Transcripts For SFGTV 20150423

Supervisor tang. Want to thank sfgtv [inaudible] please silence cell phones and Electronic Devices [inaudible] as part of the [inaudible] thank you madam clerk. We have a relatively short agenda so we start off calling item number 1 [inaudible] resolution of a multihousing [inaudible] 61 million. [inaudible] financing for the acquisition and construction of [inaudible] located in the sates eof 588 mission bay thank you. Pam sims is back next week. I will give a quick sumy of this item. It is associated with the issuance of bond proceeds to pray construction related to development of 588 mission bay bull vrd north. When completed this will be a 200 units Affordable Housing unit for families earning 60 percent income or 61 thousand for a family of 4. This is con duet finances and the city isnt interested to pledge repayments for the boj mptd here to explain the changes is heidi [inaudible] from the City Attorneys Office thanks very much [inaudible] City Attorneys Office. As pam said i just wanted to point out thereligezs to the changing the to resolution frm thalast time you heard this resolution and it is iin section 8, rad fiication which dealwise all actions taken retrospectively. Just rewe added language to say as consistent with the documents here in and this resolution to just put a condition on those actions. And then more significantly under section 9, general authority, which is delegation of authority with city offices to move forward with issuing the notes and agreements citing here in, we added aglat that may by consistent with carrying out the urps of this resolution and consistent with the terms sited in the ruzlution and mostimportantly provided for a process where the final documents with any non substantive changes will be submitted to the board file at the end of the transaction. Any substantive changes will come back to the board just to be clear we are squared away about a process moving forward with all other items similar yes thank you very much. Appreciate it. Seeing no questions we do not have a budget analyst so well move to Public Comment. Seeic nunl it is close thank you for clarifying things and glad we have stuff moving forward to make sure we are clear about the prestige and process. At this time i would tyke make anesian forward the resolution for too the full board. [inaudible] and i make a motion to accept the amendments and approve the under lying resolution as amended to the full board for positive recommendation we can take that without objection item number 2 [inaudible] 47 million for july [inaudible] june 30, 2015 srkss is it ing grid first 5 yes, good morning. So this is our agreement with childrens counsel who manages the chile care subsidies for city and county och San Francisco general funds funded. These are p funded for presquool also man cal works subsidies. This is a 3 year grant that we amend because we are increasing enrollment to the preschool twr initiatives and along with professional developments and the providers were part of the admissions. Okay. Supervisor tang i know it isitated in the budget Analyst Report but maybe if you for the record can tell innumber of increases for enroll lt and what the 47what the contract extension or augmentation is funding acurrentry we have 3800 children enrolled in preskoal for all. It is combination of mostly 4 year olds and have to be San Francisco residence, but also have a mix of 3 year olds. With the demand of pr school we increase and this is part thofe universal preschool Initiative Plan is increase enrollment every year. We are increasing that number by another 500 student within the next few months. With that increase we need to reimbes for that enrollment. As we bring in new preschools, part of the process includes providing the capacity billing which mean aprofession eldevelopment and alignment to california education Early Learning standards and also material supplies, things that providers need in order to meet the Quality Standard that the city established for preschool for all participation for pr schools okay. Thanks very much. Mr. Rose can we go to your report, please . Yes mr. Chairman, supervisor tang, on 3 of the report we know first 5 San Francisco expended 37 million, 374, 275 of the existing contract not to exceed 47 [inaudible] is a valuable contract of 3 million 335 thousand 725 and that is shown in table 2 on page 3. On page 4 of our report we note the children enrolled in preschool is 4 thousand which is 17. 6 percent increase over the fiscal year 13 14 enrollment. The increased enrollment has increased expenditures of 626 thousand [inaudible] explained on 4 and 5 of the report. Finally on page 6 of the report we note the childrens counsel contract expenditures in fiscal year 14 15 are estimated 213 thousand 789 dollar which is 122 thousand less requested [inaudible] therefore we recommend you amend the resolution by 1224818, but not to exceed 47 million 326 thousand 791 dollars and we recommend that you prove this resolution as amended thank you mr. Rose. No question for the budget analyst. Well move on to Public Comment. Seeing none Public Comment is closed. I want to say the enrollment numbers are great and think it is great we have increase orph600 and hopefully that continues to grow. We will have a conversation around urbly childhood education so look forward to that conversation as we move forward. We have a proposed amendment by the budget analyst i want to confirm you are in agreement with the reducing the amount requested by 122 thousand dollars . Yes, that is based onit is projected that we have a small amount of student drop and so because the reimbursement is tied to enrollment, sometimes the enrollment flux waits especially towards the oned thf year, we have early drops so that accounts for the projected drop thank you. I would like to make a motion to amend the resolution adopted the recommends to reduce contract amount by 122, 1418 and then approve the amended resolution and sent to the full board with positive recommendation supervisor tang made a motion and take that without objection item 3 [inaudible] great. And we have max [inaudible] from there das office good mon morning. [inaudible] application will have help integrate criminal justice to advance effective prosecution and [inaudible] support the crime strategy units and focus on hot spots to make a impact on Public Safety in San Francisco thank you very much. If no questions at this time well move on to Public Comment. Anybody wish to comment on it . Seeing none Public Comment is closed through the chair i saw there are no matching signs, i think this is great so i would like to make a motion send a motion to the full board thank you, we have a motion and take that without objection. Do we have any other business in front of us . No, mr. Chair. We are adjourned. Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the San Francisco board of supervisors budget and finance Committee Meeting for wednesday april 22, 2015. I am mark farrell and i will chair this committee and joined by supervisor tang and eric mar and norman yee. I want to thank the clerk of the committee linda wong as well as members of sfgtv covering this meeting. Madam clerk do we have any announcements . Yes mr. Chair. Please silent all cell phones and Electronic Devices and speaker cards and items part the file should be submitted to the clerk and items will be on the april 28 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you madam clerk. So colleagues today we have two hearings and the first is by supervisor mar and we will ask him to do that. Madam clerk can you call number one. Item 1 is a establishing a permanent annualized nonprofit costofdoing business increase and having the office of the controller to report. Supervisor mar. Thank you mr. Chairman. I made a commitment to move through the first hearing as quickly as possible. I know we have a controllers report and lots of speakers from the city so colleagues last year we passed a resolution at the board to prioritize approval of a submittal appropriation for Nonprofit Organizations up to the amount of 3. 4 million during the fiscal year 201415 to fund a very small costofdoing business alidation for companies that contract with the city and county of San Francisco. We did this because from the years 2008 and 2009 to 2012 nonprofits received flat funding from the city despite the huge housing and affordability crisis and the growing costs and also despite having to absorb the rising cost of health care and rent and other inflationary increases and this flat funding amounted to what i call a reduction for the hardest working and most effective organizations in the Nonprofit Sector and i wanted to frame this as i worked as a nonprofit worker for many years and a seiu shop steward as well. From my days 30 years ago with the Chinatown Youth Center and now the youth center and to a receptionist running the california cho ligz of human rights and ran a committee for [inaudible] and most of the work is about supporting the Human Service sector and San Franciscos unique and creative safety net that man of the nonprofit represent. I think with recent studies from the San Francisco foundations recent equity profile of the bay area to the association of bay area governments and the transportation commissions and Economic Prosperity strategy its really critical that the Nonprofit Sector, the safety net of our cities be supported, be a stable and supported as possible. Also i was going to add that supervisors campos and i along with supervisor avalos last year or a few months ago introduced an ordinance that would have appropriated these funds to fund a supplemental allocation to pay for the increasing cost of doing business for nonprofits and though it didnt pass at the board a fews ago many of our colleagues felt that the funding through this request through a supplemental they felt that it wasnt appropriate at the time. It should go through the regular budget process but they importantly acknowledged also that i think unanimously from my memory that we all want to come up with a comprehensive approach to address the need to adequate compensate to allow nonprofits to stay in the city and stay up with the rising costs and the affordability crisis in the city and this is the beginning of the process and i think we will have a opportunity to dialogue with City Departments how San Francisco can fund the Nonprofit Sector adequately so there is stability and strength in the Nonprofit Sector, strengthening of the Nonprofit Sector and i think the hearing will look at where the money comes from to fund the Nonprofit Sector and the critical safety net and how we fund those in the city and we will hear from the nonprofit workers and heads and the need to increase the funding on a yearly basis. I wanted to ask if my colleagues have any opening remarks before we go to the controller . And i see no one stepping forward now. I wanted to acknowledge supervisor avalos couldnt be here because of another meeting but he is a cosponsor of this hearing so colleagues i wanted to ask if our controller Ben Rosenfeld could come up and i know there is a lot of work into the presentation and we will have questions after. Good afternoon. Thanks for having us here today. I thought for the purposes of todays hearing which i know supervisor mar you see as a beginning of a conversation on this issue we would provide some general Background Information on the dollars and cents regarding who contracts with nonprofits in the City Department and what they look like and today end with a couple of questions more than answers so i can briefly run through this presentation. As way of background and here were looking at actual spending for the city in fiscal year 1314. As youre all away the city provides a vast array of services in a number of City Departments through a Broad Network of organizations in the city or Nonprofit Organizations. This slide is showing you that allocation by the City Department that holds the contract. The total spend in 1314 through Nonprofit Service providers on services totaled approximately 675 million so were talking about a very large base providing as you can see here services through a number of City Departments. Over 70 of the services though are really provided in our human and Health Service departments and Public Health