Supervisors probe Public Works budget, contracting and pandemic response in departmental hearing

The committee’s departmental hearing on the Department of Public Works (DPW) opened with a comprehensive Budget and Legislative Analyst (BLA) presentation by Dan Goncher, who outlined DPW’s structure, 10‑year budget and staffing trends, contracting volume, and pandemic-related service changes. Goncher reported a current-year DPW budget of about $387 million and a general fund allocation of roughly $144,075,613; he said DPW entered approximately 359 contracts totaling about $1.4 billion over the last several years, with construction accounting for most of that value.

Goncher flagged oversight questions about contracting and procurement and noted that the City Attorney’s Office and Controller’s Office had ongoing inquiries related to conflicts of interest and gift acceptance; he recommended the Board could request a limited performance audit (by the Controller or BLA) of sewer repair work orders to determine whether savings could be achieved by restructuring work orders between DPW and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Goncher estimated potential savings could be "more than a million a year" and offered to provide follow-up details.

Acting Director Alaric (Acting Director of Public Works) described DPW’s four divisions (operations; building design & construction; infrastructure design & construction; finance & administration), the department’s role managing design and construction for many city projects, and the department’s COVID‑era work: design/build of safe sleeping sites, expansion of the pit stop program (about 33 locations citywide, many in the Tenderloin) and installation of handwashing stations, plus support for drive‑through testing sites. He emphasized DPW’s coordination with other agencies and the department’s use of local contractors to preserve jobs.

Supervisors pressed DPW on outcomes and efficiency. Supervisor Rafael Mandelmann said street‑cleaning budgets have increased markedly since 2012 while resident satisfaction has not improved; Alaric said behavior and policy (for example, addressing homelessness and mental‑health needs) are part of the root cause and offered to provide data on the weight/volume of collected debris. Supervisors also questioned whether some work currently done under DPW work orders should be consolidated at PUC to save money; Goncher reiterated that some functions moved to PUC in the 1990s while others (including brick sewer repairs and hydraulic engineers) remain at DPW.

Board members asked about workforce development. DPW said its in‑house "University" training effort is staffed by roughly three employees, serves more than 1,500 participants a year (some attend multiple classes), and that the department runs apprenticeship cohorts (about 25–40 participants) with roughly 50% of graduates transitioning into civil‑service jobs. DPW provided a mid‑six‑figure estimate for annual spending on the University program but the transcript phrasing of that figure was unclear; the department offered to provide clearer budget detail.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Chair Feuer moved to file the item (i.e., accept the presentation into the committee record). The motion passed on a roll‑call vote with five ayes. The BLA and DPW committed to follow up with additional data at subsequent budget‑process briefings.

What to watch next: possible Board motion or controller audit request to pursue the BLA’s limited audit recommendation, and forthcoming DPW follow‑up on contract oversight, detailed costing of pandemic services, and the University/apprenticeship budget and participation numbers.