tv BOS Budget and Finance Committee 101415 SFGTV October 19, 2015 9:30am-10:01am PDT
i think both of us really believe the death penalty is wrong, and is flawed for many reasons. the list is as long as my arm -- about several others. we feel this is important for both of us, personally, to participate in the debate of this issue in a way that we can help people frame it for a conversation.
>> good morning, everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors, budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday, october, 14, 2014, my name is mark farrell and i am joined by katie tang and i would like to thank sfgtv for covering the meeting for today. >> do we have any announcements. >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices completed speaker cards and any documents to be completed, should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be appearing on the 2014, board of agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> could you call item one? >> resolution, authorizing designated city and county officials to execute and file on behalf of the city and
county san francisco aks necessary for the purpose of obtaining state and federal finance assistance under the various grant programs. >> my name is christian, hogan and i am the manager with the san francisco department of emergency management and the legislation that you have before you today is a governing body resolution, authorizing the city and county of san francisco to apply for this year's home land security grant. and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have about this resolution. >> okay. thanks very much. >> seeing no questions, we do not have a budget analyst report on this. so move on to budget comment. anybody wish to comment on item one? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you. >> thanks for coming before us. >> and supervisor tang? >> all right, well i am happy to move this forward. i know that this is something that we consistently participate in and so, i would be happy to move this forward with a positive recommendation for the full board. >> we have a motion by
supervisor tang and we can take that without objection. >> could you call item two, please? >> i want to note that item 150945 was recommended to the full board with supervisor mar absent. >> next, item two, resolution approving an amendment to the agreement of the department of public health and the bay view hunters point foundation, of the community improvement and increasing by 17 million for a total of 46 million. >> okay, thanks and i know that we have dph here to speak. >> perfect timing. hi, i'm michelle rukels public health department. and so, we are in agreement with the recommendations, by the budget analyst office. this is a long standing contract that provides mental health substance abuse and within substance abuse methadone services so we don't want to have a break in
services while we are completing the process of determining the best service mix to meet the requirements of the affordable care act and then a recent federal waiver that was given to california with respect to how the substance abuse services are organized. >> okay. thank you very much. >> i see no questions, mr. rose, sorry supervisor, taning? >> thank you. i don't see any problems with this particular resolution. but i just wanted to see if you might also talk a little bit more high level in terms of you know the changes coming under with the aca. i know that we are granting your extension to figure out how some of the local programs can operate, given some of the changes with the aca. and so i don't know if you want to speak about the efforts in that. >> so the department of public health spent a couple of years, more than than and it is
ongoing. and we are configuring our civil services in order to create, the san francisco health network, which is an integrated service, delivery system. so that you could choose the health network as your provider, and your delivery system. and so although the work was very much internal. and but we have over 250 million dollars worth of contract services, and so now we are doing, that process, to see how those services can best support the civil service clinics and specifically the primary care clinics. so we are doing focus groups. and we know what some of the, and we know that there are specific requirements, for example, under aca. eventually, you will be, reimbursed, based on out comes that will not just be on the number of units delivered. and we have to do, utilization review and there is a lot of case management and care coordination, that we don't have the capacity within just
the civil service to insure that that is spread throughout the system, but we want everyone to have care management. so how do we best utilize the contract agencies, and to do that, and what does it mean in terms of changing definitions? changing requirements? and changing maybe, where services are provided. and maybe right now, it is in their own site, but maybe they will be providing groups on sight and in the primary care so that the people don't get lost, as at the get a referral out. and then the state wave, it is a federal waiver that the state of california provided to change how the substance abuse services are delivered. they are trying to achieve parody and insure that the services are stream lined and coordinated. so we are becoming a substance abuse plan. like we have a mental health plan as well. so i don't know, if that.
