Skip to main content

tv   BOS Budget and Finance Sub Committee Committee Fed Select Committee  SFGTV  March 23, 2017 6:00pm-9:01pm PDT

6:00 pm
staying with the puc is where i love it >> good morning. all right, ladies and gentlemen good morning and welcome to the regular meeting, to my left and tang and yee is excused and our clerk is mr. victor young and, would i like to thank, who are assisting us with this broadcast at sfgovtv. mr. clerk do we have announcements? >> please silence all cell
6:01 pm
phones and electronic devices completed cards should be submitted to the clerk. >> items acted upon today will apioneer on the april, 4th, 2017, board of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> could you call item one? >> yes, would you like to make an official motion to ex-excuse --. >> yes, i will make a motion to excuse supervisor yee. >> we will take that motion without objection. >> thank you. >> supervisor yee is excused and now call item one. >> item one, resolution approving the leg, 110-73 oechlt one, between the smart cart and, acting by and through the commission, for a total term of may 15, to 2012, to june, 2015.
6:02 pm
>> the original term expires in june of this year. and the airport is requesting the board's approval to exercise to extend through 2018. the lease before you has two component and the first being a self-serve, luggage cart, where the smart cart provides, 400,000 or 500 luggage parts to rent to passengers throughout the terminals at sfo at a cost of $5
6:03 pm
per cart. and this part of the lease generates the rent, and rent equal to the greater of either 25 percent of the annual gross revenues of a minimum annual guarantee of approximately, 60, 673,000 dollars. and that is per year. the second part of the lease, is the custom's program. where the smart cart provides, at least, 1500 luggage carts, free of charge for arriving international passengers in the customs area of the international terminal. this part of the lease requires the airport to reimburse the smart cart to provide the free carts in customs. and the airport will pay an annual service fee equal to the lesser of either a 2.7 million service fee. or 1 dollar and 20 cents per cart used whichever is less. >> based on the estimates of the
6:04 pm
cart usage for both programs during the initial term, the airport staff estimates a maximum net payment of 4.2 million dollars over the two year extension. the a port does agree to better reflect the net payments that were made during the initial term as well as not-to-exceed amount for the total contract including twot year extension. i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you very much. supervisor tang as a question for you. thank you, i could not tell from the packet whether there is any plans for the future to raise the fee, $5 is quite a bit to be able to push your luggage around. >> i believe that this is pretty standard across the industry.
6:05 pm
the 5 dollars has been and it has been $5 since the 2012 term and so it has been in place for a while and i actually surprised that it was not increasing it is staying at $5, and i think that there may be the fee in there, may be to somehow subsidize a little bit of the three, luggage cart uses because you will notice when the airport pays on the actual cart for the usage for the free carts it is only at $1.20, but i do believe that $5 is pretty standard nationally. it is not higher at sfo than it is at other places. >> thank you. >> we have a legislative analyst report on this item. >> good morning, mr. rose. >> madam chair and supervisor tang, on page 4 of our report, we report that under the existing initial 5 year term of the agreement, and that is from july first 2012, to june, 2017, and as you know the board of supervisors approved that
6:06 pm
agreement. the airport will pay the smart catre fees of 12 million 456 and all in smart carte estimated percentage of 3 million 79 it 010, for the estimated payments by the airport of 8 million. and that is shown in table two. on tpage 4 of our report. >> thank you very much. >> i will be quick. >> on page 5 as she has already indicated. the airport estimate as a net payment to smart carte over the extensions from july, first, 17th, to june, 30, 2019, of 4 million. and that is shown in table three on page 5 of our report. and our recommendation at the bottom of page 5 is that we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution, and state that the net payment to the airport and the smart carte to the original five year agreement term to july first, 2012, to
6:07 pm
june, 3 0g9, is 8 million. and the next payment by the airport to the smart carte for the term in july first, 2017 through june, 2019 is not-to-exceed, 4 million. and for a total net payment not-to-exceed, 12 million, 924, 595, and we do recommend that you approve this resolution as amended. >> thank you and we appreciate the recommendations for amendments and we will take those amendments but before we take at mendments let's take public comment. ladies and gentlemen if you would like to comment on item one, please do so, at the podium you will have two minutes, you will hear a soft chime, seeing no comment, i it is closed. >> i will make a motion to adopted amendments and send it forward with the positive recommendation as amended. >> thank you.
6:08 pm
>> are you ready to go? >> how about item two? >>ordinance appropriating $12,807,266 of general obligation bond interest earnings for the san francisco general hospital and trauma center in fy2016-2017 and placing $392,406 on controller's reserve pending interest accrual and review of arbitrage costs. okay, we have mr. joe chin from the department of public works, the mayor is responsible for this particular piece of legislation. public works and program manage sxer this morning, i want to spend a few minutes to give an overview of the ordinance and to highlight some of the project achievement and milestones on the rebuilt projects since the inception. and on behalf of the public hel and this public works, we are requesting the board of support and approval of the ordinance in
6:09 pm
front of you today, to appropriate the geo bond interest earnings to add to the budget and of the 12 million, of the requested appropriation, it will allow for the close out of the new hospital construction contract and resolve outstanding change orders associated with the project for over 56 subcontractors it has been a long process to sit down with all of the subcontractors and where it comes at a point where we have finalized numbers that we can work with. and 392,406 will also be placed on the controller's reserves. and in terms of project highlights, the construction of the new hospital started over 8 years ago. and with the implementation of the site readiness starting in 2008, with he is ka vagus for the new hospital in 2009 and
6:10 pm
finally completing being achieved in august of 2015. but it has been a long, long, project. and patient owes fish officiall moved into the hospital in may of 2016. i am just also happy to report that the san francisco general hospital and trauma center has also received a distinction of the first lead goal in california. and so at this point, i am available to answer any questions that you may have about the project. or about the ordinance. >> all right, thank you very much. >> let's go to the budget and let's have the analyst report for us. >> yes, madam chair, supervisor tang on page nine of our report of the 12 million, the appropriation, 12 million, 388, 121 will be used to fund the change orders in order to close out the existing construction contracts. the expenditure of the 12 million is summarized in table four on page nine of our report. we recommend that you approve
6:11 pm
this ordinance. >> all right, thank you for the recommendation. supervisor tang, do you have any remarks. >> thank you, so just to clarify, it looks like the project had 13.1 million remaining balance from the cost savings but that will be eaten up. so even though you are going to be applying the 13.1, towards the other things that you still have an additional roughly, 12.8, or minus the three, 300 something that you are going to put on reserve. and to close out; is that correct? ? >> thank you for the questions. so let me explain, i believe that you are referring to the table or references the 12.56210 number and so those are the remaining balance in property ject budget to address other close outs related to the project and mostly for the soft cause and the permanent cost for the construction project. and so, all of that has been ear
6:12 pm
marked for expenditures on the project. okay. >> so then and then on top of that, then you still need the additional for you know the patient and staff safety, and amenities and the nursing station amodification and the licensing requirements and the equipment changes? ; is that correct? ? >> that is correct, and in the program budget there is a 4 million dollars left in the program budget and that has been set aside that we have been working with the department of public health to prioritize a lot of the needs and wants. and it has been a long project and as for the long projects we also drives a lot of the new scope and that is part and parcel to the nature of the hospital operation and trying to make it as safe as, and the patients will have a good experience. >> thank you. >> we are going to public
6:13 pm
comment at this time. any member of the public that would like to comment. >> come up. >> seeing number, public comment is closed. supervisor, >> all right. so i think what we, do we have to take a motion to place the 392 on reserve in or is that just embedded in this? >> it is embedded. >> okay, so i will make a motion to send forth this ordinance with the positive recommendation to the full board. >> without objection that motion passes. >> next item. >> on the aagain ta, item three. >>hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the sheriff's department, placed on budget and finance committee reserve by the fy2016-2017 annual appropriation ordinance (file no. 160628), in the amount of $135,000 to fund the body worn camera program. >> this is a hearing to release
6:14 pm
the 100,000 for the body cameras, it is good to see you chief deputy, good morning. >> good morning, and good morning, supervisor tang, i am here to represent the department and, currently i am the division chief of the custody operations division for the san francisco sheriff's department. we are looking to seek the release of some reserve funds, to finance our pilot program on body worn cameras, the goal of this is to promote transparency and accountability in regard to our operations up and in the county jail number four on the 7th floor on the hall of justice. the idea of the pilot program is to provide a balance of the benefits of the body worn camera and the activity of the staff and reasonable expectation of privacy for all involved parties. we have a unique situation in the jail system where we are under conditions of confinement. we try to provide as much of an
6:15 pm
expectation of privacy. and we have them up there in the care and the use of the body warn cameras are slightly different in that setting as opposed to the public setting. >> the pilot program and being able to exam the metric and to be able to provide that transparency and accountability that we see. the program itself will envision the use of these cameras on 30, identified deputy sheriffs within that jail. and they would be activated with a button that records, the video and sound and securely up load those bad data through the internet through the cloud base storage. we have a pilot program, policy in place right now, in order to insure what i referenced earlier is the expectations of the privacy of the people have in our care, the review committee that we have, i believe that is in your packets. it will consist of the members of our department and, members
6:16 pm
of the units that our department, employ and the department of public hel and this our legal team in order for us to properly review that information. >> and i believe that you have the packets that will provided by the sheriff along with a letter that she gave, if not, i have the packets that i will provide and i can give to the clerk. >> maybe you could might it be in the efile but we don't have it here and mr. clerk do you have is a copy for the file? >> i do the believe that i do. >> i also have the presentation that we could show you right now. >> that would be good. >> >> just by way of background, for the folks at home, during last year, the policy of body cameras was being developed and the board recommended placing the $135,000 that we are going to be hearing, whether we are going to prove it or not. the senate on budget reserve, pending the submission from the sheriff's department and the final plan, the plan is what
6:17 pm
they are going to be presenting today. >> yes. >> sorry for the delay. >> that is okay. sfgov tv could we get the lap top? >> all right. >> this is what i referenced in the initial presentation and, i don't know if you can see that too clearly. probably not. i have some hard copies also that you can follow along with. >> yeah.
