Good morning, everyone. The meeting will come to order. This is september 11, 2019. Im sandra lee, chair of the budget and finance committee and im joined my my supervisors and our clerk. I would like to thank Sandra Williams for broadcasting this meeting. Madam clerk, any announcements . Please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Anything part of the file should be submitted to the clerk and iteming will appear on the september 17th, board of agenda. Madam clerk, call item number one. Finding the proposed updated port shoreline protection at a San FranciscoInternational Airport fiscally feasible pursuant to code 29. Thank you. I believe we have kathy weidner, director of Government Affairs at the International Airport. Yes, good morning, chair and members of the committee. The items before you is an updated i should say the airport is seeking your approval of a previously approved shoreline protection project, fiscal feasibility report. We are asking you to find that the expanded project is fiscally feasible pursuant to chapter 29 of the citys administrative code. In 2015, the airport completed an airport shoreline protection Feasibility Study identifying deficiencies in existing infrastructure and made recommendations on the improvements necessary to protect the airports shoreline Protection System against 11inches of sealevel rise. At that point, the board found the 2015 project to be fiscally feasible. The programme at that time focusing on addressing the current level of flood risks and moderate amounts of sealevel rise. Sealevel projections incorporated into the programme were based on science from 2012. Since the time of the approval of that project in 2015, the science for Sea Level Rise has been updated by 2018 new design criteria from the state of california. In march of 2018, the state of california adopted a new sealevel rise guidance programme, which the airport used to update the report before you today. The updated shoreline Protection Programme proposes construction of new shoreline Protection Systems around the entire perimeteperimeter of the airpor, including along highway 101, that would protect the airport facilities and runways against a 100year storm and 36inches of sealevel rise. Tout ththis is estimated to cost 587 million. The significant cost increase is due to constructing infrastructure to address sealevel rise up to 36inches rather than the previously reported 11inches. The 2019 shoreline Protection Programme provides for new sheet pile wall and concrete wall construction and Environmental Mitigation not included in the approved 2015 shoreline protection study. The airport intends to fund the updates project by utilizing debt finance through the general aviation Revenue Bonds. The budget analyst recommends approval and i would be happy to answer specific questions you might have. Thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions or comments for miss weidner . Seeing none, lets hear from from the analysts office. The proposed resolution would find the airports proposed shoreline Protection Programme to be physically feasible and responsible in accordance with chapter 29 of the administrative code. Approval of this resolution would allow the airport to proceed with environmental review. In december of 2015, the board of supervisors found the airport proposed programme to be physically feasible in accordance with chapter 2019. In march of 2018, the state of california issued a report called sealevel rise guidance with updated sealevel rise. This incorporates new design criteria to address sealevel rise resulting in shoreline Protection Programmes, scope and estimated coasts from 580 million to 718 million and this includes a breakdown of the estimated costs. This is due to constructing infrastructure to address sealevel rise up to 36inches rather than 11inches in the 2015 plan. A list of major changes to the scope of work is shown on page 3 of the report. The areas to be considered for determination of fiscal feasibility and this is on pages 47 of our report. According to the march 2019 airport shoreline protection project fiscal Feasibility Study, its to maintain operations and associated reductions in airport employment and revenue. The estimated shoreline Programme Cost 587. 1 million, the airports Capital Improvement programme includes 15. 7 million in airport revenue funds. The remaining scope and estimated budget are 571. 4 million for Construction Costs and Environmental Mitigation will need to be added to the Improvement Plan at a future date. The airport estimates that issuance of 58 587 million in Revenue Bonds would result in 1. 