tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 17, 2018 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
a very high level overview is requested for the new year. as you can see, our total budget is growing by approximately a million dollars in the first year of the two year bud declining by $700,000 in the second year in the budget. that relates to a couple -- i mean, there's a lot going on in our budget, of course. the most significant changes that drive the increase and the decrease is a couple of one time investments proposed in the budget regarding our systems in the controller's office in year one. it increases and those are completed into year two. the two biggest one time projects we have for the year ahead are it's time for us to replace the hardware on which we run all of our systems in the city. so that the infrastructure in which it exists, the machines, are at their end of life.
we plan to complete that work in the year ahead. and then we have a few requests from departments for enhancements to the new financial em. perhaps you or the budget director could provide this committee with a list of the projects. that seems to be a theme that's coming up from many departments. so we can just know where projects are in the queue. thanks, kelly. i have that list, i'm happy to distribute it to the committee members. additionally just wanted to give you an idea of what the proposed budget is for fiscal year 18-19.
so there's two buckets or funding streams that are recommended. the first is that major i.t. projects, which is approximately $20 million where we take into consideration all of the large legacy projects. really centralizing and insuring that we have a city wide view of all of the technology needs that are vetted and prioritized across our general fund funding stream. all right. i appreciate that, thank you. i think you were gonna talk about the fte's?
sure. the general fund portion of our budget is growing modestly by half a million dollars in the new year. the cost of wages and benefit increases for us, like everyone, exceeds that. and so we're making other adjustments in ou budget to absorb part of that. madam chair, you noted that our fte's that are requested for the first year of the budget are at a decline from the year before. that's predominantly as we finish up some of the technology work that the mayor and the board funded in the prior year. we continue to de-fund positions associated with those upgrades. that's the decline that you see offset by three new requested positions in our non-general fund city services auditor function. that part of our budget is funded by two-tenths of a percent of the entire city budg
budget. not general fund supported, but the -5 is a net of eight positions deleted, three new ones added in a different part of our budget. just a little bit on some of our core goals, i won't dwell on this in great depth. we have a lot of interesting work planned for the year ahead. to hit a couple of the highlights that we've noted on this page, in kind of our government performance reporting space, we have -- this is the year that we conduct the annual city survey for the city, which is a biannual survey of city residents regarding their perception of the overall effectiveness of city services. we plan to conduct that review this fall and we'll be in touch with each of your offices in advance of that to review past results and talk about your thoughts about the new year. and we have a number of other
enhancements in our public reporting space to the way we report city performance information to the public, whether it be our performance score card website or our street and park reporting. we have a number of different enhancements in that place underway. we're finalizing our work planning for our audit and review functions as we speak. soe'll have a published suggested list for our audit plan for the year ahead in about two week's time. we have about 250 different projects in that list at the moment. we've highlighted some of them in an attachment to the presentation. i won't go through them in great depth here, but we're always interested in ideas for projects from the board, the mayor and others. kind of in the financial space, we are excited that this is the year the city updates its ng range financial plans.
we'll present to you a five year financial plan to the city looking forward. we'll be enganled in a lot of this long term view in the year a he ahead. we have about a billion dollars of planned bond issues. each of these will come back to the board of supervisors as we're seeking authorization to sell. you've just approved an issuance of some voter adopted geo bonds that we'll be selling. some other notable ones for the year, we'll probably have another geo bond sale in the second half of the fiscal year.
and a couple of other pieces. increasingly, these are both . interesting and complex financing. we're using facility distrts in the city, infrastructure financing districts and some other more boutique financing tools to get work done that the city wants to that. that does create some administrative complications for us. the single biggest task will be closing the books for the first time in our financialem. which is a process we're starting now. we'll take the first half of the fiscal year and that'll be the last of our firsts for this year. this is completing a financial
cycle. closing the books in the new system will be a significant effort for us and a significant accomplishment when we complete it. on the systems side, t last work to stabilize the city's o new financial system. this is a system that replaced a legacy system initially installed in 1980 and last upgraded over 20 years ago. this has been a very significant undertaking for us and the financial family in the city. we're continuing to work on training so that users are more comfortable with the system. we're continuing to fix bugs as and we're continuing to work on. changes to policies and procedures and desk procedures so that we can maximize the new system. we're not there yet, but we're making progress on those fronts.