6:18 pm
the first slide gives an overview of the pilot program, to test the cameras, to augment the system and to promote transparency, and the seuss's to provide, video and audio with many of the staff and those that we are in charge of the custody and care of. >> one of the major considerations as referenced earlier was the concerns of expectation of privacy that people have and secondly to that is to be able to insure the proper use of the cameras to gather the information for the viability of the technology to promote our goals and to protect the rights of the inmate and the deputies in our system. >> i gave some faqs here in regard to what the body worn cap ra is, i believe that you can review those on the hard copy and i don't know if you want me to go over them in terms of the
6:19 pm
presentation itself? >> what is a body worn camera whashgs kind of a camera will you be using? >> that i think we are okay. >> i don't think that we need to do that. >> i do have one quick question. the company that is providing the camera, is this the same question that sfpd contracts with? >> yes, madam chair, this is the taser international company. >> so we will be piggy back og that contract. >> so, are we getting a deal? >> i believe we are. the initial asks for us last year as 135,000. >> i believe and based on the budget legislative analyst report, we are now looking at asking for only, 41,000 of that amount. >> okay. >> that is a significant reduction in our request. >> right. >> what we would like to do is fund the program itself right now, for the pilot program and hopefully with the data gathered look to in the future, providing this technology to all of our staff and all of our operations. >> will you be able to describe to us the process that you engaged with developing the
6:20 pm
policy and then go over that policy, the department's policy for the body cameras? >> certainly. >> the policy itself. is still under draft. and we have already engaged in discussions with both of the collective gar binni bargaining units. >> the pilot program has been passed across the table as well. and it has been given the go ahead by that staff in terms whaf we plan on accomplish wg that program, to gather the information and to assuage the staff as to the technology itself and kind of ak la mate them to the use. and we have a program which has been in the development since for the past two and a half years, actually. and since the time of the initial development, we have had incidents of a county jail number four, which have really highlighted the need to have this technology present in our system. we had some instances a few years ago, which called in to
6:21 pm
question the behaviors of some of our staff. this technology will provide us with a method in which we can review the actions of our staff in their interactions to the inmate to provide that transparency. >> and i don't want to interrupt too much further, but supervisor tang wanted to see the question. >> just a piggy back on the same questions of kument that is providing the cameras in terms of the back end, ongoing, support for maintenance of the foodage, and so forth, and are you also, using something similar. >> yes, we are. >> so the technology as i mentioned was a cloud based storage of the bet a that is collected from the camera and that technology is similar and consistent with what sfpd will be using as well. >> okay. >> did you have any other questions related to the technology itself. >> not related to the technology. >> i think that we are having
6:22 pm
enough hearings about the technology and, we have been talking about that for a few years now. >> i wanted to hear a little bit more about the policies, so i suppose if we were to go to --. >> sure, let's go to -- our required use activations, part of our policies will outline when, our staff will be required to turn their devices on. as you can see right now, in terms of operations, this will be for what we called extractions when we have to remove people torqu remove, to move them where they don't want to be moved. >> altercations involving inmates and, prisoner verses staff fights, the safety placements involving the uses of force or the response to emergency calls. for example, also, to highlight further the use of force included in the required use activation. and listed as follows, defensiveself from the attacks of another inmate, any time that
6:23 pm
we have to use the physical control, wieb required use activation. or any other circumstances requiring an immediate response, all staff will be required to turn on their cameras. >> one note, there is also a stimulation that deputies are always going to make reasonable efforts to activate the camera prior to any contact required in the situations. it is not just that they are going to be trained on activating these devices at the time of anything happening but prior to anything possibly happening. >> that we will get the full coverage. and there is also, a reference to discretionary use. in our draft policies, deputies are going to be asked to activate the body worn cameras to record any contacts where the recording is not required. and it is going to be recommended that they record any contact that could lead to or be later used as evidence. this is a catchall, in terms of having people activate their des
6:24 pm
when dealing with people who may be existing negative behaviors or maybe, confrontational in their behavior, in something that will result from a complaint. for me, there are staff members or from our inmates. >> and finally, the wernz that i referenced, we have areas in our jail that which, although there say lower expectation of the privacy under the conditions of confinement. there are still actions that we take to insure that the people still have some sense of privacy. so we want to protect the dignity of the victim and uninvolved parties in these situations. we want to be cognizant of where we are recording things and so anywhere that a deputy would not normally go, we will also be areas that have been identified in our policy. where they will not be allowed to video tape anything. >> i have a question. >> so this is the draft of the
6:25 pm
policy, when will the policy be final? >> the policy will be final as it goes, part of the wishes of the sheriff is to use some of the data that we collect and, some of the applications that we have in our every day operations. during the pilot program. to infuse some of that information into the policy itself. so that it will be a living document as all policies are. but some of the information that we gather from the day-to-day use, will be used to help us finalize that policy. >> sorry, go ahead. >> the actual, pilot program itself is schedule to last for up to 12 months. >> when does it begin? >> as soon as we get approval. >> so what, are there any internal steps that you have to go through for at proval process. you come to the board of supervisors and you come to the budget and then it goes to the full board and we vote on it and then you are set and there are no more approval process. >> one thing that i have not referenced yet, madam chair, is that we have an operation's plan
6:26 pm
already set to go, so that once we get the devices there are plans in place for the training of staff to include our vest gayiga investigative staff, in addition to the people that are going to be using the devices and there will also be notifications made to all people involved. not just our staff, but all of our contract people as well. >> what is the data review process going to be? ha wha we have is the review and it will be covered by the body worn camera and the pilot review committee and, they will be tasked at looking at items such as it is training gaps in the use of the camera, and the training gaps reviewed by the use of the camera. any privacprivacy. and impacts on the the use of force impacts on our use of force and, also, evidence collection for the administrative and criminal cases and evaluation of the
6:27 pm
security atreefal and the downloaded material. >> are there any civilian representative snz >> yi, so the next slide shows that we will have members of the next panel, members of our own command staff and the members of the unit and members of the department of public health. both from the clinical and the behavior health side, of the shot. >> so that we have more inclusion. so what i am trying to get and you know that i have been a part of the conversation when it comes to body cams with the sfpd and the commission. and one of the main sticking points with sfpd policy, was would the department have the ability to review the data post an incident, and an incident happens, and someone in custody makes a complaint, or something happens. and to the person in custody. and as you may recall, there was
6:28 pm
a lot of discussion around it and the policy was set with the police department set forth was, when there is an incident the police department has the ability to review the data first before the police commission. and so i am wondering if there is a policy that exists because there is no body that set the policy discussion for the sheriff's department. we have the police commission as an over site body but there is not the same in terms of civilian oversight for the sheriff's department. so, if in the event there is an incident, what is the thinking do you review the policy and, do you review the data first? or are you turning it over to i don't know, the city attorney, but the district attorney, and i think that it has jurisdiction in this area if the prosecution needs to take place, can you shed the light or what you guys are thinking. >> the short answer to that is that we will be looking at developing a policy that will be
6:29 pm
consistent with what the policy is. and so the short answer will be if we are going to plan on matching their policy. noechlt when we will see the final draft of this policy? >> the plan is to have the final draft at the end of the pilot program itself. that is being developed as we move along. and i don't know, supervisor tang maybe you can weigh in here sdpshgs usually you have a policy in place before you go to a pilot program. and maybe i'm, i'm incorrect and i don't know if there is anyone that can offer any advice? no one seems to be able to offer any advice. and as of. >> and through the chair, would i just say that, having some sort of a draft, i think is important right now, and at the moment, but also i understand the sheriff's department and desire to incorporate what, you know, information is gathered through the pilot program to
6:30 pm
also, have a better financial policy in place, so i understand that, and i think at the end of the 12 months, obviously we hope that you would have gathered enough data to understand how you can better roll it out with your own staff and what were some of the things that they identified as problematic, or it could be improved upon. or even, through the committee. so, i mean, i am okay with the structure of this. >> okay, well, i'm a little uncomfortable with the structure of it. because i think that we need to have a little bit more of a fine tuning with the process. but i am going to be supportive so we can move forward. and look forward to hearing a report back. >> maybe i could offer up a little more. >> sure. >> i mean that we have a draft policy itself and that is what i was referencing when i said that we will be develop and adding to that particular, draft poll sichlt so there will be a framework that we are working
6:31 pm
with in terms of how we apply, the pilot program. and some of the constraints that we are going to have for the staff and when to use it and when not to use it, so there will a documentation on that. >> i can check with the sheriff to see if that is something that we can share with you as well. >> that will be very good and i would be interested in doing that. >> no problem. >> let's did you complete your presentation? >> yes. >> okay. okay. let's go to the budget and analyst report. >> good morning, the staff and as you will see on page 14 of our report, the actual budget for this proposed pilot is 41,341 dollars, if the project was expanded after the conclusion of pilot, the sheriff's department estimates one time cost of $210,000, and ongoing, annual cost of $208,000 and both of these will be subject to board appropriation
6:32 pm
approval. >> so we recommend reducing the release of 135,000, by 93 stks 666 by the request budget of 41334, and then we can consider this a policy matter because it is implementing a new program. >> thank you very much for the brief presentation. >> and chief, i think that we are good. with your presentation. i am going to open up to public comment at this time. >> thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen if you would like to speak on comment come up. sooes seeing none, public comment is closed. >> at this time i will make a motion to release the -- did we do the 135 or did you say on41. >> the dla recommends making the following amendments reducing. >> yeah, so we will do that.
6:33 pm
>> in returning, and this is the key part, returning 93 stks 666 back to the general fund. >> deputy city attorney? >> so you are not -- the budget and finance committee cannot actually return the money to the general fund, it is just going to sit on that reserve until it is reappreciatopriated in the b in july. >> but this body is going to be acting on reducing the request to 41,334 dollars to reflect the actual cost for the cameras. >> right. >> and supervisor, tang is making would release that amount of money to 41,000 leaving another 90 some thousand dollars on reserve. >> okay, so i will restate the motion to release, only, 41,334 dollars out of the total request and the remainder will remain on reserve. >> thank you. >> and i think that this is a hearing so it does not need to go to the full board.
6:34 pm
>> it is not going to the full board. the motion is to release, and we will send a letter to the controller's office. thank you for your time and your presentation, i appreciate it. >> next item, please? >> next on the agenda,resolution authorizing the director of property to exercise a lease extension for the real property located at 1701 ocean avenue with huey lan f. 2004 trust for a five-year extension term to commencing upon approval by the board of supervisors and the mayor, at the monthly base rent of $17,950 for a total annual base rent of $215,400. >> well, sir you don't look like claudia. >> thank you. >> chair. >> i think that you wr the real estate department. >> ma'am i am with the department of public health. >> public health, got t >> i represent the tenant. >> okay. >> madam chair, supervisor tang, and committee members, dave, the department of public health. my family clinic center is in the ocean view heights area of san francisco. cited at 1701, ocean avenue, it
6:35 pm
is a comprehensive clinic that serves 3 years to 59 with mental hel and this substance abuse treatment services. and the clinic has been located at the present site for the last ten years, previously it was a half block down at 1760, and prior to that in the ocean avenue corridor. and we have been part of the community based services offered through the department of public health for quite some time there, i know that your time is short, if you have any questions. >> thank you. >> no questions so far. supervisor tang. >> no questions. >> okay. >> let's see let's go to the budget legislative analyst report. >> thank you. >> this exercise the first of two five year extensions the original lease was for ten years, from 07 to 17. and so this will be an additional five years, 2022. and the lease amount is going up from 31 dollars per square foot to 43 per square foot, and it is
6:36 pm
still below the amazed market value, 45 per square foot, over the five year term of the lease, the department paid, a million dollars, and a little more than a million dollars in rent, which will be subject to the board of supervisor as proval and the annual budget and we recommend approval. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so despite the base rate going up and it looks like there is no annual rent adjustments during this five year period. >> correct. >> all right. we are grateful to the trust for not increasing the rent during that five year period. >> let's go to public comment. >> any member of the public? seeing none. public comment is closed. >> thank you. >> what are we going to do with this supervisor tang. >> i will make a motion to approve this resolution with a positive recommendation and send it to the full board. >> without objection, that motion passes. >> next item?
