Skip to main content

tv   BOS Budget and Appropriations Committee  SFGTV  April 18, 2021 3:40pm-4:36pm PDT

3:40 pm
3:41 pm
>> this meeting will come to order. this is the april 14, 2021 budget and appropriations committee meeting. i'm matt haney, the chair of the
3:42 pm
committee, and i'm joined by president walton and supervisor ronen and mar and we may be joined by supervisor safai. our clerk is miss linda wong and i would like to thank those from sfgov-tv for broadcasting the meeting. madam clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: due to the covid-19 health emergency, the legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, the members will be participating in the meeting remotely. and this precaution is taken pursuant to the local state and orders and declarations and orders. they will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comments will be available on each item on this agenda, channel 26, 78, 89 and they are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment
3:43 pm
period available via phone call by calling 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d. 187 670 9592. and then press pound twice. when connected you will hear the meeting discussions but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star, 3, to be added to the speaker line. bet practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television. and you may submit the public comment in a way, and if you submit via email it's forwarded to the supervisors and it will be included as part of the official file. mr. chair, this concludes my announcement. >> supervisor haney: thank you so much, madam clerk. can you call item 1. >> clerk: yes, item number 1, hearing to receive updates on the city's economic financial
3:44 pm
conditions and other issues. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187 670 9592. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. and a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand and wait until you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. >> chair haney: thank you so much. and we have a presentation on the federal stimulus and we had planned on hearing from the mayor's budget office on the five-year plan update but we will be hearing that next week instead since there is an accompanying resolution that will need to be heard on the same day. miss alerzma. >> thank you, supervisor haney. michelle alerzma from the
3:45 pm
analysis division. i will share my screen and get started. so on today's agenda, we just have a presentation about an update on stimulus packages approved and what they mean for san francisco. and i will mention that my focus today is really on the american rescue plan act, which was signed into law by president biden on march 12th of this year. as you are likely aware, there is also a stimulus package approved on december 27th, of 2020. that was the consolidated appropriations act or h.r.133, which had provisions that will affect the city. and since this time, the president biden has proposed his american jobs plan which is largely infrastructure,
3:46 pm
exceeding $2 billion, and congress is currently in session and discussing the american jobs plan this week. so for today we will focus mostly on the american rescue plan act, or arpa as we're coming to call it. at $1.9 billion, this is a -- the scope of the bill is vast, and it has many, many components. which i have listed the largest ones here. so this round of stimulus spending continues many of the components that were first approved in early 2020, including in the cares act, extended in december. and they are now being continued with arpa. including the direct stimulus to people etc. and this bill includes funding for fema to reimburse the local
3:47 pm
government for eligible expenses. i'm going to spend most of my time today talking about this last point on the slide here, which is the state and local fiscal aid. in many ways this is a continuation of and a building upon the coronavirus relief fund provided in the cares act about one year ago. within this $350 billion, there are two components. slightly under $200 billion is going directly to states and $130 billion is designated for the coronavirus local forward recovery fund, a portion between cities and counties. and the white house has already published the amounts, the allocations to entitlement
3:48 pm
jurisdictions, which receive funding. and san francisco's allocation is currently estimated at $636 million. just within the coronavirus local fiscal recovery fund. i wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the eligible uses of the coronavirus, both state and local recovery funds and this is taken from the bill itself. and there is i think that we're going to be spending many months parsing what each of these things means and looking to treasury for guidance on it. the first item here of the four eligible uses, this is largely a continuation of what the coronavirus relief fund paid for. it's to respond to the public health emergency and its negative economic impact. the second eligible use is essentially premium pay for
3:49 pm
government workers performing essential duties, or determined by the local government executives. the third item, item c here, this is really the game changer, i guess i would say, the thing that was not part of the cares act and what the local governments lobbied very, very hard for because it means more to us than many things. this is essentially revenue backfilled, revenue replacement we can document our revenue losses. and the last eligible use is to make improvement in water or sewer or broadband infrastructure. this is hard to figure out to what degree the government would use them for these purposes because of the restrictions on them, which i'll talk about in just a second.
