, which 

will eliminate grit and scum buildup 



t3.d<« 03/03/95 12:46 I'M Page 4 of 6 

A? 



Attachment 
p age 4 of 4 



F. North Point Wet-Weather Water Pollution Control Plant, Phase I $900,000 

The North Point WPCP operated continuously from its construction completion in 
1951 until 1983 as a major dry weather primary treatment plant. In 1983, the 
SEWPCP was completed and all dry weather functions were transferred there. 
Since then, the North Point WPCP has operated only during wet-weather conditions 
to control the number of combined sewage overflows entering the Bay along the 
northern waterfront area. The plant's mechanicaJ, electrical control and support 
systems are now over 40 years old and are unreliable, difficult to repair, and costly 
to maintain. Structural fatigue and failure are becoming a frequent cause for 
concern. The plant has become a weak link in the City's overall combined sewer 
overflow control system. The North Point WPCP Rehabilitation, Phase I consists 
of rehabilitation of the existing pretreatment facility, replacement of the number one 
and two plant water systems, and replacement of all hydraulic gates in the plant. In 
addition, this project will also include the replacement of the building roof. 

Bayside Discharge Improvements 600,000 

The Bayside Discharge Improvements project is required by changes in the criteria for 
discharges into the San Francisco Bay Basin. This project will examine various 
approaches for the treatment, disposal and reuse of Bayside wastewater, in response to 
applicable policies and regulations: 

D The City shall achieve compliance with the discharge prohibitions of the Regional 
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order 84-27 with respect to the prohibition 
of discharges with less than 10:1 initial dilution. In addition, the RWQCB Cease and 
Desist Order 88-105, as amended by Order 91-153, requires that the City select a 
discharge alternative complying with discharge prohibitions during wet weather, 
complete wastewater facility planning and achieved CEQA compliance. 

D The RWQCB has issued a revised Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, which 
includes new and more stringent requirements for wastewater discharge into the Bay. 
The treatment level and discharge points shall be examined with respect to their ability 
to meet these new requirements. 

D The 1975 Master Plan recommended the construction of a crosstown transport leading 
to the ocean discharge of all wastewater. That scheme will be evaluated and compared 
with continued Bay discharge 

D The option of wastewater reclamation will be examined, as the prolonged drought has 
caused the City to consider reusing wastewater rather than discharging it. 

TOTAI $9,34 0,000 



arwJ.dtM (IJ/OJ/VS 12:46 PM P«j»5of6 

44 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 11 - File 101-94-109 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Civil Service Commission 

Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Ordinance appropriating $300,000 from the General Fund, 
Civil Service Classification Study Reserve, to allow the Civil 
Service Commission to conduct a classification study for FY 
1994-95, and placing $300,000 on reserve. 

$300,000 

General Fund, Civil Service Classification Study Reserve 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $300,000 to the 
Civil Service Commission to fund a study of the classification 
and compensation of a limited group of City employees. The 
proposed ordinance would also place this $300,000 on 



Comments: 



The Civil Service Commission has requested that this item be 
continued to the call of the chair to allow the Civil Service 
Commission and the Department of Human Resources 
additional time to determine the scope, goals, and budget for 
a classification and compensation study. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 221-94-4) urging the Mayor to urge the Department of 
Human Resources (DHR) to conduct a comprehensive 
classification and compensation study of City employees. 
Among the goals of such a study would be to reduce the 
number of job classifications in the City and establish a 
simplified, uniform approach to classifying jobs and setting 
salary levels in the City. According to Mr. Wendell Pryor, 
Director of the Department of Human Resources, with fewer 
and simpler job classifications and salary steps, the City 
would be better able to control its labor costs, and would be 
able to reduce the time and cost of conducting Civil Service 
examinations. Mr. Pryor reports that the cost of such a 
comprehensive study could range up to $4.4 million. 

1. Funds for a classification and compensation study were 
reserved from the General Fund in FY 1991-92 in the amount 
of $300,000. These funds have not yet been appropriated, 
and have been carried forward since 1991. However, a 
comprehensive classification and compensation study has not 
been conducted because the passage of Proposition L and the 
transfer of most employment functions into the Department 
of Human Resources, as well as the early retirement of senior 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Civil Service Commission staff who would have managed 
such a study, precluded such a comprehensive effort, 
according to Ms. Anne Godfrey of the Department of Human 
Resources. 

2. Mr. Pryor reports that a number of Memoranda of 
Understanding currently being negotiated or arbitrated 
between the City and employee organizations including the 
Municipal Executives Association, the Municipal Attorneys 
Association, and Local 21, contain draft language which 
would require the City to conduct classification and 
compensation studies regarding these groups of City 
employees. The Department of Human Resources is 
currently developing an estimate of the cost of conducting 
these classification and compensation studies. According to 
Mr. Pryor, the draft language in these MOUs would require 
that such classification and compensation studies be 
conducted and recommendations implemented by July 1, 
1996. 

3. As previously noted, the cost of a comprehensive 
classification and compensation study would be 
approximately $4.4 million, according to the Department of 
Human Resources. 

Recommendation: Continue this item to the call of the Chair, as requested by 
the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Human 
Resources. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 12 - File 155-95-5 

Department: Police Department 



Item: 

Reward Amount: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comment: 



Ordinance authorizing payment of a reward to Robert K. 
Winn and Robert L. Forest. 



Robert K. Winn 
Robert L. Forest 
Total: 



$ 5,000 

5.000 

$10,000 



General Fund - FY 1994-95 Judgments and Claims Account 

On November 16, 1993, Mr. Dennis McCormick was doused 
with a flammable liquid and set on fire on the 900 block of 
Geary Street. 

As part of the investigation into the crime against Mr. 
McCormick, the Police Department requested that the Mayor 
exercise his authority under Section 10.177.1 of the City's 
Administrative Code to offer a reward for information leading 
to the determination of the identity, apprehension and 
conviction of the persons responsible for this act of violence. 
In addition, the Police Department requested that the Mayor 
set the reward amount at $10,000. 

The Mayor approved the posting of the $10,000 reward, and 
subsequent to the reward being posted, two eyewitnesses to 
the crime came forward and provided information which 
identified two suspects, as the people who doused Mr. 
McCormick with flammable liquid and set him on fire. On 
October 26, 1994, the two suspects pled guilty to attempted 
murder. 

According to the Chief of Police, it is his opinion, and the 
opinion of the investigator in charge of handling this case, 
that the initial assistance of the above-mentioned 
eyewitnesses were critical in leading to the identity and 
apprehension of the two suspects. Consequently, the Mayor 
is requesting that the Board of Supervisors now approve the 
proposed ordinance which would authorize payment of a 
$10,000 reward to the eyewitnesses to this crime. 

The source of funds for payment of the proposed $10,000 
reward would be the FY 1994-95 Judgments and Claims 
Account of the General Fund. According to Mr. Matthew 
Hymel of the Controller's Office, as of May 17, 1995, the 
balance in the Judgments and Claims account was 
approximately $3,000,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 13 - File 97-95-26 

NOTE: This item was continued at the May 17, 1995 Budget Committee meeting. 
The analysis presented in this report is based on an Amendment of the 
Whole. 



Department: Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) 

Item: Ordinance amending Chapter 2B of the San Francisco 

Administrative Code by amending (1) Section 2B.9 to waive 
the filing fee for an application for a reduction in assessment 
in certain cases, (2) Section 2B.10 to allow the refund of only 
half the hearing fee if certain reductions in assessment are 
granted, (3) Section 2B.13 to allow Assessment Appeals 
Boards No. 2 to hear appeals involving property of less than 
$20,000,000 except in certain designated areas and (4) 
Section 2B.18 to require the Assessment Appeals Board to 
accept the recommendations of hearing officers. 

Description: An Amendment of the Whole to the proposed ordinance has 

been drafted and will be introduced at the Budget Committee 
meeting on May 24, 1995. This report reflects the 
Amendment of the Whole. 

The Assessment Appeals Board (AAB) hears appeals from 
property owners who dispute assessments of property value 
arrived at by the Assessor's Office, and the resulting tax 
liability. Currently, two Assessment Appeals Boards, of 
three members each, exist. Members are selected by the 
Board of Supervisors from applicants involved in related 
fields. 

Ms. Marilyn Cosentino of the AAB advises that the severe 
downturn in San Francisco real estate values and limited 
reductions in assessment by the Assessor have contributed to 
a sharp rise in appeals to the AAB since 1993, delaying the 
hearing of appeals and resulting in a severe backlog of cases. 
Ms. Cosentino further advises that State law provides that 
the taxpayer's opinion of value will prevail if an appeal is not 
decided within two years of filing, resulting in the possibility 
of a sharp fall in revenue to the City. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 2B of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code as follows: 

Se ction 2B.9 

Currently, Section 2B.9 of the Administrative Code allows 
the waiver of the filing fee of $30.00 for an application to the 
AAB only in indigent cases, in accordance with State law 
(California Government Code Section 6851 1.3). The proposed 
ordinance would add waivers of the filing fee for applications 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

for which (1) the Assessor has recommended a reduced 
assessment in a written stipulation with the agreement of 
the City Attorney and the applicant, subject to formal AAB 
approval, (2) the applicant has requested the continuation of 
a reduced assessment granted by the Assessment Appeals 
Board in the previous tax year and (3) the applicant's opinion 
of the correct assessment value is not less than the prior 
year's assessment and any automatic annual increase for 
inflation allowed by law. 

The Assessor's Office must reduce its official assessment of 
property value within a specified time period following a 
reduction of assessment by the AAB. If the Assessor's Office 
fails to do so, the official assessment reverts to its previous 
value and a separate appeal must be filed with the AAB to 
continue the reduction. 

Section 2B.10 

Currently, Section 2B.10 of the Administrative Code allows 
for a full refund of the hearing fee if the hearing results in 
certain reductions from the Assessor's assessment of property 
value. Hearing fees are based on a graded scale, increasing 
as the current assessed value of the property increases. The 
proposed ordinance would reduce the refund for such 
hearings to half the hearing fee. 

Section 2B.13 

Currently, Section 2B.13 puts no limitations on the 
applications Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 may hear and 
restricts most hearings of Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to 
applications involving smaller, residential properties or 
personal property less than $75,000. The proposed ordinance 
would allow Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to hear 
applications involving properties assessed at less than 
$20,000,000 except those properties located in certain 
designated areas in the City's financial district and along 
Van Ness Avenue. 

Section 2B.18 

Currently, Section 2B.18 allows the AAB to accept or reject 
the recommendation of a Hearing Officer on certain 
applications. Hearing Officers, selected from AAB members, 
are responsible for making recommendations on reductions in 
assessment values after conducting pre-hearing interviews. 
Such interviews are limited to applications involving 
residential properties of four units or less. The proposed 
ordinance would require the AAB to accept the 
recommendation of the Hearing Officer, provided that the 
applicant agrees with this recommendation. Ms. Cosentino 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



advises that this practice would expedite the hearing process 
and is common in other Bay Area counties. 

1. According to Ms. Cosentino, the proposed amendment to 
Section 2B.9 would eliminate the payment of the filing fee for 
applicants who find it necessary to file appeals with the AAB 
because the Assessor's Office is unable to process the 
previous year's reductions in assessment value before its 
authority to do so expires. Mr. David Busse of the Assessor's 
Office advises that since the Assessor's Office expects to 
process all the previous year's reductions in assessment value 
before its authority to do so expires, the proposed change in 
filing fee waivers would have a negligible effect on revenues 
to the City. 

2. Ms. Consentino reports that the AAB spends an extensive 
amount of time conducting hearings involving larger 
commercial properties. She reports that the proposed 
reduction in refunds would compensate for this additional 
Board time. Mr. Victor Young of the AAB states that halving 
the hearing fee refund would reduce the current $14,000 in 
annual fee refunds to an estimated $7,000, resulting in 
$7,000 in additional revenue to the City annually. 

3. Ms. Cosentino advises that the proposed amendment to 
Section 2B.13, allowing Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 to 
hear applications involving properties assessed at less than 
$20,000,000, except in certain designated areas, is designed 
to allow greater efficiency in scheduling hearings. Such 
improved efficiency should eliminate the present backlog of 
cases before the expiration of the two-year period, after which 
the City is obligated to accept the applicant's opinion of 
value. Ms. Cosentino further advises that appeals involving 
properties in the designated areas would be heard only by 
Assessment Appeals Board No. 1 to utilize the expertise of 
Board No. 1 in assessing the larger commercial properties 
located in these areas. 



Recommendation: 



4. Ms. Cosentino advises that the total estimated cost for 
Assessment Appeals Board No. 2 in FY 1994-95 is $42,000. 
She further advises that the total estimated cost for Board 
No. 2 in FY 1995-96, based on approval of the proposed 
amendment allowing more appeals to be heard by Board No. 
2, would be $78,000 or $36,000 more than the current 
budgeted amount. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

I>I 11\/*>1?'V A NT A I VCT 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 14 - File 168-95-1 

Department: Recreation and Park Department 

Item: Resolution concurring with the general recommendations on 

the Park and Open Space Fund for fiscal year 1995-96, 
reserving approval or disapproval on specific acquisitions. 

Description: A Park and Open Space Program, supported by the Open 

Space Fund, was first established in 1973 under the 
provisions of Section 6.413 of the City's Charter. Section 
6.413 imposed an annual tax of 2.5 cents per hundred dollars 
of assessed property valuation, to be set aside for the Open 
Space Fund for a period of 15 years. Fiscal year 1989-90 
constituted the 15th and last year of this program, which 
began in 1974. However, in November of 1988, San Francisco 
voters approved Proposition E, which extended the Open 
Space Acquisition and Park Renovation Fund an additional 
15 years, from July 1, 1990 through June 30, 2005. Monies 
for the Open Space fund come from the 2.5 cent property tax. 

According to Section 6.413 of the Charter, not more than 40 
percent of the Fund in any year can be used for maintenance 
of previously acquired properties. The remaining money (60 
percent of the total Open Space Fund) in the Fund must be 
allocated as follows: (1) at least 40 percent for acquiring and 
developing property; (2) at least 15 percent for renovation; (3) 
not more than 25 percent for maintaining property and 
recreational facilities acquired after FY 1990-91 for programs 
other than the After-School Recreation programs, and for 
administration; and (4) at least 20 percent for After School 
Recreation programs. 

The Park and Open Space Program is administered by the 
Recreation and Park Department (RPD), with input from the 
Park and Open Space Citizens Advisory Committee. The 
General Manager of the RPD prepares an expenditure plan 
for annual allocation of the Open Space Fund on the basis of 
recommendations form the Park and Open Space Citizens 
Advisory Committee. The General Manager's Report 
containing this expenditure plan is then submitted to the 
Recreation and Park Commission and the City Planning 
Commission. The proposed resolution would indicate the 
concurrence of the Board of Supervisors with the joint 
recommendations of these Commissions (dated May 4, 1995) 
to adopt the expenditure plan contained in the General 
Manger's Report. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Mr. Phil Arnold, Assistant General Manager of RPD, advises 
that the Park and Open Space Program attempts to preserve 
a balance in the carry forward funds to maintain program 
levels in years when property tax revenues decline. Mr. 
Arnold states that the $18,545,000 program budget for FY 
1995-96 is based on a conservative estimate of $15.8 million 
in property tax revenues, $1.8 million in carry forward funds, 
and $945,000 resulting from the allocation of funding for 
three projects that were closed out. 

The Recreation and Park Department's proposed FY 1995-96 
budget includes the following expenditures from the Open 
Space Fund: 



Total Park and Open Space Fund 

Maintenance of Previously 
Acquired and Developed Properties 

Remainder of Fund 

Acquisition and Development 
Urban Forestry 

Renovation 

Administration 

After School Program 

Allocation of 1995-96 
Non-Maintenance Budget 



Amount 


Percent of 
rotal Fund 


Percentage of 
Remainder 
of Fund 


$18,545,000* 


100.0% 




6 r 640 r 000 


37.8 




$10,905,000 


62.2% 




5,822,663 
1,000,000 


33.3 


53.4% 


1,885,000 


10.7 


17.3 


1,016,337 


5.8 


9.3 


2,181,000 


12.4 


20.0 


$10,905,000 


62.2% 


100.0% 



Comments: 



*$1 million of the $18,545,000 total is a one-time allocation to 
the Urban Forestry component of the Acquisition and 
Development Fund. According to Mr. Arnold, the $1 million 
consists of unallocated revenues from previous program 
years, and per the opinion of the City Attorney does not fall 
under the percentage by category provision. 

1. Based on information outlined in the spending plan for the 
total Program Budget of $18,545,000, the percentage of the 
Fund proceeds to be expended for each category of 
expenditures is in conformance with the requirements of the 
Charter provisions of Section 6.413. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 3 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

2. The proposed resolution provides that the Board of 
Supervisors concurs with the joint recommendations of the 
Recreation and Park Commission and the City Planning 
Commission concerning proposed 1995-96 Open Space 
expenditures, with the reservation that the Board of 
Supervisors may approve or disapprove any specific 
acquisitions for which funding might be provided in the 1995- 
96 Open Space budget. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

'■A 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 15 - File 96-94-4 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
January 11, 1995. 



Departments: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Real Estate Department 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Ordinance authorizing the sale of real property to Lillian L. 
Chen and Franklin K. Chen, as joint tenants, and adopting 
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. 

$30,000 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the sale of a portion 
of surplus City-owned land under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Public Works (DPW). The parcel to be sold 
includes the newly constructed Eighth Avenue retaining wall 
and consists of approximately 410.5 square feet of surplus 
DPW land. The proposed buyers, Lillian Chen and Franklin 
Chen, presently own 3,089.5 square feet of land adjacent to 
the subject parcel. 

The 3,089.5 square feet of land already owned by Lillian 
Chen and Franklin Chen, plus the adjacent 410.5 square foot 
parcel proposed to be sold to Lillian Chen and Franklin Chen, 
for a total of 3,500 square feet, would be subdivided into two 
lots for the purpose of constructing two single-family homes 
to replace a two-unit flat damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta 
earthquake. The proposed ordinance would authorize the 
sale of the 410.5 square feet of property, without seeking 
competitive bids, to the above-mentioned individuals for 
$30,000. 

1. Under the terms of the proposed sale, the purchasers 
would be responsible for the maintenance of the Eighth 
Avenue retaining wall which traverses the property. The 
Real Estate Department estimates that the cost to maintain 
this retaining wall would be approximately $7,000, based on 
the Real Estate Department's estimated cost to purchase 
liability insurance for the retaining wall and to maintain and 
repair the retaining wall in perpetuity. 

2. Mr. Larry Jacobson of the Real Estate Department reports 
that the purchase price established for the subject parcel was 
based on the parcel's estimated fair market value of 
approximately $95 per square foot, or $38,998 for 410.5 
square feet (410.5 square feet x $95 per square foot), less the 
estimated cost to maintain a retaining wall of approximately 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



$7,000, for a purchase price of $31,998. Mr. Jacobson advises 
that this amount was rounded down to $30,000. 

3. According to Mr. Jacobson, the reason that the property is 
being sold without seeking competitive bids, is because 
competitive bidding in this situation would have been 
impracticable or impossible. Mr. Jacobson advises that this 
is because the subject parcel is inaccessible from any 
roadways, is adjacent to Lillian Chen's and Franklin Chen's 
property and has limited potential uses. 

4. The Department of City Planning reports that the 
proposed sale is in conformity with the Master Plan and 
consistent with the eight priority policies of Planning Code 
Section 101.1. 

5. According to Mr. Jacobson, the proceeds to the City of 
$30,000 from the sale of surplus DPW land would be used to 
reimburse the Real Estate Department for its sales expenses 
($5,000), with the remaining $25,000 ($30,000 less $5,000) to 
be deposited in the DPW's Real Property Trust Fund (used 
for the acquisition of land and improved property), subject to 
future appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5u 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 16 - File 97-95-21 

1. This item is an ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 2 of the 
Administrative Code by adding Section 2.10, which would require (a) a public 
hearing by the Board of Supervisors on reports submitted by the Grand Jury and (b) 
a report from the Controller on the status of the implementation of the Grand Jury's 
recommendations. 

2. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court impanels the Civil Grand Jury. 
The State Penal Code permits the Board of Supervisors to submit comments on the 
Grand Jury's reports to the Presiding Judge. According to the City Attorney's 
Office, neither the State Penal Code nor the City's Administrative Code mandates 
such hearings. Still, the Government Efficiency and Labor Committee conducts 
hearings on the Grand Jury's reports and prepares comments for submission to the 
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The proposed ordinance would amend the 
Administrative Code to require the Board of Supervisors to conduct public hearings 
on Grand Jury reports, thereby formalizing this already existing procedure. 

3. The City Attorney's Office advises that, presently, the process of 
implementing the Grand Jury's recommendations is not formally tracked by any 
City agency. The proposed ordinance would require the Controller to submit a 
report to the Board of Supervisors on the extent to which the Grand Jury's 
recommendations pertaining to fiscal matters have been implemented by no later 
than one year following the date of the hearing. 

4. According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, whether the 
Controller's Office would need additional resources to monitor the implementation 
of Grand Jury recommendations depends on the degree of complexity of those 
recommendations. Mr. Madden advises that, if the Grand Jury's recommendations 
are less complex, as in recent years, it is likely that the Controller's Office could 
absorb this additional function with the use of its existing resources. 



Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 17 - File 100-95-5 

This item is a hearing to consider the Zero-Base Budget Analysis of the 
Budget Analyst. Refer to the Budget Analyst's separate FY 1995-96 Zero-Base 
Budget Analysis report dated May 22, 1995. 




cc: Supervisor Hsieh 

Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Plot 41 Hardstands Phase B. Contract No. 5826R 

Construction/Paving $14,458,035 

Architecture, Engineering, Insp. (15% of contract) 2,168,705 

Contingency (7.5% of contract) 1.084.353 

Total $17,711,093 

The contractor for this project is Pavex Construction. Pavex 
Construction is not an MBE/WBE firm. However, Pavex 
Construction is subcontracting with: 

V the MBE firm of P&K Trucking for approximately .3 percent 
of this contract ($50,000 of the total $17,711,093); 

V the MBE firm of R&W Concrete Construction for 
approximately 4.7 percent of this contract ($839,042 of the 
total $17,711,093); 

V and the MBE firm of Rosas Construction for approximately 
7.7 percent ($1,367,984 of the total $17,711,093) of the contract 
amount. 

Total MBE participation equals $2,257,026, or approximately 
12.7 percent of the total contract amount. 

Also, Pavex Construction has subcontracted with the WBE 
firm of JMB Construction for approximately 9.1 percent 
($1,612,750) of the total contract. 

Noise Insulation Funding 

South San Francisco 301 homes @ $15,000 each $4,515,000 
San Bruno 193 homes @ $15,000 each 2,895,000 

Daly City 647 homes @ $15,000 each 9,705,000 

Millbrae 61 homes @ $15,000 each 915.000 

Total 1,202 homes $18,030,000 

These funds are paid directly to the above-noted Cities in 
exchange for noise easements which were previously 
transferred to the Airport. 

Comment: The above-noted contractors were the low bidders. The 

Attachment obtained from the Airport lists all of the bidders 
and the bid amounts. 

Recommendation: Release the requested reserved funds in the amount of 

$35,977,753. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



^tfiv'Zki&VWiM&jSWSlSlPIVtoTS 7. 8 AND 10 REMEDIATION Attachment 



Nine bids were received on January 18, 1995 as follows:. 

Name of Firm 

Miller/Thompson 
Constructors, Inc. 

Tank Protect Engineering 

Nationwide Construction 
Co./Shimmick Construction 
Co. , A Joint Venture 

Universal Environmental 

MH Construction 

Pavex Construction 



Lowery Engineering 
Construction 

Seward Company 

Myron Demolition & 
Excavation 



Bid Amount 


HRC 


Revised Bid Amount 


$193,192.00 


WBE/LBE 
(10%) 


$173,872.00 


$227,780.00 


-0- 


$227,780.00 


$340,992.00 


J.V 

(7.5%) 


$315,417.60 


$322,324.00 


-0- 


$322,324.00 


$360,406.40 


MBE/LBE 
(10%) 


$324,365.76 


$389,000.00 


WBE/LBE 
(10%) 


$350,100.00 


$377,500.00 


-0- 


$377,500.00 


$392,630.00 


-0- 


$392,630.00 


$439,382.00 


WBE/JJBE 
(10%) 


$395,443.80 



CONTRACT NUMBER 5826B. PLOT 41 HARDSTANDS - PHASE B 

Five bids were received on March 21, 1995 as follows: 



Contractor 

Pavex Construction 

Homer J. Olsen, Inc. 

Oliver de Silva, Inc. 

Ghilotti Brothers Construction, Inc. 

Shirnrnick Construction Company 



Bid Amount 

$14,458,034.00 
$15,743,540.00 
$15,788,000.00 
$16,594,969.00 
$18,886,090.00 



NOTE : In accordance with MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance, preferences are not in effect on 

contracts over $10 million. 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



lb 



File 101-92-23.3 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 






Comment: 






Department of Public Health (DPH) 
San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $88,614, for the 
installation of heating and ventilation equipment at SFGH. 



,614 



General Fund monies previously appropriated but reserved 

On December 30, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation (File 101-92-23) which 
appropriated $1,400,000 to SFGH for the following projects: 

(1) the renovation of the business offices in Wards 14 and 15, 

(2) the renovation and relocation of the Emergency 
Department registration area and (3) the renovation of the 
Outpatient Department registration area. Of the total 
$1,400,000 appropriation, $260,000 was released and 
$1,140,000 was placed on reserve pending the selection of 
contractors, the MBE/WBE status of the contractors and 
contract cost details. 

The Board of Supervisors has previously released a total of 
$1,051,386 of the $1,140,000, leaving a balance of $88,614 on 
reserve. The DPH is now requesting that the $88,614 be 
released from reserve to be used to pay for contract services 
for the installation of heating and ventilation equipment in 
the business offices of Wards 14 and 15 at SFGH. 

The DPH advises that through the department's competitive 
bid process, the DPH has selected Western Heating and 
Plumbing, based on a bid amount of $105,799, as the lowest 
responsible bidder to install the heating and ventilation 
equipment. Western Heating and Plumbing is neither an 
MBE or a WBE firm. The two other firms which submitted 
bids are as follows: 

Bid Amount 

Livco Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc. (neither 
an MBE or a WBE firm) $156,849 

San Francisco Mechanical (neither an MBE 
or a WBE firm) $154,345 

As noted above, the Western Heating and Plumbing contract 
amount is $105,799 or $17,185 more than the requested 
!,614. The DPH advises that the $17,185 balance will be 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

paid for from funds budgeted in the DPH's Facilities 
Maintenance account for FY 1994-95 . 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item lc - File 101-92-60.9 



Department: 
Item: 



Source of Funds: 






Fire Department 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Requesting the release of reserved funds from the Fire 
Department 1992 Proposition C Bond Issue Fund, in the total 
amount of $498,000, for the purpose of funding construction, 
hazardous material abatement, and construction services for 
Fire Station No. 9. 

1992 Proposition C Fire Protection Bond Issue Fund (Series 
1993D) 



Amount of Funds: $498,000 
Description: 



In November of 1992, the voters of San Francisco approved 
the Proposition C Fire Protection Bond Issue. A total of $40.8 
million in General Obligation bonds were approved to finance 
improvement costs related to various Fire Department 
facilities. 

In May of 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
appropriation request of $15,204,533, from the Series 1993D 
bond sale, for such projects as seismic strengthening, 
disabled access, and the construction of separate restroom 
facilities for male and female firefighters. The Board of 
Supervisors placed $10,788,125 on reserve, pending the 
selection of contractors, the MBE/WBE status of the 
contractors, and the contract cost details. The proposed 
release of reserved funds, in the amount of $498,000, would 
be used to pay for the construction contract at Fire Station 
No. 9, located at 2245 Jerrold Avenue, for disabled access, 
separate facilities for female firefighters, and the 
modification of the mechanical and electrical system, DPWs 
cost for construction management and inspection services, 
and various renovations, including, asbestos abatement, and 
hazardous material abatement. 

DPW selected Chiang C. M. Construction, for an amount of 
$381,828 for the construction work at Fire Station No. 9. 
Chiang C. M. Construction is an MBE and LBE firm. As 
such, Chiang C. M. Construction was awarded a 10 percent 
bid preference by the Human Rights Commission, which 
lowered Chiang C. M. Construction's bid from the fourth 
lowest bid to the second lowest bid. The lowest bid, 
submitted by K.P. Lam Construction, for an amount of 
$370,000, was deemed unresponsive by the Human Rights 
Commission because K.P. Lam Construction's bid was 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



incomplete. As such, Chiang C. M. Construction, which met 
all of HRC's subcontracting goals, and submitted a complete 
bid, was awarded the contract. The funds to be expended are 
as follows: 



Budget: 



Fire Stati on No. 9 (2245 Jerrold Avenue) 

Construction Contract (seismic strengthening 
and modifications of electrical system) - 
Chiang CM. Construction $381,828 

Construction Contingency (12.5%) 47,742 

Asbestos Abatement/Monitoring- DPW 5,630 

Construction Services (Management/ 
Inspection) - DPW 39,500 

Construction Administration 23.300 

TOTAL $498,000 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Peter Wong of DPW has provided the following 
contract cost details, including the MBE and WBE 
participation, for the $381,828 construction contract for Fire 
Station No. 9. It should be noted that the construction 
contract, in the amount of $381,828, is based on the two 
following components: (1) the base bid of $379,800, and (2) 
Alternate #1, in the amount of $2,028. Mr. Wong advises 
that all of the contractors submitted a bid for an additional 
project component to their base bid, called Alternate #1, to 
install an apparatus door at Fire Station No. 9. An 
apparatus door is a garage door that opens from the bottom 
up, section by section. According to Mr. Wong, the Alternate 
#1 bid would be funded from the 1992 Proposition C Fire 
Protection Bond Issue Fund, in the event that the base bids 
were lower than estimated, thus providing DPW with 
sufficient funds. Mr. Wong advises that DPW was able to 
fund the Alternate #1 bids submitted by the contractors. 
However, Mr. Wong advises that the percentages of MBE and 
WBE participation are based on the base bid. The contract 
cost details are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Prime Contractor. MBE/LBE (29.6%) 
Chiang C. M. Construction 

(overall construction oversight, electrical) $112,454 

Subcontractors. MBE (46.5%) 

Chen's Plumbing, Inc. $14,200 

D & S Associates 1,200 

Pioneer Roofing 26,700 

Wil Electric 34,000 

Yum's Mechanical 77,000 

Majestic 23.500 

Subtotal, MBE subcontractors 176,600 

Subcontractor WBE (5.1%) 

City Lumber 19,510 

Other Subcontractors (18.8%) 

Byron Exp. $48,256 

B.K. Mill 13,680 

Kane Interior 3,300 

Joe Wang 6.000 

Subtotal, non MBE/WBE Subcontractors 71 r 236 

TOTAL FIRE STATION NO. 9 CONTRACT $379,800 
(Contract total only includes the base bid) 

2. The Attachment provided by DPW contains the cost 
details for Construction Services ($39,500) and Construction 
Administration ($23,300). 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



MAY 18 '95 12:27 AT&T FftX 9022FX 



PW213.PW-6 




SFFD FIRE STATION NO. 9 

BREAKDOWN OF EXPENDITURE FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 

Bureau of Architecture/DPW 
Construction Admini strati on 

BOA Sr. Architect 

Architectural Assoc 

Bureau of Construction Management /DPW 
Construction Services .Management/ Inspection 

Inspection - Inspector $75/hour 294 22,050 

Supervisory - Resident Engineer 90/hour 107 9,630 

Administrative Support - Secretary 55/hour 144 

7,820 



RATE 


HOURS 


TOTAL 


$80/hour 


61 


$ 4,880 


60/hour 


307 


18,420 
$23,300 



$39,500 



10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item Id - File 101-94-6.3 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Fire Department 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Requesting the release of reserved funds, in the amount of 
$68,485, for repairs to the Fire Department's Auxiliary Water 
Supply System (AWSS) at the intersections of Loomis Street 
and Oakdale Street, and Loomis Street and Industrial Street. 

$68,485 

1986 Fire Protection System Improvement Bond Interest 

In November of 1986, San Francisco voters approved the 
issuance of $46.2 million in Fire Protection System 
Improvement Bonds (Proposition A) to finance improvements 
to the City's Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS). The 
AWSS is a system of reservoirs and cisterns, pipelines, and 
pump stations which will provide a source of water for fire 
protection in the event that the main water supply system 
fails, as it did following the 1906 earthquake. 

In 1987, the City sold $31 million of the $46.2 million bonds 
approved by the voters and sold the $15.2 million balance 
($46.2 less $31 million) of the bonds in 1991. In April 1991, 
the Board of Supervisors appropriated the $15.2 million 
proceeds from the second sale of bonds. As of April 30, 1994, 
there was a balance of approximately $10.96 million in 
accrued interest earned on the 1987 and 1991 Bond proceeds 
(the City invests bond proceeds when the bonds are sold, and 
disburses the proceeds as they are appropriated). In July, 
1994, the City appropriated $2.4 million in accrued interest, 
and placed $2.0 million on reserve. 

The proposed release of reserved funds, in the amount of 
$68,485, would be used to repair leaking water mains at the 
intersections of Loomis Street and Oakdale Street, and 
Loomis Street and Industrial Street. Mr. Robert Jew of DPW 
advises that these water main pipes began leaking at Loomis 
Street and Oakdale Street in May of 1994 and at Loomis 
Street and Industrial Street in January of 1995, causing the 
water flow to be shut-off in these two areas. Mr. Jew advises 
that because these areas are isolated, and other water 
sources could be used in case of an emergency until the pipes 
could be repaired, the Fire Department did not declare an 
emergency situation. However, Mr. Jew advises that these 
water mains need to be repaired to restore the water flow to 
this area. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Comments: 



DPW has awarded a contract to the lowest of five bidders, 
Cal North Engineering, which submitted a bid of $51,350. 
Cal North Engineering is an LBE firm, and is not an MBE or 
WBE firm. The funds are to be expended as follows: 

Construction Contract- Cal North 

Engineering $51,350 

Contingency (7.5%) 5,135 

Construction Management (DPW) 12.000 

TOTAL $68,485 

1. Mr. Jew advises that there were no Human Rights 
Commission subcontractor hiring goals for this project 
because the contract was estimated to be bid for 
approximately $50,000, which is the maximum contract size 
not requiring subcontractor participation. Mr. Jew advises 
that Cal North Engineering will be using one subcontractor, 
Clarke Construction, for an amount of $6,000. Clarke 
Construction is an LBE firm and is not an MBE firm or an 
WBE firm. 



2. Mr. Jew advises that the construction is scheduled to 
begin pending approval by the Board of Supervisors, and is 
scheduled to be completed by October of 1995. 

3. Attachment 1, provided by DPW has provided the 
attached list of the bidders and the amounts bid. 

4. Attachment 2 provided by DPW contains the cost details 
for Construction Management ($12,000). 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Attachment 1 



Department of Public Works 
Bidders for the AWSS Repair Project 



1. Cal North Engineering $51,350 

2. E. Mitchell, Inc. $58,500 

3. A Ruiz Construction Co. & Associates $74,600 

4. P & J Utility $98,000 

5. Nationwide Construction & Shimmic Construction $106,600 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



MAY 17 '95 08: 11AM BUREAU OF ENGINEERING p 2/2 

Attachment 2 



File 101-94-613 

Loomis Street at Oakdale and Loomis at Industrial. AWSS Repair 
Construction Management Cost Breakdown 



Hours Average Cost/Hr Cost 

DPW Labor 153 67 $10,251 

DPT Labor 40 44 1,760 

$12,011 



Use $12,000 



14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Item 



le - File 101-94-65.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Release of reserved funds for the Chief Administrative 
Officer, in the amount of $39,865.23 

$39,865.23 

General Fund Reserve 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 
supplemental appropriation request in the amount of $46,089 
to (a) pay for the CAO's vested, accumulated vacation and 
sick leave balances and (b) fund the City costs for related 
fringe benefits (File 101-94-65). At the same time, the Board 
placed the entire $46,089 on reserve pending a final 
determination of the actual amount required to pay for these 
costs. 

This request from the CAO's Office would cost $39,865.23 
including $37,840.64 for a lump sum payment to the CAO for 
his vested sick leave and vacation balances and $2,024.59 for 
the City's fringe benefit costs. 1 Of this $39,865.23 amount, 
$8,212.25 is being funded by surplus Convention Facilities, 
Solid Waste, Hotel Tax and Water Transportation Work 
Order Funds from the CAO's FY 1994-95 budget. Therefore, 
this request of $39,865.23 should be reduced by $8,212,.25 to 
$31,652.98 including $30,045.45 for the lump sum payment 
and $1,607.53 for the City's fringe benefit costs. 



Recommendations: 1 . 



Reduce the requested release of reserved funds by 
,212.25, from $39,865.23 to $31,652.98. 



2. Approve the release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$31,652.98, including $30,045.45, for a lump sum payment to 
the CAO and $1,607.53 for fringe benefit costs. 



1 This $39,865.23 amount is less than the $46,089 originally appropriated because the CAO took 
some vacation days prior to his retirement, thereby reducing the number of hours of vested vacation 
pay. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 2 - File 101-94-99 

Department: Adult Probation Department 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 

$270,000 from the General Fund Reserve to permanent 
salaries and related expenses in order to maintain staffing 
for FY 1994-95. 

Amount: $270,000 

Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Description: In FY 1994-95, the Adult Probation Department's salary 

savings were increased from five percent to eleven percent of 
permanent salaries by the Mayor's Office. As a result, the 
Adult Probation Department has projected a budgetary 
shortfall of $270,000 in its permanent salaries, overtime, 
premium pay and fringe benefits accounts. 

The Adult Probation Department advises that it has utilized 
its unpaid furlough program, which allows employees to take 
unpaid days off, in order to realize some savings. However, 
according to the Adult Probation Department, the 
Department would have to furlough all staff for an additional 
17 days during the balance of FY 1994-95 in order to 
completely offset this projected budget deficiency, thereby 
severely disrupting the Department's functions, which are 
critical in preventing jail overcrowding and in complying with 
a Court-imposed Consent Decree. 

The table below shows the Budget Analyst's projected budget 
deficiency in the Adult Probation Department's permanent 
salaries, overtime, premium pay and fringe benefits accounts 
for FY 1994-95: 



Expense Categ ory 

Permanent Salaries 
Overtime 
Premium Pay 
Fringe Benefits 
Total 



FY 1994-95 
Budg et 

$4,911,850 

21,000 

26,781 

1.197.944 

$6,157,575 



Actual 
Expenditures 
7/1/94 - 5/5/95 

$4,458,305 

862 

25,837 

946.268 

$5,431,272 



Total 

Projected Estimated 

Expenditures Surplus/ 

5/6/95 - 6/30/95 (Shortfall) 

$822,079 ($368,534) 

156 19,982 

4,676 (3,732) 

174.584 77.092 

$1,001,495 ($275,192) 



Comment: 






As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $275,192, this supplemental appropriation 
request is for $270,000, or $5,192 less than the projected 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

budget deficiency. According to Mr. Roy Ellender of the 
Adult Probation Department, the Department will attempt to 
absorb the remaining $5,192 projected budget deficiency 
within its existing budget. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 3 - File 101-94-100 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Ordinance appropriating $815,000 of Hetch Hetchy Water 
and Power, Operating Funds for FY 1994-95 for a capital 
improvement project to repair the Early Intake Access Road. 

$815,000 (see Comment No. 1) 

Hetch Hetchy Operating Funds 

In January of 1995, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
declared an emergency in accordance with Section 6.3 of the 
San Francisco Administrative Code for a 400-foot section of 
the access road (known as the Early Intake Access Road) to 
the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) dam and power 
facilities at Early Intake, California. The road is the 
property of the City and County of San Francisco. The Early 
Intake dam, and Kirkwood and Holm powerhouses, accessed 
by the subject road, supply 85 percent of the water for the 
San Francisco Water Department and all electricity for City 
facilities. Heavy rains during January have resulted in the 
threat of an earthslide from the soil supporting the access 
road jeopardizing City personnel and housing below the road, 
and City power facilities. 

The PUC has requested a waiver of normal contracting 
procedures in accordance with Section 6.3 of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code due to the existence of an 
emergency, and has selected Schnabel Foundation Company 
under the emergency expedited procedures to perform the 
repair work necessary to stabilize the subject road and 
prevent a potential earthslide. Mr. Everett Hintze of the 
PUC advises that work began March 27, 1995 and is 
scheduled to be completed by June 30, 1995 at a total cost of 
$745,139 to be expended as follows: 

Engineering and Construction Contract $594,450 
Utilities Engineering Bureau (UEB) 

Engineering and Inspection Services 92,169 
Consulting Services (geotechnical and 

structural engineering) 8,520 

Contingency 50.000 

Total $745,139 

1. As noted above, the actual cost of the repair work is 
$745,139 or $69,861 less than the requested amount of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

$815,000. According to Mr Hintze, the $815,000 represents 
the original estimate for this repair work, prior to the 
selection of the contractor. 

2. The PUC invited four contractors to submit proposed 
approaches to stabilizing the access road. After evaluating 
the feasibility of the proposed approaches, the PUC issued an 
Invitation for Bids and received responses from two of the 
four contractors. Mr. Hintze reports that the low bidder, 
Schnabel Foundation Company, which is not an MBE or 
WBE firm, was chosen. The bidders and the amounts bid, as 
provided by Mr. Hintze, are as follows: 

Schnabel Foundation Company $594,450 

Malcolm Drilling $1,015,000 

3. Mr. Hintze advises that the PUC selected Woodward Clyde 
Consultants to provide (a) geotechnical consulting services 
for an estimated $6,000 (an estimated 40 hours @ $150/hour) 
and (b) structural engineering consulting services for $2,520 
(18 hours @ $140/hour), for a total estimated cost of $8,520. 
Mr. Hintze reports that Woodward Clyde was selected 
because the firm's previous experience with the area under 
construction made it the most qualified and economical 
choice. Woodward Clyde is not an MBE or WBE firm. 

4. The Attachment, provided by Mr. Hintze, contains the cost 
details of the UEB Engineering and Inspection Services. 

5. The Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (CIAC) 
recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. 

6. As noted above, repair work on the Early Intake Access 
Road began March 27, 1995. Therefore, the title and the 
body of the proposed legislation should be amended to 
provide for the retroactivity of the subject repairs. 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce the proposed legislation by $69,861 from $815,000 
to $745,139, in accordance with Comment No. 1 above. 

2. Amend the title and body of the proposed legislation to 
include retroactivity in accordance with Comment No. 6 
above. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



FROM UTILITV ENG. BURERU 



5. 18. 1995 



MORTON MILLXft 

E. DENNIS NORWANOV 
VWf AWaHMWT 
MARION E. OT3GA 
YASIN 9ALMA 
ROBERT*. WEAfiE 



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

mAMC M. JORDAN, UAratt 
AKION 8 MOHAN. OOXAM. UANAOm 



UTIUTCt ENGINEERING BUREAU 
RtCHA W> E. BRANDT. »«.««« 




WATER DEPARTMENT 



HCTCM HETOHY 
WATER AND TOWER 



MEMORANDUM 
TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 
SUBJECT: 



Mr. Jerome Sayre 
Budget Analyst Office 

Everett Hlnt^^^wfe 
UEB/PUC 

May 18, 1995 

Early Intake Access Road, Slope Stabilization 

UEB Engineering & Inspection Services, Cost Breakdown 



Rate/Dav 


Total Davs 


Cost 


$672 


38 


925,536 


581 


56 


32,536 


601 


40 


20.040 


478 


13 


6,214 


415 


13 


5.395 


306 


8 


2,448 



As requested, the following Is a breakdown of UEB projected costs for the subject project: 

Position (Class) 

Construction Manager (5210) 
Resident Engineer (5208) 
Construction Inspector (6318) 
Survey Party Chief (5314) 
Surveyor (5312) 
Secretary (1446) 

TOTAL a 92, 169 

If you need further Information, please contact me at 654-0707. 

EMH:ps425 

cc: Larry Klein 
Bill Malla 
CED File: HH-848E 



tlM MARKET STREET. BAN FRANCISCO, CA M10S 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 101-94-101 

Department: Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $2,448,891, Department of Parking 

and Traffic, of Parking Meter Revenue Bond Proceeds and 
rescinding $300,000 from the Vallejo Street Garage Capital 
Project to reimburse the Parking Revenue Fund for advances 
of $596,554 and appropriating $2,152,337 to the San Francisco 
General Hospital Garage capital project for Fiscal Year 1994- 
95. 

Amount: $2,748,891 

Source of Funds: Parking Meter Revenue Bond Funds ($2,448,891), and 
rescission of Previously Appropriated Capital Project monies 
($300,000). 

Description: In December of 1994, the San Francisco Parking Authority sold 

$25 million in Parking Meter Revenue Bonds to finance 
parking projects in the City. The Board of Supervisors 
previously appropriated $21,000,000 (File 101-94-31) of these 
funds to the Department of Parking and Traffic for 
construction contracts and related expenses for the San 
Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) Garage, St. Mary's Square 
Garage, and Vallejo Street Garage. 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate an additional 
$2,448,891, and rescind and reappropriate $300,000, for a total 
of $2,748,891 in Parking Meter Revenue Bond funds to the 
Department of Parking and Traffic in order to; a) fund a 
portion of the construction contingency cost for the SFGH 
Garage, b) fund a portion of the cost of site cleanup and soil 
remediation at the site of the parking garage at San Francisco 
General Hospital, c) pay a portion of the moving costs for the 
San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI), which has already 
relocated from the site of the SFGH Garage, and, d) reimburse 
other City funds which were advanced to the SFGH Garage 
project. 

Funds for these purposes are available from; a) $2,448,891 in 
Parking Meter Revenue Bond funds which had been held as a 
bond reserve fund. The Department of Parking and Traffic has 
purchased bond insurance for these bonds, making the bond 
reserve funds no longer necessary, and, b) $300,000 in Parking 
Meter Revenue Bond funds which had been appropriated to 
demolish the Vallejo Street Garage. The City has chosen not to 
proceed with the Vallejo Street Garage demolition project at 
this time, making these funds available for other uses. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



Construction contingency 


$128,967 


Site Cleanup and Soil Remediation 


1,465,070 


MUNI Relocation 


179,000 


Reimburse SFGH 


379,300 


Reimburse Parking Revenue Fund 


596.554 


Total 


$2,748,891 



Comments: 



1. As part of the $21 million appropriation noted above (File 
101-94-31), the Board of Supervisors previously approved an 
amount of $11,376,792 for the SFGH Garage construction 
contract, which has been awarded to Nibbi Brothers. The 
SFGH Garage project budget also includes a construction 
contingency of $1,314,161, based on 11.5% of the contract 
amount. Of this contingency amount, $1,185,194 was 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in the earlier 
appropriation. The amount of $128,967 in the proposed 
supplemental appropriation represents the remaining 
amount required to fund the construction contingency for the 
SFGH Garage project. 