makes up half of the nonprofit contracts in the city and hsa and dcyf and the first 5 Commission Accounting for a 12 of different children and youth services. Of course those contracts are supported by a vast array of different colors of money given the way the budget works but again the majority of spending is occurring in health and hsa and theyre general fund funded departments most of the spending occurs out of the general fund itself at about 50 of the total or out of the Hospital Fund so we have two Hospital Funds for laguna honda and San Francisco General Hospital. The largest contract is with ucsf to provide services at the General Hospital so that is a fund subsidized by the general fund so between the general fund and the hospital really about 80 of the spending on Nonprofit Services comes from the general fund or its related funds. Of course we have about 25 of spending here comes out of other special revenue funds and i think the best example here is the Childrens Fund which supports a vast array of services, a are provided by Nonprofit Organizations and sits outside the general fund. I thought this would be helpful because of course one of the things were talking about here is things that prevent funding at levels that folks may deem ideal and of course the general fund itself is usually financially more strapped than other funds so for a bit of context. This reflects our total spending on Nonprofit Organizations or through Nonprofit Organizations on services they provide. Over the last six year period for which we have actual information, and you can see that as you indicated supervisor mar spending on Nonprofit Organizations was really relatively flat and even declined in a year following the great recession, and then has been on a gradual march mod modestly upwards but this creates a picture of relatively stable funding. During this period of time with modest decreases and increases over this period. Cumulative growth over the period if you look at annual average growth since the recession youre talking about spending growing by just over 2 annually on Nonprofit Service providers in the city which comes to about which is about equal to what inflation has been in the bay area until very recently and of course inflation has been pushing up faster so total spending on Nonprofit Organizations and inflation in the city has tracked during this period but there is an important distinction to talk about and we can talk about later and when were increasing contract spending is it for the purposes of a e acknowledging increased costs for the organizational infrastructure . Or is it to provide Additional Services . And there is tension there. The city in the last three budget cycles the mayor and the board authorized 5 cumulative cola over those three years for Nonprofit Organizations to address organizational Cost Increases whether wages, benefits or non salary increases so the difference between the 13 growth that you see here over this six year period and the 5 cola one way to think about it that increased investment represents increased services that the city is asked of them during the period. As i indicated earlier this is a very Diverse Group of providers of course, not just the services they provide and not just the departments they contract with, but also just in terms of the makeup of the organizations. One of the variances is the size of the different Nonprofit Organizations so we often talk about them in one breath but theyre a varied group. This chart is showing the bars here reflect total spending by the city on contracts in these different tiers so you can see we spend 102 million on contracts of less than a Million Dollars in 1314 whereas we spent 174 million on contracts of more than 25 million. The line here represents the number of organizations that those bars reflect, and so you can see we have relatively smaller organizations, 805 organizations contracting with the city for 102 million or a little over 10,000 on one end of the spuk rem. 100,000 on one end and you have contracts for 175 million. Actually what are the two largest nonprofits . Do you know . The single largest nonprofit contract we have if you consider it a nonprofit and not government is the ucsf contract itself at the General Hospital. Mr. Rosen field in terms of the chart would you characterize this is consistent as years past as well, this break down . I havent looked at the detail of past years as we did this year but i expect to see the shame shape and we have Large Organizations providing contracts and relatively smaller organizations having lower number contract services. In terms of whether its programmatic or this and are they subject to the same requirements or is there differences . There are differences. A pot of the programmatic monitoring is at the level level so the department that holds the primary contract is conducting monitoring of the department. On the financial side or the fiscal monitoring if a department if we have multiple departments holding contracts with the given agency, which does happen pretty frequently there is a process in the city to coordinate that fiscal monitoring. That tends to be fairly standard for folks in that pool. One of the things were actually talking about as part of our updates to our monitoring for the year ahead do we want to do more to acknowledge that there are different risks associated with different contracts of different sizes in terms of the standards that we hold nonprofits to when it relates to the fiscal monitors . Supervisor yee. So a couple of questions here. The 674 million represented here is that only city funding or does it include state and federal flow throughs . Just like Human Services they get a lot of money from the state and the fed and it becomes city contracts . Exactly. So to the extent that money flows into the state coffers from the state or the fed we contract with an organization that will include that state and federal money. To the extent though you have a number of examples where a Nonprofit Organization might hold a direct contract with the state itself or the federal government itself. That wouldnt be here, so to the extent of the state and federal