tv [untitled] November 28, 2012 11:00am-11:30am PST
multiuse venues, whether it is the boston garden, whatever that is called or united center in chicago, the hp pavillion in san jose or the current or goal arena in oakland, there is a wide variety in the number per year really ranging -- these are once anchored by sports teams really between about 100 and 250, depending on the venue. i think the notion is there are -- part is whether or not your regional area has enough capacity to maintain a multiday -- events that would happen recurrently over a lot of days or whether your market is such that a show might only come to town for a few days. depending on the market in some ways depends on the number of events.
i can let rick speak about this. >> just a question in the context of the events. is that really a major consideration for this project being successful in years to come? if it is 25 events what does that -- >> thank you for the question. that is a realistic number and facility of this size and budget we are talking about to perform, that is not only a goal but something we will try to achieve. there are arenas that have sittingly larger numbers but that is driven by the fact they have more than one primary major league tenant. for example a number of teams. madison square garden has a national and nbc, which add another 50 dates. they are at that 300 level.
we don't anticipate getting close to 300 but think 200 is realistic. to point out one thing, the there is quite a variety. we are talking about an arena we are planning to make smaller than the current we are playing in oakland by about 1,500 feet. the capacity of 17,500, about 40% the size of every night is sell-out crowd at at&t park for perspective. the majority will not play to a full house because smaller house like family shows and smaller concerts that today don't have a home to play in san francisco. that answer your question? >> so you have expectations that having events will
consist it isn'tly yield a certain amount of viability and profitability. 205, if you are less than that, how critical to your success? >> well, that isn't a magic number. depends on the mix that end up taking place but it is a goal to be similar. in that range. i think it is probably realistic goal for a facility site. we envision something good. the three in the underis madison square garden, staples and new arena pier 32. we have in answe >> hello, we are back from a
vice-chair supervisor avenue los. our clerk today is victor young and at sfgtv we have jessie larson and greg burk. mr. young, do you have any announcements for us? >> yes. please turnoff all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and any documents to be included as part of the [speaker not understood] should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on december 4, 2012 supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. would you call item 1? >> item 1, resolution approving cellular service equipment sites leases between new cingular wireless pcs, llc nextel of california, inc., and sprint spectrum realty, july 1st, 2009 for the term of five years and approving amendment 1 to the cellular service equipment leases. >> thank you very much for this item.
we have cathy wetener from the airport. >> good morning, chair chu, supervisor avalos. [speaker not understood]. the airport is here seeking your retroactive approval for four leases with cingular, sprint-nextel, verizon and t-mobile to continue to provide cellular services to our passengers at cfo. at this time we're also requesting approval for modification to extend three of the four leases for an additional five years. * sfo the current leases with the cellular providers were approved by the airport commission in 2009 for an original term of five years. staff inadvertently neglected to bring the leases to the board at that time. it was determined that the nature of the cellular service leases did not lend itself to selecting one provider through an exclusive lease. therefore any cellular license service provider were invite today provide service at the airport as long as it was determined they met all of the city and county of san
francisco contract requirements. and i believe that it was this unusual process that may have led to some confusion over whether or not board approval was required. in any event, i apologize for this necessary request for retroactive approval at this time. we are also asking for your approval to modify three of the four leases to extend the term for an additional five years. the extensions being requested by the provider as they begin to upgrade existing infrastructure in order to keep up with demands of new technology such as installing 4g networks and increased data usage we're seeing. all of this requires an additional investment to their existing equipment and the cellular extension will help them to better amortize these increase in costs. total rent over the initial five-year term for existing four leases is $8 million and if approved, the total amount to be paid to the city by the cellular companies, including
the extension years, will be $15,875,000. the budget analyst office does recommend approval and i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you very much. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair and supervisor avalos, as shown on table 2 on page 4 of our report, the rent as negotiated by the airport for this -- for the proposed -- and the proposed lessees for the three five-year cellular service site equipment leases would result in total revenues to the airport of $7,875,000, that's over the five-year term. we recommend that you do approve these resolutions. >> thank you. just a quick question to the airport with regard to the retroactivity. you did speak a little bit to it. it was it's a fairly -- it's been a long time or we're looking to retroactively approve it back to 2009, quite