2. The estimated cost of cleanup and soil remediation at the 
SFGH Garage project site is $4.9 million. The Department 
of Public Health and MUNI have agreed to share a portion of 
these costs with the Department of Parking and Traffic, 
according to Mr. Kevin Hagerty of DPT. However, because 
DPH and MUNI have not identified a source of funds for this 
project, the Board of Supervisors and the Controller 
previously requested that DPT identify project funding for 
the entire cost of the cleanup. The amount of $1,465,070 in 
the proposed supplemental appropriation, together with a 
previous appropriation (File 101-94-31) of $2,636,500 in 
Parking Meter Revenue Bond funds, and an advance of 
$777,879 from the Parking Revenue Fund (later reimbursed 
with bond funds) have been identified by DPT as the funding 
sources for the cleanup and soil remediation, for a total of 
$4,879,449. 

3. The DPT reports that the SFGH cleanup and soil 
remediation project will be put out to bid, and a contractor 
will be selected, within the next two months. The Budget 
Analyst recommends that the funds for this contract, in the 
amount of $1,465,070, be reserved pending submission of the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






Memo to Budget Committee 

May 24, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

contract details, and the MBE/WBE status of the contractor, 
to the Board of Supervisors. 

4. The site where the SFGH Garage is to be constructed was 
a MUNI maintenance facility. MUNI relocated the major 
functions of this facility as of September 1994. The SFGH 
Garage budget includes $529,000 for MUNI's relocation costs, 
of which $350,000 was appropriated in December of 1994 
(File 101-94-31), and $179,000 is included in the present 
appropriation. 

5. Mr. Hagerty reports that the Vallejo Street Garage was 
previously scheduled to be demolished in order to facilitate 
cleanup and removal of underground storage tanks on the 
site, and the Board of Supervisors previously appropriated 
$450,000 for this purpose and for construction of a surface 
parking lot on the site. However, due to public concerns 
about the Garage, the Department has decided not to 
demolish the building. Therefore, a total of $300,000 may be 
rescinded from this project as is proposed in the subject 
ordinance. The remaining $150,000 previously approved for 
the Vallejo Street Garage is required for project management 
and oversight of the underground tank removal, and other 
limited improvements, and should be retained in the budget 
for the Vallejo Street Garage, according to Mr. Hagerty. 

6. The Parking Authority had previously been advanced 
$379,300 from San Francisco General Hospital, and $596,554 
from the Parking Revenue Fund in order to be able to certify 
the construction contract for the SFGH Garage in advance of 
the December 1994 bond sale. The proposed ordinance would 
approve funds to reimburse these advances. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to reserve $1,465,070, for 
the cleanup and soil remediation project, pending the DPT's 
submission of contract details, and the MBE/WBE status of 
the contractor, to the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Item 



File 101-94-103 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating 
$775,049 for the Department of Public Health, from the 
General Fund Reserve for costs associated with the 1994-95 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Staff Nurses and 
increased costs of nurses dental coverage, and providing for 
ratification of action previously taken. 

$775,049 

General Fund Reserve 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved (1) a 
resolution ratifying the MOU with the Service Employee 
International Union (SEIU) Local 790 for the following 
classifications: 2320 Registered Nurses, 2323 Clinical Nurse 
Specialists, 2330 Anesthetists, 2340 Operating Room Nurses, 
2830 Public Health Nurses, 2328 Nurse Practitioners and 
P103 Special Nurses (File 93-95-1) and (2) an ordinance 
adjusting and fixing the schedules of compensation to be paid 
under the provisions of Charter Section 8.403 to employees 
occupying these classifications (File 103-95-1). This subject 
request would provide the monies needed to fund that MOU. 

The MOU between the City and SEIU Local 790, which is for 
the period retroactive from May 1, 1994 through April 30, 
1996, includes the following major fiscal provisions: 

Schedule of Compensation 

A two percent wage increase in FY 1995-96 is provided for 
each classification covered by this MOU. The Controller's 
estimated cost of this provision for FY 1995-96 is $1,584,598 
for salaries plus $209,484 in related fringe benefits for a total 
increase of $1,794,082. 

Retirement Costs 

Effective January 1, 1995, the City shall "pick up" one 
percent of the current 7.5 percent of employee's share of 
retirement costs. Effective July 1, 1995, the City's "pick up" of 
these costs shall increase to three percent of the employee's 
share of retirement costs. The Controller's estimated cost of 
this provision is $354,730 for FY 1994-95 and $1,447,298 for 
FY 1995-96. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2k 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 



Dental Insurance 

Retroactive to July 1, 1994, dental insurance costs for 
each of the classifications covered by this MOU increased by 
$29.85 from $63.50 per month to $93.35 per month. The 
Controller's estimated costs for this increase for FY 1994-95 
is $431,631. 

In summary, the increased annual costs to the City for the 
fiscal provisions noted above are estimated as follows: 

FY FY 

1994-95 1995-96 

Wage and Benefit Increase $1,794,082 

Retirement Costs 354,730 1,447,298 

Dental Insurance 431.631 OjH 

Total $786,361 $3,241,380 

* The zero cost estimates for FY 1995-96 assumes no increase 
in dental insurance rates. 

The Budget Analyst concurs with the estimated costs of the 
Controller for the increased benefits which are identified in 
the MOU. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation request would be 
expended by the DPH in the following accounts: 

Retirement $386,609 

Dental 388.440 

Total $775,049 

Comment: As previously noted, the Controller's estimated additional 

cost for the increased benefits in the MOU for FY 1994-95 is 
$786,361 or $11,312 more than the requested amount of 
$775,049. The DPH advises that the $11,312 balance will be 
absorbed in the DPH's existing budget. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 6 - File 101-94-104 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating 
$991,116 for the Department of Public Health - Mental 
Health, of 1987 Mental Health Facility Bond Interest 
Earnings to the Mental Health Rehabilitation Skilled 
Nursing Facility capital improvement project for FY 1994-95. 

$991,116 

1987 Mental Health Facility Bond Interest Earnings 

In November of 1987, San Francisco voters approved a $26 
million bond issue for the construction of a Mental Health 
Skilled Nursing Facility located at San Francisco General 
Hospital. The City sold the first series of bonds in June 1991 
for $23 million. This supplemental appropriation would be 
supported by interest earnings from this $23 million bond 
issue. Specifically, the work to be performed includes the 
following. 



Description 



1. 



Projected Cost 



Installation of a Built-in Work Island in 
Training Kitchen $5,000 

2. Conversion of Two Shell Spaces into Storage 

Rooms 4,600 

3. Addition of 26 Telephone Outlets 20,000 

4. Expansion of the Access Control system 152,694 

5. Modification of the 2nd & 3rd Floor Balcony 

Screens 43,000 

6. Installation of Balcony Overhangs 5,000 

7. Furnish & Install Signage 65,000 

8. Installation of Built-in Casework in Dirty 

Utility Rooms 5,000 

9. Installation of Built-in Casework in Conference 

Room 7,000 

10. Application of Asphalt Overlay on Existing 

Driveway 15,000 

11. Furnish and Install Trash Compactor 40,000 

12. Installation of a Built-in Security Paging 

System 50,000 

13. Installation of Security Gates on Potrero Ave. 35,000 

14. Installation of Pigeon Abatement System for 

Facility 45,000 

15. Installation of External Security Cameras 200,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Description Projected Cost. 

16. Modification of Courtyard Window Grills for 

Safety Reasons $39,000 

17. Installation of Built-in Stage in the 

Gymnasium 25,000 

18. Upgrade of Bathrooms to comply with ADA 22,600 

19. Upgrades requested by S.F. Fire Department 83,222 

20. Upgrades requested by State Fire Marshall 105,000 

21. Arts Commission Artist-in-Residence Art Work 

Design & Installation 24.000 

$991,116 

Comments: 1. According to a memo from the Capital Improvement 

Advisory Committee (CIAC), which appears in the file, the 
use of this interest income for the requested purpose 
"appears to be an acceptable use of funds." CIAC 
recommends approval of this request. 

2. This supplemental appropriation request will likely 
represent the final work for this Skilled Nursing Facility, 
according to the DPH. The history of appropriations from the 
$23 million 1987 bond issue, is as follows: 

• In 1987, the Board of Supervisors appropriated $23 
million and placed $21,624,800 on reserve for construction 
costs pending departmental submission of contractors, 
their MBE/WBE/LBE status, and specific cost details; 

• In August, 1992, S.J. Amoroso Construction was selected 
as the contractor, and the Board of Supervisors released 
$19,223,287 million, leaving $2,401,513 million on 
reserve; 

• In October, 1993, the Board of Supervisors released 
$1,035,000 to support the costs of removing and disposing 
of approximately 34,000 yards of serpentine (i.e., 
hazardous material), leaving $1,366,513 on reserve; 

• In April, 1994, the Board of Supervisors released $632,500 
to construct the parking lot for the Skilled Nursing 
Facility, leaving $734,013 on reserve; and 

• In August, 1994, the Board of Supervisors released 
$733,759 to repair 99 windows, perform other internal 
building upgrades, and to fund additional management 
and inspection fees, leaving $254 on reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

In addition, the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance 
to appropriate $972,000 for construction contingency costs in 
June, 1992. That appropriation was funded from interest 
earnings. 

3. The contractor for this proposed project would be S.J. 
Amoroso, the general contractor for the Skilled Nursing 
Facility. According to Mr. Michael Lane of the Department of 
Public Works, the existing contract with S.J. Amoroso will be 
augmented to include the additional work noted above. 

4. As previously noted, this proposed supplemental 
appropriation would be funded from interest earnings from 
the $23 million 1987 bond issue. The Controller has certified 
that such interest earnings are available. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed Supplemental Appropriation ordinance 
in the amount of $991,116. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 7 -File 101-94-105 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Sheriffs Department 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating and 
rescinding $180,000 for overtime; subject of previous 
budgetary denial. 

$180,000 

Reappropriation of funds in the Sheriff Department's FY 
1994-95 budget from Materials and Supplies 

During the FY 1994-95 budget review, the Sheriffs overtime 
budget was reduced by the Mayor's Office. However, factors 
such as (a) the opening of the new jail facility, (b) the delayed 
hiring of new Deputy Sheriff recruits to staff the new jail and 
(c) a requirement imposed by the State Fire Marshall to 
implement a fire watch at the new jail, have resulted in the 
increased need for overtime hours in the Sheriffs 
Department. As such, the Sheriffs Department is projecting 
a budget deficiency of $180,000 in overtime expenditures for 
FY 1994-95. 

The table below shows the Budget Analyst's projected budget 
deficiency in the Sheriffs overtime account for FY 1994-95: 



FY 1994-95 
Budget 

$1,160,632 



Actual Expenditures Projected Expenditures Total Estimated 
7/1/94 - 5/5/95 5/6/95 - 6/30/95 Shortfall 



$1,141,374 



$240,000 



$220,742 



Comments: 



As reflected in the table above, although the projected budget 
deficiency is $220,742, this supplemental appropriation 
request is for $180,000, or $40,742 less than the projected 
budget deficiency. According to Sergeant Ridgeway of the 
Sheriffs Department, the Department will attempt to absorb 
the remaining $40,742 projected budget deficiency within its 
existing budget by employing efficiencies. 

1. The Sheriffs Department advises that the recent 
renegotiation of a contract and the phased-in opening of the 
new jail since December, 1994 have resulted in a savings of 
approximately $180,000 in the Sheriffs materials and 
supplies budget for FY 1994-95. The Sheriffs Department 
has proposed using these surplus funds to offset the projected 
budget deficiency in overtime. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

2. As previously noted, the funds being requested in this 
supplemental appropriation ordinance were previously 
denied by the Mayor's Office during the FY 1994-95 budget 
process. As such, the approval of this supplemental 
appropriation ordinance would require two-thirds vote by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 16 - File 97-95-21 

1. This item is an ordinance amending Article II of Chapter 2 of the 
Administrative Code by adding Section 2.10, which would require (a) a public 
hearing by the Board of Supervisors on reports submitted by the Grand Jury and (b) 
a report from the Controller on the status of the implementation of the Grand Jury's 
recommendations. 

2. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court impanels the Civil Grand Jury. 
The State Penal Code permits the Board of Supervisors to submit comments on the 
Grand Jury's reports to the Presiding Judge. According to the City Attorney's 
Office, neither the State Penal Code nor the City's Administrative Code mandates 
such hearings. Still, the Government Efficiency and Labor Committee conducts 
hearings on the Grand Jury's reports and prepares comments for submission to the 
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The proposed ordinance would amend the 
Administrative Code to require the Board of Supervisors to conduct public hearings 
on Grand Jury reports, thereby formalizing this already existing procedure. 

3. The City Attorney's Office advises that, presently, the process of 
implementing the Grand Jury's recommendations is not formally tracked by any 
City agency. The proposed ordinance would require the Controller to submit a 
report to the Board of Supervisors on the extent to which the Grand Jury's 
recommendations pertaining to fiscal matters have been implemented by no later 
than one year following the date of the hearing. 

4. According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, whether the 
Controller's Office would need additional resources to monitor the implementation 
of Grand Jury recommendations depends on the degree of complexity of those 
recommendations. Mr. Madden advises that, if the Grand Jury's recommendations 
are less complex, as in recent years, it is likely that the Controller's Office could 
absorb this additional function with the use of its existing resources. 



Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Budget Committee 
May 24, 1995 

Item 17 - File 100-95-5 

This item is a hearing to consider the Zero-Base Budget Analysis of the 
Budget Analyst. Refer to the Budget Analyst's separate FY 1995-96 Zero-Base 
Budget Analysis report dated May 22, 1995. 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



9o.oi 



I \ a f BOARD of SUPERVISORS 

31 1 K „ 



^+aU\ 




City Hall 

San Francisco 94102 

554-5184 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled meeting 
of the Budget Committee for Wednesday, May 31, 1995, has been 
cancelled. ' ' 

The next regular meeting of the Budget Committee will be 
held on Wednesday, June 7, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., in the Room 410, 
Veterans Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue. 



) 



fean Lumy 
Acting Clerk of the Board 



POSTED: MAY 24, 1995 



oor „.cMT, DEPT 
MAY 2 51995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REVISED 07/08/95 
(See Item No. 11) 



MINUTES 



REGULAR MEETING 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS fl . , r «, - . nor 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



£/;/<?«- 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LI8RAR/ 



WEDNESDAY. JUNE 7. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, WAR MEMORIAL BLDG. 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:10 P.M. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 



All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to 
be routine by the Budget Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll 
call vote of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these 
items unless a member of the Committee or a member of the public so 
requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent 
Calendar and considered as a separate item: 



a) File 101-92-33.4 . [Reserved Funds, Fire Department] Consideration of 
release of reserved funds, Fire Department, 1986 Fire Protection Bond 
Interest, in the amount of $20,500 for the purchase and installation of 
an emergency generator at Fire Station No. 23, at 1348 - 45th Avenue. 
(Fire Department) 

b) File 148-92-7.6 . [Reserved Funds, Fire Department] Consideration of 
release of reserved funds, Fire Department, State Hazard Mitigation 
Grant, in the amount of $20,500 for the purchase and installation of an 
emergency generator at Fire Station No. 23, at 1348 - 45th Avenue. 
(Fire Department) 

c) File 101-93-92.1 . [Reserved Funds, Academy of Sciences] 
Consideration of release of reserved funds, California Academy of 
Sciences, in the amount of $574,500 for the renovation and repairs of 
the Fish Roundabout at Steinhart Aquarium. (California Academy of 
Sciences) 

d) File 97-95-33 . [Revolving Funds, Board of Supervisors] Ordinance 
amending the Administrative Code by amending Section 10.169-3 to 
increase the amount held in the Board of Supervisors Revolving Fund 
from $500 to $1000. (Acting Clerk of the Board) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M. JTES PAGE 2 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED. FILED. 
VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Bierman absent.) 

BOND 



File 170-95-5 . [Bond Sale] Resolution authorizing and directing the 
sale of City and County of San Francisco not to exceed $18,480,000 
principal amount of General Obligation Bonds (Public Safety 
Improvement Projects, 1990), series 1995A; and not to exceed 
$26,000,000 principal amount of General Obligation Bonds (Golden 
Gate Park Improvements, 1992), series 1995B; prescribing the terms 
and form of said bonds; approving forms of Official Notice of Sale of 
Bonds and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; directing the publication 
of Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; approving the 
official statement relating thereto; authorizing the reimbursement of 
certain expenditures and ratifying certain actions; and authorizing the 
execution of necessary documents. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



FEES 



File 114-94-1 . [Unreinforced Mason Building (UMB) Appeals Board] 
Ordinance amending Building Code by amending Sections 203(i), 204(a), 
212(d), 33.5 and 1405 and adding Section 1408 to establish an 
Unreinforced Masonry Building (UMB) Appeals Board and establishing 
fees therefor. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst; Frank Chew, Director of Building Inspection, 
Department of Public Works. IN SUPPORT: Robert Bossi, Consulting 
Engineer; Betty Lui, Coalition Seismic Safetv; Bruce Bond, Exec. 
Director, Heritage House; PAT Bostovich. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE 

BEARING SAME TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY 
SUPERVISOR HSIEH. ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. On 
Page 8, line 2 add a sentence to read: "At least one 
member of the Board shall have experience in issues 
relating to historic preservation." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE to. JTES PAGE 3 



4. File 97-95-30 . [Criminal Justice Administration Fee] Ordinance 
amending the Administrative Code by adding Section 8.38 thereto, 
establishing and allowing the City and County of San Francisco to 
collect a Criminal Justice Administrative Fee from persons arrested. 
(Adult Probation Department) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENT ATIVES: Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst; Arlene Sauser, Chief Probation Officer; Sgt. Richard 
Ridgeway, Sheriff's Department. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: 
None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE 

BEARING NEW TrTLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY 
ARLENE SAUSER, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER. 
ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE 
RECOMMENDED. NEW TITLE: "Amending Chapter 8 of 
the San Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 
8.38 thereto, establishing and allowing the City and County 
of San Francisco to collect a booking fee for persons placed 
on probation." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



5. File 97-95-32 . [Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Fee] 
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code by 
amending Section 37A.1 to exempt certain dwelling units solely owned 
by a non-profit public benefit corporation, to exempt certain 
residential care of Adult Care or Adult Day Health Care facilities for 
the elderly, and to delete the exemption for owner-occupied buildings 
containing four dwelling units or less. (Residential Rent Stabilization 
and Arbitration Board) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst; Delene Wolfe, Deputy Director, Rent Board. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE ta. JTES PAGE 4 



HEARING 

6. File 78-95-3 . [Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan] Hearing __ 

consider the status of the City's Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan 

anH u/a\7c tn imnrnup tVip nartirinatinn nf C*\t\r pmntnuAPc in tn*s 



to 

cunsiuer uie siaius ui me \^uy 5 ivepeiiueiu v_are i\.eimuursement ria: 
and ways to improve the participation of City employees in the Plan. 
(Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Randy Smith, 
Exec. Director, Health Service System Board. IN SUPPORT: Veronica 
Sanchez; LaWanda Preston, Local 790, Linda Jo Fuko, Local 21; Bill 
Mills, Colonial Life; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the 
Mayor. 

(Consideration continued from 4/26/95) 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE 
CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

FISCAL ITEMS 



File 101-94-110 . [Appropriation, Department of Public Works] 
Ordinance appropriating and rescinding $4,494,000, Department of 
Public Works, 1990 Earthquake Safety Bonds, to various Library 
Capital Improvement Projects (renovation, testing, inspection and 
evaluation of various branch libraries) for fiscal year 1994-95. 
(Controller) RO #94254 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst; Todd Colburn, City Engineer; Ken Dowlin, City 
Librarian. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS 

AMENDED. Add a section 2 placing $980,400 on reserve 
pending selection of a contractor for renovation of the 
Richmond Branch Library, contract cost details and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractor and to be release by the 
Budget Committee." AMENDED TITLE: "Appropriating 
$4,494,000 of 1990 Earthquake Safety Bonds to various 
Library capital improvement projects of the Department of 
Public Works for fiscal year 1994-95; placing $980,400 on 
reserve. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE to.. JTES PAGE 5 



File 101-94-111 . [Appropriation, Department of Human Resources] 
Ordinance appropriating $575,060, Department of Human Resources, 
from the General Fund Reserve and rescinding $1,008,919 from salaries 
in the Fire Department to appropriate $1,583,979 to the Department of 
Human Resources for Workers Compensation claims for fiscal year 
1994-95. (Controller) RO #94255 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst; Victoria Mead, Exec. Assistant, Human Resources 
Department; Brian Narlock, Div. Manager, Workers' Compensation 
Division, Employees' Retirement System; Teresa Serata, Budget 
Director, Office of the Mayor. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE IW. JTES PAGE 6 



REVENUE ITEMS 



File 127-95-4 . [Payroll Expense/Business Tax] Ordinance amending 
Part III, Municipal Code, by amending Section 903.1 thereof to 
decrease Payroll Expense Tax rate for businesses with total payroll 
expense not exceeding $333,333 and to increase Payroll Expense Tax 
rate for businesses with total payroll expenses exceeding $6,666,667 
and by adding Section 1004.19 thereto to decrease the Business Tax on 
Gross Receipts exceeding specified amounts and by amending Sections 
905-A and 1005.3 thereof to lower the qualifying maximum for the 
exemption to the Payroll Expense and Business Taxes, operative 
January 1, 1996. (Supervisor Ammiano) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Supervisor Tom Ammiano. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: Mike Norton, San Franciscans for Tax 
Justice; Larry Kurmel, Exec. Director, California Bankers' 
Association; Martha Hawthorne, Public Health Nurse; Edward Evans; 
Alan Bruce; Bernal Heights Neighbor to Neighbor; Margaret Brodkin, 
Children Advocates; Donna Gouse, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood 
Council; Andy Sekara, Senior Action Network; Dan Mera; Peter 
Donohue; Tom Gallengher; David Varnan; Dick Clark, Hamilton Family 
Center; Mark Goldman; Paul Bowdin; Steven Bingham, SF 
Neighborhood Legal Assistance; Sasa McGee; Nan McGuire; Liz 
Simpson; Steve Neely. OPPOSED: Lynn Bernan, Pac Telesis; LaWanda 
Preston, Local 790; Stan Smith, Building and Trades Council; John 
Dewes, Chevron Corp; Teri Hanlan, Vice President, Bank of America; 
Dorothy Conlain, Air Touch Communications; Kathleen Harrington, 
Harrington's Bar and Grill; Ken Cleveland; Mark Moose, Exec. 
Director, Committee on Jobs. Bill Allin, AT and T.; Michael 
Bentivoglio, Charels Schwab; Lorena Strong, Golden Gate Restaurant 
Association; Leanne Lange, Bethel Corporation. Veronica Joe, Bethel 
Corporation; Bob ??, Hotel Council; Sue Lee, SF Chamber of 
Commerce; Mark Warren, Polk Street Merchants Association; Folger 
Gantz, General Manager, Hilton Hotel; John Sutter, General Manager, 
Pac 55 Hotel. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. TO BOARD "WITHOUT 

RECOMMENDATION". TO BOARD FOR PUBLIC 
HEARING, JUNE 26, 1995, AT 3:00 P.M. 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Kaufman dissenting.) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M JTES PAGE 7 



10. File 127-95-5 . [Transient Occupancy Tax] Ordinance amending Part 
III, Municipal Code, by amending Section 502.5 thereof to increase the 
Transient Occupancy Tax Surcharge from 2.75 percent to 4.75 percent, 
and by amending Section 5092.8 thereof to increase the Transient 
Occupancy Tax in certain Redevelopment Project Areas from 12 
percent to 14 percent, operative October 1, 1995. (Supervisor 
Ammiano) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Supervisor Tom Ammiano. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: Mike Norton, San Franciscans for Tax 
Justice; Larry Kurmel, Exec. Director, California Bankers' 
Association; Martha Hawthorne, Public Health Nurse; Edward Evans; 
Alan Bruce; Bernal Heights Neighbor to Neighbor; Margaret Brodkin, 
Children Advocates; Donna Gouse, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood 
Council; Andy Sekara, Senior Action Network; Dan Mera; Peter 
Donohue; Tom Gallengher; David Varnan; Dick Clark, Hamilton Family 
Center; Mark Goldman; Paul Bowdin; Steven Bingham, SF 
Neighborhood Legal Assistance; Sasa McGee; Nan McGuire; Liz 
Simpson; Steve Neely. OPPOSED: Lynn Bernan, Pac Telesis; LaWanda 
Preston, Local 790; Stan Smith, Building and Trades Council; John 
Dewes, Chevron Corp; Teri Hanlan, Vice President, Bank of America; 
Dorothy Conlain, Air Touch Communications; Kathleen Harrington, 
Harrington's Bar and Grill; Ken Cleveland; Mark Moose, Exec. 
Director, Committee on Jobs. Bill Allin, AT and T.; Michael 
Bentivoglio, Charels Schwab; Lorena Strong, Golden Gate Restaurant 
Association; Leanne Lange, Bethel Corporation. Veronica Joe, Bethel 
Corporation; Bob ??, Hotel Council; Sue Lee, SF Chamber of 
Commerce; Mark Warren, Polk Street Merchants Association; Folger 
Gantz, General Manager, Hilton Hotel; John Sutter, General Manager, 
Pac 55 Hotel. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. TO BOARD "WITHOUT 

RECOMMENDATION". TO BOARD FOR PUBLIC 
HEARING, JUNE 26, 1995, AT 3:00 P.M. 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Kaufman dissenting.) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M_ JTES PAGE 8 



11. File 127-95-8 . [Real Property Transfer Tax] Ordinance amending Part 
III, Municipal Code, by amending Section 1102 of Article 12C (Real 
Property Transfer Tax Ordinance) to increase the tax rate to $7.50 
from $3.75 for each $500 of consideration or value of the property 
conveyed for transfers in which the consideration or value of the 
property conveyed exceed $1,000,000, and amending Section 1101 of 
Article 12C to clarify the City and County's authority to increase the 
tax rate under existing law. (Supervisor Ammiano) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Supervisor Tom Ammiano. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: Mike Norton, San Franciscans for Tax 
Justice; Larry Kurmel, Exec. Director, California Bankers' 
Association; Martha Hawthorne, Public Health Nurse; Edward Evans; 
Alan Bruce; Bernal Heights Neighbor to Neighbor; Margaret Brodkin, 
Children Advocates; Donna Gouse, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood 
Council; Andy Sekara, Senior Action Network; Dan Mera; Peter 
Donohue; Tom Gallengher; David Varnan; Dick Clark, Hamilton Family 
Center; Mark Goldman; Paul Bowdin; Steven Bingham, SF 
Neighborhood Legal Assistance; Sasa McGee; Nan McGuire; Liz 
Simpson; Steve Neely. OPPOSED: Lynn Bernan, Pac Telesis; LaWanda 
Preston, Local 790; Stan Smith, Building and Trades Council; John 
Dewes, Chevron Corp; Teri Hanlan, Vice President, Bank of America; 
Dorothy Conlain, Air Touch Communications; Kathleen Harrington, 
Harrington's Bar and Grill; Ken Cleveland; Mark Moose, Exec. 
Director, Committee on Jobs. Bill Allin, AT and T.; Michael 
Bentivoglio, Charels Schwab; Lorena Strong, Golden Gate Restaurant 
Association; Leanne Lange, Bethel Corporation. Veronica Joe, Bethel 
Corporation; Bob ??, Hotel Council; Sue Lee, SF Chamber of 
Commerce; Mark Warren, Polk Street Merchants Association; Folger 
Gantz, General Manager, Hilton Hotel; John Sutter, General Manager, 
Pac 55 Hotel. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. TO BOARD "WITHOUT 
RECOMMENDATION". TO BOARD FOR PUBLIC 
HEARING, JUNE 26, 1995, AT 3:00 P.M. Add an effective 
date of October 9, 1995. AMENDED TITLE: "Amending 
Part III, Municipal Code, by amending Section 1102 of 
Article 12C (Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance) to 
increase the tax rate to $7.50 from $3.75 for each $500 of 
consideration or value of the property conveyed for 
transfers in which the consideration or value of the 
property conveyed exceed $1,000,000, and amending 
Section 1101 of Article 12C to clarify the City and 
County's authority to increase the tax rate under existing 
law; setting operative date of October 9, 1995." 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Kaufman dissenting.) 



BUDGET COMMITTEE M JTES PAGE 9 



12. File 12-95-33 . [State Issues] Resolution requesting that the City 
Lobbyist and the San Francisco delegation in the State Legislature 
cooperate with the California Bankers Association to modify the State 
Bank in Lieu Tax Law to mandate subvention of a portion of these tax 
receipts to local government. (Supervisor Ammiano) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Supervisor Tom Ammiano. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: Mike Norton, San Franciscans for Tax 
Justice; Larry Kurmel, Exec. Director, California Bankers' 
Association; Martha Hawthorne, Public Health Nurse; Edward Evans; 
Alan Bruce; Bernal Heights Neighbor to Neighbor; Margaret Brodkin, 
Children Advocates; Donna Gouse, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood 
Council; Andy Sekara, Senior Action Network; Dan Mera; Peter 
Donohue; Tom Gallengher; David Varnan; Dick Clark, Hamilton Family 
Center; Mark Goldman; Paul Bowdin; Steven Bingham, SF 
Neighborhood Legal Assistance; Sasa McGee; Nan McGuire; Liz 
Simpson; Steve Neely. OPPOSED: Lynn Bernan, Pac Telesis; LaWanda 
Preston, Local 790; Stan Smith, Building and Trades Council; John 
Dewes, Chevron Corp; Teri Hanlan, Vice President, Bank of America; 
Dorothy Conlain, Air Touch Communications; Kathleen Harrington, 
Harrington's Bar and Grill; Ken Cleveland; Mark Moose, Exec. 
Director. Committee on Jobs. Bill Allin, AT and T.; Michael 
Bentivoglio, Charels Schwab; Lorena Strong, Golden Gate Restaurant 
Association; Leanne Lange, Bethel Corporation. Veronica Joe, Bethel 
Corporation; Bob ??, Hotel Council; Sue Lee, SF Chamber of 
Commerce; Mark Warren, Polk Street Merchants Association; Folger 
Gantz, General Manager, Hilton Hotel; John Sutter, General Manager, 
Pac 55 Hotel. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



13. File 127-95-6 . [Hotel Tax Allocation] Ordinance amending Article 7, 
Part III, Municipal Code, by amending Section 515 to base allocations 
of Hotel Tax revenues on revenues received in the immediately prior 
fiscal year rather than on estimated revenues for the allocation year. 
(Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO JUNE 14, 1995, 
MEETING. 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 5:05 P.M. 



F 
10-01 



CITY AND COUNTY 




(Public Library, QJocuments QJept. 

OF SAN FRAN&8S93Y; JOM JudsOtl 



// 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



TO: 



June 2, 1995 



A 



Budget Committee 



/// 



FROM: Budget Analyst Ke^t 









SUBJECT: June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item la and lb - Files 101-92-33.4 and 148-92-7.6 



Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 



San Francisco Fire Department 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

File 101-92-33.4 

Hearing requesting the release of reserved funds from 1986 
Fire Protection Bond interest in the amount of $20,500 for 
the purchase and installation of an emergency generator for 
Fire Station No. 23, located at 1348 45th Avenue. 

File 148-92-7.6 

Hearing requesting the release of reserved funds from the 
State Hazard Mitigation Grant in the amount of $20,500 for 
the purchase and installation of an emergency generator for 
Fire Station No. 23, located at 1348 45th Avenue. 

$20,500 (File 101-92-33.4) 

20,500 (File 148-92-7.6) 
$41,000 



Sources of Funds: 1986 Fire Protection System Improvement Bond, accrued 
interest (File 101-92-33.4) 
State Hazard Mitigation Grant (File 148-92-7.6) 

Dor , .MFNTS DEFT. 

JUNO 6 1995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

Description: File 101-92-33.4 

In November of 1986, San Francisco voters approved the 
issuance of $46.2 million in Fire Protection System 
Improvement Bonds to finance improvements to the City's 
Fire Protection System. In February of 1993, the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated $1,191,769 in accrued interest from 
the 1986 Fire Protection Bond Fund, placing $623,350 on 
reserve for emergency generators and a geotechnical study 
contract pending the selection of contractors and 
determination of their MBE/WBE status. 

The Board previously approved the release of a total of 
$329,643.50 of the original $623,350 leaving $293,706.50 on 
reserve. The Fire Department is now requesting the release 
of $20,500 of the remaining $293,706.50 on reserve for the 
purchase and installation of an emergency generator for Fire 
Station No. 23. The proposed release of $20,500 would be 
expended under a construction contract previously approved 
by the Board of Supervisors (see Comment). 

File 148-92-7.6 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
authorizing the DPW, on behalf of the Fire Department, to 
accept and expend a total of $4,971,000 in four State Hazard 
Mitigation Grants from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA). One of the four grants, in the amount of up 
to $500,000, to be used for the installation of emergency 
generators at 20 Fire Department facilities, was placed on 
reserve pending the selection of contractors and 
determination of their MBE/WBE status. The Board of 
Supervisors previously approved the release of a total of 
$303,802.28 of the original $500,000 leaving $196,197.72 on 



The Fire Department is requesting the release of $20,500 of 
the remaining $196,197.72 for the purchase and installation 
of an emergency generator at Fire Station No. 23. The 
proposed release of $20,500 would be expended under a 
construction contract previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors (see Comment). 

The proposed releases of reserves totaling $41,000 would be 
expended as follows: 



Purchase and Installation of 
Emergency Generator 



$41,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Mr. Peter Wong of the DPW advises that the purchase and 
installation of the emergency generator for Fire Station No. 
23 is an addition to a larger project for the seismic 
strengthening and modification of the electrical system of 
Fire Station No. 23, previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors (File 101-92-60.8). Mr. Wong reports that the 
MBE firm of Chiang CM. Construction, the successful bidder 
for that larger project, would install the emergency generator 
for the amount of $41,000. 

Approve the proposed releases of reserved funds in the total 
amount of $41,000 as requested. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

Item lc - File 101-93-92.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of 
Funds: 

Description: 



California Academy of Sciences (CAS), Steinhart Aquarium 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Requesting the release of reserved funds, California Academy of 
Sciences, in the amount of $574,500, for the renovation and 
repairs of the Fish Roundabout Tank at the Steinhart 
Aquarium. 

$574,500 



Capital Improvement Projects Fund (General Fund monies) 

In March of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation for the California Academy of 
Sciences, in the amount of $655,700, for the renovation of the 
Fish Roundabout Tank at the Steinhart Aquarium, and for 
disabled access modifications, including restrooms, telephones 
and drinking fountains throughout the Academy of Sciences 
building (File 101-93-92). The Board of Supervisors placed 
$574,500 on reserve pending the selection of contractors, the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors, and the contract cost 
details. 

The Fish Roundabout Tank, which is approximately 66 feet in 
diameter, is a circular viewing tank containing numerous 
varieties of fish. The California Academy of Sciences reports 
that the Fish Roundabout Tank has been operating continuously 
since 1977, and the gaskets supporting the Tank structure are 
failing, which has resulted in leaks. 

Mr. Glen Angell of the California Academy of Sciences advises 
that in February of 1995, DPW selected BBI Construction, for 
the renovation of the Fish Roundabout Tank at a cost of 
$320,593, as the lowest of three bidders. Mr. Angell advises that 
BBI Construction is not an MBE or an WBE firm. However, as 
shown in the comments, $136,220, or 42.5 percent of the contract 
is being allocated to MBE/WBE subcontractors. Mr. Angell 
advises that BBI Construction began work in February of 1995. 
It is anticipated that the project will be completed by June of 
1995. 

Mr. Angell advises that the proposed release of reserved funds 
would be used to reimburse the California Academy of Sciences 
for funds which have already been expended for this project from 
the California Academy of Science's budget. The project costs 
are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



Budget: Management and Design 

DPW Bureau of Architecture (BOA) 
Design Fees (approx 698.4 hours @ 
an average of $63 per hour) $44,000 

DPW- Rutherford and Chekene 
(through BOA) (approx 235.3 hours @ 
$85 per hour) 20,000 

Special Inspection (approx 19.5 hours @ 
$55 per hour) 1,075 

CAS Project Management (.43 FTE @ 
$94,000 per year) 40,000 

Materials, Testing & Inspection 12,214 

Asbestos and Lead Survey 3,464 

Coatings Inspection Service 9,726 

Corrosion Consultant (approx 47.4 hours 
@ $95 per hour) 4,500 

Miscellaneous Support, including couriers, 
project advertising, blue print services 6 r 083 

Subtotal $141,062 

California Academy of Sciences (CAS) Construction Work 
CAS Disabled Access Work (approx 219 

hours @ $18.75 per hour ) 
Materials for Disabled Access Work 
CAS Equipment Installation (236 hours 

@ $26.10 per hour) 
Materials for Equipment Installation 
Acrylic Panel 

Subtotal 

Construction 

BBI Construction Contract 
Construction Contingency (12.5%) 
Study Contractor (approx 166.5 hours @ 

$62 per hour) 
Construction Permits 

Subtotal 

Construction Impacts 
Site Preparation 
Collection Maintenance 
Specimen Acquisition 
Subtotal 

TOTAL 

*Mr. Angell advises that the difference between the contract 
amount of $379,877 shown above for BBI Construction, and the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



$4,103 
9,478 




6,160 

25,011 

5,000 


49,671 


*$379,877 
47,555 




10,325 
4,710 


442,467 


$2,500 

5,000 

15.000 


22.500 




**655,700 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



Comment: 



amount of the base bid of $320,593 shown below, which was the 
amount BBI Construction was awarded for the original bid, is as 
follows: (1) CAS accepted Bid Alternate No. 1, for an amount of 
$9,803 to provide demolition and debris removal on Concourse 
Drive, (2) BBI Construction performed additional work at a unit 
price of $17.27, as defined in the contract between BBI 
Construction and CAS, for additional construction related to the 
Fish Roundabout Tank, for a total amount of $16,500, and (3) 
CAS has authorized change orders for an amount of 
approximately $32,981, for a total of $59,284. ($379,877 less 
$59,284 equals $320,593 ). 

** The total allocation of $655,700 is the amount of funding for 
the entire project, including the amount of $81,200 which was 
not reserved at the time of the original request for funding 
($655,700 less $81,200 equals $574,500, the subject of this 
request). 

Mr. Angell has provided the following contract cost details, 
including the MBE and WBE participation, for the $320,593 
construction contract. The contract cost details are as follows: 



Prime Contractor (31.0%) 






BBI Construction 




$99,486 


Subcontractors. MBE (40.2%) 






Kwan Wo 


$7,800 




J. Wang 


32,000 




Gitane Painting 


80,300 




Asia 


8 r 620 




Subtotal, MBE Subcontractors 


*$128,720 




Subcontractor. WBE (2.3%) 






City Lumber 


*$7,500 




Other Subcontractors (26.5%) 






AGA 


$52,514 




Escobar 


5,500 




Swift-Mac 


3,980 




Global 


3,393 




Hess 


19.500 




Subtotal, non MBE/WBE 






Subcontractors 


$84,887 




Total Subcontractors 




$221,107 


Total Contract and Subcontractors 




$320,593 



* Total allocation of $136,220 ($128,720 + $7,500), or 42.5 
percent for MBE/WBE Subcontractors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 6, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item Id 



- File 97-95-33 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Comment: 



Board of Supervisors 

Ordinance amending Chapter 10, Article XV, of the 
Administrative Code by amending Section 10.169-3 to 
increase the amount held in the Board of Supervisors 
Revolving Fund. 

The Board of Supervisors Revolving Fund, established by 
Chapter 10, Article XV of the Administrative Code, is used to 
pay small and unanticipated expenses such as subscriptions 
of individual members of the Board of Supervisors, office 
supplies, messenger services, mailings and other expenses 
less than $100. 

The Administrative Code currently sets the maximum 
amount for the Revolving Fund at $500. The proposed 
ordinance would increase the amount of this Revolving Fund 
by $500 to $1,000. 

According to Ms. Jean Lum, Acting Clerk of the Board, the 
Revolving Fund amount of $500, which was established in 
1976, is no longer sufficient to cover these minor expenses 
which are paid for by this Fund, without numerous requests 
to have the Fund reimbursed. As such, the Clerk of the Board 
is requesting that the Fund amount be increased in order to 
save staff time and to permit the Clerk of the Board to pay 
minor expenses from the Revolving Fund on a timely basis. 

The proposed Administrative Code amendment would not 
result in increased expenditures. The request would simply 
change the maximum limit, which is allowed under the 
Administrative Code, in the Revolving Fund from $500 to 
$1,000. Ms. Lum advises that the requested $500 increase in 
the amount of the Revolving Fund is included in the Clerk of 
the Board's 1995-96 budget request. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 170-95-5 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of City of San 

Francisco General Obligation Bonds Series 1995A, (Public 
Safety Improvement Projects, 1990), not to exceed 
$18,480,000 principal amount; and General Obligation Bonds 
Series 1995B, (Golden Gate Park Improvements), not to 
exceed $26,000,000 principal amount; prescribing the terms 
and form of said Bonds; approving forms of Official Notice of 
Sale of Bonds and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; directing 
the publication of Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to 
Sell Bonds; approving the official statement relating thereto; 
authorizing the reimbursement of certain expenditures and 
ratifying certain actions; and authorizing the execution of 
necessary documents. 

Amount: Series Description Amount 

1995A Public Safety Improvement Projects, 1990 $18,480,000 

1995B Golden Gate Park Improvements, 1992 26.000.000 

Total General Obligation Bonds to be Issued $44,480,000 

Description: The proposed resolution (File 170-95-5) pertains to the 

issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds which have 
been previously approved by San Francisco voters. The 
proposed resolution would authorize and direct the sale of 
two series of General Obligation Bonds in the principal 
amounts shown in the above table. The proposed resolution 
would also prescribe the terms and form of said bonds, 
approve forms of official Notice of Sale of Bonds and Notice of 
Intention to Sell Bonds, direct the publication of Notice of 
Intention to Sell Bonds, approve the official statement 
relating thereto, authorize the reimbursement of certain 
expenditures and ratify certain actions, and authorize the 
execution of necessary documents. 

As noted above, the issuance of these General Obligation 
Bonds have been approved by the electorate. However, the 
issuance of any General Obligation Bonds must be 
specifically authorized by the Board of Supervisors following 
approval by the electorate, including providing for a tax levy 
to repay the bonds, before a bond sale can proceed. The 
issuance of the bond series shown above, including 
authorization for a tax levy to repay these bonds, has been 
previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors 
(Resolution Nos. 1017-90 and 203-93 respectively). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



In June, 1990, a total of $332,400,000 in General Obligation 
Bonds (Public Safety Improvement Projects, 1990) was 
approved by the electorate for seismic and life safety 
improvements and repairs to various City-owned buildings 
damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. As provided 
for in the ballot initiative authorizing these bonds, the 
amount of bonds authorized to be issued is reduced by the 
amount of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
and Office of Emergency Services (OES) funds received by 
the City for projects included in the bond program. 

As of April 30, 1995, the City has received commitments 
totaling $122,457,000 from FEMA and the OES for projects 
included in the bond program, and the City has previously 
issued $191,460,000 in these bond funds. The FEMA/OES 
funds together with the previously issued bonds bring the 
remaining authorized unissued amount of these bonds to 
$18,483,000 ($332,400,000 less $122,457,000 less 
$191,460,000). Under the proposed resolution (File 170-95- 
5), an additional $18,480,000 in bonds would be sold, for a 
total of bonds issued after the sale of $209,940,000, and a 
remaining authorized unissued amount (reduced by the 
amount of FEMA/OES funds) after the sale of $3,000. The 
proceeds from the sale of the proposed $18,480,000 in bond 
funds (Series 1995A) would be used for; asbestos removal, 
seismic improvements and disabled access improvements to 
the War Memorial Opera House. 

In June, 1992, a total of $76,300,000 in General Obligation 
Bonds (Golden Gate Park Improvements, 1992) was approved 
by the electorate for capital projects in Golden Gate Park. Of 
the $76,300,000 authorized in General Obligation Bonds, the 
City has previously issued $8,135,000. The previously issued 
bonds bring the remaining authorized amount to $68,165,000 
($76,300,000 less $8,135,000). Under the proposed resolution 
(File 170-95-5), an additional $26,000,000 would be sold, for a 
total of bonds issued after the sale of $34,135,000, and a 
remaining authorized unissued amount after the sale of 
$42,165,000. The proceeds from the sale of the proposed 
$26,000,000 in bond funds (Series 1995B) would be used for 
construction and installation of a new irrigation system for 
certain areas of Golden Gate Park, improvements to the lakes 
in the Park, and for disabled access improvements to the 
Park. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. General provisions of the sale of the bond funds (Series 

1995A, and Series 1995B) would be as follows: 

• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled to be held on 
July 11, 1995. 

• Under the proposed resolution (File 170-95-5), the bonds 
would be sold at an interest rate which would not exceed 11 
percent per year and will mature in the year 2015. Bond 
payments will be made semi-annually beginning December 
15, 1995. 

• Property taxes collected to redeem the bonds will be 
deposited in the special funds account which would be 
created specifically for this purpose. 

• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to be 
issued, is incorporated in the proposed resolution for 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official statement 
would be available to all bidders for the bonds. 

• Bonds will be awarded to the bidder whose bid represents 
the lowest interest cost to the City. 

• The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or financial 
institutions to distribute bond interest payments. 

2. Under the proposed resolution, the annual interest rate for 
the bonds could not exceed 11 percent. However, Ms. 
Stephanie Carlisle of the Office of the Chief Administrative 
Officer, reports that if the bonds were sold today, the bonds 
would probably be sold at an overall interest rate of 
approximately 6 percent. 

3. Ms. Carlisle estimates that with a 20 year term for the 
bonds and assuming an interest rate of approximately 6 
percent the proposed sale of bonds in the total amount of 
$44,480,000 would result in a total debt service requirement 
of approximately $77 million over the life of the bonds. Over 
the 20 year period, this would result in an average debt 
service requirement of approximately $3.9 million per year. 
According to Ms. Carlisle, at the estimated interest rate of 6 
percent, the City's debt service requirement for these bonds 
in FY 1995-96 would be approximately $2,669,000, and would 
be interest only, for approximately 11.5 months. In order to 
lower the City's overall debt service costs for the next two 
years, the CAO's Office is proposing interest only payments 
on these bonds until FY 1997-98, when principal payments 
would begin. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



4. Based on an interest rate of 6 percent, the proposed bond 
issuance in the amount of $44,480,000 would result in an 
increase in the property tax rate of approximately $0.0072 
per $100 in 1995-96. At that rate, the owner of a house 
assessed at $300,000 would pay approximately $21.10 in 
additional property taxes annually due to the issuance of 
these bonds. 

5. Ms. Carlisle states that the City's General Obligation 
bonding capacity, which is equal to three percent of the City's 
net assessed property value, was $1,659,708,424 as of April 
30, 1995. Ms. Carlisle advises that the amount of the City's 
outstanding General Obligation bonds at the present time is 
$651,315,000. Therefore, the City's current available General 
Obligation bonding capacity is approximately $1,008,393,424 
($1,659,708,424 bonding capacity less $651,315,000 in 
outstanding bonds). The proposed sale of bonds in the 
amount of $44,480,000 would reduce the City's bonding 
capacity from $1,008,393,424 to approximately $963,913,424. 

