Skip to main content

tv   LIVE BOS Budget and Finance Committee  SFGTV  December 7, 2016 10:00am-1:01pm PST

10:00 am
10:01 am
10:02 am
10:03 am
10:04 am
10:05 am
10:06 am
10:07 am
10:08 am
10:09 am
>> okay, good morning, everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday, december 7th, 2016, my name is mark, and i will be chair thanksgivi ing this committee and we will be joined by vice committee member and, supervisor katie tang and i would like to thank sfgtv for covering this meeting as well as the clerk of the committee, do you have any
10:10 am
announcements? >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices completed speaker cards and copies of any documents to be included as part of the filed should be submitted to the clerk, today will appear on the december, 13th, board of supervisor's agenda, unless otherwise stated. ? ethank you, and colleagues, and everybody from the audience, we have a long agenda, as is the annual tradition, before the holiday break, in order to accommodate the schedules we are going to make a few changes. so item 19 is going to be called out of order by 11:30, and item 17 will be called after 11:30. >> and also, in the beginning here, madam clerk, could you call, item 18, please? >> item 18, here activation of the three publicly owned buildings, in 60, 11, 35, and
10:11 am
45, and including activation and construction time line and, budget is sources of revenue and potential partner and development options and requesting the office and economic development and real estate division and recreation park department to report. >> thank you. >> and supervisor, yee, at the request of the sponsor we are going to continue this item to next week's meeting, before that we will take public comment. anybody wish to comment on item 18? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. with he have permission to kopt this item to next week's budget meeting? >> go ahead and make that motion. >> okay. >> motion by supervisored yee. the december, 14th? >> december, 14th. >> motioned by yee. >> december, 14th. >> and we can take that without objection. >> with that let's get started on the top. >> could you call item one? resolution of retroactively
10:12 am
authorizing the department of environment to accept and expend the grant funds from the oh, of the bay area governments. >> the department has three items before you and none of them should be unfamiliar to you. and the first item is, accept and expand in the amount of 201, 000 and it is augmentation to a program that this committee and supervisors previously approved the bay, rent, program. and targeting the multi family buildings, and our goal in this program is to upgrade, and at least, 2,000 units by october, 31, 2007, and the success so far, at the department is we have already current program,
10:13 am
have assessed 16,000 units in san francisco at over, 243 sites and provided 4.4, million in rebates and, this additional money will continue the program, through, october, 2017, happy to answer any additional questions you may have on this item. >> thank you very much. supervisor yee any questions? >> no questions. >> and no report and so we will open up one to public comment? >> anyone wish to comment in >> seeing nothing, public comment is closed. >> make a motion to pass this out of committee with the positive recommendation to the board? >> okay, looks like supervisor yee, and you can take that without objection. >> and clerk will you call item two? >> resolution, of the environment and to accept and expand a grant in the amount of approximately, 250,000 from the united states.
10:14 am
for the electric vehicles in san francisco and in the greater bay area for october, 1, through, december, 30, 2018. >> welcome back. >> thank you supervisors. >> this item also, accept and expend san francisco is designated as a climate champion, for the white house, to apply for additional funds but the department of energy and we applied to advance the fuel, cell electric vehicles in the infrastructure and this project in particular will provide the in the region to align with the permitting agency to develop common standards in the region, and facilities, and we also are planning to increase, community awarene
10:15 am
awareness. we appreciate the city agencies that have helped to expedite, the acceptance of this in the department of energy in washington so that we can secure this fwrant for the city quickly, thank you. >> see no questions, we will move on to our report. good morning, chair, and member of the committees shgs and this grant does require a matching funds to have the matching funds and the department has provided a match of 250,000 and most of this comes from two grants that they received from the grant and 5,000 in inkind rgs services from the department of planning and recommend approval. >> seeing no questions, we will open up two to public comment.
10:16 am
>> anybody wish to comment on two? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you. >> first of all congratulations to you, and i would like to pass this out to the board with a positive recommendation. >> okay >> could you call item three. >> and authorizing the department of the environment to accept and expand a grant in the amount of approximately, 20 million for the public utility commission >> the board of supervisors has seen before and we have been running the energy, watch program in san francisco for eleven years, now. and this grant and agreement with pacific gas and electric will allow us to extend the
10:17 am
program for an additional three years. and at approximately 20.7 million and again, i remind this committee that the grant through pg& e is provided under the guidance of the california public utilities commission, in which all customers pay into a public goods charge, in san francisco. benefit frz that, by implementing our energy watch program. and the energy watch program specifically targeting the commercial and multifamily sector and in the commercial area, specifically focused on the small and medium sized businesses to provide a range of services in order to upgrade the facilities. since the department started, the program, eleven years ago, we have completed well over 7,000 projects in san francisco, and provided the businesses and property owners, with a little over 24 million in rebates and increases and we have saved, over $30,000, of electricity and
10:18 am
then, provided much more opportunities and bill savings for businesses, and residents in san francisco. and this aand e, allows us to continue to do that through, 2018. >> and we ask for your favorable support. >> thank you, mr. rodriguez. >> seeing no questions, or comments, no report, move to public comment, and anybody wish to comment on item three? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and the motion to pass this on to the committee with the positive recommendation to the full board. >> motioned by supervisor yee, and we can take that without objection. will you call item four. >> item four, authorizing the san francisco utility general manag
10:19 am
manager. here to request the grant funds for the water research foundation and the u.s. bureau of reclamation and the water environment and research foundation. and for an eight month, pilot research project and this is exciting for us, and it is basically to research the reliability of using the most advanced treatment, and technology to produce, drinking water. and since 2012, we have been operating successfully operating a waste water treatment facility within our own headquarters, building here in san francisco. and taking the waste water treated in the building, and using it for toilet flushing, what this project would do, is basically it would be a research effort, to add advanced treatment technology, take a side stream of the fone, that is
10:20 am
currently produced in the building and test it, and blend it back for the toilet flushing in the building and theyed is that we can contribute to the bo growing body of research, that is out there on developing the purified water, for emergencies and other situations. and we are very excited because there aren't regulations in place for california yet, for this type of purified water application, and like to contribute to that. and i think that we have a unique opportunity to do that with this project. we have seen a lot of support for this project throughout this state and for the federal government and we hope that you will accept and help us to accept this grant award. >> okay. thank you very much. >> seeing no questions, we will open this item up to public comment and anybody wish to comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor yee? >> we don't have the bla report on this. >> we do?
10:21 am
>> my apologies. >> and here, and could we go forward with the report? >> i will be quick, this grant will require, the 400,000 in matching funds for the total budget of 800,000, and the matching funds comes from the puc, enterprise, capitol program, and 300,000 and 100,000 in puc in kind services and we do recommend approvapproval. >> thank you. >> with that supervisor, yee. >> now i could do --. >> and i will make a motion to pass this out of committee with the positive recommendation to the pull board. >> thank you, and we will take it without objection. >> call five. resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute a master license agreement for use of concrete poles between the city and county of san francisco and extenet systems, llc, new cingular wireless pcs, llc, dba at&t, and gte mobilnet of california, lp, dba verizon wireless for a term of 12 years to commence following board approv approval. >> thank you very much, puc here to speak? >> on item five?
10:22 am
san francisco, public utility commits, and i am here today to ask you to approve the master license agreement with the poles with the three carriers, with ver isdon, and at& t, and between, 2014, and july of this year, you have approved you have approved the master licenses for steel poles. this agreement is specific to concrete poles. and so, the facility purpose is essentially to expand, coverage for wireless coverage, allowing all of us to use more data capacity, and other data capacity throughout the city. and the equipment that will be
10:23 am
placed on the poles to microradio units along with an shroded, antenna on top of the existing street light poles, to date, we have approved previously in these prior approvals used to the agreeme s agreements. the license ee is required to install of the agreement, and each pole license site is renewed and issued as an amendment to the agreement and it is a 12 year term. the pole license fee is the same. and in 2016, that is 44,160, the license installed for the four strains of fiber for the city
10:24 am
use and there are detailed procedures for the review, and the approval from the puc perspective, as well. and the department reviews for the concerns. >> could i ask you the questions, i want to give them a ton is the cluttering of these poles and the concern if we are going to put out the new equipment and extending it 1,000 percent, but the concern around cluttering, are the people that are putting in the new equipment up there, are required to take down the old equipment that exists right there? >> does this, so, we are only licensing one pole per carrier, and so we would never have more than one carrier's equipment per pole. yes, there are terms in the
10:25 am
agreement that require that they should have to come back and replace old equipment, this he need to seek our approval and part of our approval we would require them to remove any existing equipment. so it would be sort of a one for one replacement. >> but, so if, they are coming into a pole that was previously at& t and maybe that will not happen, but again, my perspective is the cluttering nature of this on the poles, and and making sure that any unused equipment is taken down and it is part of the process that we do that. is that baked in somehow here? >> yes, we can bake that, and it is, it is the specifics are not, but we can bake it in to our agreement. >> you can't bake it into your with agreement. >> yes, and so it is not in there right now. >> no. >> can you do that there will
10:26 am
never be two, in the event that
10:27 am
theyed to replace the radio or the technology evolved and they would be required to come back to us and get our approval to replace one of the radios or both of the radios on the pole. >> it is on a first come first serve basis, and after we developed this agreement, we
10:28 am
advertised the opportunity for carriers to sign the agreement, and in the newspaper, and we put on, and that is why we have three carriers here today, and they recognized this opportunity, we put up on our website any poles that have already been licensed or in the process of being licensed. so that carriers know which poles are taken. and then, after that, it's on a first come first serve basis. >> so can you walk me through, assuming that today will go to the full board next week and this is an ordinance will come into effect in january. >> this is an ordinance. >> i am sorry, a resolution chl
10:29 am
>> okay, so let's just say that it is approved by next tuesday, which is the 13th. could you walk me through the approval process about, when are the people or when could they be expected to see work being done on this or see these to the effect and what is the time line, what is the earliest construction date that i could say? >> after the mayor signs the resolution, the general manager will sign the actual agreement and there after
10:30 am
>> my understanding is that is a two to three month, process, and so we are looking at probably the earliest of june of 2017. >> okay, for some reason, and you could buy it and they were going to have the holiday light poles being decorated this year, with the new things, and so that is not even the realm of possibility. >> not for the concrete poles. >> okay, okay. >> all right, calling you on the questions at this point, we do have a bla report, why don't we go to that. >> and yes, revenues on page, 14 of our report, and the first year of revenues are estimated to be between, 400,000, and 473,000. and if you are depending on the 55 poles or 65 poles and licensed, and over the 12 year term of the agreement, and puc total revenue will be between, 4
10:31 am
million and 5.1 million. the revenues generated will be the puc street light program and so we are recommending the amendment to implement the same requirement that any revenues generate going into the street light program. >> okay, thank you very much. >> the quick question for you, the puc, then, can we talk about the restrictions and the use and the respondents. and then, within that is there any consideration being given to undergrounding in that. >> so hail, assistant manager for power, we understand that the board direction or we are urging of the puc to use these funds for the street light program to not include undergrounding. the undergrounding program that the city engages in through the department of public works is part of a california public
10:32 am
utilities commission regulated process, that pg& e as the owner of the above ground poles, implement. and so the funds that are used for undergrounding are collected by pg& e, from electric rate payers. i pdz kind of the existing program and i understand that and i think that supervisor tang has taken the lead on this issue as well, that we have prespent a lot of funds that we will not be spending in san francisco, is there any reason that we don't use these funds to do that as well?