3:50 pm
and so the restrictions on these state and local fiscal recovery funds. they may not be used to directly or indirectly to offer tax cuts or related to tax increases. we are not allowed to deposit any funds into a pension fund with the idea being that member of congress do not want to see bailing out on pension funds. and timing -- the funds must be spent by december 31st, 2024. and the distribution of the funds, 50% must be distributed upon certification of the local government executives, within 60 days of enactment so that's may 11. and the second 50% within 12 months of that time. and states will receive 100% of allocation on may 11st, because the local governments will have
3:51 pm
two (indiscernible). and hard to emphasize enough how, how much we have to learn in the absence of the federal guidance that is not yet available. we can take heart from the fact that the federal government, and the white house and the treasury are learning from the cares act implementation and taking steps to avoid a repeat of that in which and the coronavirus relief funds were slow because of a lack of clarity from the treasury about allowable uses and that the guidance was really piecemeal, over time, revised, conflicted with itself sometimes and made it very, very tough on recipients and so i think that
3:52 pm
there's a lot of hope that this should be better. at any rate the white house and the treasury have reached out to many state and local government affinity groups like the government finance officers or gfoa, related cities and the national association of counties and groups of elected officials, to have questions they have, and consolidate them and provide a consolidated guidance in early may is what we were hearing. and it would be about certification, eligibility and reporting. and the -- in the city they have been participating in discussions with our peer government agencies, and gfal calls, and also with our monitors. the treasury has announced they're establishing a new office of recovery program. so we would have the implementation of all of the stimulus programs to date, including the cares act, and the consolidated appropriation from
3:53 pm
december and erpa. and so we're looking for a better rollout than last year. and that said, the number of questions that all of us, that the local government have, is long and vast. and in particular i think that my previous slide, i highlighted the eligible use with the third one on the list for revenue reductions. and this is the area where we have the most questions. and, for example, how do you measure a revenue shortfall what is that compared to? can you recover -- can you use these funds to recover revenue loss in a prior fiscal year? and is it on a line item basis? and many jurisdictions, including san francisco, san francisco harder hit than most, 90% of our hotel tax revenue.
3:54 pm
but that is a pattern that you will see in other jurisdictions as well. so is it revenue losses or can you kind of pick and choose line items? one of the additions was on the pension fund. as you know, just part of our regular payroll is the employer's contribution to the retirement plan in san francisco. so the typical payroll costs that the city would recover, that the city is recovering and using coronavirus relief funds for. so do we have to take those -- if we're going to apply to use these funds for our personnel costs, do we have to take out and have pension contribution amounts which are substantial? and then there are many, many streams of funding for grant programs that will not flow
3:55 pm
through the city and they'll flow through state agencies or through other federal agencies like the c.d.c. and n.i.h. and other federal organizations. and we don't yet know kind of the funds from those and how they'll be distributed. so many open questions. we are working with our lobbyists and our office is working with the mayor's office and the departments to comb through the legislation and to understand what it means for us and to put a number on that. and some of this is easier to identify some portions than others. so for erpa, it's $30 million approximately to the m.t.a. and $192 million to the airport and those entities also received in
3:56 pm
cares and the budget reconciliation act. so it's kind of a continuation of those programs. and sfusd $112 million and the college district just under $29 million and under $20 million for housing programs. and those are the things that we can kind of put a number to at this point. there's a lot of funding for health activities and that is t.b.d., what our estimate is for local revenue for our department of public health. we just don't have the guidance to determine that yet. just to mention though, h.r. #13 from december also provided funds to the m.t.a., the airport, the school districts, emergency rental assistance program which we have seen to extend the ordinance for.