6. Ms. Carlisle advises that the cost of issuing the bonds, 
including fees for private bond counsel and the services of the 
Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney, are expected 
to be approximately $200,000 and would be allocated 
approximately as follows: 

Estimated 
Series Description Issuance Cost 

1995A Public Safety Improvement Projects, 1990 $86,475 

1995B Golden Gate Park Improvements, 1992 113.525 

Total $200,000 



7. Approval of the proposed resolution (File 170-95-5) would 
permit the sale of the proposed bonds. However, all future 
expenditure appropriations, including that for the bond 
issuance costs, of the bond proceeds would be subject to 
separate approval by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors 
through appropriation ordinances. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 3 -File 114-94-1 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter 1 of the San Francisco 
Municipal (Building Code) by amending Sections 203 (i), 204 
(a), 212 (d), 333.5 and 1405 and adding Section 1408 to 
establish an Unreinforced Masonry Building (UMB) Appeals 
Board and establishing fees therefor. 

An Amendment of the Whole of the proposed legislation will be 
introduced at the Budget Committee meeting of June 7, 1995. 
This report reflects the Amendment of the Whole. The 
proposed ordinance would establish a nine-member 
Unreinforced Masonry Building (UMB) Appeals Board to hear 
and decide all appeals concerning interpretation of Chapters 
14 and 15 (the City's UMB seismic retrofitting legislation) and 
other related structural provisions of the Code regulating the 
strengthening of UMBs. The proposed UMB Appeals Board 
would have the authority to: 1) review UMB retrofit alteration 
permits; 2) review and recommend approval or disapproval of 
cost estimates presented to the Director of Building Inspection 
in support of applications for demolition permits; and 3) assist 
the Bond and Loan Program Board and Advisory Board on 
technical and code issues related to the Seismic Safety Retrofit 
Program. 

The proposed UMB Appeals Board would be appointed by the 
Building Inspection Commission (BIC) to serve at the 
Commission's pleasure for a three-year term. The proposed 
nine-member Board would consist of the following: 

• Four registered civil engineers to consist of at least one 
structural engineer, one geotechnical engineer, and one 
employee or officer of a testing and inspection agency. 

• A managing employee or officer of a licensed general 
contractor. 

• A licensed architect. 

• An owner of an unreinforced building. 

• A tenant of an unreinforced building. 

• A representative of the Seismic Safety Retrofit Bond 
Program Board. 

The above-noted members of the UMB Appeals Board would 
serve without compensation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



T1 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



In addition to establishing the proposed UMB Appeals Board, 
the proposed ordinance would establish the following UMB 
Appeals Board Filing Fees: 

Each appeal for a variance from or 

interpretation of code requirements: $95.05 

Each appeal for the approval of substitute 
materials or methods of design or 
construction $238.60 

These fees would be deposited into the Department of Building 
Inspection's (DBFs ) Special Revenue Fund and would be used 
to offset DBFs costs associated with the UMB program such as 
the proposed UMB Appeals Board meeting fees, inspections 
and follow-up paperwork. 

Comment: Mr. Frank Chiu, Director of Building Inspection of the 

Department of Building Inspection estimates that the proposed 
UMB Appeals Board Filing Fees should generate at least 
$10,000 annually. As previously noted, the proposed UMB 
Appeals Board Filing Fees would be deposited into the DBFs 
Special Revenue Fund. All appropriations from this Fund are 
subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 






Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

Item 4 - File 97-95-30 

Department: Adult Probation Department 

Item: Ordinance amending the City's Administrative Code by 

adding Section 8.38 thereto, establishing and allowing the 
City and County of San Francisco to collect a Criminal 
Justice Administrative Fee from persons arrested. 

Description: The California Government Code authorizes cities and 

counties to establish and collect an administrative fee from 
arrested persons who have been placed on probation by the 
Courts. This administrative fee may reflect but not exceed 
the actual administrative costs, including applicable 
overhead costs, incurred in processing an arrest. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the San Francisco 
Administrative Code to authorize the Adult Probation 
Department to charge and collect an administrative fee from 
arrested persons, to be known as the Criminal Justice 
Administration Fee. The amount of this fee would be based 
on the actual costs of processing an arrest as determined by 
the Controller in consultation with the Sheriffs Department. 
The Controller, not later than January 1 of each year, would 
reexamine and, if necessary, change the fee to ensure that it 
continues to reflect the costs for services rendered. The 
revenues generated through the collection of such fees would 
be deposited in the General Fund. 

The following is a breakdown of the estimated costs to 
process an arrest, as determined by the Sheriffs Department: 



Department 


Description of Task 


Annual Cost of 
Providing Service 
24 hours per day, 

7 davs Der week 


Estimated 

Time Needed 

Per Arrest 

(in minutes) 


Total 

Estimated 

Cost 


Sheriff 


Inmate booking 
Inmate classification 
Subtotal 


$2,402,301 


9 

17 


$41.14 

36.56 

$77.70 




O.R. interview* 


842,380 


5 


$8.01 


Police 


Inmate search 
Inmate booking 
Medical triage** 
Subtotal 


517,190 


2 

9 

_4 

15 


$1.97 

8.85 

394 

$14.76 




I.D. processing 


393,449 


7 


$5.24 



BOAKD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 





Annual Cost of 


Estimated 






Providing Service 


Time Needed 


Total 




24 hours per day, 


Per Arrest 


Estimated 


Department Description of Task 


7 davs per week 


(in minutes) 


Cost 


Public Health Medical triage** 




4 


$5.55 


Medical screening*** 




1Q 


13,89 


Subtotal 


$729,833 


14 


$19.44 


TOTAL 






$125.15 



* During the O.R. ("own recognizance") interview, the Sheriffs Department 
determines whether an arrested person should be released on his or her own 
recognizance. 



Recommendation: 



** An arrested person who has sustained bodily injuries is examined and treated by a 
medical triage, consisting of DPH nurses and located directly at the jail, prior to 
being booked by the Sheriffs Department. 

*** As part of the booking process, nurses are required to perform a medical 
screening, in which a nurse questions the arrested person regarding his or her 
medical history. 

Based on the Sheriffs determination that the estimated cost 
of processing an arrest is $125.15, the Adult Probation 
Department proposes an administrative fee of $125 per 
arrested person. The Adult Probation Department advises 
that it would have the discretion to exempt arrested persons 
from this proposed fee, depending on a determination as to 
the individual's ability to pay. 

The Adult Probation Department reports that, of the 
approximately 50,000 arrests in San Francisco in FY 1993- 
94, the Municipal and Superior Courts granted probation to 
7,312 arrested persons. Thus, under the proposed ordinance, 
only these 7,312 arrested persons would be subject to the 
proposed $125 administrative fee. Of these 7,312 arrests, the 
Adult Probation Department estimates that it would be able 
to collect the proposed administrative fee from 40 percent or 
approximately 2,925 persons. Thus, the total estimated 
revenues from the proposed $125 administrative fee are 
$365,625 per year. Based on an approximately 1.3-month 
implementation period, estimated fee revenues of $325,000 
have been included in the Adult Probation's proposed FY 
1995-96 budget. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Item 5 - File 97-95-32 

Department: Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending the Administrative Code by amending 
Section 37 A. 1 to exempt certain dwelling units solely owned 
by a non-profit public benefit corporation from the Rent 
Board Fee, to exempt certain residential care or adult day 
health care facilities for the elderly from the Rent Board 
Fee, and to delete the exemption for owner-occupied 
buildings containing four dwelling units or less from the 
Rent Board Fee. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 37A of the 
Administrative Code, which establishes the Rent Board Fee 
to support residential rent stabilization and arbitration 
administration and enforcement efforts, in order to make 
this Chapter conform with Chapter 37, which is the basic 
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. 
The Rent Board Fee is assessed on all residential rental 
units covered by the Residential Rent Stabilization and 
Arbitration Ordinance. 

Section 37A.2 of the Administrative Code establishes that 
the per unit Rent Board Fee is to be calculated annually on 
July 31, by dividing the projected annual cost of funding the 
Rent Board plus related administrative costs by the total 
number of residential units estimated to pay the fee (minus 
any balance remaining in the Rent Board Fund), not to 
exceed $10 per unit. In FY 1994-95, the Rent Board Fee was 
$10 per unit. 

During the past year, the following changes have been 
made to the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration 
Ordinance, affecting the units covered by the Ordinance 
and subject to the Rent Board Fee: 

• Elimination of the exemption from the Rent Board Fee 
for owner-occupied buildings containing four units or less. 
This exemption was eliminated from the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance with voter 
approval of Proposition I in November of 1994, which 
resulted in placing all such units (except those which 
received certificates of occupancy after the adoption of the 
original Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance in 
June of 1979) under rent control. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

• Exempting from the Rent Board Fee dwelling units 
solely owned by a non-profit public benefit corporation 
governed by a board of directors the majority of which are 
residents of the units, in cases where the corporate by-laws 
state that rent increases must be approved by the majority 
of the residents. A non-profit public benefit corporation is a 
non-profit entity which is established for any public or 
charitable purposes pursuant to the California Corporation 
Code. Mr. Joseph Grubb, Executive Director of the 
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, 
states that this exemption was added in order to clarify the 
types of non-profit public benefit corporations that are 
exempt from the Rent Ordinance. This exemption was 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in July of 1993 
(Ordinance 233-93, File 109-93-3). 

• Changing the exemption of "non-profit homes for the 
aged" to specifically exempt from the Rent Board Fee 
residential care or adult day health care facilities for the 
elderly which must be operated pursuant to a license issued 
by the California Department of Social Services. This 
language change was approved by the Board of Supervisors 
in December of 1994 (Ordinance 446-984). 

Comments: 1. Mr. Grubb states that the provision eliminating the 

exemption for owner-occupied buildings of four units or less 
is expected to increase the number of units subject to the 
Rent Board Fee from approximately 160,000 to 
approximately 190,000 units, or an additional 30,000 units. 

2. The provision exempting from the Rent Board Fee 
dwelling units solely owned by non-profit public benefit 
corporations controlled by tenants would, according to Mr. 
Grubb, effect only an estimated 30 units. 

3. The provision changing the wording to exempt licensed 
residential care and adult day health care facilities from the 
Rent Board Fee, instead of non-profit homes for the aged, is 
expected to result in exemption of approximately 100 fewer 
units from the Rent Board Fee than are currently exempted 
under this provision. 

4. In summary, the net effect of the changes to Section 
37 A. 1 in the proposed ordinance would be that 
approximately 30,070 (30,000 plus 100 less 30) more units 
would be subject to the Rent Board Fee. Mr. Grubb states 
that he expects the Rent Board Fee to remain stable at $10 
per unit in FY 1995-96, so that the proposed changes will 
increase total revenues by an estimated $300,700 annually, 
to allow the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

lfi 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



more fully cover the costs of administering the Rent Control 
Ordinance, and possibly to create a small reserve to carry 
the Department into FY 1996-97. 

5. Each of the proposed changes to Section 37A.1 of the 
Administrative Code, pertaining to units for which the Rent 
Board Fee must be paid, has already been made to the 
definitions included in Section 37.2 of the Administrative 
Code, pertaining to units covered by the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



File 78-95-3 



Note: This item was continued from the April 26, 1995 meeting of the 

Budget Committee. 

Item: This item is a hearing to consider the status of the City's 

Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan and ways to improve 
the participation of City employees in the Plan. 



Description: 



Comments: 



The City's Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan, established 
pursuant to Federal Code Section 125, has been administered 
by the City's Health Service System since 1991. Under the 
Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan, a City employee may 
elect to have a specified amount of money deducted from 
his/her gross earnings, before taxes are taken out, to be used 
for payment of dependent care costs, thereby lowering City 
employees' taxable income. The monies that are deducted for 
this purpose are placed in an account and are used to 
reimburse the employee for dependent care expenses. 

The Federal government has set the maximum annual 
allowable contribution towards a dependent care 
reimbursement plan at $5,000 for a married couple filing 
jointly or for a single parent/individual. The maximum limit 
for a married person filing separately is $2,500. Qualified 
dependent care expenses include costs for child care for 
children under 13 years of age and custodial care (e. g. 
housekeeping services, preparation of food, assistance in 
maintaining personal hygiene) for a spouse or a dependent 
who is incapable of self-care (e. g., an invalid parent). 
Dependent care does not include health care services. 

1. Mr. Bill Irwin of the Health Service System advises that 
only City employees who are Health Service System members 
are entitled to enrollment in the City's Dependent Care 
Reimbursement Plan. According to Mr. Irwin, of the 
approximately 24,500 City employees who are Health Service 
System members, only 272 employees or approximately one 
percent are currently enrolled in the City's Dependent Care 
Reimbursement Plan. 

2. Mr. Irwin reports that employee enrollment in the City's 
Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan represents a savings to 
the City because the monies which are deducted from the 
employee's gross income are not subject to the City's payment 
of costs for Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Irwin reports 
that the average amount deducted from gross earnings for 
the 272 employees currently enrolled in the Plan is $161 
biweekly or approximately $4,202 annually for each 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



employee. Based on 272 employees, the total amount 
deducted annually for this purpose is approximately 
$1,142,944. According to Mr. Irwin, based on the $1,142,994, 
the current savings to the City for not having to pay Social 
Security and Medicare costs at 7.65 percent is approximately 
$87,439. 

3. Mr. Randy Smith, Executive Director of the Health Service 
System of the Human Resources Department advises that 
the cost to administer the Dependent Care Reimbursement 
Plan is $60 per participant annually and is paid for by the 
participants. Mr. Smith notes that Section 16.903 of the 
Administrative Code provides that the City not be 
responsible for any direct cost to administer this Plan. The 
Human Resources Department contracts with Colonial Life & 
Accident Insurance Company to implement the Plan. 

4. According to Mr. Smith, employee participation in the Plan 
could potentially be increased by making prospective 
employees more aware of the Plan through the enclosure of 
an informational flyer or brochure with City employee's 
payroll checks and/or distributing informational posters on 
the Plan to City departments. Mr. Smith advises that 
currently information on the Plan is included in the Open 
Enrollment Benefit booklet, which is made available to 
members of the Health Service System, as well as in an 
informational brochure, which is available. Mr. Smith states 
that based on the experience of other jurisdictions which 
provide a Dependent Care Reimbursement Plan, the 
maximum estimated employee participation which can be 
expected with regard to this Plan is 735 employees or three 
percent of the 24,500 employees that are eligible for the Plan. 
If employee participation is increased by 463 from 272 to 735, 
it could result in estimated additional annual savings to the 
City of $148,833 or 7.65 percent of $1,945,526 (463 employees 
x a deduction of $4,202 annually for each employee). 

5. Mr. Smith reports that the Human Resources Department 
could take responsibility for printing and distributing 
informational posters to City departments on the Dependent 
Care Reimbursement Plan, which would be less expensive 
than the option of enclosing a flyer or brochure with City 
employees payroll checks. Mr. Smith advises that he believes 
the costs to print and distribute the posters to City 
departments would be minimal and could be absorbed in the 
Human Resources Department's existing budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Item 7 - File 101-94-110 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Public Library 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Ordinance appropriating and rescinding $4,494,000 of 
1990 Earthquake Safety Bonds from the Department of 
Public Works to various Public Library Capital 
Improvement Projects. 

$4,494,000 

1990 Earthquake Safety Bond 

In 1990, voters approved the 1990 Earthquake Safety 
Bond measure, in order to fund the Earthquake Safety 
Program which would provide seismic upgrading to 
buildings throughout the City. Included in this bond 
measure was $5.3 million to provide seismic upgrades to 
the following nine Branch Libraries: (1) Marina Branch 
Library, (2) Western Addition Branch Library, (3) 
Excelsior Branch Library, (4) North Beach Branch 
Library, (5) Eureka Valley Branch Library, (6) Ortega 
Branch Library, (7) Golden Gate Branch Library, (8) 
Bernal Heights Branch Library, and (9) West Portal 
Branch Library. 

The proposed ordinance would completely revise the 
Library's original allocation of its share of the 1990 
Earthquake Safety Bond Funds. The proposed funds 
would instead be used for (1) completion of the Chinatown 
Branch Library Renovation; (2) the Richmond Branch 
Library Renovation; and (3) the testing, inspection, and 
building evaluation of the 9 Branch Libraries that were 
originally slated for seismic retrofit, as well as the Noe 
Valley Branch, as follows: 

Chinatown Branch Library Renovation $2,500,000 

Richmond Branch Library Renovation 1,544,000 

Testing, Inspection & Building Evaluation 

of 10 Branch Libraries 450.000 

TOTAL $4,494,000 

Mr. Jorge Alfaro of the DPW advises that, based on DPW 
staff recommendations, the Public Library has decided to 
change its priorities for the use of the Earthquake Safety 
Program funds, for the following reasons: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



• DPW has determined that the current allocation for the 
renovation of the nine branch libraries, in the amount of 
$5.3 million, would be insufficient, particularly if 
unforeseen costs are discovered, as they were for the 
Chinatown Branch Library. (See details below and 
Comment No. 4). 

• The Chinatown Branch Library renovation, which was 
to be completely funded by the 1988 Public Library 
Improvement Bond, has incurred unforeseen cost 
overruns, and cannot be completed without an additional 
$2.5 million. (See details below and Attachments 1, 2 and 
3 provided by the Department of Public Works.) 

• The Richmond Branch Library, which was not one of the 
original nine Branch Libraries slated to receive seismic 
upgrade, has been determined to have the highest risk of 
seismic instability of all branch libraries that have been 
evaluated, and requires immediate seismic upgrading (see 
details below). 

• DPW and the Library wish to carry out testing, 
inspection, and building evaluations of the 10 Branch 
Libraries targeted for seismic upgrade, in order to verify 
that the cost estimates for the construction are accurate 
prior to making a funding commitment for the retrofits. 

The proposed 1990 Earthquake Safety Bond funds, in the 
amount of $4,494,000, are to be provided through (1) the 
rescission and reappropriation of funds which were 
previously appropriated for programming, planning, 
design, and construction costs for seismic retrofit of the 
nine Branch Libraries, in the amount of $2,365,518, and 
(2) $2,128,482 of surplus funds which were originally 
appropriated for other completed Earthquake Safety 
Program projects, for a total of $4,494,000 ($2,365,518 
plus $2,128,482). Specifically, the funding would be 
reallocated as follows: 

Chinatown Branch Library Renovation ($2.500.000) 

The original estimated total cost for the Chinatown 
Branch Library project was $4,936,877. Including the 
proposed request of $2,500,000, and a prior supplemental 
appropriation of $1,700,000, the present estimated cost of 
this project is $9,136,877, which is $4,200,000 or 85 
percent more than the original estimate. (See Comment 
No. 1 and Attachment 1.) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



The renovation of the Chinatown Branch Library began 
on April 1, 1994, in order to provide seismic upgrades, 
handicapped accessibility and a building addition which 
would provide expanded public space and expanded room 
to house the Chinatown Branch Library's collections. The 
budget for the renovation project was originally 
$4,936,877. However, DPW completed designs and hired a 
contractor without first conducting extensive testing and 
inspection to verify the integrity of the foundation. During 
the construction phase of the project it was discovered 
that the original design plans prepared in 1919 misstated 
the actual site condition. DPW was required to prepare a 
new design and revise the construction contract, in order 
to correct major deficiencies in the building's foundation. 

In October of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation request, in the amount of 
$1,700,000 from the 1988 Public Library Improvement 
Bond, to be used for the additional costs associated with 
the new design (File 101-94-15). However, Mr. James 
Chia, DPW Project Manager, states that the supplemental 
appropriation was requested prior to the completion of the 
revised DPW drawings, and prior to detailed negotiations 
with the contractor regarding the changes in the scope of 
work. 

According to Mr. Chia, DPW underestimated the cost to 
complete the project. Mr. Chia states that the proposed 
additional $2,500,000 is now required to complete the 
renovations at the Chinatown Branch Library. Mr. Chia 
advises that DPW has now negotiated 80 percent of the 
revised scope of work with the contractor, and has 
estimated the cost of the remaining 20 percent of the 
revised scope of work. Mr. Chia states that he is confident 
that the project can be completed with this subject 
requested $2,500,000. 

Attachment 1 contains the total original estimated costs of 
the Chinatown Branch Library renovation by category, 
including planning, design, and construction costs, the 
current estimated costs by each category and the 
additional funds needed. Attachment 2 provides the same 
breakdown of original and projected costs for just the 
construction contract. 

Attachment 3 provides a written summary of why the 
overages have occurred in the Chinatown Branch Library 
renovation. This summary is broken down by the various 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
B UDGET C OMMITTEE 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



problem categories, including the amounts involved. All 
three Attachments were provided by Mr. Chia. 



The funds for completion of the Chinatown Branch 
Library renovation would be used as follows: 

Planning (DPW) (approximately 237.1 hours @ 
$62 per hour) $14,702 

Design (DPW) (approximately 149.5 hours @ 
$56 per hour) 8,373 

Construction Support (DPW) (approximately 
5,090.8 hours @ $56 per hour) 285,085 

Construction Management (DPW) (approx. 
164.1 hours® $63 per hour) 10,340 

Construction Contract 1,911,924 

Construction Contingency (11.5%) 220,405 

Church Lease & Site Access 28,855 

DPW Bureau of Building Inspection Permit 20 f 316 

TOTAL $2,500,000 

Mr. Chia advises that the construction work would 
continue to be performed by the joint venture contractor of 
CICO/Joo Construction, consisting of two firms, CICO 
Construction and T.E. Joo Construction, Inc., an MBE 
firm. CICO/Joo Construction was selected by DPW 
through a competitive bid process in December of 1993 for 
the Chinatown Branch Library renovation project. 



Richmond Branch Library Renovation ($1.544.000) 

In 1992, DPW conducted a Seismic Assessment Study of 
the Richmond Branch Library. The study revealed that 
the Richmond Branch Library had a seismic hazard rating 
of 4.0, which represents the highest risk for a building 
collapse in the event of a major earthquake. DPW 
recommends that this building be given the highest 
priority for renovation for the purpose of mitigating the 
building's seismic risk. (See Comment No. 2.) The cost of 
the proposed Richmond Branch Library Renovation is as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



DPW Project Manager (approximately 78 hours 

@ $84 per hour) $6,552 

DPW Clerical (approximately 21.3 hours @ 

$42 per hour) 896 

DPW Bureau of Architecture (BOA) (approx. 

1,017 hours @ average of $65 per hour) 66,108 

DPW Bureau of Engineering (approximately 

1,190 hours @ average of $87 per hour) 103,580 

Construction Management & Inspection 

(DPW) (approximately 1,546.1 hours @ 

average of $88 per hour) 136.064 

Subtotal DPW costs $313,200 

Construction Contract 980,400 

Relocation 250.400 

TOTAL $1,544,000 

Mr. Alfaro advises that DPW has not selected a contractor 
for the renovation of the Richmond Branch Library. 
Therefore, funds in the amount of $980,400 should be 
reserved pending the selection of a contractor, the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractor, and the contract cost 
detail. The DPW currently projects that construction of 
Richmond Branch Library Renovation will be started in 
August of 1996 and completed by August of 1997. The 
estimated library relocation cost of $250,000 has been 
included in the project cost, as shown above. 

Testing. Inspection and Building Evaluation of 10 
Branch Libraries ($450.000) 

DPW proposed to test and inspect 10 Branch Libraries 
(the original 9 that were to receive seismic upgrades 
through the 1990 Bond fund, and the Noe Valley Branch, 
which has a high assessed seismic hazard rating), to 
identify any unknown structural conditions which would 
inhibit the ability of the Branches to withstand an 
earthquake, and to discover any unforeseen costs 
associated with the renovation of these Branches. In 
addition, each of the Branches would receive a seismic 
hazard rating, to guide retrofit scheduling. A seismic 
hazard rating determines the risk of partial or total 
collapse of a building in the event of an earthquake. Mr. 
Alfaro advises that five of the 10 Branches have already 
been evaluated by DPW to determine the seismic hazard 
rating, but still require testing and inspection services. 
The proposed funds would be expended as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Branch Library 

Noe Valley Branch $30,000 

Marina Branch 60,000 

Western Addition Branch 60,000 

Excelsior Branch 60,000 

North Beach Branch 30,000 

Eureka Branch 60,000 

Ortega Branch 30,000 

Golden Gate Branch 30,000 

Bernal Heights Branch 60,000 

West Portal Branch 30.000 

Total $450,000 

Mr. Alfaro advises that the testing, inspection, and 
seismic assessment work would be conducted jointly by 
DPW/DPH ($123,000) and prime contractor Don Todd 
Associates and subcontractors ($327,000). Don Todd 
Associates is an MBE firm. Mr. Alfaro advises that Don 
Todd Associates entered into a Master Agreement with 
DPW in 1991, through a competitive bid process, in order 
to provide program consultation services for the 
Earthquake Safety Project. Attachment No. 4 contains the 
budget details for DPW and Don Todd Associates. DPW 
anticipates that a final report on this testing, inspection 
and seismic assessment work will be completed by 
October of 1995. 

The proposed ordinance would not fund the actual seismic 
retrofit of these branch libraries. As described above, 
$450,000 would be used to analyze site conditions. Seismic 
upgrade of these branch libraries would require additional 
funding. (See Comment No. 4) 

Comments: 1. In 1988, the voters approved the 1988 Public Library 

Improvement Bond measure, in order to pay for 
improvements for the Public Library system. Of the 
original bond amount of $109.5 million, $104.5 was 
allocated for construction of the new Main Library and 
$5.0 million was allocated for the renovation of the 
following five Branch Libraries: (1) Park Branch Library, 
(2) Presidio Branch Library, (3) Sunset Branch Library, 
(4) Chinatown Branch Library, and (5) Mission Branch 
Library. 

Mr. Alfaro advises that all of the proposed renovations to 
the five Branch Libraries have been completed, except for 
the Chinatown Branch Library, due to unforeseen 
problems (See above and Attachment No. 3 for a 
description of the problems associated with the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 

27 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Chinatown Branch Library renovation), and the Mission 
Branch Library. Mr. Alfaro advises that DPW is currently 
in the design phase for the Mission Branch Library. Mr. 
Alfaro advises that DPW has the required funds to 
complete all of the renovations for the Mission Branch 
Library. As previously noted, Mr. Chia advises that in 
order to complete the Chinatown Branch Library 
renovations, an additional amount of $2.5 million is now 
required. However, the full $5.0 million allocated to 
Branch Library renovations in the 1988 Bond measure 
has been expended. 

Mr. Chia advises that because the renovation of the 
Chinatown Branch Library involves seismic upgrading, 
the use of funds, in the amount of $2.5 million, from the 
1990 Earthquake Safety Bond to complete this renovation 
project is appropriate. 

2. Mr. Alfaro advises that the proposed $1,544,000 for the 
renovation of the Richmond Branch Library includes 
funding for testing, inspection & building evaluation. Mr. 
Alfaro advises that DPW has reserved an additional 
$884,638 of program contingency funds to be used for this 
project if any unforeseen costs are discovered during the 
testing phase. Mr. Alfaro advises that DPW does not 
expect to discover any major unforeseen costs, nor does 
DPW anticipate using all of the program contingency 
funds for this project. 

3. Deputy City Attorney Victor Castillo states that to the 
extent the proposed expenditures are for seismic 
improvements or disabled access improvement, the City 
can elect to use 1990 Earthquake Safety Bond Funds. 

4. Mr. Alfaro advises that in order to fund the seismic 
upgrades for the nine Branch Libraries which were 
originally targeted for seismic upgrades, DPW expects to 
propose a new bond measure, or to obtain grant funding. 
Mr. Alfaro advises that the estimated cost of the seismic 
upgrades for the nine Branch Libraries is now projected to 
total approximately $8,887,000, or approximately $3.6 
million higher than the $5.3 million allocated to the 
Library from the 1990 Earthquake Safety Bond measure. 
Mr. Alfaro states that the new retrofit cost estimate is 
based on improved estimation methodology, using an 
analysis of cost overruns in comparable, completed 
seismic retrofit projects. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 7, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

However, Mr. Alfaro advises that a future funding request 
would not only include funding for these nine Branch 
Libraries, but also for an additional six Library Branches, 
for an amount of approximately $5,986,000, for a total 
potential future bond measure or grant application of 
approximately $14,873,000. (Mr. Alfaro stresses that this 
is a preliminary cost estimate.) The six additional 
branches would be: Anza, Noe Valley, Merced, Parkside, 
Potrero and Anna Waden Branch Libraries. 

5. According to Mr. Chia, the City (and not the contractor) 
is responsible for all of the overages which have occurred 
on the Chinatown Branch Library Renovation project. 
Deputy City Attorney Mr. George Wong generally concurs 
with the Department of Public Works that the City is 
liable to the Contractor for additional costs to correct 
design defects and to perform additional work due to 
differing site conditions. 

6. Prior to the submission of the 1994 $1,700,000 
supplemental appropriation previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors, the Library Commission approved a 
change to the original renovation plans for the Chinatown 
Branch Library Renovation project that was unrelated to 
the structural problems that had been identified. This 
change involved construction of a roof garden and related 
improvements, including an elevator and stairs to the 
roof, for total current estimated cost of $455,066. Given 
the extent of the cost overruns for this project, the Budget 
Analyst questions the appropriateness of this addition. 
However, at this point these improvements are already 
under construction. 

7. Mr. Chia states that, if the proposed ordinance is 
approved, the Chinatown Branch Library renovation 
project is scheduled for completion by March of 1996. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance by reserving $980,400, 
pending (a) selection of a contractor for renovation of the 
Richmond Branch Library, and (b) provision of contract 
cost details and the MBE/WBE status of the contractor to 
the Board of Supervisors. 

2. Given the serious problems identified with respect to 
the Chinatown Branch Library Renovation project, we 
consider approval of the proposed ordinance to be a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 

29 



MfiY 30 '95 02:34PM BUREAU OF ENGINEERING 



Attachment 1 



o 

> 

o 



o 

UJ 

DC 

o 

LL 

H 
LU 


Q 

Z> 
CO 

< H 

£u 

□Q UJ 

Oa. 
< 

x 
o 



LU 

or 

>- 

DC 
< 
DC 

_j 

x 
o 



IT) 
O 



s § 

lu ;!_ 
O o 



z h 

o m 



UJ 

O 

Q 
CD 



S 



8 



5 



81 



3 




8 



a. 



3 

GO 



0£ 

H 
2 
UJ 

I 



MAY 30 '95 02:34PM BUREAU OF ENGINEERING 



"Z <J - 

°o 

H LU 



< 
> 

o 



DC 

£ 



LU ULJ 

DC o 

>- Q 
□C 3 

< CQ 

CQ b 

3 < 

< ° 

So 

CO z 

zQ 
<cn 

"Z H 
— (/) 

oo 
o 



10 

a 

CO 
LO 







o 


o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


1* 


CD 


"* 


_l 






CO 


CD 


CM 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CM 


< 

Z CO 


Q 

LU 
Q 




3 


O 
LO~ 


in 


CO 

r-" 


CO 


r^. 


CO 


DDITfO 
FUND 




o 

CN 


& 


^ 


5 


CD 


CO 


LU 

LU 

Z 
















, — 


< 


























o 


CO 


CO 


co 


T 


CD 


CO 


cr V. 


in 


CO 

oo" 


CO 
O 


CM 

o" 


8 


CD 

CO~ 


B 

CO 


1? 


§ 


CD 


CO 
CvJ 


9 


CO 


CO 

co 


CO 


s 


R. 


CUR 
FORE 


o 


CO 














co" 






S 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CV! 


w te 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CO 




CO 


o 


o 


© 


o 


o 


o 


00 


3 s 


«* 


•*" 


Lo" 


o" 


LO 


o 


o 


in* 


en 


CO 
CD 


CO 


CO 

CN 


ID 
CM 


<3- 


3 


r^- 


CM 

CM 


CO 
CO 


'REV 
ORE 


CM 

o 


CO 














^ 


Q- u. 
























CM 
CO 


8 












$ 


_i . 




T — 


o 












^r— 


< is 

^ CD 




CO 

9 


If 

CO 












n 


CD Q 




a$ 














co" 


cc 5 




















o m 






































15 








































o 




















1- 








>, 


















I 


o 

c 

CD 


03 
> 

c 


c 
ai 




tn 

CD 
D 


g 
I 








c 


C 


0) 


CD 


c 


JO. 










o 


O 




T3 


O) 


o 


g5 








O 


o 


< 


CD 


V) 


co 


CD 








c 


c 


c 


oc 


CD 
X3 


Z3 


CJ 








a 

o 

c 


g 
o 

3 

is 

GO 

C 


cd 

ri 

CD 

o 


c 

O 

c 
3 


0! 

en 
c 
o 

CO 


o 
CQ 

ai 
o 


oo 
CO 








o 


o 


o 


o 


IM 


CO 








O 


O 


(X 


U- 




co 


s 


a 





31 



Attachment 3 
Page 1 of 2 



MAY 30 '95 02:33PM BUREAU OF ENGINEERING 

jty and County of San Francisco 
Bureau of Engineering 




Department of Public Works 

Project Management Division 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: Michelle Roggers 

BOS's Budget Analysis 

Faxed to Michelle at 252-0461 

FROM: James Chia 

Project Manager 



Post 



DATE: May 30, 1995 

-It^brancf faiHransmitta) memo 7671 



h j«M^U€ 



Depl. ' ' 



€<*. 



SUBJECT: Chinatown Branch Library l_ 

Supplemental Appropriation Request 
File No, 101-94-110 



3C^P4& / 



\A?i€S uJilb 



pp*J 



£Z*-4^> 



S5S--4S-I 



Per your request, I am sending you this brief description of the problem encountered 
and a brief explanation of the additional funds needed for the Chinatown Branch Library 
Renovation project. 

Chinatown Branch Library Renovation (Amount Requested: $2,500,000) 
Because our engineers did not want to disrupt library operations, they did not do 
extensive testing and inspection to verify the integrity of the foundation prior to design 
and construction. They relied on the original building plans. During demolition of the 
existing library basement, the contractor encountered site conditions very different from 
those on the original building plans. The contractor who built the original library in 1919 
did not build it according to the original drawings. The foundation and basement of the 
existing building were found to be structurally inadequate and the building construction 
was found to be that of an unreinforced masonry building. Thus, the building required a 
total seismic upgrade including structural steel bracing and roof bracing as well as 
totally new foundations. To keep construction delays to a minimum, we submitted a 
preliminary supplemental appropriation request to the Board of Supervisors for 
additional funding while our engineers were working on the necessary structural 
redesign for the building and associated detailed cost estimates. 

In August 1994, a supplemental appropriation request was submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors. On October 17, 1994, by Ordinance No. 367-94, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated $1,700,000 from the 1930 Public Library Improvement Bond. 



30 Van Ncsa Avenue, 5th Floor. San Francisco, CA 94102 (t 1 5) 550-4024 /FAX (415) i.'o«-4b19 



MAY 30 '95 02:33PM BUREAU OF ENGINEERING 



P. 2/2 

Attachment ' 
Page 2 of 2 



On September 14, 1994, the drawings for the foundation redesign were completed and 
forwarded to the contractor. On October 11, 1994, the drawings for the structural steel 
bracing design were completed and forwarded to the contractor. With the redesigned 
drawings completed and cost and negotiation of changes and delays well underway, 
we now have determined that we have greatly under estimated how much we need to 
complete the project. Our current estimate of the total project cost is $9,135,877 
including funds appropriated last October and grant funds This exceeds our current 
budget of $6,636,877 by $2,500,000. Therefore, we are requesting $2,500,000 of 
additional funds for this project. 



Additional Funds Needed: 



Brief Explanation 



1 . Planning & Design ($23,075) 



Additional funds are needed due to the 
construction contract had to be 
advertised and bid twice. 



Construction Support ($285,085) 



Construction Management ($10,340) 



Construction Contract ($1,91 1,926) 



Additional funds are needed to pay for 
the building seismic redesign and 
six (6) more months of engineering 
and architectural support due to delay in 
the completion of the project. 

Additional funds are needed to pay for 
additional construction management 
due to delay in the completion of the 
project. 

Additional funds are needed to pay for 
the additional work mentioned above. 



5. Church Lease & Site Access ($28,853) Additional funds are needed to pay for 

additional lease payment to the Korean 
Church and encroachments to four 
other adjacent properties. 



BBI Permit ($20,316) 



Additional funds are needed to pay for 
review of the redesigned plans and 
specifications by BBI and the issuance 
of the new permit for the redesign. 



File5148A#13 



-17 



MAY 31 '95 07:00 AT&T FAX 9022FX 



pq 







< 




►- 




p 




1- 






-J 


g 




* 


2 


< 




o 




LU 




1- 




cc 




O 




I 


X 


o 


1 


z 


cq 


5 


III 


9 




o 


a 


CJ 




z 


T 


ft 


O 


s 


n 


* 


§ 




£ 


o 






<■ 




> 


< 




z 




E 








2 




ec 




P 




3 




1 




gfc 


g 


| 


Q 


> 




<x> 










5 


s 




X 


5 1 


rr 


i- 


71 


O 


X 


> 




_i 








o 


5 


X 







H 8 
3 



Attachment 4 
Page 1 of 3 



MAY 



31 '95 07=00 AT&T FAX 9022FX 



i\-n 


M 


St 


*2 


< 


S 


£ 


o 


I I 


ttS 


O UU 


z m 


z 


Ul 111 


Hi? 


§" 


Z z 


K O 


£j a 


£9 


w 5] 


§ d 


2 < 


> 


< 


Z 


<£ 


5 


E 


f 




E 




— 




^ 




2^ 


_l w 


*&■ 


a: O 


S£ 


5fS 


l- 3 


i^S 


>• 




<r t- 


*2 


X 





? E 

8 g 



8 


fi 


r» 


p 


8 


& 


1 


§ 


& 


3 



8 1 

8 g 

8 I 

8 g 

R i 



35 



MAY 31 '95 07=01 AT&T FAX 9022FX 



?8 



Attachment h 
Page 3 of 3 



? 2 



o 5 



95 
o <s 



S 5 

£2 



« 



. (0 

o 



rii 



o 
s 

o o 






8 3 



ffl 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

Item 8 - File 101-94-111 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount and 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$575,060 from the General Fund Reserve and rescinding 
$1,008,919 from Uniform Overtime in the Fire Department in 
order to appropriate $1,583,979 to the Department of Human 
Resources for Workers Compensation. 



General Fund Reserve $575,060 

Reappropriation of funds in the Fire Department's 

FY 1994-95 budget from Uniform Overtime 1.008.919 

Total $1,583,979 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
appropriate funding to the Workers Compensation Fund in 
the Department of Human Resources (DHR) in order to offset 
an overall projected funding shortfall of $1,583,979 in the 
General Fund FY 1994-95 workers compensation budget, 
including a deficiency of $1,008,919 for the Fire Department. 
This projected shortfall is based on various departments' 
actual expenditures for workers compensation through April, 
30 1995. The projected funding surplus or shortfall in 
workers compensation for each department is as follows: 







Actual 


Projected 


Estimated 




FY 1994-95 


Expenditures 


Expenditures 


Surplus/ 


Department 


Budget 


7/1/94 - 4/30/95 


5/1/95 - 6/30/95 


(Shortfall) 


Various Departments 


$159,130 


$242,118 


$48,424 


($131,412) 


Mayor 


24,256 


22,286 


4,457 


(2,487) 


Assessor 


38,214 


5,795 


1,159 


31,260 


City Attorney 


48,183 


14,819 


2,964 


30,400 


District Attorney 


104,051 


117,308 


23,462 


(36,719) 


Treasurer 


27,541 


11,653 


2,331 


13,557 


Sheriff 


601,159 


767,697 


153,539 


(320,077) 


Public Defender 


32,529 


2,118 


424 


29,987 


Police 


5,293,268 


4,494,422 


898,884 


(100,038) 


Fire 


3,604,249 


3,363,057 


1,250,111* 


(1,008,919) 


Public Library 


80,000 


28,488 


5,698 


45,814 


Fine Art Museums 


47,475 


79,392 


15,878 


(47,795) 


Municipal Court 


63,071 


69,547 


13,910 


(20,386) 


Superior Court 


113,643 


76,673 


15,335 


21,635 


Juvenile Court 


281,341 


453,878 


90,776 


(263,313) 


Adult Probation 


54,502 


14,349 


2,870 


37,283 


Purchasing 


152,500 


122,851 


24,571 


5,078 


Electricity /Telecom m. 


24,375 


13,156 


2,632 


8,587 


Social Services 


427.989 


253.686 


50.737 


123.566 


Total 


$11,177,476 


$10,153,293 


$2,608,162 


($1,583,979) 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 







BUDGET ANALYST 



**7 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



* The projected expenditures for the Fire Department includes a straight-line 
projection of $672,611 based on the Department's expenditures during the first ten 
months of FY 1994-95, as well as an anticipated increase of $577,500 in workers 
compensation costs resulting from the March 1995 Diamond Heights fire which killed 
one firefighter and injured three firefighters (See Comment No. 1). Thus, the Fire 
Department's total projected expenditures for the period from May 1 through June 
30, 1995 are $1,250,111 ($672,611 plus $577,500). 

Comments: 1. The Fire Department is projecting an increase of $577,500 

in workers compensation costs for the remainder of FY 1994- 
95, resulting from the March 1995 Diamond Heights fire, 
which injured three firefighters. This estimate of $577,500 is 
based on the invoices received to date by the Workers 
Compensation Division for medical expenses. 

2. The Fire Department has identified $1,008,919 in surplus 
funds resulting from savings realized in the Department's 
Overtime, Holiday Pay and Mandatory Fringe Benefits 
accounts. The proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance would reappropriate these surplus funds to the 
Workers Compensation Fund. 

3. During the FY 1994-95 budget review, the Budget Analyst 
estimated that the overall General Fund budget for workers 
compensation, as submitted by the Mayor's Office, was 
underbudgeted by at least $2.9 million. In a prior 
supplemental appropriation request, the Municipal Railway 
(MUNI) requested $2,110,000 in order to partially offset a 
projected shortfall of $2,587,902, as determined by the 
Budget Analyst, in MUNI's FY 1994-95 workers 
compensation budget. Combined with this proposed 
supplemental appropriation of $1,583,979 for the projected 
shortfall in the overall General Fund workers compensation 
budget, the total projected budget deficiency in workers 
compensation is $4,171,881 for FY 1994-95. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

Item 9 - File 127-95-4 



Item: 



Description: 



The proposed ordinance would amend Part III of the 
Municipal Code (Revenue and Finance-Business Regulations) 
to: 

• Decrease the Payroll Tax rate from 1.5% to 1.0% for 
businesses with annual payroll expenses not exceeding 
$333,333 and decrease the Gross Receipts Tax rate for 
businesses subject to the tax by a like amount (primarily 
for businesses with annual gross receipts in the range of 
$1,666,667 and less) commencing January 1, 1996; 

• Increase the Payroll Tax rates from 1.5% to 2.0% for 
businesses with an annual payroll expense of $6,666,667 
or more and increase the tax rate for businesses subject to 
the Gross Receipts Tax by a like amount (primarily for 
businesses with annual gross receipts in the range of 
$33,333,333 and upwards) commencing January 1, 1996; 
and, 

• Decrease the Small Business Tax Exemption tax liability 
threshold from $2,500 to $1,667 commencing January 1, 
1996. (Note: The threshold was lowered to $1,000 in 1993. 
At that time, the Municipal Code amendment provided 
that the exemption threshold would be restored to $2,500 
beginning January 1, 1995.) The proposed amendment 
would continue to exempt all businesses that have annual 
payrolls of $166,667 or less or, in most cases, annual gross 
receipts of $833,500 or less for businesses subject to the 
Gross Receipts Tax. 

Businesses with annual payrolls exceeding $333,333 and less 
than $1,666,667 will continue to pay the current Payroll Tax 
rate of 1.5%. For businesses subject to the Gross Receipts 
Tax, businesses with annual gross receipts between 
$1,666,668 and $33,333,332 (generally) will continue to pay 
current tax rates (in most cases, $3 per $1,000 of gross 
receipts). 

1. The tax rate for businesses with annual total payrolls not 
exceeding $333,333 would decrease from 1.5% to 1.0% under 
this proposed ordinance. Such businesses now pay either a 
Payroll Tax or Gross Receipts Tax (whichever is higher) if 
this tax liability is between $2,501 and $5,000. Under the 
proposed reduced 1% tax rate, such businesses would pay 
either a Payroll Tax or Gross Receipts Tax of between 
approximately $1,668 and $3,333. The Gross Receipts Tax 
would be adjusted similarly for businesses with annual gross 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



tQ 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



receipts of less than or equal to $1,666,667. Such businesses 
now pay, in most cases, between $2,501 and $5,000 per year. 
Under the proposed reduced tax rate, such businesses would 
have a tax liability of between approximately $1,668 and 
$3,333 annually. 

The Controller estimates that the proposed tax rate reduction 
from 1.5 percent to 1.0 percent would reduce business tax 
revenues by $2,950,842 for a full twelve-month period. Since 
the tax reduction would become effective January 1, 1996, 
the reduction to the Fiscal Year 1995-96 tax revenues 
resulting from this ordinance would equal an estimated 
$1,475,421. (The Controller's revenue estimates for this 
legislation are summarized in point 4 below). 

2. The proposed ordinance would also increase the Payroll 
Tax rate from 1.5% to 2.0% for businesses with total payrolls 
exceeding $6,666,667 annually. Such businesses now pay 
$100,000 annually plus 1.5% of payroll exceeding $6,666,667 
annually. Their tax liability would increase to $133,333 and 
2.0% of payroll exceeding $6,666,667 annually. Larger 
businesses subject to the Gross Receipts tax would be 
increased by a like amount. This rate increase would 
primarily apply to businesses with annual gross receipts of 
$33,333,333 and more. 

The Controller estimates that this tax rate increase would 
increase business tax revenues by $22,917,350 for a full year 
and by one half that amount, or $11,458,675 in Fiscal Year 
1995-96, since the ordinance would become effective January 
1, 1996. 

3. Lastly, the definition of the small business exemption 
would be amended such that the same businesses that are 
exempt now would remain exempt under the reduced tax 
rates described in point 1 above. For example, businesses 
with an annual Payroll Tax liability of $2,500 or less are 
presently exempt at the 1.5% rate. All businesses with an 
annual payroll of $166,666.67 or less are therefore exempt. 
Under the proposed ordinance, the small business tax 
exemption would apply to businesses with a tax liability of 
$1,667 or less. This exempts all businesses with an annual 
payroll of $166,700 or less (since the proposed ordinance 
would reduce the Payroll Tax rate from 1.5% to 1.0%), which 
is not materially different from the current exemption level. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

4. Summary of Controller's Revenue Estimate : 

1995-96 Net Revenue Increase - six months 

($11,458,675 less $1,475,421) $ 9,983,254 

12 Month Net Revenue Increase at 

current collection rates $ 19,966,508 

The Budget Analyst agrees with the Controller's revenue 
estimates. 

