Finance subcommittee meeting for today. Thursday, april 6th. 10 10. I would like to get you started and im the vice chair of the committee. And to my left is supervisor tang and the chair colin willing here shortly. She is stuck in traffic and she wanted us to start and not delay so that people dont have to wait around. I want to thank linda wong who is the clerk of todays clerk. And also sfgov tv, who tapes every meeting and is available to the public after that. And i want to thank the staff there. Madam clerk, there are any other nounsments . Yes, silence all cell phones and Electronic Device and completed speaker cards to be part of the file should be submitted to the clerk items it acted upon today should be on the april, 8th board agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you, why dont you go ahead and call item one. Resolution, retroacting the public of health. To accept and expend a grant in the amount of 1,336,000 from the California Department of Public Health to participate in a program entitled hiv care Program Supplemental for the period of november 30, 2016, through september 29, 2017; and waiving indirect costs. Okay. So with this presentation. Good morning, supervisors my name is dean and i am the administrator of the hiv sections and i i am here to request the retroactive approval of the grand in the amount of 1336 million, in the one time funds, this came from the state office of aid as a new opportunity for the local Health Jurisdictions to request part of an appropriation provided to them from the federal department hers and the real location of the unattended part b from the jurisdictions in the state. In late august, we were able to request the funding to enhance the existing service and support the concepts and Service Category and identify and prioritized by the state office of aids, this will allow the hiv Health Services to pass on all of this 1. 336, million to our hiv Health Service providers to expand and amend the services for clients and nine separate programs. And based on the priorities of the funding announcement and the services are provided from november, 30th, 2016 to september, 29, 2017 in the following Service Categories oral, health, Supportive Housing, and one time increase to existing housing subsidies funded with the local fund dollars and the Hospice Services and Outpatient Services and the food and meals and client insensitive vouchers and reasonable doubt pa of the hiv and aging, and the regional study and i am happy to answer any of the questions that you may have and to explain this further if you would like. It is just a quick question. Yeah. How much is the housing piece of it. There are two housing pieces of Supportive Housing is 60,000 and that was provided to one of our transitional housing programs. To provide them a one time increase for their operating expense line items. And then the other is for the increase in the housing subdy of 350,000. About a quarter of a grant. Okay. So if you have no other questions, there are any Public Comments on this item . Seeing none, is Public Comment is now closed is there a motion. All right, i see there is no matching funds and i will make a motion to send it forthwith a positive recommendation. Thank you. Passes. Item two . Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the Arts Commission, placed on budget and finance committee reserve by the fy20162017 annual appropriation ordinance file no. 160628 , in the amount of 62,000 to fund acoustic mitigation improvements good morning, Deputy Director from the San FranciscoArts Commission here to request release of the 62,000 put on reserve for the last budget season and this is for mid gages work for the spaces and the Veterans War Memorial building where we moved in october of 2015. I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. I did read the information in the packet and maybe just on the record, the rationale behind it. Absolutely, so the budget analyst has a great and that during the project some of the work that we are hoping to have done to mitigate the issue was not included in the work scope because of the budget issues. And so as a result, the main office areas and the private office areas, have the issues and it is difficult to have one on the cell phone or a Conference Call and it is a challenge for the meetings which are required to be audio recorded and so the sound quality of the audio is difficult to hear and so as a result, we are implementing three Different Solutions in different areas. And one is a different type of glass, which will be installed in an office, the other is a sound masking device for the main suite and finally there will be a fabric wrapped panels installed in the meeting rooms in order to help to absorb the sound. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other questions, are there oh, yeah, the budget analyst and report. Yes, mr. Chairman, supervisor tang on page 3 of our report, we note that the table on that page shows the projected total cost of 64,000, to address the Art Commissions noise mitt indication issues and however, only, 62,000 is currently on the budget and finance committee reserve and the Art Commission advises that they will fund that additional 2469 with the existing available funds in their budget. We recommend that you approve the budget and the release of the 62,000 on reserve. Okay. Thank you very much for your report. And any Public Comments on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. And supervisor tang. So i will take a motion to release the 62,000 from reserve. Would you like to amend the amendment . There is no amendment, right . Correct. Yeah. There is no amendment, supervisor tang, could you also please file the hearing . Yeah, so i will make a motion to release the reserves and file the hearing. Okay, with no objection, the motion passes. Madam clerk, could you call item three . Resolution approving in accordance with Internal Revenue code, section 147 f , the issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority in an aggregate Principal Amount not to exceed 45,000,000 to refinance all or a portion of certain outstanding debt obligations that originally financed and refinanced the