some time that has elapsed. i think you explained it a little bit, but what is sort of the airport's remedy to make sure this doesn't repeat itself? >> i went back to see what had happened. the best i could piece it together, i think there was some confusion between my office and the concession revenue office over whether or not it required board approval based on the fact it wasn't a traditional competitive bid. meaning we were awarding it to one contractor. clearly it was a mistake. and since that time, not based on this, but since that time, just to make sure we're catching everything, we've included a check in our commission package process that if a board -- the city attorney's office helps us track if the board is required to approve, there is a line in our commission resolution that says pending approval by board of supervisors. that way it alerts everyone that this item needs to keep going to the final stage of approval. so, it should -- things like this, you shouldn't see
something like this. again, i'm really sorry, i can't quite tell exactly what happened. >> okay, thank you. why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? we have a motion to send the item forward without recommendation. we'll do that. item 2. >> item 2, resolution retroactively authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a grant not to exceed $2 80,000 from the san francisco parks alliance, towards seven community projects funded with the community opportunity fund through january 1, 2013. >> thank you. we have my ra [speaker not understood] from the park and rec department. >> good afternoon. my name is abigail [speaker not understood]. i'm here with the san francisco
recreation and park department. our partnership position. and i am here to request retroactive authorization for the recreation and park department to accept and expend a grant not to exceed $2 80,000 from the san francisco parks alliance towards seven community projects funded with community opportunity fund dollars. in seven projects, these are seven different neighborhood groups who applied for and were awarded 2008 clean and safe -- clean and safe neighborhood parks bond funding from the community opportunity fund piece of that bond. and these groups have worked very hard to raise additional funding to either complete their projects or work towards completion. they have also dedicated time and fund resources to make
these neighborhood projects happen. i'm happy to answer any specific questions that you might have. >> thank you. for the public's benefit, would you speak a little bit about what those groups are, which [speaker not understood] benefits? >> sure. there is the geneva community garden in the kayuga terrace [speaker not understood] stainable horticultural demonstration guard ebb. and they have raised $40,000. * garden the friends of pioneer park raised $40,000 in the north beach neighborhood of district 3 to [speaker not understood] and to also install light fixtures. the friends of dee boers park, this is actually one of the projects that we're requesting retroactive authorization. they raised $104,000 for a new youth play area in duboce park
in the lower haight neighborhood. it's a very exciting and creative outdoor play area for school age kids. oftentimes our play grounds are for younger kids, and this one really benefits children who are in elementary and middle school and really even adults as well. in golden gate park, the [speaker not understood] club has raised about $25,000 to repair and upgrade the green number 1. there are three greens, but this is for one of them. the fifth project is for the lincoln park steps in the richmond neighborhood, district 1. this group has raised about $21,000 to improve and beautify the lincoln park steps. the six projects -- sixth project is in noe courts at douglas and 24th streets in district 8. this group has raised about $42,000 to fix drainage issues
and add seating and community gathering space. and they just want to overall upgrade the appearance of this park. and the seventh project is the upper douglas dog park in noe valley. this group has raised about $17,000 to improve drainage, irrigation and ground cover and to begin reforesting old and diseased trees. >> thank you very much. and then just a question for -- so, the $2 80,000 can you having from the parks alliance, that is going to be matched with the dollar values that were privately raised by the individual friends of groups or community groups in addition to funding that comes from the community opportunity fund, is that how that would work? >> yes. so, each project has two buckets of funding. one piece is the amount that i just read, the private amount that they raised. and then the second amount is the -- acts as the wouldedction money that the recreation and
park department -- our project manager, jake gill christ, he will use the funding to pay the contractor to complete the project. >> in addition to the accepting [speaker not understood] from the park land? >> yes. so, this money from the san francisco parks alliance will go directly to pay for the contractor fee to create the -- build out the project. >> and just a quick question for you. taking a look at sort of the grouping of different projects that are here, they're all very worthwhile and great projects and it's wonderful to see that the neighborhoods have really taken it upon themselves to raise funding to augment city and private foundation funding. it is not evenly dispersed across the city. i think in some districts, particularly mine and others, they don't really have the capacity, organizing capacity for groups to be able to participate, apply for community opportunity funds. this has been a long struggle for us, being able to have community organizations that are able to do that. and as a result they don't apply, they don't receive funding, they don't see sort of