10:33 am
it could be programmed for other uses and the undergrounding, and using them to underground would be the city using city revenues to underground private utilities facilities. and so, they are not our facilities that we are talking about undergrounding. the city does not own the facilities that it would be undergrounded, with these dollars if i'm understanding the scenario that you are suggesting. >> right, here we are putting up new wireless antenna, which, again, i fully support. and i love the bird in the picture, though, by the way. but in terms of the use of those funds, what we hear a lot from the con stit you ants is from undergrounding, look a block or two of residents can come
10:34 am
togeth together. so for the city owned distribution and generation, and those are the sorts of things that we typically spend the revenues that puc power receives from it's activities. capitol, in our capitol program, we also include the street lights capitol, and improvements, and so when the
10:35 am
board urged the use of the funds for street lights, that was compatible with the policy direction from my commission on the use of funds. and so, undergrounding of access owned by the private telecommunications and electric, utilities that operate in san francisco were not typically funded by revenues the city generates through its power operations. it duntd mean that you can't direct one that urges us, our practice has been to spend the revenues generated from our operations on operation and maintenance of the facilities where we are responsible for like our power system, and like our street light system. >> okay. >> okay. >> got you. any other questions? we will move on to public comment, anybody wish to comment
10:36 am
on item five? we do have a budget analyst recommendation, i will make a motion to accept, and to pass the amended resolution to the full board with the positive recommendation. >> okay. >> motioned by supervisor yee, and secondedly tang and we can take that without objection. >> will you call item six? >>ordinance amending the administrative code to modify the fines and fees of the public library. >> i am here on behalf of the city librarian and i do have a powerpoint to share today.
10:37 am
a number of our policy and procedures as part of the patron focuses effects to deliver, the service excellence, and the goals of the proposed revisions today is to reduce the barriers to access, and standardize, overdue, fines and fees, and enhance some services, and clean up some minor clerical changes for the fines and fees, and in order to improve the access to the library services, the library recommends to stop charging the patron to replace the library card, this is encured after a patron loses their card or request a new card, under the current schedule, the children are charged 50 cents and adults are charged one dollar, the library also recommend to eliminate the
10:38 am
$5 fee assessed on top of the replacement fee, that the patrons already have to pay for the lost or the damaged items. >> the library strives to be accessible for all, and eliminating the $3, books by mail fee. and this service is extended to individuals who are unable to get to a physical library location to check out materials and is designed to cover the cost of postage, which the library is prepared to absorb. >> just a question, do you have to prove that you can't get to the library, how does that wooshg. >> and i'm just thinking out loud here. >> do we turn to amazon prime here? and open up the library books? >> that is an excellent, question. our access services department which includes the library for the blind and the print disabled and the deaf services center, we do have a librarian team that vets these applications that come in. overwhelmingly, there are all approved and i can't even
10:39 am
imagine if one is not approved, we currently have about 90 individuals in the community that rely on this sefrgs. >> okay. >> thanks. >> you are welcome. >> we are also recommending to eliminate the interlibrary loan rush fee and this will reflect the fact that we no longer offer this service, the staff already process every interlibrary loan request. and the library will also like to stop charging fees for the minor damage, that could be atribable to normal wear and tear on collections such as a missing label, and a bar code sticker or a fact media case. >> some of these specific modifications being brought before you today are meant to provide you greater consistency, and under the overdue fines by materials orchestra and music sets, sheet music, would be brought in line with all of the other overdue fines and no longer have a higher fine structure. >> urged replacement of lost materials, the replacement of a lost audio cassette would be
10:40 am
standardized to reflect the same charge for a lost book cassette. under service fees, the return check fee is being updated from $10 to $35, to be in line with guidance from the controllers office, and reflect the cost of the library incurs with banks for this charge. under document delivery and special services, photo copying fees are codifiyed for the enter loan services for out of state, libraries and related to meeting room usage, the library is removing the fee of $35 per hour. and it is a fee that harkens back to a time when the buildings did not have modern fire life safety systems and an, engineer may have been required to stay on site for the duration of an event in a library meeting space. >> some of the new fees, and finds being introduced are to account for new services being offered by the library. and san francisco public library, speaking to address the
10:41 am
digital divide in our community through the equipment loans of lap top commuters and tablets and mobile hot spots and under served households who are not connected to the high speed broadband in their home, and the library is the largest free provider in the community and we already have a successful lap top lending program for equipment use inside of our library locations. and this fiscal year, we are seeking to pilot the loan of hardware, bundled with the connectivity that the patrons could borrow for the three week intervals and take home, the library will keep the same fines, and as charged for the library collections, and the library will insurance tutd a replacement fee for lost or damaged equipment as a deterrent for the irresponsible use, and the replacement fees outlined, are $500 for a lap top, $250 for a tablet, and $50 for a mobile hot spot. the library commission is
10:42 am
proposing this fee structure after examination of bench marking data from other library systems and these fees are not representative of the true procurement cost for replacing this equipment but the library commission is trying to arrive at a fee structure that will detour the individuals from keeping the equipment without being overly punitive. >> these recommendation to eliminate the barriers to access and stream lined fines and fees will be decrease by $22,000 annually with the processing fee being the largest revenue type, the goals of these changes today are multi facetted with the clean up of obsolete, language and introducing fines and fees for new services on the horizon and to provide the greater standardization and consistency, and the library is confident that the although s in revenue will be greatly offset by the improved service to the community. and we greatly appreciate your
10:43 am
consideration of the proposed revisions to the library fines and fee structure and our chief financial officer are more than happy to answer your questions that you may have today. >> thank you, any questions? >> what is the potential loss in revenues here? >> we are looking at a potential loss of 22,000 annually. through these proposed revisions. >> thank you. >> anybody wish to comment on six? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we take it without, objection. will you call 7. >>resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend a grant of up to $100,600 from the surrendered and abandoned vessel exchange (save) grant program
10:44 am
administered by the state of california department of parks and recreation, division of boating and waterways, to abate costs for hauling out and disposal of potential future abandoned vessels in the san francisco marina small craft harbor and approving a grant agreement with the state of california department of parks and recreation for acceptance and performance of the grant services for the project term of january 1, 2017, through september 30, 2018 >> we have had the sunken vessels and we have removed a vessel that has been in a birth under way for many years. and so it took the engine, and the hulk of the vessel and the other things out and, so we are a member of the clean marina program and we are a certificated clean marina
10:45 am
program. >> for the state of california. and so this is the vessels to keep clean and keep the marina clean and so we hope for the approval. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues any questions or comments? >> we will move on to public comment on item 7? anybody wish to comment? >> anything none, public comment is closed. >> make a motion to pass this with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> motioned by yee and seconded by tang and we can take that without objection. will you call eight. >>resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $157,235 from national institutes of health to participate in a program entitled mid-career award in patient-oriented substance use research addressing opioids, chronic pain, and hiv for the period of september 1, 2016, through august 31, 2017. >> the department of public health and as you may be aware, the nation is experiencing an epidemic of opioid addiction,
10:46 am
and this is the mid year career development grant, and that will increase the department expertise in dealing with this issue. and i am happy to answer any other questions, around that. >> okay. colleagues, any questions? >> comments? >> item eight? >> okay. public comment, anybody wish to comment on item eight? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> all right i will take a motion to send the item forward with the full recommendation. >> and thank you, and we can take that without objection. >> madam clerk, will you call nine? >>resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $30,000 from the state water resources control board, division of water quality beach safety program, to participate in a program entitled "public beach safety grant program" for the period of july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2017.
10:47 am
>> this is a grant for our water quality sampling program that we collaborate with the puc on, it is unusual for you to see, accept and expend for less than 100,000, but the requirement of the grant actually compel us to come before you each year. and so i'm happy to answer any questions. anybody wish to comment on item nine? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> the motion to pass this on to the committee. with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> positioned by yee, and seconded by tang and you can take that without objection. >> will you call ten?
10:48 am
>>resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to accept and expend a grant increase of $71,047, for a total amount of $558,933, from centers for disease control and prevention to participate in a program entitled national hiv behavioral surveillance - san francisco for the period of january 1, 2016, through december 31, 2016. >> okay, thanks very much, good morning, supervisors. this grant is actually our 13th year of this grant, where we are monitoring the prevalence in hiv and new infection, over the highest rates in san francisco. and it has been the data generated by this has been invaluable for setting priorities for policy and programming around the hiv prevention and care, and so we urge you to accept this. >> thank you very much. thank you for what you are doing. >> two more questions and we will move on the public comment? >> anybody wish to comment on ten? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i will make a motion to send it forward with a positive recommendation to tfull board. we can take that without
10:49 am
objection. will you call eleven? >>resolution retroactively authorizing the san francisco department of public health to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $213,713 from centers for disease control and prevention to participate in a program entitled, enhancing health resilience to climate change through adaptation for the period of september 1, 2016, through august 31, 2017. >> i work we san francisco department of health, and in the office of policy and planning and we are here to request the resolution to accept and expend, the san francisco public health has been awarded approximately, $213,000 annually, for the health program, and the health impacts of climate change will help us all and will have a greater impact on the disadvantaged communities and the systems which our human life depends on, life, and shelter and food, and in response to the pressing health issue in 2010,
10:50 am
the san francisco department of health, and our health program is working to develop solutions for the healthy and climate ready communities. and we have out reach and training materials for the adoption and effort and this work has received, several important distinctions and it was a bigger of the national institute of health and climate change challenge. and our work was selected for when /* which was presented last year in paris, and our work has been recognized by the white house and incorporated in the u.s. climate tool kit.
10:51 am
the plan builds on the earlier work of program by summarizing the climate health risks and presenting the adaptation and interventions to prepare for those risks and the implementation, and evaluation of these activities will guide the next five years of our climate and health program. and happy to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you. >> colleagues any questions? >> okay, and we will move on to public comment and anybody wish to comment on item eleven? seeing none, public comment is closed. i will go ahead and make a motion to pass this on to the committee with a positive recommend to the full board. >> motioned by yee and tang and take that without objection. >> would you call, item 12? >> 12, resolution authorizing
10:52 am
the fire department to accept and expend a donation of $72,400 to purchase firefighting equipment >> the next item in the donation of 72,400 for the purpose of firefightering equipment and this donation comes from the final distribution of this state and trust of mr. russell pastor for the terms of the trust it is intended to be allocated as specifically for the purchase of firefightering equipment for the department and then the department will insure that it will honor that request, would like to thank him for his generosity and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much, colleagues any questions? >> we will move on to public comment and if you wish to comment on item 12? seeing none, closed. >> a motion to pass this forward to the full board. >> motioned by tang and seconded by yee, and take it without objection, will you call 13?