and then lastly, in the system space, we do have some enhancements that are gonna be rolling out in the year ahead that will make life easier for different users of different corners of our system. some of them include we're going to push our self service time features, which lets employees look t paychecks, look up their w-2's and other things electronically. we're gonna roughly double the number of city users that have access to that experience from about 18,000 to 37 thousand employees this year. we're working with the health service system to pilot online open enrollment this year for health benefits in the fall for a subset of employees. rather than having to make appointments, we'll be doing that online. we're runng all of this to the current version. these systems are constantly upgrading. we're moving it to the new version in the new year. that upgrade will bring with it new enhancements and
functionality that we're excited about. a little bit of what we've got underway for the year. i'm happy to answer any questions you have regarding our budget. i can also provide an overview on the related legislation when you're ready. good, thank you. that was actually my next question. item number fiveates to the neighborhood beautification and graffiti clean up fund. this is a voter authorized program many years ago. and part of what that program calls for is the controller's office every year to update the luntarily contribute to this an program to reach the revenue goal for the program. each year we do a calculation to say how much of a businesses business tax can they make a
contribution to this program for. we're required to bring that forward to you. in adopting it, you adjust that rate. that's item number five. item no. 8 is related to efforts underway, actually, by this committee t pilot participatory budgeting in different parts of the city. as you know well, madam chair. the board appropriated funding for three districts last year. you have run processes to determine which projects in your district residents wanted to allocate funds for. that process is completed. what we have to do ie controller's office is bring back the final reappropriation of those proceeds to those specific projects. item 8 is the last piece of the process regarding participatory budgeting for this year.
item 9, the axis line tax is a flat dollar value tax established on different kinds of phone bills in the city. it's a flat dollar value and that voter autrinioays that we can increase that flat dollar value to account for inflation each year, which makes sense given that it's just a flat dollar value. in doing that, the controller's office brings forward this resolution seeking the board's permission to increase the tax by cpi. item no.9 is doing th rate increase in the year ahead. and that will generate about (1)400-001.4 millio$1.4 millio revenue presumed in the proposed budget. our office, under the charter rules, finding that certain contracted out services could be more cost effectively
performed by non-city workers. these are continuing services that have been contracted out in the past. there are no new proposals for contracting out in the proposed budget. this is a choice for the board of supervisors. real quick about item 10, prop j contracted out services. correct me if i'm wrong, the arhe preously approved ones. these are the ones that have historically been contracted out. this is no new re-contracting or contracting out, is that right? that's right. thank you, okay. excellent. and that continues to be an estimated cost of $16 million. yes, the estimated savings is about $16 million. savings, thank you. i want to -- actually, i don't
have any other quesons. supervisor yee? just a quick question, in regards to the -- your system that you're putting together to manage everything, can you sor ofive us some clarity around the issue of once it's completed, what's on the budget for sort of maintaining it and updating it. are you reconsidering that to future budgets? i think really the budget you see for this next two years is nowin of the management and maintenance of the system. we'll always be doing troubleshooting and changes. but the very large investments that were made to implement the system are now behind us. you appropriated some money last year for that purpose. you appropriated much more money the year before.