6:37 pm
>> >> five,resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission (sfpuc) to execute a professional services agreement with black & veatch corporation for specialized design services for design support to mitigate ground, wire, and structure clearance issues with hetch hetchy water and power high voltage power lines in accordance with the sfpuc's mitigation program, for an amount not to exceed $12,000,000 over a term of ten years to commence following board approval through april 2027 >> okay, so we have riche here, no? >> actually dan wade. >> okay. >> so just real quick, so this is a resolution that will authorize the puc to execute professional service agreement with blackned beach. and for the design services for the design service for the power and high voltage power line and the amount not-to-exceed 12 million dollars. the puc selected black & veatch for the engineering team to specialize in the design service
6:38 pm
to mitigate, a few things. and the agreement is a ten year agreement from approximately 2017 to 2027. right? >> yes. >> that i think we got it. >> okay. >> the floor is yours. >> you have summarized very well what this is about. good morning, supervisors i'm dan, and i am the director of the capitol projects and programs. and as you know, sfpuc operates at 160 miles of power transmission lines from what we called the up country facility and the powered facilities that generate the clean and renewable hydropower, to the newer substation on the east side of the bay, there say study completed in 2014, that showed that many stretches of these power lines, actually don't meet current requirements with respect to clearances between the ground, trees, and the other structures that are in the area. and so, it is important for us to implement mitigation measures in order to get the clearances
6:39 pm
that are required for hel and this safety of the public. and so this rfp that in place. and the board to help to us implement the designs that are required and this is a ten year contract. and it represents about 30 percent of the total budget for this portion of the work. and we you know we, would like to move forward, to enter the agreement with the black & veatch not-to-exceed, 12 million dollars over ten years, would i be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, i appreciate your presentation, i am going to pivot to the budget and legislative analyst. >> if they have any comments. >> this will be a two year
6:40 pm
contract, to 2027, subjected to a competitive process, and the contract is not to seek, 12 million dollars of which 8 million will be allocated towards the design services for the transmission line clearance, the high voltage clearance, and another four million to be used for deet sign services for ongoing right-of-way. issues. >> we do have a schedule of extended here on page, 22, and the sources of of the funds are the revenue bonds and enterprise, power revenue and we do have the one recommendation, which is the technical to correct the legislation itself and otherwise we recommend approval. >> great, thank you. >> the public comment is open at this time. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you very much. and supervisor tang? >> okay, so i will make a motion to adopts the technical amendment that was just stated by the budget analyst office and approve as amended, and sebd
6:41 pm
send to the board with positive recommendation. >> next item. >> number 6, the emergency declaration of the san francisco public utilities commission, and to construct a temporary road around an area.resolution approving an emergency declaration of the san francisco public utilities commission pursuant to administrative code, section 6.60, to construct a temporary road around a landslide area at calaveras road; with a total estimated cost not to exceed $1,500,000. nechltd we have dan presenting again. >> thank you, supervisors, if you could go to the slides please? >> i would like to present this emergency declaration for temperature construction by pass of the land slide and the background of this is in january when we have had multiple back to back storms, and a land slide oskurd on down slope edge of the 100 foot section of the road. and now this is property that is owned by san francisco, but alamena county has a right away for the road through this stretch. and so this is the only point of access to the replacement
6:42 pm
project which is an ongoing project that is part of the 4.8 water system approvement program for the large equipment and materials to the construction site. and the replacement project, will be delayed until the contractor can once again access the construction site fully. and this is a critical project that you have heard about this over the years for me, and others. and for providing continuous delivery of water to 2.6, million people in the san francisco bay area. and this is a photo of the land slides. this is a very narrow section of road. and the land slide essentially cut off access and so the county you know, is responsible for repairs to the road. but they have a lot of land slides all over the county. and this is just one of a number of slides that they need to get to over time. and so, the road is currently closed and they have advised
6:43 pm
that they will not be able to implement the repairs until the summer of 2017, at the earliest and so we are, you know, in the middle of this critical 7 year construction project. and we finished the spillway last year. and we have finished the excavation. but it cannot go on to service until the new dam is in place, and that will be constructed over the next 18 months and, without the spillway, the occurrence of the extreme flood event can lead to over topping and catastrophic dam failure, so you want the construction project to go through as few as possible. and so, as a result we declared an emergency under section 6.60 of the administrative code on february 27th. >> and so, that emergency declaration is to horize the sfpuc to enter into agreement with our contractor, and that is building the dam.
6:44 pm
to address this issue on the road. and we anticipate that it will be about 1.5 million dollars, and we have funds available in the construction contract to do this work. and so our request is to approve this emergency contract. and to have the contractor construct the temporary by pass road around the slide and it will continue the project. >> all right. >> thank you. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. and so then, once the county completes it's work, that it needs to do, then this temporary road will go away. >> that is right. >> and the county is not going to reimburse puc or anything for this temporary road that we have to create because of their own delay. >> no. >> no. >> okay. >> well i mean that i certainly understand. >> they are cooperating with us to make to give us an encroachment permit to tie the teemary road into the permanent road and again they are going to do their own work to implement a permanent solution.
6:45 pm
>> okay. >> i understand that the contractor is already on the site. >> the contractor is already on site and the work has begun right after the emergency declarati declaration. >> we are going to hear from the budget analyst. >> yes, the proposed resolution, approves the emergency by the puc and then does allow to puc to enter into a contract for the repairs of the road. the contractor was originally selected for the dam project through a come poetive process, the budget of 1.5 million is on page, 26 of our report. and when this budget was created by the contractor but the puc says that they did review it for reasonableness for the cost because it is not through a competitive process, and the funds to pay for the contract are in the capitol budget for the dam, and that was previously appropriate ated and we recommend approval. >> thank you. >> how much was previously appropriate ated in the budget do you know? >> oh, for the dam? >> yes. >> it has been appropriate ate
6:46 pm
and reappropriated many times sxts very large, i will have mr. wade tell where you it is now. >> thank you. >> the current budget of the dam replacement is 810 million. >> okay. >> so it is all right, that sounds good. thank you, we are okay. >> supervisor tang? >> thank you. question for the puc. so, the land slide took place on january 10, of 2017 and the emergency declaration was not until february 27th and i am just wondering more than a month passed almost two months, and so i just wanted to kind of see was it --. >> yes. >> the time amount to determine that it was an emergency. >> excellent question and so, immediately, we initiated the discussions with the county, over their plans to repair the road. and so it took some time for us to meet with them and to get a clear answer from them as to what their plans were. and we requested that they immediately repair the road. and it took some time to you
6:47 pm
know forks them to get back to us with clear plans. as to what they proposed to do. and it also took some time for us to negotiate an agreement with them where we could actually build this temporary by pass around this road. >> and now, in the winter, we were not losing a lot of time. because, we had continued rains and there wasn't a lot of construction going on any way. and so the critical time point for us to have this road in place, is actually over the next month or so. >> okay. >> thank you. >> all right, thank you. >> public comment is open. >> and seeing that there is no one here for public comment, it is closed. >> thank you. >> okay, i will make a motion to approve or sent forth this resolution with positive recommendation to the full board. >> thank you. >> without objection that motion passes. >> mr. clerk s there any other business before this body. >> that completes at again da
6:48 pm
for today. thank you very much, this meeting is adjourned. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. this meeting will come to order. this is a regular meeting of the full budget. i'm supervisor -- to my left is supervisor tang and to my right is supervisor fewer. and supervisor sheehy. supervisor yee, we need to take a motion to excuse >> yes, i would like to include supervisor kim in that motion >> yes, i would like to include supervisor yee and kim for a motion to excuse. >> tang. >> i would like to make a motion to excuse yee and kim.
6:49 pm
>> second. >> seconded by second. supervisor fewer. without objection. thank you to our talented clerk, mr. victor young and to our friend adrian -- thank you for assisting us with today's broadcast. could you call item is. >> yes, prior starting, i would like to state that supervisor fewer has been appointed to today's meeting and supervisor yee. in announcements, [inaudible] complete speaker cards and any documents to be included as apart of the file to be submitted to the clerk. item number 1, hearing on the proposed five-year information and technology plan for fiscal years 2017-2022. and requesting the committee on information technology to report. >> i'm a sponsor of this legislation, and today we will
6:50 pm
be hearing an overview on the proposed information and communication technology plan or the ict. this plan, you should note, this plan is the guiding document for the city investment and it provides an assessment of the city investment recommendation for the next five years. so as you can imagine, this is important. this may be adopted by the board may 1st of 2017 which is why we're hearing this item outside of our usual budget process. i would like to bring up kelly who will present this item. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, naomi, kelly. i would like to present the communication's technology plan for fiscal years 2017 and 2018. oh, i'm sorry, fiscal years 2017-18
6:51 pm
through fiscal year 20 -- we present an updated strategy on the future direction of the city's technology. in the last ict plan the city renewed over 121 projects and invested in key technologies across the city. the ict plan helped the city plan for investments towards the replacement of the public safety -- and have recommendations during the budget cycle. it led to development of two technology initiatives that are running. first is the implementation of the city wide digital service strategy. i'm pleased to share that our new chief digital service officer kerry bishop is hired and actively working with departments to redesign their services to be more accessible and user friendly. up first, she'll work with the office of sifb immaterial grant affairs
6:52 pm
on their portal as a -- working with the office of short term rental on a faster and more efficient online application process. the second initiative to come from the ict plan was a focus on shared services. the department of technology has instituted a shared service form which acts as an advisory body where department bodies can active -- this is an important step to develop our city wide it students that have been -- decisions being made, department by department, but together, we will be working collaboratively. i think i would like to go through some of our quick accomplishments. the ict plan over the last few -- last two years, we have been invested millions towards new technology. it changes how we deliver services, although there's many different projects
6:53 pm
to share, i want to highlight few accomplishments today. with the technical existence from the department of technology and staff involvement from every city department in this -- and i mean every city department, the controller's office let the financial system replacement project which will replace our city wide procurement system and this is on budget and on track to be completed this year. we're excited about that especially my city roll purchaser. we help the police department establish a new smartphone app called east op which offers -- anyone stopped or detained for any reason. the police began using east op in response to the bill 9 -- the treasure tax collector has made the profit to register new businesses available online in the first seven months, 30,000 businesses registered and
6:54 pm
compare -- the department of public health and technology installed a new system at sucker bird hospital last yaek. this will provide more than 3 how voice over ip sets with 71 offering video conferencing features and these are a few -- the it plan discusses much more in detail and to share more with you, i would like to introduce the new director, jaime who will walk you through the remaining sections of the plan. >> good afternoon, i'm director of coit. i'll go through the remaining section of the it plan with you all. and just to restate what the purpose of the
6:55 pm
ict plan is. it's a five year strategic document for the city's document and has two purposes of identifying areas of strategic importance -- and this is a financial document that guides our decisions during the budget cycle as we review budget request. it's put into five different sections where we review the vision in the city and reduce the accomplishments, looking at different technology leaders, including department technology, data, mayor's office's innovation. coit, 311 and the new digital office and how they're contributing to the digital operations in the city and the next decisions is the goals of the city and strategies and recommendations for the next five years. >> looking at the vision for
6:56 pm
city technology, through our discussions with city leadership and our surveys and discussions of stakeholders, san francisco technology supports egt as an accessible service for every visitor and business and employer. this is an important vision statement to say that technology -- it's to improve better service delivery. following up with the vision, there's three important goals, each with various sub strategies within them, and included in the ict plan document, there's several performance measures that we'll track each of these going forward to see how the city is going forward. goal number one is to support critical infrastructure which is the highest priority goal for the city. and this is where we've identified major projects like financial system replacement
6:57 pm
project and the future upcoming replacement to public replacement and public radio. within the goal one, we have four separate strategic initiatives which is the network communications and data -- and our disaster recovery efforts and each are fundamental to supporting our goal of supporting and maintaining critical infrastructure city wide. under goal number two, we seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of city technology and operations. and underneath there, we have four separate initiatives ongoing as well including the strategic sourcing of procurement in the city led by contract administration and improved hiring technology as are increasing growth in the city. we need to have more and more professionals so that's led by the department of human resources and we have a data
6:58 pm
resource to improve data share and how we're using data operations and improving our customer services and creating central portals so when residents come to the city, that they can get the services they need and that is led through 311. our third goal is increased transparency to city services and city technology. this is led by two different efforts and the first is the digital service's team led by kerry bishop who was recently hired and her purpose is to help reimagine how we interact with the city and look at the experience for resident and businesses -- and improve that process through digital means. the other major initiative is digital inclusion whereas we continue to create new technologies and have more of a digital society, making sure that all of the residents in san francisco do have access to the internet and know how to use these services whenever they need to. looking forward
6:59 pm
to the next two years, we have identified several different initiatives that guide and focus onto improve our technology. and the first is the city employee's experience. this is a direct result from our previous it team that led to the digital services strategy where we think how we're delivering service and create more engagement with them. the city employee experience flips that and how city employees use technology and how we can better use technology to improve technologies on our end. we're looking at on boarding to see how we can train new employees and makes them adapt into city services quickly. the next stage initiative is reviewing the strategic procurement in the city and this is a seen as a pain point when bringing on new technologies so over the next two years, we will be looking at the current legislative framework, administrative code and other
7:00 pm
ways we can potentially help the procurement process. the next initiative is improving data sharing architecture. we want to have 54 different departments or technology services and we want to reexam how we can improve data sharing and how we use operations in the city. coit passed two different policies around private security and disaster preparedness and response recovery. these are two fundamental issues we need to be concerned about and incorporate more risk management and over the next two years we'll look how we improve our data systems. moving onto the financial side of it plan. coit reviews all technology projects that are over $100,000 and through our process of public meetings and review of all the projects, the goal is to encourage
7:01 pm
facilitation. looking over the next five years, we recommend increasing the coit allocations, 10% for a total of 184 million over a five year timeframe. coit allocation is put into two categories and it's -- this allocation has been used to fund a financial system replacement project, the public service safety and radio replacement project and will be used to fund the replacement property assessment and tax system. all these projects are defined as multi year and multi-million project that takes massive resources to change how we're using technology on an enterprise scale. over the next couple of years, we'll see this scale wrap up and looking at the public safety and public safety radio project continue to be
7:02 pm
implemented and beginning the project and the property tax assessment. the department of public health will be implementing the [inaudible] records project. although no general fund money will be used from the coit allocation to support this project. we'll maintain records and track this as it goes because it does have significant changes to the way the department and health will be doing business. looking towards the future, there are several major it projects that we'll be investigating and scoping out for possible support. i will be reporting back on this on the next ict plan. the first major project we're considering is revoicing voice over protocol. our phone system needs continued support, we're investigating whether voice is an effective solution or offers cost savings to improve our operations, and we'll be looking at customer relationship management
7:03 pm
systems, specific to 311. many departments are using other crm systems to track how they're engaging with residents and businesses and this is a way so we could potentially work together and have better data saving. we'll scope out the voting system replacement project where the department of elections current system will be end of term in 2018. and so we'll be investigating replacing that with another system that uses open source or open source software as apart of that. finally we'll be investigating the city's role in supporting broad ban going forward. supervisor farrell has several motions to improve universal access to the internet, so we'll be investigating how much support coit will be on that. moving onto the other allocation is the annual allocation where we review individual project request each fiscal year. over
7:04 pm
the five year timeframe, we're reviewing -- we've reviewed 152 projects and each budget cycle, we review each one to see prior [inaudible] funding and through the snap shot through the it program, the request for general fund support far exceeds any allocation available every year. and so we'll continue having to prioritize the annual cycle. finally recommendations, we have six recommendations to the board and the mayor to consider. first is to grow the it allocation by 10% annually and the second is continue to support coit prioritizing projects that align with plan goaled and the third is making sure that each project that is funded through major it project is proceeded through a planning
7:05 pm
scoping phase. to better understand the life cycle and cost returns. the 4th is coit sequence -- risk project and readiness and cost effectiveness and this is required since it projects are in far- the 5th recommendation is that coit should continue to support technology projects that enhance existing services, and really improve the way that the city is providing operations, and finally the city should set aside a separate funding source for the continued refreshment it hardware which is a separate and important ask, the departments continue to ask every year. if you have any questions, i would love to answer questions from the it plan. we'll track performance of our progress toward the strategic goals going forward and sharing that information on the coit website which is at >> i didn't catch your name.