>> and i appreciate just, again, very high level of review. kind whaf is to come. and understand that we have to approve thesing extensions so that we can continue to figure it out. >> and also, i will just say you will be getting in the next month, a whole bunch of them. the extension is the outside. we believe that we will have rfps going through the process but we don't know which order, which the outside date. >> great, thank you so much for that. >> okay, mr. rose, could we go to your report please? >> yes. mr. chairman, members of the committee on page, 3 of our report, we note that based on the actual and projected expenditures from july, first to 2010, to 2017, requested not-to-exceed amount of 46.4 million should be reduced by 4 million, to a total amount of
the amount of $41,647,000 and that is on table two of the sxrpt so the recommendations on the bottom of page 4 is to amend the proposed recommendation to reduce the not-to-exceed amount by 4 million. and we recommend that you approve this proposed resolution as amended. >> thank you very much, nr rose. seeing no questions, we will move on to public comment. >> anybody wish to comment on item two? >> (inaudible)
>> okay, and anybody else wish to comment on item number two? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. okay we have a recommendation by the budget analyst to reduce the not-to-exceed amount. >> yeah, through the chair we make a motion to accept the budget, and to send forward to the full board with the positive recommendation. >> we have a motion by supervisor tang and take that without objection. >> that motion is passed with supervisor mar being absent today. >> and okay, mr. clerk, could you please call item number three? >> item three, resolution approving the amended and restated memo of understanding with the metropolitan transportation commission, and other bay area transit agents for the future governor ans and
operation of the cliper program through june of 2025. >> thank you very much, and have anybody to speak on this item. >> good morning, and diana sfmta the item before you revises the current memo of understanding between the transportation and the 21 par participating transit agencies in the cliper fair payment system. includes, revisions to the cost allocations and 2.1 million in credit card and banking fees for the cliper purchases, at the ticket vending machines that are absorbed by the agencies, the most significant chance, is the establishment of the eight member, executive board, including representatives from eight agency and mtc. and it will be responsible for evaluating performance goals and a work plan and a budget and the approval of all matters suspected to have a fiscal
operating impact. under the current mlu and retains, sole authority for all of these. >> it comes for the region to develop the requirements for the next generation, cliper system and will enhance the agencis in this planning process and i am happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor, tang. >> thank you very much. >> over all, i do agree with this change. i wanted to see if you can speak a little bit to the additional cost that mta will be absorbing because of this change? so roughly 730,000 and if you could explain a little bit about, why there is this increase? >> yes. so as a mentioned the majority of that cost, is approximately, $700,000 a year, comes from the inclusion of bart and bta, credit card and banking fees. that are associated with their ticket vending machine, purchases for cliper.
currently, the mta, our costs for these, at our ticket vending machines in the metro vending machines were already allocated because they were purchased as part of the contract and bta and bart because they added those to the existing tbm and those are operating on the separate gateway and for the gateway, they agree that the costs because they are regional costs because they will be allocated accordingly. and approximately, the $30,000 of the other part of that increase, comes from the agencies agreement to pay a portion of the cliper executive director's position. this is an mtc, position. currently, but, the mlu, allows for that to change at any time that the executive board is interested in making that change. and that reflects about 50 percent of the salary. and then, mtcs, i am sorry, sfmta 33 percent allocation that have cost.
>> thank you. >> and you know, over all, i really agree with the establishing the executive board, that takes more into consideration, all of the various agencies. and i mean, that i know that there are many more that participate and use cliper. but in terms of having it broader than just the mtc, i think that it is actually a really good idea. and this particular mlu, would be extended until, 2025, if approved today. and so i am wondering if you could speak a little bit about, you know, with the up coming potential changes in technology and how it is that we can continue to create a better service and experience for customers that what is this new mlu agreement allow for and how does it effect to achieve that. >> sure. so the mlu itself is extending to 2025, the current contract with cubic transportation systems the contract holder for cliper, expires in 2019. so, really those two piece to
this mlu, one is the government's portion, which i mentioned establishes an executive board and provides a process for the decision making. and it was the interest of the transit agencies and the mtc to insure that continues passed who ever is the vendor, for the new contract, that is going to be awarded. the appendix b, which is the cost allocation, form law is tied to the current contract with cubit and so it is understood by all of the parties that even though the mlu terms to 2025, we will have to come back to the board of supervisors when the contract is awarded because the changes to the appendix b will require additional approval. >> not so much a question, but i do like that it includes the performance standards, with the goals of ex-expanding the electronic payment to all modes of transportation and enhance, access to the customers for the
value which i know that we discussed yesterday, about how customers would like to, if they are loading funding on to the card, on-line. if they can do so. and see it, immediately? and establishing consistent fare category and discounts and improving the operation, integration for the system. and i am glad that all of that is in this current mlu. actually kind of surprised that was not in the current one, i am sure that we are learning from the past experiences and making it better for the future. and so, again, over all, and i am very supportive of this, and i want to see how we can continue to improve the customer experience, using clip , or whatever else is to come. >> colleagues, okay, any more questions? >> seeing none, could we go to your report on item three. >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on the bottom of the report, we note that the cliper administrative cost paid by the mta from the fiscal 2011, to