we'll always have smaller requests coming in year to year like the ones i talked about in the year ahead to kind of upgrade infrastructure that's at end of life or to replace computers or to implement a more modest enhancement. but the $60 million project is now complete. what you see here is really the going forward operations of it. thank you. thank you, mr. rosenfeld. i'm gonna see if the budget analyst's office has anything they want to talk about. no, all right. we'll continue moving forward then. madam chair, can we please take public comment on item 5, 8, 9, 10 and action on these items today? yes, that's a great idea. that's a fantastic idea. ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to comment on items 5, 8, 9, 10, the items that you heard
just presented by ben rosenfeld, come on up. you'll have two minutes. seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisor yee? can i make some comments on item 8? yes. i'd like to strongly urge us to move this forward. as you know -- and this is the item around the appropriation of expenditures for participatory budgeting. as you know, chair cohen,s affects your district also because you've been a strong advocate for this type of program, as well as i am. and ali really hope that in th
future, that it would be more than the three of our districts doing the participatory budgeting. if enough of us were to actual ly implement the participatory buing pjects or programs, it could relieve some of the work that we have to do in our own offices to individually manage all of those. good day for district 7. i just want to say that the $300 thousand that we allocated for these, for this project will be funding about 1500 projects throughout the district. and it's really pretty much
spread out. and it's one of these things where i'm very proud to have our residents really getting involve involved. they come up with the proposals, they get to vote on the proposals and actually select the projects themselves if you want to see democracy at work, this is one way to see it up front. thank you very much. thank youer much. next, i'd like to make a motion to send items 5, 8, 9 and 10 to the full board with the positive recommendation. sent to the full board on july 17th. is there a second? second. okay. seconded by supervisor yee. we'll take that without objection. thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, let's continue moving forward. i'd like to now hear from the office of the mayor. i believe we've got kate or
benjamin? presenting about the mayor's budget. this is the total budget of $172 million with a $47 million increase. can't wait to hear that. 63 personnel and a five person increase. you're on. [laughter] happy to be here. benjamin, deputy director for finance and administration for the mayor's office of housing and community development. kelly is also here to address some of the mayor's administration items. first of all, i'd like to give an overview of what the department general fund uses are by service area. over half of the mayor's office budget is dedicated toward affordable housing uses. about a quarter are dedicated to community development uses, which is mostly grant making to community development
organizations, cdo's. 9% is in support of housing for the local operating subsidy or los program. those are subsidies for supportive housing units that our office administ the last 10% or so ofhe mayor's office budget on the general fund is for mayor admin. the city administration, policy and finance and neighborhood services. if you look at the department general fund expenditures by type of expense, about 45% of the department's budget is affordable housing, loans and debt service. about 40% grants cbo's. around 10% salary and fringe benefits. 4% other non-personnel operating expenses. and 3% work orders to other departments. in the affordable housing
category, including los, our key budget changes are charter mandated increase to the housing trt fund. the trust fund goes up by $2.8 million each year. in 1819, we'll be using that increase for our community partners. additional investment in new housing development and continuation of work on the online affordable housing portal. the budget in 18-19 has a reduction of one time $3.1 million in the current year due to the elimination of revenues sent over from dbi in the current year. the 18-19 budget also has some good news for the general fund in that there's a reduction of $5.3 million in los subsidy required. we've been able to move those units over to project based vouchers funded by the federal
government instead of the city. the biggest change is this last item, one time appropriation of the downtown neighborhood's preservation fund. this was adopted by the board in 2016. this was a project commonly known as the ocean life center being built at 51st street. $40 of dedicated revenue to affordable housing that has specific uses defined. and we're appropriating those funds in this budget because the fee revenue has started to come in. in the community development side of things, the board in the current year put forward a supplemental appropriation for additional services for immigrant population in our
city. the proposed 18-19 budget annualizes that to $2.5 million. we also will be doing cost of doing business increases for our non-profit partners. the budget as proposed includes about $1.3 million of new funding for grants and non-profits, focusing on culturally appropriate services for communities of color and improves reporting for contract outcomes. we also have in our budget currently a place holder of $1.5 million for cultural districts. that's pending the outcome of the november 2018 ballot initiative which would dedicate revenues, i believe from hotel tax, to that source. so we have a placeholder in the budget in case that passes in november. looking overall at the budget, ifou look at 18-19 and 19-20 proposed, both general fund and
self supported, $146 million in 18-19ndust under $10 million for theest of the office of the mayor. you'll see decreases in 19-20 if you look at the second two columns here. the reductions are mainly due to that elimination of that one time appropriation of that $40 million of revenue related to st street. that reduction and $40 million is offset by another increase in the housing trust fund and elimination of one time funding in 18-19 which continues to support the mayoral transition. briefly, the rest of the mayor's office is relatively static. the budget changes are largely due to increased salaries and
