Planning staff say fee increase and staff cuts are the likely choices to close $1.47M shortfall; preservation work at risk

Planning Department staff presented a draft FY2010–11 budget to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission on Jan. 28 in San Francisco, saying an initial $4.46 million deficit has been reduced to about $1.47 million but that closing the remainder will require either more revenue or cuts concentrated in personnel costs.

"It's now down to 1.47," Elaine Phillips, planning department staff, said as she walked commissioners through assumptions and line-item changes that improved the department's position. Phillips described a mix of revenue assumptions — a stronger second quarter, a modest 2.5% projected economic recovery, a proposed 4.65% fee increase and anticipated cost-recovery from inspections and penalties — that together account for the bulk of the improvement.

Why it matters: the department said 76% of its budget is labor cost, so with limited non-salary savings remaining the principal trade-offs to close the $1.47 million gap are additional fees or labor-related reductions that would affect the work program and the department's ability to complete surveys and designations.

Staff plan and numbered estimates Staff estimated revenue-side gains including $884,000 from revising quarter-to-quarter projections, $407,000 assuming 2.5% growth, $758,000 from a 4.65% fee increase, roughly $104,000 from inspection cost recovery and several hundred thousand dollars from billboard penalties and prior-year savings. Phillips cautioned that the city's overall general-fund outlook is poor and that additional general-fund help is unlikely.

Alicia John Baptiste, also with the planning department, quantified the remaining shortfall and the policy choices before the commissions. "To get to a zero deficit using only fees," she said, "you would need a total increase of about 13.65% after the 4.65% we're proposing." She walked commissioners through labor options and trade-offs: a 1% wage decrease would save roughly $135,000; an 11% across‑the‑board wage cut or about 11–12 FTE in layoffs would close the gap; alternately, the department could institute closures or furloughs (she said the equivalent of closing the department for 34 days would achieve the same effect).

Collective-bargaining limits and timing Staff emphasized that, aside from fee changes, many labor options require collective bargaining. The department said it is working with a joint labor–management committee to explore shared alternatives and that some positions (including a grant-writer placeholder) are funded only temporarily by grants.

Preservation commission concerns and public comment Multiple public commenters and preservation groups urged the commissions to protect Historic Preservation Commission work and to prioritize completing neighborhood surveys and district initiations (Market Octavia, Mission Dolores, Eastern Neighborhoods and others). Jack Gold of San Francisco Architectural Heritage urged completion of area plans and warned that stopping work before designation would produce inefficiencies and could leave historic resources unprotected.

Commissioners pressed the department on where cuts would come from and on legal authority. Kate Stacey of the city attorney's office read Charter language making clear the Planning Commission "approves" applicable departmental budgets after public hearing while the Historic Preservation Commission "reviews and recommends." Commissioners asked for a detailed staff memo comparing past Landmarks advisory-board support to the new Historic Preservation Commission allocations and for an accounting of FTEs devoted to preservation historically.

Areas of particular dispute Historic-preservation supporters argued that scaling back staff support for designation initiation would undercut prior area-plan work and deprive property owners of benefits such as tax credits or Mills Act eligibility — outcomes that require local designation, not merely survey completion. Staff responded that completing surveys does provide CEQA-level protections, but acknowledged initiation and designation require substantially more staff time.

Next steps Staff committed to return with a balanced budget proposal for the Planning Commission's Feb. 11 meeting and to submit the department's budget to the mayor by Feb. 22. They also said they would provide the Historic Preservation Commission with requested comparative materials on past Landmarks advisory-board costs and with more detailed FTE breakdowns.

The joint hearing closed when a departing commissioner required adjournment; both commissions are expected to continue deliberations at upcoming scheduled meetings.