acquisition, construction, equipping, and furnishing of facilities owned and managed by institute on aging, a california nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, in connection with the provision of health care and other support services for lowincome, frail older adults. Welcome back supervisor to this meeting. What is your item . My item. Okay. Before we get started with the reports then, supervisor fewer is here to speak on our item. Yes, thank you supervisor yee. Colleagues i just wanted to say that the institute on aging is in my neighborhood, and actually serves a broader senior population than just in the richmond, and it has been the life line for many seniors, city wide. And with their friendship line, 24 hour, suicide prevention, and the friendship line for seniors as well as ul of the services that they offer on a daily basis. I am proud, actually and honored to sponsor this legislation, and it is such a Wonderful Community in my neighborhood. And so i just want to give a brief introduction, and i think that today, we have michelle traveti with us. Roxanna blaze. Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. The institute on aging the refinancing will allow the institute to actually capture the lower interest on the bond that we have for the building. As well as net some additional cash savings which will help with the programs that we offer in the city and in the community as supervisor fewer has said. Any questions . Seeing none, item and Public Comments on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Supervisor tang. I will make a motion to send forth this resolution, with the positive recommendation to the full board. With no objection, then the motion passes. Thank you very much, the next item actually is number four, but we are going to skip over that and wait for the chair. She will come before us and address item four, i know that this is important issue for her. So we will wait. Lets go over to item 5. Resolution approving the recreation and Park Department general managers declaration of an emergency based on catastrophic failure of the boiler system at kezar pavilion, estimated cost more than 250,000 to repair, pursuant to administrative code, section 6. 60 b . Okay. Good morning, supervisors gary, with the recreation and parts department. I just want to give some brief background and information on the emergency declaration. And as you may or may not know, the pavilion is heavily used by a lot of our local high schools and middle schools. And the emergency was declared in december and it was critical that we made the repairs before the playoffs, and we walenburger, sorry. The gym is the home gym for the high school. And it is also used for all of the sfplayoff games as well as the state championship games, Mission High School played their games at the pa vif an and they were able to get the repairs done before the games took place and so that was, you know, definitely a positive impact on the community as you know. And so, and i, i am here to answer any other questions if you have any. Okay, i am glad that you got the boiler six, before played, and otherwise, it might have unfrozen there and that wind in the championship. Absolutely. Very important. So i saw that it is a full source contract going to the city mechanical. And of course, the explanation was getting the quotes for the bids would have delayed the work by two months, and i am just wondering how the rec park selected city mechanical. I do not have that information. But would you mind following up with me afterwards or unless there rose has that information that would be great. Madam chair, mr. Chairman, supervisor tang, that contractor was on site and i believe so that they just continued with this contractor. It was that simple. And as you know under the administrative code, in the case of a true emergency, the board permits the award of emergency contracts on a full source basis. Okay. So through the chair too, mr. Rose just to clarify, city mechanical has already under contract with the rec park in general to maintain the pavillion . Yes, okay, that is fine. So was that your report from the budget analyst mr. Rose . Yes, i would just add mr. Chairman, supervisor tang, on page 6, the budget for replacement of the pavilion, is 468,650 that is on table one on page six, and so we recommend that you amend to state that the removal of the boiler system would cost 468,650, rather than the incorrect, 455,000 and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. Okay, can you in regards to this is april. And today is april. And the board happened in december, does it take that long to get in information to us . From rec and park . The board has a law supervisors, if you recall, that they have to submit it within 60 days and they did comply with that 60 daytime frame. Stage five we state that the Recreation Park Department declares a state of emergency to the board of supervisors on december the 20th. Of 2016. And rec and park apartment submitted the solution, declaring a state of emergency to the board on february the 14th, 2017 and so that will be within the 60 days. Okay. I am sorry, i was distracted. That is all right. On page 5 of our report we note that the recreation and parks department, general manager declares a state of emergency in a letter to the board of supervisors on december, 20th of 2016, and the recreation and Park Department submitted the resolution, Public Comment in seeing none, is there a motion . A motion to amend per the budget analyst recommendations. So that it would be cost of 468,650, and send forth as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended. Okay. With no objection, the motion passes. We just finished item five and we would like to go back to item four, chair cohen is back. Could we call item four . Resolution designating the construction administrator, financial officer, and project Contact Person for a proposed project to renovate county jail no. 2; confirming the fair market land value of 6,000,000 for county jail no. 2; and conditionally assuring the staffing, operation and continued ownership of county jail no. 2. We have the chief matthew free man here to present to us. Good