7:06 pm
>> masias. >> are you the new director of the department of dtis? >> no. >> is that the vision infield? what's your role? i'm trying to figure out who is doing what? >> jaime is the director of coit. >> got it. >> information technology. the director -- the new director of technology, we have received 155 applications. we are currently working with a recruiter to narrow it down and plan to interview in april, so hopefully by the time our budget process starts, we'll have a new director of department of technology and my city administrator and chief financial officer is the director at dp. >> you might want to answer the questions. coit has been around. it has been a challenged program since i have
7:07 pm
been on the board. i remember former supervisor chiu ragging on coit. i don't want to throw my fellow departments under the bus. he's had issues with technology. >> technology, i'm thinking out of term. i thought it was coit. i was looking for a series of questions, but if i got my departments confused, i don't want to ask the questions so i'll refrain and i'll let supervisor tang. >> i think it's all relevant in the context of coit. but you know, my -- when i was talking to the previous director, he wanted to get our city's -- kind of the basics down. before you go and do flashy things and so i noticed that on the financial recommendation
7:08 pm
for item 4, it says that coit should think when funding certain it -- and you know, i guess looking at those criteria, i was wondering, i think it was really important, what the previous dt director said, which is we need to get the basics down before we can do anything major. is that going to be one of the evaluation criteria rather than just the basic risk of cost effectiveness. >> mathia will address that issue for you. >> sure, i like to comment because the two major it projects we're doing right now, the finance replacement project and the public safety radio projects, those are large infrastructure projects and they were considered because they were about to fail or they need today have support. during that evaluation of risk, the city and coit decided these are major projects that needed
7:09 pm
to be prioritized and funded. that's how we're incorporating infrastructure into that process of really identifying what are the biggest risk because without the infrastructure, we can't do anything else. >> i'm glad to hear that. it wasn't highlighted in the presentation, but if i'm hearing that's the priority, that's good to hear. >> thank you. colleagues, to my right, any other questions or anything? no. okay. all right, thank you for your presentation. it's good to see you and to meet you. let's see. let's take this matter to public comment. ladies and gentlemen, if you're interested in speaking on this item, please come up at this podium. you'll have two minutes to speak. seeing none. public comment is closed. thank you. is there a motion on this item? do you want to continue or
7:10 pm
file the hearing? we can file? >> controller's office, you can file this item today and then it will come back as a different item, it would come back as an action item in a couple of weeks. speaker: i look forward to the detail when's it comes forward. i'll make a motion to file this hearing. >> thank you. >> we can take that motion without objection. >> we need a second with a five-member committee. >> we need a second on this speaker: second. >> all right. without objection. that was sandy fewer who seconded by the way. could you call item 2, please. >> item number 2, hearing on the proposed ten year expenditure plan for fiscal year 2018-2027 and requesting the control's office to report. >> thank you for joining us today and colleagues, we're going to be hearing an overview
7:11 pm
of the senior capital year for 2018-2027. this plan is a guiding document for the city's infrastructure investment and this assess the city's capital need and identifying the investment level required for us to meet those needs and it provides funding -- provides a strategy and a financing plan for the city for the next ten years so we can deliver on these infrastructure improvements. this is many critical needs for the city, and while the investments identified in the plan might not be immediate or sexy, sorry, brian, but they are differently important. i think we all agree to that. it lays out the future of our city and also it lays out the identity of our city. we're talking about critical investments like
7:12 pm
central -- major developments that are shaping the look and feel of our city. these are a few of the things that will truly shape the city for the next several years so i want to emphasize how important it is for us to be discussing this item today. and with that, i would like to bring up naomi kelly who will bring up ryan strong. all right, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, naomi city administrator. it's my pleasure to present the fiscal year plan 2018 through fiscal year 2027. as you mentioned supervisor cohen, i know you are excited and all the other -- libraries, cultural institutions and other places all over san francisco that's owned by the public. this recommends a record level of $35 billion in investments
7:13 pm
over the next decade and these funds will improve san francisco -- seismic repairs and strengthening utility systems and safer streets for pedestrian and bicycles and drivers and more affordable housing. this plan is fiscally constrained. strategic -- it's a strategic blueprint for a more sustainable san francisco. it includes plans to address the multi generational need to fortify the c-wall which protects three miles of our vibrant water front. it's assets in those who rely on it for home, recreation or travel and they're vulnerable to the meet threat of an earthquake damage and -- the plan keeps us on track for smoother pavement by bringing the city's pavement index score to 70 by 2025. its highest level in nearly 30 years, major projects range --
7:14 pm
we're working on the replacement of the animal control shelter and the replacement ambulance deployment facility, repurposing space at laguna hospital, improving the sewer and emergency water systems and and retro and fire police stations. the citizens of san francisco are showing their support for the plan and city's capital plan -- over the past 8 years, voters approved $3.5 billion in go bonds for approvable housing, hospitals, parks, police, firefighters and transportation and streets. this investment is more than any other time in the city's history. the work -- the work to draft the plan was done in a fiscally and transparent manner without increasing the tax rates or posing an undue burden to the fund. it met strict standards and leverage public investments for project delivery and funding. as i
7:15 pm
mentioned earlier, it's investing in the c-wall. we're imposing a $3 million obligation bond to fortify that wall. we also looked at -- we are addressing key challenges by striking the right balance between caring for existing aging infrastructure and investing in new projects that accommodate a rapidly growing population. we're dealing with the rising construction cost in the market and we're continuing our efforts to increase the city's resiliency against earthquakes and sea level rise. it is my pleasure to call up ryan strong who is taking on a new role of both the chief resilience officer, but capital planning. he's working with capital planning and he will be presenting the rest of the plan. >> thank you. welcome back, mr. strong. >> thank you very much. good afternoon members of the board
7:16 pm
of supervisors, chair cohen. i really appreciate -- this is the 9th capital -- 9th tenth year capital plan i have had the pleasure of presenting to this board and i have a copy of the original one here and the new one is twice as big. so we've actually increased and it's a $35 billion capital plan. the first was $15 billion. it's twice as much of where we started. part of that is we've done a much better job capturing different needs and leverage resources. the capital plan, and the capital planning committee is the only place really where the city comes together and talks about infrastructure in a hole list tech manner. that role is really important just in the
7:17 pm
amount of collaboration and coordinations we have seen with departments and other agencies as well. the city administrative says it's a -- it's one of the best practices we've had other jurisdictions looking to follow our lead. by considering the capital plan, we state what we fund and do not fund. and that's important to keep in mind. we also have created a transparent process where we have public meeting on all these different items. the capital planning committee in of itself is one of the few committees that has legislative and executive branch reputation on it and it provides executive information on the state facilities and recommendations to you to make the decisions around house the capital plan and how these projects move forward. so very briefly, the
7:18 pm
accomplishments and we have more identified in the presentation. you know, we -- over the past, you know, naomi mentioned $3.5 million. we invested $10 billion so that includes revenue bonds and the work at the puc and other projects moving forward. the lion share of this is to address resiliency and in addition, we know we've also managed to increase the amount of funds, the general fund has been putting into capital. i think supervisor tang was asking the it plan and taking care of what we own. when we think about pay as you go program, we take care of how renewals and we have manage today grow that significantly over the past -- since i started doing this a little
7:19 pm
more than ten years ago and it's one of the key policies in the capital plan that we managed to, for the most part, honor and move forward. i would say that we also -- at the city and the capital plan contributed, i think so the city bond rating and the controller can attest to our bond rating are as high as it has ever been. we know the a rating -- they ask a lot of questions of our capital plan and the assets we're funding and those we aren't able to fund and we're proud of that rating and proud of moving the city toward more - to having really strong fiscal health. >> quick question. what is the city's bond rating? since it's the highest? >> i'll refer to the controller. >> supervisors, there's three ratings and they use different scales, but we're a double a
7:20 pm
plus. it's across the board. we have a table available on our website to give more information. triple a is the highest, but mr. strong is correct. our current rating is as high as it has been in the history. >> real quick, controller, what are the factors that contributed to having a high bond rating? >> a whole host of factors have contributed to things -- improvements have been the adoption in some of the multi-year plan. the fact that we go through a process to assess longer term needs has been a major positive strength. it's a reserved policy adopted by the mayor and the board since the last recession were significant improvement for us in terms of rating agencies. and the forecasting process we go through -- look out over five years as apart of the five-year forecast and to do
7:21 pm
that habitually. it's relatively new. and then the thing that's less about our management decisions in the building and more about where we are is the diversity and the strength of the san francisco economy, which can't be underestimated in this math. >> thank you. >> moving onto slide four instead of funding overview. it's a $35 billion capital plan. $5.2 billion -- those include the departments you would find in a city, so around public safety, city and the county i should say. some of our health department programs, recreation and park and those facilities. it's around $19 billion when you talk about -- when you add in our enterprise departments, those you know, are the mta, port, puc, sfo, you know, puc and sfo are making large investments in
7:22 pm
their infrastructure and the port is moving in that direction and some of the general fund dollars that we have are going to be helping to fund the projects out of the port. we have $11 billion in external agencies and these are agencies we do not have direct control over or authority over, but we coordinate and collaborate with on a regular basis. that includes city college and the school district, the redevelopment agency or now the office of community infrastructure and investment, housing authority, you know, the county transportation authority, those types of agencies. the next slide shows the funding sources. if you're looking at the general fund department program, you can see the go bonds and the general fund, the general fund is in the blue, it may be hard for some to see, but those two programs make up, you know, 2/3 of our overall spending. for the general fund department is
7:23 pm
not as high although we have critical federal grants that are coming in especially around our bridges and we have other debts around participation which you'll get to later in the presentation. if you look at our enterprise department, you'll see the federal and state picks up considerably. they work out at the mta and at the airport. so i mentioned it's a constrained capital plan. we have a number of policies that we agree to when we put this document together to help with the structure and what we're able to fund. the pay as you go program which you consider instead of our cash program is -- it's a policy or the policies around that where we agree that we'll be growing it at 7% a year. in previous times, we were growing it at
7:24 pm
10%. we started at 50 million and it's up to 128 million in the current year budget. next budget, this is taking -- again, this is becoming a bigger percentage of the discretionary budget and it's why we started having discussions to slow that down -- the growth of that down a little bit. and i have to say the flexibility is hampered by the set asides that has occurred. if we look to the fourth bullet, we have a park and rec set aside. they have committed that to capital which we're happy to see, but it does reduce flexibility. the more recent street tree set aside has reduced some of our capital only by 5 million in total. but again, those few things combined, you know, make it -- can make it challenging when things shift in our program.