10:53 am
i am the deputy director of finance and administration for ocii and i'm here to talk to you today about a technical resolution that will support our issuance of bonds to support construction of an affordable housing in the hunter's point shipyard and the candle stick project area. before you today you have resolution, 161242, and this
10:54 am
provides a technical clarification that is necessary to issue the bonds that you approved in the fiscal year, 16, 17, budget to fund affordable housing. so the reason for this action is that as you recall in the f16, t included 185,000 in bond is anses and these are supported by legislation that was passed by the senate and signed by the governor in the fall of 2015. called sb107. and these bonds are being issued in order to support affordable housing. in particularly in affordable housing throughout the city but we are here before you today to particularly talk about the portion of the bonds that is going to support affordable housing in the shipyard and candle stick point about half of the units funded with the bonds are located in candle stick point and i will provide the detail on that in a future
10:55 am
slide, however, as we met with the financing team and we started to go through the legal documents, that we are required to review, and advance of the issuance of the bonds we discovered that there is a provision in the dda which is kind of the foundational document that dictates all of the developments that is inconsistent with the budget, and so today we are representing a technical clarification that is needed to bring the 16, 17, budget in alignment with current redevelopment law, sb 107 and which will facilitate our ability to issue the bonds. >> so as i said, our 16, 17, budget approved by the board last spring includes 185 million in bonds. about 50 million of that is to support infrastructure in the transbay, and 135 million that have is to support, affordable housing, 460 of those will be in candle stick point and you can
10:56 am
see the detail on the location the project, and the estimated units in the table below. now i would like to talk about the pledge agreement that we are providing the clarification on, the shipyard face to the dda, and the disposition and the development agreement and includes subsidiary document that is called the tax allocation agreement. and the tax allocation agreement is oci, agreement with the city on how property tax generated in that project area will be allocated and spent. and there are two terms you should know. the first is the pledge agreement and what that pledge agreement does is pledge all of the property tax that is generated in candle stick point hunter's point shipyard phase two to the furtherance of that particular project area.
10:57 am
we also have the term outside increment and that term refers to any property tax that is generated outside the hunter's point, candle stick phase two area and that outside increment according to the tax allocation pledge agreement is limited and we cannot use property tax generated outside the project area inside the project area. and that creates a challenge for issuing the bonds to fund affordable housing because if we were limited from using that outside increment we would have to depend only on increment that is generated in the project area itself if you have been to the shipyard lately you will see that there is a lot of development to be done and little property tax generated in that area. and so, if we are not able to use outside increment to support the bonding today we are not able to fund the affordable housing until the development starts and then the property tax
10:58 am
begins to be generated and the implement for that is that the market rate housing will be generated well in advance of affordable housing and that would not, and we would like to see those two things generated and developed at the same time to create a more unified project area. >> so why today why now? prior to this, the outside increment limitation that is in the pledge agreement was consistent with the redevelopment law and that is because redevelopment law was designed to preserve funding for redevelopment projects, so, that each project area was supporting itself. however, the solution lifted that limitation and now, all of the property tax generated in the redevelopment project areas goes into a single fund called the redevelopment property tax trust fund or the rpp tf and we use that as the revenue source
10:59 am
and we bond against it and so this limitation and the tax allocation agreement is inconsistent with the post law which pools the property tax from all of the redevelopment areas and this is creates a technical barrier for us to issue the bonds in the 16, 17, budget and fund the affordable housing units. >> so today we are asking that the board pass this resolution in order to provide clarity under the fledge agreement and that we are able to use it in other areas to issue the bonds to fund affordable house iing >> this is not,'s fix that will go until the end of time. we will be including this language that is in the resolution in each of our future budget resolutions. so that moving forward our
11:00 am
budget will always be consistent with the other legal documentation that is required for issuing, and if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer them. >> thank you. >> thank you, and thank you, for providing me some additional clarification outside of the budget committee, but just to clarify this resolution lifting the limit for use of tax increment from the other redevelopment areas to provide it for the shipyard area, and just limited to this project and then you mentioned the future projects will have a provision in each of the are he resolutio any of the projects that come forth. >> right. >> is there any plan for sort of a blanket change within san francisco? >> so, this provision is actually only -- this change is only required for this shipyard candle stick point, phase two areas because that is the only area that is governed by the dea
11:01 am
and so the solution is to include the language from this resolution to include the resolved clause in all of the future budget legislation so that everything is consistent and it is not necessary to do that in the other project areas, because this limitation is not there in the other project areas. >> okay. great. thank you. >> okay. colleagues any other questions? >> okay we will move on to the budget analyst report, please? >> yes. >> 112 million of the bonds apply to it. and over that, the dead service of 235 million, if you show on page 20 and the annual debt service 8.4, and to put this in context, the increment in 15, 16 was more than 206 million. we do have a recommendation to amend the resolution to really
11:02 am
clarify the intent of the resolution, and otherwise, we would recommend approval as amended. >> thank you very much. >> any other questions in >> we will move on to public comment, anybody wish to comment on item 13? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and so colleagues we have the budget recommendation in front of us. >> i will make a recommendation to accept it and send it forth as amended to the full board with the positive recommendations. >> motioned by tang, and yee and take that without objection. >> will you call 14, please? >>ordinance authorizing the department of elections to enter into the fourth amendment to an agreement with dominion voting systems, inc., to extend the term of the agreement through december 31, 2018, and increase the total not-to-exceed amount by $2,289,758 from $19,690,933.25 to $21,980,691 5 $21,980,691.25. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> good morning, for san francisco, and for the proposed ordinance will extend the contract for the current system for 2 additional years, and the contract expires this month, and
11:03 am
the current contract, there is no other system that certificated or approved to run the rank choice in california and so only this system that we have to run the rank choice and also the city is looking to develop its own voting system and that will not be completed for at least two years. and so, the total cost of the contract extension is about, just under 2.3 million dollars. and so the department is requesting that the board approved this extension for two years for the current system. >> thanks very much. >> supervisor tang? >> thank you. >> could you give us an up date about what has been happening so far? since the last time that we had done a contract extension for this existing system? >> what has happened for this voting system? >> for the development of the new potential open source system. >> yeah. >> well, before the election, we actually the mayor's office, organized a meeting with the department and the department of technology for gt to begin to,
11:04 am
in the process started to put an rfp out to identify the project manager and the consultant and would be the person to scope out the development of open sources system and the cost and the time lines and things like that. >> so but since the election, i have not been in contact with anyone on this. >> okay. >> i just because i remember when we had to renew the contract i forget, maybe a year or two ago, or recently, and i thought that we were already moving forward on trying to scope out the project. but i could be mistaken on the time line, i was just wondering if this is what was the intent to always extend this and up through 2018, the end of it, and to now engage in the scoping of the work with the consultant. >> correct. >> okay. >> so that was the plan. >> okay. >> and i mean that i guess that this probably warrants a little bit of follow up.
11:05 am
and i'm just curious, personally as to what is, what are the thoughts around it and what are the thoughts and how we think that it might be going because it is quite a big venture that we are taking to develop the open source voting system. >> yeah. i mean, the open source is an element of the voting system and it is really, the issue is creating a voting system, which is a big undertaking. and so, i think that it's a good step forward for the identification of a consultant who can do the scope and provide analysis, and objective analysis of what it will take to create the voting system based on the open source software and also the cost that will be associated with such a venture, and in the meantime we need to have a system in place that can run the rank choice elections in san francisco and right now, the current systems the only one that we have and the current system is no the one that the vendor wants to continue to support. and it's actually two generations of systems behind where this particular, vendor is
11:06 am
as far as the systems to the jurisdictions and also, i believe that the other vendors are also, bringing in the rank choice voting into their voting systems as well and so there could be more choices going forward. and so in terms of the solution and while we are also engaged in the mechanic nigss around creating your own system and moving it through the testing and certification. >> okay, and mostly my questions stem from the fact that it looks like in the board of supervisors actually we approved, 300,000 for the display of the 16, 17, budget to develop the new open source voting system and that is why i was wondering is this $300,000 going toward this consultant? or was it applied to something else that had been done. >> no, it will be the -- and it is the best of the funding for the consultant, correct. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> okay. colleagues any further questions? okay. we will move on to our budget
11:07 am
analyst report. miss kimball if you will. >> question, as we note in our report, the actual per service cost in this expanded contract will increase the cost for election services will increase from $497,000 to $662,000, for each election that is a 33 percent increase. and the annual license increase will go up from $386,000 to $482,000 and that is a 25 percent increase. and the total contract increase over 2 years is 2.3 million, and that is sublt to board of supervisor's approval and the department of election budget. and so just to talk about the 300,000 for the open source s system and we did ask for a formal report back on the status of the development of the open source system in each budget year. 17, 18, and 18, 19, and as they pointed out, the system will no
11:08 am
longer be available after 2018. and they are talking about doing a competitive process to lease the new system at the open source system is not available. and so we do recommend amendment to amendments to the resolution, one is to require the report back on the status of the open source, each year. and the other is a technical amendment to clarify the resolution otherwise we recommend approvele snchlt eokay, supervisor yee? >> and not only did you just mention that is sort of a thing, and sort of the generations behind her. and i am just curious, because there was a lot of news around the voting and in the potential for the people to hack into it and so forth. what is our firewall around this? i mean, this is the old system? >> look, the firewall is this and it is not hooked up to the internet. and so there is no way to hack
11:09 am
from outside using the internet or the voting system or the data base and it is -- the systems and the internet. or even in the city's network itself. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. we will move it up to public comment, anybody wish to comment on item 14? >> hello supervisors my name is brent, turner and i am with the california association of voting officials first of all to address the security concerns, yes, it is true that this particular system is not hooked up to the internet, but in our conversations with the department of defense, the department of home land security and others, it is also true that the particular style of these systems, the security has been condemned by the government studies and so we want to highlight that and this system is no different than any other system in the united states, currently running on a microsoft platform and operating upon code. and it is cavo and we have been
11:10 am
proposing to you, a system that can be built within a year, if we get started. this would create a 50 percent cost savings from other systems, and a sad day to see this have to move forward because due to the foot dragging that is going on, we are seeing and we are placed back in this position. and we understand that there are realities to the department's job, but we want to say, one year ago, the board of election, and the elections commission, and the board of supervisors, and the mayor all directed the department to move forward with the open source project, and that has not yet happened. so, he made a public comment to the chronicle, saying that it was his desire to see the contract, to go forward, this contract that the project would be dragged out and we don't feel that that is in keeping with the board of supervisor's recommendation after the last
11:11 am
study. we hope that cavo is planned to involve other counties, also, moves forward and, that will reduce your cost, but the main concern is one of security because as we are seeing currently, there are completely, and there are severe security concerns around the current system and so we understand that you have to go forward here and we will be looking perhaps to put an ordinance together to force the department to move forward. thank you. >> tharngz, very much, colleagues any further questions. >> sorry. colleagues, anybody else, for public comment on item four 14? >> so i want to make a motion to set those recommendation foz amendments. and we will move the item forward with amendments to the positive recommendation. to the full board. in particular the appreciate the language to include the annual sort of reports. for opening source effort.
