Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 14, 2014 3:30pm-4:01pm PDT

3:30 pm
so undertook the fee proposal was important not all of the criteria. it was separate elevation panel that consisted every two people from the fire department and one person from the port and one from outside the city. the selection of that panel was actually confirmed and approved by the contract monitoring division. the 4 panel i was unanimously ranged is he ignore fab as the top selection that's where why we entered into negotiation. occ is confirming the recommendation >> thank you supervisor breed a question. >> i have a question under the whereas clause on page 2 line 16
3:31 pm
it says the san francisco fire department is budgeted for this purchase of a new type two boat and the majority of the funding is grant funding. i was wondering where it is coming from is it budgeted if the current budget. i'm going try to get clarity open where the fund how are they budgeted >> mr. chair. >> mr. rose. mr. chairman supervisor breed on page 4 of our report we point out that a million 5 hundred thousand plus is generally to be proposed by mayor this is according to the fire department and in the fire departments 2014-2015 budget with our appropriation budget and another
3:32 pm
$1 million plus in not identified grants or fund is to be obtained by the fire department 2015- 2016 and the mayor's office has pledged to fund the balance in the fire departments 2015- 2016 budget but again that is subject to the board of supervisors you approval and this will be in fiscal year 2015- 2016 >> so is the language appropriate based on the fund not being yet approved? >> mr. city attorney correct me if i am wrong but we're voting on to accept this amount. >> correct. >> right. >> and so the question from supervisor breed is whether the whereas clause in the contract approval correct me if i am wrong supervisor is appropriate. it that right
3:33 pm
>> is it appropriate to apply we will be providing the additional matching fund necessary because i'm not familiar with the request i don't know the details of what's required of us we don't have a budget and budget analyst report report for the fire department i don't want to put the board on the hook for the fiscal year until the fund are actually persuade to the whereas clauses is not doing that. i suggest you amend the whereas close that anticipates the requesting in the budget fund for the purchase of this boat, etc. >> okay. >> supervisor breed did that work for you. >> i want to make sure it doesn't jeopardize the proposed
3:34 pm
grant funds as well. >> i will defer to the department as to whether there's a particular form that required by the founder those are for recital in the resolution inform approve the contract. >> so to the fire department staff i'm assuming it's in the whereas class you can let me know f know if different and it won't be a problem. >> so supervisor can we make a motion to accept the city attorney's objection. >> supervisor avalos. the matching fund are for the 2015- 2016 budget; is that correct >> 2014-2015. >> there will be substantial yes. so my other question is what is
3:35 pm
being proposed in terms of the city's keeping the executive operating agreement is they're going to be a major outlay of general fund dollars for maintaining the o a before us that's a question for the mayor what's happening in terms of the fire department budget >> so we're going in active discuss with with the mayor's office we're continuing to discuss the infusion into our ems division given the reason it was redisorder in january 2012 and in order to get up to the translator we're up to 73 percent we have a in question request before the mayor's office to discuss that proposal
3:36 pm
with them. >> the mayor's office budget office respond to that as well? >> we have two budget director i can confirm we're working closely with her as well as the controllers offices and the csa division to determine the correct amount we'll need to budget that's a top priority to determine what's needed. >> but that's the goal of mayor's office to close it gay gap with additional funds on 73 percent to was it 85 percent. >> a minimum of 80 percent one thing we're also awaiting an audits that's nearly completed
3:37 pm
with the ems staffing i would say not indirectly but directly plays into the budget season. i know that i believe we were going to get a draft today, i think a lot of elements of the e o a are going to be addressed but some of the topics your bringing up up b will be addressed in that report >> my question is what's itself goal from 73 to or maybe do that? >> i think the mayor's office goal is to do everything we can to create the conditions in the fire department we're able to meet the requirements of e o a. you've seen a lot of analytic work that needs to be looked to figure out what the correct levels of increase could be
3:38 pm
that's absolutely we'll be looking at. thank you for responding and so do you have a sense of the range of costs i heard earlier about $10.4 million >> it was the request for $10 million. >> i think the goal is to find the minimal level of the increase possible to allow to those us to meet the requirement so we're going going to refine it number and make it more acceptable for resources. >> i want to get a handle on what to accept expect from the fire department it's significant so i understand the need but it's important we consider today's resolution based on what else t is happening with the
3:39 pm
budget of the fire department. >> i definitely share our concerns about the potential costs we're absolutely working to make sure we can find a smaller number as possible. >> a question in terms of the mayors commitment to fund if there's a shortfall from other grants the remainder of the boat purchase i want to confirm. >> my understanding is that the fire department is firmly committed to doing fundraising and we're hopeful if they're not able to raise the money that's for next year. >> i believe they can fund. >> supervisors that's why i say the total fund have not been secured again, we're recommending approval. >> the mayor was committed to
3:40 pm