3:57 pm
$28 million to the p.h. for vaccine administration very specifically, and some other provisions in there with small amounts that we have been able to estimate. one of the most important provisions within h.r.133 was an extension on the use of cares c.r.f. funding set to expire, and it was extended to 12-31-2021. there are many numbers that we're trying to get a better estimate on. as i mentioned before, a lot of these are going to be pass throughs, and through other federal agencies directly to us or through social services or health services, including tests, contact tracing. there is funding for mental
3:58 pm
health and substance abuse. so we don't yet know how the state will pass those down to counties. there are additional funds for homelessness services, small businesses, road maintenance and the list goes on. but those are the most pertinent to local governments like ours. >> chair haney: can i have a clarifying question on that? you put in there earlier how much of the funds that the state is expected to get and i don't know if you could either go back to that or remind me of that. but is -- is the number that you noticed for the state inclusive of all of those things? in that the state -- so the state is -- it will get -- i'm a little confused by what this says here. how much is going to the state of california? >> so in terms of these kind of more discretionary funds, the
3:59 pm
state of california will get its share of this $195 billion coronavirus state fiscal recovery fund. i don't know the state's amount of that. but i can find out. >> chair haney: and then -- and then all of the other things that could potentially come to the city and county of san francisco through grants or whatnot, is that part of the state fiscal recovery fund, or is that in addition to? i am trying to understand how to get to a better estimate of how many funds -- how much we're likely to get in funds. it seems that there's a very significant potential number that is not accounted for in the $634 billion here, that could come to us via the state or via other passthroughs and i'm -- it's hard for me to have any sort of understanding or
4:00 pm
estimate of what that will be. >> no, no, i understand your question, and it's exactly the right question to ask. the first point, the coronavirus state recovery fund, the pass through programs that we might benefit from are in addition to that. >> chair haney: got it. >> yeah. >> chair haney: and what do we know so far, if anything, about how the state plans to spend their sort of general allotment? have they made any announcements? is there any knowledge of that? >> no, i don't know of anything you'll recall that last year the state passed through a portion of its kind of, you know, its flexibility relief funding to local governments within california. and the city received just under $21 million, like, as a pass
4:01 pm
through. and i haven't heard that they're doing anything similar with their funds this $195 billion for the state recovery funds. i think that we can -- i think that the governors may revise and they'll indicate what the governor plans to do with those funds. and i think that just to emphasize, again, there's very little guidance on the use -- the most important use of these funds, i think, which is the revenue replacement until we know more about how they're going to work. it's going to make it hard to plan. but the short answer is, no, we haven't heard yet that california will do, if we'll pass through. >> chair haney: okay. and on the -- on the other
4:02 pm
potential pass throughs from the state, is there anymore numbers or, you know, estimates or, you know, there are a bunch of different buckets there that were pass throughs that are certainly very large parts of our spending. are those grant programs? how large are they? are there any other information? it seems like a huge unknown here is the many probably, you know, billions and billions of dollars going to state both directly and in pass throughs that we don't know yet at all how we will be able to access. >> i think that is right. we don't know -- we can -- i could come back with kind of like a chart of everything that's in there and what the state is going to get that they
4:03 pm
might pass through. we could look for that. i know that the departments have been kind of reading through the provisions of the language so far. most importantly, i have been working with the folks at the department of public health and there's just not enough information available yet to understand how we might be benefitting from some of those pass throughs. >> chair haney: okay. i'm sorry if i missed this, what is a.i.r.? >> airport. pardon. >> chair haney: okay. all right. sorry, i don't know if you were on your last slide or -- yeah, this should be really be helpful on that last one to know what, you know, i mean -- if it's potentially that we could access hundreds of millions of dollars for homelessness, that's as big a deal as anything that we're talking about here. >> yes, and my guess is that it would not be that large, but
4:04 pm
we'll certainly share information as it becomes available to us. >> chair haney: do we know the total amount that was allocated for homelessness in the -- in the recovery act itself? >> i don't know if it's organized that way, but i could certainly look for it. and to see what kind of overview i could bring back to you. or provide after the meeting. >> chair haney: okay. >> so i had mentioned that we're participating gsra discussions with our peers about the uses of the funds. and this is really our main kind of peer organization. and it has issued guiding principles on the uses of arpa funds which i will share with