11:12 am
>> okay. thanks very much, supervisor yee, and seconded by tang, and we can take that without objection. >> would you call, 15. >>resolution approving terminal 3 retail marketplace lease no. 16-0256 between mrg san francisco, llc, and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, for a seven year term to commence following board approval, with two one-year options to extend, and a minimum annual guarantee of $1,350,000. >> good morning, with the san francisco airport. and the item before you seeks your approval of the new airport lease with the mrg san francisco. to operate in our term gnat three, post security hub, this space is for the market place concept, and it is 5200 square feet in one space.
11:13 am
of t nrg san francisco is a partnership between three entities partial, retail, and the morillo chocolate company, and procurment incorporated and it will feature local, apparel and gifts and food items from the city, art apparel, and the san francisco, and amore, and tea, and 490, excuse me, 479 degrees, popcorn. rucuti and charles chocolates as well as bath and body product and national parks and related gifts and national brands such as ross, and under armor. the lease has a term of 7 years, with two, one year options to extend, and carries a minimum
11:14 am
guarantee payment of 1 million, and the sales that are projected for the paspace are estimated a 10.2, million and so based on those projections airport staff does believe that the tenant will be paying rent on the higher teired rent formula. and so we expect a first year percentage rent of approximately, 1.5 million dollars. i will be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> any questions or comments? >> okay, move on to miss kimball's report. >> yes, as she said the rent under this lease to the airport is greater of $1.3 million, awe estimate that over the initial term, the rent to the airport will be $9.9 million and we recommend approval.
11:15 am
>> any questions? >> seeing none, we will public comment, anybody withish to comment on 15? >> seeing none, closed. >> supervisor tang. >> a motion to send this forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> thank you. >> take that without objection. >> would you call, item 16? >>resolution approving airport professional services contract no. 50052 with hallmark aviation services, l.p., to provide airport information and guest assistance services, in an amount not to exceed $11,550,000 during an initial eighteen month term from january 1, 2017, to june 30, 2018, and with three two-year options to extend. >> okay, welcome back. >> thank you, chair farle and memsz of the committee, cathy, with the san francisco international airport, the airport is seeking your approval of a new airport, information and guest atift ans services contract with hall mark, aviation services, the airport
11:16 am
currently provides, essential information, in services for more than 8 million customers each year, and it is various information desks throughout the terminals as well as in our federal inspection areas. these guest service, this guest service contract is a result of the competitive request for proposal process that combined customer services in to one agreement, rather than in three separate agreements. and as well as ex-expanded operational hours and staffing to meet our increased demand. sfo, will now suppliment the lost and found services working in partnership with the san francisco police department, and this enable $us to offer the lost and found services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. and the proposed contract has an initial term of 18 months, with three, two-year, options to extend, and an increase in the irairport for these service frz 5.3, mill an, to 7.7, million and that is due to the expansion
11:17 am
of the assistance that we will provide for the automated passport that helps us to reduce the lines in the custom's areas as well as expanding some of our staffing areas with the information booths to meet current flight schedules. >> and the budget analyst recommends approval but i would be ha py answer the questions as well. >> thank you very much. and i meant to ask the supplemental for the airport. >> i will. >> my daughter was very excited. >> okay. >> colleagues any questions? >> okay, we will go to the budget analyst report, please? >> as we have shown our report, the budget for the new contract is 3.8 million in this year, it is 7.7, million and 1718, these funds are included in the airport's budget for those two years, and that was previously approved by the board & as she pointed out the actual costs of these services is going up from 5.3 million a year to 7.7 a
11:18 am
year, and the services are being expanded and we recommend approval. >> any questions. >> we will month of on to public comment. >> anybody wish to comment on 16. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> make a motion to pass this with the positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay. motion by supervisor yee, and seconded by tang, and we could take this without objection. >> colleagues, we have two items left, 18 was already continued and item 17 we will not be able to call for 15 minutes, and that is a small hearing. on item 19, i don't see any member from supervisor avalos office here. why don't we take a five minute recess right now, and get the relevant parties in the room and we will come back in 11:25. [recess]
11:19 am
.
11:20 am
11:21 am
11:22 am
11:23 am
11:24 am
11:25 am
>> we are coming back from recess for the regular schedule, san francisco budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday, december, 7, 2016, and we have two items left, 17, 19.
11:26 am
we are going to start with 17, first, would you call that. francisco department of homelessness and supportive housing to adopt a five-year plan to reduce homelessness >> this is an item that i introduced and obviously our city has a homelessness crisis and it is a stop certain of our citizens across san francisco. and continues to be a huge topic of conversation for all of us inside of city hall and back in 2004, the city adopted the ten year plan to abolish, chronic homelessness, and it was the only, strategy for addressing one of the attractable issues and in spite of meeting the goals, by creating the units of supportive house and adopting for strategy, and the homelessness continues to per sit and dominates a lot of the
11:27 am
public dialogue, and the number of homeless individuals in 2015, in our point in time, count on survey was 6686 which reported an increase of 250 individuals. i imagine that the next count will be higher, 71 percent are the neighbors of the residents who are homeless here in san francisco and despite the increase in homelessness, in san francisco since 2013, over 25,000 homeless people have left the streets or the shelter system since the plan was implemented and since the plan, the city has instituted the programs such as the navigation center, and created the newly formed department of homelessness, and housing and new grade, leader of that department and has been focused on the housing first strategy, and since, 2014, however, the city is without a long term, written strategy, and i believe that the city needs a new written long term policy, and a plan to reduce, homelessness in
11:28 am
san francisco that we can all get behind and drives our future priorities so that the residents can hold this and the rest of san francisco can hold us accountable measure the progress and the failures, and in front of us is a resolution to urge the department of homelessness and housing to create, and to preview this and the five year, plan that you and his team have been working on and to give this committee, and our board, and about the draft plan, and further input in that plan, and i want to see the department, and creating and hopefully a new five year plan will guide us in that direction, and we would like to ask you at this point in time, our new director to come up and has a presentation for us and just by starting off and by saying, thank you, for taking on this task, and thank you for all of your hard work. and all of your partnership with
11:29 am
the board of supervisors to date and what is to come. >> we appreciate the opportunity to talk about where we are at in terms of the strategic plan and before i begin, i want to remind the folks in our department, it is really only about 100 days old, and we are trying to build the airplane while we are flying it. and in addition to bringing together, staff from multiple departments, and having to hire a new leadership team and build out the infrastructure, and we also have been working on advancing building on the work that has been done in the city around homelessness and we have helped over 500 people since the department opened, and reunify with families through home ward bond and we have helped, almost, 600 people, access permanent, supportive housing and we have opened up a new navigation center and two more in the pipeline and we have got about, 5 new sites, either opened or in
11:30 am
various stages of opening, and so, while we are doing this plan and trying to fill the new department, we are also continuing doing really great work, that we should all be proud of. a very rough draft and more of an explanation of the process that we are going through. and to give you some ideas about where we are at. in terms of this process, and i want to point out a few thinks, and this is really a tra strategic framework not a plan, and like the long term plans where you lock into a strategy, are not necessarily the best way to go, because things change, and really what we are trying to do is to develop a model that will allow us to use data. and projections and past performance to make the decisions about where we want to be investing our resources. and also, just want to say right now, when i started my job, we
11:31 am
were hoping that we would be able to have this complete, within the 6 months, and we believe that we are going to need a few more months to actually complete it and i will talk about why and the process in the meantime. so briefly, we will talk through you, the where we are at in terms of the plan, and so the purpose of the plan as supervisor farrell pointed out is that we need to have a strategy addressing homelessness in san francisco and having one department, creates a great opportunity to have one strategy that will be implemented by that department, and we need to provide the department a framework for starting it up, knowing what our priorities are and laying out some basic tasks around the building and the infrastructure that we need to advance our work around addressing homelessness. we want to see the system move towards a more data driven, coordinated system with a single data base, and managing the service and making it a much more client centered as opposed
11:32 am
to a program, centered approach toward addressing the problem. and we really want to identify the measurable goals for the next five years. where we are going to be very clear about what we are trying to achieve in real numbers or percentage and i will present where we are at on that. and then, also, i think for the long term, we are doing a gap analysis in the system, and saying that if we want to achieve goal x, this is how much or how many units of housing that we will need and how many more shelter that we will need and so that is both all of you as well as the public understand what it is going to take to actually solve this problem. and better understand what the trade offs are when we are not able to make those investments. >> that is the purpose of the plan. just a little bit about the time line. this process really began in some ways in january. when the office of hope collect
11:33 am
the data and began for the creation of the departments and july of 2016 we hired to lead the process and, other groups including home based.
11:34 am
>> by the end of the third quarter to have the report published and so i want to talk to you a bit about the process that we have gone through so far. there are 16 focus groups and, 14 were open and we are working to do the more focus groups and specifically around the hot team. we have done over 600 surveys of the people who are homeless and have had five formal feedback sessions with both our staff and
11:35 am
with the provider community and with advocates as well as with community members neighborhood groups and business associations and etc. and we have done over 40 presentations to non-profit groups to businesses, as well as to the neighborhood groups. very proud of the work that my staff has done to gather input. we also have done a tremendous amount of data analysis, as i mentioned before, there are 13 different data bases that tcity use and we have had to go through each one of tho s and they don't talk to each other very easily, to try to understand and to be able to build a model that will allow us to predict what our resource needs are. and we have done a lot of work reviewing the local and federal and state reports on homelessness and exploring best practice and communities. and we met with our partnered departments and dph, and the public works and hsa and many
11:36 am
other departments to hear from them on what their priorities were. and also, have been working with our consultant to examine, the passed successes, and work that has been done in the past to build off of the successful build off of his successes and i think that the first thing that we have done, or the result of all of this, work, was to build a map of the current services system we are trying to break it down into adult, and family, and unaccompanied youth. and to build a map to understand the services system so the first step was to understand where we are at. and this is a map of the current adult services system as you can see, it is very hard to understand and the people who are homeless, have to deal with, and coming through the multiple
11:37 am
doors in open to get the services and the pathway to exiting the homelessness and being very, very unclear. and behind this map is also just a list of all of the interventions available, in the city, so we have a pretty good understanding at this point of what resources that we have available to us. once we completed that information gathering process, just to layout, the direction that we have heard it loud and clear is the coordinated entry system not only is this required by hud it is also, in almost every group that we have spoken to, something that is seen as very important. and let me just sort of rather than try to explain what that is, to tell a story, about what it's like to try to access services right now. so for everybody who is homeless, you know they go to a
11:38 am
shelter and they can get there through a variety of sources and the 311, and the hot team to get to the shelter and they will talk to a case manager there and that case manager really has no history available to them. to know what other shelters that person has been in and what other programs, and other non-profits they are working with. and that person is often helped by a case manager. to get on to the waiting lists for the variety of the housing and they go and they get on the waiting lists and will get assessed or interviewed and asked a bunch of questions and asked the same questions, over and over and over, and over, again. and sometimes, getting what they need, frankly sometimes, getting more than what they actually need is the most often getting much less, than what they need. and so, right now, we have no way to make sure that people who are the longest term homeless and who are the sickest are going to get access to our very limited resources.