funding if f that doesn't happen. >> yes. but we're making progress in getting the funds. >> colleagues, any further sdrugs discussion off the top one amendment for supervisor breed there are other amendments recommend i'm not sympathetic this is besides this port those are city funds i'm caution but i'll say to you know, i appreciate that you need flexibility in determining operational plans i don't want to up front especially the population down south one other thing to suggest what you be opposed one the boat is gotten mr. will you come to the board. >> and talk about the
3:41 pm
commission planning for that boat. >> yes. and i think my understanding is there's about 3 hundred thousand for the boats for maintenance and whether or not that will need to increase if we were to keep the third boat online meaning it's about one hundred and 50 thousand per vessel with the new boat to maintain the boat with the port instead of one hundred and 50 thousand to maintain the 3 hundred thousand there's no net increase but happy to come back and have that conversation. >> let's assume the fundraising goes well, when will the boat be delivered. >> the agreement we need to have it by august of 2015. >> so colleagues i'll suggest moving the budget analysis one and 2 and recommending the 3 to
3:42 pm
fire department to come back upon the delivery of the boat to continue the operation. but i'll entertain any other motions. supervisor avalos wants to ride in the new boat >> i fully understand that's a guarantee supervisor but i fully understand. >> i want to be there. >> the difficult choices i'll say we want to get it right this thinning time and a huge benefit to our city and region and we're appreciative of your support on this item. >> okay. colleagues unless no objections can i have a recommendation to approve. >> mr. chairman just to clarify the first recommendation is the one about the deconditioning so
3:43 pm
agree with numbers two and three and your correct thank you for clarifying. so motion by supervisor wiener and supervisor avalos without objection? any issues from the sfoofs before i hit the gavel >> this is a motion to forward both items as amended by sdmooedz to the full board with recommendations. >> any additional recommended amendments only recommended amendment was the deconditioning. >> correct so we have one amendment by supervisor breed and the one amendment i suggested kind of apple amendment to mr. roses amendment having the fire department could be about the delivery of the boat. >> we'll take that without
3:44 pm
objection. and then the underlying item 6 and 7 and so we don't have a temperature to do the budget analyst first recommendation my we do from my understanding just for clarity mr. chair we're actually inserting on additional clause that will give us the ability to allow this you once the new boat is delivered the fire department is required to come back to the board of supervisors so we'll have to agree with the commissioning of the new about boat. >> that was my recommendation or what i'm suggesting is per mr. rose's recommendation to amend it to say instead of decommissioning it today but upon delivery the fire department will come back to us. >> we're adding that in the new
3:45 pm
resolution. >> is that clearly stated or i can live with that. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. it was clearly stated to clarify when it comes back to the board it will not be asking the board for the recommissioning but the additional accuse is requiring the fire department to come back to the board with a report. that's the amendment >> i'm fine. >> just for clarity. i do think that and this may need to be done separately it's appropriate we voluntary that discussion when the new boat is basically open it's way and delivered and being used and the kings being worked out that's an
3:46 pm
appropriate discussion we the board of supervisors as to whether or not it's appropriate to maintain 3 boats or reduce it to two maybe we need to do that as a separate item and i'm happy to work with the city attorney's office to draft the legislation in order to bring that before you at the later date >> we'll have our budgetary progress to approve that when the time is right. so we have one amendment passed by supervisor breed it's one more amendment saying to the fire department will report back upon delivery of the third boat and to continue the operations. can i have a motion to accept that. motion and second we'll take that without objection. >> so moved. >> so can i have a motion to
3:47 pm
send those to the full board. >> mr. chair, i'd like to request that the board have the motion before tomorrow morning. >> okay. thank you. mr. clerk >> can you call item 8 please. item 8 is declaring the city for certain expenditures authorizing the mayor's office to submit an application to the allocation committee to have the mortgage revenue bonds nationwide to 14 million for the mission bay block west. >> okay. thank you very much. please come on up >> good afternoon chair farrell i'm pam. i'm the development specialist
3:48 pm
in 9 community development and infrastructure it will have the bond precedes related to the mission bay south 7 west on 1301 mission bay lp xheepd of the chinatown community development center is the project sponsor. when complete that will be a 2 hundred unit single-family homes with two bedroom and one bedroom unit the unit will be targeting to houses with no more than 50 percent of the medium area income. those translations don't require the city to pledge reup to that
3:49 pm
time of the bond we anticipate getting giving those to the committee in just like if awarded we'll return to the board of supervisors to issue the bond with the construction anticipated to begin shortly thereafter, n either in early or late 2016. i have whitney jones here we appreciate our approval and that that concludes my presentation. i'm available to a answer questions >> thank you very much colleagues, any questions for the occ staff anyone wishing to comment on item 8 seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can i have a motion to send this forward we'll take that without objection.. okay mrshlg item 899 is >> the the resolution authorizing sfmta for the, llc