7:25 pm
>> on your sheet, you have a note that says escalated by 5 percent for the remainder of the plan. can you explain that to me? >> yes, when we're looking at construction cost over -- if we look back over the past 50 years or so, on average, escalation for construction cost from year to year has been 5%. so it's like your consumer price, it's cpi for construction cost. we're not as high as health cost have been going up, but we are higher than your normal cpi. so when we're -- when we're looking at these programs, we're escalating them forward and when you look at the numbers, even the $35 billion number, we're working in that escalation. does that answer your question? >> yes, thank you. >> and i should also say that while the pay as you go program, we're using it to take care of what we own. they're critical enhancements that creep up every year and an
7:26 pm
example is telegraph hill when we had a rock slide. this is trueing up our plan with our budget. we know we have to spend a certain amount of money on enhancements so what we have done, we put that into our pay as you go program as well. the lining share -- it's paid out of our gop bond or certificates of efforts participation program. the capital plan started this concept and we've been putting it in practice of having a capital planning fund. the idea that we have money that we're setting aside to do pre-development and understand projects before they go to voter and before they come to this body so we're speaking a lot more with confidence about what we can achieve and that has made a difference to move these bonds forward. >> when do we start the
7:27 pm
pre-construction project development? >> that started back in 2006-2007. we had a year -- this is under former mayor newsome, but we had a 30 year surplus on the budget and we did funding for the hospital rebuild. that $24 million we spent on that hospital ended up enabling us to be one of the few hospitals in the state, if not the only hospital in state that delivered that budget on time. that was $887.4 million project. so we have been doing that and committing to that ever since that time and that's usually when we're bringing go bonds to you, we try to make sure we -- done to the greatest extent. speaker: i see, thank you. >> so the next -- this slide,
7:28 pm
the next slide to show you more detail on the pay as you go program. we split it into sort of things we have a fixed allocation for, which we agreed we're going to fund it at 100% or a certain level. of the $128 million in this budget or of the $137 million in next year's budget, this is how it breaks out. though i would just mention now we're looking at ten years so we're looking at the full ten-year capital plan. so routine maintenance, i should say this is the ada improvement plan and ada public -- that's our curb ramp, those are things we agree we're going to fund at 100%. street resurfacing which we know is an important issue, that's a net score of 70. that's the idea that we want to do around streets. that's the goal we've had that we've been committing
7:29 pm
to. the remaining dollars, um, go toward right of way renews which are bridges, guard rails, stairways and things in the right of way and facility renewals which are going to be roofs, hbac systems, exteriors and fire panels and all those things that make up a facility and you need to keep in good working order to get the full life out of the facility or out of the building. and those you can see respect -- you know, we're restrictively funding at 59 percent. i'll talk a little about the implications of those in the next two slides so the next slide talking about the sale's measure impact. we talk about this because the street -- it was relying on $33 million that was going to come from the sales tax measure. the sales tax measure did not pass. and as a result, we know that we're going to be coming
7:30 pm
back to you to talk about how we fill that gap, how that affects the capital planning program or the capital budget. we did want to show you though, around street resurfacing if you look at that diagram here, you can sort of see the pavement connection in escort is the dark line and we should say 70 -- net score of pavement is a c, maybe better than that because the highest point you would get is an 85. you would not want to have 100%. that would mean every street would be brand new. the goal is to reach a pci, potentially of 85 at some distant -- you know, some time in the future. but you can also see the funding sources and i think that's important. and that's what we wanted to show. earlier on, we started at the high levels and a lot of the money that was invested in streets would come in bunches -- in big bunches from the federal government and
7:31 pm
other sources. we invested a lot of money in streets before the 1984 democratic convention. that's the last time we made big investment in our street. our net score was going down, you can see the funding levels were relying upon a lot of -- a lot of local sources, some of the sources were prop k and we have prop aa. now we have prop k which is coming through your half crepts or quarter cents sales tax. as we've done the capital plan, we have increased the capital fund, and that's the green bar. those are -- the [inaudible] bar was the gop bond. you can see that local general fund, that brighter green is taking up quite a bit,
7:32 pm
the idea was we were going to -- i would say the impact of not being able to fund these streets is the pavement condition score dropped significantly. this is something we track very closely, and something that we think is of great interest to the mayor and yourselves and the other members of the board. the next slide shows the impact of the funding levels on our facilities and our right of away renewal program. the two bars at the bottom are hard to see, but they represent the blue -- the blue is proposed funding. the red is the annual need. and then the gas red above is backlog and again, the situation here is that we are still not funding our annual
7:33 pm
need for renewals. and in so doing, it means that the backlog is growing and you can see our backlog grows in the first seven, eight -- through the capital plan period. part of that is because we're able to grow or capital plan at 7%. and we know that escalation is going up at 5%. once we hit fiscal year 2031, then you can start to see the backlog will start to level off some and will begin to -- you can't see it on this chart, but it will begin to come down. this, again, it's something we're focused on. how can we reduce the backlog levels to this great extent as possible. moving out of the pays awe go program, this program gets a lot of attention from our capital plan and these are the
7:34 pm
bonds the city is going to be proposing over the next ten years, the go bond -- this includes the -- it does not include the school district bonds and those are in our capital plan, but they're not represented on this table. it doesn't represent bart bonds and those other things. city administrator kelly mentioned the c-wall fortification effort, this is a new bond. we did have i vulnerablity study. we know we have sea level rise that's further down into the future, but we really know that with the likely hood of a large earthquake in san francisco from the hayward or the san jose faults we need to address the sea rise faults and that has been introduced into the --
7:35 pm
parks and open space, earthquake safety or we call our easter bond program, public health, and transportation, they're apart of regular programs, so every six years, five or six years we bring these bonds back, really until we feel like we're at a point that we reduce those needs in those areas. park and open space, the last one was in 2012. we plan to do another one in 2019. easer, the last one was in 2013. another one scheduled for 2020. transportation, we agreed through the transportation task force, we would do a $500 million bond every ten years so that's why transportation is in 2024. if you go to the next chart, you can see how we're maintaining our constraint. the constraint we have is we issue new bonds as we retire old ones so it means the tax rate does not go up. so by
7:36 pm
having that constraint, we're able to sort of layer a new bond as we retire old ones so the grayish bar at the bottom, those are bonds issued and sold where we're paying them back. and often our bonds are 20-year bonds but they can be 25 or 30 years. most are in the 20 year range. the darker bar, the light gray one, those are bonds passed by voters. we passed bonds but we won't sail -- we won't sale the bonds or issue them until we're ready for construction. the green one is the bonds we're planning for in the future of the that includes the park bond -- the green one is the port bond. and so forth that are layered on top. we work closely with the controller's office and the department of public -- under
7:37 pm
that red bar which is the tax rate, the out of warrant tax rate that shows up on citizen property tax bill. if we go to the general fund program, somewhat of a go bond program, we have a constraint and that's to limit the debt service that we're going to use general fund dollars for to three and a quarter percent of discretionary fund revenue. so the state of california spends more than 3.25 percent on their debt service. we've created this constraint and i think it's codified in our city wide financial policies. the idea with this program is that there's certain things that are just not going to be feasible through a general obligation bond. these are also thing that's are critical that we really need to take care of and
7:38 pm
address that we have a responsibility for. so we have 101 grove. that's our worse seismically buildings and it has administrative staff in it. we really want to move people out of that building as soon as we can and we have a similar situation with the admin building. if you look at 2019, we start talking about county jail number two and the hall of justice. a lot of these funds are working toward how do we address the needs in the hall of justice? if we were to recreate the hall of justice, we would need a building over 1.2 billion square feet of -- 1.2 million feet of space which is almost 2/3 of size of the da tower downtown and it's something too hard for us to take on in one bite. it's difficult to find land and an
7:39 pm
area to do that in. and we know that we have, you know, critical functions that are operating in that space. some we don't have control over like the courts and county jail and so forth. so that's general fund debt program. you can see on the following slides, similarly the red bar is the three ask a quarter percent discretionary -- we try to stay below. you can see the challenge of this program, and these dollars compete with operating dollars and they compete with our pay as you go program dollars i was talking with you about a minute ago. so it's we want to be careful how we use these funds. you can see the programs that we
7:40 pm
have planned for it -- because we know there's a potential for a recession and changes at the federal level, which we know you had a hearing on the other day, we also reserve some of the cop moneys where we may need to come to you and say we think we need to do civic participations to make up for the fact we're not going to have as much general fund cash on hand. so that's the concept behind that program. and yeah, i failed to mention it on the previous slide, but we have set aside -- it's $50 million a year between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2022. really reserving that capacity. hopefully we won't need it. the remaining slide and i won't spend significant time on this
7:41 pm
because i think administrator kelly covered it. this is economic development, general government, you know, all kinds of different programs, health and human services from housing to the hospital that we mentioned. infrastructure and streets, again, and i should mention that rachel is here from public works supporting us because potential for questions around street resurfacing but the work that public works does around our capital plan and the important partnership we have in working with them on these projects. and finally there's also public safety, recreation, culture education, and transportation. i know that's a lot to chew on. so i will leave it at that and happy to take any questions that you may have. >> all right. is -- you've put a lot out there. thank you for your presentation. supervisor
7:42 pm
tang. >> thank you, so much, mr. strong and of course everyone who work oz the capital plan. it's a lot of work but we have to think long term and he is specially with plans that cost a lot of money. thank you for that. going back to slide 10, you had mentioned that you know, on the schedule line up our go bond program that transportation cycles every ten years but at a higher dollar amount. he didn't have time to follow or i don't know if it happened at the hearing that supervisor breed called regarding the sfmta ability to spend on the go bond, so given that, and that is a reality, has it ever been discussed whether this $500 million even though it's cycling every ten years is right level? >> yeah, i mean, i think that -- there have been a number of discussions at the capital planning committee on concerns
7:43 pm
around the ability -- the quickness with which those funds are being spent and we know it's an issue, i believe it's an issue that go back has taken up. our general bond oversight committee that oversees the spending of these funds, we have not, you know, gotten into details with them about whether or not you know, a bond in 2024 at $500 million is the right amount as of now. i mean, i think that we are actually waiting and we're -- every year they have to come and report to us, and i think given the amount of needs and the transportation sector, we're confident the $500 million is needed in that area, and it's needed for the thing that's were identified in that bond. i think what we -- i think the capital planning committee perspective is we need to work with them on how to -- to better spend those dollars and i think peskin has
7:44 pm
talked about this. this is the first time they have done a go bond at this level, the department there. they haven't done a go bond -- i don't know that -- there was one introduced in 1966. so they had not really, unlike public works, who is working with other departments or even rec and park and "space and if you remember the rec and park, their 200 0 -- the 2000 bond, it took them a while to spend that. they're betting at moving their projects forward. i think -- there's growing pains there, but i think it's a good question and it's something we're watching and you know, watching closely. >> thank you, and i'm sure that all of us will followup more deeply with smta more. there's a huge need and all of us supported the transportation
7:45 pm
bond. it's the largest amount, so i wanted to make sure that we are -- the department is actually able to spend it down and address the needs that all of our constituents write us about everyday. and also going to slide 13, in terms of the debt capacity and so forth, i see there has been quite a bit -- starting in 2019, it looks like -- i think it's 2020. i can't tell if it's orange or red. i'm sorry. in any case, i see that starting around 2019 or 2020, there's a lot of capacity that you've carved out for hall of justice and the demolitionen closure, prisoner -- demolition encloser and prisoner -- it's important we have workers, employee and prisoners who are in a safe building, but i know there are
7:46 pm
still discussions about what to do with that site and what a new facility would look like in materials of with the prisoners and so you know, how is that conversation going? again, i see there's a place holder here which is good, but are we moving forward in those condition and i don't want to get into a whole dive on, you know, that topic right now, but just what's the latest update on terms of where we are in progress? >> sure. no, so there's a community process that met for six or seven months and they made a number -- i think, we're waiting for those recommendations to come out. there should be coming out soon, the results of that community effort, but really we're looking at doing a number of sort of operational-type improvements. some -- and some work out of san francisco general hospital as well. and part of that is to understand where the jail population is going, and one of the challenges with any of our capital projects is we're
7:47 pm
trying to look forward into the future and trying to understand what the service levels are going -- or going to require down the road. that effort, you know, has gone -- we're waiting for the final report, we want to give some time for some of those recommendations to bear out. to see how they work. and to see what that does with the overall number of admins we think we're going to need to house in the future and that's part of the reason for some of the delays or for pushing it back, and the other reason is that quite frankly, these projects take a lot of time to plan and to move forward, so we know that you know, for instance when we're not able to move forward with the previous proposal we had taken to the state, it means we would -- i wouldn't say start completely from scratch, because we had a lot of
7:48 pm
information, but go back and look at what's going to happen with some of these recommendations around the operations side. how is that going to impact our capital site and how can we put together a program that makes the most sense moving forward. we did make some decisions, for instance, in previous capital plans, we were going to move forward with addressing the jail as soon as possible and we're going to address the admin functions and we're going to take the admin functions as soon as we can as well as the jail functions. we talked about setting a goal to get out of the hall of justice in two years. we're moving toward that goal. some of this may change based on whether or not we can move some of these departments out sooner, into lease space. we know the hall of justice is going to top priority in our capital plan since it was put together. we know we want to get out of that building as soon as possible.