11:39 am
and we are coordinated entry does it creates a single data system, and folks can access this system and many different ways, and we will talk about that in just a bit. and then, they will be assessed all of the same and they will only have to be assessed once and that information will be shared across allpro vieders who they interact with and they will tra being that person through the system and know about their successes or the lack of success and to be able to adjust and try to address each person as best as we can. and match them with the right resource. and we are trying to create a system that is client focused and provides the seamless service
11:40 am
>> any obstacles that you can see. >> i cannot emphasize how big of a change this is. the city will be making referrals to most services and that is a major change in how folks do businesses and i think that most of the non-profit partner and everybody in the community that we have spoken to, are very supportive of this. and i think that it is going to be hard for the folks to be able to wither asking the people to change the data system and many organizations have invested in a lot of time and energy and tears and sweat. and money into their data system and we are going to be asking them to use a new one, and we are going to be asking them to change the way they accept referrals. i think that over all a lot of folks are supportive and we are
11:41 am
asking a lot of folks and we but, so far, so far no reist ans and so one of the things that the folks know and i am not ready to make a formal announcement, but some private have invested money and made the money available and so when they are struggling with a data system and the provider of the system who we are close to signing a contract with, we have the extra money to help the non-profit, and so we want to find as many ways as we can and any part of this is also, going to be getting input from line staff workers to make sure that the system works, but also i want to say, you know, there will be some unhappiness, and i also want to say that when we selected the data system for example, we spent a day of bringing in the users of that system and did a user experience test and we have the actual, test and, test the five systems and we will say that we selected the one where for a variety of reasons, but one of the great things about this was it was the
11:42 am
only system that we were testing that every case manager was able to complete every task given to them and so we feel like we are trying to listen to the community and we are going to also, you know, probably meet some resistance and get passed that. >> change is never easy, and obviously the status quo is no the where we want to move forward. and i appreciate your efforts and the state that we are still, talking about the systems where computers talk to each other is crazy. and so thank you for doing that. >> i would say when the people talk about san francisco has been on the cutting edge, we pioneered housing, and first, lgbtq shelter in the country, and most of the other countries come here to learn about what we do, the one area, where we have a lot to learn is around this particular issue around coordinating all of these great services. one of the reasons we selected corporation is the principal working on this was able to
11:43 am
implement a system like this m houston and it led to a 35 percent reduction in chronic homelessness in a short period of time. and so where, and we all staff have learned a lot and the community has learned a lot, and you know, we have a lot to teach but in this case we have a lot to learn and i am excited about the progress that we are making on this. >> so some of the other things that are critical to what we do, i think are again, creating very targeted goals for each subpop you la igs and not trying to look at the homeless population as one number or even one group but look at each person. and to provide them with unconditional support and achieve the goals of exiting homelessness and to make sure that the interventions match the populations, what works for families does no the work for single adult or for youth and but setting the clear goals, so that we can right size the interventions for each of those populations and i think that we need to invest more money to think about deversion programs
11:44 am
and helping people not become homeless, if they become homeless and help them quickly and not get into the system and smf the things that i am thinking of is helping to prevent addictions from the current affordable and supportive housing stock. working with the criminal justice system and the public health system to slow down the number of people who are leaving those systems homeless. and you know shgs and i think that continuing providing as high quality of service that we can that is very client focused that is compassionate, and using some of the principals that the city has used for a long time. we have no interest in changing, but just enhancing things like the housing first model and the harm reduction, and the trauma informed care. and i think that some of the other things that we are focusing on obviously
11:45 am
coordinating from one department is critical, but also, partnering with other organizations, the department of public health, and public works, and they each have a role to play in this and we need to continue working with them. and they all have their own challenges, and that i know that they are working on addressing but to figure out how we can work together, to address things like and require a lot of work, and another important thing that is listening and responding to all stake holders and need to translate what that means is that right now, a lot of community members
11:46 am
>> sorry, we already, spoke about the coordinated entry and so i am just going to skip over that and i want to get to sort of the real kind of meat of what we are trying to accomplish here. with the model. >> and again, what we are trying to do and a lot of this is being driven by a model which is built
11:47 am
out on a pretty complex spread sheet that allows us to plug in data. around past performance of various interventions like how or where the people exit after they leave the shelter and what happens to the people in supportive housing and help the demand for services and so kind of the inflow and the out flow of the system and we actually have to put in the assumptions because the data is not perfect. but we are able to adoapt that and come up with goals, if we can't to reduce, and what is it going to take to be able to do that. >> that is the model that we are working on building and that the framework and the basis of this plan, and it's a little different, from maybe other plans that you see and i didn't put in the numbers yet, because what you will see when we pubbish the report, we are going to end the chronic homelessness among veterans by this date. and we are going to resolve the
11:48 am
x-number of street encampments by this date. and etc., etc., and so there will be numbers where there are xs, right now. and dates, where we just are not able to project that right now. and i am very sensitive about not putting forward until we are sure that they are based on the best data available. because i think that ends up creating confusion. so the other thing that we are going to have for each of these subpopulation and each of these goals is the map of the system and so what you are seeing here, is essentially how we envision the new system and how it is going to work. folks will have to the shelters and the home out reach team and the main stream services and the hospitals and the 311. and from there, they will be assessed and in our coordinated entry system.
11:49 am
and then they will be sent to the right resource. because we don't have enough resources we are going to have to match folks and we are going to have to prioritize and to create a tool and agree on what the priority will be, once someone is prioritized in housing and hopefully those will go to the housing intervention and it is not available we plan to use the navigation center and that is where it says, the temporary housing here and we will prioritize, the centers for the folks who are on the path to house and create a system that makes more sense for the client and also t is designed to create the through put with some of the out comes across the system. and the other document that we are going to put together and i whited out all of the numbers here. and so in that circle there and each one of those pictures you will see a number, and there will be a goal if we want to reduce, 50 percent reduction in unsheltered homeless population
11:50 am
next year, this is how much shelter we are going to need and this is how much short term, rental and mid term, and this is how much actual housing we are going to need. and we also are going to be fox factoring in the prevention and the new program, called the moving on, which is i think that the people that are in supportive housing that don't need the service and giving them access to vouchers so that they can find the housing in the private or the affordable housing market and move out of supportive housing and opening autopsy t all of these slots wil be able to provide for you, and these are the numbers that we will need for these goals and also going to present some numbers that if we are going to actually defend homelessness in san francisco this is what we are going to need to do one of these interventions. >> and again, i just don't want to put in the numbers in here because when we provided numbers, before, and that were not, done it created some chaos. >> and so, lastly, i want to
11:51 am
just say that develops the other goals that we are having work on that are outside of this model, we got to get the department, fully operational and we are working on a state and federal and regional agenda. and getting the data system stood up. and obviously, redesigning the communication systems for the public. prevention and deversion, and we will have dates. we have to do it later than we planned, and rather than the feedback from the community and we feel like there is more work to do. by december of 2017, we will have fully resigned the family systems with one of those maps, and that is very clear as to how the system is going to work through the coordinated entry.
11:52 am
system, and that should all be up and running by the end of the year. by october of 2018, our data system will be completely operational. and that some time in 2018, 19, that we will have done the redesign work on the adult and youth systems that by the end of 2019, we should have a completely redesigned, homeless services system and i know that for some people, this is a very, it seems like a long time, but i just want to point out that homelessness is 40 years in the making. and it is not going to be solved by a new department, and in six months, we are going to need the time to get this stood up and then this is really about the long term way that the city addresses homelessness. and i just want to give great amount of thanks to all of the non-profit providers. to the business leaders and the community members and to our amazing staff from ahc and across the city family and
11:53 am
thanks, csh and a lot of work that is going into this right now, and again, we are doing this trying to build the airplane and fly it at the same time. and build the navigation system for that airplane. so it has been difficult, but very productive. and just want to thank everybody so much for their health and for their patience. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee? and by the way, we are just going to have to deal with just the members of the public with the time frames here. because he had to go because he has to leave, and tang has to leave we are going to before the public comment, with this item we are going to go on to item 19, and come back to public comment on 17 hso just want to lay that out for the folks. and supervisor yee? >> thanks. for the presentation and i just really appreciate your approach on this and in terms of being data and results based driven.
11:54 am
and and you just got on board when you talked about your approach and seeing that, sefrlg months later, that you still taking this approach and i really do appreciate it. >> things that are either state or federal level for the decisions and have impact into whether, it has be in that or not. or, and also how do you make adjustments to this and we are doing better but all of a sudden, this is what the state is doing worse than this, and
11:55 am
you know, there is a carry over of all of that. or it looks like we are doing better but the rest of the state and the rest of the country is doing better than we are, and how do you do that comparison? >> that is a great question, and so i think that is why we really are talking about this as more of a framework and a model and so we are going to have a fairly sophisticated model that we have developed and we will be able to adjust our assumptions based on changes and i imagine you know, every year, if not every six months, we are going to be adjusting it. and we will be reporting it out to the public and all of you what has changed. but again, and i know, you no he we are going to hear from the community and i am sure that everybody is going to say what is obvious is that this only works if we have the resources we need. and my response back is you know this model will not let us know what the resources are and it is important to have the data systems and the models that will help us to think and not just about let's build a few more though supportive housing units but let's look at the system and
11:56 am
figure out what we are going to need to achieve the goals so that we can plan for five years and for 15 years out. and also, i want to say that you know, at the very least if we have no more resources, to do better with what we have. and to make the experience better for our clients. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you, and thank you for your presentation, and i look forward to hopefully, we will get through the community and the board and seeing with the five year plan does look like in the final form. and we will love for you to come back and talk to us about that. and as i know we are going through a rebalancing effort, and i just, you know, as you are here and continue to put forward and work on this issue, and i hope that we will find a way to put in the resources behind you and your department as possible. on this issue. but, thank you for being here. >> thank you very much. >> with that, apologies for a lilt bit avenue cou counter dir
11:57 am
and we will go to 19. will you call 19. resolution setting policy to end all business with wells fargo, requesting the controller to conduct an inventory of city business with wells fargo, urging the city attorney and district attorney to investigate the practices of wells fargo and the other big banks, urging the treasurer-tax collector to provide advice on establishing a responsible banking ordinance, urging the director of health to report on the feasibility of revoking the renaming of "wells fargo plaza" at san francisco general hospital, and urging the united states office of the comptroller of the currency to explore if wells fargo's national banking charter should be revoked. >> thank you, and this was sponsored by avalos, and here to present as supervisor avalos is not leer here with us today. >> jeremy, aid to avalos and i will be as brief as possible, understanding the time
11:58 am
constraint and maybe i will just discuss a number of amendments that he would request that the committee make. a lot of this is based on the excellent work of the controllers office and the inventory that they have done on the city's financial dealings and recommendations for the sanctions that the city should place on wells fargo for the unethical behavior. i will leave it to supervisor avalos to speak at the board about the extent of that. there is the one, and i think that one area of disagreement is about supervisor avalos would like to urge the controller to suspend the wells fargo from bidding on bond sales and the controller does not agree with that and so i would expect that would be an item that you may want to discuss further when supervisor avalos is here and i think that the rest of these i imagine would be things that the controllers office could speak to. and maybe i will just leave it at that, i don't know if you
11:59 am
want to go through the presentations of the controllers office, and i believe that the treasurer office is here and i believe that susan, the ceo of general hospital is here as well. so i will defer to the committee about how indeposit lth you want to go. diven the time constraints of the afternoon. >> ip appreciate that jeremy. >> are there any presentations that i was not aware? >> but i know that mr. rose, if you issue the report. maybe the report verses what we have in front of us, and we have an amendment of the whole. maybe you could address the under riding question and anything else. >> certainly. >> good afternoon. city controller. we issued a memo this morning that you have copies of and we have the ko pys that are careful for the public at the front of the meeting exploring the questions that are a question here and i will start by saying that we have had a very positive and long standing relationship with wells fargo.