4:05 pm
you. one is that -- i think we hear this frequently from the controller who gives me the advice of being careful with one-time funds, spending them on one-time purposes. and this is recommended as well this is a non-recurring source. it goes away. and so the advice is to apply it to non-occurring expenditures and to avoid creating new programs that require ongoing funding, because it is only one time in nature. and gfoa recommends to use it to rebuild reserves and just keeping in mind that using these to bridge an operating deficit is a temporary solution. and the more from gfoa about how to use the funds -- you obviously need to prioritize and use them for things that can't
4:06 pm
get paid for another way. and the second point that i think that is also important is that there's many, many jurisdictions that are not part of the city but we work with them, obviously, the transportation agencies and the development authorities, etc. but they'll be receiving their own portions of arpa funding. so understanding and coordinating with them so there's efficient use of funds across agencies is highly recommended. there are many streams of funding, for many types of agencies. and to spread the use of the funds over the qualifying period which is the city or the county as a stabilizing force and they do remind us that our agencies will opine on our use of arpa fund and their credited opinions. and i'll just end with the note
4:07 pm
that it's a very -- it's historic one-time funding to cover operating shortfalls until our economic conditions locally and our operations locally (indiscernible) that's all i have in terms of slides and i'm happy to take other questions. >> chair haney: thank you. i appreciate it. i saw a couple folks on the waiting to speak. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair. can you go back to a couple screens back, the one that talks about the money being divided up? chair haney was asking a few questions and i had a couple questions myself. one was about $28.5 million to san francisco community college are they aware that they're
4:08 pm
getting that money? and have you had any conversations about them in terms of impacting their -- they have a significant budget shortfall. can you talk about that a little bit? that's my first question. >> i have not spoken with them yet. we work with them, of course, on many things, but we have not talked to them yet about arpa allocations. >> supervisor safai: so, are they aware that this money is coming? >> i would think that through their own organizations and the state chancellor's office that this information is getting pushed out. but i haven't directly discussed it with them. i'm not sure that anyone in the mayor's office has been in discussions with them. >> supervisor safai: okay. and so i'm clear the arpa is the $1.9 billion, that president biden, h.r.133, when speaker pelosi and that was the first
4:09 pm
round, is that right? >> h.r.133 was approved by president donald trump in december. >> supervisor safai: so that was the first round of stimulus? >> there were a couple rounds before then in march 2020. >> supervisor safai: so we've had three? >> at least three. there have been more pieces of federal legislation that are called stimulus but not government money. >> supervisor safai: okay. i guess that my biggest one was -- and then same thing with the were having a lot of conversations at sfmta and they knew, obviously, they knew about the $230 million. they were projecting up to $400 million in the arpa. is that a final number? >> this is -- no, this is not a final number. i wouldn't -- i don't think that it's impossible that -- if
4:10 pm
they're telling that you it's $400 million, i think that i would -- >> supervisor safai: well, they were predicting that it would be $400 million. i mean that impacted the amount of debt they ultimately came to this committee and asked to take on. we have a lot of debate about that. but i'm just curious if that was a final number or not. >> no, this is not final. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. thank you, chair. >> chair haney: president walton. >> president walton: thank you so much, chair haney. thank you so much for the presentation. i just have one question for -- more for clarification. because i believe that you said that the funds must be spent by 2024. but i thought that i heard that we need to distribute 50% by may 11th and 50% within that next 12
4:11 pm
months? did i miss something? >> oh, my apologies. that's the schedule upon which the u.s. treasury needs to distribute to local governments, to us. >> president walton: got it. thank you. >> chair haney: president walton, are you -- >> president walton: that was it, thank you, chair. >> chair haney: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney. and i had a couple questions, and thank you for the update about the significant new funds coming in. just on the other funds list, that one of them was under arpa for $19 million for housing programs. so is that coming to the city for housing programs on top of the $600 million?