fringe costs and one time expenditures for the transmission of administrations. and the mayor's office has been working to insure that all staff have appropriate equipment to do their jobs and they're going to continue doing that, especially in light of the fact that there's going to be a new crop of staff people. i'm joined today by our director kate hartley. brian chu and kelly kirkpatrick from the mayor's budget office and we're happy to answer any questions that you have. great, thank you very much. i guess my first question is, correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe that mayor lee's plan was to cut budget by 15% in the fall of last year? by 15%? no, it wasn't quite that much. how much was it? i don't remember. do you remember the target? the target proposal was
2.5% proposals from all departments. does that include the mayor's office? did he himself impose those cuts? working with t department, workedo submit the mayor's budget together. all departments are asked to submit target proposals and we take ones that don't require service reductions. i know it was submitted. was it built into the budget? we largely took target reductions from the department of public health. and it actually wasn't a reduction. we looked at places where there was growth of revenue to help support the budget, to help balance the budget. it was largely dph that supported the target assistance. so then the answer is no? there were many departments we didn't take target from. the mayor's office among them. right, so didn't. that's what i thought. and talk to me a little bit
about this staff increase. five positions, where are they going? most of this staffing change is administrative. where? sure, we're moving positions from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. currently, those positions are working on the housing opportunities for persons with aids program. that's a federal program that's grant funded that we already administer. we were doing a work order previously to hsa. those staff members moved to hsh when hsh was created. homeless and supportive housing. these staff people do not directly provide services to homeless people. in addition, mocd administers
the federal grant program overall for this funding source. we're moving those staff people from hsh to mocd. then the additional changes, i think there's a couple changes related to howositions are reflected in the budget with regards to the mayor's office. and i'll let kelly address that. thank you. so there's an additional fte that we do when we have open labor contracts to help support all of the analysis and work. so next year, we will have 26 labor unions that are open. our office and the controller's office added a temporary staff person in order to perform that analysis and work to support the city's position in that big list of work that will happen next spring. okay. otherwise, it was tidying up partial positions. so we've been trying to prioritize moving people living on the streets into permanent
housing. what new programs in the budget are helping us to achieve that goal? i believe, supervisor, that your question would be best directed to homelessness and supportive housing when they come up. okay. in the mayor's office of housing and community development, we're an important part of that continuum because we are providing construction of new units for people leaving homelessness for permanent supportive housing. the budget does include continued increase over both budget years of the number of units supported by the local operating subsidy program. so those are supportive housing units that are in a variety of our different multi family buildings that we developed. and those subsidies are essential because the tenants who are moving from homelessness to permanent
housing, they can even afford the affordable rent that the buildings charge. so there's money in the budge to incse in each of the yes the number of subsidies that we're able to provide. are you increasing the subsidy itself or the number of subsidies available? increasing the number of subsidies available. it's tied to specific units and specific buildings. so the number of units will be increasing. the subsidy, although increasing the volume, is it enough to cover rent? i think if i heard you correctly, you said that it -- yes, it is. the subsidy actually doesn't go to the tenant. the tenants who are moving from homelessness to permanent supportive housing pay an affordable rent. that's -- that rent is calculated on a per person, per household basis. the subsidy goes to look at the operation of the building or the set of units as a whole. so if there's a gap between the
revenues received from rents from various sources and the operating expenses of the building, that's what the los subsidy covers. each year, we do a financial review of the operations of the revenues from various were sources and what were their expenses and each building has to justify what their subsidy request is. all right, i got it. i was wondering if you guys have any discussions about how to make sure that our public housing facilities deal with the digital -- are dealing with the digital divide, perhaps through a targeted expansion of the existing municipal fiber system. kate hartley. in our renovations of the public housing units, we are
bring i bringing updated technology, capacity to the buildings. and we recognize that -- sorry to cut you off. i have a question for you, kate. i understand you're bringing the capability. but are we actually delivering the technology? in terms of providing wi-fi access and computers. not necessarily computers per se but access, speed. yes. i will have to talk to my colleagues about the infrastructure that was installed. but as we embark upon renovations, we will be providi providing wireless access. in addition, i will get back to you on this. but i believe there was recently an announcement of enhanced technological wireless
capacity to public house iing buildings that we renovated. thank you, i appreciate that. if i'm not mistaken, when we did the hearing on the fiber, they showed pictures of the utility box with the conduit needed to connect each unit. and if i'm not mistaken, i think that the units were wired, but we don't have a service provider really providing that level of service. i think that that is a situation of where we are. let me get back to you with all the facts on that. okay. real quick, from moh. in addition to what has already been discussed, there is $500,000 in each of the next two budget years in the capital plan going through department of technology, specifically for fiber connection in public housing.