7:49 pm
and i think this plan, you know, reflects the community process where it is, it reflects us setting aside capacity to make sure that if it doesn't work out, we have money in the program to take care of the, you know, the inmates so they are not forgotten or not left behind. but it's really sort of the latest, i think, thinking about how we can do that, there's a grant, i should mention, so we're going to be -- we're applying for a grant and waiting to hear from a grant from the state to do a bunch of renewal work at county jail one and two which is not in the hall of justice. that's the new jail adjacent to it. it's 20, 25 years itself and has a lot of needs. speaker: when that final report comes out, i think we're going to be interested in seeing what those findings are. if you can keep us posted on those
7:50 pm
recommendations, that would be great. in terms of street repaving and one of the top things we probably get complaints about and i understand it's under the pay as you go program and we have not identified a long term funding force, so can you share what are our thoughts going forward because we cannot sustain this -- >> i think so. so the mayor's office -- melissa is here so she can come. the mayor's office is putting together a transportation task force. i believe we have a schedule laid out for that. that's going to be moving forward and i think we're going to be looking for them to make some recommendations around some potential revenue sources. do you want -- >> sure. >> thank you. i'm melissa, director of budget. president breed asked president peskin
7:51 pm
and the mayor has asked chief of staff steve to work together to call the transportation task force back together and to make recommendations to the mayor and the board on how do we move forward and that will include, also in addition to street paving, there was money to be -- >> thank you. all right. thank you. colleagues, any other questions for mr. strong? no, all right. i think supervisor tang covered most of my clarifying questions. so i think we're going to go to public comment. thank you for your time. all right, ladies and gentlemen, would you like to call on item 2. please come up. seeing no public comment. public comment is closed. all right. colleagues, the matter is back in our hands. the same
7:52 pm
process. got it. supervisor tang. >> sure. so i'll make last comments and in terms of -- we have a board president who sits on this committee, but i encourage you to follow what happened at the planning committee because it's important to keep an eye on the long term projects because they do have -- they can have daily impacts to all of us. it's something i wanted to state to colleagues. so with that said, i'll make a motion to file the hearing. >> all right. a motion has been made. is there a second? seconded by supervisor sheehy. you can take that without objection. thank you. >> all right. mr. clerk, any items before this body? >> that completes the 1:00 budget and finance meeting. >> thank you, we are adjourned.
7:53 pm
7:54 pm
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
7:57 pm
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
8:01 pm
>> very much smaller allocations for public safety grants for example, and at least in the fortunate flows,
8:02 pm
much smaller for transportation. >> not all is flowing to the city itself. some payments are come directly to either residents or service providers from the federal government. and those are going to be outside of the numbers we talked about here. so a couple of examples of that, well, parts of the ihs program and home supportive home worker -- there's a chunk of money that flows to providers as wages. that's $200 million in directive support outside of the $1.2 billion that i talked
8:03 pm
about. cal fresh, food stamp workers are on the city budget in support of federal money, the benefits flow to recipients s san franciscan was receiving $5 million as apart of that benefit. other benefits in the city benefit and it depends on city money. the school district receives $60 million in federal funds as apart of their budget and the city college receives $6 million directly from feds and then students receive $22 million a year in federal financial aid. the housing authority, director smith is here, should you have questions, the housing authority receives $76 million. it depends on federal money for their operations in particular there's a host of other non governmental entities here in the city that receive funds from the city outside of our budget process. to
8:04 pm
highlight a couple, we talked earlier this week regarding art's organizations that received money directly from the national endowment for the arts. about $6.4 million is our current estimate of how much those organizations are receives. usf is dependent on federal funds for their research and operations and a host of other entities -- we've listed at the bottom of the page the organizations that received more than $10 million as of the most recent years from the feds. >> so looking ahead to some of the key risk areas and really they fall in three buckets in materials of how we're thinking about it, the risk related to the executive order regarding sanctuary cities and federal
8:05 pm
funds, risks created by risk known to the -- departments can speak in more detail. first, the sanctuary city. as you're aware on january 25th. the president issued an executive order that generally indicated in a fairly brief memo, the goal of withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities like san francisco and over 200 other cities in the u.s. the executive -- i think the key points for today, and city attorney can provide you more information on this in closed session, but the key point for today is really that executive order is not clear about what federal funds are really intended to be covered by it.
8:06 pm
this city has -- it's almost certainly unconstitutional for the site government to withhold all federal funds from this city and withholding some of the funding we receive from the feds, the city has strong constitutional arguments that that's prohibited and the city attorney has filed a lawsuit to prevent the used reductions from going into place. that lawsuit pending, but even during the 60 days since the executive order has been issued, their no clarity from the federal government by what's intended by it. there's a lot of uncertainty. a risk and uncertainty. we'll be keeping you up to speed on this as as the case progresses and also as we receive, if we do, degrees -- if we receive direction and what that executive order means. second,
8:07 pm
issue area. the federal budget itself which establishes most of the appropriations that flow to us. we're at an early stage where we're trying to understand even what's being proposed. as you're aware, the federal budget process starts with a budget overview that's presented by the president in march which is called the skinny budget. that skinny budget eliminates $54 billion in domestic spending to increase military spending by an amount. the key thing i like to leave the committee with on this is that they call it a skinny budget because there's few details in it. the whole document is less than 50 pages long. it provides very -- it's almost like a blueprint of what the president will later intend to submit. but you get very -- you get some clarity about what's likely to come, but not specifics and so
8:08 pm
there are some cases where we can look into the skinny budget and understand what the local indications might be, but it's not clear. the budget timeline will go on for many months and the president releases a blueprint in march. the president, then typically released a more detailed budget to congress in may and june. that will have of moesh information about what the president is proposing and we'll understand what those impacts will look like if they are adopted, but the congress takes time to adopt and amend the president's budget and those amendments are often substantial. the deadline for the adoption of the federal budget is october 1st. that's when their budget process -- that's when their fiscal year starts. we will likely have more clarity there as we work through the budget process in june and july at the board of supervisors, and congress won't
8:09 pm
have acted by the time we adopt a budget which creates planning problems for us. it's worth noting that congress rarely meets this october 1st deadline. i think in the last 40 years, congress adopted all of their appropriation bills by october 1st four times. so, and the last time they did that was over ten years ago. and so it's very likely that even by october 1st, we won't really have final clarity on exactly what the federal budget will look like and therefore what the implications for us might be. we have a long road ahead of us in materials of understanding what those risk look like. a few of the areas where we can look into skinny budget and understand the amplifications and i'm not going to dwell here because you have departments that can speak more eloquently to this and in detail. there's implications in hud that has implications for the housing authority and in particular you can see in
8:10 pm
the skinny budget, the president is proposing to eliminate the community development block program nationwide. that's where it's $16.5 million in programming here in san francisco. home is also proposed to be eliminated. i believe $4.2 million. in department of transportation, skinny budget, you can tell the president has proposed to eliminate any money for new full funding grant agreements for the new start's program. this is the program that we relied onto build the cal tran line. bart to san jose, a lot of the other big regional programs are counting on this which the president is planning to eliminate -- and the list goes on. there's some implications that we can read
8:11 pm
into that's clear for the department of environment and fema. the art's funding we receive directly from the -- some organizations in this city received directly from the mea, the president's proposed to eliminate the mea. if that was adopted, that -- >> what does mea. speaker: national endowment for the arts. >> thank you. >> the last major risk area of the three is related to the repeal and replacement of the affordable care act. garcia and others from public health can speak to this in a moment. it may be the most significant impactful of any of the ones i have talked about here today. with that, i will -- if there aren't questions, i'm happy to turn it over to the department
8:12 pm
of public health to continue with their presentation. >> just real quick, many of my own constituents have just asked some pretty direct questions. and i feel like i've given them a standard answer, it's too early. we don't know what's going to happen. but these cuts actually materialize and they are permanent. what is the process that we do -- that we will begin engage in to backfill, evaluate what programs we will cut, i mean, how -- what would it look like on the ground, if i was a nonprofit organization and i got the news that my cd bg grant money has been cut, how do i - i mean, i don't know the words, what do i tell people and if i were an executive director, what are the things i
8:13 pm
can expect? for example, i know i can expect to see changes, maybe not immediately, but next year so that would make it difficult to plan my long term budget next year knowing this money is cut. i'm assuming i'm in a holding pattern until mayor lee make his formal budget proposal which may or may not have the back fill that i would be needing as an executive director of his organization. >> i don't -- it's a great question, madam chair. i don't know if i have answers for you or anyone else because it's the fundamental all face -- we likely have significant and severe federal funding cuts coming, but it's entirely unclear about the timing of them. what the ultimate scale will be. everything we're talking about here is proposals at this point. they take other people to make them happen.