12:00 pm
for a whole host of extremely valuable financial services for the city and extend from borrowing and bond financing required to produce infrastructure and the host to operate as a government and the whole set of banking and financial arguments with wells and that is a long standing relationship. >> and nonetheless, though, obviously the well publicized conduct of wells fargo in recent months is not in keeping with our expectations for ethics and business relationships for you, and ourselves and our contractors. and so our office has undertaken working with other city agencies and inventory of our relationship with wells fargo and has explored various ways to move forward on the question. and we kind of outlined that in the memo. what we are talking about and have recommended in the memo is
12:01 pm
the suspension for the new business with wells for a set of different financial services. that we outline in the memo. and we balance that though, with an understanding that in certain circumstances to prohibit wells from participating in certain kinds of services, would result in adverse financial cost for the government and our tax payers and our rate payers in many cases there was a
12:02 pm
disagreement between the controller office and the office about allowing wells fargo to participate in the city's competitive bond sales. can you explain your office's position on that and why you disagree with that recommendation? >> sure. and if i understand the amendments that have been moved and i think that i am looking at a current version of it. fundament fundamentally, the resolution as it relate to our office piece of this is to amend it instead of recommending or urging that the city and all financial arguments with wells fargo, the amendment now is incorporating a lot of it now, and so it recommends or supports the adoption of the controller's office, and
12:03 pm
recommendation as it relates to the new business foz certain kinds of financial services. and so those feel appropriate to us, frankly, if you do for the bond under rating and for the credit provision, and these are services that the city procures through a competitive process. and they ininvolve, hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds. and we go through a process to solicit the bids on these. the smaller that pool gets, the less competition it will be for rates, and the higher the more likely it is that we will we will have higher cost for our borrowing for transactions that they would have won, the puc went out to bid on $200 million in water bonds. that will be repaid by san francisco and regional rate payers over time. and through that competitive process, wells fargo was the winning bidder, providing the lowest bid and, over the life of those bonds, the difference
12:04 pm
between them and the second place bidder comes to 3.4, million in the life of the bond and so if we were to prohibit them from bonds in the future, the result will be that the costs will be higher on the future bond deals, and we judge that to be a significant cost and one that is not reasonable to impose. and therefore, we recommended not excluding them from those sorts of bond transactions. >> thank you, for that. >> one other question that i had was i noticed in the amendment hold over there was a change, regarding the retirement board. and now that the language says that we urge the retirement board to terminate all financial dealings with wells fargo in a manner with the fiduciary responsibilities as previously it asked for the controller's office to conduct an inventory on page 5 of all financial dealings with wells fargo, and
12:05 pm
analysis of the feasibility and implications of ending those dealings. and i'm just wondering maybe, supervisor avalos's office can speak to why this change. personally, i did prefer the original language, because i think that it is important to conduct a thorough analysis as to what the impacts were to be if we were to withdraw all financial dealings. >> yes, thank you, again, jeremy, the legislative aid to supervisor avalos and i think that we updated the resolution because the controller's office has done that inventory that we had initially asked for on the resolution. and in our discussions with the controller's office. and they had mentioned that the retirement board does have one line of business with wells fargo in the deferred compensation fund where it's
12:06 pm
flechlt it was within the retirement board, to be accomplished without the impacts to the retirement fun. >> and it looks like the controller may have a response to that. >> we note that this relationship, and that they have the other financial arguments given the size of the fund, and we know that those relationships in the memo and we stopped short of making any recommendation, as to how they should have any responsibilities should act and we have recommended no change, or any change with the retirement board and i don't know if it comments on from our perspective whether we believe that it would be a positive or a negative to change those relationships.
12:07 pm
it was brought to the light. i want there to be a proper action, taken as to the things that have been adversely impacted and i want to put it out there, absolutely. and i want to make sure that we are not jeopardizing how it is that we operate here in san francisco, and some of the things that we do, do depend on, wells fargo, and i think, that the controller's office has done a great job of outlining what those impacts would be to the certain categories and so, all of that to say, that, you know, i am glad that supervisor avalos brought to life and these various actions that occurred and there should be some sort of action i think, taken against what has occurred, and but at the same time, there are
12:08 pm
certain, issue areas that we need to pay attention to, and such as, even the clause, regarding the wells fargo p. laza over the department of public health, at the new hospital and i put that out there and i am sure that there are other questions and comment. >> thank you. perhaps now, seeing no other comments, and names or the rosters, again, i will associate myself with supervisor tang's comments and what happened was deplorable, and i am not a wells fargo personal customer. and but i know many that are and have found what happened obviously very troubling.
12:09 pm
looking at the feasibility of and whether it is in the interest interest taking away the renaming of the wells fargo plaza and i appreciate the intent and our director of public health has already, issued a memo to us saying that it is not in the best interest, and the people that would advise against it and i don't want to see that clause continuing here. and but that being said, but i think that the vast majority in here and i think that it would support and i am happy to move it forward. >> and so with that, why don't we open it up to the comments right now. >> and do you have any comments on your own? sorry that i don't hear from the treasure error the tax collector. >> good afternoon, supervisors, an amanda, and i want to put
12:10 pm
the few things in context and we participated in the controller's process and appreciate them bringing in a thorough discussion and a memo to the table and the support and what they are saying and the treasurer is the first to come and defend his fiduciary responsibility. and but on this particular issue of kwelz fargo he has been outspoken, and he wants to outline the concerns for the department and particularly as wells fargo actions impact, low income san franciscos and so not only do wells fargo actions impact millions of bank customers it also sent a signal to those who are still unbanked both in our city and across our country, that stashing their money in a piggy bank and in a mattress may be the safest option that they have and that under minds our fundamental trust that makes our financial system possible. and given, the widespread aagree shoes, and potentially, criminal actions of wells fargo, the
12:11 pm
treasurer did suspend it on the bank on san francisco program, and as stated in the controller's memo, and we are able to move our business elsewhere for the limited pieces of business that our department had with wells fargo. and i wanted to stress that wells fargo not only, opened millions of accounts in financial products without the consumer consent, about you in some cases and this is documented that the bank transferred funds into these unauthorized accounts, and so roughly 85,000 of the young, authorized accounts, incur more than $2 million in banking fees and so if you stop for a minute and you think, if my boss did that and if the treasurer did that with your property tax payment he would be sent to jail for steal and so that is beyond the breach of trust and there is a lot of concern and action on the criminal front as well.
12:12 pm
you can call me time, 800-706-6006. and speak to a qualified credit counselor, and that should be everybody's first line of question.
12:13 pm
please come to ward and everyone will have two minutes and we will get through this and further our discussion. >> and supervisors tang and yee and thank you for allowing me to address the committee, and i'm the president of wells fargo, team, and i am here on behalf of 8,000 wells fargo team members who work in san francisco. and working through as a company. and sometimes it resulted in behaviors that did not serve our customer's best interest, and we are committed to learning the necessary lessons and take actions so that the customers never have to be susceptible to these kinds of behaviors today. and there will be developments and headlines, that are not
12:14 pm
favorable to wells fargo, as we are sitting here today. there is have made and to restore the trust in wells fargo, and it is our goal to reearn that trust by the actions that we take and some of the actions that we have taken and we have a new ceo and the new head of banking and we have eliminated all of the goals since, october first. and we already have refunded 2.6 million tlarz in nationwide to customers for any fees that have incurred and on the unauthorized accounts and strengthens the processes including the expanding the with all of the customer to hear the concerns so that we can address them. and as i close, i want to express that this is very humbling for me. and our leadership team and our company. and i am optimistic through the hard work and impactful actions and we will reearn the trust of
12:15 pm
the public and the city of san francisco, where we started in 1852. >> thank you. >> next speaker please? >> good afternoon, and i'm charlie, and i am a resident of san francisco, and i live in the bay view. and i had a loan with wells fargo and a few years ago i applied for a modification so that the motorage payment would for the go up because i had an adjustment, they started working with me they said but they kept, and asking for the papers over and over, and you fax them to them, and then they look at them and then they deny and say well you can do it, you can apply again, later. so any way. and so i went to ace, and i
12:16 pm
asked them if they could help me and they started protesting and go, protest at the wells fargo different banks in oakland and downtown, san francisco and the bottom line is, after all of that, wells fargo, they were talking to me, and saying that we are working with you but they forclosed on the house any way. even though they were saying we were given you time to work on it, they forclose and sold the house on the steps of the city hall and a speculate tore bought it and so my husband had cancer and i said i can't move now, you know, i just can't. any way, they didn't listen and just kept, doing what they were doing. so, i ended up having to go to san antonio to the stockholders meeting to speak to john to ask him if he could do anything about this and he referred me to the people in the back of the
12:17 pm
meeting, and the bottom line is that i did get to keep the house and i am still there. wells fargo has not been the greatest partner from our point of view and we know that they have put a lot of money in the community and put a lot of money into funding non-profits and i don't think that that has ever
12:18 pm
been an argument and whether the banks should be donating to the community and really helping it out. but the problem is that most five years and even in the eight years of the foreclosure crisis, there is a lot of unethical practices. and they have been a part of the big five, when the attorney general decided to sue, and finally settle. the big banks who put out these types of loans and these practices have not necessarily been ethical and i think that this is not the first time like what happened in october and there is according to the news articles, these accounts are being opened at the height in 2011, and of the height of the foreclosure crisis, and that does not show that they are an ethical business partner. and if we are going to protect our residents and we are really going to protect the interest of san franciscans and the treasurer has pointed out about the people who are both banking and banking and we can't continue to work with the bank that is, you know, going to
12:19 pm
promise you one thing and turn around and do something else. i think, that it is unfortunate that several of those employees have been fired but it really comes down to the culture of the bank and for the next two years, and i mean this resolution, all that we are asking for it is to be something that we can vote on for the other supervisors that can hear next tuesday. and they can't, treat the people whether they are forclosed on or someone who just has a bank account. and they are opening that. and so please we urge you to please vote. >> next speaker. >> thank you, chairman, farrell. and supervisors. my name is brenda wright and i manage the community relations for wells fargo. and in that capacity i over see the economic development programs for for the west, and
12:20 pm
the wells fargo. so the members can actually have access to funding, if you look at the libraries that are now in some of the lower income communities in the bay view, hunter's point, and in the fillmore, and you will know that wells fargo was the largest
12:21 pm
corporate funder of this project. and throughout the bay view, and i mean, that there are just so many things that we can say, and that i would say that because of those 8,000 team members, and they devoted the hours and do this with the best interest at heart and thank you for hearing me. >> thank you. >> i have run wells fargo banking division, and the commitment to the california public sector remains steadfast, in the past year, as other banks have terminated, other cities and counties, wells fargo has continued to be committed and we have not resorted to levels.