morning, good morning, supervisors it is a pleasure to be here with you today and it is good to see you as always. The Sheriffs Department submitted a request for proposal pursuant to sb 44, the board and the state of corrections in february of this year. And as is the case, with all of the proposals submitted to the board of state and Community Directions there is a technical review of your submission that is conducted. The technical review, completed by the board of state and community corrections, did reveal some items that needed to be contained in the board of supervisor resolution, that are requirements of the proposal. It is important to point out that in seeking this supply mental resolution, nothing whatsoever in the project has changed. The project as we briefed you prior, for the targeted renovations to the county jail number two are exactly the same as before, and this is simply approximately for technical issues that are a requirement of the proposal and there is appoints that are tied to these requirements so that it is a critical that we do get the supply mental included with our submission. And just to give you an idea, of some of the technical issues that were omitted. The names, titles, and positions of county, construction administrator project, financial officer. And project Contact Person, that needed to be contained in the resolution and it is in the supply mental resolution, and page 2, lines four through 12 on your supply mental, assurance that the county willfully staff the building that is being renovated and we have a current staffing plan that will transfer over. And the project shall provide the following site assurance for the county facility at the time of the proposal that that is contained in the supply mental page 3, lines 18 to 25. And the attestation of the current land and market value of the property where county jail number two currently resides at 425, seven street and that is what we are here for today is to seek the committee and the boards approval for the supply mental resolution to go forward as a part of our larger rfp submission. Okay. Thank you, and i would be happy to answer any questions. I am glad that you are here and i am glad that you are highlighted just the purchasely up mri mental and nothing has changed on the item that we voted for two times ago. Correct. Supervisor yee, does have a few questions, thank you. So, for your presentation and this is probably not about your presentation and probably should have been a question that i should have asked in the prior hearing. In regards to the 480, upgrade it selfare you familiar with the atms . Say it again . The upgraded for the ada. Correct. And so that is going to be and i understand that those four cells are in the maximum security confine . There are two podz that we have identified. This is adam and david pod both of these podz are exact same configuration. And they are mezzanine level podz with the beds and all of the beds on the lower level are open bay, and all of the beds on the upper level are open bay. And with the project seeks to do is to convert the upper level in each of those podz from open bay beds to the double occupancy rooms. When you installed double occupancy rooms. That does trigger a code requirement that at least one of those rooms be what they called ada compliant. And so as we move, if we are fortunate to receive an award from the state, when the architect and contractors actually go into the space, they will identify where that ada room will fit in the upper level. So then the question becomes for me then, for those that are or have to, and they are disabled . But that they would need the high security. Where will you put those individuals . If you had an individual who had needed an ada accommodation, that ada room is where that person would be housed. And the benefit of that is, is that in the two podz that we are talking about, these podz are slated to be what we called program pods. So we will be offering educational vocational and life skills and wrap around services in the pods and the benefit of having the ada room is that we dont preinclude anyone that needs the ada accommodation in the services that we offer. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Great, thank you. We will go to the Public Comment at this time. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, is there anyone that would like to speak on this item . All right, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Matter is in our hands, what would you like to do supervisor tang . Thank you. I dont want to and i know that all of us probely received a lot of emails about not supporting this item and i think that we had a very thorough discussion several times around and i am not going to go into that and given that we are just providing information to the state i am going to make a motion to sent forth this resolution with a positive recommendation to the full board. We can take that motion without objection. Thank you. Madam clerk, could you call item 6 . Resolution establishing the appropriations limit of 3,185,468,215 for fy20162017, pursuant to california constitution, article xiii b. We have got the Controllers Office to make a presentation this morning. Good morning, supervisors. Teresa from the controls office, and the Budget Analyst Division and today before you is a resolution to establish the citys appropriations for 2016, 17, pursuant to the california constitution and i have the electronic version of the presentation, on the screen. Thank you. That was introduced in 1979 and to impose the spending limit and the state and most of the california and most of the local government, and this measures the office, and of this is to keep the inflation and population, adjusted and the appropriation on the 17, and the 19, and to requires any of the exact of the limit to return to the tax payers. They found that the article 13 b, confirmation and forming our guidelines, and last year, the limit was close to 3 billion dollars, and after reflecting the San Francisco population increase and also, the adjustments, and those numbers provided by the department of finance, we have calculated this years appropriation limit close to 3. 