Recap of Full Year Impact on Busi ness Tax (Payroll Tax and 
Gross Receipts Tax) Revenue 

Current Annual Estimated Payroll Tax Revenue $ 140,613,000 
Current Annual Estimated 

Gross Receipts Tax Revenue 22.211.000 

Total Annual Estimated Business Taxes $ 162,824,000 

Effect of Tax Rate Decrease on an annual basis 

(see point 1 above) (2,950,842) 

Effect of Tax Rate Increase on an annual basis 

(see point 2 above) 22.917.350 

Net Estimated Tax Revenue Produced by this Ordinance 19 r 966 r 508 

Total Annual Estimated Business Tax Revenue 

if this Ordinance is Approved $182,790,508 

Comments: 1. As shown above, approval of this legislation would result 

in net estimated annual increased Payroll and Gross Receipt 
Tax revenues of $19,966,508. However, since the ordinance 
would become effective on July 1, 1996, the estimated 
revenues for Fiscal Year 1995-96 will be one-half of the 
annual revenues or $9,983,254. 

2. Based on data provided by the Tax Collector's Business 
Tax System (BTS), the following effects on San Francisco 
businesses would occur if this proposed ordinance is 
approved: 

• Business tax liability will increase for 203 large 
businesses by an average of $112,893 annually; 

• Business tax liability will decrease for 2,480 small 
businesses by an average of $1,190 annually; and, 

• Current tax liability will remain the same for 43,872 
businesses. 

Recommendation: The proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

/A 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1994 



Items 10 - File 127-95-5 



Item: 



Description: 



The proposed ordinance would amend Part III of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code to: increase the portion of the 
Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel Tax) surcharge, which is 
allocated to the General Fund, by 2 percent (from 2.75 
percent to 4.75 percent effective October 1, 1995. The total 
Transient Occupancy Tax would increase from 12 percent to 
14 percent. The proposed ordinance would also increase the 
Transient Occupancy Tax from 12 percent to 14 percent in 
certain Redevelopment Project Areas. These Redevelopment 
Project Area Hotel Tax Funds are dedicated to debt service 
related to bond funded improvements to the Yerba Buena 
Center and the Moscone Center. 

1. In accordance with Section 502.5. of Part III of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code, the Board of Supervisors last 
increased the portion of the Hotel Tax rate surcharge, which 
is allocated to the General Fund, by 1 percent, from 1.75 
percent to 2.75 percent (increasing the total Hotel Tax rate 
from 11 percent to 12 percent) in August, 1993. The 
proposed ordinance would increase that General Fund 
surcharge by 2 percent from 2.75 percent to 4.75 percent 
effective October 1, 1995. 

2. Of the current 12 percent Hotel Tax rate, revenues from 
the base 8 percent of the 12 percent rate are deposited in the 
Hotel Tax Fund and dedicated to specific programs (see Item 
11, File 127-95-6 for a report on a proposed ordinance that 
would amend the allocations of Hotel Tax Fund revenue). 
The revenues produced by the remaining 4 percent of the 
Hotel Tax rate consist of two surcharges, one surcharge of 
2.75 percent which is allocated to the General Fund and one 
surcharge of 1.25 percent which is allocated to the Moscone 
Center. Based on the Controller's 1995-96 Transient 
Occupancy Tax revenue estimate, the division of revenues 
described above are presently as follows: 



Base Hotel Tax Rate (8%) 
Hotel Tax Surcharge (4%) 
Total (12%) 



1995-96 Estimated Revenue 
$ 64,234,800 
32.117.400 
$ 96,352,200 



Based on the above estimate, if the Transient Occupancy 
Hotel Tax rate related to the 2.75 percent Hotel Tax 
Surcharge were to increase by 2 percent, from 2.75 percent 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



LI 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1994 

to 4.75 percent, the estimated additional Hotel Tax revenues 
collected would be $16,058,700 annually (i.e., for a full 12- 
month period). However, for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year, this 
proposed increase would only be in place for the nine month 
period beginning October 1, 1995 and ending June 30, 1996. 
Also, although the three-month period during which the tax 
rate increase would not be in effect represents 25 percent of 
the Fiscal Year, that three-month period represents 
approximately 29 percent of the revenue collections because 
hotel occupancy rates are generally higher during summer 
months. Therefore, an estimated 71 percent of the revenue 
increase for a full year would accrue to the General Fund 
during the last nine months when the increase in the 
surcharge rate would be in effect. Consequently, the last 
nine months would result in an estimated 71 percent of the 
total estimated additional revenues. Therefore, the 2 percent 
increase in the surcharge for the last nine months of 1995-96 
would increase General Fund revenues by an estimated 
$11,401,677 according to the Controller's estimate. The 
Budget Analyst concurs with this estimate. 

If this proposed legislation is approved, the new total Hotel 
Tax rate of 14 percent will consist of the base Hotel Tax Rate 
of 8 percent which are dedicated to specific programs and a 
Hotel Tax Surcharge rate of 6 percent, including 4.75 
percent allocated to the General Fund and 1.25 percent 
allocated to the Moscone Center. 

3. The attachment to this report presents survey information 
on hotel and lodging tax rates in U.S. Cities. This survey 
was provided to the Budget Analyst by the Convention and 
Visitors Bureau. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

A3 



Survey Provided by Convention and Visitors Bureau 



Attachment 





Hotel/Lodging 


Rank 


Citv Tax % 


1 


Columbus 


..15.75 


2 


Seattle 


..15.2 


3 


Houston 


..15 


4 


Chicago 


..14.86 


5 


Cleveland 


..14.5 


6 


Detroit 


..14 


7 


Los Angeles 


..14 


8 


St. Louis 


..13.85 


9 


Knoxville 


..13.25 


10 


Memphis 


..13.25 


11 


New York 


..13.25 


12 


Anaheim 


..13 


13 


Atlanta 


..13 


14 


Austin 


..13 


15 


Dallas 


..13 


16 


Philadelphia 


..13 


17 


San Antonio 


..13 


18 


Washington, DC 


...13 


19 


Miami 


..12.5 


20 


Nashville 


..12.25 


21 


Atlantic City 


..12 


22 


Baltimore 


..12 


23 


Charlotte 


..12 


24 


Minneapolis* 


...12 


25 


Raleigh 


12 


26 


San Francisco. 


.12 


27 


Kansas City 


..11.98 


28 


Denver 


..11.8 


29 


Sacramento 


..11.5 


30 


New Orleans 


..11 


31 


Orlando 


..11 


32 


Pittsburgh 


..11 


33 


Riverside 


..11 


34 


Jacksonville 


..10.5 


35 


Norfolk 


..10.5 


36 


San Diego 


...10.5 


37 


Tampa 


...10.5 


38 


Phoenix 


...10.35 


39 


Cincinnati 


...10 


40 


Daytona 


...10 


41 


Indianapolis 


...10 


42 


Oakland 


...10 


43 


San Jose 


...10 


44 


West Palm 


...10 


45 


Boston 


....9.7 


46 


Ft. Lauderdale . . . 


....9 


47 


Honolulu 


....9 


48 


Portland 


....9 


49 


Reno 


....9 


50 


Las Vegas 


....8 



Notes 



Additional $2.00 hotel fee per night 
Tax increases 2% as of 7/1/95 



$1.50 hotel occupancy tax per night 



Tax is 2% less for establishments under 50 rooms 



$ 1— $3 additional surcharge fee 



Source: Campaign to Keep Travel Competitive, February, 1995 Update 



44 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



Item 11 - File 127-95-8 



Item: 



Description: 



The proposed ordinance would amend Part III of the 
Municipal Code to increase the Real Property Transfer Tax 
for properties conveyed in which the consideration or value of 
the property is $1.0 million or more (see Comment No. 3). 
The proposed ordinance would also amend the Municipal 
Code to clarify the City and County's authority to increase 
this tax rate under existing law. The current tax rate for such 
properties is $3.75 per $500 of value ($7.50 per $1,000 of 
value) or fractional part thereof. The proposed ordinance 
would increase the tax rate to $7.50 per $500 of value ($15.00 
per $1,000 of value) or fractional part thereof. 

1. The last amendment approved by the Board of Supervisors 
to the Real Property Transfer Tax legislation increased the 
tax rates effective October 1, 1994 to the following levels: 



Property Value 


Existing Rates 

per $500 

or Fraction Thereof 


Existing Rates 

per $1,000 

or Fraction Thereof 


$100 to $250,000 


$2.50 


$5.00 


$250,001 to $999,999 


$3.40 


$6.80 


$1,000,000 or more 


$3.75 


$7.50 



Based on the current tax rate levels shown above, the 
Mayor's proposed 1994-95 budget includes General Fund 
revenue equal to $20,433,000. Of this amount, the projected 
revenue attributable to properties that sell at prices of 
$1,000,000 or more is $10,174,176 at the current tax rate of 
$3.75 per $500 ($7.50 per $1,000). 

2. This proposed ordinance would double the Real Property 
Transfer Tax rate from $3.75 per $500 ($7.50 per $1,000) to 
$7.50 per $500 ($15 per $1,000). On a full, twelve month 
basis therefore, this proposed tax rate increase could be 
expected to produce an additional revenue of $10,174,176 for 
Fiscal Year 1995-96. The Budget Analyst concurs with the 
estimate of the Controller. 

3. At the present tax rate of $3.75 per $500 ($7.50 per 
$1,000), a property that sells for $1.0 million produces Real 
Property Transfer Tax revenue of $7,500. At the proposed 
rate of $7.50 per $500 ($15.00 per $1,000), the same property 
would produce tax revenues of $15,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



6S 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



4. The proposed ordinance also amends Section 1101 of Part 
III of the Municipal Code, removing language that states that 
the Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance .... is adopted 
pursuant to the authority contained in Part 6.7 (commencing 
with Section 11901) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation 
Code of the State of California. 

The new language substituted for the above states that the 
Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance .. is adopted pursuant 
to the City and County's legislative authority over municipal 
affairs. 

According to the City Attorney, the purpose of this 
amendment is to clarify the City and County's authority to 
increase the tax rate under existing law. 

Comments: 1. The proposed ordinance does not specify a date of 

implementation for the tax rate increase. According to 
County Clerk/Recorder Greg Diaz, specification of a 
recordation date on or after which the rate increase would 
become effective would ease its implementation and allow for 
adequate notice to the Real Estate business community. 
Therefore, the proposed ordinance should be amended to 
specify a date of implementation. 

2. An implementation date of August 1, 1995 for this 
proposed tax rate increase (as the date on or after which all 
property sales are recorded) would reduce the $10,174,176 
revenue estimate to $9,326,328 for the last eleven months of 
Fiscal Year 1995-96. An implementation date of September 1, 
1995 would revise the Fiscal Year 1995-96 revenue estimate 
down to $8,478,480. 

3. The title of the proposed ordinance states that the 
proposed tax rate applies to properties conveyed if the 
property value exceeds $1 P 000 P 000 . This should be amended 
to apply to properties conveyed of $l r 000 r 000 or more instead 
of properties conveyed where values exceed $1,000,000. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to specify a date of 
implementation in accordance with Comment No. 1 above. 

2. Amend the title of the proposed ordinance in accordance 
with Comment No. 3 above. 

3. Approval of the proposed ordinance as amended is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

Item 12 - File 12-95-33 

1. This item is a resolution requesting that the City lobbyist and the San 
Francisco delegation in the State Legislature cooperate with the California Bankers 
Association to modify the State Bank Tax Law to mandate subvention of a portion of 
these tax receipts to local government. 

2. State law currently exempts banks and savings and loan associations from 
the payment of local taxes. Instead, the banks and savings and loan associations 
pay a State Bank Tax "in-lieu" of the City's Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax and 
Unsecured Property Tax 1 . The Franchise Tax Board reports that the current State 
Bank Tax is two percent of net income. 

3. In 1979, the State Legislature approved legislation which authorized the 
State to make payments to local governments from the revenues collected through 
the State Bank Tax (the "State Bank Tax In-Lieu Payment Law"). In 1982-83, the 
State made two disbursements of $5 million each, for a total of $10 million in one 
year, to local governments. This amount of $10 million was 36.1 percent of the 
State's Bank Tax receipts in that year of $27.7 million. 2 The State Bank Tax In- 
Lieu Payment Law was only in effect for one year, for it was later repealed by the 
State Legislature. According to the Office of the Author of the proposed resolution, 
the California Bankers Association, local bank officials and several local 
government leaders throughout the State have expressed concern that local 
government has unfairly been deprived of revenues as a result of the repeal of this 
State law. 

4. In 1993, the State collected approximately $90 million in State Bank Tax 
revenues. If the State disbursed 36.1 percent of this amount to local governments 
(as it did when the State Bank Tax In-Lieu Payment Law was originally in effect), 
approximately $32.5 million would have been paid to local governments by the State 
in 1993. According to Mr. George Ramsey of the Franchise Tax Board, under the 
original State Bank Tax In-Lieu Payment Law, the State distributed State Bank 
Taxes to the various municipalities based on the payroll for all banks and savings 
and loan associations in a particular municipality in relation to the payroll for all 
banks and savings and loan associations in the entire State. Based on bank payroll 
data for San Francisco and the State of California provided by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, the Budget Analyst estimates that San Francisco would have been 
eligible to receive approximately $3.8 million, or 11.74 percent of the $32.5 million 
paid out by the State, if the original State Bank Tax In-Lieu Payment Law had been 
in effect in 1993. 



1 The Unsecured Property Tax is a business tax assessed on property used in the operation of a 
business, such as furniture, computer equipment and lighting fixtures, whereas the Real Property 
Tax is a tax assessed on land and buildings. 

2 Neither the Franchise Tax Board nor the Controller's Office have readily available records 
indicating the amount disbursed to San Francisco during that year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

However, according to Mr. Ramsey, a new State Bank Tax In-Lieu Payment 
Law approved by the State Legislature may not provide for the same percentage of 
State Bank Tax revenues to be paid out to local governments as previously (36.1 
percent) and/or may provide that State Bank Tax proceeds be allocated to local 
governments based on factors other than bank payroll. As such, the amount that 
San Francisco would be eligible to receive if a new State Bank Tax In-Lieu Payment 
Law were passed cannot be determined at this time. 

5. Currently, businesses subject to the City's Payroll/Gross Receipts Tax 
must pay the higher of either 1.5 percent of their total payroll or, for most 
businesses, $3.00 per $1,000 of gross receipts (0.3 percent), except for businesses 
with a calculated tax liability of $2,500 or less which are exempt from this tax. The 
Controller's Office estimates that San Francisco could be eligible to receive at least 
$18.6 million in Payroll Tax revenues per year if the City were able to tax banks 
and savings and loan associations directly. 3 

6. Businesses subject to the City's Unsecured Property Tax must pay $1.15 
for every $100 of property value (1.15 percent). However, as of the writing of this 
report, it was not possible to determine the potential revenue that could accrue to 
the City resulting from the imposition of the City's Unsecured Property Tax on 
banks and savings and loan associations. 

7. According to the State Legislative Analyst's Office, the State may not 
easily forego revenue sources in the current fiscal situation without a compelling 
argument as to why such revenues should be diverted to local governments. The 
State Legislative Analyst's Office reports that, in the past, the State has frequently 
offset a loss in revenues from local governments with a corresponding reduction in 
payments to local governments in other areas. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



3 Based on inaccurate information, the Budget Analyst had previously estimated that San Francisco 
could be eligible to receive only $4.9 million in Gross Receipts Tax revenues per year by directly 
taxing banks and savings and loan associations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 

Item 13 - File 127-95-6 

Item: Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco 

Administrative Code by amending Section 515 to limit 
certain Hotel Tax Fund allocations, beginning in Fiscal Year 
1995-96 to amounts that would be received based on prior 
fiscal year revenues. By basing such allocations on prior year 
Hotel Tax Fund revenues, the allocations will usually be 
lower than if the allocations are based on current year 
revenues since, in a typical year, total Hotel Tax Fund 
revenues increase by some amount. The remaining, 
unallocated amount therefore, which is transferred to the 
General Fund, will be greater under this proposed method of 
allocation. 

Description: 1. Proceeds from the base Hotel Tax rate of 8% (excluding 

all current surcharges which equal 4% and bring the total 
Hotel Tax rate to 12%) are deposited in the Hotel Tax Fund 
and allocated to specific programs in accordance with levels 
stipulated in ordinances previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. The allocations are detailed in Section 515 of 
Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code. The 
allocations were last amended in June, 1994 to establish 
limitations of Hotel Tax Fund allocations at Fiscal Year 
1993-94 levels for Fiscal Year 1994-95 for all Hotel Tax 
funded programs except the Yerba Buena Center, the 
Cultural Endowment Fund, the Asian Art Museum and the 
Fine Arts Museum. By so limiting such allocations, 
additional Hotel Tax funds in the amount of $2,505,524 were 
made available to balance the 1994-95 General Fund budget. 

3. This proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code permanently to provide that certain allocations, 
beginning in Fiscal Year 1995-96, would be limited to 
amounts received based on prior fiscal year revenues (i.e. 
1995-96 allocations would be based on 1994-95 revenues) 
except for the allocations for the War Memorial Fund, the 
Asian Art Museum and the Fine Arts Museum, which would 
be limited to the amounts received based on prior fiscal year 
revenues beginning in Fiscal Year 1996-97 instead of Fiscal 
Year 1995-96. The table on the following page provides the 
Controller's calculation of the impact of the proposed 
ordinance. The $64,234,800 total Hotel Tax Fund revenue 
(for the base 8% rate) is the current estimate for Fiscal Year 
1995-96. The Budget Analyst concurs with this estimate. 

By limiting the amount of allocations to those shown in the 
table below, an additional $2,531,155 will be made available 
to the General Fund for 1995-96. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 7, 1995 



Proposed Revisions to Base 8% Hotel Tax Allocation 









FY 95-96 if 










FY 94-95 


ordinance is not 


FY 95-96 New 




Allocation of 8% Hotel Tax 


Allocation 


approved 


Proposal 


Variance 


Yerba Buena Center 




$25,589,921 


$26,830,876 


$25,553,215 


$(1,277,661) 


Convention and Visitors Bureau 


5,544,923 


6,269,316 


5,970,778 


(298,538) 


Housing Programs 




3,494,487 


4,041,828 


3,851,265 


(190,563) 


War Memorial 




5,544,923 


6,269,316 


6,269,316 





Candlestick Park 




3,454,487 


4,001,828 


3,811,265 


(190,563) 


Administration 




99,077 


103,664 


103,664 





Publicity & Advertising • 


■ Non Recurring 


9,149,122 


10,444,578 


9,947,218 


(497,360) 


Publicity & Advertising ■ 


• Recurring 


144,168 


160,587 


152,940 


(7,647) 


Cultural Endowment Equity Fund 


1,070,580 


1,445,283 


1,376,460 


(68,823) 


Asian Art Museum 




1,284,696 


1,313,602 


1,313,602 





Fine Arts Museum 




3.279.034 


3.311.304 


3.311.304 





Subtotal 




$58,655,418 


$64,192,182 


$61 ,661 ,027 


$(2,531,155) 


General Fund 




$2,520,582 


$42,618 


$2,573,773 


$2,531,155 



Total 



$61,176,000 $64,234,800 $64,234,800 







Comment: 



Recommendation: 



These allocations are reflected in the Mayor's proposed 1995- 
96 budget that was transmitted to the Board of Supervisors 
on June 1, 1995. Therefore, disapproval of this proposed 
ordinance would require a reduction to the Mayor's 
recommended budget in the amount of $2,531,155. 

The proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 

Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 



7'/ 

Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Migden 

Supervisor Teng 

Clerk of the Board 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Controller 

Teresa Serata 

Robert Oakes 

Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



50 



MINUTES 
REGULAR MEETING nn ~. ;.,_ 

BUDGET COMMITTEE UMENTS DEPT. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

^ In 1 9 ST SAN FRANCISCO 

''(I PL 

WEDNESDAY. JUNE 14. 1995 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 410, WAR MEMORIAL BLDG. 
MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, KAUFMAN, BIERMAN 
CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 



TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:15 P.M. 

FISCAL 

1. File 127-95-6 . [Hotel Tax Allocation] Ordinance amending Article 7, Part HI, 
Municipal Code, by amending Section 515 to base allocations of Hotel Tax 
revenues on revenues received in the immediately prior fiscal year rather than 
on estimated revenues for the allocation year. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

(Consideration Cont'd from 6/7/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst, Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; Ed Harrington, 
Controller, Alice Lowe, Past Chairperson, Asian Art Museum Board of Trustees; 
Beth Murray, Acting General Manager, War Memorial Board of Trustees; Judy 
Teichman, Asian Art Museum. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. TO BOARD "WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION". 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Bierman dissenting.) 

2. File 101-94-38.1 . [Reserved Funds, Public Utilities Commission] Consideration 
of release of reserved funds, Public Utilities Commission, (Water Department 
Operating Fund), in the amount of $283,500, for the purpose of continuing the 
processing of the development application for the Pleasanton Land Project, 
1994-95. (Public Utilities Commission) 

SPEAKER: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RELEASE OF $283,500 APPROVED. FILED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE A JTES PAGE 2 



File 101-95-1 . [Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance for Fiscal Year 
1995-96] Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance, fiscal year 1995-96, an 
ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures 
for the City and County of San Francisco for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1996. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of 
the Mayor. NO POSITION: LaWanda Preston, SEIU, Local 790. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 102-95-1 . [Interim Annual Salary Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1995-96] 
Interim Annual Salary Ordinance, an ordinance enumerating positions in the 
Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1996, continuing, creating or establishing these positions; enumerating and 
including therein all positions created by Charter or State law for which 
compensations are paid from City and County funds and appropriated in the 
Annual Appropriation Ordinance; authorizing appointments or continuation of 
appointments thereto; specifying and fixing the compensations and work 
schedules thereof; and authorizing appointments to temporary positions and 
fixing compensations therefor. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENT ATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of 
the Mayor. NO POSITION: LaWanda Preston, SEIU, Local 790. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N. JTES PAGE 3 



BONDS 



File 170-95-6 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and 
declaring the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction 
or reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following 
municipal improvement, to wit: acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction 
of certain improvements to City Hall, including life safety improvements, 
disabled access improvement, electrical power and system improvements, 
building system and communication improvements, historic preservation 
improvements, functional space conversion improvements, childcare 
improvements and waterproofing improvements, and regulated acquisition, 
construction and reconstruction necessary for the foregoing purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $78,130,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be 
too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City 
and County will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor 
Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Honorable Louise Renne, City Attorney. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Steve Nelson, Chief Administrative 
Office; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kevin Haggerty, Department of Parking 
and Traffic; Todd Colburn, City Engineer, Department of Public Works; Ed 
Harrington, Controller; Mindy Linetzky, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Kevin 
Shelley. IN SUPPORT: John McKoser; Phillip Carlton. OPPOSED: Randy 
Shaw, Director, Tenderloin Housing; John Erlich; Marie Supella, Director, 
Housing Committee. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW 
TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY STEVE NELSON, CHIEF 
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE RECOMMENDED. AMENDED TITLE: "Resolution 
determining and declaring the public interest and necessity demand 
the acquisition, construction or reconstruction by the City and 
County of San Francisco of the following municipal improvement, to 
wit: acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of certain 
improvements to City Hall, including life safety improvements, 
disabled access improvement, electrical power and system 
improvements, building system and communication improvements, 
historic preservation improvements, functional space conversion 
improvements, childcare improvements and waterproofing 
improvements, and regulated acquisition, construction and 
reconstruction necessary for the foregoing purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $63,590,000 for said municipal improvements is 
and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income 
and revenue of said City and County will require the incurring of a 
bonded indebtedness." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N JTES PAGE 4 



File 170-95-7 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and 
declaring the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction 
or reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following 
Municipal Improvement, to wit: acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction 
of certain improvements to underground storage tanks owned by the City and 
County, which improvements shall include repair, removal and/or replacement 
of the underground storage tanks, and testing remediation of past and present 
storage tank sites, and regulated acquisition, construction and reconstruction 
for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of $51,000,000 for said 
municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary 
annual income and revenue of said City and County and will require the 
incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Honorable Louise Renne, City Attorney. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATWES: Steve Nelson, Chief Administrative 
Office; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kevin Haggerty, Department of Parking 
and Traffic; Todd Colburn, City Engineer, Department of Public Works; Ed 
Harrington, Controller; Mindy Linetzky, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Kevin 
Shelley. IN SUPPORT: John McKoser; Phillip Carlton. OPPOSED: Randy 
Shaw, Director, Tenderloin Housing; John Erlich; Marie Supella, Director, 
Housing Committee. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW 
TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY STEVE NELSON, CHIEF 
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. ADOPTED. AMENDED. 
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amend amount of bond to $44,100,000 to include St. Mary's Square 
Garage. AMENDED TITLE: "Resolution determining and declaring 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, 
construction or reconstruction by the City and County of San 
Francisco of the following Municipal Improvement, to wit: 
acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of certain 
improvements to underground storage tanks owned by the City and 
County, which improvements shall include repair, removal and/or 
replacement of the underground storage tanks, and testing 
remediation of past and present storage tank sites, and regulated 
acquisition, construction and reconstruction for the foregoing 
purposes, that the estimated cost of $44,100,000 for said municipal 
improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary 
annual income and revenue of said City and County and will require 
the incurring of a bonded indebtedness." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N JTES PAGE 5 



7. File 170-95-8 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and 

declaring the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction 
or reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following 
municipal improvement, to wit: acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction 
of certain improvements to the Steinhart Aquarium and related facilities and 
structures, including seismic upgrade, asbestos and lead abatement, disabled 
access improvements, life support system improvements, building system 
improvements and structural improvements, and related acquisition, 
construction and reconstruction necessary or convenient for the foregoing 
purposes, that the estimated cost of $28,670,829 for said municipal 
improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual 
income and revenue of said City and County and will require the incurring of a 
bonded indebtedness. (Supervisors Shelley, Kaufman) 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Honorable Louise Renne, City Attorney. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Steve Nelson, Chief Administrative 
Office; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kevin Haggerty, Department of Parking 
and Traffic; Todd Colburn, City Engineer, Department of Public Works; Ed 
Harrington, Controller; Mindy Linetzkv, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Kevin 
Shelley. IN SUPPORT: John McKoser; Phillip Carlton. OPPOSED: Randy 
Shaw, Director, Tenderloin Housing; John Erlich; Marie Supella, Director, 
Housing Committee. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW 
TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY STEVE NELSON, CHIEF 
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE. ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE RECOMMENDED. (Add Supervisor Kaufman as 
co-sponosr.) AMENDED TITLE: "Resolution determining and 
declaring the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, 
construction or reconstruction by the City and County of San 
Francisco of the following municipal improvement, to wit: 
acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of certain 
improvements to the Steinhart Aquarium and related facilities and 
structures, including seismic upgrade, asbestos and lead abatement, 
disabled access improvements, life support system improvements, 
building system improvements and structural improvements, and 
related acquisition, construction and reconstruction necessary or 
convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of 
$29,245,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too great 
to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said 
City and Count} - and will require the incurring of a bonded 
indebtedness." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N. uTES PAGE 6 



FEE 



File 127-95-3 . [Occupation License Fee] Ordinance amending Part III, 
Municipal Code, by adding Article 12-E ("Occupation License Fee Ordinance") 
thereto to impose a license fee of two percent (2%) of compensation on 
employees earning in excess of $150,000 for work performed or services 
rendered within San Francisco; setting effective date of January 1, 1996. 
(Supervisor Ammiano) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Michael Housh, 
Administrative Assistant to Supervisor Tom Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst. IN SUPPORT: Mark Melton, San Franciscans for Tax Justice; Hans 
Gallenger, Bernal Heights Democratic Club; David Barnum. OPPOSED: Lee 
Korins, Chair, Pacific Stock Exchange; Mr. Rhea Serpan, President, San 
Francisco Chamber of Commerce; Ken Cleveland, Building Owners and 
Managers of San Francisco; Steven Cornel, Council of District Merchants; Teri 
Hanlan, Vice President, Bank of America; Sue Lee, Vice President, San 
Francisco Chamber of Commerce; Dorothy Conlain, Air Touch Communications; 
Valerie Bergman. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. TO BOARD "WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION". 

VOTE: 2-1. (Supervisor Kaufman dissenting.) 

GENERAL ITEMS 



File 186-95-5 . [San Francisco Affinity Card] Resolution urging the Chief 
Administrative Officer to examine proposals for the creation of an Affinity 
Card for the City of San Francisco and seeking input from appropriate 
departments in its formulation. (Supervisor Migden) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Colbruno, 
Legislative Aide to Supervisor Carole Migden. IN SUPPORT: Craig Wolfe, 
Wells Fargo Bank. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW 

TITLE PRESENTED BY MICHAEL COLBRUNO, LEGISLATIVE AIDE 
TO SUPERVISOR MIGDEN. ADOPTED. AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE RECOMMENDED. AMENDED TITLE: "Resolution urging 
the Chief Administrative Officer, the Controller and the Treasurer 
to examine proposals for the creation of an Affinity Card for the 
City of San Francisco and seeking input from appropriate 
departments in its formulation." 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N. JTES PAGE 7 



10. File 199-95-1 . [Real Property Jurisdictional Transfer] Resolution transferring 
jurisdiction of a portion of Lots 7, 8, 8A, 9 and 10, Assessor's Block 3742, from 
the Department of Public Works to the Port of San Francisco, for use as a public 
park; and adopting findings that such transfer is consistent with the City's 
Master Plan and Eight Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1. 
(Real Estate Department) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; David Madway, Redevelopment Agency Legal Counsel; Veronica 
Sanchez, Port of San Francisco. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 



11. File 231-95-1.1 . [Declaration of Intention to Form Assessment District] 
Resolution declaring the intention to form the Park and Recreation 
Improvement District for enhancements ("PRIDE"), a Benefit Assessment 
District for fund maintenance of park property; approving the Engineer's Report 
regarding the district; describing the maintenance and servicing to be funded; 
and giving notice of hearing on the question of the formation of the district and 
levy of an assessment. (Supervisors Hsieh, Bierman, Leal, Teng) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mary Burns, General 
Manager, Recreation and Park Department; Ed Harrington, Controller. IN 
SUPPORT: Linda Hoffmann, Consultant, Nolte and Associates; Dennis 
Antenore, Subcommittee for Advocates for Recreation and Parks; Clayton 
Mansfield, SF Sierra Club. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL 
OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



12. File 127-95-9 . [Forming Assessment District and Levying Assessments] 
DRAFT Ordinance amending Part III, Municipal Code by adding a new 

Article thereto forming Park and Recreation Improvement District for 

enhancements ("PRIDE"), a Benefit Assessment District to fund maintenance 
and Park property; ordering the improvements; and levying an assessment to 
fund the improvements. (Supervisors Hsieh, Bierman, Leal, Teng) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mary Burns, General 
Manager, Recreation and Park Department; Ed Harrington, Controller. IN 
SUPPORT: Linda Hoffmann, Consultant, Nolte and Associates; Dennis 
Antenore, Subcommittee for Advocates for Recreation and Parks; Clayton 
Mansfield, SF Sierra Club. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE CALL 
OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE N. JTES PAGE 8 



13. File 127-95-7 . [Special Assessment Notice Requirement] Ordinance 
amending Part III, Municipal Code, by enacting a new Article 18, 
Sections 1800, 1801 and 1802, to prescribe special notice requirements 
for any legislation levying a Special Benefit Assessment. (Supervisor 
Kaufman) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Mary Burns, 
General Manager, Recreation and Park Department; Ed Harrington, 
Controller. IN SUPPORT: Linda Hoffmann, Consultant, Nolte and 
Associates; Dennis Antenore, Subcommittee for Advocates for 
Recreation and Parks; Clayton Mansfield, SF Sierra Club. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO THE 
CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

HEARING 

14. File 157-95-1 . [Departmental Report of Fees, 1994-95] Consideration 
of the communication transmitted from the Controller regarding 
Departmental Report Fees, 1994-95, except fees regulated by State or 
Federal law, pursuant to Section 3.17-2 of the Administrative Code. 
(Controller) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Ed Harrington, 
Controller. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. FILED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 4:40 P.M. 



neon 

'3 



CITY AND COUNTY 




(PuBCic LiBraru, 'Documents T>tyt. 
Attn: Jane ^Hudson 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



June 9, 1995 



// 

Budget Committee 
/// 

Budget Analyst ■ Rccc^**-^ '+ 



TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



QOn imcntS DEPT. 
JUN l 31995 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 - File 127-95-6 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of June 7, 
1995. 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by amending Section 515 to limit 
certain Hotel Tax Fund allocations, beginning in Fiscal Year 
1995-96 to amounts that would be received based on prior 
fiscal year revenues. By basing such allocations on prior year 
Hotel Tax Fund revenues, the allocations will usually be 
lower than if the allocations are based on current year 
revenues since, in a typical year, total Hotel Tax Fund 
revenues increase by some amount. The remaining, 
unallocated amount therefore, which is transferred to the 
General Fund, will be greater under this proposed method of 
allocation. 

1. Proceeds from the base Hotel Tax rate of 8% (excluding 
all current surcharges which equal 4% and bring the total 
Hotel Tax rate to 12%) are deposited in the Hotel Tax Fund 
and allocated to specific programs in accordance with levels 
stipulated in ordinances previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. The allocations are detailed in Section 515 of 
Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code. The 
allocations were last amended in June, 1994 to establish 
limitations of Hotel Tax Fund allocations at Fiscal Year 
1993-94 levels for Fiscal Year 1994-95 for all Hotel Tax 
funded programs except the Yerba Buena Center, the 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



Cultural Endowment Fund, the Asian Art Museum and the 
Fine Arts Museum. By so limiting such allocations, 
additional Hotel Tax funds in the amount of $2,505,524 were 
made available to balance the 1994-95 General Fund budget. 

3. This proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative 
Code permanently to provide that certain allocations, 
beginning in Fiscal Year 1995-96, would be limited to 
amounts received based on prior fiscal year revenues (i.e. 
1995-96 allocations would be based on 1994-95 revenues) 
except for the allocations for the War Memorial Fund, the 
Asian Art Museum and the Fine Arts Museum, which would 
be limited to the amounts received based on prior fiscal year 
revenues beginning in Fiscal Year 1996-97 instead of Fiscal 
Year 1995-96. The table on the following page provides the 
Controller's calculation of the impact of the proposed 
ordinance. The $64,234,800 total Hotel Tax Fund revenue 
(for the base 8% rate) is the current estimate for Fiscal Year 
1995-96. The Budget Analyst concurs with this estimate. 

By limiting the amount of allocations to those shown in the 
table below, an additional $2,531,155 will be made available 
to the General Fund for 1995-96. 

Proposed Revisions to Base 8% Hotel Tax Allocation 



FY 95-96 if 



Allocation of 8% Hotel Tax 

Yerba Buena Center 

Convention and Visitors Bureau 

Housing Programs 

War Memorial 

Candlestick Park 

Administration 

Publicity & Advertising - Non Recurring 

Publicity & Advertising - Recurring 

Cultural Endowment Equity Fund 

Asian Art Museum 

Fine Arts Museum 

Subtotal 

General Fund 



FY 94-95 


ordinance is not 


FY 95-96 New 




Allocation 


approved 


Proposal 


Variance 


$25,589,921 


$26,830,876 


$25,553,215 


$(1,277,661) 


5,544,923 


6,269,316 


5,970,778 


(298,538) 


3,494,487 


4,041 ,828 


3,851,265 


(190,563) 


5,544,923 


6,269,316 


6,269,316 





3,454,487 


4,001,828 


3,811,265 


(190,563) 


99,077 


103,664 


103,664 





9,149,122 


10,444,578 


9,947,218 


(497,360) 


144,168 


160,587 


152,940 


(7,647) 


1,070,580 


1,445,283 


1,376,460 


(68,823) 


1,284,696 


1,313,602 


1,313,602 





3.279.034 


3.311.304 


3.311.304 





$58,655,418 


$64,192,182 


$61,661,027 


$(2,531,155) 


$2,520,582 


$42,618 


$2,573,773 


$2,531,155 



Total 



$61,176,000 $64,234,800 $64,234,800 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



These allocations are reflected in the Mayor's proposed 1995- 
96 budget that was transmitted to the Board of Supervisors 
on June 1, 1995. Therefore, disapproval of this proposed 
ordinance would require a reduction to the Mayor's 
recommended budget in the amount of $2,531,155. 

The proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Item 2 - File 101-94-38.1 
Department: 

Item: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Water Department (SFWD) 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Hearing requesting release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $283,500 for the purpose of the Pleasanton 
Land Project, 1994-95. 

Water Department Operating Fund 

In January of 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
$673,000 supplemental appropriation from the SFWD 
Operating Fund to support the Pleasanton Land Project 
activities (File 101-94-38). A portion of the $673,000, 
totaling $283,500, was placed on reserve pending 
submission of budget details. 

The $283,500 requested for release from reserve would be 
used to fund services of The Planning Collaborative, 
which is the prime consultant for the project. The 
anticipated project budget of $488,214, including this 
request for $283,500, for the six month period from April 
through September, 1995, is shown in Attachment 1 of 
this report. According to that document, the proposed 
release of reserve is designed to fund the consultant's 
activities through the end of September, 1995. 

The Pleasanton Land Project is approximately 58 acres of 
land (the Bernal property) owned by the SFWD that is 
surplus to the SFWD's needs. This land is located 
immediately adjacent to the City of Pleasanton near 
Interstate 680 and Bernal Avenue, in an unincorporated 
area of Alameda County. 

The PUC has been involved in planning and negotiations 
with the City of Pleasanton regarding development of this 
property to generate revenue for the City since 1988. In 
1994, the PUC decided to apply to Alameda County for the 
property entitlements (zoning, Specific Plan and 
Development Agreement) that had originally been sought 
from the City of Pleasanton. In March of 1995, a draft 
Environmental Impact Report and specific plan for the 
property were published by Alameda County. The public 
comment period closed on May 10, 1995. The Alameda 
County Planning Department and the SFPUC are 
currently responding to the comments received. At the 
same time, the City of Pleasanton is pursuing efforts to 
forcibly annex the Bernal property. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

The PUC hired a new, full time Project Manager with real 
estate development experience in February of 1995. The 
new Project Manager Mr. Rick Nelson, has prepared a 
Project Status Report which is included as Attachment 2 
to this report. 

Comments: 1. The major expense to date related to the Pleasanton 

Land Project has been the contract with The Planning 
Collaborative, which has been amended five times. In 
general this consultant has responsibility for preparing or 
coordinating planning, engineering and financial analyses 
and reports needed to obtain project entitlements from the 
local jurisdictions. The consultant has also taken a major 
negotiating role with the local jurisdictions. The contract 
with The Planning Collaborative currently totals 
$2,755,058, including this request. Further appropriations 
for The Planning Collaborative, beyond the requested 
release of reserve, would require another amendment of 
the contract. 

The Budget Analyst has previously recommended, both in 
a June, 1994 management audit of the SFWD and in a 
report to the Budget Committee of the Board of 
Supervisors regarding the January, 1995 supplemental 
appropriation request, that the SFWD obtain sufficient 
detail in invoices from The Planning Collaborative to 
enable the project manager to adequately monitor 
contract performance. Mr. Nelson states that, since he has 
started managing the Pleasanton Land Project, he has 
instituted a practice of reviewing all bills from The 
Planning Collaborative in detail, in order to ensure that 
the consultant is spending an appropriate amount of time 
in each area of the scope of work. Mr. Nelson reports that 
he has already required the consultant to reduce one 
invoice. 

2. Mr. Nelson advises that the nature of the work required 
of the consultant and City staff cannot be predicted 
precisely because it is to some extent out of the control of 
the City. For example, Mr. Nelson states that, in order to 
respond to comments received on the Pleasanton Land 
Project EIR published by Alameda County, the Alameda 
County Planning Department has requested certain 
additional information and analysis that was not 
originally anticipated. Mr. Nelson states that the 
consultant project budget and work schedule (Attachment 
1) is the best current estimate of project requirements, but 
he advises that it may be necessary to reallocate certain 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET C OMMITTEE 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Meeting of Budget Committee 

expense items in order to respond to Alameda County or 
to the annexation attempt by the City of Pleasanton. 

Mr. Nelson advises that he cannot state at this time 
whether or not the SFWD will request a sixth amendment 
to the contract with The Planning Collaborative. However, 
he states that, following receipt of project entitlements 
from Alameda County, the nature of the work will shift to 
focus on pre-development activities such as obtaining 
permits from agencies responsible for approving project 
utility services and other public agency agreements before 
construction could begin (if the City decides to retain the 
property and participate in its development). Mr. Nelson 
states that, with a full time Project Manager, the SFWD 
will consider doing more of the work in-house and/or 
contracting directly with several different consultants, 
rather than having The Planning Collaborative manage 
the team of subconsultants. Attachment 3 provides a 
statement from the Project Manager regarding future use 
of The Planning Collaborative and the likelihood of 
further amendments to The Planning Collaborative's 
contract. 

3. Mr. Nelson states that if the City of San Francisco is 
able to obtain approval of the development application 
from Alameda County prior to annexation by the City of 
Pleasanton, the Bernal property would not be subject to 
Pleasanton's jurisdiction pursuant to the California 
Government Code. He advises that the SFWD and 
Alameda County are pursuing actions to delay or 
terminate the annexation attempt by the City of 
Pleasanton. 

4. The SFWD has requested $950,000 in its FY 1995-96 
budget for the Pleasanton Land Project. Mr. Anson B. 
Moran, General Manager of the PUC, states that the FY 
1995-96 funding would cover additional pre-development 
work and anticipated legal expenses to defend the 
Alameda County land use approvals against lawsuits from 
the City of Pleasanton, and to pursue legal action against 
the City of Pleasanton's annexation attempt. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 

6 



05-23-1995 04:26Pn FROM Planning Collaborative 



ANTICIPATED PROJECT BUDGET (April - September 1995) 

;f bernal project 

5761.07 

:\projmgmt\projccts\8761 .06\adxrunWncnd3Lwkl 

?\23\95 

TASK 



771 4421 P. 01 



Attachment 
Pape~l of 



BUEX3ET 



1.0 Public Hearings 



^pffij fial 



A. AC Planning Comm. 

B. AC Board : ofSups 



$7,500 
$8,000 



2.0 Final Environmental Impact Report 

A Additional Studies 

Al Traffic 

A.2 Engineering (water, sewer) 

A3 Environmental 

B. Response to Comments 

C Mitigation Monitoring Ran 

D. Revise Dra ft EIR 

E. Publish FEIR 

F. Printing Costs 



$15,000 
$11,000 

$7,500 
$34,400 

$7,800 
$21,120 

$5,280 
$10,000 



3.0 Specific Plan 



A Modify Specific Plan 
B. Publish Plan 
C Printing Costs 



$30,800 

$5,280 

$10,000 



4.0 PD Zoning Ordinance 



zsgmmm, 



A Meetings with County 

B. Review and Comment on Ordinance. 

C. Application and Adoption process 



5.0 Development Agreement 

A Negotiation Support 

EPS 
TPC 



B. Negotiation Meetings (TPC and EPS) 



6.0 



Tentative Map Application 

A Negotiate Map Conditions 
B. Response to Map Conditions 



$3,000 
$6,000 
$1,000 



$5,000 

$5,200 

$15,000 

-.325J20& 



$7^00 
$25,000 

x$32p3u1 



ns-?T-qs n s ■ ? r p m pnni it 49 



Attachment 1 
Page 2 oT 5 



7.0 Fiscal Analysis/ Cost Burden 






A. County Fiscal Impact Analysis 

EPS 

B. Capitol Costs TPC 

ShcrmCo 
Cose Estim atin g 



$20,000 
$10,460 

$15,000 
$12,000 



8.0 Disposition [Program 



EPS/TPC 



9j0 Plcasanton Annexation Process 

A Comments on EIR 

B. Jurisdiction Determination 
TPC 
surveyor 

C. Modify Land Plan 

D. EER Challenge Support 
I E. Plcasanton Hearings 



$21,000 



$12,720 

$4,000 

$8,000 

$11,240 

$4,000 
$6,000 

=^34SPS 



10.0 Outreach Program 



Development Consult. 

Public Agency/Private Interest/Neigh 

Press/Media 




$18,000 
$22,364 
$10,000 

=$S535£ 



11.0 Project Management 

bcoosultam Fee 
" » su'ote«a 



Subconsultant Feirs " 1 0% subs 



• $54,000 
$17,750 



3&E££~^ 



Ll r i^S4 S8gl41 

_______________,^ ^. £T_____J 



TOTAL REMAINING AUTHORIZED BUDGET (4/1/95) 
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT BUDGET 
UNFUNDED BALANCE 



$204,714 
$488,214 
$283,500 



CONFIDENTIAL 



Attachment I 
Page: 3 of A 



ENTITLEMENT AND WORK SCHEDULE 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT UERNAL AVENUE PROPERTY 

s^rojmgrol\f>roj<cls\S761 .CXAschedLwV 1 





.(arch April May 1 




: 


1 


17-3 16-10 113—17 120-24 127-31 1.1-7 110-14 117-21 |24-28|l-:s |«-12 I 15- 19 I 22-26 I29_- 2 J_J-» | 


10- APPROVAL PROCESS PUBLIC IICARINGS 














I 1 


i5 


n^"^ 


1.20 Alameda County Board of Supervisors 
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 








1 


1 11 






2.4 9 
! 9 


16 


^r 


r^j= i 


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT p 






PuNish Drill Tinvironracnul Impact Report 
PuNic Comment Period Oom 








.»«>- 


fK$W 


T^nr 


..**vv " 


: - ■ ■■- 


v',..'r; 


UiHS 


s,t,T2 i W 




























•,*::./* 


ft i p > '■ 


U ■■'■>-, 






'■ 
































#»*••■ 




Publish Pinal Environmental Impact Report 
S.F. Indemnification Agreement 
































PuNic Hearings 

Certify Final Environmental Impact Report | L 






-1 


















■ — -L 






Publish Draft Specif Plan 








u 
















• 


1 


--f.r.v.- 


-T7— — 




Recommend Specific Plan Changes <_Counly/SFWD 






























































































Revise and PuN'oh Fmal Specific Han 


























L— 




PD ZONING ORDINANCE 


p 


1 


County Prepare! Ural! 

San Francisco Review and Comment 




















^S^kreWtt 


y^-vHt 


























PuNic Hearings 












— — 










DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 




















== 


Complete Dralt DA 
Submit DA to County 


.- ._ ■ 


mull 


:,;.. 'v r± 




. ?.-.- 




.^^ ■::'- 




,_. v , ... 


• . 










; 


DA Mlg. (SF/Alamcda County) 
Finalize & Submit DA 
PuNic Hearings 
























32ffia 




<*&$>. 


"■■ 


Adopt DA 

VESTING MASTER TENT ATrVE MAP 




























' 


Submit Draft Tentative Map 










31 




















PUC Authorizes Execution of VTP 














11 
















County Prepares Draft Condition of Approval 
















— ^r. 