4:12 pm
>> yes, that's in addition to. >> supervisor mar: yeah. and are there -- are there any guidelines or -- for the $19 million for housing programs? >> not that i'm aware of, not yet. i think that it's going to take -- it's going to take some time to get guidelines on all of these. and the treasury at this moment has set up an office to try to deal with it. and their focus right now is just getting the funds out to the -- the stimulus funds to government, and distributed by may 11st. that's their first order of business. and then guidance probably on a lot of detailed programs. >> supervisor mar: um-hmm. great. and maybe it's not so much a question but just wanted to make a point on one of the guiding principles that you had shared about coordinating with other --
4:13 pm
other arpa recipients to ensure that the funds that we're getting and they're getting are coordinated in the best possible way. so i think that -- yeah, i think that is very important, especially looking at the school district and city college, for example, receiving some direct relief funds. and then, you know, we at the board and as a city, have been, you know, doing what we can to support the school district and city college. so i do think that we need to make sure that we're coordinating with them and the other agencies too. and supervisor safai, yes, city college is aware of the additional relief funds they're getting. i think that they were -- in my conversations with them, they also are viewing these as obviously one-time sort of funds.
4:14 pm
so it might limit their ability to use it to address the sort of structural deficit that they're facing. >> supervisor safai: i knew that you would know. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you, chair haney. >> chair haney: thank you. thank you for those questions. so, yeah, one more question. it would be helpful as i said to come back and to see the breakdown from the state funds. i think that is something that, you know, that it would be very significant for us if there's a significant funds that we can access in addition to the unrestricted funds. and i did have a question for miss rossemburger if she's here from the mayor's budget office? is she here? >> i don't think so. >> i'm here. >> chair haney: oh, great.
4:15 pm
>> chair haney: thank you. sorry to put you on the spot here. i did want to ask -- it does seem that -- and i know that we'll hear the five-year financial report next week. it does seem that the mayor's office at least in terms of the interpretation of how the unrestricted funds to the city and county could be used, that it does seem that y'all have interpreted that broadly and in the sense that we're now projecting it to close the two-year deficit that we had projected. and it does seem that there's still some significant outstanding questions around how those funds can be used and how we interpret revenue loss and the extent of the revenue loss
4:16 pm
and is it net revenue loss. so i wonder if there's anything that we might be able to share and maybe you could share in greater detail next week as to how you all have reached the conclusion or the projection that these funds can be used in the particular way that are outlined in the five-year projection, seeing that it seems that there's still some significant outstanding questions on how those funds can be used. >> yeah, it's a great question, chair haney. thanks. as you know, the five-year plan is put together by not only the mayor's budget office but also the controller's office and the budget legislative analyst, so the three offices and in making that assumption are really looking it's that provision in arpa that allows us to use the local aid funds for revenue loss. so the three offices have agreed
4:17 pm
on that assumption to kind of plug that one-time source into our revenue and expenditure projections in the five years. so, yes, you know, there is some outstanding clarification that we're awaiting, but based on what we know and we have seen in the guidance for that stimulus bill, the three offices are agreeing to incorporate that into our five-year projection. >> chair haney: okay. got it. i may have more questions about that next week when we talk about the five-year projection and sort of how specifically we're looking at this. i appreciate it. i don't see any other questions or comments from colleagues. can we go to public comment on this item, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair.
4:18 pm
and checking to see if there's callers in the queue. those who wish to provide public comment, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. are there any callers in the queue for this item? >> we have three callers in the queue, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you. please unmute the first caller. welcome, caller. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? hi, i'm gaib gothman, i'm a constituent in district 2. as a renter, i'm urging you to put $136 million of the $634 million of this money into a fund for equitable climate change mitigation and resilience. you know, that it is intended to
4:19 pm
help us to build back better, and climate is not a niche issue. our health as you can see with the wildfires last year and the big burst of wildfires in the future and this year, you know, it's really affecting all of us and we can use this money to, you know, to do pilot programs and electricification in communities and looking for resilience and also things with job training and other things that, you know, san francisco really becomes a hub for resiliency and maybe even long-term looking at, you know, ending our dependency on fossil fuels by removing gas from existing infrastructure. in passing this s.f. climate emergency declaration, the board of supervisors committed to prioritizing the needs and going to low-income communities of color and those hit first by the climate crisis. so i urge you to have the $136
4:20 pm
million as a small down payment to addressing this existential threat that our society and our children face when it comes to climate change. so, please invest a sizeable amount of this covid-19 recovery act funds on the climate crisis thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. (indiscernible). >> clerk: hello, caller? hello? >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: we can barely hear you. if you could speak louder, we would appreciate it. >> caller: (indiscernible).
