tv [untitled] October 15, 2011 10:00pm-10:30pm PDT
the way on this issue is now moving in a direction that is different from where the federal government is going on that principle. that is why there is this difference of opinion. that is why i am not supportive of this legislation by presidents chiu. i think it takes the wrong approach and is inconsistent with what our president has committed and it is for that reason i will not be supporting that legislation. but i do hope we continue this discussion. there is a motion to move this forward without a recommendation. can we take that motion without objection? great. thank you for coming out. president chiu: is there any other business before the committee? >> there is no further business. president chiu: meeting adjourned.
phones. if you present any documents to the committee, please provide a copy to the clerk. items presented today will be heard on december 18, 2011, unless otherwise stated. >supervisor chiu:u: thank you vy much. please call item no. 1. >> item number one, contract amendment, western states oil, not to exceed. >supervisor chu: anything new to report on item number one? take no, madam chair. we already implemented -- you have already recommended that we approve the legislation.
commissioner chu: thank you. if there are no further questions, we took this up last week, i will open it up for public comment. any members of the public wishing to comment on item number one? cnn, it is closed. a motion by supervisor mirkarimi to send this forward with recommendations. we will do that without objection. item number two . >wo. >> item number two, interconnection agreements and renewable energy generating facilities. pratt commissionecommissioner cu very much. on this item we have lory mitchell. >> we're here to discuss the interconnection agreements for two solar projects. one is alone dictated a china
health department annt. these agreements are based on a contract approved by the california public utilities commission. they are subject to board approval because the agreements are likely to exceed 10 years. the city is limited and making changes to these agreements. on november 12, 2009, sfpcu authorize an agreement for the design and construction of these projects. they are now in the final construction phase. in order to interconnect and operate these projects, there must be a generating facility interconnection agreement. sfpcu is entering authorization to enter into these agreements. do you have any questions? supervisor chu: thank you for
your presentation. i agree to open this item up for public comment. many members of the public that wish to speak on this item, number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor mirkarimi to send item # two forward with recommendations. we will do that without objection. >> item #3, ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code section 10.1 to about nonprofits to the city department as an alternative for filing annual income statements with the city administrator. supervisor chu: think you. for this item we have when the youlinda young. -- thank you. >> this is to allow non-profits receiving city funding to provide an update information
directly to city departments as an alternative to a filing annual economic -- the annual income statement with the city administrator. this legislation was a richly passed in 1998 and information about nonprofits was not readily available or transparent so the city required nonprofit submit information about management, board of directors, annual budgets to the administrator's office. nowadays this information is readily available and monitored by city departments would contracts and grants are awarded. it is also available on the internet through the department's own web site, as well as on web sites that have up a crook tax form. in summary, so that nonprofits were already providing this information to city departments may avoid the need to file duplicative paperwork with the city administrator's office we ask the board support to change this requirement. thank you. supervisor vjiz it souor chu: ie
it a few minor amendments into this legislation. on page one, in setting an alternative to filing an annual income statement. it should reach economic statement. on line 18 and 19, instead of saying we shall file with the department of administrative services, it should reach out file with the city administrator. on line one, substituting that with economic. presthink you. i believe we do not have a budget analyst report with it. why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item? >> good evening. my name is east washington.
since you are talking about department heads, i am here to tell you all how the city, in my opinion, in the rest of us that suffer from the decisions made in the walls of city hall. i called silly call. i am appalled. -- i acall it silly hall. you can have so much closeness that they have never even met before. i will give you a good example. the board of supervisors, mayor's office of economic development force, and even cao's office. there is a disconnect. therefore in our community there is even more disconnect. what is the remedy? someone will have to be responsible started from room to
hundred and coming all the way down, because there is a disconnect in the community, particularly african-americans in this plan, project early with the mayor. somebody left us with no shelter, with no remedy to do anything. we have the comptroller's office that has a report that is very crucial to us that we did not know about the redevelopment agency. the money that we spent, we do not know where it went. yet the comptroller's office will be in part of controlling redevelopment agency. my supervisor asked them for an audit and they have not got it yet. there is corrupt us here at silly hall. i have been around here longer than any was on the road.
right now something has to be done. now, i see that the mayor put out a book about what he has done. i started off with eddy. he was my first boss political years ago, so i could compare my record to his, too. i do not have the education he has, but i was out there in the community and was with him when he was with the human rights commission. one thing for sure, as in your face on the case will prepare something that the whole city and the world can see what is going on here at silly hall. i have been here. keeping the records, and documented it. interviewing certain people. right now i am here and frustrated. or give me, i thought it was that time i could time in essence you're talking about department heads. presidesupervisor chu: thank yo.