-■■■ . " : 


SffijSS 






5F Review of Conditions 


























■-?.-■: ■: 






Negotiate Final Map Conditions 




























•.-;.-: 


pm 




Finalize and Submit VTM 
































Approve VTP (Administrative) 
































FISCAL/CAPITAL REPORTS 








Fiscal Meeting CAO/Suff. Prepare Report 


■■..•- ■ 


-•',.■■- ■ -| ;-:-,—- f •■ -:i ;j ; - ,-■- 


- _ - 


\'''-; ^W'* -:■ f 




I J 








Submit Final Fiscal Impact Ajialysis 




1 



















Review/Update Capital Cost Program 














■ -. ■ 


■^---v.--. 












Prepare Capital CosJ Burden Analysis 
























Submit Cosi Burden Repon 














' 1 "" 


l.-.rti^l 








DISPOSITION PROGRAM 




Prepare Disposition Option Plan 




|' ' -H -■-- -1 ■---•■|t-,---M.--.^.-.--|-.-; =■ 


-:-■'.-•«■( •---.•.-i ; '|-- ; -v^:» 






Submit Disposition Plan lo SFPUC 






PLEASANTON ANNEXATION 


, 


San Francisco Prepares Comments 










..-■/., 


,". J -.' 


'•'; \"3'7 


-:__-..: 


..■-_.. 


."■■'_-: ..j. 








1 




Public Comment Period doses 






















8 








Response to Comments 






















■•■ -:sv 










Plcasanlon Public Hearings 














11 












2< 






Pleasanlon Preroning Action 






























6 


EIR Challenge 






























•; :->■■ 


LAFCO Heatings 






















u 










Boundary Jurisdiction Determination 


















— 














Land Plan Map Modification Per EIR Alternative 














---■- - 






OUTREACH PROGRAM 




Public Agency Meetings 














II 


1 U 


3 












Environmental Group Meetings 
















20 












Local Neighborhood Group Meetings 






























Other Interest Group Meetings 






























Press and Media Document! 
















v' : *; i 'n 















(.(-nhpl.nn.ngr 



i r,- jn . 



J lor . 



. Planning Comm.uKm mccll -ecomj lad fovrih 
Zonal; LAFCO mccii ..t-, oihct month. ko».< 
Jameda Counry Supcrvuori/Pl-nni/ig ComrT 
nccU it'.nj and fourlh Tuesday* o( each m 



i July 10. 24 and Scpicmhcr M (U 



jc£ a g Biaa«sttiflaaittgttaHBfl«aaHi^^ 



Attachment 1 
Page A of A 



"teoe | ,U| 1' lAujuil |S<[>i C mb« 




■HT I]2-I6 1 19-2.1 |26-30 1.1-7 I 10- 1 < I 17 — 21 I 2<-28 1.11-4 |7-U |14-I8 ( 2 1 — 2 > |2S-2 |«-8 1 11- 15 1 18 — 22 |25-29 








— J—I 


'» .1 


.1 10 


17 


24 




7 


21 




4 




IS 






btX w 


20 27 


44 11 


IS 


2; 


1.1 


8 


15 22 


29 


5.7 


12.14 


19 


26 




^Jf 


1 " 


20 1 27 


1 11 




25 




a 


1 22 






12 




26 
















































































«^?st 




































ppi! 




































wm 












































" r"- 


r--<I-. 


/^■'-" ' 






















?KifS 










10 




24 


3 












14 


































14 












' 


































J*"=«'_V 


?■?-<. * 


V - 


■..■-• -■ 






































10 




24 


3 












14 


































14 


































llMMril 


■ - 




•r 






■' j 


































-?~,-' s ' j ''i 


































fe^y 


; 


• . 






































10 




24 


3 












14 








1 


























14 






























































































































































~--^-r-' 


,-*■■■'=-• 


'■ -:-*. -|> '--tT, 








































10 




24 


3 












14 




















,. '..- : 


; _r- . . 
























i 
























14 




















































































































































£>-•,-),.— -..-.,- 


































I 
























- ~ ; - 1 


-iy^~-\ u 






1 1 1 
























|>,'--.j«i 


























































































































































































1 1 1 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 




1 13 1 1 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 


















































































I 


o 










































































































6 




































: 


-.',". 


■■'-.. r 


it, U'jt 








































15 


















11 






































































































































































































































- 





































—if 



iu.m,j vivn 



10 



\ 



Attachment: 2 
Page 1 of 3 



BERNAL PROPERTY PROJECT STATUS REPORT 
1994/1995 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET RESERVE 



Project Management 

Following final approval of the supplemental budget by the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors on January 3, 1995, a project manager with private real estate development 
experience was hired effective February 1, 1995. 

Two additional Project Steering Committee meetings were held on January 3 and May 19, 
1995. The PUC General Manager, Water Department General Manager, representatives 
from the CAO, Controller's Office, the Planning and Real Estate Departments, the Port, 
Mayor's Office and City Attorney's Office were in attendance to provide input on the project. 

Specific Plan, EIR and Development Agreement Entitlements 

Work continued on preparation of the draft specific plan, EIR, development agreement and 
tentative parcel map. Comments received from Alameda County Planning staff, City 
Attorney's Office, project subconsultants and project manager were addressed and 
incorporated into the various documents. Additional biology studies (wetland and endangered 
species surveys) were also completed at the request of Alameda County Planning staff. On 
March 23, 1995 the draft EIR (DEIR) and specific plan were published for public review and 
comment. The tentative parcel map and development agreement were submitted to the 
Alameda Planning Department in April. 

A public hearing was held on May 2, 1995 in Dublin by the Alameda Planning Commission 
to take testimony on the project DEIR. A presentation was made at the public hearing by the 
Bernal project team. The public comment period closed on May 10, 1995. Written 
comments were received from the following agencies and municipalities: City of Pleasanton, 
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, Dublin San Ramon Services District, 
Alameda County Public Works, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation 
District, Department of Toxic Substances Control, East Bay Regional Parks and Department 
of Fish and Game with the majority of comments coming from the City of Pleasanton. 
Comments are currently being reviewed and evaluated by the Alameda Planning Department 
and the Bernal project team to coordinate responses and decide if additional studies are 
necessary. A determination to recirculate the DEIR or to prepare the final EIR (FEIR) is 
also being evaluated. 

The first of two Alameda Planning Commission work sessions was held on May 15, 1995. 
The first work session in Hayward was designed for the Planning Commission to discuss 
issues and raise questions on the Bernal property Specific Plan and DEIR with planning staff. 
The second work session scheduled for June 5, 1995 in Dublin is to provide San Francisco 
Water Department an opportunity to respond to the comments, questions and concerns raised 
by the Planning Commission and address the DEIR comments. If the DEIR is not 
recirculated, the FEIR is anticipated to be considered by the Planning Commission in July. 
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors would then be able to take action on the 
development application in September or October. 

11 



Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 3 



Fiscal Impact Analysis/Capital Costs/Disposition Plan 

Work commenced on the fiscal impact analysis. Meetings with the Alameda Fire and Sheriff 
Departments, County Administrator Office and Planning Department were held to discuss the 
proposed project urban level of services, general fund and departmental budget funding and 
expenditures, and report methodology. A draft administrative report will be submitted to the 
county on May 24, 1995. 

A capital cost burden and estimate was completed based on the DEIR and Specific Plan 
requirements. A disposition options report is being prepared to: 1) review disposition 
alternatives; 2) evaluate the potential disposition returns and 3) discuss issues affecting 
disposition of the property. The report is scheduled to be presented to the PUC in June. 

Pleasanton Annexation 

Pleasanton continued its efforts to assert jurisdictional control of the property by attempting to 
forcibly annex the Bernal property. Pleasanton published a draft ETR to pre-zone the 
property on March 22, 1995 to allow a request for annexation to be heard by the Local Area 
Formation Commission. SFWD presented oral comments at the April 11, 1995 Pleasanton 
Planning Commission meeting followed by written comments submitted on May 8, 1995, the 
close of public comment period, citing the ETR inadequacies. 

Part of the SFWD comments made on the Pleasanton FJR required conducting an additional 
traffic analysis in order to compare the results of the Bernal FJR with that of Pleasanton's. 
In an attempt to control project expenditures and stay within budget, San Francisco Planning 
Department was requested to assist in reviewing and drafting responses to Pleasanton's FJR 
but were unable to do so because of other work commitments. Should Pleasanton proceed to 
certify its FJR and take action to approve the pre-zoning with out first recirculating its DEIR 
to address the document inadequacies, a writ of mandate (litigation) will be filed by the City 
Attorney's Office on behalf of the SFWD to overturn the EIR. The City Attorney's Office 
has also completed additional research to identify the various alternatives available to defer or 
terminate Pleasanton's annexation efforts. 

A property record of survey will be prepared in June in order to reconcile discrepancies 
revealed in preliminary title report property descriptions, recorded parcel maps, and prior 
property parcel boundary mapping. The survey will also determine the exact location of 
those portions of the property which have been previously annexed by Pleasanton. 

Public Relations/Outreach 

Press and media communication packages were prepared to respond to media inquires and 
address public questions about the project. Meetings with Sierra Club and Green Belt 
Alliance environmental groups were held in an effort to enlist their support for the project as 
an urban infill project and self sustaining plan. Various other meetings with the Alameda 
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, public agencies, adjacent property owners 
and other interested parties were also conducted to explain and answer questions about the 
project and solicit support. 

12 



fliiacnment / 
Page 3 of 3 



Budget 

Certain aspects of the above work (responses and traffic analysis for Pleasanton DEIR, legal 
work to prevent Pleasanton annexation, boundary survey, recirculation of DEIR) and potential 
future requests and questions of Alameda County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors 
and staff (project model, number and duration of public hearings, additional project 
background information etc.) were not included in the current scope of work. These 
additional expenses may impact the 1995-96 budget and work plan. 



(stitui.rpl) 5/23/95 



13 



JU UJ 3J ua.u^ftM i-kum if WAitK UtPAKUOT TO 2 5 2 04 1 



POO 1/00 ] 



Attachment 3 




City & County of San Francisco 
Public Utilities Commission 

SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 
TO; 

FROM: 

RE: 



June 8, 1995 

Eve Sternberg 

Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst 

Richard M. Nelson, Project Manager // /ff /fa. 
Pleasanton Land Project 

The Planning Collaborative Contract and Future Project Involvement 



The following is in response to your question as to whether it will be necessary to amend The 
Planning Collaborative' s (TPC) contract as part of the current work and what TPC's future 
role would be if SFWD receives Alameda County's entitlement approvals and further pre- 
development work is undertaken. 

As indicated in the project status report (Attachment 2), certain tasks (Pleasanton annexation 
issues, boundary survey etc.) are being undertaken that were not included in TPC's fifth 
contract amendment scope of work. To respond to these unanticipated work tasks, some 
elements of TPC's original budget have been reallocated and work re-prioritized. If the 
project approvals are obtained in the time frames currently anticipated (September 1995), the 
draft EIR is not recirulated and significant additional unbudgeted work requests (e.g. project 
model) are not required by the County, TPC's contract should not need to be amended for 
the current work. Every effort is being made to obtain the entitlement approvals within the 
current supplemental budget. 

Should pre-development work be undertaken to further position the property for development, 
TPC's project involvement and role will most likely change. TPC's project history and 
knowledge will certainty be a resource which would be appropriate to draw upon, however, 
the nature of the pre-development work will be such that TPC's area of expertise will not be 
as useful or pertinent. Furthermore, now that a full time project manager has been assigned 
to the project with real estate development experience, individual consultants could be 
retained to work direcdy with the project manager as necessary, to support the pre- 
development work activities. 



cc: 



Noreen Ambrose 
Bill Laws 



(sumbrg.mcm) 



post-It* Fax Note 




Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 101-95-1 and 102-95-1 

1. These items are the Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance (File 101- 
95-1) and Interim Annual Salary Ordinance (File 102-95-1) for Fiscal Year 1995-96. 

2. The annual budget process for the City and County requires that the 
Board of Supervisors approve an Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and 
an Interim Annual Salary Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1995-96 on or before June 30, 
1995. The purpose of these interim ordinances is to provide position and 
expenditure authorization for the various departments of the City and County 
during the time that the Board of Supervisors is reviewing the Mayor's 
recommended budget for Fiscal Year 1995-96. The budget is scheduled to be 
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 17, 1995. 

3. The Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and Interim Annual 
Salary Ordinance are based on the Fiscal Year 1995-96 proposed budget 
recommendations of the Mayor. Hence, these ordinances include authorization 
and funding for all programs and program revisions which are included in the 
Mayor's proposed 1995-96 budget. Each program and program revision will be 
reviewed in detail during the budget hearings and sessions which have been 
scheduled by the Budget Committee from June 20 through June 29, 1995. 

4. As a general policy, in previous years, the Board of Supervisors has not 
approved new positions and programs during the interim budget period without 
detailed review. This general policy has been implemented by instructing the 
Controller not to certify the availability of funds for new positions, new programs 
or program expansions during the interim budget period between July 1 and July 
31. If an exception is approved by the Board of Supervisors, new positions can be 
filled effective July 1. Otherwise, new positions will generally not be filled until 
August 1 at the earliest. 

5. The Administrative Provisions of the Interim Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance further state that no funds shall be allotted until August 1 for capital 
improvements and equipment. However, leased equipment is not subject to this 
provision. In certain cases, specific exceptions to these general policies have been 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Exceptions have been based on such factors 
as new positions and programs that produce revenue or prevent major service 
deficiencies which would result from delays in filling new positions or starting 
new programs. Approval of some equipment purchases, for example, could result 
in cost savings. 

6. The Controller has proposed revisions to the Administrative Provisions 
of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO). Minor revisions are made in 
order to (a) make the Administrative Provisions of the AAO consistent with 
actions previously taken by the Board of Supervisors during Fiscal Year 1994-95, 
(b) make them consistent with current budgeting and accounting practice, (c) 
clarify procedures, (d) remove obsolete language and (e) ensure that the 
Administrative Provisions conform to the Charter of the City and County of San 
Francisco. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Significant changes to the Administrative Provisions of the AAO as 
recommended by the Controller are as follows: 

a. Section 4.5 - For certain properties held in trust, allows rents to be used 
to pay maintenance costs, including services of the Real Estate 
Department, pending conversion of property to use for which it was 
acquired. 

b. Section 5.1 - Provides for payment of City and County bond costs, 
including issuance costs and legal and financial advice, from proceeds 
of bonds when approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

c. Section 6 - For expenditures based upon estimated receipts, income or 
revenues which may not be fully realized, provides for the Controller to 
establish variable periods instead of just monthly or quarterly for 
departmental expenditure allotments. 

d. Sections 10, 10.1, 10.3, 10.4 - Adds subsection allowing transfer of funds 
to pay any legal salary obligations and allows Controller to authorize 
and direct transfers to adjust legal rates of pay that have changed. 
Allows funds appropriated for personal service contracts to be 
transferred to salary accounts for the specific purpose of using City 
personnel in lieu of private contractors with the approval of the Human 
Resources Director and the Mayor and the certification by the Controller 
that such transfer of funds would not increase the cost of government. 
Allows the Controller to authorize and direct transfers to provide costs of 
non-salary benefits in ratified MOUs or arbitration awards. 

e. Section 10.5-1 - Should monies become available because of an 
anticipated further adjustment in retirement rates, the first $2,898,500 of 
funds available to the General Fund are appropriated to restore 
amounts to Capital Improvement Advisory Committee recommended 
levels, for the 20 capital improvement projects shown in Attachment I to 
this report. Should there be insufficient funds to fund all of the 20 
specified projects, after consultation with the CI AC, the Controller shall 
use available funds from retirement contribution savings to adjust 
capital appropriations to maximize maintenance of the City's 
infrastructure. 

The Controller has recommended minor amendments to the 
Administrative Provisions of the Annual Salary Ordinance (Section 1.3C, 
Charges and Deductions for Maintenance). A schedule of the current rates and 
the Controller's recommended changes in the Fiscal Year 1995-96 charges and 
deductions for various services, such as charges for meals at San Francisco 
General Hospital and the cost for meals at the O'Shaughnessy Guest Cottage is 
included as Attachment 2 to this report. 

7. The Director of Human Resources has proposed revisions to the 
Administrative Provisions of the Annual Salary Ordinance (ASO) for 1995-96. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Minor revisions are made in order to (a) allow the Human Resources Director to 
administratively amend the ASO as authorized by the Board of Supervisors 
without the need for duplicative administrative processes and formal legislation 
and (b) delete references to the Salary Standardization Ordinance (SSO) and 
incorporate references to the ratified Memorandums of Understanding and 
ordinances which replace the SSO. 

Significant revisions to the Administrative Provisions of the Annual Salary 
Ordinance, as recommended by the Director of Human Resources, are as follows: 

Section 1.1B.D. - Allows the Director of Human Resources to adjust 
compensation of a position pursuant to specified Charter Sections, 
revisions to State Law, or ordinance. 

Section 1.1B.E. - Allows the Director of Human Resources to amend 
the ordinance to reflect the initial rates of compensation for a newly 
established classification, except for uniformed officers of the Police 
and Fire Departments. 

8. In past years, the Mayor's recommended Interim Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance and the Interim Annual Salary Ordinance have, in general, been 
routinely approved by the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of new 
positions and new programs, capital improvements and equipment. 

9. At the direction of the Budget Committee and the full Board of 
Supervisors, the Budget Analyst has historically been instructed to analyze the 
Mayor's recommended budget in detail and make recommendations for reducing 
the Mayor's recommended budget only if such recommendations do not result in 
service level reductions. Budget reductions recommended by the Budget Analyst 
and approved by the Board, have often been used by the Board of Supervisors as a 
source of funds for requests to the Mayor to (a) restore items deleted in the 
Mayor's recommended budget and/or (b) include new items in the budget based on 
the priorities of the Board of Supervisors. Except for capital improvements, the 
Board of Supervisors cannot unilaterally add any item back to the Mayor's budget. 
The restoration or addition of expenditures to the Mayor's recommended budget 
(except for capital improvements) first requires appropriation approval by the 
Mayor and then subsequent appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

In connection with the annual hearings to be conducted by the Budget 
Committee beginning next week on the Mayor's Recommended 1995-96 budget, in 
addition to the recommendations of the Budget Analyst, the Budget Analyst will 
also be reporting on the service level impacts of the expenditure reductions 
included in the Mayor's recommended 1995-96 budget. Since such reductions have 
already been effected in the Mayor's recommended 1995-96 Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and Interim Annual Salary Ordinance, these 
reductions have been reflected in the Interim Budget. The Budget Analyst will 
also be reporting on which recommendations have been implemented by the 
Mayor as a result of the Budget Analyst's Zero-Base Budget Analysis. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

10. The reductions reflected in the Mayor's Recommended 1995-96 budget 
include savings from layoffs. According to the Mayor's Office, an estimated 50 
layoffs of City and County employees are expected as a result of the Mayor's 
proposed budget. However, due to bumping and re-employment rights of persons 
occupying these positions, personnel transactions affecting more than 100 
employees could be expected if 50 employees are laid off. Departments had 
submitted 163 layoff notices to the Human Resources Department as of June 9, 
1995. However, the Director of Human Resources is unable to determine whether 
these 163 layoff notices include the layoffs envisioned by the Mayor or whether 
such layoff notices are related to the 1995-96 proposed budget. As of the writing of 
this report, the Mayor's Office has not provided us with the details of the 
anticipated 50 layoffs. 

11. Approval of the Mayor's recommended 1995-96 Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and Interim Annual Salary Ordinance by the Board of 
Supervisors would implement (a) all expenditure reductions, and (b) fee 
increases, that are not dependent on legislative approval by the Board of 
Supervisors, which the Mayor has included in his recommended 1995-96 budget. 
In accordance with the 1995-96 budget calendar, the Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and the Interim Annual Salary Ordinance are 
scheduled to be passed for second reading at the June 19, 1995 meeting of the 
Board of Supervisors. Final passage of these ordinances is scheduled for June 26, 
1995. 

12. The Budget Analyst has previously been advised by Mr. Burke 
Delventhal of the City Attorneys Office that the Board of Supervisors is required to 
approve the Mayor's recommended Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance 
and Interim Annual Salary Ordinance (and therefore the Interim Budget), 
subject to any additional reductions which the Board may choose to make, by no 
later than June 30th of each year. Mr. Delventhal has further advised the Budget 
Analyst that if these ordinances are not approved by the Board of Supervisors by 
June 30, the Controller will no longer have authority to issue payroll warrants to 
City and County employees or to issue other warrants to pay for any other City and 
County services. 

Mr. Ed Harrington, the City Controller, has previously advised the Budget 
Analyst that he concurs with the opinion of Mr. Delventhal. The Controller would 
cease to issue any further City and County warrants unless the Board of 
Supervisors approves an Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and Interim 
Annual Salary Ordinance (the Interim Budget) by June 30. 

13. The proposed Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance includes 
$9,000,000 in new revenue which is anticipated from the creation of the Parks and 
Recreation Improvement District (P.R.I.D.E), a Benefit Assessment District 
which is dependent on future legislative approval by the Board of Supervisors. 
Legislation currently before the Board of Supervisors (Files 213-95-1.1 and 127-95-9) 
would declare the Board of Supervisors intention to form the P.R.I.D.E., levy an 
assessment on property owners to produce the revenues which are anticipated 
from this source, and begin a legally-required 45-day period during which 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

property owners may protest the assessment. If a majority of property owners 
protest the assessment in writing within the 45 day period (by August 7, 1995), 
proceedings for the P.R.I.D.E. must be abandoned, and no new revenues would be 
available from this source during the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. If the proposed Benefit 
Assessment District and its related revenues are not approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, then the Fiscal Year 1995-96 budget, as recommended by the Mayor, 
will be out of balance by $9.0 million, thereby requiring either a reduction in 
expenditures or an increase in revenues of $9.0 million. 

One additional revenue source included in the budget has not yet been 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. On June 7, 1995, the Budget Committee 
recommended approval of an ordinance that would increase Adult Probation fees 
by $325,000. This proposed ordinance is now pending before the full Board of 
Supervisors. 

14. In past years, exceptions to the Interim Appropriation Ordinance and 
the Annual Salary Ordinance have been requested by Departments and 
recommended by the Mayor's Office and the Budget Analyst. No such exceptions 
have been forwarded to the Budget Analyst by the Mayor as of the writing of this 
report. It has been the general practice of the Budget Committee in recent years to 
not approve exceptions to the Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance that have 
not been recommended by the Mayor's Office, since the Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance is predicated upon the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 
The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that no additional Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance exceptions that might be brought to the Budget 
Committee by City Departments be considered unless they are recommended by 
the Mayor's Office. 

Rpmmmendation 

Approve the proposed Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and the 
proposed Interim Annual Salary Ordinance. 



BOARD OF SI IPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Attachment 1 

Restorations to CIAC Recommended Levels, for Twenty Capital 

Improvement Projects That Would be the First Use of Any Additional 

General Fund Expenditure Savings Should Retirement 

Contribution Rates Be Reduced Further 

(per Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance Administrative Provisions 

Section 10.5.1) 

Department - Title Amount 

Board of Supervisors - Misc. Repair/Remodel $ 1,250 

Sheriff - Misc. Facility Maintenance 51,450 

Juvenile Court - Misc. Facility Maintenance 105,400 

Art Commission - Monuments, Cultural Centers 31,750 

Fire - Misc. Facility Maintenance 98,900 

Municipal Railway - Track. Misc. Facility Maint. 163,900 

Police - Misc. Facility Maintenance 59,250 

Recreation & Park - various maintenance projects. 206,000 

Social Services - Misc. Facility Maintenance 9,250 

Academy of Sciences - Misc. Facility Maint. 23,050 

Fine Arts Museums - Misc. Facility Maintenance 24,250 

Asian Art Museum - Misc. Facility Maintenance 12,150 

CAO - FCM. Disabled Access Programs 348,950 

Electricity - Misc. Facility Maintenance 6,000 

Animal Control - Misc. Facility Maintenance 3,050 

DPH Community Health - various projects 52,300 

Laguna Honda - Misc. Facility Maintenance 87,400 

Mental Health - various improvement projects 117,200 

DPW - various projects 1,493,300 

Purchaser - Misc. Facility Improvements 3/700 

$2,898,500 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



DtoHn ccbh CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 



MEALS 

A. Hetch Hetchy Boarding House 

(Except O'Shaughnessy guest conage) 
Breakfast, per meal 
Lunch, per meal 
Dinner, per meal 





Attachment 2 




fage 1 of 3 


1994-95 


1995-96 


$ 5.00 


$ 5.00 


10.00 


10.00 


18.00 


19.00 



B. O'Shaughnessy guest cottage 



Breakfast, per meal 
Lunch, per meal 
Dinner, per meal 
Room, cottage 
Room, bunk house 



12.00 


$ 10.00 


18.00 


18.00 


25.00 


24.00 


27.00 


28.00 


16.00 


16.00 



C. Department of Public Health 

Breakfast, per meal 

Laguna. Honda Hospital 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Lunch, per meal 

Laguna Honda Hospital 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Dinner, per meal 

Laguna Honda Hospital 

San Francisco General Hospital 

D. Juvenile Court 

All institution , per meal 



4.39 


4.40 


4.24 


4.81 


5.47 


5.74 


6.57 


7.09 


5.16 


Discontinued 


7.10 


7.62 



S 5.50 



3.89 



E. Recreation and Park - Camp Mather 
per meal 



$ 6.00 



.00 



Sheriff 

All jails, per meal 
County Jails #1, #2, #3, #7 
County Jails #8, #9 
SFGH, Ward 7D, breakfast 
SFGH, Ward 7D, lunch 
SFGH, Ward 7D, dinner 
SFGH, Ward 7D, average 



S 1.20 



0.84 
1.07 
3.31 
4.53 
6.11 
4.71 



(With the exception of the free laundering of uniforms for interns, residents, nurses, 
kitchen helpers and other employees.) 



per pound 



.45 



92 



ROOM: 



(With the Exception of free rooms furnished to interns and residents.) 



Per bi-weekly pay period 
Per person per night 



S166.53 
23.79 



'$173.19 
24.74 



21 



jun \a? -3D wo-^bHn LCbh CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 



Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 3 



HOUSE OR APARTMENT 



1994-95 



1995-96 



Unless otherwise specified, lodging for all facilities except Hetch Hetchy Project, 
$50.00 per room per month, or in accordance with the recommendation of the 
Director of Property on the request of the Department Head. 

BOARD - COST PER MEAL fsee note^ 

Hetch Hetchy Boarding House (Except 

O'Shaughnessy Guest Cottage) $ 

O'Shaughnessy Guest Cottage 

Other Departments and Institutions 

Department of Public Health 

Laguna Honda Hospital 

Breakfast, per meal $ 

Lunch, per meal 
Dinner, per meal 
Average, per meal 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Breakfast, per meal $ 

Lunch, per meal 
Dinner, per meal 
Average, per meal 

Juvenile Court 

Log Cabin Ranch School 
Average 

Juvenile Hall 

Average 

Average Cost per meal - Juvenile Court 

Recreation and Park 

Camp Mather Average 

Sheriff 

All Jails, Average 



11.08 
27.18 



$ 5.50 



5.50 
5.50 



$ 6.00 



S 1.20 



$ 11.16 
26.74 



4.39 


4.40 


5.47 


5.74 


5.16 


Discontinued 


5.16 


5.07 


424 


4.81 


6.57 


7.09 


7.10 


7.62 


6.06 


6.51 



3.56 



4.06 
3.89 



8.00 



Discontinued 



22 



JUN 09 '95 08:56AM CCSF CONTROLLER'S OFFICE 

Attachment 2 
Page 3 of 3~ 



LAUNDRY 1994-95 1995-96 



San Francisco General Hospital 

Unit cost per pound S .45 $ .92 

LODGING: 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Room - per person per month S366.79 S381.46 



(Note) Sales of meals by employers to employees are subject to state sales tax. 

Thus, meals sold to employees by the City and County are subject to 8.5% 
sales tax. The meal cost figures and 1994-95 annual salary ordinance rates 
stated in the stated in the schedules do not include any provisions for 8.5% 
sales tax payable by the City to the State. 



23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Item 5 - File 170-95-6 

Note: The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) reports that an 
Amendment of the Whole will be submitted to the Budget Committee at 
its meeting of June 14, 1995 which provides for a General Obligation Bond 
measure in the amount of $63,590,000, instead of $78,130,000 as 
contained in the proposed resolution as it is currently drafted. This report 
is based on the Amendment of the Whole. 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest 

and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the 
following municipal improvements, to wit: the acquisition, 
construction and/or reconstruction of certain improvements 
to City Hall, including life safety improvements, disabled 
access improvements, electrical power and system 
improvements, building system and communication 
improvements, historic preservation improvements, 
functional space conversion improvements, child care 
improvements and waterproofing improvements, and the 
related acquisition, construction and reconstruction 
necessary for the foregoing purposes; that the estimated cost 
of $63,590,000 for said municipal improvements is and will 
be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and 
revenue of said City and County and will require the 
incurring of a bonded indebtedness. 

Amount: $63,590,000 

Description: City Hall closed in February, 1995 and is scheduled to 

remain closed until February, 1998 for seismic strengthening. 
The Department of Public Works (DPW) has proposed to 
undertake additional bond-funded non-seismic capital 
improvements to City Hall, which would be undertaken 
concurrently with the seismic improvement projects currently 
being performed. The proposed $63,590,000 General 
Obligation bond measure would be used to finance the non- 
seismic capital improvement projects at City Hall which have 
been proposed by DPW. DPW reports that cost savings could 
be realized by integrating the proposed non-seismic capital 
improvements with the seismic strengthening construction 
projects currently being performed. 

A similar but smaller bond measure of approximately $38.5 
million was submitted to the electorate on the November, 
1994 ballot. However, this bond measure received only 64 
percent approval, or less than the two-thirds approval 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2k 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



needed. According to the Office of the Chief Administrative 
Officer (CAO), the scope of work envisioned in the proposed 
bond measure of $63,590,000 is far greater than the 
November, 1994 measure because DPW learned more about 
the needs of City Hall departments during the process of 
moving out of City Hall and has attempted to apply that 
knowledge to the proposed bond measure. 

DPW reports that the intent of this bond proposal is to 
provide for a safe, accessible and technologically equipped 
work place in City Hall. DPW reports that, for the last 80 
years, construction improvements at City Hall have occurred 
sporadically in a non-systematic manner and without a 
comprehensive approach to long-term planning. DPW 
reports that City Hall's current systems and design are 
inconsistent with current life safety and accessibility 
standards, including standards related to fire protection and 
emergency evacuation warning systems. 

The specific non-seismic capital improvement projects which 
have been proposed by DPW and which would be financed by 
the proposed $63.6 million General Obligation Bonds are 
presented below. The proposed improvements have been 
prioritized by DPW into three levels according to the degree 
of urgency. According to DPW, Priority One is work that 
must be accomplished prior to moving back into City Hall. 
DPW advises that Priority Two consists of work that is highly 
desirable, is typically required to maintain the integrity of 
the structure and contents and will be significantly more 
economical to accomplish concurrently with the seismic work 
now underway. DPW reports that Priority Three work 
consists of highly desirable elements that could be postponed 
without incurring significantly higher future costs. The 
proposed resolution pertains to all of the costs included in 
Priorities One, Two and Three. 



Component 
Construction Costs 

Waterproofing 

Replace skylights and perform roof repairs 
Dome restoration 
Refurbish or replace windows 
Subtotal - Waterproofing 



Priority 
One 



$348,000 



Priority 
Two 



$966,880 
1,085,000 



Priority 
Three 



Total 



$966,880 

1,085,000 

348.000 

$2,399,880 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1117,500 


117.500 




$232,700 


130,000 


$130,000 


231,650 


231,650 


365,120 


365,120 


52,000 


52,000 


200,000 


200.000 




$978,770 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Priority Priority Priority 

Component One Two Three Total 

Ornamental Metal 

Clean, repair, prime and paint 50 percent 

of ornamental metal railings constituting 

safety hazards $115,200 $115,200 

Clean, repair, prime and paint ornamental 

lamps and sconces 

Subtotal - Ornamental Metal 

Plumbing Systems 

Replace attic plumbing lines 
Replace lead waste connections 
Replace rotunda draining pipe 
Install water efficient fixtures 
Replace plumbing supply risers 
Subtotal - Plumbing Systems 

Heating Systems 

Refurbish steam system and radiators 382,800 382,800 

Vertical Transportation 

Replace motor and controls for 6 existing 

passenger elevators 
Replace motor and controls for 3 existing 

freight elevators 

Subtotal - Vertical Transportation 

Fire Protection Systems 

Install automatic fire sprinkler system 2,717,370 

Install fire alarm system 591,700 

Install emergency generator 
Subtotal - Fire Protection System 

Heating, Ventilation & Air 
Conditioning (HVAC) 

Install new air-handling units on second 
floor and replace air handling units on 
third and fourth floors with new energy- 
conserving units 2,219,000 2,219,000 

New Power Distribution 
Upgrade electrical service and provide an 
electrical distribution system 2,745,000 2,745,000 

Lighting 

Replace office lighting fixtures with energy- 
efficient fluorescent fixtures 344,080 344,080 

Telecommunications 

Recable building to provide modern voice/ 
data communications network 2,379,900 2,379,900 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



780,000 


$780,000 


390,000 


390.000 
$1,170,000 


456,700 


2,717,370 

591,700 

456.700 

$3,765,770 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Priority Priority Priority 

Component One Two Three Total 

Building Security 

Provide security office, video cameras, card 
access and video monitor $150,000 $150,000 

Accessibility 

Remove barriers in public access areas $1,423,100 $1,423,100 

Remove barriers in departmental areas 1,409,200 1,409,200 

Remodel restrooms in public access areas 90,000 90,000 

Install building and floor directories and 

room signage 109,000 109,000 

Install talking signs for sight-impaired 

persons $260,000 260,000 

Lower thermostats and retrofit radiators 

with levers to provide accessibility to 

wheelchair users 169,400 169,400 

Relocate light switches, receptacle outlets, 

telephone and data outlets to provide 

accessibility to wheelchair users 500,000 500.000 

Subtotal - Accessibility $3,960,700 

Interior Painting & Lead Abatement 

Paint and refinish third and fourth floors 660,800 $660,800 

Paint and refinish first and second floors 510,250 510.250 

Subtotal - Interior Painting/Lead Abatement 

Adaptive Re-Use 

Convert space previously used by Court 

system on third and fourth floors 

for use as general office space 3,034,700 

Adapt basement, main floor, mezzanine 

and second floor for use as office space 1,228,400 2,310,600 

Subtotal - Adaptive Re-Use 

Child Care Facility 

Construct child care facility in basement 
with capacity for 30 children 216,288 

Historic Preservation 

Clean stone exterior of building 319,725 

Clean stone interior of building 654,000 

Clean dome 248,500 

Replace exterior court skylights with 

conventional skylight system and install 

interior wood and glass ceiling lights 799,200 

Subtotal - Historic Preservation 

Total - Construction Costs $18,331,570 $11,903,205 $476,288 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Construction Costs Including Priorities One, Two and Three $30,711,063 

Contractor's Overhead and Fees (16%) 4.913.770 

Subtotal $35,624,833 

Design and Scope Contingency (10%) 3.562.483 

Subtotal $39,187,316 

Price Escalation (7%) 2.743.112 

Subtotal $41,930,428 

Construction Contingency (10%) 4.193.043 

Total Hard Costs $46,123,471 

Soft Costs 

Client Department Services (0.5%) $230,617 

DPW Project Management (2.5%) 1,153,087 

Permits, Approvals, Testing & Inspection (4.0%) 1,844,707 

Programming Services (2.0%) 922,469 

Design and Bid Services (11.0%) 5,073,582 

Construction Services (6.0%) 2,767,408 

Post Construction Services (2.0%) 922,469 

Contract Administration (2.0%) 922.469 
Subtotal - Soft Costs 13.836.808 

Total Hard and Soft Costs $59,960,279 

Bond Issuance Costs (approximately 1% of hard and soft costs) 629,603 

Lease Extension 

DPW advises that, due to the loss of time between the prior ballot measure in 
November of 1994 and the proposed ballot measure in November of 1995, and 
because of the increase in the scope of work in the proposed 1995 bond 
measure, it may not be possible to complete all of the proposed work within 
the seismic project schedule. The proposed $3 million would be used to 
extend the existing leases at the current temporary facilities for a period of 
one year. Attachment I, provided by Mr. Steve Legnitto of the Real Esate 
Department, explains the detailed basis of the $3,000,000, including 
specifically which departments and leases are involved and how much is 
being allocated for each lease. 3.000.000 

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $63,589,882 

TOTAL BOND MEASURE (rounded up to nearest $5,000 by CAO) $63,590,000 



Comments: 



1. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), 
which is chaired by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 
is responsible for prioritizing the City's proposed capital 
improvement projects on a City-wide basis. The CAO advises 
that, while this proposal would generally not have a high 
priority for the CIAC, it has been given a higher priority than 
would otherwise be the case because most of the work can 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



only be performed while City Hall is closed and also because 
there are likely to be some rent savings if rent-paying 
departments can be moved into the vacated third and fourth 
floor space in City Hall (as reflected in the budget above, 
under the proposed bond issue, the third and fourth floors 
would be converted from Court space to general office space). 

2. DPW originally requested that a bond issue of $95,975,000 
be placed before the voters in November, 1995. This amount 
was reduced to $78,130,000, as contained in the proposed 
resolution as currently drafted. However, the CIAC is 
recommending a bond issue of only $63,590,000, as reflected 
in this report, or a reduction of $32,385,118. Attachment II 
summarizes the original bond program of $95,975,000, as 
prepared by DPW, and the recommendations of the CIAC. 

3. The Controller's Office estimates that the sale of the 
proposed General Obligation bonds in the amount of 
$63,590,000 (as recommended by the CIAC) would result in 
an increase in the property tax rate for 1996-97 of 
approximately $0.0117 per $100 of assessed value. At this 
rate, the owner of a single family residence assessed at 
$300,000 would pay $34.28 in additional property taxes in 
1996-97. 

4. The State General Obligation Bond Law requires that, in 
order for the City to issue General Obligation Bonds, a 
resolution of public convenience and necessity must first be 
adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors, and 
the proposed bonds must then be approved by two-thirds of 
the electorate. If the proposed resolution (determining and 
declaring that public interest and necessity justify the 
proposed bonds) is approved by a two-thirds vote of the Board 
of Supervisors, the City Attorney will prepare an ordinance to 
submit the proposed bond issue to the voters. 

5. According to the CIAC, the City is reaching its prudent 
debt limit, which is 2.4 percent of net assessed property value 
in the City. The CIAC estimates that approximately $600 
million in debt capacity will be available to the City under 
this limit over the next ten years, assuming a three percent 
annual growth rate in net assessed property value. If all of 
the bond issues recommended by the CIAC for the November 
1995 ballot (see Attachment III for a list of all of the proposed 
bond issues) are approved at the amounts recommended by 
the CIAC, the City would issue $133 million in General 
Obligation bonds, using approximately 22 percent of the 
City's remaining estimated bonding capacity to the year 
2005. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



6. The expenditure of any of the proposed General Obligation 
Bond funds would require a supplemental appropriation to be 
approved by the Board of Supervisors if the electorate 
approves the proposed General Obligation Bonds. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



(/) 

111 
(/> 

< 

w 

-I 

Q 
Z 
111 
H 
X 
LU 

o 

I- 

H 

to 
o 
o 

o 

LU 

E 

H- 

</) 

UJ 

■ 

z 

o 

< 
O 

o 

-J 

UJ 

-J 
< 



o 



w 


m ifl io 


13 


</» w V> 




CO 10 «o 

IOOM 

•* r-_ co 




»o <o id" 





H 




& 




UJ 
Qi 

1- 




Ul 

z> 
z 

LU 
> 




Z 




< 


^_^ 


o 
to 

z 




CO 


cf 




co 

UJ 


u E 


UJ 




z 


i5 S$ 




"Sl 


z 
< 


</> 


Q 


> 


p) 21 aj 

4 3 JC 






o 


f£ 0_ CO 


CO 


< 


-# 



UJ 




s 


UJ 




H- 


cc 




LU 


(- 




UJ 


to 




<x. 


t- 




V- 




>> 


CO 


X 


<u 


I 


Bj 


E 


o 


5 


O -p 

5| 


ID 





a >»T3 






#•* 



£ >2 



■Si 



^ 



i- CN CO ■>»■ 



E E 2. « • 

E E *• K > 

.a i "E 

w -2 £J ta 

P O P 3 0> 

HhHOl- 
co" ^ (n to P 



£0'd it/gtt Wdi£:2T S66T '9 Nnr 



31 



:01 



"ldaa 3i«i53 ~itGd dSDD:woad 



Attachment II- 



City Hall Non-Seismic Bond 



1 


DPW Prop 


CIAC 




Horn tt ; Project Component 


Bond 


Recofnmond 


Difference 


1 








PRIORITY 1 








1-3 ] Refurbish Windows 


348,000 


348.000 





6-1 I Fire Sprinklers 


2.717,370 


2.717.370 





6-2 iFireAJarm 


591.700 


591.700 





7-1 


HVAC 


2.219.000 


2.219.000 





8-1 


Power Distnbution 


2.745.000 


2.745.000 





12-1 


Public Barriers 


1.423.100 


1.423.100 





12-4 J Public Toilets 


90.000 


90.000 





12-6 [Signage 


109.000 


109.000 





12-8 Mechanical-ADA 


169.400 


169.400 





12-9 


Electncal-ADA 


1,087.310 


500.000 


-587.310 


14-4 


Re-Use 3rd 4 4th Floors 


3.034,700 


3.034.700 





15-1 


Relocate Existing Workstations 


1,035,975 





-1.035.975 


15-2 


AJI New Workstations 


488.525 





-• : a« 525 




SUBTOTAL PRIORITY 1 


16,059,080 


13.947,270 


-2.111.810 












COMBINED PRIORITY 1 AND 2 








4-1 


Ornamental Metal 


232,700 


232,700 





10-1 


Voice/Data 


3.879.900 


2,379,900 


-1,500,000 


13-1 


Lead Abatement -Walls 


635.050 


635.050 





13-2 


Lead Abatement-Trim 


536.000 


536,000 





14-1 


Re-Use Basement 


497,000 


497,000 





14-2 


Re-Use Main & Mezzanine 


1,872.000 


1.872.000 





14-3 


Re-Use 2nd Floor 


1,170,000 


1.170.000 







SUBTOTAL PRIORITY 1/2 


8,822.650 


7.322,650 


-1.500,000 












PRIORITY 2 






1-1 


Roofs & Skylights 


966.880 


966.880 





1-2 


Dome Restoration 


1.085,000 


1.085,000 





2-1 


Attic Piping 


130.000 


130,000 





2-2 


Lead Waste 


231.650 


231.650 





2-3 


Rotunda Drain Pipe 


365,120 


365,120 





2-4 


Water Efficient Fbdures 


52,000 


52.000 





2-5 


Risers 


200.000 


200,000 





3-1 


Heating 


382.800 


382,800 





5-1 


Passenger Elevators 


780.000 


7&0.000 





5-2 


Freight Elevators 


390.000 


390.000 





6-3 


Emergency Generator 


1.036.655 


456.700 


-579.955 


9-1 


Lighting Fixtures 


677.314 


344.080 


-333.234 


10-2 


Cable TV 


500.000 





-500,000 


11-1 


Security 


150.000 


150,000 





12-2 


Department Barriers 


1,409.200 


1.409,200 





12-3 


Polk St Ramps 


650.000 





-650.000 


12-5 


Departmental Toilets 


320,000 





<32O.OO0 


17-1 


Exterior Stone 


319,725 


319.725 





17-2 


Interior Stone 


1,118.500 


654.000 


-164,500 


17-3 


Dome Cleaning 


248.500 


, 248.500 





18-1 


Light Court Skylights 


799.200 


799.200 





18-2 


4th Floor Lights 


856,305 





-856,305 




SUBTOTAL PRIORITY 2 


12.668,849 


8.964.855 


-3,703,994 












PRIORITY 3 








9-2 


Crawlspace Lighting 


65,000 





-65.000 


9 3 


Energy Conservation 


75.000 





-75.000 


12-7 


Talking_Signs 


260,000 


260.000 





16-1 


Childcare Facility 


216,268 


216,288 





18-3 


Elevator Cabs 


45,000 





45.IAXD 


18^J 


Restore Clock Syslcm 


112,500 





■112.500 




SUBTOTAL PRIORITY 3 


773.788 


476.288 


-297.500 














CONSTRUCTION TOTALS 


38,324.367 


30,711,063 


-7.613,304 














Contingency/Soft Costs 


54.050.633 


29.249.216 


-24.801.417 


19-1 


Lease Extension 


3.600.000 


3.000.000 


600.000 




Issuance Costs 





629.003 


629.603 














TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 


95.975,000 


63,589.882 


'■ . ■ ■ ; ■ • 



32 



Attachment III 



List of Proposed Bond Measures 



CIAC 

Proposed Recommended 

1. City Hall Non-Seismic Improvements 

(File 170-95-6) $63,590,000 $63,590,000 

2. Underground Storage Tanks 

(File 170-95-7) 51,000,000 40,200,000 

3. Steinhart Aquarium (File 170-95-8) 28.670.829 29.245.000 

TOTAL $143,260,829 $133,035,000 



33 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 170-95-7 



Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Resolution determining and declaring that the public 
interest and necessity demand the acquisition, 
construction, and/or reconstruction of the following 
municipal improvement, to wit: acquisition, construction 
and/or reconstruction of certain improvements to 
underground storage tanks owned by the City and County, 
which improvements shall include repair, removal and/or 
replacement of the underground storage tanks, and testing 
and remediation of past and present storage tank sites, and 
regulated acquisition, construction and reconstruction for 
the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of 
$51,000,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be 
too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and 
revenue of said City and county and will require the 
incurring of a bonded indebtedness. 

$51,000,000 

The State General Obligation Bond Law requires that, in 
order for the City to issue General Obligation Bonds, a 
resolution of public convenience and necessity must first be 
adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors, and 
the proposed bonds must then be approved by two-thirds of 
the electorate. If the proposed resolution (determining and 
declaring that public interest and necessity justify the 
proposed bonds) is approved by a two-thirds vote of the Board 
of Supervisors, the City Attorney will prepare an ordinance 
to submit the proposed bond issue to the voters. 

Mr. Steve Nelson of the CAO's Office states that, in order for 
the proposed General Obligation Bond measure to qualify 
for the November ballot, the subject proposed resolution 
(File 170-95-7) must be approved by the Budget Committee no 
later than June 14, 1995. 

State law requires that all underground fuel storage tanks 
(USTs) have some form of secondary containment (usually 
a double wall) to protect against ground contamination 
from leaking fuel by December 1998, and that ground 
contamination caused by leakage from existing single- 
walled underground fuel storage tanks be cleaned up by the 
same date. The City owns approximately 122 old single- 
walled tanks, ranging in size from 100 gallon waste oil 
tanks to 20,000 gallon diesel storage tanks. If the City fails 
to comply with the State law requiring action on these 
tanks, the State could fine the City between $500 and $5,000 
per tank per day. The program funded by the proposed bond 



BOAIID OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



measure would bring the City into compliance with the 
State law through the removal of all of the City's 122 single- 
walled underground storage tanks, and the cleanup of 
ground contamination caused by leaking tanks at 45 sites. 