4:21 pm
>> clerk: hello, caller? i'm sorry, caller, we cannot hear you. mr. peretto, perhaps we could circle back to the caller and take the next, thank you. >> caller: hi, supervisor, i'm chris a resident of district 3. i thank chair haney for his inclusive approach on this year's budget and fighting corruption. i want you to invest at least 1% of the city's total budget towards equitable climate change mitigation and resilience programs. currently the city only spends a few million a year on global warming reduction efforts that shows a relative lack of progress. in passing the declaration we all prioritize the needs to go to low-income communities hit first and worst by the climate crisis.
4:22 pm
it's a once in a generation opportunity to make a down payment on environmental justice. and we need to have more housing units and expand public transportation and expand bike and microability infrastructure and so please invest a sizeable amount of the funds to the climate crisis. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, can you hear me now? i have called back. hello? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> caller: okay, hi. my name is alayna angle and i live in district 9 and i think that the other two callers did a better job of speaking about this. but i'll do the same. i understand that you need to get clarity on how this money is mandated to be spent. and i want to make the point that as you go through the permitted uses of this money, you keep in mind as a highest
4:23 pm
priority that we must build a fossil-free economy and we must do it quickly. two years ago the city declared a climate emergency. now act on it. the department of the environment has just updated the city's climate action plan. the department is not properly funded by any stretch of the imagination. we're asking that as you allot these funds, you find a way of allocating 1% of the city's budget to be earmarked for climate action. if we don't use these funds now, we've lost a significant funding opportunity and the little precious time that we have. so i ask you to keep that foremost in your mind as you start to allocate these funds. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. as a reminder, if you wish to
4:24 pm
provide public comment on this item please press star, 3, now to be added to the queue. next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> they have disconnected. i can put on the next one. >> clerk: hello, caller? >> caller: hi, my name is jennifer fang and i'm a constituent in district 3. like as previous callers i am here to urge you to put $136 million of the $634 million of stimulus money into a fund for equitable climate change and mitigation and resilience. i'm an ecoresearcher and i'm terrified of the prospect of a darker world than the one that we live in now. and that's why i'm joining my
4:25 pm
friends and calling for a stimulus money to fight for a kinder future. climate touches every part of our lives and there's ways to use those funds. here are just a few. one of the things that we need to address is -- one of the first things to address is sea level rise, particularly in areas like bayview and hunter's point and treasure island, and poisoned by a legacy of environmental injustice. i think that it's egregious that citizens have to raise funds through gofundme to monitor in the case of treasure island. that needs to be addressed like yesterday. and another excellent use of funds would be to expand bus and other transit infrastructure and to make public transit free. a local green new deal can begin with reinvesting in transit. many transit riders and workers are working-class people of color, so investing in transit would support frontline
4:26 pm
communities while reducing emissions. and, third, i think that we need to invest in a pilot community safety programs as alternatives to police. that could be resources to research and pilot transformative justice programs, unarmed mediation and intervention teams, and trauma centers. we also need to invest in rehabilitation programs and social housing and generous childcare to make sure that people's needs are met. to have green jobs to actually take care of our community, as a reminder that climate justice is racial justice. and so please invest the sizeable amount of the funds in the climate crisis, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: my name is sarah greenwald and i'm a constituent
4:27 pm
of district 2. i would like to urge you to put about 1% of the city budget into funds for equitable climate change mitigation and resistance. this is terribly important. climate change is just not going to stop because we have other emergencies. although, you know, i do fully appreciate the importance of the emergencies. and, therefore, to help to address some of this, i recommend funds for a climate equity fund to have workforce training and community outreach and education and such to support equitable electrification in san francisco. when you passed the s.f. climate emergency declaration i was so proud because united states you prioritizedthis.