>> good morning. my name is douglas yep. i was not planning to speak on this item, but i feel it is necessary to come to the support of the previous speaker. unfortunately time will tell that he is basically correct. the reason why i say that is i have been doing some last minute reading about harrisburg this morning, and in san francisco, just one that failed project from the same fate as harrisburg. i would just throw that out there for the consideration of the people sitting in this room. as mr. washington was saying, everybody has an opinion on how to do things correctly, but one has to be realistic and look at the state and city as it stands now. the people we have elected have basically failed us.
if they had done a good job, we would not be in the situation we are, and as usual it is like the three stooges, everyone points a finger at each stooge and says it is his fault. that is interesting. obviously pointing fingers will not solve the problem. in regards to mr. washington's previous statement about the so- called book put out this weekend, the only thing i have to say for the record was that the mayor's first job was with the whistleblower program. i still have not seen any written statement from the mayor regarding the status of his so- called whistleblower program, and i am throwing out the idea that has this project turned into a frankenstein monster. let's put it this way, if the program was in great shape, a you would say so, in any time
you get a politician to say nothing, that usually means you are correct. in regards to the ordinance, i feel that the non-profits need extra scrutiny because most people, especially the less educated ones in san francisco, as soon as you mentioned the word, a nonprofit, they think it is something that is good, but i have to remind everyone that a non-profit still has to pay for salary and expenses and it still boggles my mind of how i see how much money some of the heads of the nonprofits actually make, and it is even more surprising when i see the salaries and benefits paid to a lot of the church leaders in san francisco. so i feel that everyone has to take their fair share of the blame. why don't we all stand up, point our fingers at each other and say it is his fault, and then we will get back to square one with
no solution in sight. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. any other speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. in terms of reporting to contract with the city, the city would continue to have disclosure requirements, they would just be doing it with departments, correct? it sounds like some departments are collecting the information, and we have a duplicative step with the city is also collecting the same information? correct. if there are no further comments, the item -- we do have a few amendments to the legislation we read into the record earlier, primarily to swap out the word and come for economic statement and correct the description of the department to say instead of department of administrative services to read city
administrator. can we take those amendments? we will do so without objection. we have a motion to send item forward as amended with recommendation, and we can do that without objection. thank you. >> item number four, resolution approving a cost-sharing agreement for paratransit services between the city and county of san francisco in the san francisco bay area rapid -- rapid transit district for a period of up to 10 years. >> hello, annette williams from the mta. you have a cautionary agreement before you. we have had an agreement with bart since 1994. we both have obligations in san francisco to provide paratransit services to those that cannot use the regular fixed route service. it cost -- a study was done to determine bart's share.
it did not make sense for them to do a parallel service to our service, so the contract did with us to provide their paratransit services, and we did a cost allocation study that came up with their share of being 8.8% of the total for the entire city. we have agreed with them to do a new cost-sharing study, because i've not been done since 1994, and we have much better data with a debit card program. that may share -- change the percentage, but we do not anticipate it will change it in any significant way. i know the budget analysts have recommended that we come back to you after the study is done, and we can do that. we can also provide a report to you, that may be a more
expeditious way of letting you know what comes out of the new study. i am available for any questions you might have. one of the other things we have included in the new agreement is bart in the past have paid 8.8% of our contract, but did not include the administrative cost for oversight of the contract. this agreement does include them paying a 5% fee to us for the administrative cost. that administrative costs will be analyzed as part of the study to make sure the 5 percent signed does represent our cost. i am available for any questions that you might have. supervisor chu: i know this item was introduced quite some time ago, and the mta request we've not schedule this to you are
able to negotiate a fee associated with it. >> correct. our finance department indicated they should be paying an administrative fee, which they had not paid in the prior agreement, so we went back and had to negotiate with them. this took second fiddle to other the agreements that were being negotiated, but we did get them to agree to an administrative fee as part of the contract. supervisor chu: i believe the contract is supposed to be amended for retactivity, but its a contract that will last 10 years? >> correct. it is an annual contract with renewals of to 10 years. supervisor chu: so it is not necessarily that there would never come back for renewal, it is every year there is an annual renewal period. we would not come back to the
board of supervisors during that time. like i said, we can submit a support of their -- can submit a report if there are any changes that come out of the study. supervisor chu: in terms of the administrative fee we would be collecting, with that only applied for the first two years? >> that would apply for the first two years. we did a study to verify the 5 percent signed was the correct amount. they will continue to pay the administrative fee for the entire term of the contract. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarim>> if you ape contracts, you are reporting a 10-year agreement and you will not see this again.