The underground storage tanks are generally used for fuel 
storage for the City's vehicle fleet, and for emergency 
generators in hospitals and other emergency uses. The 
tanks are located at facilities throughout the City, with the 
majority at Fire Stations, MUNI facilities, and hospitals. 

The cost to remove, replace and cleanup contamination 
caused by an underground storage tank ranges from 
$62,798 to $565,000 per tank. A list of the tanks to be 
removed and replaced, and the sites to be cleaned up, 
together with a preliminary estimate of the approximate 
cost at each site, is included as Attachment 1, provided by 
the Department of Public Works. 

According to Mr. Nelson, who staffs the Capital 
Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), the CIAC has 
recommended that a bond issue of only $40,200,000, rather 
than $51,000,000, be placed before the voters, based on a 
recommended reduction of $11,200,000 in the originally 
proposed bond program, and a recommended addition of 
$400,000 in bond issuance costs, which were previously 
omitted from the bond program, for a net reduction in the 
recommended bond issue of $10,800,000. 

The CIAC recommends the bond program as proposed, 
except for the proposal to cleanup underground storage 
tank sites at the St. Mary's Square Garage and at the SFGH 
Hospital Garage. According to Mr. Nelson, the CIAC 
believes that, rather than using the proposed General 
Obligation Bond funds, funds from the Parking Meter 
Revenue Bonds issued in December of 1994 to fund the 
construction of the SFGH Garage should fund such UST 
work at the SFGH Garage site, and that the Department of 
Parking and Traffic's Parking Revenue Fund should fund 
such UST work at the St. Mary's Garage site. 

According to Mr. Kevin Hagerty of the Department of 
Parking and Traffic, it is possible to fund the SFGH Garage 
tank site cleanup, at a cost of approximately $5.2 million, 
with the Parking Meter Revenue Bond Funds. However, 
Mr. Hagerty reports that the St. Mary's garage cleanup, at 
a cost of approximately $3 million, cannot be funded using 
the Parking Revenue Fund because all revenues in that 
Fund have already been allocated. The Department of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Parking and Traffic believes that the St. Mary's Garage 
project should be included in the proposed bond issue. Mr. 
Hagerty notes that 58 percent of the net income from the St. 
Mary's Garage accrues to the Recreation and Park 
Department, and accordingly, the Recreation and Park 
Department would be responsible for 58 percent of the costs 
associated with the operation of the Garage, including this 
cleanup cost. Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation and Park 
Department reports that the Department does not have 
revenues to fund the cost of the St. Mary's Garage cleanup, 
and the Recreation and Park Department believes this 
project should be included in the proposed General 
Obligation Bond issue. 

The itemized costs of the bond program as recommended by 
the CIAC are as follows: 

Remediation (ground contamination cleanup) $22,555,000 

Tank removal 624,500 

Tank replacement 4,845,000 

Public Health reports and oversight costs 786,000 

Laboratory fees 176,750 

Permit fees 221,600 

Design cost 1.255.001 

Sub-total- Program, permit, and design costs 30,463,851 

Inflation (3% per year for 3 years) 3,046,385 

City salaries (See Attachment 2, provided by DPW) 1.039.500 

Sub-total- Bond program costs $34,549,736 

Contingency (15% of Bond program costs) 5,182,460 

Bond issuance costs 400.000 

Total $40,132,196 

Rounded to: $40,200,000 

Comments: 1. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), 

which is chaired by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 
is responsible for prioritizing the City's proposed capital 
improvement projects, and has recommended this bond 
issue as one of the City's highest priorities for the use of 
General Obligation Bonds. 

2. As noted above, the CIAC has recommended that a bond 
issue of only $40,200,000, rather than $51,000,000, be placed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



before the voters, based on a recommended reduction of 
$11,200,000 in the proposed bond program which was 
submitted by the DPW, and a recommended addition of 
$400,000 in bond issuance costs, for a net reduction in the 
recommended bond issue of $10,800,000. If the Board of 
Supervisors adopts the recommendation of the CIAC, the 
proposed legislation must be amended to reflect the lower 
amount of the bond program. 

3. The CAO's Office estimates that the sale of the proposed 
General Obligation bonds in the amount of $51,000,000 
would result in an increase in the property tax rate for 1996- 
97 of approximately $0.0094 per $100 of assessed value. At 
this rate, the owner of a single family residence assessed at 
$300,000 would pay $27.54 in additional property taxes 
beginning in 1996-97 due to the issuance of these bonds. 

4. If $40,200,000 in bonds were to be issued, as 
recommended by the CIAC, instead of $51,000,000, the 
bonds would result in an increase in the property tax rate 
for 1996-97 of approximately $0.0074 per $100 of assessed 
value. At this rate, the owner of a single family residence 
assessed at $300,000 would pay $21.68 in additional property 
taxes beginning in 1996-97 due to the issuance of these 
bonds. 

5. According to the CIAC, if these bonds are not approved, 
the City will need to propose a future bond issue for this 
purpose, or identify another source of funding. As noted 
above, if the City fails to comply with the State law 
regarding underground storage tanks, it could incur fines 
estimated at between $500 and $5,000 per tank per day, 
totaling, on an annual basis, between $22 million (365 days 
x 122 USTs x $500) and $222 million (365 X 122 USTs x 
$5,000). 

6. According to the CIAC, the City is reaching its prudent 
debt limit, which is 2.4 percent of net assessed property 
value in the City. The CIAC estimates that approximately 
$600 million in debt capacity will be available to the City 
under this limit over the next ten years, assuming a 3 
percent annual growth rate in net assessed property value. 
If all of the bond issues recommended by the CIAC for the 
November 1995 ballot (See Attachment 3 for a list of all the 
proposed bond issues) are approved at the amounts 
recommended by the CIAC, the City would issue $133 
million in General Obligation bonds, using approximately 
22 percent of the City's remaining estimated bonding 
capacity to the year 2005. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

7. The expenditure of any of the proposed General 
Obligation Bond funds would require a supplemental 
appropriation to be approved by the Board of Supervisors if 
the electorate approves the proposed General Obligation 
bonds. 

8. As noted in the Description above, the original bond 
program proposal included cleanup costs for the SFGH 
Hospital Garage site and at the St. Mary's Garage site. The 
Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) has 
recommended that these two sites be removed from the 
proposed General Obligation Bond Issue because other 
sources of revenue may be available to fund cleanup at these 
sites. However, the Department of Parking and Traffic and 
the Recreation and Park Department disagree with the 
CIAC with respect to the St. Mary's Garage site and these 
two Departments recommend that the St. Mary's Garage 
site be included in the proposed General Obligation Bond 
Issue. If the St. Mary's Garage cleanup, at a cost of 
approximately $3 million, were included in the bond 
program, the amount of the bond issue would be increased 
from $40,200,000 to a total of $43,200,000. 

Recommendations: Approval of the proposed resolution, and of the amount of 
the proposed bond issue, are policy matters for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



rtLLaciuueiiL j. 
Page 1 of A 



rn 


Od 

zo 

> 

■a 
zr 


to 

JO 

> 

•D 
ZT 
0» 

rr 


> 

3- 


ca 

:v 

> 

■o 
cr 

n 


D 

n 

3 

CD 

cn 
cu 


g 

zr 

Co 

3 


g 

M 

n 

IQ 


g 

o 
3 

Cu 

3 


g 

n 
3" 

CD 

3 
IQ 


g 

3" 

to 

3 
IQ 


g 

zr 

Cu 
to 

3 

IQ 


g 

3" 
3 


g 

3- 

to 
3 


g 

n 

Cu 

3 

IQ 


g 

3' 
0> 

to 

3 
IQ 


g 

3" 

cu 
to 

3 


'V 
n 

3 
Cl 


a 

^0 
ZC 

t- 

Ci 
ZC 

O 
3 

X 
O 

•a 


a 

X 

r 
o» 

Cl 
X 

o 

3 
O 

CO 

•a 


a 

X 

O 

3 

rr 
O 

TJ 


a 

X 
Q 
3 
X 

o 

13 


a 

■s: 
Ci 

3 

X 
O 

■a 


a 

X 

a 

3 

X 


•a 


3 

O 

TJ 

3 

3 
n 


:r 
O 

•o 

Cu 

3 

3 

n 


C) 
3 

Tl 

ID 

3' 

CD 

3 


("1 

3 

■o 

> 

CU 

3 


CD 

n 
Ci 

t- 

Ci 


3 

O 


D 

(D 

X 

o 

c 

3 
Cl 

re. 
c 

3 


n 

3 

a. 
n 

X 
CD 


n 

> 
n 

Cu 

CD 

o 
to 


<., 
r 
■: 

3 

n 

o 


c, 
c: 
< 

3 

n 
o 

c 


C 

< 

3 

O 
O 


O 

T3 
D 

3. 

3 

CD 

3 


o 
►-( 

CO 

0) 

o 


o 

u 

o 
a 

n 


o 

C-i 

o 

a 

CO 

n 


o 

C| 

O 

a. 

to 
n 


o 

C-, 

r-t 



a 

CO 


-J 
< 

o 


o 

I 

3 


O 

CO 

3 


o 

■3 

CD 
3 


o 

o 

c. 

a> 

o 
a. 


o 
o 

u 

T 

o 

CD 


o 
o 

Ci 

ri 



Q, 


> 

3 

ZT 


•a 


> 

ri 

3 
■< 

CO 


-0 


> 

3 

CO 
3" 

o 


> 
3 

k: 

CO 
3" 
O 

TD 


> 

3 

CO 

3- 

o 


3 

CO 

3- 



tr* 

IQ 

c 

3 
0> 

X 

3 

a. 


t- 
o> 

IQ 
C 
3 
0> 

X 

o 

3 

a, 
o< 


O 
O 

■o 
o 




o 

no 

Ci 



o 
o 

"O 


ID 



o 
o 

a) 


ID 




o 
o 

M 
ID 
h-» 
0> 

3 
Q. 

o 
< 


o 
o 

D> 

3 

a. 

a 

< 


o 

o 

g 


o 
o 


r 

Cl 

o 
3 



X 

3 
O 

a 
< 


8 

CD 

3 

a 

ID 

Cu 

ye 


Hi 

3 

0> 


I 

CD 
3 

o 

01 
ID 

*o 

0) 


3: 

D. 
Q, 

3 
< 

CD 
ID 

ra 
0> 
3 
O 
3" 


r 
o 

IQ 

n 

CD 
tT 

3 

50 
0i 
3 

3" 


r 
o 

id 

n 

cu 

tr 
3 

3) 

3 

n 

3" 


r— 
o 
o 

£ 
5" 




















>< 

IT! 
CO 


-< 
ra 

CO 


•< 
to 
to 












































g 1 


a 


■g 

C 

ID 

O 


> 
to 
•a 
rr 

01 


> 

x> 
zr 

0* 


9 

c 
o 


c 

CD 

a. 

0) 


ID 

n 

o 


c 

3 

cn 
a 

a 


c 
3 

CD 
CD 

a 

a. 


c 

3 

CD 
CD 

0) 

CD 


c 
3 

ID 

CD 

a 

CD 

a 


c 

3 

a, 

CD 

Qi 


*0 

1 



■o 

cu 
3 
CD 




c 
3 

CD 
CU 
O, 
CD 


O 

CD 
CD 


a 

3 

CD 
CD 
CD 
CD 
CD 


c 

3 

ID 

CU 

a, 

ID 

D, 


a 

CD 

m 

ID 


a 

CD 

to 

CD 


D 

CD 
to 

CD 


D 
ID 

to 

CD 


a 

CD 

to 

CD 


a 


a 

to 
CD 


c 

3 

CD 
tu 
CD 
ID 

CD 


a 

ID 

to 


a 

rt> 

EO 



c? 

CD 
O 


3 

CD 
O 


c 

3 

CD 
CD 
CD 
CD 
CD 


D 
CD 


c 

3 

CD 
CD 
CD 

CD 


a 

CD 
to 
CD 


c 

3 

CD 

CD 
CD 
CD 


o £ 

-2 g- 
o 

3 


o 

o 
o 
o 


o 

o 

o 
o 


o 

o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 
© 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


o 

o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


O 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


O 

o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


O 

o 

o 


O 

O 
O 

o 


O 

o 
o 
o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 

o 
o 


O 
O 
O 


o 


o 

o 

o 


o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


O 


o 

o 
o 


O 


O 

o 


cn 
o 
o 


» -5 

si. 

to j^- 


o 

o 


s 


2 


£ 


g 


^ 


o 


o 
o 


o 


DO 

o 


CD 

o 


CO 

o 


CD 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 

o 


o 

o 


o 
o 


cn 


s 


s 


-j 


CO 

-J 


^1 


^1 


o 


^1 


b 


CD 
O 
O 


o 
o 


-J 


-o 


5 


£ 


CO 


5* 

w o 

CD CD 

5" * 

a. 


M 


to 


w 


to 


to 


In 


CO 


to 


(0 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


to 


to 


to 


to 


to 


CO 


CO 


•n 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


■n 


-n 


CO 


CO 


■o 


-o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


1 5< 


CO 
en 

o 

o 
o 


CO 

cn 
o 
O 
o 


co 
cn 
O 
O 
O 


CO 

cn 
o 
o 
o 


co 

cn 

O 
O 

o 


CO 

cn 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 
cn 

O 
O 

o 


co 
cn 

o 
o 
O 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
O 
o 
O 
o 


CO 
cn 

O 
O 
O 


CO 
cn 
O 
O 
o 


CO 

cn 
o 
o 
o 


CO 
cn 
O 
O 
O 


CO 

cn 
o 
o 
o 


CO 
en 
O 
O 
O 


CO 
cn 
O 
O 
O 


CO 
cn 
o 
o 
o 


to 
en 

o 
o 


CO 

cn 
o 

o 
O 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
O 


to 

en 

o 
o 
o 


to 
en 

o 
o 
O 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


co 
en 

O 

o 
o 


to 
en 

"o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
"o 
o 
o 


to 
cn 
"o 
O 
o 


co 
en 
"o 
o 
o 


to 
en 
"o 

O 
o 


to 

cn 
"o 
o 
o 


to 
en 
"o 
o 
o 


CO 

cn 
"o 
O 
o 


3J 

a 

O 3 

o w 

CO Cl 

"" s 

5T 


-J 

en 
O 
O 


O 
o 
o 
o 


O 
o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 


cn 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
O 


CD 
cn 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 


-si 
cn 
o 
O 


^4 
cn 
o 
o 


cn 

O 
o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 

o 


cn 

O 
o 
O 


CD 

cn 
o 

o 


cn 
O 

O 
o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 


Cn 
O 
O 


-0. 

Cn 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


CD 

en 
O 
O 


CD 

en 
o 
O 


CD 

cn 
o 
O 


Cn 
O 
O 
O 


ro 

cn 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


Cn 
o 
o 
o 


-J 
en 
O 
O 


-J 
en 
O 
O 


ro 
en 
O 
O 


CO 
tn 
O 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


3) 

a> 

O 3 

o o 

to < 


cn 

ro 

cn 
O 
O 


o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
O 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


CD 
-J 
cn 
O 
O 


o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


cn 
ro 
cn 
o 
O 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
O 


cn 
ro 

cn 
O 
o 


CO 

ro 
cn 
O 


CO 

ro 
cn 
o 


CO 

ro 
cn 
O 


CD 
~0. 

cn 
O 
O 


CO 

ro 

Cn 
O 


CO 

~J 
en 
o 
o 


en 
ro 
en 

o 

o 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
O 


en 
o 
o 
o 


CD 

-o. 
en 
o 
O 


CD 

en 
o 
O 


00 
-0. 

en 
O 
o 


Co 

ro 
en 

o 


cn 
O 
o 
O 


cn 
O 
o 
o 


CO 

ro 
en 
O 


en 
ro 
en 
O 
O 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
o 


cn 
O 
O 
o 


CD 

en 
O 
o 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


cn 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


33 

a> 

o ¥ 

^ a 


-J 
o 
o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


cn 

O 
o 
O 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


-J 
o 
o 
o 


-J 
O 
O 
O 


-J 
o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


CD 
O 
O 
O 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CD 
o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


^1 
O 
O 
o 


cn 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
O 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


en 

O 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


-J 
o 
O 
o 


-J 

o 
o 
o 


cn 

O 
o 
O 


to 
O 
o 
o 


en 

O 
O 
o 


tn 
o 
o 
o 


tn 
O 
O 
O 


1 » 
3; S» 


-J 

cn 
O 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 


ro 
cn 

o 
o 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


-4 

cn 
O 


O 
O 
O 


ro 
O 

o 

o 


ro 
cn 
O 
o 


~^l 
cn 
o 


-s| 

Cn 

o 


cn 
o 


cn 
O 
O 


cn 

o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 


ro 
O 
o 
o 


cn 
C 
o 


o 
o 
o 


-J 
o 


cn 
O 


o 
o 
o 


ro 

O 
o 
o 


ro 

o 
o 
o 


ro 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


cn 

o 
o 


-J 
en 
O 


en 
O 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


O 
o 
o 


"n r— 

CD O 


ro 
CO 

o 
o 


CO 

CD 

o 
o 


CO 
O) 

o 
o 


CO 

a> 
O 
o 


CO 

cn 

o 

o 


ro 

CO 

O 
O 


o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

CD 

o 
o 


ro 

CO 

O 

o 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


CD 
O 
O 


CD 

o 
o 


CD 
O 
O 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 

o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


ro 

CO 

o 

o 


o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 


ro 

CO 

o 
O 


CO 

O 
o 


o 

o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


O J 

O 3 


CO 
CO 

-J 


a> 
cn 
ro 
CO 


CD 
Cn 
ro 

CO 


CD 

cn 
ro 

CO 


cn 

Cn 

ro 

CO 


CD 

ro 
CO 
«sl 


CO 

CO 
CD 


■fc- 

CO 

o 
o 


CD 
cn 
ro 

CO 


CO 

ro 

CO 

■si 


CD 

ro 

CO 

-J 


CD 

CO 
•si 


cn 

CD 
CO 
CD 


CJ1 
CD 
CD 
CD 


cn 

CD 
CD 
CT> 


CO 

o 
o 


cn 

CD 
CD 
CD 


CO 

o 
o 


CD 
CO 


CD 
CO 

-J 


CO 

CO 
CD 


-C>. 
CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 

o 


Cn 
CO 

CD 

o> 


CO 

CD 
CD 


to 

CD 
CD 


cn 

CO 
CD 
CD 


CO 
CO 


CD 

ro 

CO 

~v| 


CO 

CO 
CD 


CO 

o 
o 


CO 

CD 
CD 


CO 

CO 
CD 


CO 

CO 
00 


o t? 
O to 
« to" 

3 


ro 

ro 

CD 


ro 
-J 

CD 

<_» 
ro 
CO 


ro 

CD 

a> 

ro 

CO 


ro 
-J 

CD 

cn 
ro 

CO 


ro 
-si 

CD 
CD 

ro 

CO 


ro 
cn 
ro 
00 
-J. 


CD 

ro 
^J 

CD 
CD 


CD 
CO 

o 
o 


ro 

CD 
CD 

ro 

CO 


CO 
CO 

o 
ro 

CD 


co 

CO 

o 
ro 

CD 

-J 


CO 
CO 

o 

ro 

CD 
-J 


CD 
CD 

ro 

CD 


CD 
CD 

ro 

CD 


CD 
CD 

ro 
-u 

CD 


ro 

cn 

CD 
CO 

o 
o 


CD 
CD 

ro 

-u 

CD 


ro 
cn 

CO 

o 
o 


ro 
cn 
00 


ro 
en 

CO 


CD 

ro 
-J 

CD 

CD 


ro 

cn 

CO 
CO 

o 
o 


CD 
CO 

o 

o 


ro 
en 

CO 
CO 

o 
o 


CO 
CD 

ro 
.&. 

CD 


CD 

ro 
-J 

CD 

CD 


CD 
CO 


CD 
CD 
ro 
CD 


ro 
en 
ro 

CO 

-o. 


ro 

CD 

-J 


CD 

ro 
■^1 

CD 

CD 


cn 
to 

CO 

o 
o 


CD 

ro 
-j 

CO 
CD 


CD 

ro 
^4 

CO 
CD 


CD 

ro 
-J 

CD 
CD 





39 



Page 2 of A 



•■] 
1 1 

ID 

CT 

O 

o 
3 


nq 

a 

in 
n 

Dl 


a 


a 
n 


B 

o 


CO 

~n 

■n 

a 
to 

a> 

a 

•i 


-'J 

CI 
CO 

p.. 


3 


a 
o 

3 


1 .-J 
•'1 
O] 

a 

CO 
Dj 



3 


CO 
-*) 
•'] 

CI 

C'j 

pi 


3 


CO 
oj 

T] 

D 

n 
P> 

o 

3 


CO 
•o 

o 

10 
DJ 

n 



3 


CO 

•'] 

-n 

r 1 

r» 



3 


■'J 
•'] 

D 

CO 

O 
3 


CO 

-o 
O 

n 

Di 



13 


CO 

*n 
a 

Di 

1 . 
3 


CO 

or) 

•'1 

a 

CO 
DJ 



3 

o 


in 

■') 

•"3 

a 

in 


3 


■'] 
D 

Di 
p 



3 


■•; 

a 

a. 
o 


CO 
*") 

-il 

tu 

O 
3 


CO 

•»3 
•>3 
O 

CO 

b. 



3 


CO 

■•'. 
D 

CO 
D.. 

O 
■J 


-n 
'1 
to- 
co 
n 
Di 

Ci 
3 


to 

'■; 
■': 

a 

CO 
B> 

O 


-.. 
''] 
1 1 

n 
DJ 
rr 

Ci 

3 


■o 

a 

CO 

n 
n> 

n 



3 


CO 
T) 

a 

CO 
DJ 



3 


•o 
O 

7> 

it 
3 


• 

X 

DJ 
0, 

a 

c 

Cu 


'n 

■71 

::: 
DJ 

a 

J3 

c 

c^ 


CD 

so 


r:i 

on 

:o 


ro 
CD 

:■' 


03 


so 


CD 

CD 


CD 
CD 


o 

ID 
73 
D> 

3. 

3 

a 

3 


o 

3 


o 
o 


o 

3 

CO 

CO 
D 



rr 

> 
< 


E 
to 
o 
o 
3 

3 


o 

o 

III 

-v 

en 


* 


o 

u 

TJ 



> 
< 
ID 
3 

C 


n 

tJ 

n 


> 
< 

ID 
3 

C 
ID 


OO 


3T 


o 

a 

HO 


o 
M 

a. 
n 


O 
X 



3 
Di 

3 


o 

n 

rr 

> 
< 


o 

-.- 
3 

•a 


3 


O 

m 

B> 
3 
(0 


3 

ID 

in 


o 

n 

3" 

> 
< 
ID 


Cj 



a. 
to 


X 

O 

3 

ft. 

CO 


CD 

c 

X 

o 

3 

ID 

to 
n 
M 

a. 


o 
o 



to 


H 

CO 


o 

no 
O 
to 


o 

1) 
O 

CO 


o 

Tl 
O 


u 

ID 

Co 

ID 


o 

CO 

c 

C3 

rr 

CO 


o 

O 


0. 

3 

o 

Di 


o 

o 



a 
3 

o 


o 
o 

< 

DJ 
3 

Z 
to 


o 

CD 

ft" 

ID 


o 

CD 
Qj 


o 

CD 

■3 

u 

in 


o 

c- 

DJ 

w 

3 

to 

r^ 
ID 

n 


O 

C 

iv 

X 

3 

CO 

n 

ID 


o 

t- 
DJ 

■*■ 

ro 
in 

CD 


r* 
o 
o 
E. 
5' 

3 










>< 

co 
























■< 

m 

to 












n 
to 


>< 
PI 

to 


>< 

M 
























£ o 


a 

m 


a 


D 

CD 

eo 

CD 


O 
CD 
10 


ro 
3 
o 
< 

a 


o 

ID 




a 

CD 
CO 

CD 


a 

CD 
CO 
ID 


O 

CD 

to 


a 

CD 
CD 


D 

CD 

ID 


O 
CD 

in 

ID 


o 

CD 

to 
CD 


c 
a, 

ID 

a. 


a 

CD 
CO 




a 

ID 
DI 
ID 








c 
3 

ID 
D> 

a 

a 


CO 
O 


a 

ID 

CD 


C 
3 

ID 

DJ 

a 

CD 

a 


a 

CD 
CO 
ID 




c 
3 

Dl 

a. 

CD 

0. 


c 
3 

ID 
DJ 

a 

ID 

a. 


a 

Dl 

3 
CD 


a 

ID 


a 


a 

(0 
<D 




a 

Dl 
ID 


D 

CD 


o % 

IB 

3 


o 
o 
o 


o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


O 

o 
o 


o 

o 


O 

o 
o 


O 


o 
o 
o 


O 

o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


O 

o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


O 
O 

o 


o 

o 
o 


O 
O 
O 


en 
o 


o 


o 


o 

o 
o 


o 
o 


O 

o 


o 
o 


O 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 


O 

o 
o 
a 


o 

O 


O 

a 
o 

o 


o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


O 
O 

o 
o 


Q ? 

E. -o 

s 1 


s 




-J 
o 


s 




s 


o 
o 


E 


2 


^3 


i 


s 


CD 


5 


s 




CD 
O 

o 


o 


s 


o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 


5 


3 


^J 


3 


s 


o 
o 


o 


~J 


o 
o 


s 


s 


S 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


5" 

M Q 

o • 

a 


cn 


co 


W 


CO 




in 


to 


en 


CO 


CO 


to 


to 


in 


CO 


CO 


CO 


■fl 


CO 


CO 


to 


Dl 


in 


to 


CO 


to 


in 


01 


CO 


tn 


to 


„ 


10 


io 


to 


to 


in 


J- , 

B> —I 
ST B> 

S. g- 


CO 
on 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 

O 
o 
O 


en 
o 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
O 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


eo 
en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
O 
o 
o 


eo 
en 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
o 

o 

o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
O 
O 
O 


en 
O 
O 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
O 
o 
o 


CO 

en 
O 
o 
o 


CO 
Cn 
O 

O 

o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 
cn 

o 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
O 
O 
O 

o 


CO 
cn 

O 
O 
O 


CO 

cn 
O 
o 

o 


eo 
en 
o 
o 

o 


CO 

en 
o 
o 
o 


eo 
cn 

o 

o 
o 


CO 

cn 

o 
o 
o 


CO 
Cn 
O 
O 
O 


eo 
cn 

O 

o 

o 


CO 

en 

O 
o 

o 


eo 
en 

o 
o 

o 


CO 
cn 

O 

o 

o 


2) 
a> 

o 3 
S cl 

6T 


ro 

en 
o 

o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 

o 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 

en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 

o 


ro 
en 
O 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 

CO 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
O 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 

Q 
O 


ro 

en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 

a 

o 


-J 

cn 
O 
Q 


cn 

O 
O 
O 


cn 
o 
o 


ro 

en 
o 
o 


en 

o 

o 
o 


cn 

o 
o 


ID 

O 3 

o 
to < 


en 

O 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 

O 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
O 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 

o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 

o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 
O 
O 
O 


Cn 

O 

o 

o 


en 
o 
o 

o 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


cn 
o 
o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


cn 
o 
o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


cn 
O 
o 

o 


cn 
C» 
o 
o 


en 
O 
O 

o 


cn 

o 
o 
o 


cn 

o 
o 

o 


ro 

cn 

O 

o 


CO 

ro 
en 
o 


en 
ro 
cn 
o 
O 


cn 
O 
O 

o 


CO 

ro 
cn 
O 


cn 

ro 

cn 
O 

o 


8 § 

^. a> 


en 

o 

o 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
O 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 
o 

o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 

o 

o 

o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 

o 


en 
o 
o 

o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
O 
O 
O 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


Co 
O 

O 

o 


cn 

Ci 

o 

o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


cn 

'.o 
O 

o 


cn 

□ 
O 

o 


cn 
O 
CO 

o 


cn 
O 

o 
o 


cn 

CO 

o 

CO 


tn 
O 
O 

CD 


01 

o 
o 

o 


en 
o 

a 

o 


en 

o 
o 

o 


CO 

O 

o 


o 

Co 

o 


CD 

o 
O 

o 


o 

CO 

o 


O 
O 

o 


a 

o 

o 
o 


-J 

Q 

o 

o 


1 • 

SI 

to 
rr o» 


o 

o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 


CO 

O 
O 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 


D 

c ' 

D 


o 

C'i 

o 


o 
o 

o 


CO 
CO 
CO 


O 

c • 
o 


o 
o 

o 


to 

o 

o 


a 

c ) 
O 


□ 
O 

o 


co 
O 


o 

co 


en 

CO 


□ 
eo 

CO 


cn 
O 

o 


-j 

Co 

o 


ti r- 

S> D> 
4 CT 


o 
o 


o 

o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


O 

o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


CD 

o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


CO 

o 


o 
o 


CO 

o 


CO 


o 

Ci 


CO 
O 


o 

CO 


c i 
CO 


o 
o 


o 


o 

CO 


CO 

co 

c^ 

CD 


CD 
O 

o 


cTl 

o 
o 


CO 
c i 

o 


CO 

o 


0) 
c I 

o 


ro. 

C.I 

c i 
O 


O ? 

S | 


CO 

ID 
CD 


CO 

CO 
CO 


Co 

to 

CD 


CO 

CO 
CD 


U 

CD 
CD 


CO 

CD 
CD 


CO 

CD 

CD 


CO 

CD 
CD 


CO 

CD 
CD 


CO 
10 

CD 


CO 

CD 
CD 


CD 

CD 
CO 


CO 

CD 
CD 


CO 

10 

CD 


CD 

CD 
CD 


1.. 
10 

CD 


CD 

CD 
CD 


CO 

to 

CD 


co 

CD 
CD 


CO 

to 


1.1 
10 

CD 


... 

CD 
CD 


c> 

to 

CD 


CO 

CD 
CO 


CD 

111 

CD 


U 

to 

CD 


u 

to 

CD 


U 

CO 
CD 


C 

to 

CD 


CD 

ro 

u 

VI 


CO 
CO 

to 

cn 


10 

IO 

co 
vl 


Ci 
CD 


. .. 

CD 

C 
CT) 


■ 

ro 

CO 
vl 


o «? 

O to 

Si to 

3 


CT> 

to 
-g 
10 


cn 
r.o 
-J 
ID 

(ii 


CT> 

ro 

D9 

CD 


CI, 

-J 
CO 
CD 


J 
J 

J 

10 

CD 


a, 
ro 

CD 


CT> 

ro 
-J 
<£> 

CI. 


cr> 

ro 

-J 

to 

CD 


ci. 

VI 

10 

ci. 


O) 
ro 

-vt 
(0 

en 


0) 

ro 

CD 
CD 


ci. 
r- • 

J 
ci. 
en 


0) 
to 

-J 
to 

CD 


CT. 
ro 

- J 
to 

CD 


a. 
ro 

-J 

CD 
CD 


.1. 
ro 

j 

CO 

CD 


-J 
-J 
-J 
to 

.... 


Is"" 

CD 
CD 


D. 

ro 

- j 

CD 
CD 


01 
ro 

- 1 

a. 

CD 


CT. 

ro 

j 

... 

ID 


J 

ID 


ro 

i 

j 

- j 

ID 
CD 


ro 

-OJ 

-J 

- J 
.1. 

CD 


t\l 
J 
J 

- J 
to 

CD 


a 

i ' 

i 

I.. 

CD 


ro 

• j 
to 

CD 


o> 

ro 
vl 
to 

CD 


DO 
ro 

J 

CD 


O) 

ro 

- j 

CD 

CD 


r.i 

Dl 

ro 

CD 
-J 


00 

I* 
w> 

a 


r. i 

tn 

a. 


coo 

r.| 
-J 
id 
CD 


CD 

on 
ro 

i. 

on 


rO 

tn 

10 

.1 
-J 


il E. 



Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 4 • 



-.- 
3 


ro 

M 

:v 

tv 
3 

(0. 


Z 

IV 

3 
Q, 


Z 

ro 

X 

3 
Q. 


XK 

Dl 
3 

a. 


Z 
:o 
X" 

:j 


Z 

?c 

pi 

r> 
D. 


z 


E 
o 
o 
a. 


z 

X. 
o 


a 

to 


z 

:•: 
o 


Cl 

Dl 


z 

:-. 

Ci 

o 
a 


z 

r. 

o 
a 

to 


Z 

E 
o 
O 
Qi 


E 

o 
0. 

CO 


Z 
E 

Ci 

o 
o. 

to 


E 


o 

CL 

Co 


Z 

E 
6 

o 

Cl 


z 

E 


o 
c 

to 


z 

E 

Ci 
Ci 
Cl 

Cn 


z 

X 

Cl 

Ci 

a 


Z 

E 
O 


(L 


r; 

■£. 
o 
o 
o. 

CO 


3 


■o 
•< 

rj' 
C 

Qi 

3 

1Q 


o 


•o 
n 

> 
3 

Dl 

Cl 



° 


■II 


CO 

•■) 

-o 

a 
1 

XI 
crj 


CO 

•o 
-o 
D 

3 

3 
-u 

CO 

CL 


CO 

■o 

a 

c 
3 

■u 

CO 


■o 
•o 

a 

TJ 

3 

T.1 
CO 

n 

CL 


10 

•o 
■o 

a 

r, 

3 

> 

D> 

r| 

3 


CO 

'0 

•■J 

a 

cn 
c 
►1 

CL 
C 

tn 

Xj 

c 

•n 


a 
ta 

3 


o 
a 

■o 
D 

3. 

3 
a 

3 


ta 

ID 

pi 

o 
■-- 

to 

i 1 

id 



n 


CD 

n 
xt 

CO 

IP 
ri 


re 
Dl 

o 
XT 

CO 

n 


re 
Cl 

3 1 

to 

M 

re 


m 

Cl 

o 

rr 

rt> 


n 

rr 

to 


ire 

cl 

-J 

CO 
M 


P> 

O 

tn 
n 


a 

3 
Oi 

3 

u 
to 


O 

3 

a 

CL 
3 
Dl 

cn 


o 

3 

a. 

cl 
3 

CL 

to 


o 

3 

a 

pi 

3 

CL 
CO 


o 

7J 

D- 

Cu 
3 

iu 

to 


o 

3 

a 

oi 
to 


o 

Oi 
tu 
3 
pi 

to 
n 


o 

3 

Ci 

pi 
pi 

to 


o 

HI 

3 

CL 
tu 


O 

ro- 
ta, 

PI 
3 


o 
3 

CL 

CL 

ro 
pi 

to 
n 


o 

a 

D> 
3 
P> 

CO 


o 
3 

CL 

pi 
3 
Dl 

n 


o 
3 

a. 

3 
Dl 


o 

3 

a. 

CL 

3 
CL 

n 




CO 

c: 
o. 

3 




CO 

s; 

r 




CO 
Dl 

c 

Di 

r 

Cl 


ID 

CL 

i. 

cn 

L- 
O 

o 


•n 
o 
o 

o 

< 

CL 

3 

z 

to 


-o 
o 

o 

o 
< 

LL 
3 

z 


3 

o. 

ID 


3 

a. 


o 

XT 


O 

CL 

o. 


r— 
O 

o 

B 

O - 

3 


>< 
M 

CO 


•< 
ta 

to 


•< 

M 

to 


ro 

to 


X 

ro 
to 


ro 

CO 


to 

CO 




•< 
ro 
to 


ro 
cn 


K 

ro 
to 


K 

ro 


>< 

ro 
to 


ro 
to 


tn 


ro 


ro 
cn 


•< 

ro 

CO 


CD 
CO 


•< 
PJ 


ro 

10 


•< 

ro 

CO 


«< 


>< 

to 

CO 


ro 


ro 

CO 


•< 

to 


>< 

ro 

CO 


>< 

ro 

CO 
















s 1 


JO 

tn 

o 
< 

to 
o 


Z 
pi 

Co 

CD 
O 


E 

Co 

O 


S 
CL 
to 
rr 
ID 

O 


►3 

3 
n 

•a 


r 
e 
rr 

<I> 

o 


O 

re 

to 

re 


a 
n 

IS 


a, 
C 


a. 

D> 

C 


s 
pi 

D> 

rr 

re 

n 
o 


> 
►3 


re 
3 

•o 

n 


3 



O 


E 

6) 

re 



c 
3 

Pi 

a 
ro 
0> 


a 

re 

CO 

re 


a 

re 

CO 

ro 


a 

ID 

CO 


D 

CD 

to 
re 


D 
ro 


a 

re 


a 

re 














a 

ID 
CO 
ID 


D 

ID 

CO 

ro 


D 

ID 
CO 
ID 


a 
ro 

Co 

ro 


a 
ro 

to 

ro 


O 

ID 

to 

ro 


a 

ID 

Co 

re 


o g 

a 

3 


o 

o 
o 


o 


O 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


O 

o 

o 


o 

o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 
o 


o 

o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


to 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 

o 


o 

o 
o 


o 

o 
o 


o 

o 
o 


pa 

ro 

o 
< 
tn 

a 


M3 

ro 
re 
o 
< 
ro 

a 


ro 

o 
< 

ro 
a 


ra 
ro 
rr 
o 
< 
tn 
o 


ro 
ro 

O 
< 

to 

a 


ro 
ro 

o 
< 

ro 

D 


-o 

o 
o 


o 
o 


-J 
O 

o 


o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 


o 


O 0? 

EL -S 

s 1 


CD 
O 
O 


o 
o 


o 
o 


E 


B 


B 


B 


S 


m 


-J 


-o 


?! 


~J 


-J 


-J 


5 


-O 


~j 


b 


-0 


CT> 


?! 


3 














~J 


j^ 


3 




o 

o 


is 


o 
o 


5" 

(D CD 
• » 

a 


"0 


•n 


•q 


•*J 


•q 


•■J 


•n 


-n 


"] 


"n 


1 


M 


-n 


-o 


•n 


•q 


-o 


■n 


-D 


■n 


-n 


-o 


■n 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


to 


CO 


1- 


ro 

Cn 

O 
O 
O 
O 


ro 

en 
O 
o 
o 
o 


ro 

On- 
to 

o 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 

en 
o 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 
o 
O 


to 

Ol 

o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 

cn 
O 
O 
O 
O 


ro 
en 
o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
tn 
O 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
O 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
tn 
O 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
O 
O 
o 
O 


ro 
tn 
o 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
O 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 

o 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
O 
o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 
O 

o 

o 


cn 
o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


to 
cn 
o 
o 
o 


to 
en 
o 
o 

o 


CO 

cn 
O 
o 
o 


co 
cn 

O 
o 
O 


Co 
cn 
O 
O 
O 


CO 

cn 
O 

o 

o 


CO 
cn 
O 
O 
o 


3J 

CD 

o 3 

o $ 

CO Q. 

"" 5' 

CD 


en 
O 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 
o 


en 

O 
o 
o 


en 

O 
O 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 


O 
O 
O 
o 


en 

O 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
o 
o 


cn 

O 
o 
o 


en 

O 
o 
o 


en 

O 
o 
O 


-J 
en 
o 
O 


en 
o 
o 


CD 

cn 
o 
o 


CD 

en 
o 
o 


CD 

tn 

o 
o 


CD 

cn 
O 
O 


CD 

cn 
O 
o 


CD 

cn 
o 
o 


CD 

Cn 
O 
O 


CD 

en 
o 
O 


rD 
cn 
3 
o 
< 

ro 

D 


3) 

ro 
rr: 
o 
< 
ro 
a 


ro 
ro 

o 
< 

to 
a 


ro 
ro 
S 
O 
< 
tn 
D 


re 
ro 

O 
< 

G 


ro 
tn 
3 

o 
< 

tn 
D 


-J 

cn 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 


-J 
cn 
o 
O 


~-J 
en 
o 
o 


en 

O 
O 
O 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


33 
CD 

O 3 
o o 

CO < 


en 
ro 
en 
o 
O 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

ro 
en 
O 


CO 

ro 
cn 
o 


CO 

ro 
cn 
o 


o 
o 
o 
o 
o 


o 
O 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

ro 
cn 
o 


en 
O 
O 
o 


CO 

ro 
cn 
O 


CO 

ro 
cn 
O 


CO 

ro 

en 
o 


en 
ro 
cn 
o 
o 


en 
ro 
en 
o 
o 


CD 

en 
o 
o 


CD 
-J 

en 
o 
O 


CD 
-J 

cn 
O 
O 


CD 

~J 

cn 
O 
O 


CD 

-o. 
cn 
o 
o 


CD 
Ol 

o 
o 


CD 
-0. 
Ol 

o 
o 


CD 
--J 
Ol 
O 

o 


70 

ro 
s 
o 
< 
ro 
D 


3J 

m 
s: 

o 
>: 

a 


ro 
ro 
S 

o 
< 

6 


ro 
cn 

O 
< 

m 
a 


ro 
PI 
rr 
o 
< 

G 


ro 
r: 
o 
< 

G 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
O 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
o 


cn 
ro 

Ol 

O 
O 


en 
ro 

cn 
o 

o 


CO 

ro 

en 
o 


cn 
O 
o 
o 


cn 

o 
o 
o 


13 

a 

ft 


-J 
o 
o 
o 


en 
o 
o 
o 


en 
O 
o 
o 


CD 

o 

o 
o 


CD 

O 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


CD 
O 
O 

o 


CD 

O 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


~o. 
o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

O 
o 
o 


CO 

O 
O 
o 


CD 
O 
O 
O 


CD 

O 
O 
O 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


to 
o 
o 
o 


so 

ro 
3 
c 
< 
ro 

D 


93 

ro 
:■: 
o 
< 

a 


r^ 

rr 
o 
< 
ro 

D 


ro 

o 
< 

to 

a 


■~ 

ro 
:■: 

C' 

< 
ro 

D 


rr 
ro 
s: 
o 
< 
ro 

D 


-o. 

O 

o 
o 


•J 

o 

o 
o 


-J 
"o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


CD 

o 

o 
o 


cn 

O 
O 
O 


cn 

"o 

o 
o 


O H 

to' a 


tn 

O 


o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


en 

o 
o 


en 

o 

o 


en 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 


ro 

cn 

o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 


o 
o 
o 


cn 

O 

o 


cn 
O 
O 


cn 
o 
o 


en 
o 


-J 

Cn 
o 


ro 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
O 

a 
o 


ro 
O 
o 
o 


ro 

o 
o 
o 


ro 

o 
o 
o 


ro 

o 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


Mi 

to 
s 
c> 
< 

s 


50 
P3 

3 

o 
< 


PO 

ro 
3 

C' 

< 

5 


rr 
ro 
s 
o 
< 

G 


ro 
ro 
■z 
o 
< 

G 


ro 
rj 
r: 
o 
< 

G 


-J 
cn 
O 


en 
o 


-J 

Ol 

o 


cn 

o 


cn 
O 
O 


O 

O 

o 


o 
o 
o 


31 r— 
CD D> 
CD D" 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


en 
o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 


o 
o 


CO 

o> 
o 
o 


CO 
CD 

o 

o 


CD 

o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


CD 

o 
o 


01 

o 

o 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


co 
o 
o 
o 


co 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 
o 


M 

O 
< 

G 


50 
ro 
3 

Ci 
< 

s 


50 
W 
3 

o 
< 

G 


ro 

ro 
3 
o 
< 

G 


ro 
ro 

o 
< 

G 


ro 

O 
< 

G 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


ro 

CO 

o 
o 


to 

CO 

o 
o 


CD 
O 

o 


o 

o 


o 
o 


o J 

S | 


ro 

CO 

-J 


CO 

CD 
CO 


CO 
CD 


en 

CD 

cn 


en 

CD 
CD 

CD 


tn 

CO 
CD 

cn 


cn 
CO 


Ol 
cn 
CO 


cn 

CD 
<D 
CD 


CO 

CO 
CD 


cn 

CD 

CD 


cn 

CD 
CD 
CD 


cn 

CD 
CD 

CD 


to 
ro 

CO 


CD 

ro 

CO 

-■J 


Ik 

CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 


4^. 

CO 

o 
o 


4L. 

CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 


CO 

o 
o 


CD 

cn 
o 
o 
o 


CD 
CD 

o 
o 
o 


CD 

<n 
o 
o 
o 


CD 
cn 

O 
O 
O 


cn 
Cn 

O 

o 
o 


CD 
CO 
O 
O 
O 


CD 

ro 

CO 


CO 
CO 


CD 

ro 

CO 


CD 

ro 

CO 

-J 


cn 

CD 
CD 
CD 


CO 

CD 
CD 


CO 

CO 

CD 


o ? 

O CO 

» ro' 

3 


co 

CO 

o 

CD 


ho 

CD 


ro 
-J. 
~J 
~J 

CD 
CD 


CO 

o 

ro 
-rx 


CO 

o 
ro 

O) 


co 

o 

ro 

CD 


CO 
CD 
CO 
CD 

ro 

CO 


CO 
CD 
CO 
CD 

ro 
CO 


CO 

o 
ro 

CD 


ro 
X 

-J. 

-J 

CD 


co 
o 


CO 
O 

CD 


CO 

o 
ro 

CD 


CO 
CO 

o 
ro 

CD 

-J 


CO 
CO 

a 

ro 

CD 


CO 
CO 

o 
o 


CO 

•J 

£i 

CO 

o 
o 


CO 

-J. 

-& 
CO 

o 
o 


CO 

-u 

CO 

o 
o 


u 
>l 
*k 

CO 

o 
o 


CO 
CO 

o 
o 


CO 

-J. 
-u 

CO 

o 
o 


CO 

^1 

-u 

CO 

o 
o 


cn 

CD 

O 
O 
O 


CD 

o 

o 
o 


cn 

CD 

o 
o 
o 


CD 
O 

o 

o 


CD 

en 
o 
o 
o 


CD 

cn 
o 
o 
o 


ro 
en 
ro 

CD 

"J 


ro 
cn 
ro 

CD 

-J 


ro 

cn 
ro 

CD 
-J 


ro 

CD 


CD 

ro 
JO. 

CD 


CD 

>l 

CO 

CD 


CD 

-J 

CO 

CD 





41 



Attachment 1 
Page ^ of A 



<-. 
o 

c 

3 
< 

EC 

1 1 
c 

3 


■v 
<:: 
o 

o 
o 


c 
o 

i 




1 

o 
o 

3 


z 

o 
n 

3 


1 
O 

n 


z 

o 
n 

3 


o 
n 

3 


z 

> 

3 


z 

> 

3 
■< 


> 

3 


z 

> 

11 
3 
••: 


z 

3- 

3 


> 

3 
■< 


•-- 
:- 

3 

■< 


z 

> 

3 


> 

M 

3 


> 

3 

•< 


;■: 

D> 

3 

a. 


Z 

:••. 

»-t 

.'- 

tn 
3 
a. 


>? 

3 

XX 


D 
a 

X) 
tn 

3. 

3 

CD 

3 


[D 

In 

D. 