thank you, i appreciate that. another question about moh. i wanted to kind of get your take on culturistric staffing. is it a priority, are inking about it. come on, brian. [laughter] sure. with the recent passage of the cultural institute of legislation, we are obviously taking it very seriously. we want to be able to start that process. we anticipate that in order for us to put together those comprehensive reports that you're aware of in the legislation, we would need one additional staff person. the staffing for that is now currently linked to that 1.5 million that was mentioned as being held on reserve pending the results of the ballot initiative to be voted on in november. should that pass as it currently stands, we would begin the process of
identifying that staff member in the second half of fiscal year 18-19. thank you very much. my question is also about cultural districts. so, how will you staff cultural district programs starting july 31st? currently, we'll be allocating our existing staff. at the present time, our work is focused on overseeing the grant dollars that we've been given through accommodation of add backs and mayoral enhancements. we've been focusing on traditional grant management. we'll continue to meet informally with other departments to prepare for the possible release of those funds pending that november ballot initiative. and then we would be able to
launch the more complete program in the second half of 18-19. so you're saying that july 1st, you're able to cobble together staff for the cultural districts. but then in november, there's no guarantee that that will pass considering that it will need a majority to pass for approval. what is your plan to insure that this critical work to proactively address displacement in our san francisco neighborhoods is staffed. right now, our current capacity really now is limited to that grant oversight role. so we would be able to continue to procure other community based organizations to provide services. at our current level, we're not able to focus on, for example, those comprehensive reports. so we would begin that process if those dollars were available. if those dollars were not
available, we would continue at our current level of staffing, which would focus on the gra grant's management. in other words, you can cobble together staff. that's true. focused on those areas i mentioned, yes. and then you have 1.5 million in reserve. that's correct. if the measure doesn't pass in november, then you're releasing those funds to pay for this, is that correct? let me ask my colleague how the reserve is managed. you bet. so, they're on reserve pending the passage of the revenue or of the ballot measure. so no expenditures will go rward if there is no dedication of the hotel tax growth approved at the ballot measure. if it is not approved, the
money will not be there and the expenditures will not move forward. even though the board of supervisors voted unanimously to pass this legislation, you're saying that you will not release those funds if the november ballot measure did not pass, is that correct? there will be no funds if the revenue measure is not passed. the dedication of the growth of hotel tax will not be mandated by the voters. i don't know if there's any other choice. but as currently structured, there will be no funding growth. it will maintain the fiscal 17-18 funding levels for our arts and cultural districts. thank you, i just have a couple other questions for the mayor's office and neighborhood services. how much is the total budget and staffing and are we seeing an increase? i don't know readily offhand how large the budget is. i can get back to you on that. the mayor's office
administration fte levels are maintaining the same of which. it's a subset of the total mayor's administration budget. that's maintaining, expect for the labor project that i mentioned,nd the fte clean up. we maintaining staff levels. i can get you the specific staffing as it exists now. however, under a new mayoral administration, it will be up to that mayor to decide how they allocate their staff iing including how they'll be staffed going forward. you don't know how many staff are in the mayor's department right now? in the mayor's administrative budget, for all of the mayor's admin it is roughly 42 fte. this is a subset of that. i don't know offhand, i apologize, how many staff we have working in mons at this moment. can you send a text to someone and ask them? i can get that. we can continue and come back to it.
i do have other questions, too. i can tell you what the current staffing is. i can get that to you in the next ten minutes. i want to know what the current staffing is and i want to know what the strategy will be or has been. yeah, because my next question is what are they responsible for? mons is constituent services. that's one portion of their work, being the front door for residents. similar to your offices who have issues navigating city services. technically, our offices are legislative offices. but we've had to pick up the slack because of cuts to mons. absolutely. or dissolve mons and disperse the money amongst district offices. quite frankly, we're doing that work right now. and i think that we can all speak that our legislative aids are actually picking up that work on a daily basis. and it is a lot of work. and so if they are not doing
that, then i actually think that we should disperse those funds amongst the 11 district offices since we're doing that work any way. and then didn't the mayor give an instruction of no new fte's. why is he expanding fte's when, quite frankly, he gave the direction of no new fte's. quite frankly, we have seen departments come forward again and again and again with additional fte's when the mayor himself has said no in fte's in the cycle. yet he is adding fte's to his office. we have added the one off budget position to help with the labor union negotiation. we have heard that, but actually he did give the direction no new fte's. and he has put new fte's in his district. he didn't say only one, only two. he said no new fte's.