3:50 pm
for a term gossiping in 2018 and ending in 2019 for 85 million over the terms of the contract. >> welcome back mrs. reiskin the floor is yours. >> thank you edward reiskin director of transportation. if this is for turgdz on vehicles and real estate it's a result of the competitive process much the same terms asia the contract we have in place and the winning contractor is the same the minimal guarantee so the guaranteed revenues to the mta is greater than than the previous agreement and one difference i think go of interest is our current distract
3:51 pm
allows up to 15 contracts that will allow up to thirty wraps with my approval. i guess i'll say and i know there's been concern on the issue is generally those revenues are extremely important to the agencies there are things people want us to address the affordability issue this is a way to not go into the pocket of san franciscans whether people paying for parking or other means it is our responsibility to use our assets to be able to generate revenue when they have that ability. in terms of the wraps i know has on a sensitive issue we have more than 5 thousand vehicles we have cable cars and streetcars
3:52 pm
not boats. thirty 15 and thirty is a small percentage of a thousand there are fortune 50 wraps sometimes during the holidays with having we have more than 15 but to bring that revenue in the technology of the wraps is getting better to see out then to see in. i will provide information the muni logo is not obstructed by the wraps that was raised and the option for video technology something we've not used the technology frankly isn't there but with contract extension it could go into the point that he might want to have that it's a
3:53 pm
revenue generating revenue. i'm respectfully asking you to approve that those are important revenues and those are revenues that's not coming out of the pocket of san franciscans. our contract manager gail is here to answer any difficult questions i'm at our disposal otherwise >> thank you director reiskin. supervisor breed >> i'm the sponsor for this item i do not like being being the director of this i rather have those buses painted but i'm sympathetic to the critics
3:54 pm
at&t's and the folks from san francisco beautiful we require titan to install art in our billboards to pay for some of the expenses i think it is good we should remove the billboard language but i support this contract and approving that as is and alleyway the flexibility of increasing it from 15 to thirty buses. mta estimates it will need $20 million more a year in its operating budgets. the expansion of free muni something voted by many of us on the board will cost mundz operating budget about 9 million and fee sunday parking meters is 11 million not counting for the
3:55 pm
vision that will cost another $40 million a year. the budget and analyst contract guarantees thirty miles to the mta over 5 years this is a $6 million per year. $6 million can pay for free muni for seniors or buy new trains. where aren't to the wrap i don't like them but they provide 3 hundred 25 thousand per year that's equal to hiring engineers and 3 hundred and 25 thousand is a minimum they typically generate been 8 hundred thousand a year depending on demand setting a maximum of thirty didn't mean there will be thirty
3:56 pm
wraps at a time the calendar year there's been only 2 and 7 wraps except urging the holiday skaen season when the demand is up. this is not about giving the flexibility to offset the policy decisions we in this room have made but about tradeoffs they have consequences there is a give and take here. that's why i'm pushing is if we want free muni for 18-years old and disregarded and the citizens if we want the 12 percent increase in t t p there are tradeoffs. we have to be willing to support things and make those policy decisions possible for us to advocate cutting muni's budget
3:57 pm
what kind that simultaneously regretting the contracts that is insistent and unfair for the people that don't think muni they suffer with muni's budget is in the red and when certify is cut because there's no money to do anything about it. and as i said i'm not a fan of the wrap. as a former art center director i this or had to snvnt deal with the where a i will say 70 percent of the time i didn't like the artwork at all swlaefrs but with your a place to give artists the opportunity to showcase their work that's not my sole decision to allow that in this case because of the revenue tied to it and the small
3:58 pm
amount of our fleets that's implicated were i ask you colleagues to seriously take into account especially, if we are seriously looking at free muni for the citizens and dedicated folks and >> i only have my voted i didn't vote so far time contracts before in 2011 because i asked for the wraps to be removed and they were not removed so i had not moved forward with the current contract i didn't want the wrapdz they were not removed if removed $245,000 a contract
3:59 pm
beyond $30 million donate not a lot of money every year it's unfair to characterize is as a false trade off i'm the only supervisor that came to the board meeting and asked them not to repel the sunday metering it doesn't make sense to take it away and the sky didn't fall, in fact, by repiling the sunday metering we put a hole in the budgeted that made it difficult to build new muni programs by free muni for young people and people with sdarldz that i'm alarmed i had a conversation with mta staff in any office
4:00 pm
they told me they were going to go from thirty to 15 and talking take some but i'm concerned be that's not moving forward. whether you have the ability to look out the window or not i think that the wraps are actually going to provide diminishing sites but what to present to the world in terms of what muni is about to have a bus wrapped in mcdonald adds is entirely making the city look bad it's cheap money from what you get out of the advertising it cheap evens the rides i i couldn't for the contract to be renegotiated i didn't think that's unbe reasonable to ask especially the portion of the