4:28 pm
for those hit first and worst by the climate crisis. so, again, i hope that you will put 1% of the overall city budget into climate change mitigation and resilience. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is heidi peterson and i'm a d5 resident. i wanted to say that i really (indiscernible) and dealing with climate change and prevention. also (indiscernible) to other ways of supporting public transit programs, like
4:29 pm
electricification and i currently live in a rent-controlled unit and it's great, it's wonderful. i'm very glad to have rent control. while it also (indiscernible) and i would love to be able to rein in corruption. (indiscernible) and investing -- i would really appreciate if we have a lot of expanded transit and public (indiscernible) and reduce climate change. (indiscernible) that means transit that is (indiscernible) 1% is really small from that perspective.
4:30 pm
especially considering how much of it is really spent for climate change. (indiscernible) if we do not act quickly. it's the responsibility of the city to show how these things can work to the rest of the world. you have companies that take in money from the rest of the world and they need to be giving back and that can be (indiscernible) technique. thank you for all of your work on this. thank you again. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> madam clerk, there are no more callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: public comment is now closed. thank you to the members of the public who called in and for
4:31 pm
raising the important issue of climate resilience and global warming. please do reach out to me and my office and we'd be very happy to meet with y'all about that. colleagues, are there any other questions or comments? i know that we were going to -- to have a continuation of some aspects of this discussion next week when we hear the five-year projection or the forecast. but i don't see any other questions or comments from the colleagues. any other -- any other final things that you wanted to add? >> i would only add that the proposed american jobs plan is really for infrastructure and it does focus heavily on the environmental justice, climate change and infrastructure. >> chair haney: thank you. all right, well, i am going to
4:32 pm
make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. is there a second? >> second, safai. >> chair haney:madam chair, roll call vote. >> clerk: on that motion [roll call vote] there are five ayes. >> chair haney: thank you so much, madam clerk. are there any other items in front of us today? >> clerk: there are no other items. >> chair haney: great, thank you so much, colleagues. this meeting is adjourned.
4:33 pm
>> she has been an incredible leader and tackling tough issues head-on. we have important information about affordable housing and combatting addiction crisis. in 2018 after being elected the first woman to serve as mayor of new orleans. we all worked together in u.s. climate managing. just two weeks ago, i was on the other side of this table as the mayor of boston. i certainly understand what federal support means and i know what lack of federal support means.
4:34 pm
i saw the difference in several years across the administration. over the last year with covid, the stakes were raised even higher. they were life and death and still continue to be life and death and that's why i was and am grateful for president biden and vice president harris for their leadership. the american rescue plan is a game changer. it creates money and programs for vaccinations. cash relief and unemployment benefits. child care tax credits and child care funding. housing relief, small business support and so much more including state and local funding. you are leaders in the thick of this fight and we want to know what this plan means to your cities and i'm going to ask mayor breed, if you wouldn't mind, for the audience give a little introduction to who you are and we'll go from there. >> thank you secretary walsh for hosting this event today and congratulations on your new role. i first want to say what a relief it is to have a federal
4:35 pm
administration in the white house that actually wants to work with cities like san francisco instead of spending time and energy to target us. at the beginning of this pandemic in 2020, we were truly on our own. our city department had been monitoring this situation in china from when the news first started to come out about what was happening and we had taken early steps to prepare. and, when the first case began arriving in the bay area, our public health officials were warning us we didn't have time to wait to avoid the scene we had been seeing in china and italy. so on march 16th, we took action and became the first region in the country to issue a stay-at-home order. throughout the year, whether it was setting up testing and contract tracing or finding ppe and ventilators, we were often on our own. and the cities and states across the country saw huge hits to their economy and their budget, so did we. from february to september just