Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Go Bond Undergrounding And Budgets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee splits bond file over undergrounding, presses departments on deep budget cuts
Summary
Committee duplicated the proposed $388M safe‑streets bond to separate a utility-undergrounding amendment and continued detailed budget hearings. Bicycle advocates urged keeping the measure focused on safety; city attorney and other departments warned additional cuts would impair services. Several department budgets were continued for technical adjustments.
The Budget & Finance Committee opened extensive debate June 17 on a proposed general-obligation bond to pay for street resurfacing, sidewalk repairs and streetscape improvements (listed at an estimated $388 million). Supervisor Dufty prompted a procedural split: the committee agreed to duplicate the bond file so one version removed a proposed $20 million utility-undergrounding component and the other retained it for separate consideration.
Dan McKenna and Ed Riskin of the Department of Public Works fielded questions about undergrounding, cost estimates supplied by utilities (AT&T estimated roughly $69,000 per block in one cited estimate) and whether provisions to require conduit or fiber would be feasible. Deputy City Attorney advised that more specific language about eligible reimbursements for public utilities should be included in the ordinance that goes to voters; that ordinance must be filed by July 14 and the committee asked to have the resolution before the ordinance no later than July 8.
Representatives of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition urged removing undergrounding from the bond to keep the measure focused on safety and to avoid opening ‘cans of worms’ with utilities that could make the measure harder to win. The committee agreed to keep both versions active and to refine ordinance language over the coming weeks.
Separately, the committee began second-round budget hearings. City Attorney (identified in the transcript as Mister Herrera) warned that additional recommended reductions could erode in‑house legal capacity and lead to higher settlement costs; he and the budget analyst agreed to continue discussions and return next week. The Health Service System asked for more time after staff and a chief operating officer position became points of contention; HSS leaders warned that eMerge (a major payroll/benefits system replacement) and new program transfers (EAP) create operational risk if executive capacity is reduced.
Recreation & Parks and the Library presented detailed budgets. Recreation & Parks reported 80 staff laid off during the budget cycle (59 FTE), major midyear cuts and a package of proposed fee changes (pool, program, parking) to stabilize ongoing revenue; department leaders asked the committee to protect certain capital allocations (including funds for West Sunset Playground) and the single department public-relations post that coordinates volunteer and outreach work. The Library reported increased circulation, continued branch openings and a successful amnesty campaign that returned roughly 30,000 items and boosted new library-card registrations.
Committee members accepted many budget-analyst recommendations but continued several high-profile items (general city responsibility, some technical adjustments and fee proposals) for next week when departments and the controller will return with follow-up details.