19 billion dollars. And this appropriation limit has reflected the result of the prop k, which is the sales tax ballot measure that did not get passed in november election. And we also calculate the appropriation cities and the appropriation subject to the limit. And the total tax proceeds estimated is at a 3. 7 billion dollars, and the, after it is excluded the allow of the exemptions that the services and the federal mandated services and the qualify always at a 676 million dollars, and our net proceeds for appropriation then is to or at a 3 billion dollars. And my previous slide showing that the limit is at 3. 19 billion that means that the cities actually are under the limit by 187 million dollars. And that is last slide here is to show you the historical value of the amount that the cities appropriation under the limit. And you can see that we are actually much better than last year. And we see the slide as conclude inned my presentation, and happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Supervisor yee has a few. On the slide that indicates the net proceeds, the bottom of that slide, the approximate limits is 2. 998. Yes. Around, 3 billion. And does that number include the projection if the sales tax is to pass. No it is excluded. All of the appropriation limit here is excluding the sales tax that did not get passed. Because we cannot include it. So curiosity if the sales tax had passed, what would it have been the appropriation . So, we estimated the sales tax passed if the sales tax measure passed the revenue will be at a 35 million. So that means that our appropriation will increase by 35 million dollars. And then we will be under the limit by the five million dollars. Got it thank you. No questions . Great. In elets go to the budget legislative analyst. Madam chair, i have nothing else to add other than we do recommend approval of this legislation and it is accordance with the state law. I appreciate that we will go to Public Comment. Is there any member of the public that would like to come and speak, do so. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Supervisor yee . I will go ahead and make a motion to pass this with a positive recommendation to the full board. All right. We will take that without objection, and it passes. And the next item threes . Item seven,resolution retroactively approving a Grant Agreement between the city and county of San Francisco and homebridge for the provision of contract mode Inhome Supportive Services and provider Skill Development training and supports, for the period of july 1, 2016, through june 30, 2019, in the amount of 131,486,797. All right, thank you, we have got a speaker today, and miss Megan Elliott from the Human Services agency and she will be presenting on the resolution and how it will retroactively resolution that will approve a new three Year Contract between the city and home bridge for their inhome support services. Yes, good morning, supervisors my name is megan and i am the Inhome Supportive ServicesProgram Director with the Human Services agency and with me today is john, the Human ServicesAgency Director of contracts. We are here to present for your consideration, the file, 170231, that seeks approval of the contract between the city and the county. For the provision of contract mode Inhome Supportive Services. July, firls, 2013, to 17, in the amount of 131,487,797 however pursuant to a recommendation from the budget analyst, we ask you to approve the contract for the period of april, first, 2017 to june, 30, 2019, in the amount of 66 million, 972,9030. And i will give you some background about the ihhs program. And california welfare and institutions code, mandates that all counties at minister the ihhs program. And which provides consumer directed, Home Care Services to eligible seniors and the people with disabilities. And in order for them to remain safely in their own homes and to prevent premature institutionalization, in San Francisco, ihhs currently serves over 22,000 seniors and people with disabilities. Each eligible ihhs consumer is authorized monthly hours based on annual Needs Assessment conducted by the Human Services agency staff. And in San Francisco ihhs, Service Hours are provided to clients via the two mode and the service delivery, and that the independent provider mode and the contract mode. Over 95 percent of ihhs consu consumers in San Francisco, receive ihhs through the independent provider mode and in that mode of service, the consumer is considered to be the employer of their care provider. And as such they are responsible for the hiring, training, and scheduling, and supervising of their home care provider. However, a significant portion of ihhs consumers have difficulties managing this role of the employer to an innocent provider. These folks have dementia or mental illness, and they may be vulnerable to abuse or any neglect or suffer from the hording and cluttering disorder. Suffer from what . Hording. I thought that you said fluttering. Hording and cluttering. These consumers who are served through the ihhs contract mode of service. And in contract mode the grantee is the employer of the moment care worker, and takes on the role of hiring scheduling and over all management of the Home Care Services. And this allows for the grant of the ihhs population or around 1250 consumers to benefit from the contract mode. And so hsa had an existing three Year Agreement for the contract Provider Services that expires on june, 30th, 2017, and in this contract, home bridge provided two services for ihhs. And first the contract mode of services and also provider skilled Development Training and support. Under provider Skills Development and training and support, they provide the basic and advanced training to both ihhs independent providers as well as its own home care staff. And the grant allows for over 3,000 hours of basic and advanced training for ihhs providers annually. Along with the post training and mentoring and support. And in march of 2016, hsa, issued a request for proposal to provide Contract Service and provider Skill Development training for the three year period of july, 1, 2016, through june, 30, 201 , we received only one proposal