Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retirement And Puc Reserve topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee approves retirement staffing language and releases $40,000 PUC reserve for Upper Noe Valley project
Summary
The Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee agreed to accept budget analyst recommendations adding investment-staff positions for the Employees’ Retirement System and approved releasing a $40,000 Public Utilities Commission reserve for conservation work at Upper Noe Valley Recreation Center.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Finance Committee voted to accept budget-analyst recommendations on staffing for the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System and to release a $40,000 Public Utilities Commission reserve for work at the Upper Noe Valley Recreation Center.
Claire Murphy, executive director of the San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, told the committee the office reached agreement with the budget analyst on wording for five senior investment officer positions and urged the board to add four additional investment-staff positions presented as a policy matter. Budget analyst Mr. Rose said the department concurred with recommendations on pages 6–7, citing a total cost of $161,346 plus a recommended reserve including fringe benefits of $68,500.
Ed Harrington of the controller’s office described the $40,000 PUC contribution as a reimbursement for conservation work already underway at the Upper Noe Valley Recreation Center; he said the Recreation and Park Department is near completion and asked that the commission’s contribution be released. Committee members noted the PUC-funded work had been added back in last year’s process and framed the item as largely a technical reimbursement.
By informal consent the committee accepted the budget analyst’s pages 6–7 recommendations and approved releasing the PUC reserve contribution. Chair Jake McGoldrick and other members said they would continue technical discussions with departments before final budget adoption in June, and staff and the mayor’s office agreed to circulate a technical-adjustment sheet for committee review.
The committee did not record a roll-call vote for these approvals; members proceeded by unanimous consent or without objection. Items 3 and 4 (selected departmental appropriations and the annual salary ordinance) were continued to late June for final action.