8:14 pm
when congress act, when the timing will look like, and when we will know those things are unknownable. it's likely there will never be a moment. we're likely to be getting pieces of news over many, many months when we hear new news in drafts as opposed to getting -- so we're going to be dealing with uncertainty and we really probably don't want to do two things. we probably don't want to begin eliminating programs. we don't want to react too severely. but given the magnitude of risk going forward, to ignore all possibilities of loss when they likely will be significant
8:15 pm
would be full hardy. it's a key question for the mayor and budget to consider. >> in your many years as a controller and many more years as the budget director -- you're qualified to give some kind of a window. so you say that the information from the federal government will come down in drifts and drafts, okay. are we talking about the next three months, are we talking about the for the next nine months? there's a period, there's a season. can you help me understand what -- what season we're in >> i can give you from my perspective and i would suggest you ask those behind me who has expertise in this. when we see a detailed budget from the president, we'll have more clarity on what the impacts will look like in san francisco and we can quantify if that
8:16 pm
budget was adopted, this would be the harm to the city and in a couple of months, we'll have a sense of what is going to have support from congress and what's a non starter. so i would think late summer, we have a pretty descent sense of -- we can narrow that range of losses in terms of federal budget implications. as it becomes clear of what the president is going to propose and how congress is going to react to it, there's been criticism of the president's skinny budget, not just by democrats but people on the other side of that aisle. so it's unclear whether some of the proposals that he's outlined here - whether some of those proposals have support among republicans whose constituents are also impacted by the losses. hopefully we'll have clarity. we'll have some in june and it will grow by the time we -- public health can speak better than i can regarding when we might have
8:17 pm
more clarity regarding the affordable care act. >> thank you. >> and the implications there. >> we're bring up barbara garcia and her right hand is calling [inaudible]. how are you doing. >> yes, good afternoon, chair, cohen and board members. i'll share my presentation with our policy director and our cfo is here. there's no greater time for our city to come together and to continue to advocate and continue to fight for our health in san francisco at both of the federal and state level. several weeks ago, our mayor supervisor sheehy worked with a local union to call representatives to fight acl. health care is complicated and changes at the federal level will take time. in the timeline that we'll share, the changes will likely happen in 2020. we also know that as our
8:18 pm
control talked about the skinny budget, we'll have -- that will have impact and we're monitoring that on a daily basis. i want you to know our staff is working with the perspective -- with the national professional associations to continue to advocate and fight. we're apart of the -- the health plan associations who are advocating to protect our health care system. our -- we'll advocate for the federal support given to our local nonprofit clinics. that's going to be important as well. that's outside of medi-cal. the federal government has not made a decision. if they repeal, the next impact will be at the state level. so i encourage us to work together and to be
8:19 pm
mindful of writing local legislation too quickly before we know what the federal and the state government will do. we want to work with you closely on this, so we are working together to protect the services. we'll continue to monitor this on a daily basis and we'll continue to work with all of our health partners at the federal state and local levels as we turn -- as we determine the impacts of responses to the health care challenges. the mayor has just sent out a letter to all of the health care partners in the city to talk about bringing them together to have the conversation. of the 133,000 people that have received the benefits from the aca, 25% of those are within the department's services. and so 75 percent of those are within our other networks, and so it's going to be important for us to work with the kaiser, and cpnc to make sure we're working together to ensure that we're able to continue to provide care. >> you mentioned some of our
8:20 pm
stakeholders and partners in public health outside of the department, has there been a calling organizing between dignity, and [inaudible] hospital to begin to talk about what the landscape is? or potential cuts? >> we will certainly share this letter with you. i'm sure the mayor's office will share it with the board. we sent it out today. >> i haven't seen it yet. >> we'll make sure you get a copy of that. it is discussing about what we did in the past when we had a large uninsured population in the city. >> my question is, where are the other companies? the cpmc, dignity health, are you talking to them >> we'll bring them together and as you know, this is all in the process and they're insured individuals. we've benefited from having the aca and people with insurance getting benefits, but [inaudible] that we will be taking? colien will
8:21 pm
give you more details and what it looks like and we're here for questions you may have. speaker: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. so i have a short presentation for you on some more of the details of the repeal and replacement -- >> could you eye into yourself. identify yourself. >> colien, the director for planning -- i'm on slide 3 which is the proposed timeline which seems to change every time i update the timeline, but today is the light blue circles is where we are today, the house of -- the house of representatives had independent indicated that -- they indicated they were going to have a vote on the replacement plan. they're delaying the vote until tomorrow, but that hasn't been finalized yet. the -- director garcia mentioned
8:22 pm
between the time that the house of representatives passes legislation, if that occurs, and the time that the majority of the previsions going into effect is a long time, so it's 2020 when the majority of the previsions of the repeal and replace bill go into effect. so just a little bit about the affordable care act to give you context around what the american health care act would do, the affordable care act was signed into law in 2010 and it does two things. it requires everybody to have health insurance and then it gives more opportunities for individuals to get health insurance. so the requirement that everybody have health care is called the individual mandate and there's three ways where it gave people more opportunity to get that health insurance and meet that mandate and the first was through their employer and that's the employer mandate, requiring certain employers to offer coverage to their employees or face a penalty and the second
8:23 pm
one is the health insurance exchanges. ours is called covered california in california. it gave subsidies to low and moderate individuals to buy health insurance on those exchanges and the third one is for the medicaid adults and they can cover all low income adults where certain populations were covered before. and in san francisco, we have seen [inaudible]. director garcia mentioned, 133,000 san franciscans gained health insurance under the affordable clear act. 93,000 got medicaid coverage and that doubled the medicaid enrollment in san francisco. we're over double. 30,000 got insurance through covered california. 80% of those 4,000 got -- those
8:24 pm
are people who have 400% of poverty income or less. it cut or insurance rate by half. the lowest insurance rate we've had in san francisco. it has caused more people to -- more san franciscans to assess their health as good and better and fewer san franciscans report delaying the care that they need. the american health care act is the federal government's repeal and replace proposal that is currently before the house of representatives. and as it was -- as its proposed it would repeal the individual and employer mandates. it would repeal the income based exchange subsidies and replace them with subsidies based on age. it would reduce federal funding to states like california that opted into the medicaid expansion program. this is affecting the 93,000
8:25 pm
san franciscans that got medicaid. it would pre--- right now, the way medicaid works, if the state or local government spends money on a medicaid individual, then that expenditure is entitled to be matched at the federal level, 50 cents to 50 cents and we would cap the total amount of money available to california and we would need to restrain expenditures within that cap. the board may have heard that additional changes to the american health care act were discussed in the house of representatives on monday and may be adopted as well and these would impose additional requirements on states related to the medicaid program. so director garcia mentioned california's role and this is really important to note here because the way that california
8:26 pm
responds to what ever is passed, if anything at the federal level is as important to the health department as to what is passed at the federal level. so if the hca has passed in its current form, it's certain that california will receive less medicaid funding. in fact, the department of health services issued an analysis yesterday that says that beginning in 2020, california will see $6 billion less in revenue after the passage of the affordable care act or the american care act in its current form. that would rise to $24 billion in 2027. and with less medicaid funding, the state has some tools within its tool box it can use to reduce its medicaid budget and the ways that it could do that if they chose to take cut in the medicaid program is reduce public health
8:27 pm
-- to reduce eligible for services, so not covering everybody who is currently covered today or to reduce the set of services available to medicaid beneficiaries and right now, california offers a generous scope of medicaid services, but there's optional benefits that states can choose to reject to bring back cost to the covered population. so the potential ' impact -- it's not known as you've heard the control discuss earlier, these are still proposals and they're in negotiation. so it would depend on what the final bill is, if it's passed as well what california's policy response would be. but it is certain that it would -- it would
8:28 pm
impact californians who gained coverage under the health care act. also as director garcia mentioned, of the 133,000 san franciscans with aca insurance, a quarter received their insurance through public health and others receive their insurance through health systems in san francisco. all these individuals would be at risk of losing their insurance or see their coverage eroded and as director garcia mentioned, in order to preserve the gains we have made over the course of the years -- that we need to work with our health care partners throughout the city to promote continuity of care and access to health care we have long held in san francisco. just one slide on the president's skinny budget
8:29 pm
as control rosen felled, mentioned it's low -- it proposed an 18% decrease in the health and human services -- this doesn't include medicaid or medi-cal spending so it decreases in discretionary spending and the specifics on how it is achieved, it's not indicated. it does help with -- but it does not provide any detail on how it would continue to support those programs. and then what we're doing to prepare, so advocacy is still our number one -- our activity at the moment to oppose reductions to the american health -- to the affordable care act -- we're in
8:30 pm
communication with the state lobbyist and making with our state and federal delegations and the associations that director garcia mentioned. we're trying to maximize the current use of our program. so right now as chairwoman cohen said, nothing has changed. there has been to changes to the affordable care act and no changes in reduction and services and we want people to remember that and take advantage of the services available to them now. we're educating our patients y and clients about that. >> so people should make dentist and doctor appoint manies now. y -- appointments now. >> we're analyzing the health impact in here san francisco. i'm -- >> colleagues, any questions so far? no. thank you for the presentation. >> okay. so next, we're going to hear from the mayor's
8:31 pm
office, brian chiu has a presentation on his updates. >> brian chiu with housing -- i'm here with benjamin, director of -- we have a few slides for you that gives you a little bit more information about what we do with our lock grant program. so our cd bg program is a federal entitlement program. we receive 16.4 million. it's through a formula. we receive 3 other formula grants, one of which was also targeted through the president's skinny budget. we have cd bg and home as you see in your pocket. you have
8:32 pm
emergency solution grants which focus on homeless services and housing opportunities for person was aids. those two federal grant programs have not yet been targeted for cuts. i'm hoping that that does not follow through in this larger budget. of the $16.4 million it's divided into two primarily areas. one is affordable housing development and the second is a list of a variety of services that goes to low income folks. as you can see on slide two, it has housing services such as tenant counseling and on evictions. it has work force training. we have an agreement with economic and work force development that administers funds for work force development and economic development, small business assistance, a variety of other
8:33 pm
public services and we are the primarily department within the city that provides funding for capital improvements to capital facilities and then of course it covers the program delivery for our -- all of our block programs and you can see next to each area, the list of potential individuals that would be impacted by the loss of those funds. the next slide talks about our home program. it's a formula allocation we receive. at this point about $4 million that goes directly to fund new multi family housing developments. and then just the last slide, just demonstrates the fact we have seen this before, although not to this extent. in the past, the program has had popular broad support in congress. just in terms of the timing of how this would work, so the
8:34 pm
proposed budget for federal fy-a team, we would use those funds for our service grants that start july 1st, 2018. so right now. for 17-18, these cuts would not impact us. it would be for our city 18-19. it's about the timing of how we receive information about this in the past, to your question, supervisor cohen, in the past, congress has not agreed on what the appropriation should be for this. we tend to get some advanced notice through the house sub-committee on transportation and hud funding. usually, i would say october, november, we get information from the house sub-committee. around that same time we get information from the senate sub-committee in the past. what we have done, we look at what the president's proposed budget is, and what the house and senate sub-committees look like. sometimes they're widely
8:35 pm
divergent and the extreme example was eight years ago where the senate proposed, i think maybe like a 5% cut and the house proposed a 60% cut. in the end, it had to come through the joint committee. by the time they went to the joint committee, they brought it up and the overall cut was about 10%. the federal budget is on a resolution. we're at the end of the march so we haven't received allocations for funds that would start july first, but continued resolution extended through april 28th. we hope that congress will then take official action which would then give us our formula allocation we will use for 17-18. i think the hud regulations require that the formula allocations be given to us, i think around june 15th. so hopefully congress will come together and make that decision. so we will have some
8:36 pm