•o 
o 

(0 

r-t 


{0 

0. 

o 


o 

to 

EH 
3 

Ci 


in 

ed 

> 


O 

(ii 

3 

C-i 

o 

ED 

< 

ED 


o 

CO 
Ol 

3 

c< 
O 

ED 

> 
< 

ED 


o 

EH 

3 

C-i 

O 

En 

ED 

> 
< 

ED 


o 

to 
HI 
3 

C-i 
O 
in 
ED 

> 
< 

ED 


o 
o 
o 

Q, 

to 

t-t 
ED 


o 
o 
o 

a 

ID 


o 
o 

to 

ED 


o 
o 
o 

D. 
CO 

ED 
ED 


o 
o 
o 

a. 

CO 

ED 






O. 

CO 

ED 






D, 
CO 

ED 






ri 

a. 

CO 

rr 

ED 





a 

CO 

ED 





a 

CO 

ED 
ED 

n 


CD 

3- 

ED 


CO 
V 
3" 
CO 

n 


cr 

Ol 

n 

3" 


r - 


5' 

3 




CO 


•< 

ro 

CO 


>< 

tfl 

W 


•< 


>< 

tn 
tn 






















ro 

CO 


•< 

tfl 
CO 


•< 

tfl 
CO 


r- ? 
* * 








D 

CD 
CO 



ED 


O 
gi 


3 


n 

0i 

o 

3 

ED 


a 

Cu 
O 

=1 
ED 


CD 
tn 

w 

o 

3 

a 


9 

o 


-3 
ii 
P> 
3 

•n 


s 

Ell 
to 
n 

a 

o 


-3 

3 
Cn 

•fl 


►3 

i-E 
Cu 
3 

En 














3 

n 



M 

O 


SI 
tfl 

O 
< 
tfl 

a 


50 

tfl 

s 

< 
tn 
D 


tfl 



< 

w 

D 


50 

tfl 

O 
< 

m 

D 


3D 
tfl 


< 

tfl 

a 


S 1 

g 

S S- 

CD 

3 


o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


O 


o 
o 


O 

o 
o 


O 

o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


cn 
o 


o 


o 


O 


o 





cn 























O 
O 








£> 

s 1 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


O 
O 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


CD 


CO 


CO 


s 


s 


s 


s 


s 


5 


is 



O 



O 






5" 

« D 
p 

• 
a 


CO 


W 


m 


tfl 


in 


in 


111 


to 


to 


•fl 


*>1 


"fl 


-13 


■fl 


■fl 


1] 


~n 


7J 


•q 


-n 


•a 


ST O 

1 * 


CO 
cn 

O 

o 
o 


CO 

en 

O 
O 

o 


CO 

o 

o 
o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 
O 

o 


ro 

cn 
O 
O 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 
O 
o 


M 

cn 
O 
O 
o 

O 


ro 
cn 
O 

o 
o 
o 


CO 
cn 

O 

o 
o 


CO 
cn 
o 
o 
o 


CO 

cn 
O 
o 
O 


CO 
cn 

O 

O 
O 


CO 

cn 

O 
O 
O 


CO 
cn 

O 
O 
O 


CO 
cn 

O 
O 

O 


CO 
cn 

O 
O 

O 


Co 

O 
O 
O 


CO 

cn 

O 
O 
O 


cn 
O 
O 
O 

O 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 
O 
O 


ro 

cn 
O 
O 
O 
O 


CD 

O 3 

O CD 

in Cl 

" a 


ro 
tn 
O 
O 


ro 
en 
O 
O 


£71 
O 

o 
o 


ro 

cn 

o 
o 


"■J 

cn 

O 

o 


cn 
O 
o 
o 


cn 

o 
o 
o 


-J 

cn 
O 
O 


ro 
cn 
O 
O 


ro 
cn 
o 
O 


ro 
cn 

O 

o 


ro 
cn 
o 
o 


ro 
cn 




ro 
cn 




ro 
cn 




ro 
cn 
O 
O 


CD 

cn 

O 
O 


CD 

cn 

O 
O 


cn 

O 


O 


cn 
O 
O 


~4 

cn 
O 
O 


U 

CD 

O 3 
5 

tn < 


Cn 

o 
o 
o 


cn 
o 
o 

o 


CO 

cn 
O 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
O 


CO 

ro 
tn 
O 


CO 

ro 

o 


cn 
ro 
cn 

o 
o 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


cn 
O 
o 
o 


cn 

O 
o 
o 


cn 
o 
o 
o 


cn 
O 




cn 

O 

O 


cn 





cn 

O 
O 


CD 
-4 

cn 

O 


CD 
-4 

Cn 
O 

O 


CO 

ro 
cn 
O 


Ol 

ro 

cn 
O 

O 


cn 
ro 
cn 
O 
O 


" CO 


o 

o 

o 


o 
o 

o 


ci 

o 
o 
o 


cn 
O 

o 

o 


o 
O 
O 


0) 

o 
O 

o 


CD 

o 

o 
o 


-4 
O 

o 

o 


cn 

o 
o 
o 


cn 

o 
a 
o 


cn 

O 

o 
o 


cn 
o 
o 
o 


cn 






cn 

O 
O 


cn 

O 
O 
O 


cn 
O 
O 
O 


to 
O 

O 


a 






CD 
O 
O 
O 


-0. 

O 
O 


O 
O 

O 


3 


c> 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


t'l 
o 
o 


o 
o 
o 


-J 

in 

o 


cn 
O 
O 


cn 
O 

o 


cn 

O 


o 

o 
o 


O 

o 
O 


o 

Ci 
Ci 


o 
o 
o 







O 
O 
O 


O 
O 
O 


O 

O 
O 


O 


O 







O 
Ci 

CD 

ci 
ci 


cn 

ci 

ro 
CO 
O 

O 


■>) 

cn 
O 

CO 

Ci 

Ci 


th r- 

CD CT 


o 
o 


o 
o 


CD 

I > 
o 


I 1 
o 


CO 

o 
o 


Ol 

o 
o 


Ol 

o 
o 


CO 

O 
o 


o 
o 


o 

o 


o 

o 


o 
o 


O 



O 
O 


O 
O 


O 
O 


CO 



t'l 

CI 


CO 







O ? 

s 1 


(.) 

tO 

Hi 


CO 

ID 
00 


III 
III 
<o 

ill 


(.1 

ID 


(0 

ro 
CO 

I 


cn 

in 
CO 

(11 


CI1 

CD 

(li 
Ol 


to 

to 

u 

-0 


CO 

co 
co 


Co 

(ii 

Eti 


CO 

to 

til 


CO 

Efl 

tu 


CO 

CO 
CO 


CO 

til 
CD 


CO 

CO 

cm 


u 

to 

CD 


a 





r- 

EO 

O 

t 1 


(H 
Cli 

(D 


Hi 
CO 

-J 


CO 

ro 
CO 


? 

O tn 
" to' 

3 


01 
to 


01 

-J 
to 

(11 


CD 

a> 

ci 


1 
- 1 

to 

EH 


i.i 
( ' 


CO 

' ' 

di 


CO 

( 1 
(II 


CO 

( I 
ro 

CD 

J 


(II 

ro 

ii' 
(n 


Ol 
ro 

ED 

(II 


111 

((■ 
(11 


Ol 
ro 

j 
to 

(11 


CD 
~J 

to 

Hi 


01 

rx. 
•1 

to 
OS 


(11 

ro 
-J 

to 

(Ii 


a 

ro 

j 

d' 
in 


HI 

to 

CO 

1 I 

I I 


cn 

(.1 
I 1 

< ' 


CO 



ro 

di 


(■' 

c 1 

(11 
-J 


CO 
CO 

(1 

cn 
J 


?! 



OD/US/yo 1J:U1 hAA 410 004 00(1 



^csr urn d^ji jm\ 



Attachment 2 




City and County of San Francisco 

Department of Public Works 



Bureau of Construction Management 
Site Assessment and Remediation Division 



1680 Mission Street, First Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



Underground Storage Tank Program Bond 
City Salary Estimate 



Project Planning 



$81,974 









i.-v..-. ,-•-: 

■ . '■ -■..■■■ ■ ■ ■ 



Project Manager 



Regulatory Specialist 



Engineer 



Gonstuction Inspector 



Clerical 




$84.61 



$48.00 



$53.00 



$61.00 



$36.00 



400 



400 



150 



220 



210 







$33,844 



$19,200 



$7,950 



$13,420 



$7.560 



Execution — — — — — 

Execution of LIST removal, lnstalltion of monitoring wells, and soil sampling, 
negotiating with Regulators, Design and installation of replacemnt tanks, 
Design and installation of soil and groundwater remedial systems 



"► $806,545 



Project Manager 


$84.61 


1900 


30 


$160,759 


Regulatory Specialist 


$48.00 


1200 


19 


$57,600 


Engineer (2) 


$53.00 


5000 


80 


$265,000 


Constuction Inspector [2 


$61.00 


4826 


77 


$294,386 


Clerical 


$36.00 


800 


13 


$28,800 



Financial Planning 



"► $92,141 



Project Financial Planning Consultant and contractor selection, invoice and paymen ts 



Project Manager 


$84.61 


400 


6 


$33,841 


Engineer 


$53.00 


300 


5 


$15,900 


Constuction Inspector (3 1 


$61.00 


400 


6 


$24,400 


Clerical/ Accounting 


$36.00 


500 


B 


$18,000 



OUUll.'ldl----'"" .... . . .■■■.,.;-,■, .. * .................. „ ... y £ 

Inflation (2%per year for 3 years) llilllilll 



mm^^ty'tdim^ - ySSiiig^'' - ijOaSygoftl 



v. * 5/1/B5 BuXpl id 



43 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



List of Proposed Bond Measures 



Attachment 3 



1. City Hall Non-Seismic Improvements 

(File 170-95-6) 

2. Underground Storage Tanks 

(File 170-95-7) 

3. Steinhart Aquarium (File 170-95-8) 

TOTAL 



Proposed 
$63,590,000 

51,000,000 

28.670.829 

$143,260,829 



CIAC 
Recommended 

$63,590,000 



40,200,000 

29.245.000 

$133,035,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET^ALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Item 7 - File 170-95-8 



Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest 
and necessity demand the acquisition, construction, or 
reconstruction by the City of the following municipal 
improvement, to wit: acquisition, construction and/or 
reconstruction of certain improvements to Steinhart 
Aquarium and related facilities and structures, including 
seismic upgrade, asbestos and lead abatement, disabled 
access improvements, life support system improvements, 
building system improvements and structural improvements, 
and related acquisition, construction and reconstruction 
necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $28,670,829 for said municipal 
improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the 
ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and County 
and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. 

$28,670,829 

The State General Obligation Bond Law requires that, in 
order for the City to issue General Obligation Bonds, a 
resolution of public convenience and necessity must first be 
adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors, and 
the proposed bonds must then be approved by two-thirds of 
the electorate. If the proposed resolution (determining and 
declaring that public interest and necessity justify the 
proposed bonds) is approved by a two-thirds vote of the Board 
of Supervisors, the City Attorney will prepare an ordinance 
to submit the proposed bond issue to the voters. 

Mr. Steve Nelson of the CAO's Office states that, in order for 
the proposed General Obligation Bond measure to qualify for 
the November ballot, the subject proposed resolution (File 
170-95-8) must be approved by the Budget Committee no 
later than June 14, 1995. The proposed General Obligation 
Bond funds would be used primarily for seismic retrofitting 
and structural repairs for the Steinhart Aquarium, including 
the removal of asbestos and other toxic materials, and 
improvements to the electrical and water supply systems, 
which are crucial to the maintenance of the Aquarium. 

The Steinhart Aquarium, is a two-story concrete structure, 
which was built in 1923 as both a recreational destination 
and an educational facility, to supplement the educational 
programs of San Francisco schools. The Aquarium houses a 
variety of fish, amphibian, reptilian, avian and mammalian 
life, including several endangered species. In 1977, the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



Aquarium opened the Fish Roundabout which is a 66 foot in 
diameter circular viewing tank, containing numerous 
varieties of fish. The City Charter provides that the 
Aquarium is operated by the California Academy of Sciences, 
a non-profit agency, and funds for the maintenance, 
operation, and continuance of the Steinhart Aquarium are 
provided by the City. 

In 1991 and in 1992 two studies were conducted by the firms 
of H.J. Degenkolb, and Rutherford and Chekene respectively, 
to determine (1) the overall condition of the Steinhart 
Aquarium building structure, and (2) the ability of both the 
structure of the building, and the Aquarium's Life Support 
System (LSS) to withstand an earthquake. The LSS is a 
system of pipes and other components which provides water 
of the required quality from the Ocean Beach Pumping 
Facility to the Aquarium to support the living animals. 

The first study identified various levels of deterioration to the 
structural elements of the building, due to long term 
exposure to moisture, seawater, high humidity, and the 
aggressive salt-laden atmosphere. The second study 
concluded, that in the event of an earthquake, there is a high 
potential for structural and non- structural damage to the 
Aquarium, and to the LSS. On a scale of one to four, with 
four being the most hazardous, the investigating team for the 
study assigned a Seismic Hazard Rating (SHR) of three to 
the structure of the Steinhart Aquarium building, and a four 
to the Aquarium's LSS. Specifically, the studies described 
above concluded that the Steinhart Aquarium has an 
essential need for the following repairs: (a) Seismic 
Strengthening, (b) Asbestos Removal and Toxic Materials 
Management, (c) Correction of substantial Building 
Deficiencies, (d) Compliance with Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA), Title 24 and related code compliance, and (e) 
Replacement of life support, obsolete equipment, and animal 
support facilities. In addition the second study determined 
that the off-site utility, which pumps saltwater to the 
Aquarium, must be improved or replaced. This would 
include new piping between the Ocean Beach pumping 
facility and the Aquarium, enlargement of the pump station, 
and the replacement of obsolete equipment. DPW has 
determined that the installation of a new underground 
electrical feed to the Steinhart Aquarium from the electrical 
supply box on Fulton Street at the edge of Golden Gate Park 
is necessary to ensure continued adequate electrical power to 
the Aquarium. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

The estimated costs of the proposed bond program are as 
follows: 

Seismic Strengthening $5,473,849 

Disabled Access 1,224,000 

Asbestos and Toxics Management 1,719,020 

Functional Improvements/Renovations 14,356,993 

Improvements to Off-Site Utilities 4,411,067 

Program Disruptions/Relocations 1.485.900 

Total $28,670,829 

If the proposed bonds are approved by the electorate in 
November of 1995, the Steinhart Aquarium reports that 
design development would begin in January of 1996. The 
anticipated completion date of the project would be January 
1999, and the reopening date of the Aquarium would be 
between March and June of 1999. The Steinhart Aquarium 
reports that the proposed project cannot be completed in 
phases, and will necessitate the closure of the Aquarium for 
24 to 28 months due to the impact that the work would have 
on the live animals. The animals would be relocated during 
construction, either to other sites within the California 
Academy of Sciences, or to off-site locations. This project was 
included in a $94 million Cultural Facilities Bond Program 
which appeared on the November, 1993 ballot, but failed to 
receive the required two-thirds majority approval. 

Comments: 1. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), 

which is chaired by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is 
responsible for prioritizing the City's proposed capital 
improvement projects. The CAO reports that the CIAC has 
recommended that this proposed General Obligation Bond 
measure be placed on the November 1995 ballot because the 
repairs to the Steinhart Aquarium represent a high priority 
health and safety project for the City. 

2. The CIAC has recommended that the bond issue include 
issuance costs. These costs were not included in the original 
proposed amount of $28,670,829. The CIAC has estimated 
that the issuance costs would be approximately two percent 
of the total bond issue. As such, the CIAC recommends that 
this measure be placed on the November, 1995 ballot for a 
total amount of $29,245,000. 

3. If $29,245,000 in bonds were to be issued instead of 
$28,670,829, the bonds would result in an increase in the 
property tax rate for 1996-97 of approximately $0.0054 per 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



$100 of assessed value. At this rate, the owner of a single 
family residence assessed at $300,000 would pay $15.82 in 
additional property taxes beginning in 1996-97 due to the 
issuance of these bonds. 

4. According to the CIAC, the City is reaching its prudent 
debt limit, which is 2.4 percent of net assessed property value 
in the City. The CIAC estimates that approximately $600 
million in debt limit over the next ten years, assuming a 3 
percent annual growth rate in net assessed property value. 
If all of the bond issues recommended by the CIAC for the 
November 1995 ballot (See Attachment for a list of all the 
proposed bond issues) are approved at the amounts 
recommended by the CIAC, the City would issue $133 million 
in General Obligation bonds, using approximately 22 percent 
of the City's remaining estimated bonding capacity to the 
year 2005. 

5. The expenditure of any of the proposed General 
Obligation Bond funds would require a supplemental 
appropriation to be approved by the Board of Supervisors if 
the electorate approves the proposed General Obligation 
bonds. 



Recommendation: 



1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for a proposed 
bond issue of $29,245,000 rather than $28,670,829, based on 
the CLAC's recommendation to include issuance costs in the 
bond issue. 



2. Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



Attachment 



List of Proposed Bond Measures 



1. City Hall Non-Seismic Improvements 

(File 170-95-6) 

2. Underground Storage Tanks 

(File 170-95-7) 

3. Steinhart Aquarium (File 170-95-8) 

TOTAL 



Proposed 
$63,590,000 

51,000,000 

28.670.829 

$143,260,829 



CIAC 
Recommended 

$63,590,000 



40,200,000 

29.245.000 

$133,035,000 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Item 8 - File 127-95-3 



Item: 



Description: 



The proposed ordinance would amend Part III of the Municipal 
Code to add Article 12-E entitled "Occupation License Fee 
Ordinance". The ordinance would impose a license fee of two 
percent of compensation on employees earning in excess of 
$150,000 for work performed or services rendered within the City 
of San Francisco. The ordinance would be effective January 1, 
1996 but shall not apply to gross receipts prior to that date. 
Therefore, if this ordinance is approved, no fees will be collected 
prior to January 1, 1997. 

1. In general, according to the City Attorney's legislative digest, 
this proposed ordinance would impose a fee on persons engaging 
in an occupation in San Francisco who earn in excess of $150,000 
for work performed or services rendered in San Francisco. The 
amount of this fee would be equal to two percent of "gross 
receipts," which is defined as compensation received, including 
wages, commissions and other compensation. "Employee" is 
defined to include self-employed individuals as well as persons 
employed by others. The ordinance would provide that persons 
subject to both this fee and the Business (Gross Receipts) Tax 
would only be liable for whichever of the two is greater. 
Individuals who perform work or render services in San Francisco 
for less than seven working days per year would not be subject to 
the fee. The Tax Collector would be authorized to issue 
regulations requiring employers to withhold the tax from 
employees' earnings. 

2. The amount of the fee would be two percent of the total "gross 
receipts" of an employee (including self-employed individuals) who 
earns in excess of $150,000 for work performed or services 
rendered within the City and County of San Francisco. The term 
"gross receipts" is defined by the proposed ordinance as 
compensation received, including salaries, wages, commissions 
and other compensation, by an individual who, during any 
calendar year, performs work or renders services in whole or in 
part in the City and County of San Francisco as an employee. 
"Earned income" as defined by Section 401(c) of the U.S. Internal 
Revenue Code shall also be included in gross receipts for 
individuals who derive earnings from self-employment. Generally, 
"earned income" excludes capital gains that are unrelated to the 
occupation of the self-employed individual, dividends and interest 
income, and distributions from "passive" interests and 
partnerships. 

3. If an employee's gross receipts result from work performed or 
services rendered partly within and partly without the City and 
County of San Francisco, such gross receipts will be apportioned 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



on the basis of the number of hours worked within and without 
the City and County of San Francisco. Therefore, if an individual 
has gross receipts of $150,000 or more, but the portion of gross 
receipts attributable to work performed or services rendered 
within the City and County of San Francisco is less than 
$150,000, then said individual would not liable for the proposed 
two percent Occupation License Fee. If it is found to be 
impracticable for gross receipts to be apportioned on the basis of 
the number of hours worked within and without the City and 
County of San Francisco, then rules and regulations for 
determination of a basis of apportionment of gross receipts 
adopted by the Tax Collector will be used instead. Such rules and 
regulations would not be subject to approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

4. The Occupation License Fee shall become due and payable on 
January 1st of each year for the preceding calendar year and shall 
become delinquent if not paid on or before April 15th of each year. 
Employees subject to the Occupation License Fee shall file a 
return on a form issued by the Tax Collector. The Tax Collector 
would be able to grant extensions of up to four months for good 
cause. Interest would be charged during the extension period, but 
no penalty would be imposed on the employee (point 6 below 
describes the method of calculating interest rates prescribed by 
this ordinance). The Tax Collector would be able to request any 
financial information necessary for purposes of verifying an 
individual's liability under the Occupation License Fee Ordinance. 

5. The Tax Collector would be responsible for collection of the 
Occupation License Fee subject to oversight by a Board of Review 
consisting of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Controller and 
the Assessor. The Board of Review would be responsible for: 

• reviewing and ruling upon any Petition for 
Redetermination or Petition for Refund by an employee 
subject to the Occupation License Fee and may modify or 
revoke the decision of the Tax Collector or affirm the Tax 
Collector's decision and dismiss the petition; 

• approving, modifying or disapproving forms, rules and 
regulations prescribed Board of Review for administration 
and enforcement of the Occupation License Fee 
Ordinance; 

• hearing and determining any protest concerning any 
forms, rules and regulations prescribed by the Tax 
Collector; and, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



Controller's 

Estimated 

Revenue 



• granting for good cause applications for extension in 
excess of 60 days for filing a return or making a payment 
of the Occupation License Fee. 

6. Any delinquency or deficiency in payment of the Occupation 
License Fee would bear interest at 120% of the average rate of 
interest earned by the Treasurer of the City and County of San 
Francisco for the preceding six-month period. Delinquencies 
would be liable for a late payment penalty of 20% of the fee owed. 

An employee who fails to file a return as required by the 
Occupation License Fee Ordinance would be liable for a penalty of 
$100 for each year a return is not filed in addition to the 
delinquent fee amount plus interest and late payment penalty. If 
an employee fails to file a return due to fraud or intent to evade 
the Occupation License Fee, a penalty of 75 percent of the amount 
of the fee liability would be imposed in addition to the delinquent 
fee amount plus interest and late payment penalty. Overpayments 
of any fee, penalty or interest paid more than once or erroneously 
or illegally collected or received by the City and County of San 
Francisco under the ordinance would be refunded provided a 
verified claim is filed with the Tax Collector within three years. 
Any person who refused to permit the Tax Collector access to 
financial information, or knowingly makes an incomplete, false or 
fraudulent return, would be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and 
subject to a fine of not more than $500 and/or imprisonment for 
not more than six months. 

1. Based on Internal Revenue Statistics of Income and 1990 
Census data, the Controller has estimated that the proposed 
ordinance imposing an Occupation License Fee on employees with 
gross receipts of $150,000 or more for work performed or services 
rendered within the City and County of San Francisco would 
result in estimated revenues of $20.9 million annually to the City. 
This estimate assumes that 4,385 individuals would be potentially 
subject to the Occupation License Fee, but that, on average, 20 
percent of such individuals' gross receipts would be earned outside 
of City and County of San Francisco. The Budget Analyst concurs 
with the Controller's revenue estimate. 

2. Using the same data and methodology described above, the 
Controller has also estimated potential Fee revenues based on 
alternative levels of gross receipts on which the Occupation 
License Fee would be imposed. If the two percent Occupation 
License Fee were imposed on employees with gross receipts 
earned within the City and County of San Francisco in the 
amount of $100,000 or more, the estimated revenue to the City 
would equal $31.5 million annually. If the two percent Occupation 
License Fee were imposed on employees with gross receipts 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

earned within the City and County of San Francisco in the 
amount of $200,000 or more, the estimated revenue would equal 
approximately $12.15 million annually. 

Comments: 1. Attachment I to this report provides a list of similar 

Occupation License Fees imposed by other Cities within the 
United States. This information was compiled by the Budget 
Analyst at the request of the Board of Supervisors in June of 
1994. 

2. The Tax Collector has prepared a written memorandum on the 
cost of administering and enforcing the proposed Occupation 
License Fee Ordinance (see Attachment II). The Tax Collector has 
estimated that, after incurring one-time costs of $1,344,000 for 
equipment, programming and taxpayer education, the annual cost 
of administering and enforcing the proposed ordinance would 
amount to $2,592,000. The total cost for the initial outlay and first 
year of administration would therefore equal $3,936,000. This 
estimate would be subject to a detailed review and analysis and 
would require appropriation of funds by the Board of Supervisors 
and the Mayor. 

3. According to the City Attorney, an Occupation License Fee has 
been found to be valid in California by a 1978 court decision 
(Weekes vs. City of Oakland). By contrast, a municipal income tax 
is specifically prohibited by the California Revenue and Taxation 
Code. However, the City Attorney adds that there is no certainty 
that a different court, at this time, would not reach a different 
decision. 

4. Income tax experts consulted by the Budget Analyst believe 
that the Occupation License Fee would be a fully deductible 
expense on the individual's Federal income tax form assuming 
that the individual itemizes deductions. In most such cases, either 
36% or 39.6% of the Occupation License Fees paid would be offset 
by reduced Federal Income Taxes based on 1994 tax rates. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Budget Committee Attachment I 

June 14, 1995 



Similar Taxes and Fe es on Emnlovees in States and Cities Outside of California 
Alabama: 

Birmingham has a 1% Tax on employees' payroll earnings. 
Maryland: 

The City of Baltimore and all counties within the State of Maryland, computes a local 
income tax on employees based on the State income tax due. This tax ranges from 20% to 
60% of the employees' State income taxes due. The State collects the tax and disburses it 
to the City of Baltimore and to the various counties in Maryland. 

Michigan: 

Detroit has a City income tax of 3% on its residents and a City income tax of 1.5% on its 
nonresidents. 

Missouri: 

St. Louis has a 1% gross earnings tax on residents, nonresidents and net profits of 
businesses. 

Kansas City has a 1% gross earnings tax on residents, nonresidents and net profits of 
businesses. 

New York: 

New York City has a graduated income tax of 2.25% to 3.4% of taxable State income. 

Yonkers has a State income tax surcharge of 15% based on the State income tax due plus 
a 0.5% earnings tax on earnings from self employment. 



Ohio: 



Akron and Youngstown have a 2% earnings tax on residents, nonresidents and net profits 
of businesses. 

Cincinnati has a 2.1% earnings tax on residents, nonresidents and net profits of 
businesses. 

Dayton and Toledo have a 2.25% earnings tax on residents, nonresidents and net profits 
of businesses. 



Pennsylvania: 



Philadelphia has a wage tax of 3.4% on residents and a 4.3125% wage tax on 
nonresidents. 

Pittsburgh has a 1% earnings tax on residents, nonresidents and net profits of businesses. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



A ttachment TT pape 1 of 4 

Office Of The Treasurer/Tax Collector 

City and County of San Francisco 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7426 ♦ San Francisco, CA 94120-7426 

Street Address: 875 Stevenson Street, 2nd Floor ♦ San Francisco, CA 94103 



cou/v, 




MARY I. CALLANAN, Treasurer 

Phone:(415)554-4478 

RICHARD A. SULLIVAN, Tax Collector 

Phone: (415)554-4470 



June 7, 1995 



Mr. Ken Bruce 

Budget Analyst's Office 

San Francisco, Board of Supervisors 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, Ca 94102 



Re: City Occupational License Fee 
File #127-95-3 



Dear Ken: 



Attached are our comments and estimated cost of collecting and enforcing a City 
Occupational License Fee. The data was developed utilizing information received on the 
gross earning tax in St. Louis Missouri. 

If I maybe of further assistance, please call. 

Sincereh 




RICHARD A. SULLIVAN 
Tax Collector 



cc: Supervisor Tom Ammiano 



Source : Tax Collector, City and County of San Francisco 

55 



Attachment II page 2 of 4 

CITY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE 



Attached are the estimated administrative costs (Schedule A) for 
implementing the city occupational license fee in San Francisco. Our estimates 
were developed from information provided by the city of St. Louis that has a 
similar earnings tax program. Some salient features of the St. Louis program 
are: 

• The city of St. Louis ordinance taxes 1 % of the gross payroll of 
individuals living in the city and/or working in the city. There are 
no exemptions and no limitations. The proposed San Francisco 
ordinance will establish a 2% fee on individuals making wages 
over $150,000 a year in San Francisco. 

• St. Louis has 15,000 employers (businesses) registered that are 
withholding the tax. Our estimate is that San Francisco has 
approximately 30,000 employers and that 8,000 employees will 
be subject to the tax. 

• St. Louis has 7 employees who handle the withholding tax 
ordinance within the department of 58 employees. 

• St. Louis employers withhold the tax, remit the tax every calendar 
quarter, and submit reports similar to the federal/state W-2 forms. 

• For the fiscal year 1 993-1 994, the costs of administering the St. 
Louis earnings tax were $2,266,749. 



These estimated San Francisco administrative costs are based on the following 
assumptions: 

• A separate database would be required and would incur one time 
programming costs. 

• The tax would be withheld and remitted by the employer. 

• Tax reporting would be required by both the employer and 
employee on an annual basis. W-2's would be submitted by the 
employers. 

• Wage income includes wages, salaries, bonuses, commissions, 
Section 401 (k) deferred compensation, and other compensation 
received during the calendar year. This occupational license fee 
would be imposed on all people who work in the City, whether or 
not they live here. 

• The wages may be subject to apportionment based on the 
employee's time spent inside and outside of San Francisco. 

• The city occupational license fee, based on 8,000 employees 
paying the tax, is estimated to generate $20,900,000 a year in 
revenues at the estimated annual cost of $2,592,000. 



Source : Tax Collector, City and County of San Francisco 
56 



Attachment TI pape 3 of 4 
CITY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE 



ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED: 

• It needs to be determined if non-cash (i.e., stocks) items should be 
included as wage income. 

• The administration of the city occupational license fee will be simpler if 
there was no allowance for apportionment for time spent outside of San 
Francisco. 

• For companies with outside San Francisco offices but have San 
Francisco business, it needs to be determined how those employees 
working in San Francisco will be reported. It will be difficult to monitor the 
employers located outside San Francisco and their employees are 
working in San Francisco. 

• It needs to be determined when a person is an employee. A person might 
have terminated his employment before the end of the year. 

• It needs to be determined if government, non-profit, bank, insurance 
company, etc., employees will be subject to the tax. These organizations 
are not subject to the business and payroll tax ordinances. 



Source: Tax Collector, City and County of San Francisco 

57 



CITY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FEE *»"*"«■■ Mf pmt 4 of 4 



SCHEDULE A 



ESTIMATED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS 

I. INITIAL OUTLAY: 

Equipment (furniture, PCs) - 1 time cost $320,000 

Programming Costs -- 1 time cost $624,000 

Taxpayer Educational Costs, Promotion $400,000 

Total Initial Costs $1,344,000 

II. CONTINUING COSTS : 

Staffing Costs: 

Management, Office & Clerical Staff $785,000 

Accounting & File Management Staff $696,000 

Collections & Enforcement Staff $351,000 

Total Staffing Costs $1,832,000 

Supplies, Forms, Mailing $400,000 

Rental -- Office Space $360,000 

Total Continuing Costs $2,592,000 
(Ongoing Costs after Year 1) 

III. TOTAL COSTS $3,936,000 



Source : Tax Collector, City and County of San Francisco 

58 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 Budget Committee 



Item 



9 -File186-9S-K 



Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 

examine proposals for the creation of an Affinity Credit Card 
for the City and County of San Francisco and seeking input 
from appropriate departments in its formulation. 

Description: According to the CAO, Affinity Credit Cards are credit cards 

which financially benefit a cause or an organization or an 
affiliation by providing that the given cause, organization or 
affiliation receives a certain percentage of the sales paid for 
through the use of the credit cards. The CAO advises that, 
the Affinity Credit Card was created to take advantage of the 
perceived loyalty of consumers for certain causes/charities, 
organizations or affiliations. Potential Affinity Credit 
cardholders are offered the opportunity to obtain a specially 
designed card, at competitive interest rates, that would, 
through the cardholders usage, contribute money to the 
cardholders preferred cause/charity, organization or 
affiliation. At the same time, the design features of the card 
visibly show the cardholders "affinity" for the particular 
cause/charity, organization or affiliation. 

The CAO cites the following examples of nonprofit 
organizations which have issued Affinity Credit Cards: 
Working Assets, a non-profit agency, the California Alumni 
Association, the Japanese American Citizens League, and the 
Sierra Club. Additionally, according to the CAO, the City of 
South Orange, New Jersey has issued Affinity Credit Cards. 

Mr. Neal Taniguchi of the CAO's Office, advises that the CAO 
plans to undertake a preliminary analysis to determine what 
the goals and objectives of a San Francisco Affinity Credit 
Card Program should be and to examine the general 
feasibility and practicality of the City adopting such a 
program. According to Mr. Taniguchi, should the CAO 
determine from this preliminary analysis that an Affinity 
Credit Card Program would be of benefit to the City, the CAO 
will consider hiring a consultant to assist the City in 
designing a San Francisco Affinity Credit Card Program. If 
such a program is designed, it would serve as a proposal to be 
used to solicit the services of a bank to administer the City's 
Affinity Credit Card. Mr. Taniguchi advises that, as of the 
writing of this report, the CAO has not identified any source 
of funds to pay for such a consultant. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

budget; analyst 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 Budget Committee 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Mr. Taniguchi advises the he believes that there would be 
negligible on-going administrative costs to the City to 
administer an Affinity Credit Card since a bank, to be 
retained by the City, would handle the promotion, marketing, 
issuance and administration of the City's Affinity Credit 
Card. 

Mr. Taniguchi reports that elements of an Affinity Credit 
Card program for San Francisco might include (1) offering an 
Affinity Credit Card to City employees and residents, at 
competitive interest rates, with a design unique to the City, 
(2) depositing monies received from the card directly to the 
General Fund, or as prescribed by the City, (3) allowing 
cardholders to designate their contributions to pre-selected 
programs or activities (e.g., Golden Gate Park, the 
Department of Animal Care and Control's animal shelter, 
homeless shelters, branch libraries), (4) having participating 
San Francisco businesses provide discounts on items 
purchased with the credit card and (5) promoting the City by 
offering rebates to credit card holders for credit card 
purchases made in San Francisco. 

Mr. Taniguchi advises that, since the CAO is only at the 
preliminary stages of evaluating the potential for the City to 
establish a San Francisco Affinity Credit Card, the CAO is 
unable, as of the writing of this report, to estimate the 
annual costs to the City or the amount of revenue which 
would accrue to the City based on the establishment of a San 
Francisco Affinity Credit Card. 

1. Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office advises that 
should the San Francisco Affinity Credit Card bear the City's 
name and/or seal, that fact alone would not make the City 
liable with respect to the card. Mr. Lakey notes that any 
agreement between the City, and a bank retained by the City 
to administer a San Francisco Affinity Credit Card, should 
contain provisions stipulating that the City would not have 
any liability with respect to the City's Affinity Credit Card. 

2. The attached memo contains Mr. Taniguchi's initial 
comments regarding the potential for the City establishing a 
successful San Francisco Affinity Credit Card. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



-09' 95IFRI) 14:21 OFFICE OF CAO 



TEL: 4 1 5 554 4849 



Attachment 




WILLIAM L. LEE 
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 



June 9, 1995 



TO. 



FROM: 



RE: 



Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 
Neal Taniguchi, Assistant to the CAO 
A VISA Affini ty Card for the City 



You have asked the CAO's Office about the feasibility of creating a successful affinity credit card program 
for the City and County of San Francisco. Your analyst has already received a copy of a memo from the 
CAO's Office briefly describing how an affinity credit card program might work and be established 
While an affinity credit card program appears to be a potentially attractive program for the City to 
explore, and the CAO's Office would be willing to explore the feasibility of an affinity credit card 
program for the City, our office cannot at this time reasonably assess its potential for success. 

The CAO's Office will be available at the Budget Committee meeting to answer any questions regarding 
the proposal. 



401 VAN NESS AVENUE, ROOM 402, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 

TELEPHONE 415-554-4851; FAX 415-554-4849 

61 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Item 10- File 199-95-1 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution transferring jurisdiction of a portion of certain 
property from the Department of Public Works (DPW) to the Port 
of San Francisco for use as a public park and adopting findings 
that the transfer is consistent with the City's Master Plan and 
Eight Priority Policies of the City Planning Code. 

1. As stated in the proposed resolution, on November 4, 1985, the 
Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 965-85, approving 
the development and implementation of the Embarcadero 
Surface Roadway Project, including a Municipal Railway Metro 
extension along the Embarcadero, a Municipal Railway Metro 
Turnback, the reconstruction of the Embarcadero Roadway, and 
the creation of the new Rincon Park between the relocated 
Embarcadero and the waterfront. This proposed resolution would 
transfer property known as the "Park Parcel" (see No. 2 below) to 
the Port which, together with existing, contiguous Port property, 
will comprise the Rincon Park. 

2. On July 24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
acquisition of Lots 7, 8, 8a, 9 and 10 in Assessor's Block 3742, 
also known as 1289 Steuart Street, (the "Terminals Property"), 
from Terminals Equipment Company, Inc. for the Embarcadero 
Surface Roadway Project. This property is depicted in the 
attached 'Exhibit A (page 1 of 2). The property has an area of 
31,510 square feet and is presently under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Public Works. The portion of the Terminals 
Property to be transferred to the Port is known as the "Park 
Parcel". The Park Parcel has an area of 14,337 square feet (45.5% 
of the Terminals Property area). However, the western 
dimensions and ultimate size of the Park Parcel are subject to 
possible change based on a future determination of the final 
alignment of the rerouted Embarcadero Roadway. 

3 The City and County purchased the Terminals Property on 
August 18, 1992, using the following sources of funding: 

Muni Extension Project Funds 

(from the Federal Transit Administration) $1,215,760 

Embarcadero Roadway Project Funds 

(Sales Tax funds from the San Francisco 

Transportation Authority) 4,626,250 

Downtown Park Fund * 1,443,667 

Interest Earnings from Escrow Deposits 544,962 

Total Purchase Price $7,830,639 

The City's Downtown Park Fund is a special fund created by the Planning Code. The special 
fund is administered jointly by the Planning Commission and the Recreation and Parks 
Commission. The source of funding for the Downtown Park Fund is developer fees. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



According to the letter agreement between the CAO and the 
Director of the Redevelopment Agency (see point 5 below), funds 
were borrowed from the Downtown Park Fund for this property 
acquisition and it was anticipated that the Downtown Park Fund 
would be repaid in the future. No source of funds for the 
repayment was identified at that time. 

4. The Port Director has requested that the Director of the 
Department of Public Works transfer the Park Parcel portion of 
the Terminals Property to the Port. This transfer is described as 
necessary in order to satisfy a condition under the Disposition 
and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment 
Agency and The Gap, Inc. According to the Redevelopment 
Agency, the DDA requires that, by July 7, 1995, the 
Redevelopment Agency lease the Rincon Park site from the Port 
for construction of improvements to the public park. If The Gap, 
Inc. Headquarters Building is constructed, the DDA provides that 
Gap, Inc. will pay up to $2.0 million (indexed to future inflation) 
to design and build Rincon Park and an additional $1.0 million 
for security in the Park over a ten year period. 

The DDA between The Gap, Inc. and the Redevelopment Agency 
was approved by the Redevelopment Commission and is not 
subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

The full area of the Rincon Park site (125,870 square feet or 
approximately 2.89 acres), comprised of the parcel that would be 
transferred to the Port by this resolution and the adjoining Port 
property, is shown in the attached Exhibit A, page 2 of 2. 

5. The Chief Administrative Officer and the Redevelopment 
Agency entered into a letter agreement dated March 23, 1995 in 
which the Redevelopment Agency agreed to seek Board of 
Supervisors and Mayor approval to include in a future budget, 
tax increment monies from anticipated development on the site 
subject to the DDA between The Gap, Inc. and the 
Redevelopment Agency, in an amount sufficient to reimburse the 
Downtown Park Fund for its contribution to the purchase of the 
Terminals Property. The Department of Public Works is willing 
to transfer jurisdiction over the Park Parcel to the Port on the 
terms and conditions as discussed in the March 23, 1995 letter 
agreement between the Chief Administrative Officer and the 
Redevelopment Agency, since the Park Parcel is no longer 
necessary or advantageous to the Department of Public Works 
and can be more advantageously used by the Port for public open 
space purposes as part of Rincon Park. The Director of Property 
states that the reimbursement of $1,443,667 (the amount 
borrowed from the City's Downtown Park Fund) to the Downtown 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Park Fund by the Redevelopment Agency for the Downtown Park 
Fund's share of the purchase price for the City's acquisition of the 
Terminals Property pursuant to the terms and conditions of the 
agreement between the CAO and the Redevelopment Agency, is 
fair and reasonable compensation for the transfer of the Park 
Parcel to the Port. 

6. The proposed resolution provides that the Port can use the 
Park Parcel for other than park purposes until the Rincon Park is 
built. According to David Madway, General Counsel of the 
Redevelopment Agency, the construction of Rincon Park with 
funds contributed by The Gap, Inc,. is expected to occur in either 
1998 or 1999. Potential interim uses by the Port would include a 
parking lot . Any income derived from the Port's interim use of 
the Park Parcel would be transferred to the CAO's Office and 
used to repay the obligation to the City's Downtown Park Fund. 
Monies in the fund can be used for the purpose of acquiring open 
space and constructing parks in the downtown area. 

Comments: 1. The lease agreement between the Port and the Redevelopment 

Agency for the Rincon Park site will be subject to separate, future 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

2. While this transfer of property is consistent with prior 
legislation approved by the Board of Supervisors concerning the 
creation of Rincon Park, the Board of Supervisors has not 
approved the Disposition and Development Agreement between 
The Gap, Inc. and the Redevelopment Agency that necessitates 
this transfer of property at this time. As previously noted, the 
Disposition and Development Agreement is not subject to 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

3. In summary, a parcel of City-owned property located at the 
intersection of Folsom- Street and the Embarcardero, known as 
the Park Parcel, is surplus to the needs of the Department of 
Public Works and would be transferred, if this resolution is 
approved, from the jurisdiction of the Department of Public 
Works to the Port of San Francisco. The Park Parcel was 
acquired using, in part, approximately $1.44 million from the 
City's Downtown Park Fund. The Port will eventually combine 
the Park Parcel with existing Port property that adjoins the Park 
Parcel to form an open space property that will become Rincon 
Park. The Rincon Park property will then be leased to the 
Redevelopment Agency. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

The Redevelopment Agency has negotiated a Disposition and 
Development Agreement (DDA) with The Gap, Inc. for the 
construction of a new Headquarters Building that will be located 
in the block bounded by Steuart Street, Folsom Street, Spear 
Street and Harrison Street. As part of this DDA, The Gap, Inc. 
has agreed to contribute $2.0 million for design and construction 
of Rincon Park which is located across from the site of the 
proposed Headquarters Building for The Gap, Inc. 

Lastly, The Chief Administrative Officer and the Redevelopment 
Agency entered into a letter agreement in which the 
Redevelopment Agency agreed to seek Board of Supervisors and 
Mayor approval to include in a future budget, tax increment 
funds in the amount of $1.44 million that will reimburse the 
City's Downtown Park Fund. Such funds can be used for the 
acquisition of open space and construction of parks in the 
Downtown area. 

Recommendation: Based on Comment 2 above, we consider approval of the proposed 
resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



EXHIBIT "A 




_l 66 



EXHIBIT "A 

P-Tge 2 of 2 pnges 




Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Items 11 and 12 - Files 231-95-1.1 and 127-95-9 

Department: Recreation and Parks Department 

Item: File 231-95-1.1 Ordinance amending Part HI of the San 

Francisco Municipal Code by adding a new Article thereto 
forming the Park and Recreation Improvement District for 
Enhancements ("PRIDE"), a Benefit Assessment District to 
fund maintenance of Park property; ordering the 
improvements, and levying an assessment to fund the 
improvements. 

File 127-95-9 Resolution declaring the intention to form the 
Park and Recreation Improvement District for 
Enhancements ("PRIDE"), a Benefit Assessment District to 
fund maintenance of Park property; approving the 
Engineer's Report regarding the District; describing the 
maintenance and servicing to be funded; and giving notice of 
hearings on the question of the formation of the District and 
the levy of an assessment. 

Description: State law permits local and regional jurisdictions to form 

special assessment districts that charge property owners for 
capital improvements and maintenance on nearby streets 
and parks. 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
initiating proceedings to form a Benefit Assessment District 
in the City to provide funds to the Recreation and Park 
Department for the operation and maintenance of City parks, 
and ordering an Engineer's Report regarding the 
Assessment District (File 231-95-1). The proposed ordinance 
and the proposed resolution would take the next steps in the 
formation of this Benefit Assessment District. 

The proposed resolution (File 127-95-9) states the City's intent 
to form the Assessment District, approves the Engineer's 
Report, which lists the improvements planned within the 
District and the amount needed for the improvements 
planned under the District, and sets the necessary 
assessment levels for the District. In addition, the proposed 
resolution provides for public hearings to be held on the 
Benefit Assessment District. The proposed ordinance (File 
231-95-1.1) would formally levy and provide for collection of 
the assessment from City property owners. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1 1 ;-: 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Amount and Use of Assessment District Funds 

The Engineer's Report, which would be adopted if this 
proposed ordinance is approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
states that the cost of the improvements which are planned 
under the Benefit Assessment District for FY 1995-96 are 
estimated as follows: 

Park Maintenance $12,025,858 

Park Enhancements 3.250.000 

Sub-total $15,275,858 

Other Expenses 

(Engineer's Report, cost of public notice, etc.) 268.902 

Total $15,544,760 

Attachment 1, provided from the Engineer's Report, details 
the estimated expenditures listed above. 

Of the total estimated amount of $15,275,858 to be generated by 
the Assessment District, according to Mr. Phil Arnold of the 
Recreation and Park Department, at least $9 million, which 
is presently included in the FY 1995-96 budget as proposed by 
the Mayor, would be used to offset General Fund support of 
the Recreation and Park Department, thereby freeing up 
such monies to support other City Departmental 
expenditures requiring General Fund monies. The 
remaining $6,275,858 could be used to increase Recreation 
and Park Department services. For the $6,275,858 in 
revenues not currently included in the FY 1995-96 budget, a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance will be submitted by 
the Recreation and Park Department. 

However, Mr. Arnold reports that of the $15,275,858, up to 
approximately $12,000,000 might be used to offset General 
Fund support of the Recreation and Park Department. If, for 
example, $11,000,000 is used to offset General Fund 
expenditures in the Recreation and Park Department, then 
the estimated available support for enhanced services in the 
Recreation and Park Department from the PRIDE revenues 
would be $4,275,858. In this case, $11,000,000 in General Fund 
monies (as opposed to the $9,000,000 proposed in the Mayor's 
1995-96 budget) would be freed up to support other City 
Departmental expenditures requiring General Fund monies. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Assessm ent levels 



In order to generate the funds for the Assessment District, 
the Engineer's Report proposes assessments averaging 
between $35.93 (for an industrial warehouse) and $305.80 (for 
a large office building) per parcel, with the standard 
assessment for a single family residence proposed at $55.34. 
According to State law, the Engineer's Report must present 
and verify a formula for the assessments that is reasonably 
related to the benefits to be derived to property owners from 
the District. 