14, was 14 million and and under the proposed third amendment, the mta estimates that they are sure of the cliper program, and the administrative costs will increase by 2.4 million or from 28.1 million to 30.5 million. and that is over the period for july, first 2015, through june, 30, 2019 and, that is shown in table two on page nine of our report and we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you very much, mr. rose. colleagues, no other questions, and we will move on to public comment and anybody wish to comment on three. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor tang? >> all right, take a motion then to approve this resolution, and send it forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay, a motion by supervisor tang and we can take that without objection. >> mr. clerk, could you call item four? >> item four, resolution
approving the issuance of the bonds, in the amount not-to-exceed, $7 million to finance and refinance, various capitol facilities owned by the mission resources center llc. >> okay. good morning, thank you for considering the item today, my name is vetty from the controller's office and also, here, in case you have any questions on the project, i have caroline from the mission, economic development agency. representing the applicant. just to give you a background on the proposed issuance that the tax equity and fiscal responsibility act allows the tax exemption of interest on the certain types of debt issued through the california, enterprise, development authority, which is the joint, powers authority to which the city and county of san francisco is a participating member, the authorities are authorized to issue the bonds and debt. and the federal tax law, requires that the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the project is located approve the financing, and the project. and after providing the
opportunity for dually noticed public hearing before the bonds can be issued on a tax exempt basis. in this case, in the city of san francisco is not obligated for the payments on the bonds and so therefore the approval will no fiscal impact on the city of san francisco. the hearing notices in the san francisco examiner, and the public hearing was held at the office of public finance here at city hall on september third, and no comments from the members of the public were heard. and the purpose of these bonds, in the amount not-to-exceed, $7 million, is to finance and refinance, the cost of acquisition and rehabilitation and improvement, and installation of equipping of the real property and improvements at 2301, mission street, in san francisco, and 21,000, multistory commercial building and which is known as the facilities in the legislation. and to pay accountser certain costs with the obligations. these will be owned by the
borrower and leased by the agency which is a non-profit public benefit corporation, 501 c3, organization whose mission is to achieve economic justice, for san francisco's low and moderate income families supporting the individuals and families develop and accumulate and machine, the personal and the material assets. mission economic development agency has been in san francisco, since 1973, and the community, and economic development corporation, located in the mission district. and they help the families open, and improve the small businesses and purchase the homes and prevent, foreclosure and both the credit and savings, and access technology and find sustaining jobs and the works improve, the economic, and social conditions for the san francisco low and moderate residents with primarily, latino families as the constituents and the project is located in 69 and the legislation is sponsored by
campos. >> do you have any questions. >> any questions on item four? >> okay. we have no budget, analyst report and so we will move on to public comment, does anybody wish to comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues could i have a motion to move this forward. >> we move it forward. >> motioned by supervisor mar and we can take that without objection. >> could you call item five. >> resolution, approving three emergency public works contracts with the services, and alta, and sierra, detentions to design and upgrade the electronic security system for the county jails number 1 and 2, with the total contracts not-to-exceed, 1,116,047. >> okay, thanks. dpw here? >> good morning, public works and the contract administrations i just want to say that we agree with the budget analyst recommendation, if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer. >> i guess, i just have one
question. we got this about nine months later. so look, in opposition, here, we are stuck with this and it has been done and we are very much backed into the corner and it is not that these things don't occur. but 9 months later. could you --. >> yeah, we realize that this has happened more than once in the past year. and to be honest, there is a new code requirement in chapter 6 that we are required to report to the board within 60 days. and when these and other emergencies happen in the past year, to be fully honest, for the department is more concerned with geting the work engaging the contractors and negotiating the prices performing the work, and it was not a consideration for us to turn around and report to the board, we realize that was an error and, we fully agree with the new policy and the new law. and we have committed to meeting that 60 day, and exceeding and bettering that requirement. it is just when these contract and this is the last of athlete that we have had in the past
year, when these krts were issued that was not a requirement of law. >> okay. >> i am hearing from you that this is the last one that we will see. >> okay. >> i will take that. >> okay. >> supervisor taning. >> i am not sure if this is a question for you or someone from the sheriff's department, but it appears that the incident had occurred, in august of 2014. the work was completed one year later in 2015. and so i am just wondering what happened during that time frame then? were there no security cameras in the jails one and two. >> no, the sheriff's maintenance staff, as soon as the failure occurred back in august of 2014, they did do some minor repairs just to get it, a radio shack solution to get the basic functionality, but it was not fully compliant with the state and federal codes, which is why the public works is engaged to do a more