a dispersion of funds that the bonds are meant to support across the city. what is sort of rec/park strategy to deal with that? it's much easier to say if you have a community group that matches funding we're going to fund them, which is generally what we've done. but for organizations and places that don't have capacity, what do you do? >> yeah, that's a great question. really jake, unfortunately, he's sick today so he captain be here. he would be the best person to answer that question. but i do know that for these various neighborhoods, it's not just about the funding that they raise. when they fill out their application, they have to make sure that the community -- that there is wide support for the project and that there is a stewardship element that the community is willing to really get involved and help with the project. not just with the fund-raising, but with volunteering, with helping to maintain. and also we want to make sure that once the project is finished, that these community groups are dedicated to
continuing to help clean and maintain the projects as well. there is a task force that reviews all of these applications and each part of the application -- it's a point system. so, each part of the application receives a certain amount of points and the money piece of it is not necessarily the most important piece. i know that there have been groups who have not received the funding because the community -- they didn't have a lot of community support and so the committee also didn't believe there would be stewardship of the project. >> great. and i think the problem is we have a hard time getting people to create organizations in some areas. so, you wouldn't necessarily meet these criteria because it's hard for people to come together to even organize, much less raise money. i think that there really is inherently these problems in some of our neighborhoods that i think needs to be addressed as we think about equity of some of these bond resources
that come through. and then just for information, in terms of the monies that are available left in the community opportunity fund from 2008, how much is sort of left in there? is there a large balance that is left? is there another funding cycle that comes through? if you don't have that information off hand, i'd be happy to hear it off line as well. >> yeah, i don't have the exact number offhand, but i'm happy to check with katie, our chief financial officer to give you the exact amount. i know that -- i believe it's about -- i'm not exactly sure. >> okay, thank you. supervisor avalos? >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you. actually, i really appreciate your -- the questions you have about community capacity to be able to get together and apply for opportunity grants. it's something that my community faces a lot, the communities in district 11 face a lot. one thing i've done is we've actually put resources into the
neighborhood for people actually to come together and do neighborhood planning. and actually we have a grant making program separate from the park grant program where residents come together and they identify projects that could use funding. capital projects, safety projects, beautification projects. that actually pulls people together to be stewards of the neighborhood and plan. i think the opportunity grant provides that opportunity for groups to come together and do that. and, so, we're looking at district 11 at doing some steps off of prauge street. those projects have come together because one person has got the community together, martha amahd, to have this community garden go forward. she's done outreach around the neighborhood and got other groups interested. they're looking at long term for real investment that we'll have individual plots and we'll
also have, hopefully, a more community space as well that could be used for the garden at [speaker not understood] and geneva. it will make a really amazing change for the neighborhood that typically would be an eyesore, or something that's been completely ignored. it will be something you can actually see. the opportunity that's provided by these grants being available is to really help to transform the capacity of neighborhoods to be able to do their own work together to see that they can be the stewards that this type of grant calls for. so, i really am excited about this moving forward. [speaker not understood] approving retroactively. it's something i think is really important for neighborhoods like ours that don't get the kind of equity that we should have in san francisco as we're deciding on public infrastructure projects. >> and i'd also like to add that we do encourage all of these -- all of the different neighborhood groups and different types of park users to really work with the san francisco parks alliance as
well. they really do help these individuals connect with other individuals to form some type of park group. and they have been very successful at bringing people together around one type of mission. thank you. >> thank you. this item does not have a budget analyst report. so, why don't we go to public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 2? good afternoon -- good morning, shall i say, budget and finance committee. and members of the public, the few that are here. item number 2 talks about accepting a grant from the san francisco parks alliance for certain community recreation projects. i'd like to draw your attention to golden gate park stables project that in 2001 was
shuttered. and for years we had a dollar-matching -- for every dollar that we raise, we would get an additional dollar from the city. that lasted for about four or five years. they were counting the days in the newspaper. then all of a sudden, without a vote, the city on its own decides to just abort any involvement with the stables. and not channel any funds or even allow this community to maintain itself or get itself back on two or four feet, whichever you want to consider. so, what does this say about san francisco? ben gazi by the sea.