so actually, from here, i thought the instructions were no new fte's. i see departments, we just heard departments today coming in and saying we have all news new fte's and the mayor himself is adding fte's when his instructions were no new fte's. i just want to point that out. because actually, i was under the impression sitting here that there were gonna be no new fte's. there are departments who have been very, very diligent in their budgeting to not add new fte's and to shift things around, even though they can accommodate it within their budget. i just wanted to mention that. i have another question for the mayor's office of housing. hold on. don't let kelly off. let her answer those questions that you just laid out. i think the question is why, when there's an instruction to everyone, no new fte's. the mayor himself is adding new fte's to his own budget.
the instruction is budget submissions should not include net new fte in order to enable the mayor's office should make strategic investments in fte's, they should align with the policy priorities is the intention of the rule. i believe that our intention with the proposed mir's administrative budget is to insure that there's a smooth transition for the next mayoral administration. the labor project is one thing that we have done the last two years as it relates to this large undertaking with potentially large city wide costs, depending on how the labor negotiations shake out. we felt that that was a critical investment for that really heavy lift of work that happens in the spring related to that. but i understand your point. and then also the mayor's
office of neighborhood services. if they're supposed to be doing constituent work and resident's work. and actually, our offices are the ones that are actually carrying that. i would say 95% of thatburden. i would want to consider actually abolishing this department or office or whatever we call it and actually dispersing those funds amongst the 11 district offices. quite frankly, we can serve our constituents even better. it would allow us then to even hire another fte just for constituent services. thank you. supervisor yee? i'm gonna agree with supervisor fewer in terms of the constituency responsibilities.
we get a ton of calls that we have to respond to. can i go back to the cultural piece again? the $1.5 million. maybe i'm harping on this a little bit. but i thought we passed a policy. through this budget process, she has created resolutions to state our priorities in terms of budget priorities. and you would think that whoever's in the mayor's office would be respectful of that. so in my mind, i don't get it.
we passed a policy asking for $1.5 million. yet, it's not in the budget. but it's one of these maybe type of things. can you explain what the thinking is behind that. i can speak to the program implementation portion. i can't speak to the re sefser restrictions placed on those dollars. we have our current staff that have been interacting with the cultural districts, participating in many of them up to this point. we understand that with these new responsibilities from the expanded legislation, it will require additional resources.
if you can't answer my question, who can from the mayor's office? is thi a kelly question? or is this a ben question? maybe you can restate your question again, supervisor. we can't figure it out. i'm a little confused with the fact that we passed a policy to support something that includes the budget item.
we have one item where if you follow logic, the budget should reflect this policy. what i'm seeing is it doesn't really reflect the policy. maybe if something happens we'll follow your policy. can somebody explain that? i think, if i'm hearing you correctly, you're saying we've passed cultural districts. why is it not funded? why is it not reflected in the mayor's budget. t's the succinct way of asking it, yes. there it is. i believe that it is a policy choice for mayors to support and fund various projects. i think we had been working very closely with supervisors tang and peskin on this proposed arts measure that
would re-establish the connection of growth o hotel tax to arts programs. we believed in supporting that through the budget and that wouthat dedicate a source of funding through that growth to this program area. i'm sorry. that doesn't -- thank you, supervisor peskin and thank you supervisor tang. that is not an answer to me. i mean, there was growth any ways in our budget. we said this is a priority and it's not a priority in the budget. that's a cop out answer. supervisor yee, did mark f ferrel include you, in your perspective, in the budget that he submitted? through the -- through
her, he did ask. not directly, didn't have a meeting with him on that. but this is something that was said from all of us as a priority. it's not my individual priority. i'm hoping that i'm reflecting my colleague's desire to have this as part of the budget. that's all it is for me. yes, you definitely raised an ieresting point. the bottom line is the mayor has the ability to put forth what they want to see in the budget. that's why we're on the budget committee, supervisor. we'll make the corrections. one of the areas that i'm most uncomfortable with is this increase of $47 million that
you've requested for your budget. if you could just go through that one more time again, $47 million you're asking for. not to mentn, kelly said it was an increase of personnel. on my notes, i have an increase of five. it's a little disheartening and disconcerning to see that the leadership is asking the department to do one thing but he himself will go in a different direction, asking as if they're above the rules. i understand that that is standard practice, but it's still a bitter pill to swallow. talk to me about $47 million increase. where is this money going. sure. the majority of that $47 million is not general fund supported. $40 million of it is related to ordnance number 137-16. which is what? which was from may and june of 2016. established the downtown neighborhood's preservation fund.