comprehensive repair and so we declared that the emergency in november of 2014 and issued a notice to proceed right away. since november, the work has been ongoing. and we did wrap it all up in august of this past 2015. >> okay. thank you. >> okay, thanks very much, mr. rose, your report on item five? >> yes on page 13 of the report and table one, and that shows a break down of the total contract costs of $1 million, 116,047 and that is for the full design, and repair and upgrade as well as providing the related support services for the electronic security systems, at the jails, one and two. and on the bottom of page, 13. we know that subsequent to this subject and emergency as you know and it has been discussed the board of supervisors approved at mendments requiring the emergency, contracts effective on august, first,
2015. that is when the board approved that, and legislation and, if the estimated cost of the emergency exceeds, $250,000, now the proposed resolutions approving the determinations must be submitted to the board within 60 days. on page 14 of our report, we note that the electronic and security systems in jails, 1 and 2, failed on august, 11, 2014, and the emergencies were declared on the 21st, and as was stated here this morning, the legislation, is not submitted for the board for over, 9 months. this is, we note that this is the third emergency resolution, in the past year, that was delayed, due to the misunderstandings on the part of other city department and agencies regarding who has jurisdiction for declaring the emergency and for procuring the emergency, necessary contracts and so we made a recommendation on the bottom of page 14, where
we recommend that you amend, the proposed resolution to urge the department of public works to work with the city attorney's office to immediately issue a memo to all of the city departments under the jurisdiction, regarding the specific procedures to follow, and if an emergency arrives in the future and we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. >> thank you very much. >> and any further questions? >> okay, we will move on to public comment, on item 5, anybody wish to comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> chair, all right, so i think that chair farrell made his points clear as well as the budget analyst. and so i would like to accept that recommendation, that the city attorney office issues the memo, so that all city departments are clear on the procedures. for the future. and then adopt the amended resolution, to with the positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay. >> thank you, we have a motion by supervisor tang and we can take that without objection.
>> okay. >> sorry, the budget analyst, the deputy, and the budget analyst recommendation is that the dpw work with the office to craft a memo that will go out from dpw to the all of the departments about the process. and so, just wanted to make sure that that is your intent. >> yes tha, is. thank you. >> thank you for the clarification. >> all right. >> it will be providing the revised legislation to me? >> the public works. >> i will need that by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. >> understood. >> thank you. >> mr. clerk, could you call item 6? >> item 6, ordinance aappropriate ating $5 million from the waste water, enterprise, designated for the general reserves in the public utilities commission waste water enterprise to pay the claims and settlements and legal expenses and related costs due to the extraordinary expenses occurred as the result of the 2014, rain storms. >> thank you, puc is here. >> carlos, with the budget director and before su a waste,
water supplimental in the 5 million dollars to fund, the plane settlements and the litigation costs. >> and could you put the microphone down. >> sure. >> again, five million dollars to fund plain settlements and the expenses associated with the december, 2014 storm. and the funding source is the waste water, general reserve, appropriation and my colleagues and i are here, and you know, available for you, and to answer any questions that you may have on this item. >> okay, thank you, supervisor tang. >> thank you very much. and so, i know that from the supporting documents that we know that there have been many claims filed already. and there is still opportunity for more claims to be filed. can you just talk a little bit more about that? >> yes that is my understanding, supervisor. >> and perhaps, the city attorney can -- john? >> deputies, the attorney john.
and the limitations for the property related claims and ends in december and it is possible that more claims could be filed, before that date. and i am not entirely sure, how many will be anticipated but still it will open. >> and so far t looks like we have already paid out over 2 million dollars in terms of some of the claims, >> that is correct. we basically have paid out, over all of the 6 million dollars, of the last six months. >> okay. >> and then, in terms of i mean that i know that there is potentially the future, you know, storms coming or whatnot. could you describe a little bit about what puc is doing in terms of making sure that this does not happen again, or that we are able to really take preventive measures? >> i will -- and captain and --. >> good morning, supervisors cathy with the sfpuc. and we are doing, and looking at hot spots in terms of cleaning the catch basins for this winter, and there is about
700 and the hot spots where we have to keep an eye on the catch basins and we are also looking at short term solutions and then also, long term capitol projects potentially for some of these problem areas. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> mr. rose? >> could we go to your report please, on item six? >> yes, mr. chairman. and members of the committee, on the bottom of page, 16. we report that the five million requested amount was based on the estimated costs for the additional claims settlements and related expenses and according to the puc, the water enterprises 14, 15, and 15, 16 budgets had 160,000 dollars per year for claims and judgments and that is fully extended. this requested appropriation of 5 million will increase the water, needed for the general reserve account from $6 million, to $1 million. and we recommend that you
approve this proposed ordinance. >> thank you mr. rose. >> and colleagues any questions sf okay we will move on to public comment. >> anybody wish to comment in seeing none public comment is closed. >> motion to send this forward >> so moved. >> from supervisor mar. >> approved. >> that completes the agenda for today, thank you everyone, we are adjourned. >>