we need to change the name of the city to ben gazi by the sea. clearly the [speaker not understood] of this board and these supervisors is to disengage the communities from revitalizing itself, from coming together, and creating its historical activities. that is the basis for this government. ben gazi by the sea, nobody to call, nobody to help you, and nobody here, empty. thank you. >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to spike on item number 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. * speak >> motion to approve move forward with recommendation a. motion to send the item forward with recommendation. we'll do that without objection. item 3. >> item number 3, resolution approving the third amendment to the agreement between the department of public health and med impact health care systems
for third-party pharmacy administration services at community pharmacies to increase the total contract amount from 9.9 million for the term of july 1st, 2008 through june 30th, 2014 by $8,804,318 for a total cat amount of $18,704,318 for six years. >> thank you very much. * i had thought that jackie would be here, but it's somebody else from dph. please introduce yourself. >> hi, i'm dave woods, i'm the chief pharmacy officer for the department of public health. good morning, supervisors. we are here to request approval of a third amendment to the contract to increase the total contract amount to enable the provision of pharmacy benefit management services through june 30th, 2014. the purpose of the program is to enable more than 50,000 uninsured clients of the community health network. so, those with healthy san
francisco, sf pass, healthy workers programs, all who do not have insurance, to continue to receive prescriptions at a pharmacy closer to where they live or receive medical care. without these pharmacies, patients might have to take one, two or three buses to get to san francisco general outpatient pharmacy which is not only convenient to them, but also reduces the likelihood of their picking up their prescription and receiving the care that they need. prescriptions currently are written in one of 13 community health centers, which are considered the copc clinics. or at one of the clinics on the san francisco general hospital campus. the client brings the prescription to a designated pharmacy and med impact is a claims adjudicator which processes -- helps the pharmacy process the prescriptions. they verify that the patient is eligible for the program, that the provider is an eligible provider, that the medication is on formulary, and they will let the pharmacy know if there
is any co-payment that is required by the patient. med impact processes over 30,000 claims per month. so, it's a very significant program. this contract also provides for the professional services that are provided at the individual pharmacies, and this is actually a bulk of what the contract amount is for. this is a highly utilized program. as you probably know, drugs are the primary treatment modality for medical management. over time we've seen increases in utilization of medications along with the introduction of some novel therapeutic treatments. we expect that this will continue over time as well. recently claims have been increasing by about 3% annually. we are hoping to substantially increase the number of pharmacy options available to our patients. this would not only improve access to pharmacies for these people, but it also may improve
adherence if for some reason they're not currently getting a prescription filled, it will be more convenient for them and hopefully this will continue. * if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them. >> thank you very much. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, supervisor avalos, as shown on page 5 of our report, table 4, the proposed not to exceed amount of 18.7 million includes a 12% contingency of over $2 million which was calculated using the total actual as well as proposed contract expenditures of 16,700,000, the six year term from july 1st, 2008, to june 30, 2014. so, that includes 9.4 million which has already been expended on the contract, and clearly that should not be included in