which is what? which is a fund that receives fee revenue paid by the developer of the tower at 51st street. also known as the ocean wide center. if completed as proposed, it will be the second tallest building in san francisco. my understanding is it's a mixed use building that will have a hotel. and i believe also residential and maybe even office space. but i'm not familiar with the details of the project. but that ordnance dedicated fee revenue. jobs, housing, linkage fee revenue and inclusionary fee revenue that would normally have been paid by the project to those specific funds and set aside that money into this downtown neighborhood's preservation fund. so you're drawing from that
revenue stream that's outside of the general fund. correct. who put that ordnance on? who introduced that ordnance? supervisor kim. supervisor kim did. jointly with mayor lee. okay. and tell me, where does this other $7il come from? $2.8 million is coming from the housing trust fund. what? that increases every year by $2.8 million. it's in the charter. it increases every year by $2.8 million until it reaches about $50 million total, i think. and then it is indexed to cpi. so you're only down $2.8 million from the housing trust fund. it wasn't necessarily a spirit that we brought to voters so that the mayor's office can have their own little pot of money to play with.
how do you plan to allocate that $2.8 million. where is it going? the increase in the housing trust fund will pay for cost of doing business increases to cbo grants that are funded by the housing trust fund. they will also fund additional investment in new housing developments. so our multi-family housing development work. and it will continue to find the development of the dahlia online housing portal. so you've kind of accounted for $42.8 million. where is the other $2.5 million? $2.5 million of the increase is the annualization of the board's supplemental of the current year for immigration services. the immigrations services supplemental passed by the board in the current year funded for 25% of the year or
maybe 50% of the year. and it was one time because it was a supplemental. we've annualized that amount of that suppmental and put it into the mayor's office budget, m ocd's budget for $2.5 million of grants to cbo's to provide those services. legal services, right? legal services, ongoing. you say ongoing, that service that we're providing does not have a sunset? is it just indefinite? the funding source does not end in this second year, no. what is the demand on the funding source? what if there is no longer a need for folks that are detained that need the legal a representation? i think we'd need to discuss what is the best allocation of those funds to cbo's. whether it should still be dedicated to immigrant services or if there are other services to cbo's that were more
importa important. the other major increase i mentioned on the community development slide here are increases, codb increases for our community partners and $1.3 million of new funding for grants to non-profits focusing on services for communities of color and improved reporting on contract outcomes from cbo's in partnership with the city. colleagues, do you have any other questions? yes, i do. all right. this is for the mayor's office of housing. can you give me an update on the small sites program. how much is allocated to that specific program for acquisition? and how are funds being
allocated, including geographic parody. yes, the small sites progra we've completed about 160 units to acquisition and rehab. we are projecting, excuse me, to complete in the n two years, approximately -- sorry about that. 100 more. we have an allocation, as you know, of affordable housing fees and housing trust fund moneys that fund the small sites program. we have borrowed against this coming fiscal year in order to take care of the pipeline that we have in place. we were hoping on funds from prop d to continue and expand the small sites program. of course, prop d failed. in addition, we have some exactions.
converting to market rate either through vacancy de control. we ve a separate set of funds to help our partners preserve and protect. >> is a prioritization of small sites or is there a risk of being displaced. >> sorry, can you repeat the question? >> are you prioritizing small sites where tenants are at risk of being displaced? >> yes, we have a priority list if deals come through the door simultaneously. it's an over the counter program. we will first k oat buildings whthere's imminent risk of eviction or displacement. we have, for example, intervened and helped our non-profit partners by buildings where there was an ellis act in progress and we were able to provide the funding that allowed the non-profits to stop that ellis act action and preserve the property. >> su