time before the city's budget process starts because again, if you're making your decisions in spring of 2018, we should have some indication through the fall of 2017 what that might look like. i guess i will echo what my colleagues have said that it's premature for us to figure out what we'll do. we don't know if it's $16.4 million or 3 or 5%. we work with our membership organizations and we're a member of the national -- they have seen this coming. they maintain long standing relationships with those relatives from other red states. i think one advantage that the community -- it serves owe over state receives an allocation and every city can
8:37 pm
apply directly or through an application through the state april cajun, so we feel confident that this is over reaching. i will say that it's not impossible that we will see some decrease through that. the home program had one bad year when it did receive almost a 40% cut in one year. and so we do have concerns, but as we move forward with this process and as we get further information from our colleagues in dc, we'll keep you posted, again. we have reshot to our federal delegation and our federal lobbyist to keep us informed as things change. we have a little bit more of a window than the aca proposal, but we'll keep you informed as we go forward. the budget for our 18-19 allocation of cd bg of course comes to you through
8:38 pm
the expend resolution, so you'll see that come to you next march or april of 2018. so you can make your comments on that. >> that's it. thank you. okay. let me see -- any questions. president breed, thank you very much mr. chiu. come on down. >> chair cohen, rodriguez, san francisco department of the environment. thank you for the opportunity to present, this afternoon on the implications of the proposed -- the president's skinny budget on the environment. normally when i come to budget committee it's standing at the podium asking you to approve and accept and expend given the president's
8:39 pm
budget. you'll probably see lots of me given that a lot of opportunities that the city has gone after in federal funding opportunities are dramatically dropping in the president's proposed budget. >> excuse me. we were wondering if you had a presentation for us? >> no presentation other than -- >> you're going to walk-through. >> do you have slides that you're presenting? >> not slides, supervisor. >> okay. >> with respect to what i wanted to share with you this afternoon is the policy implications of the president's proposed budget and cuts will have as has been referenced and shared already. likely you've heard the environmental protection agency is getting the brunt of the trump's administration cuts with the 31% cut of $2.6 billion. the largest percentage reduction
8:40 pm
represents largest reduction of any federal department or agency, and brings epa funding to the lowest level in 40 years. what does that mean for san francisco? the bay area? a couple of things. it halts are for example, the san francisco bay, napa river and water shed clean up efforts including habitat -- they go after companies that are he leasing toxic fumes into the air or dumping sewerage into the bay. epa staffing cuts will impact the cleanup of 130 california super fund sites maybe here in the bay area. it will impact all of their research on chemical, pesticides, and other work that they do which have a direct implication on the programs and policies that san francisco manages. protecting the environment and climate change and addressing these issues is not just in the epa's
8:41 pm
jurisdiction. like in san francisco, many departments play a role in climate change. with respect to looking at the president's proposed budgets around the area and it's notable and i wanted to share a couple, the proposed cuts at the department of commerce in particular, they're slated for a 16% budget decrease. the president target programs in particular the national oceanic and atmospheric, and -- they provide grant resources to assist communities and local governments in the resilience to climate change. some of the impacts to san francisco and the bay area, and the tide station and the oldest operations tidal gage in the western hemisphere. they collect information that's critical to san francisco and the entire bay area to
8:42 pm
understanding changes in local tides due to local global sea rise. they have support to the san francisco bacon -- san francisco relies on coastal management agencies to maintain coastal access and protect our coastal resources. so significant impacts there. looking at the department of interior, they're responsible foremost federal land. and they manage 75% of federal land. they're expecting a 12% budget decrease. what we see with the cuts at the department of interior and the impact here is really a policy shift that this administration is making from resource protection to resource extraction. we'll be seeing more details as the
8:43 pm
president unfolds additional policy statements. but the department of interior and for us in san francisco, it plays a major role. the national park's service manages the coastal resources within the golden gate national recreation area, including [inaudible] field, and baker beach. and these bay and beach habitats protects san francisco from the impacts of climate change, serving as a buffer between -- [switching captioners]
8:44 pm
>> as you can see a lot of these different cuts and the different departments represent things that are significant it's unfortunate the cuts come at a time the programs are yielding significant results. these investment the departments have made over the last several year have yielded significant results. for example in 2015 solar employment had over taken oil and gas and coal employment as jobbings contributor equally electricity generation and capacity in the united states came from solar more than any
8:45 pm
other source when you look at these cuts others are slated for targeting the vulnerable. the home assistance that is managed is for reduction and elimination that helps low income family with wter ization is also slated to cut so specifically to the department environment controller shares we receive grant funds from the department of energy, epa, approximately 1.3 million what the proposed budget cuts mean for our department is opportunities to apply for additional resources these representatives funds, that give the department the opportunity to be creative in working with major academic institutions to provide this board with good policy that is rooted in science in what is effective for what moves greenhouse effect emissions
8:46 pm
down. also the federal cuts are specific to policies. so, for example, the department of energy the president is suggesting elimination of the star program it's a volunteer program we build public policy on those. san francisco's current building efficiency ordinance relies on the energy star program as our benchmarking component that program goes away we will have to come back to the board and look at ordinance of using federal standards of pressurements for success and finding alternatives and replacements the only thing i wanted to close with is the irony last week when proposeedded skinny budget the same time a new report came out indicating programs and policy and regulations in place in the united states we were able to hold down our emissions which impacted globally which we
8:47 pm
didn't see increase where we see increase nationally we're going in the wrong direction. it's going to be challenging as you heard from my colleague and the other departments the environment sits with all of the other agent cease and try to gain the attention of delegation who are working together this mayor and the board of supervisors you both resolve to continue to move forward on progressive climate reduction effort and continuing to keep that positive. we thank you for your leadership. we will need that leadership going forward given the policy and budget cut implications we can expect in the future thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any questions? okay we're going to move onto the barbara smith did
8:48 pm
you have presentation or public remarks ? then i have questions for public housing . >> good afternoon barbara smith acting director of the housing authority i will be brief. it's a long hearing but it's very important to us, we have worked very hard to provide descent services to our residents within a very lean budget and preliminary estimates this is based on the president's budget blueprint that said $35 billion dollars is cut from suddens housing there -. >> excuse me can you repeat that again and also identify your title. >> yes sorry. barbara smith acting director, of the san francisco housing authority. we're very concerned about this budget. the president's blueprint did say there would be
8:49 pm
$35 billion cut in housing subsidies there was information pr vieded to the washington post we don't know, this is the early stage of the budget process. but public housing in that information was expected to receive 32% cut which is the loss of $1.5 million and would equal to about 15 staff persons a lot of our staff are maintenance workers. also workers who administrator the program and meet all the hud requirements that would be a major blow to the housing authority. the capital fund is expected to receive a cut of about $1.5 million. that would reduce it from 4.4 to
8:50 pm
$2.8 milli $2.8 million from six we're managing there are enormous costs keeping up with the minimal capital bones to keep the property safe and descent for the residents there is probably going to be a cut in the housing choice voucher administrative fees which means a loss of staff and difficulty keeping up with renting freezing with the landlord and all that is required for the programs these are preliminary we're active in bay area housing organizations and national organizations we're going back to washington next week to meet with legislatures and talk with them about the continuing affordable housing programs. and the devastating effects that the
8:51 pm
suggested cuts would have on public housing we are most thankful we were able to convert 28 of our properties to the rad funding this past year on schedule and that working with a lot of city agencies especially the mayor's office of housing and community development will protect 28 property and put them into a different program that is less likely to have direct impact on the ability to maintain the property and the residents who live there. so briefly, that is where we are with this budget situation. >> thank you very much. questions? supervise? >> thank you for your presentation. i do have a few question based on your presentation i wanted to go back to capital cuts, specifically, your budget is 4 million and you
8:52 pm
anticipate $1.5 million cut are we talking about capital as it related to real estate or in terms of the properties themselves? >> those are funds that we use to repair collapsed suer lines transfermer where we have to do work on boiler say, at potreroo with building serving two units. maintenance for properties . >> are there any other dollars for maintenance besides these dollars? >> the housing authority is pretty much totally depend ant on the federal subsidies that is the main source of funds we have for capital work at the properties. then we have a maintenance budget under operating funds really, that
8:53 pm
helps us keep up with the day-to-day small items that break and clean up of the properties . >> actually it's not enough even do that from my understanding . >> no. >> so these cuts are going to be more devastating can you tell me how the rad program has helped with that. because one of the biggest challenges housing authority face in terms of all of it's properties we know based on assessment of the properties there was at a time a couple of years ago over $260 million of deferred maintenance which is why a lot of the work wasn't getting done. since the rad program have you done any analysis to understand whether or not that figure has been reduced and if doing this program has helped considerably.
8:54 pm
as it relates to capital work for the properties? >> well it was greatly reduced the overall capital needs now we're managing u14,000 units converted to rad program that can leverage $1.2 billion to fix up those property with the units we have left of course the operating budget was cut and the capital budget was cut so that we get pretty much the same amount per unit we're struggling with a low level of funding for each unit of public housing we're managing. that is really the challenge we have to work within the funds we have available to keep up with very old property deferred maintenance. the capital needs we're growing at a much faster rate than capital funds from the
8:55 pm
federal government already. this kind of cut is going to really impact to keep everything working during the hope build sf process. >> yup that is a scary thought you come so far getting the entire process and getting petrero. hill almost over the finish line. particularly sun sunnyvale. working with water heaters not working this is very, very serious. this doesn't impact it doesn't rise to the level the media and press may not cover this. this particular cut is because it's concerned to me how fragile people are after publicing house it's two steps forward one step back. we have come so far in rebuilding with
8:56 pm
rad program and getting these housing structure to an acceptable level people can live and be healthy and take pride in where they're living. at some point we need to have creative ways to partner with folk anytime the business community and other parts of the development community to begin to organize and raise funds i'm talking about stuff that will scratch the surface like that water heater we need to relace. i think it's in alice griffith. >> the boiler that 7s 25% of the households it can't be repared it's underground boiler with underground pipes that are corroded and decaying we're just a little bit ahead of the construction process. so we still have all of these
8:57 pm
residents we're trying to serve. but the new housing isn't quite there yet so we have to do our best with what we have. we're working with other agent cease and the city as well to try to prioritize our capital needs and identify any funds that are available. we have a few things we're working on that will bring in a little bit more funding with the six site we're transferring them to rad so they can bring a little bit of cash flow to help with operations. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen can i add to this? i think you bring up a good add about partnership is not just about the cuts but possible solutions how we can prepare for what we know is to
8:58 pm
come. when i think about all the work we have done on public housing and how far we have come, it is exciting to ride passed roberter pits and to see the work being done and the excitement of those moving back to the units it is amazing i want to continue that but i want to think creatively what this means for our future and the possibility to do more you know how desperately i want west side courts to be rebuilt it's possible not only to do it but to add 2 or 3 times more units on that particular block more importantly in a way that doesn't displace the residents who live there and i think the reason i wavent to bring it up similar to alice griffith around
8:59 pm
the same time as well as burnal and alamani these places and conditions and the amount of money we need to spend in order to get them in a state of descent repair with west side courts it's money down the drain it helps right now with the conditions that sadly some people live in but it's not a permanent solution i want permanent creative solutions and the possibilities like i said, looking at west side courts and tripling the number of units we're doing one side and the other side i want us to think more creatively outside of federal and public dollars in general. there is a better way for us to start making some
9:00 pm
changes because we have the land and how do we take it to the next level? those are some of the things i want us to start thinking with is the san francisco housing authority and the mayor's office of housing and trying to put ourselves together to do that with rad and hope sf will be addressing properties like west side courts that could benefit from being built housing and mixed income. >> alice griffith. is the perfect example we're building the units and no displacement and the residents will be moving to the newer units and having their own priority at the units is wonderful i want to make sure and remind people of plaza east where i grew