that is number one. number two, ms. williams just faded, she used the same word that is in our report on page 9, she said they anticipate there will be a steady. there is no requirement for a study. -- she said they will anticipate a steady. this agreement now only obligates bart to pay for the administrative cost of 5% for the first two years. if there is no study done, then there is no incentive to continue to pay the 5% administrative cost, unless it is built right into the agreement. those are the reasons why we have recommended, first of all, we recommend that the proposed resolution be amended to provide for rec -- for activity, and
because the board of supervisors cannot amend an agreement, can only approve, disapprove, or continue, we recommend a discontinuance to amend the agreement to require, and unless again we have misread the agreement, there is no requirement that a study be undertaken to determine how much of the cost of the paratransit program, including the administrative expenses should be reimbursed bybar bart to the mta. as we understand, the way the agreement has been submitted to you, that is the last obligation date for bart to pay the 8% for administrative costs. then on page 10 we recommend you amend the cautionary agreement to reflect that any future -- that is another thing i want to make that clear. let's assume they do this study.
they do this study and the study finds that bart should pay less to the city, or pay more, either way. under the way this agreement has been written, the board of supervisors would add no further authority. there could be a fiscal impact of the city, and yet, if you approve it now, there would be these automatic renewals without further oversight of the board of supervisors. that is why we say that should be amended to make sure if there's a fiscal impact to the city, that that comes back to the board for the board's approval. those are our recommendations. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi. >supervisor mirkarimi: the costs
are somewhat disproportionate. what would you recommend in terms of us being able to have greater say -- >> my specific recommendation, supervisor, i am saying two things. do not approve this now, continue this item. specifically request that the mta amend the agreement with burt to recommend the study be undertaken and what are the results, that would be the continuation of paying the administrative as well as beyond the two years that bart is obligated to pay under this agreement. and then, as a further oversight the board should have, depending on the results of the study, i do not believe you should give the mta the authority to adjust the agreement without your approval it there is a fiscal
impact to the city, such as perhaps a decrease that bart would be paying. those are my specific recommendations. supervisor chu: thank you. i think an area where there seems to be disagreement between what the budget analyst report as saying verses what i hear you saying is the budget analyst seems to believe we're not say specifically part has to continue paying administrative fee for the duration of 10 years in order for us to approve this contract. it seems what the budget analyst this thing is that bart is locked in for the first two years, but beyond that they have no obligation to pay it. >> there are two things going on here. we have asked for the study. we have talked with staff, and they agreed to do the study.
the word anticipate means we will are going to do the study. we have both got their agreement and we're going to do this study. the study will look at the cautionary allocation and the administrative speak, and that is why bart was concerned about a grain to the 5% fee if the study shows it was less than that. and that is why they put the of two years, because they assumed within the two years we would get a study done. we're want to do the study. with the study will look at the cost allocation as well was the administrative fee. and then we would come back. i am fine with coming back to you, either sending you a letter and report to let you know what came out of the study, what is the cost allocation percentage, and the administrative fee that came out of the study. we can come back to you in a more official way. that is up to you.
supervisor chu: given that you have agreed to a study, -- >> correct. what we are expected to do is hired nelson to do the study. three have gone to the point of talking to the consultant. we both feel they would be a good company to do this. they have this kind of experience. we can provide the data to them. supervisor chu: i think we're fighting over something very small. it seems like you did not necessarily disagree with the budget analyst and we are what to do this study. and absolutely. they were concerned administrative fee be applied, and so was finance, because in the past there have not been at
the administrative fee. we are all in agreement on that. i think the issue that the budget analyst is bringing up is making sure those things happen. that the study happen and the administrative phebe continue to be charged after the -- administrative fee continue to be charged after the study. the issue is we would need to come back with a steady, with this agreement after the study is completed, and we can do that. the two years are already captured in the study. after that, which it captured in the agreement. after that there needs to be a study to determine whether the 5% continues to be the peak or whether it is something other than that or less than that. and-- continues to be the fee or
whether it is something other than that or less than that. it is fine to except the budget analyst recommendation, but it makes sense to bring it back to after we of the study so we can tell you what the percentage is and what the administrative fee is. the do>> madam chair and memberf the committee, there is nothing in the agreement that legally fines of the study to be done. i understand miss williams stated that part agrees they will do the study, but you are reproving a 10-year agreement and there is nothing legally binding it. our reading of the agreement means there is nothing legally binding that there would be this study. after the study, bart has to agree to the amount, and the amount can be done without board
of supervisors oversight. it could go down. as you point out, it is very low now. the 5 percent signed is not even based on an actual, it is based on another agreement with mta pays bart 5 percent signed factor. it is not based on any objective cost data. i guess my concern is i believe the board should maintain fiscal oversight over this agreement, and i think my recommendations would make that happen. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open this up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, this item is closed. we have this item before us. it soundske