12:22 pm
we provide the trustees for the bonds and overriding and banking services including and participating in the bid transactions and controller and already mentioned the recent, puc, deal, that wells fargo was the high bidder by quite a margin. and we would also like to close
12:23 pm
government banking is proud of the support that we have professionally been providing san francisco and supporting your residents and highly experienced in the banking and security teams stand ready to deliver the outstanding services to san francisco and we hope that the action and clarifications today can help us to get back to the productive conversations around all of the challenges that they will be facing in 2017. and thank you very much, for your attention. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you for the community to comment on this item, and my name is melina and i am the director of the reinvestment coalition, and includes in the fair economy that meets the needs of color and low income by insuring that banks and corporations invest and conduct, business in the communities in a manner and, we visit the community based organizations and the financial institutions
12:24 pm
in tunder served. and for financial services for these communities, and we are extre ex-ly concerned about the practices on the consumers by wells fargo bank. the proposed resolution, provides the activities of this bank, from diskrimary lending for the african americans, and non-foreclosures and widespread, fraudulent, activities in the result of the banking sham bank accounts. and just this past saturday, they ran an article about how they are using the arbitration process to support lawsuits against the bank for the and after everything that has come to light, everything to make the right of the harm that is done, and cnn money, is reporting how wells is lobbying the trump administration to weaken the oversight and this is an institution that cannot be trusted by consumers and by the
12:25 pm
local government that represents our interest, and we strongly support the resolution and we encourage the committee to approve. any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor yee. >> first of all, i want to thank supervisors avalos and his office to bring this resolution to the board. you know, i, it's well known that wells fargo does invest in to our neighborhoods and our non-profits. but then, again, we have to remember that every national institution is supposed to give a concern percentage back to the reinvest and back to the communities. and i appreciate that there are some speakers that have pointed
12:26 pm
it out in terms of the positive aspect. but today we are going to be talking about the other piece of it which is the negative aspect. and which it really did do the harm and the trust that we have for the institution has been diminished by a great deal. and i would love to keep the resolution as a whole intact. and however, i think that there is been some points well made in regards to a few of these roo he solve clauses and my supervisors and tang and farrell have pointed out. and so if they were to make the amendments to those two items regarding the bond issue and also the issue of the naming of the wells fargo plaza of sf
12:27 pm
general hospital, i would be supportive. >> thank you, supervisor yee. and supervisor, tang. >> thank you very much, one of the things that i did want to just state really quickly, treasurer's office had come up here and looking for information, from wells fargo, about how many employees were fired in san francisco and, so forth. and i really do hope that wells fargo would get whatever information has been requested of our city. and i want to thank supervisor avalos to send a strong message from san francisco and i think that is really important and in fact, in light of everything that has happened and it has made me question my own banking account with wells fargo. with that said, i think that the recommendation that were included in con jufrngz with the controller's office and supervisor avalos office were good. and the only two that i would ask that we take out is the
12:28 pm
resolve clause regarding the suspension of the bond sales, which our controller explained how that will cost our tax payers mormony which i don't want that to happen and the last second to the last clause regarding the wells fargo at sf general hospital, i do not want to jeopardize their fund-raising efforts as they have been working to construct their new hospital, benefiting low income communities as well, those are the two amendments that i would make. >> okay. >> and so that motion, supervisor tang snchlt >> yes, to strike those two resolve clauses. >> just to be clear it is on the amendment of the whole for the further resolve, on the item and starting on page 4, line eleven. through 13. and then on page 5, lane 22 to 25. >> that is correct. >> okay. >> and so, i will very much be supporting that and i just say, you know, i what nt to say as i
12:29 pm
mentioned earlier around the dph, item, and i appreciate the intent to kind of with the questions behind it and i want to thank, director garcia for issuing the memo in advance and i want to make sure as it was mentioned that we do everything that we can to support our general hospital. and given the need that they serve and i know that it has been a challenge, but their foundation has done an amazing job and i want to make sure that that continues and we don't jeopardize that at all. >> motioned by tang and seconded by yee and we can take those without objection. >> and i will make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation as amended. >> motion, and second and we can take that without objection. >> okay, it you very much. >> and at this point in time i would like to open up to comment 17. and so anybody who wish to comment on item 17, i am sorry for the delay. we had to do this given the calendars today. yeah.
12:30 pm
come on up, thank you. >> good morning, supervisors my name is del, gil man and i am the executive director of the housing and i am the co-chair of the provider networks that represents every provider in san francisco that owns or manages services in support of housing, and we are here today to talk about our great enthusiasm for the coordinated intake and assessment and san francisco is one of the last major cities that is not implemented a full robust, intake and assessment system and we know that the xhubt housing partner shape and matching the homeless individuals to the right housing really works. and we are looking forward to this this as a way to stream
12:31 pm
line across the portfolio and we deal with 3 separate system to have the folks enter the housing and over the 1100 units and we want to express to the board of supervisors how we hope that they help to support the new department to make this a reality. and we have even confer to offer up. 150 units that are now slated to be part of the assessment to enter this process because we believe that it will stream line the time of the homeless individuals on the street, thank you very much. >> having the assetsment and and keeping the id and knowing what
12:32 pm
they are have, and over all need and identified as fantastic. and having to be able to directly access services without having to access a particular program or a shelter first. also really great. and you know, however, moving on to the next section have a smooth data system, and access, is not going to create more housing. no matter how smooth it is, if we don't have place foz people to move into, we are not going to get there. and having a system of rationing shelter is hugely problematic. and narrowing elbility shelter to eliminate a waste list is horrible. for example in the family system we are planning on eliminating the shelter by july first. and the provider was given a script to start telling families with that means is that a family which 28 percent of our families are forced to exchange sex for a place to stay, since they are
12:33 pm
staying with someone, they will no longer be eligible for shelter, this is outrageous, we do not need elbility for emergency. voters in november we had mixed up there, 70 percent of voters said that they wanted $50 million set aside to house, homeless people. and 64, almost, 64 percent of voters wanted 17 million devoted to ending family homelessness and this board needs to get really aggressive in finding revenue to solve this problem. and house in housing >> you talk about the wait list, what is your interpretation. >> right now, we have 260 families on the wait list for
12:34 pm
shelter. and what the new system is saying that they are going to eliminate the wait list by narrowing down who as access to shelter, and right now the families say this they want the shelter, and the cities are going to go beyond, because you know, eliminating the wait list, if you have housing for folks, obviously is great, but, doing a false elimination of the wait list by just narrowing down who can get the shelter and saying that we have no wait list for shelter, is highly deceitful and it is harmful to the family, if the family who is trading sex for sell ter, if they let the worker know that they are doing that, that is a cps call. families know that. they are not going to lose their kids over this. they will stand in problematic situations instead. all the families should have direct access to housing, and
12:35 pm
all of them should have access to shelter. they should be able to access it. that is the policy, right now, that is really awful. >> thank you for your explanation. because i really took it as a different meaning. >> yeah. >> in terms of eliminating the wait list. thank you. >> next speaker. >> just let us speak out and tell you how positive it is that we are moving toward a more seamless and integrated system with shared data to address homelessness in san francisco and this was a dream that i used to speak with jeff about, when he was my supervisor and i am very happy and hopeful. to see that moving forward, and i am hopeful that this system
12:36 pm
will really help to meet the needs of the people who are experiencing hopelessness and as well as at risk, of homelessness and still i want to emphasize that it is going to be important to develop an assessment in the system that will identify families and people who are unsheltered and in unsafe situations and offer the true solutions that are the client centered. and in particular, rarldless of where they are, it needs to be the resources that will meet their needs, an important point as we move forward with developing ut system. >> thank you. >> next speaker.