which was from the home bridge and home bridge exceeded the ifp requirements for the Program Approach organization and staffing and fiscal capacity. And we awarded home bridge the contract in may of 2016. And so we are now available to answer any of your swez that you may have. Thank you. Let me see if there are noo he colleagues in any questions . Supervisor yee . Okay. I have a question. Maybe you can help me just understand better how this proposed change will impact the contract . The old contract and the new contract overlap. For some overlap there. And the resolution before us should be amended to reflect that particular gap; is that correct . . Yes, and we agree with the budget analyst recommendation. Okay. All right. And but could you still talk about the changes, i mean it is more than just a date, or is it just Service Change as well . So i am john, with the office of contracts with the Human Services agency, so the services will continue as they do, the reason for the sort of the complication on this was with the increasing cost within the contract, the funds within the existing contract, the three Year Contract were going to lapse before several months before june 30, to 2017. And so we started a procurement early to have the contract and that will take and that we do put in place as a funding in of that one and then we will have a new contract in place. And so, there are a couple of areas that we made on that, one is when we wrote this resolution, we looked at it kind of as a whole year, when the budget analyst pointed out correctly, we should put in the three months. And then, to do it for two years and then we also put when we did the rfp they did it for the four years and the contract was for three years and a one year extension and we included the whole four years within this core of resolution and it was pointed out to us correctly that we should put what was actually contracted in there. Let me clarify, that the question that i am trying to drill down is more about the governors proproesal and the cuts and how that will have an impact on the contract. I believe that you are referring to the dismantling of the Care Initiative and the mant nens of the effort for ihhs. And in terms of this proposal, and the budget and legislative analyst, amendments, this will have no impact on our services. And in terms of the maintenance of effort, i understand that that negotiations between you know, it is state association of counties and the department of finance and the state level are ongoing now. And i understand supervisors that you cosponsored a resolution supporting those negotiations. I think that it was introduced just yesterday, right . Tuesday. And we. Yeah. And so we thank you for that. We remain hopeful that these negotiations will result in a solution that does not impact counties. We appreciate that, but the worst Case Scenario, what are we looking at . Go ahead. Noechlt i am the senior budget analyst at the Human Services agency. The impact to San Francisco that we are estimating is 43. 4 million in terms of the our countys cost that we would potentially incur if the governors budget were to be enacted. And state wide, the impact of 623 million dollars. And the important thing to keep in mind is that the Inhome Supportive Services program, is an entitlement and so at the local level we would not be able to change elbility criteria, or reduce the level of service that clients currently receive. The county, in the worst Case Scenario in which it would have to absorb 43. 4 million in new costs and 1718, and the county would have to look at balancing its budget in order to absorb those costs. Okay. The county would have to look and so that is us. That is krek. Yeah. So, to be continued. When do you expect more confirmation from the governor . When is his full budget expected to be rolled out or presented. V . Sure, so our understanding is that the governors may revise to be released in mid may. Okay. May include some additional detail in ermz it of a negotiation and sort of a new estimate of the cost that the counties would need to incur, and however, that is incertain at this time and we will know more once that may revision is released. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and do you have a question . Might as well follow up. Okay. In regards to modifying the timing of the new contract, do we have to modify the old contract . It seems like. We will terminate the old contract, effective march 31st, and the new contract will be put in place as of april first. Otherwise it will be terminated and in july, i think. Yes, i am sorry. Otherwise it is nothing had changed in the month, and okay, i got it. I was confused on that. The other question is we are probably or, actually who is it the city or the contractor who negotiates to for the rates . Originally the contractor and the independent providers have the same wage level and so those, those wages are negotiated through the ihhs Public Authority with the city. Okay, i got it. And is it home bridge . Yes. When there are organizations like on lock or others organizations that works with their clients, to provide inhome service, does it also come from the home bridge . I am a little confused with that. Sure. Both inhome Supportive Service and on lock are medicaid funded programs. And on lock like ihhs provides home care in addition to other medical services wrap around medical services. And so, if a consumer is enrolled with on lock, they are not eligible for ihhs and do not receive their services through home bridge. So, again, i, this is beyond the scope of budget. But sure. This is for clarification. If somebody somebody and having to have the in only care, but it is recommended by, i believe, at the time. And it was not really part of on lock. And so, i was wondering, what, and who pays for that . I mean, how does it, where is the system for this . Yeah, so, in San Francisco, there are multiple providers of Home Care Services, and there is private pay agencies where the people pay out of pocket. The people that are eligible for medical can receive Inhome Supportive Services. Does it go through home bridge . Only if they meet the criteria for home bridge. And that is determined by Human Services agencies social workers. We go and we do the home visits and we determine what the home situation is and if there is an individual that is there, and available to be there independent provider. That is always the first route we take. And unless somebody is going to be challenged with being the employer of their provider. And then, we would employ home bridge to provide the services. Okay. I dont want to, belabor this too much, but i would love to have somebody from your office come in and talk to me. Absolutely. This is confusing to me. We can speak to your aids. Thank you. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, i have a question for you miss white house, you heard a little bit of the you guys can sit down. You heard the presentation the impact of the proposals impact from the governor on on the population, could you explain how the mayors budget also factors in and will take into account these proposed changes . Or cut back . Yeah yes. Thank you. Claire cohen and the white house the mayors budget director, so we are concerned about this potential ihhs loss and i know that the department mentioned the impact and you are the budget of 43 million and year two of the budget it is higher, and it is closer to 58 million and if you take the two together, it is almost, 100 million, and so it is very significant and we are really concerned about it and i want to thank supervisors yee, and cohen for working with us on advocacy on around the state level and i believe that passing in the legislation and letters and all that have and it is helpful. And you know, i think that the timing is also, very challenging and so we will hear about the sb one and the transportation package this week. Which is potentially good news for us on the road repaving program and then we will not hear until mid may, more information, on the ihhs and it would be very bad news, and so it is definitely, a little bit of a challenge for us, as we go and come towards releasing the mayors budget on june first. And so i think that we are very mindful of that, and one of the things that we are looking at that we have done in the past is that we actually have budgeted a state and federal impact reserve many years ago when we were having a lot of cuts from the state and federal government and so that is something that we are considering for the up coming budget, but generally, you know, we are just working hard on advocacy right now on this issue and we are look forward to working with the board once we do submit the budget. It is good to hear that you guys are taking these cuts, seriously and planning for it. I appreciate that. And lets go to the budget legislative analyst office. To hear their thoughts on the matter. Yes, madam chair and members of the committee, on page 13 of our report, with he state that it is shown in table two on page 14 of our report, the new contract amount and including a ten percent totals 88 million, 221603 and that is over a three year term of july first, 2016 torques june, 30, 2019. And then we state on page 15 of on you are report, that the proposed resolution states that the contractor for the period from july, first, 2016 to june, 2019 in the amount not the 88 million that i just mngsed but the amount of 131 million, 486,797. Which is more than the amount of the contract of 88 million. And according to hsa, staff and the surplus amount and it is to provide the Spending Authority if hsa, decides to extend the contract by one year of june, 30, 2020, the budget and analyst recommends adjusting from 131, to the amount in the contract of 88 million. And then in addition the budget and legislative analyst recommends the proposed resolution to reduce by 21 million. And from 88 million. To 66 million, and that is the correspond with the proposed contracts start date of april first, 2017 and so in total, we recommend that amending the proposed resolution to reduce the amount by 64 million. And tla is shown in the table on page 15 of our report. So our recommendations are on page 16. And first one is we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to state that the existing consider between hsa and home bridge terminates as of march 31, 2017, rather than june 30, and the proposed new contract between hsa and home bridge is effective as of april first, 2017, rather than july, first, 2016. And we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution to reduce the contract amount by the total that i just mentioned to 64 million. From 131 million. And to 66 million. And we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended and we will be happy to respond to any questions. Thank you very much, mr. Rose. I appreciate that thorough report. Back. Colleagues, if you have any questions, seeing none, we will go to Public Comment. Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item seven come on up. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. All right, do you want to make a motion . Sure. Go ahead and to approve this with the amendments and pass it out with a positive recommendation to the full board. Thank you very much and we can take that without objection. Thank you. All right, madam clerk, could you call item 8 . The next item . Yes. Resolution authorizing the Sheriffs Department to enter into a First Amendment to the existing agreement with leaders in Community Alternatives lca , to extend the term by one year for a total term of may 1, 2014, through april 30, 2018, with no change in the agreement amount not to exceed 2,000,000; approving the sheriff departments home detention and Electronic Monitoring Program rules and regulations; and approving evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by Program Administrator lca for the 2017 calendar year. Nechltd good morning, cfo of the Sheriffs Department and i am here to request approval of the resolution, authorizing the Sheriffs Department to enter into a First Amendment for our existing agreement, with leaders in the Community Alternatives for electronic monitoring services. And it extends the term of the current contract by 1 year, and with no change in the agreement amount, and it also, it resolution also approves the Sheriffs Departments