5 million in debt statements over the 30year term of the bonds. Debt Service Costs to repay the airport Revenue Bonds are paid from airport revenue received from the airports doing business through airport rates and charges, as well as lease and concession revenues. As previously noted, the funding of fiscal feasibility allows the airport to proceed with review for the shoreline Protection Programme. Issuance of airport Revenue Bonds and appropriation of funds for the Protection Programme are subject to future board of supervisors approval and we do recommend approving the proposed resolution. Thank you. This opens us up for member comment. Any members like to comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues any comments or questions . I just have to say that this is somewhat frightening. The fact that were now anticipating the first sealevel rise of 36inches rather than 1, ten times the cost and the protection says until 2085, but that is just our best estimate with known science. So this is frightening, quite frankly. I dont know, i wont be alive in 2085, but i do think that this isnt the last time we will see an assessment that we might have to recalibrate how much more protection we will need. I think we have seen in these past years and in the recent past years that Mother Nature has the last word on this. So seeing how the vla recommends approval, no disagreement here . I would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation and we can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Everybody pray. Ok, lets go on to item number 3. I would like to continue this item until the next meeting of the budget and finance committee, which is the 18th, i believe. Would you like me to read item number 3 . Yes, im so sorry. Item number 3, resolution authorizing the director of property to sell up to 550,000 gross square feet of remaining Transferable Development rights authorized from the war memorial complex at 301 and 401 at fair market value. As i said, i would like to continue this next meeting, which i believe is september 18th. But lets first hear Public Comment. Any members . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. We will hear the daily report and also staff report at that time and i would like to make a motion to continue this item until the meeting of september 18th. We can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Madam clerk, can you please read item number 4 . Hearings to consider the. Fund to the Public Utilities commission in the amount of 3 million to fund the operation, no cost of the solar assess programme for 20192020. Thank you very much. Is it angela putane from sfc power. Yes, im the Programme Managers at the enterprise. This is a request for the release of 3 million on budget and finance committee reserve for the go solar sf programme. This is the Incentive Programme providing incentives, monetary incentives to residents, businesses and nonprofit organizations, installing solar panels on San Francisco rooftops and provides additional incentives to lowincome households and to projects that have been installed by San Franciscobased installation companies. In june of 2014, the board of supervisors placed 3 million on reserve for the go solar sf programme to be used when the clean power sf Community Choice aggregation programme was up and running. The board wanted to ensure that go solar sf funding would be available for the new customers. , these new power sf power. Clean power sf launched in early of 2016, so the go solar sf programme is currently providing Solar Incentives to clean power sf customers and hetchi power customers. The 3 million will be used to fund the programme this fiscal year. 1. 8 million is budgeted for solar alternatives. 800,000 is budgeted for the low income inverter Replacement Programme, which will provide incentives to lowincome households to replace a component of their solar system, the inverter, which has reached the end of its useful life. Finally 406,000 is budgeted for administrative costs. I would be happy to answer any questions, supervisors. Thank you very much and any questions or comments from my colleagues . Seeing none, could we have a daily report, please . Im from the analysts office. The supervisors placed 3 million on reserve for the go solar sf programme pending implementation of the clean power sf programme. Sf puc is requesting to release the funding from reserve to fund the programme through june of 2020. It originates from the hetchi power enterprise from the 20152016 budget. The solar sf is developing a Replacement Programme which would help lowincome. Reporter s replace solar lr reverters and 1. 8 million is budgeted for Solar Panel Incentives and approximately 400,000 is budgeted for administrative costs. A breakdown of the gosolar sf budget is shown on table two on page 14 of our report with a further breakdown of the go solar incentive budget on table 2, also on page 14 of our report. We recommend approving the request. Thank you very much. This opens us up for Public Comment. Any members like comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. So colleagues, this is not a motion to send it to the full board. Its just requires us to approve the release for the funds forenoon reserves. I make a motion to approve the release from the budget and finance reserve. Take that without objection and thank you very much. Madam clerk . Madam chair, can we please file this hearing . Yes, please, thank you. Can you call number 5 . Item number 5, resolution to authorize the District Attorney to accept and expand a grand for total not to exceed 267,000 from the california Victim Compensation board, for the period of july 1, 2019 to june 30, 2022 to continue the criminal restitution compact, should the parties agree to a amendment under the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Thank you and we have jackie ortize from the Victim Services division. Yes, good morning. Please be advised the grant is technically not retroactive because it was budgeted in the annual budget process. This resolution is needed to meet the california Victim Compensation board requirements, which has a separate legislation authorizing the approval of the funds. Do you have any questions for me . Colleagues, any questions . Seeing none, no report on this and lets open this up for Public Comment. Anany members like to comment se seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Madam clear, point of clarification, since the department mentioned that this resolution is not retroactively approving the grant, can we amend the resolution to strike the retroactive leads on page 1, line 2, i believe . Yes, thank you very much. We can strike retroactive from the title of it and we can talk that without objection. And then lets move it to the full board as amended. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can you please read item number 2, please . Retroactively authorizing the park departments into an internet agreement for the protect Environment Agency for the receipt of 1. 2 million in the remediation project for a term of january 1, 2018 through september 18, 2030. We have a representative from the rec and part and this is part of the indian basin project. Yes, the indian basin waterfront project is between recreation and parks, the trust for public land and San Francisco parks alliance. This is designed to honor the history and culture of the neighborhood, part of a plan by social justice communities. Currently, we are moving into our 2020 construction phase of the project and this is what we will be doing, side demolition and removal of band structures, remediation of soils containing elevated concentrations of sediments. The department was awarded a 1. 2 million Funding Grant from the United States protection agency. This was actually appropriated through 20182019 budget process and originally allocated to the Construction Cost expected to occur in 2020. In fall of 2018, the United States epa asked to build a grants fund and the administers at the federal level wanted to ensure we were spending the money,es, and epa isnt the most favorable department. In spring of 2018, there was a grant over one Million Dollars or greater approval by the board of supervisors. After learning about this additional requirement, we asked for this Grant Agreement before you today to be retroactive approval. Lets open this up for comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I would like to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation and we can take that without objection, thank you very much. Madam clerk, any other business before us today . No further business. We are adjourned. San francisco and oakland are challenging each other in a battle for the bay. Two cities. One bay. San francisco versus oakland. Are you ready to get in on the action . Im london breed. And i am oakland mayor libby schaff. Who will have the cleanest city . We will protect our bay by making our neighborhoods shine. Join us on september 21st as a battle for the bay. Which city has more volunteer spirit . Which city can clean more neighborhoods . The city with the most volunteers wins. Signup to be a bay protector and a neighborhood cleaner. Go to battle fo hi. My name is carmen chiu, San Franciscos elected assessor. In our seven mile by seven mile city, we have over 210,000 properties and close to 90 of their are residential like the homes you and i live in, so you might ask, how can we possibly value all these properties . Well, to better understand our work, we need to explain the states proposition 13 law. In 1978, california voters passed proposition 13. Under prop 13, we value your property at market value when you first buy it. Every year after, that value goes up by the c. P. I. Or the California Consumer price index. But if the c. P. I. Is more than 2 , prop 13 caps the increase at 2 . Well walkthrough the maximum increases prop 13 would allow. Lets take a home with initial value of 400,000. In the second year your assessed value grows by a maximum of 2 , growing from 400,000 to 408,000. In year three, that 408,000 is increased by 2 to roughly 416,000. Every year, the value grows by the maximum rate of 2 , and that is called your prop 13 value. Keep in mind as time goes by your prop 13 value may not be the same as market rate. What do we mean by that . Lets say over the last ten years, home prices in San Francisco have gone every roughly 10 every year. Despite that, your prop 13 value is capped at 2 growth creating a difference between your market value and prop 13 value. Know that the value recessed when theres a change in ownership. A change in ownership means that the property has a new zoner. Maybe through a new owner. Maybe through a sale, a gift or adding or dropping names through title. At that time the home will be assessed a new market rate. That value becomes a new starting point for the property. Just like before, the Growth Continues to be limited at 2 until the next transfer happens. Remember, the new owners are responsible for paying taxes at the new level from the first day that they own it. Value might also be added when construction happens on your property. That would be another instance when growth in your value might exceed 2 . Here, we would add the value of construction on top of your existing prop 13 value. Every july, well let you know what your assessed value is by sending you a letter called a notice of assessed value. You can use that information to estimate your property taxes early. Please note that a separate office called