12:37 pm
>> good morning supervisors. i'm richard, and i am the executive director of the climate house. and we have been in the business of providing supportive housing since it didn't have the name supportive housing, in 1983, we master leased two buildings that were known as support service hotels. and that cry ated the first supportive housing in san francisco for 134 people. over the intervening 34 years, that number for us has grown to 720 people that we housed. and i want to just thank my colleagues who are speaking about the bottom line having to do with the human service element of all of what is embedded in the strategic
12:38 pm
thinking that the department of homelessness and supportive housing is engaged in. i just want to talk about something slightly different. i just want to talk about the financial part of all of this. and the need for financial strategies to be embedded in the strategic frame works for dealing with this issue. the word investment gets banttied about fairly loosely and a lot of times i am not sure that we mean the same thing by investment and i have been doing this now a very long time and i take a very long view on this. and what i am the most troubled by is the short terminate of the thinking about how do you pay for all of? and the need to divert the operational moneys in the direction of capitolization to create the bond money, the master leasing, that can be converted into non-profit ownership and this sort of thing that sustains the infrastructure
12:39 pm
that is needed in order to these solutions be permanent. >> thanks very much. >> you bet. >> next speaker. >> by the way i just saw your speaker card i was going to call you next. thanks for being up. >> good afternoon, my name is kevin and i am the director of the hotel council in san francisco. i am here to talk about the support for the would, that the department of homelessness and supportive housing is doing and the strategic plan that they are developing. we definitely are encouraged by the city's decision to merge departments to stream lyine the process and the data collection as well. i also want to compliment the team for the openness in working with the community and working with our business partner and jeff has been out to speak with our organization and all of our members on several oizations to up date us on what the city is doing and work with us on how we can help with the solutions that are proposed as well, and the
12:40 pm
fact that he is taking the time and that his team has taken the time to do that is very important to us and i think that it is going to really serve us well as a city, and we are encouraged by the decisions and the plans that are being developed and we thank you for your support as well. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is karen and i am the director of, and i am here to speak in support of the resolution, and i want to thank jeff, very much for his leadership on the plan, and supervisor farrell for introducing this resolution. and in union square our goal is to keep the area, clean and safe and welcoming for everyone, and despite the 2 million investment on the boots on the ground and keep tg clean and safe we are challenged by the homeless issues. and we have stepped up the efforts with the worker and hired the dst homeless team to clean up the streets and supported jnk and work with the city and the business organizations and we want to thank the mayor for the
12:41 pm
leadership in the second term to address the homelessness and i think that he has taken a great first step by hiring jeff, and his team to really address this in the very strategic, and organized way, and jeff, has taken this head on and he is pragmatic and he works well with the business community and it is important to have a plan, everyone gets on the same page p you have a way to measure the result and a way to answer the community and our con stit you ents and whether the tax payers or the visitors on what is being done to address the homelessness in the city and thank you for being involved in this and he stand ready to help in union square. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> english, the executive director, of the st. paul, society of san francisco. and as a service provider for the city of the mse south on fifth and bryant, the largest single adult shelter and i must say that the whole staff and the board are very encouraged by the moves that the city has made,
12:42 pm
with regards to this issue of homelessness. and we completely support this resolution, and we are encouraged by the speed wiseness with which jeff has moved forward, and in every effort ha he is making and the coordinated entry system is definitely a mentioned and a dream come true, and please allow him the patience of the next two years to do that successfully. and all of these efforts are important 100 percent support the new department and we encourage the resolution to pass, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, and adams with the larkin street service and here to speak in support of the strategic framework and the department and jeff and all of his team and we have been encouraged of all of the process and we believe in the data driven system that the system is informed through data and we would seek to have the
12:43 pm
continued effort for these input as it relates to the specific needs of the young people who are experiencing homelessless and through the system and the best practices throughout the country have been for there to be a sort of a subset system that addresses the needs of i don't uth and young people and families, and slightly different than they would would like over the over all system for the homeless adult and so we are encouraged that the department sort of sees our point on that and continues to seek the feedback and look forward to continuing this work going forward and would like to speak to the importance of resources and as j general ter said we can have a fabulous system and entry system without the additional resources and capacity in the system we will be unable to fully execute on that too. thank you to your leadership. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> brian with the foundation and housing alliance, and i echo the thank you for your leadership and on this effort. and then also my recommendation
12:44 pm
and i have spoken with jeff, but the majority of homeless people in san francisco come from two communities, african americans who i am call african san francisco and then lgbt. and so it seems to me that these two communities have among the highest rates of disparities of homelessness in the city, and if we can do a thorough deep dive on the causes of homelessness and the bearrier to exit homelessness for these two communities, that that might give us the biggest bang for our buck in reducing the over all rate of homelessness and i think that it is reasonable to assume that there are gaps in the system of care and that there are other drivers of these sis parities and if we can take all of our expertise and look at how we can address that, that that might give us among the best result foz our investment of time and resources, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> the situation that you got on
12:45 pm
your hands, is very poor, and not being addressed as the way that it should be. first of all, you talk about why there are so many homeless people out in the street. your mayor's office on housing and every brand new apartment building that comes down the pipeline and you set their immediate medium and the mm and the requirement for the people to come in and to the apartment complex at a level that is higher than the people that have the combination of the mental and the physical disabilities in the veterans and the people's income who are not at 55 percent or 80 percent of that medium, cannot even apply to move into these buildings and they can demonstrate that your hypocritical because you are saying that there is a homeless problem and we want to take care of the homeless problem and you want to build all of these navigation centers and the homeless people don't need the navigation centers. it is nothing but a concentration camp. you sit up there, and act like you want to help people, and address this homeless problem,
12:46 pm
but you move in the homeless people from one section of the city to another. and about you getting rid of this list, of families who are applying to move into the apartment buildings and try to prioritize, based on treatment and, trying to determine the needs of somebody that is homeless, is not fair, and you violating the constitutional due process rights of the individuals. and also, the fact that you say that there is a shortage and you spend the tax payers money to bust the people out of the city and talk about eliminating the homeless problem and turn around and aid and abet the illegal immigration and got the illegal aliens getting brand new apartments paying, $3, a month it is not fair to the blacks, you are displacing the black people and it is not fair, okay? and every apartment building that comes down the pipeline, through the mayor's office on housing you set the income, severalses requirement and way above the average income of the people who are on social security, retirement and trust fund and eligible apply, to
12:47 pm
these buildings is impossible. and then you turn around and wonder why you have the homeless people. and you talk about want to prioritize the list the people who can move into the shelters based on the priority is not fair. it is not fair. whoever is homeless in there stand tlg in front of that shelter should be able to move into that building. >> thank you. >> any other members of the public that wish to comment on item 17? >> okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to speak all of the speakers. supervisor yee? >> i just again i want to commend the new department's effort and this, and even having a plan that is going to be solidified by april of next year which is pretty fast as you know many of our departments have their planning process and many of them take several years to get things completed. and there was some a comment
12:48 pm
made during the public comment that was disturbing to me. maybe you could address it. >> just there was a comment made about how we are reframing or restating what the who is eligible for family housing and whether or not this really is tru truly, are we really eliminating the wait list or are we just creating the language that seems that we are eliminating the wait list? and the example that was given was really shocking, you know, meant to be shocking i guess, and i don't know how many of those situations are.
12:49 pm
there are always going to be it not working for individuals and what i have seen over time, is the folks go on the waiting list for the family shelter are told that it will be six to nine months before they get access to that shelter, and rather than trying to resolve their homelessness and access the housing or the rent subsidies they wait. and their situation becomes more and more dire, by the time that they get to the shelter, and the things have unwound quite a bit. and they are tired, and their kids are tired and they are in a shelter now. and they can stay in that shelter for six months. and they are provided with great services, child care, roof over their head, and food.
12:50 pm
and because of the situation they are in, they tend to wait, and stay as long as possible. which makes perfect sense. and then, as a result of all of this in the way that the system are set up is the average length of time that a family is homeless in san francisco, and it is over, 14 and a half months. and the last time that i asked. and so we know that after # 6 months of being homeless, children brain development starts to suffer as a result. this is a known fact that the executive function starts to develop and break down and the kids who are experiencing the stress for a prolonged periods of time. and so our goal is to make sure that we have a system where if you are homeless rather than saying, wait for a shelter, we are going to say, here is a rapid rehousing are, and here is affordable housing for you and rather than tell the folks that you might get the shelter in eight or nine months, there is not shelter available for you tonight but we do have a pathway out of homelessness. the one really great thing about
12:51 pm
this system especially for families is that we are close to having the resources that we need to be able to really address this problem. and make this system work, but the way that it works now, really encourages people to just stay in place. and we have got a partnership with the school district and the other providers to get to the families faster, when i was at hamilton we did a case study around this and we were able to reduce, from 14.9 months to less than 6 months. and so i'm very confident that this is the right way to go, it's not going to be a perfect system but getting the folks matched up right away, but the other thing that it does is for the people who are unshelter and experiencing an immediate crisis, they should not have to wait for shelter for more than an hour, we should have a system, if someone shows up and the options are sleeping on the street or i mean that the option, that is where they are going to be tonight, that person needs to get right into the shelter. and that is not how to works right now.
12:52 pm
so this idea of matching people to the right intervention, based on their current situation makes it a lot more sense to me than a wait list that encourages people to wait longer than they should. >> thanks, for your explanation. >> okay, and thank you very much. >> yeah. >> and with that, supervisor, we have the resolution in front of us. >> and any questions entertain a motion to move for forward. >> positive recommendation. >> motioned by i couldn't he and take that without objection. >> will you call 20? >>hearing to consider the review and approval of the budget guidelines for the board of supervisors/clerk of the board annual budget for fys 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. ( >> to proveeld the vied the
12:53 pm
budget guidelines in december to assist in the proposed budget sxim here with the department's deputy, to request guidance and direction as we develop the proposed 17, 18, and 1819, bugz and i have an overview of the projects from the current year along with the current year budget, additionally i will obtain your permission for what i would recommend as a base line for the new budget and one or two new requests. before i return in january with the draft of the proposed budget for your review, will meet with all of the members of the board including the new members which will come on in january. the current year budget is 14 pment 6 million. and the next two slides highlight some of our project and accomplishments that move the needle for the department in the current year.
12:54 pm
and we had the 100th anniversary of the board's legislative chamber, and we had many former members of the board join us and we had a lovely reception and we were able to hand out a limited key to the chamber for the attend ees. the replacement and in the current year, approximately, 450,000 was placed in the city administration's budget by the capitol planning committee to address the need to replace this aging system. real estate division will over see the procurement and the legislation is expected to take place in august of 2017. and the next slide, is a continuation of our accomplishments. and the assessment appeals back in the office of the reengineering project, and the department suspects that 4 and 5 of the project to conclude in april of, and we continue to work assess sxer her team, to improving information and sharing for the reports to
12:55 pm
enhance the ease and security and, has enabled the on-line appealing and, filing in july of 2016 and expanded the project scope to include on-line escape assessment of appeal filing in 2017. the legislative management system project is moving along. and we have established a project team and they are doing and researching standards and scoping the requirement to procure and implement the solution, and they are meeting with all member office and department, and will consider, up grades and ad ones that ex-expand the user access and support, and address, the manual work loads. and the records is also, moving for ward, and with the existing funding provided our records and the project is in process, and for a back file conversion and for the last 100 years of the
12:56 pm
board's archives. we are working with the office of contract administration to develop and join in on a clabive city wide rfp solution and he with will continue to work and to insure that the records will integrate the seamlessly with our new management system project. we juggle the chickens and chain saws, and you prefer, the mission and insure that the requirements are met for the board and the committee meetings and our hearings and we connect the public to the legislative process and to our mounds and mounds of data. and we also provide administrative support to the employees of the department and to the board. we take pride in what we do and we continue to strive to for excellence in serving the board and the public. and now we would just like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my staff for their consistent professionalism and hard work. so to the current year budget, you are familiar with these charts. charts they show how the
12:57 pm
department 14.6 million current year budget is spent on the left, and expenditures by the ka category and on the right by division. >> building on a current year's budget, i am recommending a few adjustments for the fiscal year, 17, to 18, budget that will help us meet the changing demands of the department. over the last couple of years, i have signalled that the department it division has needed revisioning, and new skills, and positions to meet the infrastructure of the city's requirements. we are under going a position realignment in the goal of this is to appropriately staff with the right skills, the division where implementation of the department it plan, and including improved with the department of telecommunication and adapting new technologies and strengthening our security which is critical. i am proposing to change the
12:58 pm
one, to a project manager two and this will increase the budget by approximately, 7,000 in salary and benefit. i am also asking to add compliance officer for the clerk's office, additionally in response to the dhr request to reclassify one of our positions and i am recommending a substitution in the assessment appeals board. the legislative management system upgrade project, we once we determine the funding we will submit that request in gentleman and we will up date you on the progress of that request. as in prior years, the department as a whole continues to be responsible with the city's tdollars and we will loo for ways to include the ongoing savings in the budget to help the city with the growing expenditur expenditures.
12:59 pm
i alisted a couple of questions, the contract that we received, on november, 17, 2016, there is a request for a 2.25, percent for the fiscal year, 2017, to 18, contract which will become effective on july first, 2017, and this request will result in a 48,933, increase to their 2.17 million contract, and fiscal year, 2017, to 18. and general fund appropriation fop lafco-as you recall, received a general fund appropriation in the current year of 40,000. and the executive director has requested the appropriation of 144,000. for fiscal year, 2017 to 18. and the executive director jason is present, if you have any questions about that request, and the final is increasingly the department has received
1:00 pm
requests for furniture for our employees, anit's 1:12 p.m. and this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure and successor agency commission to the san francisco redevelopment sayive accounts and this slides requests i don't you are authorization for the above purposes. and if affirmative granted i will include these items in the draft proposal for our conversation in january. and i do appreciate your attention and that concludes my presentation, and i am here to answer any questions that you might have. supervisor yee? >> yes, the question about the 144 k, what is it for? ask and is that a 144 increase? >> yeah, so, as you may recall from last year, it is a state authorized commission and we have a different budgeting process, our budgeting process is not actually start until the spring of next year. by state code. and so what we do at this part of the year is we try to give you the

9 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on