The assessment rates for this Benefit Assessment District 
require approval by the Board of Supervisors. If the Board of 
Supervisors does not agree with the assessments proposed by 
the Engineer's Report, the Board of Supervisors can 
recommend a lower assessment level as long as the 
assessment levels are related to the benefits provided by the 
District. The Board of Supervisors may not increase the 
assessments proposed by the Engineer's Report. 

The Engineer's Report states that the primary measure of 
benefit to property owners from City parks is; a) the number 
of people who use the parks from that property, and, b) 
whether such persons use the parks as residents, visitors, or 
employees. The Engineer's Report contains estimates of the 
numbers of residents, visitors and employees who are 
represented in different categories of residential and 
commercial properties, and assigns a value of 100% of Park 
benefits to residential users, 25% to visitor users, and 12.5% 
to employee users, and multiplies the number of users in a 
given property times their proportional benefit level to arrive 
at an assessment level for each parcel. 

In setting assessment levels, a sliding scale is used for 
properties with over 100 users in recognition of the fact that 
some large facilities (such as large hotels) gain a 
diminishing marginal benefit from Parks as the numbers of 
users represented in that property grow very large. The 
Engineer's Report also states that some facilities (such as 
hospitals, clubs, and parking lots) benefit from parks strictly 
on the basis of their existence, not as a factor of size, and 
assigns a per parcel assessment to these properties equal to 
that on a single family residence. Finally, the Engineer's 
Report notes that some properties should be exempt from the 
assessment, because such properties are publicly owned 
(schools), otherwise exempt from property tax assessments 
(nonprofit agencies such as churches), or because collecting 
assessments from these properties would be more expensive 

BO ARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

than the amount of the assessment (time share 
condominiums, parking stalls). Staff of Nolte and 
Associates, Inc., which prepared the Engineer's Report, and 
staff from the Recreation and Park Department, will be 
available at the Budget Committee meeting of June 14, 1995 to 
provide further information on the details of the formula 
used to determine the amount of the assessments. 

Process of Forming the Assessment District 

State law provides that proceedings for the formation of an 
Assessment District must be stopped if a majority of the 
property owners assessed protest the assessment in writing 
within a 45-day period after introduction of the ordinance 
forming the Assessment District. If a majority of the 
property owners do not protest within the 45 day period, the 
Board of Supervisors may adopt the ordinance. 

According to State law, if an assessment is to be levied for 
Fiscal Year 1995-96, the ordinance creating the Benefit 
Assessment District must be adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors by July 1, or, with the approval of the Controller, 
by the third Monday in August, which is August 21, 1995. In 
order to provide for the required 45 day protest period, the 
Board of Supervisors may not approve the proposed ordinance 
prior to its meeting of Monday, August 7. The Recreation 
and Park Department reports that the Board of Supervisors is 
required to hold two public hearings on the proposed Benefit 
Assessment District. These hearings are proposed for the 
Board's meetings of Monday, July 17 and Monday, August 7, 
at which time the ordinance can be approved. Under the 
proposed schedule, property owners will have between June 
19 (the day the ordinance is first heard by the full Board of 
Supervisors), and August 7 to protest the assessment. 

Comments: 1. In California, citywide assessment districts to fund park 

maintenance have been established in Oakland, Berkeley, 
Alameda, Hayward, Daly City, and other jurisdictions. The 
assessments on property in these jurisdictions range 
anywhere from $5 to over $100 per property. 

2. The City's current tax rate is $1,163 percent of assessed 
valuation, including both Property Taxes and bonded 
indebtedness. On a single family residence assessed at 
$300,000, the amount of property tax is approximately $3,408. 
These figures are for information purposes only; as noted 
above, an assessment under the Benefit Assessment District 
would no_t be based on the City's Property Tax rate but rather 
would be based on the benefit to be derived to property owners 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



from the improvements as determined in the Engineer's 
Report discussed above. 

3. If the Benefit Assessment District is established, State law 
requires an Engineer's Report to set the assessment rate 
each year. State law also requires that affected property 
owners be provided with the 45-day period to protest the 
assessment for each year that the Assessment District is 
renewed. 

4. Many assessment districts, such as landscape and 
lighting districts, are created for a limited time period in 
order to provide sufficient funds to pay for a specific set of 
improvements. When the improvements are complete, the 
assessment district is discontinued. However, the proposed 
Benefit Assessment District for maintenance of the City's 
park properties would be created to fund ongoing operations 
and maintenance costs in the parks, and would have an 
indefinite lifetime. The Budget Analyst notes that this 
revenue source is proposed to meet basic ongoing expenses 
for the Recreation and Park Department, and, in the event 
that the Benefit Assessment District is dissolved, another 
source for such funds would have to be identified, or 
operation and maintenance service levels and costs would 
have to be reduced. Further, given that the maintenance and 
operations costs for the City's parks should increase over 
time because of inflation, it is likely that the amount of the 
assessments would also increase. 

5. The Engineer's Report, submitted by Nolte and Associates, 
Inc., as well as additional work to be done by these 
consultants over the next two months, such as participating 
in the public meeting process, is budgeted at a cost of $80,000. 
Attachment 2, submitted by the Recreation and Park 
Department, shows the hourly rates charged by Nolte and 
Associates Inc., and the fees for preparation of the Engineers 
Report, totaling $69,500. The remaining amount of $10,500 
($80,000 less $69,500) will be billed in accordance with Nolte 
and Associates' participation in the public meeting process, 
according to Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold reports that the 
estimated number of hours to be provided by Nolte under its 
contract with the Recreation and Park Department is 700 
hours. 

6. According to Mr. Arnold, Nolte and Associates, Inc. was 
selected to prepare the Engineer's Report after the Recreation 
and Park Department contacted and interviewed four firms 
with experience in this area, and asked two of those firms to 
submit bids. Nolte had the lowest price, and, in the opinion of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

the Department, was the most qualified firm. Nolte and 
Associates is not an MBE/WBE firm. The names of the 
contacted firms, and the hourly rates and the bid amount of 
the second firm that was invited to bid, are as follows: 

Firm Name Hourly Rate Bid Amount 

John Heindel, Civil Engineer N/A no bid 

Randloph W. Leiptien N/A no bid 

Reimer Associates N/A no bid 

Wilsey and Ham $55 to $120 $97,000 

Nolte and Associates $61 to $135 $80,000 

7. Mr. Arnold reports that of the $80,000 budget for the 
Engineer's Report and other work by Nolte and Associates, 
an amount of $15,500 was donated for this purpose by a non- 
profit organization, the Friends of Recreation and Park, and 
$64,500 is being provided by the Recreation and Park 
Department's FY 1994-95 Special Revenue Fund. 

8. According to Mr. James Cumming of the City Attorney's 
Office, under rules and regulations adopted by the Rent 
Board, the cost of the assessment levied under the Benefit 
Assessment District can be passed on from landlords to 
tenants. Tenant organizations in the City have initiated a 
lawsuit challenging these rules and regulations, which is 
currently before the State Court of Appeals, according to Mr. 
Cumming. 

Recommendation: 1. Approval of the proposed resolution (File 127-95-9), 
initiating proceedings for the formation of a Benefit 
Assessment District, is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance (File 231-95-1.1), 
approving the Engineer's Report regarding the Benefit 
Assessment District, forming the assessment district, and 
providing for the levying and collection of assessments for the 
1995-96 Fiscal Year, is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Cost Estimate Summary 



Attachment 1 
Page I of ZT~ 



A. Maintenance of Parks 

1 Personnel Services 

2 Materials, Supplies and Utilities 

3 Equipment 
Sub-Total 

B. Recreational Facilities Enhancements 

1 Reforestation 

2 Athletic Field Renovation 

3 Custodial Services 

4 Landscape Enhancements 
Sub-Total 

C. Incidental Costs 

1 Engineer's Report 

2 Public Notice and Response 

3 Public Information Program Costs 
Sub-Total 

Total 

* See page k of Attachment 1 



$9,403,558.00 

$1,705,000.00 

$917,300.00 



$1,550,000.00 
$500,000.00 
$500,000.00 
$700,000.00 



$65,500.00 

$10,135.00 

$193,267.32" 



$12,025,858.00 



$3,250,000.00 



$268,902.32 
SI 5,544,760.32 



6/6/95(1 INAl.) 



Kl'l I \I1S \| S, C .'si Sum 15 



74 



Cost Estimate Detail Worksheet — Maintenance of Parks 



Attachment 1 
Page 2 of A 



A. Personnel Services 

1 Salaries, Park Maintenance Workers 

2 Fringe Benefits 

3 Worker's Compensation Insurance 

4 Overtime Compensation 

Sub-Total 



$7,260,934.00 

$1,742,624.00 

$300,000.00 

$100,000.00 



$9,403,558.00 



B. Materials and Supplies 






1 Supplies 




$271,000.00 




2 Materials 




$234,000.00 




3 Utilities 








Sewer 




$400,000.00 




Power 




$800,000.00 




Sub-Total 






$1,705,000.00 


C. Equipment 








1 Hand Tools 


Gardening Equipment 


$117,300.00 




2 Vehicle Maintenance 


$700,000.00 




3 Fuel 




$100,000.00 




Sub-Total 






$917,300.00 


Total 






$12,025,858.00 



6/6/95(FINAL) 



RPTTABS XLS. Costs - Maim 



75 



Attachment 1 
Page 3 of A 

Cost Estimate Detail Worksheet —Recreational Facilities Enhancements 

A. Reforestation 

1 Personnel (25 Full-time equivalents) $1,275,000.00 

2 City-Wide Street Tree Program Study $50,000.00 

2 Materials and Supplies $75,000.00 

3 Equipment $150,000.00 

Sub-Total $1,550,000.00 

B. Athletic Field Renovation 

1 Personnel (7 Full-time equivalents) $350,000.00 

2 Materials and Supplies 

Sod $50,000.00 

Other Materials $50,000.00 

3 Equipment $50,000.00 

Sub-Total $500,000.00 

C. Custodial Services 

1 Personnel (10 Full-time equivalents) $400,000.00 

2 Materials and Supplies $50,000.00 

3 Equipment $50,000.00 

Sub-Total $500,000.00 

D. Landscape Enhancement 

1 Personnel (10 Full-time equivalents) $500,000.00 

2 Materials and Supplies $ 1 00,000.00 

3 Equipment $100,000.00 

Sub-Total $700,000.00 

Total SO 50,000.00 

6/6/95(HNAL) KP I I \HS \l V COSO I nhanc 

76 



66/07/1995 16:32 



4152218B34 



SF REC PARK 



Attachment 1 
Page 4 of h ■ 



PRIDE Incidental costs: 



P08t-if Fax Note 7671 


"■^M^ |tf»» 2 


To pa* ST*.. :-. : ..v. 


^"WC 


CoJD ^--|U.v ft,,< 


°° Rx P . 


Phone* 


Phone * 1 ' i 


Pax " a-;z -om., 


Fax* 



Printing costs for brochure to be Included In property tax mailing explaining 
the purposes of the special assessment district: $3,000 . 

Account clerk, for Tax Collector's office to handle additional workload 
resulting from the special assessment district: $27,000 based on 9 months 
funding. 

Four clerks for processing Informational requests and appeals resulting from 
the special assessment district: $108,000 based on 9 months funding. 

Four telephones Including Installation: $2,800 . 

Four workstations and chairs: $4.800 . 

Materials and supplies: $2,000. 

Four personal computers and one printer: $15,000 . 

Cal router and universal call distribution system (assumes 2 ports, 5 lines, 1 
voice mailbox): $14,232 . 

Advertising: $9,435.32 . 

City Attorney: $7^000. 



TOTAL 



$193,267 



08950 



77 



06/07/1995 16:32 4152218634 SF REC PARK 



*.^. -07" 95 (WED) 13:13 NOLTE Jt ASSOC. S.ACTO TE L : 9 1 6 641 9222 



CHARGE RATES SCHEDULE 
NOLTE and ASSOCIATES, Inc. 

City and County of San Francisco 

PRIDE 

Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 



STAFF POSITION HOURLY RATE 

Pnncipal-In-Charge S135.00 
Project Manager $98.00 

Engineering Technician $61. 00 

Clerical Support Staff $55.00 

Quality Control Reviewer $100.00 

Sub-Consultant for Data Processing: 

Charged as a pass-tlirough with no mark-up $100.00 



■vs. 



Attachment 2 
Page I of 2 



78 



B&/89/1995 12:55 4152218834 SF REC PARK 

MAY. -05' 95 (FRI) 07:32 NOLTE k ASSOC. SACTO TEL-'9U> *»41 Hill Attachmei 

Page 2 oi 



ATTACHMENT "B H 
COMPENSATION 

The Consultant shall be compensated for the services described in Attachment "A, Scope of 
Services a* described below. The fee for each phase of service shall be a lump sum amount to 
be paid a* described elsewhere in this Agreement. 



L PHASE I - CONCEPTUALIZE DISTRICT $15,500 

H. PHASE H - ASSESSMENT ENGINEER'S REPORT $42,000 

HI. PHASE HI - PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARINGS $7,500 

IV. PHASE IV - ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION $4.500 

$69,500 

The lump sum fees include the cost of mileage and printing of the Engineer's Report. Other 
reimbursable expenses will be billed as stipulated in the Standard Form Agreement. The 
Recreation and Park Department shall be responsible for all fees charged by the Planning 
Department, the Assessor's Office and the Auditor/Comroller's Office. Any legal fees and 
public relations expenses incurred as part of the District formation process will be the 
responsibility of the Recreation and Park Department. 



79 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 13 - File 127-95-7 

Item: Ordinance amending Part II of the San Francisco Municipal 

Code by enacting a new Article 18 to prescribe special notice 
requirements for any legislation levying a special benefit 
assessment. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would amend Part II of the City's 

Municipal Code with a new Article 18 to require that before 
the Board of Supervisors could adopt any new or increased 
special benefit assessment against real property, the Tax 
Collector must provide a mailed notice to all property owners, 
who would be subject to the new or increased special benefit 
assessment. In accordance with the proposed ordinance, the 
mailed notice to all property owners would include, but not be 
limited to the following information: 

• Description of the real property to be assessed; 

• Estimated amount of the assessment per parcel; 

9 General description of the purposes for which the 
assessment revenues will be used; 

• Telephone number and address of an individual or 

department that interested persons may contact to 
receive additional information about the new or 
increased special benefit assessment; 

• Statement that a majority protest from the affected 

property owners will cause the assessment to be 
abandoned, if the assessment procedural ordinance or 
enabling statute under which the assessment is 
proposed to be levied so provides. (For example, under 
the proposed Recreation and Park Benefit Assessment 
District legislation, if a majority of the property owners 
assessed protest the Benefit Assessment District, in 
writing, within a 45-day period after the ordinance 
forming the assessment district and levying the 
assessment is introduced, then the ordinance cannot 
be adopted by the Board of Supervisors.); 

• Form which may be returned by the property owner to the 

Tax Collector in order to file a protest. This form would 
include the return mailing address of the Tax 
Collector, or of any other City department or officer 
designated by the Board of Supervisors to receive and 
tally the protests in connection with the proposed new 
or increased special assessment; and 

• Dates, times and locations of the public hearings regarding 

the proposed new or increased special benefit 
assessment against real property. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

80 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

The proposed notices must be mailed by the Tax Collector to 
the affected property owners at least 20 days before the last 
date of the scheduled public hearings on the new or increased 
special benefit assessment against real property. In 
accordance with the proposed ordinance, the City's cost of 
providing this mailed notice to all property owners may be 
recovered from the proceeds of the new or increased special 
benefit assessment against real property. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Julia Friedlander of the City Attorney's 

Office, Section 54954.6 of the State Government Code (part of 
the Brown Act) requires that, in most cases, mailed notices be 
sent to the affected property owners for new or increased 
special assessment districts. However, Ms. Friedlander 
reports that the Brown Act provides limited exemptions from 
this mailing requirement, if the special assessment is 
developed exclusively for operational and/or maintenance 
purposes and the assessments are City-wide or affect at least 
50,000 parcels. In these cases, property owners must be 
notified of any proposed new or increased assessment 
through the placement of public notices in the newspaper. 
Under the proposed ordinance, the notification requirements 
of placing public notices in the newspaper would continue to 
be required. 

2. According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation and Park 
Department, for the proposed Parks and Recreation 
Improvement District for Enhancements (PRIDE), which 
would be a benefit assessment district to fund operation and 
maintenance of park property, the Recreation and Park 
Department plans on placing three public notices which are 
at least one-eighth of a page in length in both the San 
Francisco Independent and the San Francisco Examiner. Mr. 
Arnold reports that the Recreation and Park Department will 
likely include a telephone number in the advertised public 
notices to enable interested persons to call for additional 
information. According to Mr. Arnold, the Recreation and 
Park Department is considering hiring a public relations finr 
to respond to the telephone inquiries, although the specifics 
have not been developed. If the interested caller is no1 
satisfied with the response provided on the telephone, ar 
address would be provided to enable the caller to provide i. 
response in writing. 

3. In accordance with the proposed legislation, the Ta? 
Collector's Office estimates that there are currently 
approximately 160,000 notices that would be required to b< 
sent to affected property owners. As reflected in th» 
Attachment from the Tax Collector's Office, the Taj 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

81 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 



Collector's Office does not have "the personnel, space, desks, 
telephones or computer equipment to take on additional 
workloads which include mailing out special notices to 
taxpayers". The Tax Collector's Office estimates that it would 
cost $61,517 for the required postage, forms and envelopes to 
mail these required notices. In anticipation of the high level 
of response that would be generated by the notices, the Tax 
Collector projects that the Department would require five 
additional 1404 Clerks for four months to answer telephone 
and public inquiries for an estimated cost of $41,167. In 
addition, the Tax Collector's Office projects one-time 
expenses of $18,790 for the necessary computers, telephones 
and desks for the five additional staff required. Overall, the 
Tax Collector estimates that the proposed ordinance would 
result in an additional expenditure of $121,474 to the Tax 
Collector's Office, based on current year costs. 

However, no funds are included in the Tax Collector's FY 
1995-96 budget for this activity. According to the Tax 
Collector's Office, if the Tax Collector is given this 
responsibility prior to supplemental funding, it will be 
necessary to divert existing staff from revenue producing 
activity to perform this clerical function. The Tax Collector 
estimates that, at a minimum, revenue loss would be in 
excess of $275,680. 

4. Under the proposed legislation, notices would be required 
to be mailed to affected property owners each time there was 
a new assessment or increased assessment. Therefore, it is 
likely that the proposed annual costs of $102,684 ($121,474 
less one-time expenses of $18,790) would occur in subsequent 
years. 

5. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Tax Collector that the 
mailing and responses to the affected property owners would 
"be best handled by members of the agency that benefits from 
the collection of such special assessment or any other 
designated agency with the necessary expertise to answer 
public inquiries such as how the amount of the assessment 
was determined, what type of properties are being assessed, 
how can taxpayers apply for an exemption, etc. 
Alternatively, the Tax Collector recommends that an outside 
consultant be used, as is currently being done for the 
Community College Maintenance District. In the case of the 
currently proposed PRIDE, the Recreation and Park 
Department would then be the responsible agency to respond 
to public inquiries. According to Mr. Arnold, the Recreation 
and Park Department does not have sufficient resources to 
provide such a mailing and to respond to public inquiries. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Budget Committee 

June 14, 1995 Budget Committee Meeting 

6. Although the proposed legislation indicates that costs may 
be recovered from proceeds from the assessment, according to 
Mr. Arnold, the budget that is currently being submitted by 
the Recreation and Park Department does not include any 
funds to pay for these projected expenses. Further, the 
Budget Analyst notes that if the assessment district is not 
created, the City's General Fund would have to pay for the 
costs of funding these expenses. 

7. The earliest the proposed ordinance could be approved for 
final passage by the Board of Supervisors is June 26, 1995. 
The proposed ordinance would then not become effective until 
30 days after final passage by the Board of Supervisors, or 
July 26, 1995. However, the proposed ordinance requires that 
the notices be mailed to the affected property owners at least 
20 calendar days before the last date of the scheduled public 
hearings on the new or increased special benefit assessment. 
At present, the last date of the scheduled public hearings on 
the proposed PRIDE is August 7, 1995. 

Therefore, since the notices of the affected property owners 
would have to be mailed at least 20 calendar days before 
August 7, 1995, such notices would have to be mailed by July 
18, 1995, which is before the July 26, 1995 date when the 
proposed ordinance would become effective. Assuming this 
timeline, Ms. Friedlander notes that the proposed legislation 
may not be effective in time to apply to the currently 
proposed PRIDE Assessment District. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



JUN-06-1995 16=56 



TPtX COLLECTORS' OFFICE 



Office Of The Treasurer/Tax Collector 



City and County of San Francisco 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7426 <r San Francisco, CA 94120-7426 

Street Address: 875 Stevenson Street, 2nd Floor *> San Francisco, CA 94103 



Attachment 
Fage I of 2 

4155547121 P. 02/02 




June 6 1995 MARY I. CALL AN AN, Treasurer 

' Phone:(415)554-4478 

RICHARD A. SULLIVAN, Tax Collector 
Phone:(415)554-4470 

TO: Richard A. Sullivan 

Tax Collector 
FROM: Francis T. Nguyen 

Director of Real Estate 

SUBJECT: Estimated Costs of Mailing Special Notices for New or 
Increased Special Benefit Assessment 

In response to your request for an estimate of the costs to mail 
out special notices to taxpayers for any new or increased 
special benefit assessment, I have identified the following 
major cost groups: 

A. Envelopes, forms, and postage 

B. Staff salaries 

C. Computers, telephones, desks 

A. Envelopes, Forms, and Postage 

Assuming that we mail 160,000 notices: 

1. Postage: 160,000 x .32 = 

2. Forms: 



Envelopes 



a. 
b. 



Reproduction: 

Notice & Response Form 

Folding : 



$51,200 

$ 4,428 
$ 1,505 



EE-5 
Z 



160,000 x 0.0134 = 
160,000 X 0.014 = 



$ 2,144 
$ 2,240 



TOTAL 



$61,517 



B. Staff Salaries 

Class Qty Function 
1404 5 



Calculations 



Cost 



To answer phone and 24,700 x 5 x 4/12 $41,167 
public inquiries 
for 4 months 



8 4 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 

JUN-06-1995 16:20 TfiX COLLECTORS' OFFICE 4155547121 P. 03/03 

1 . Computers 

Cost for each PC: $2,000 

Cost to connect to Mainframe $ 864 

Sales Tax $ 243 

Sub-Total $3,107 

Total $3,107 x 5 = $15,535 

2 . Telephones 

Estimate to add a phone bank of 5 lines $ 1,255 

3 . Desks 

$400 X 5 = $ 2,000 

GRAND TOTAL $121 > 474 

The Property Tax Section of the Tax Collector's Office is not 
equipped to provide mailed notice to all property owners who 
would be subject to the new or increased special benefit 
assessment. 

We do not have the personnel, space, desks, telephones, computer 
equipment to take on additional workloads which include mailing 
out special notices to taxpayers, explaining the reasons for the 
implementation of the assessment and the purposes for which 
assessment revenues will be used, giving out additional 
information about the new or increased special assessment, and 
receiving and tallying protests in connection with the proposed 
new special assessment. 

In our opinion, this function can be best handled by members of 
the agency that benefits from the collection of such special 
assessment or any other designated agency with the necessary 
knowledge and expertise to answer technical questions such as 
how the amount of the assessment was determined, what type of 
properties are being assessed, how can taxpayers apply for an 
exemption, etc. 

In addition, once the proposed special assessment is passed and 
placed on the tax bills for collection, the Property Tax Section 
of the Tax Collector's Office will be forced to handle most of 
the public inquiries and refer taxpayers to the proper agency. 
We will also have to process, balance and reconcile fee payments 
and distribute to the agency especially when tax bills become 
delinquent which will accrue late penalties and interests. 

In summary, it would be impossible for the Property Tax Section 
of the Tax Collector's Office to take on any additional 
responsibility because of the current workloads and 
responsibilities assigned to its staff members. In addition, as 
detailed above, it would be too costly to make arrangements for 
additional personnel and eguipment as well as providing proper 
training to handle these additional workloads. 

85 

TOTAL P. 03 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 

Item 14 - File 157-95-1 

Department: Controller 



Item: 



Description: 



Comment: 



Communication transmitting the City Departmental Fee 
Report for 1994-95, except for those fees regulated by State or 
Federal law, pursuant to Section 3.17-2 of the Administrative 
Code. 

Section 3.17-2 of the Administrative Code provides that no 
later than the First day of April of each year, City 
departments shall file with the Controller, fee schedules 
reflecting (1) the revenues received from each fee collected by 
said departments, (2) the costs incurred in providing the 
services for which the fees are assessed, and (3) the 
anticipated costs for the succeeding fiscal year for such 
services and the fees which would be necessary to support 
such costs for each type of fee. Additionally, Section 3.17-2 
provides that the Controller shall review the fee schedules 
submitted by the City departments and shall file these fee 
schedules with the Board of Supervisors no later than May 
15th. Section 3.17-2 further stipulates that fees regulated by 
State or Federal law are exempted from the provisions of this 
Section. 

The fee schedules submitted by the City departments to the 
Controller's Office are on file with the Clerk of the Board's 
Office. The Controller's Office also reports that during the 
current year, the Controller contracted with David M. 
Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG) to review the City's fee 
structure for purposes of recommending possible fee 
increases. According to the Controller's Office, DMG reviewed 
a number of departments and provided specific 
recommendations as to the types and feasibility of fee 
increases. A copy of this report is also on file with the Clerk 
of the Board's Office. 

Mr. Harrington reports that, based on the review of the fee 
schedules, the Controller's Office has determined that most 
City departments currently do not recover the full cost of 
providing service to the public. Mr. Harrington states that 
the Controller's Office concurs with the various departmental 
recommendations for fee changes included in the fee 
schedules. However, Mr. Harrington advises that the 
Controller's Office believes that by accelerating their efforts 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
June 14, 1995 



to revise their departmental fees, City departments can 
realize additional revenues in FY 1995-96. Mr. Harrington 
notes that the Controller's Office specifically urges the Police 
Department to submit revisions of their permit fees at the 
earliest possible date. 




Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Ammiano 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Teng 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



MINUTES 

^ t 

DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET HEARINGS 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 

it ^ 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TUESDAY. JUNE 20. 1995 - 1:30 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:52 P.M. 

1. File 100-95-1. [Annual Budget] Consideration of the Annual Budget of the City 

and County of San Francisco for Fiscal Year 1995-96. (Mayor) 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE 

70 Chief Administrative Officer 

93 Convention Facilities Management 

25 Mayor 

23 Children's Fund 

01 Board of Supervisors 

11 Chi"" 5 ' " DOCUMENTS DEFT. 

08 Treasurer - Tax Collector 

09 Controller 

91 Purchaser SAN FRAN . C , : 

02 Assessor PU3LICLIBR- 

78 Recorder 
80 Registrar 

29 City Planning 

37 Permit Appeals 

65 Rent Arbitration Board 

71 Real Estate 

30 Civil Service 

33 Human Resources 

44 Retirement System 

PUBLIC PROTECTION 

11 Trial Courts 

12 Juvenile Probation 
63 Law Library 

72 County Agriculture - Weights & Measures 
74 Medical Examiner/Coroner 

76 Animal Care and Control 

79 Public Administrator/Guardian 

04 District Attorney 

05 Public Defender 

06 Sheriff 

13 Adult Probation 

31 Fire 

38 Police 



BUDGET COMMITTEE IV JTES PAGE 2 



SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose Budget Analyst; 
Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; Ed Harrington, Controller; 
Steve Nelson, representing the Chief Administrative Officer; Jack. Moerschbaecher, 
Director, Convention and Facilities Department; Anthony Lincoln, Director, 
Mayor's Office of Children, Youth and Families; John L. Taylor, Clerk of the Board, 
Board of Supervisors; Honorable Louise H. Renne, City Attorney; Honorable Mary 
Callanan, Treasurer; Richard Sullivan, Tax Collector; Marvin Geistlinger, Director, 
Purchasing Department; Greg Diaz, County Clerk/Recorder; Germaine Wong, 
Registrar of Voters; Lucian Blazej, Director, City Planning Department; Robert 
Feldman, Exec. Director, Board of Permit Appeals; Joe Grubb; Director, Rent 
Board; Anthony Delucchi, Director, Real Estate Department; Al Walker, Exec. 
Officer, Civil Service Commission; Wendell Pryor, Exec. Director, Department of 
Human Resources; Vickie Meade, Exec. Asst., Department of Human Resources; 
Clare Murphy, General Manager, Retirement System; Jane Rubin, Exec. Director, 
Ethics Commission; Ed Flowers, Jr., Chief Probation Officer, Juvenile Court; 
Marcia Bell, Librarian, Law Library; G.E. Weeth, Commissioner, 
Agriculture/Weights and Measures; Dr. Boyd Stephens, Medical Examiner/Coroner; 
Carl Friedman, Director, Animal Care and Control; Ricardo Hernandez, Public 
Administrator/Guardian; Honorable Arlo Smith, District Attorney; Honorable Jeff 
Brown, Public Defender; Honorable Michael Hennessey; Sheriff; Arlene Sauser, 
Chief Adult Probation Officer; Chief Joseph Medina, Fire Department; Chief 
Anthony Ribera, Police Department; Debra Newman, representing Budget Analyst; 
Debra Ward, representing Budget Analyst; Bill Lee, Chief Administrative Officer. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. TRIAL COURTS CONTINUED TO WEDNESDAY, 
JUNE 21, 1995; ASSESSOR CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 
1995. REMAINING DEPARTMENTS CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, JUNE 
27, 1995. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 6:15 P.M. 



<Zf MINUTES 

DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET HEARINGS 
Rimr.PT rnn/rvfTTTPj; 



&2~ 



BUDGET COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY. JUNE 21. 1995 - 1:30 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:52 P.M. 



File 100-95-1. [Annual Budget] Hearing to consider the Annual Budget of the City 
and County of San Francisco for Fiscal Year 1995-96. (Mayor) 

PUBLIC PROTECTION 

11 Trial Courts (Cont'd from 6/20/95) 

DOCUMENTS DEP" 1 ". 



CULTURE AND RECREATION 

07 



County Education Office 

60 Academy of Sciences 

28 Art Commission PUBLIC 

46 War Memorial 

61 Fine Arts Museums 

62 Asian Art Museum 

41 Public Library 

42 Recreation and Park 



PUBLIC WORKS. TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCE 

90 Public Works 

19 Building Inspection Commission 

27 Airport 

39 Port 

36 Parking and Traffic 

75 Electricity and Telecommunications 

40 Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
49 PUC Light, Heat and Power 

32 Hetch Hetchy Project 

47 Water 

35 Department of Transportation (Municipal Railway) 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 



DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET HEARINGS MINUTES 
PAGE TWO 
JUNE 21, 1995 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIALS: Honorable Stuart Pollak, Presiding Judge, 
Superior Court; Honorable Jerome Benson, Presiding Judge, Municipal Court. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Alan 
Carlson, Administrator for the Courts; Debra Newman, representing the Budget 
Analyst; Ms. Bernstein, Civil Grand Jury; Robert Golton, Ph.d., representing Bill 
Rojas, Unified School District; Robert Jenkins, Director, Steinhart Aquarium; Rich 
Newirth, Assistant Director, Art Commission; Beth Murrary, Acting Managing 
Director, War Memorial; Harry Parker, Director, Fine Arts Museum; Emily Santo, 
Acting Director, Asian Art Museum; Ken Downlin, City Librarian, SF Public 
Library; Mary Burns, General Manager, Recreation and Park Department; David 
Anderson, Director, Zoo; John Cribbs, Director, Department of Public Works; 
Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; Shawn McNelton, Deputy 
Director, Building Inspection Commission; John Martin, Deputy Director, Airport; 
Ben Kutnick; Director of Administration; Port of San Francisco; John Newlin, 
Director, Department of Parking and Traffic; Dan McFarland, General Manager, 
Department of Electricity and Telecommunications; Andy Moran, General Manager, 
Public Utilities Commission; Larry Kline, General Manager, Hetch Hetchy Water 
and Power; John Mullane, General Manager, Water Department; Phil Adams, 
General Manager, Municipal Railway. IN SUPPORT: LaWanda Preston, Local 790. 
OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO JUNE 28, 1995. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

2. File 161-95-5 . [Redevelopment Agency Interim Budget] Resolution approving an 

interim budget of the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San 
Francisco for fiscal year 1995-96. (Redevelopment Agency) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Kate Stevenson, representing the Budget Analyst; Teresa Serata, Budget 
Director, Office of the Mayor. NO POSITION TAKEN: John Elberly. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET HEARINGS MINUTES 
PAGE THREE 
JUNE 21, 1995 

3. File 161-95-6 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving 

the budget of the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco 
for fiscal year 1995-96; and approving the issuance by the Agency of Bonds in an 
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16,000,000 for the purpose of financing 
redevelopment activities in fiscal year 1995-1996. (Redevelopment Agency) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Kate Stevenson, representing the Budget Analyst; Teresa Serata, Budget 
Director, Office of the Mayor. NO POSITION TAKEN: John Elberly. IN 
SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING AMENDED 
TITLE PRESENTED IN COMMITTEE BY CLIFFORD GRAVES, 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. ADOPTED. 
AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE CONTINUED TO JUNE 28, 1995, 
MEETING. AMENDED TITLE: "Resolution approving the budget of the 
Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco for 
fiscal year 1995-96; and approving the issuance by the Agency of Bonds 
in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16,500,000 for the 
purpose of financing redevelopment activities in fiscal year 1995-1996." 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 6:08 P.M. 



Sr 



MINUTES 



DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET REVIEW 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

* A* /fir 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1995 - 1:30 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:32 P.M. 

1. File 100-95-1. [Annual Budget] Hearing to consider the Annual Budget of the City 

and County of San Francisco for Fiscal Year 1995-96. (Mayor) 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE 

02 Assessor DOCi.lMf=f^-j- s r) EPV 

2 ' JQQC 

HUMAN WELFARE 

S f::^ fr anc»sco 

26 Commission on Aging PUBLIC LIBRARY 

34 Human Rights Commission 

48 Commission on the Status of Women 

45 Social Services 

COMMUNITY HEALTH - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

83 Community Health Services 

85 Laguna Honda Hospital 

86 San Francisco General Hospital 

87 Community Mental Health 

97 GENERAL CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 
99 CAPITAL PROJECTS 



SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Honorable Doris Ward, Assessor. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; David Ishida, 
Executive Director, Commission on the Aging; Edwin Lee, Director, Human Rights 
Commission; Sonia Melara, Executive Director, Commission on the Status of 
Women; Brian Cahill, General Manager, Department of Social Services; Judith 
Blyth, Director of Budget, Department of Social Services; Dr. Sandra Hernandez, 
Director of Health, Department of Public Health; LaWanda Preston, Local 790; Ed 
Harrington, Controller; Bill Lee, Chief Administrative Officer; Steve Nelson, 
representing Chief Administrative Officer. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO PUBLIC HEARING, 
SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1995. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 4:24 P.M. 



<- MINUTES 

BUDGET COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC TESTIMONY 
//BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
J f , — CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

SATURDAY. JUNE 24, 1995 - 9:00 A.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 

MEMBERS: Supervisors Tom Hsieh, Barbara Kaufman, Sue Bierman 

CLERK: Gregiore Hobson 

TIME MEETNG CONVENED: 9:05 A.M. 



File 100-95-1. [Annual Budget] Hearing to consider the Annual Budget of the City 
and County of San Francisco for Fiscal Year 1995-96. (Mayor) 



GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE 

70 Chief Administrative Officer 

93 Convention Facilities Management 

23 Sen's Fund DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

01 Board of Supervisors 
18 Ethics Commission 



25 £-L™° rne X„ n~n- *ANC 



08 Treasurer - Tax Collector 



09 Controller 

91 Purchaser 

02 Assessor 

78 Recorder 
80 Registrar 

29 City Planning 

37 Permit Appeals 

65 Rent Arbitration Board 

71 Real Estate 

30 Civil Service 

33 Human Resources 

44 Retirement System 

PUBLIC PROTECTION 

11 Trial Courts 

12 Juvenile Probation 
63 Law Library 

72 County Agriculture - Weights & Measures 
74 Medical Examiner/Coroner 

76 Animal Care and Control 

79 Public Administrator/Guardian 
44 District Attorney 

05 Public Defender 

06 Sheriff 

13 Adult Probation 

31 Fire 

38 Police 



BUDGET COMMITTEE I ,LIC HEARING - PUBLIC TESTIMC 
PAGE TWO 
JUNE 24, 1995 



CULTURE AND RECREATION 



07 


County Education Office 


60 


Academy of Sciences 


28 


Art Commission 


46 


War Memorial 


61 


Fine Arts Museums 


62 


Asian Art Museum 


41 


Public Library 


42 


Recreation and Park 


PUBLIC WORKS. TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCE 


90 


Public Works 


19 


Building Inspection Commission 


27 


Airport 


39 


Port 


36 


Parking and Traffic 


75 


Electricity 


40 


Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 


49 


PUC Light, Heat and Power 


32 


Hetch Hetchy Project 


47 


Water 


35 


Department of Transportation (Municipal Railway) 




San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 


HUMAN WELFARE 



26 Commission on Aging 

34 Human Rights Commission 

48 Commission on the Status of Women 

45 Social Services 

COMMUNITY HEALTH - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

83 Community Health Services 

85 Laguna Honda Hospital 

86 San Francisco General Hospital 

87 Community Mental Health 



BUDGET COMMITTEE F LIC HEARING - PUBLIC TESTIMG. 
PAGE THREE 
JUNE 24, 1995 



SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Ed Harrington, Controller. 
GROUP A - Marvis Phillips; Esponala Jackson; Carnella Gordon-Brown. GROUP B 
- Zane Blaney; Jean Dixon; Marvis Phillips; Bob Summers; Jim Mitchell; Elsie 
Banderis; Steve Valdespino; Joel Sachs; Catherine Glaze; Lin Joe; Charlotte Price; 
Claire Issacs; Nan McGuire; Cande Beniter; Ric Olivas; Mario Mejia; Willa Sims; 
Jeannie Hopper and daughter; Jack Wolfe; Ed Barney; Gloria Brown; Sam Murray; 
Carnella Gordon-Brown; Josefa perez; Jesse Montalvo. GROUP C - Marvis 
Phillips; David Newcomer; Vera Haile; Sandy Porter; Claire Issacs; Eve Milton; 
September Jarrett. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, JUNE 
27, 1995. 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 10:55 A.M. 



//// MINUTES 

DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET REVIEW 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TUESDAY. JUNE 27. 1995 - 1:30 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 



TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:35 P.M. 



File 100-95-1. [Annual Budget] Consideration of the Annual Budget of the City 
and County of San Francisco for Fiscal Year 1995-96. (Mayor) 



GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE 

70 Chief Administrative Officer 

93 Convention Facilities Management 

25 Mayor 

23 Children's Fund DOCUMENTS DEP~ 

01 Board of Supervisors 

18 Ethics Commission AUG 2 7 ?oo fi 

03 City Attorney 

08 Treasurer - Tax Collector SAN franci? 

09 Controller 
91 Purchaser 

78 Recorder 
80 Registrar 

29 City Planning 

37 Permit Appeals 

65 Rent Arbitration Board 

71 Real Estate 

30 Civil Service 

33 Human Resources 

44 Retirement System 

PUBLIC PROTECTION 

12 Juvenile Probation 
63 Law Library 

72 County Agriculture - Weights & Measures 
74 Medical Examiner/Coroner 

76 Animal Care and Control 

79 Public Administrator/Guardian 

04 District Attorney 

05 Public Defender 

06 Sheriff 

13 Adult Probation 

31 Fire 

38 Police 



DEPARTMENTAL BUDG^ . REVIEW MINUTES 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 
JUNE 27, 1995 
PAGE TWO 



SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIALS: Honorable Louise H. Renne, City Attorney; 
Honorable Mary Callahan, Treasurer; Honorable Arlo Smith, District Attorney; 
Honorable Jeff Brown, Public Defender; Honorable Michael Hennessey, Sheriff. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ed 
Harrington, Controller, Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; John 
L. Taylor, Clerk of the Board, Board of Supervisors; Debra Newman, representing 
Budget Analyst; Jane Rubin, Director, Ethics Commission; Marvin Geistlinger, 
Director, Purchasing Department; Stan Jones, representing the Budget Analyst; 
Lucian Blazej, Director, City Planning Department; Wendell Pryor, Executive 
Director, Department of Human Resources; Joe Driscoll, Board of Directors, 
Retirement System Board; Ace Tago, Business Manager, Juvenile Court; Bill 
Courtwright; representing the Budget Analyst; Marcia Bell, Librarian, Law Library; 
Dr. Boyd Stephens, Medical Examiner/Coroner; Carl Friedman, Director, Animal 
Care and Control; Brigette Bain, Office Manager, District Attorney's Office; 
Arlene Sauser, Chief Adult Probation Office; Chief Joseph Medina, Fire 
Department. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD AND RECESSED TO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995. 
BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED TO THURSDAY, JUNE 
29, 1995. 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 5:15 P.M. 



MINUTES 

DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET REVIEW 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY. JUNE 28. 1995 - 1:30 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 

MEMBERS: Supervisors Tom Hsieh, Barbara Kaufman, Sue Bierman 

CLERK: Gregiore Hobson 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:35 P.M. 



1. File 100-95-1. [Annual Budget] Hearing to consider the Annual Budget of the City 

and County of San Francisco for Fiscal Year 1995-96. (Mayor) 

PUBLIC PROTECTION 

11 Trial Courts 



CULTURE AND RECREATION 

DOCUMENTS n F n-r 
07 County Education Office 

60 Academy of Sciences AUG g ., 
28 Art Commission 

46 War Memorial SAN franc 

61 Fine Arts Museums PUBLIC 

62 Asian Art Museum 

41 Public Library 

42 Recreation and Park 



PUBLIC WORKS. TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCE 

90 Public Works 

19 Building Inspection Commission 

27 Airport 

39 Port 

36 Parking and Traffic 

75 Electricity and Telecommunications 

40 Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
49 PUC Light, Heat and Power 

32 Hetch Hetchy Project 

47 Water 

35 Department of Transportation (Municipal Railway) 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 



DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET HEARINGS 
PAGE TWO 
JUNE 28, 1995 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; Alan Carlson, 
Administrator for the Courts; Kate Harrison, Budget Director for the Courts; Debra 
Newman; representing the Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Rich Newith, 
Assistant Director, Art Commission; Gregory Ridenour, Assistant Managing 
Director, War Memorial; Mary Burns, General Manager, Recreation and Park 
Department; Phil Arnold, Assistant General Mangaer, Recreation and Park 
Department; John Cribbs, Director, Department of Public Works; Frank Chiu, 
Director, Building Inspection Commission; John Martin, Deputy Director, Airport; 
Ben Kutnick, Director of Administration; Port of San Francisco; Kaherine Haile, 
Budget and Finance Director, Department of Parking and Traffic; Dan McFarland, 
General Manager, Department of Electricity and Telecommunications; Larry Kline, 
General Manager, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power; Jerry Windley, Legislative Aide 
to Supervisor Alioto; John Mullane, General Manager, Water Department; Phil 
Adams, General Mangaer, Municipal Railway. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS RECESSED 
TO THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1995. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

2. File 161-95-6 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget and Bonds] Resolution approving 

the budget of the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco 
for fiscal year 1995-96; and approving the issuance by the Agency of Bonds in an 
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16,500,000 for the purpose of financing 
redevelopment activities in fiscal year 1995-1996. (Redevelopment Agency) 

(Consideration Cont'd from 6/21/95) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of the Mayor; Clifford Graves; 
Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; Robert Gamble, Redevelopment 
Agency. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (TO BOARD MONDAY, JULY 17, 

1995.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 3:57 P.M. 






MINUTES 
DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET REVIEW 



UhFAKl MENIAL BUDGET R 
BUDGET COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

(+ /i c / Ci s 

THURSDAY. JUNE 29. 1995 - 1:30 P.M. ROOM 410, VETERANS BUILDING 

401 VAN NESS AVENUE 

MEMBERS: Supervisors Tom Hsieh, Barbara Kaufman, Sue Bierman 

CLERK: Gregiore Hobson 

TIME MEETING CONVENED: 1:40 P.M. 

1. File 100-95-1. [Annual Budget] Hearing to consider the Annual Budget of the City 
and County of San Francisco for Fiscal Year 1995-96. (Mayor) 

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE 

02 Assessor 

DOCUMENTS DE^ 
HUMAN WELFARE 

AUG 2 7 ?9Q5 

26 Commission on Aging 

34 Human Rights Commission 

48 Commission on the Status of Women 

45 Social Services 

COMMUNITY HEALTH - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 

83 Community Health Services 

85 Laguna Honda Hospital 

86 San Francisco General Hospital 

87 Community Mental Health 

97 GENERAL CITY RESPONSIBILITIES 

99 CAPITAL PROJECTS 

SPEAKERS: ELECTED OFFICIAL: Honorable Doris Ward, Assessor. 
DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; David 
Ishida, Executive Director, Commission on the Aging; Brian Cahill, General 
Manager, Department of Social Services; Teresa Serata, Budget Director, Office of 
the Mayor; Monique Zmuda, representing Dr. Hernandez, Department of Public 
Health; Ed Harrington, Controller; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Anne 
Kronenberg, Department of Public Health. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Dr. Charles 
Range, South of Market Health Center. 



DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET REVIEW 
PAGE TWO 
JUNE 29, 1995 



ACTION: DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW HEARINGS HELD. BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
YEAR 1995-96 AS PRESENTED BY THE MAYOR AMENDED BY THE 
BUDGET COMMITTEE. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. (TO BOARD 
MEETING, MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995.) (SEE FILE FOR DETAILS.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



File 101-95-2 . [Annual Appropriation Ordinance, 1995-96] Annual appropriation 
ordinance, fiscal year 1995-96, an ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts 
and all estimated expenditures for the City and County of San Francisco for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1996. (Mayor) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 

Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED TO REFLECT BUDGET SUBMITTED BY 
THE MAYOR AND AMENDED BY THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. 
FURTHER AMENDED. Amend Section 10.5-1 to add additional capital 
improvement projects for possible funding restoration. Add a Section 
10.7 relating to the Memorandum of Understanding with Service 
Employees Union providing for reduction in scheduled retirement 
pickups or other fiscal effects. ADOPTED. RECOMMENDED AS 
AMENDED. (TO BOARD MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



3. File 102-95-2 . [Annual Salary Ordinance, 1995-96] Ordinance enumerating 

positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1996, continuing, creating or establishing these positions, enumerating and 
including therein all positions created by Charter or State law for which 
compensations are paid from City and County funds and appropriated in the annual 
appropriation ordinance; authorizing appointments or continuation of appointments 
thereto; specifying and fixing the compensations and work schedules thereof; and 
authorizing appointments to temporary positions and fixing compensations 
therefor. (Department of Human Resources) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATrVES: Harvey Rose, Budget 
Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED TO REFLECT BUDGET SUBMITTED BY 
THE MAYOR AND AMENDED BY THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. (TO BOARD MONDAY, JULY 10, 
1995.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 3:43 P.M.