Electronic Monitoring Program rules and regulations which are unchanged since board approval three years ago. And i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. That was easy. Thank you very much. Lets see if we have some questions. Thank you. Chair. How do you calculate, is it each individual, and a certain amount times a number of days . So it is the contractor is nottoexceed the two million. But, where is the fluctuation in that . Is there. Most of the fluctuation actually the reason that there is that we are confident that there is no change in the contract amount is that people who cant afford this service, participants who cant afford this will pay for this, and this mitigates the citys cost to this program. However the people that cannot afford this, they are not turned away for the lack of funds, and the cost. There is an enrollment fee of 125 and depending on what type of equipment, whether it is a gps monitor and whether it is an alcohol monitoring device and could push it up to 35 dollars. What was the amount that was spent last year . Roughly, quarter of a million dollars. And i believe that in the three years, that the contract approximately a half a million dollars. So why are we aalthough lowing for 2 million, well we are asking for an approval of an amendment which just extends the term of the contract and we are not changing anything else. Extension for one year . For one year, yes. Oh, i see. I got it. It is not asking for two million for one year. No, sir. Then it is okay. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Thank you. That is why we have the question and answer session. Thank you. Supervisor tang, and seeing no questions from supervisor tang, lets and we do not have a budget legislative Analyst Report and thank you very much, why dont we go to Public Comment, ladies and gentlemen of the public if you like to speak on this item please do so. Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Is there a motion. I will make a motion to send this forth to the positive recommendation to the full board. We can take that motion without objection. Thank you. Madam clerk, could you call item 9 and ten together. Yes. Resolution authorizing and approving the lease of a portion of the equipment room at zuckerberg San FranciscoGeneral Hospital and trauma center, building 25, at 1001 potrero avenue with spok, inc. , a delaware corporation, at the Monthly Base Rent of 5,000 which shall be waived while providing Paging Services and equipment to the city, for the fiveyear term to commence upon approval by the board of supervisors and mayor, with two fiveyear options to extend. 1and item ten,resolution authorizing and approving the lease of a portion of the roof and equipment room at zuckerberg San FranciscoGeneral Hospital and trauma center, building 25, at 1001 potrero avenue with american messaging services, llc, a Delaware Limited Liability company, at the Monthly Base Rent of 5,000 which shall be waived while providing Paging Services and equipment to the city, for a fiveyear term to commence upon approval by the board of supervisors and mayor, with two fiveyear options to extend. 1 thank you, we have got the talented gorum with us today to make a presentation on behalf of the department of real estate. Good morning. Supervisor yee and supervisor tang. Before you is a photo of the zucerberg General Hospital and way on top of if you can see it is the antenna that goes with the system. And the proposed leases before you are unique arise from a unique situation, the General Hospital distributed Antenna System, supports multiple page and Wireless Services by basically enhancing coverage within the new hospital building. And maybe a little leakage out into the campus. And it does so through a series of inbuilding repeaters. Which driblts radio and wireless frequencies throughout the spaces in the building giving better coverages in the areas that cannot receive them. This connect the service providers, to the two actual tenants involved in these leases and the american messaging system and spoke to the clin nigss and both dph and the staff and the patients and the visitors to the hospital. The ten anlts and the american messages system and spoke and will provide and install their own equipment to connect to the citys system, so that those persons within the building using their pagers and cell phones have better reception within the building. Basically i have tried to get the photos that show the antennas you cant see them because this is how far away you have to get to see them. They are not huge and they do not pose an ugly aesthetic. And the paging and the areas that will be covered include numerous areas within the building but mainly for not only dph, and ucsf clinicians but also for the first responders. And so that means that they go within the chair wells and they go in the elevators and the basement areas and the crawl spaces. And the city currently has a master agreement with tenant and american messaging systems. And ucsf has a Master Service agreement with spoke. And the citys uses its Paging Services through american messaging systems and ucsf which is as you know, the General Hospitals and the citys partner at the hospital and the campus. Uses spoke for the Paging Services. The master agreement with the city with american messaging system being renegotiated as we speak, and the master agreement with spoke, currently is a month to month ucsf spoke since 2004 and, renegotiating the master agreements. Okay . Thank you. Real quick, supervisor tang has a question. I just wanted to understand, and i know that we are two different agencies but partnering. And of course, you know, ucsf, also has different locations, and so im just trying to understand the different messages systems and if it is the equipment and basically, or the structure supports all of those in the efficient way or is one better than the other . The spoke system is used by the others in the campuses and the american messages that dph uses is also located on the other hospitals. Many of the dpok tors move and so uc has preferred to use that, the department of Public Health has the good service with the american message and customized the system to meet the work flow requirements of the clinical staff. And the Paging Services are good. And in terms of the infrastructure or the aten that system that we are installing they support and it does not matter which system right . It is all the same thing. And the Antenna System is the neutral and it is designed to attach to any provider equipment cell phones as well as paging systems. Great, thank you. That brings a gootd point that these are the first two of what we hope will be several other leases to other service providers. And each will have been connect to the system to provide their own clients. And their own paying customer and the Better Service within the building. And so the leased terms are basically the same for both paging companies. And in and it is a general base rent of 5,000. And annual adjustments of 3 percent and the utilities will be provided by the city. Both the utilities and the rent are waived at this point in light of the Master Service agreements. However, should one you in the hospital not be used as a hospital any more, the city discontinue its daf or three, the Service Agreements are terminated for any reason. Both of the tenants have to start paying the base rent of whatever it would be at that time. And their utilities. And there is not a lot of incentive for either tenant to have their equipment stay on the building. Because the base rent and the utilities that they would have to be paying at any time is if the Master Service agreements terminate would be above the market rate for the small amount of equipment that they are installing on the building the budget and legislative Analyst Report actually highlighted an issue which that it recommended that the proposed resolution be amended to state that ucsf would provide the city advanced notification if the master agreement was spoke ended in the term of the proposed Lease Agreement and that is not something that i or the other side have actually thought about, and affleck after reading that i went to spoke and said that there is an issue that we forgot to add, and so i received the spokes agreement to add a section to 5. 1 of the lease and basically requires them to give the written notice of the city in 15 working days of the expiration or the cancellation of the master agreement with ucsf. And again, if you have further questions regarding the programming, and i have for you, three very good representatives here to discuss that. And otherwise, if you have any questions about the lease terms i can answer. Thank you. Supervisor yee . It is interesting that you received written i guess, okay. From okay. Yeah, yesterday, i have a written email and we have exchanged the actual written language in the Lease Agreement page. All right. Thank you for your presentation. We appreciate it. We will hear from the budget legislative analyst. Yes, maed am chair and members of the committee on page 20 of our report, the base rent amounts are based on the citys minimum charge of 5,000 per month. And other locations for an antenna on the city properties. And however, rent is waived, as long as either tenant is providing Paging Services for the hospital users under the representative agreements with the department of technology and ucsf, the city will also pay for the you tills estimated to be approximately, 3708 per year and for each of the tenants we will have a master agreement for the Paging Services that are in effect, and so given the fact that the departments that represented to you that our recommendation one on the bottom of page, 20 has been implemented or taken care of, i withdraw that recommendation and recommend you approve the proposed resolution. Thank you, we appreciate that. And we will take that under advisement and first we will go to Public Comment. Seeing none, no public here, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues any discussion or if not, a motion for these two items . I will go ahead with a motion to pass these out of committee and with the positive recommendation to the full board. All right. For both items 9 and 10. And with without objection we will take those motions unanimously. Thank you. Item eleven,resolution approving a lease between c e Haas Development company, llc, as landlord, and the city and county of San Francisco, as tenant, for certain equipment at 1 bayview park road assessors parcel block no. 4991, lot no. 1c , for an approximate tenyear term to commence upon lease execution expected to be about april 1, 2017 through march 31, 2027, with three fiveyear options at an initial annual lease rate of 91,800 with a onetime fee of 25,000 with annual three percent increases, for use as a radio Transmission Site for the citys first responders; and adopting environmental findings. Good morning, the director of real estate again, this lease and the next item concern the 800 mega, mistake on that, Public Safety replacement project. They operate, 200 mega hertz that are operated by the department and the outside agencies, which cover the city, so that they can receive paging and wireless and emergency, communications during the emergency and at all of the times. And the city is over all project is combining these into one network, which will be used by all of these different departments and the first responders. And this particular lease at the bay view park. And there we go, it is, and there is already a telecommunications at the site. And this will install the four racks and the batteries in the secure room, inside of the building and two microwave dishes and two antennas and two on the roof. And four antennas on the existing 390 foot tower, and the installation is schedule for october of 2013, and it will be completed in 2018. And the terms that were negotiated are a ten year lease term. And with 3, five year options. And it, it is to commence, on april first. The rent was based upon the appraisal that was conducted of the fair market value of 8,000 a month and negotiated down to 95 percent. And there will be three percent annual adjustment, and this will be paying the utility and there is a one time administrative fee and a one time kind of we wont do business with you, without paying it fee. And and the over all is are 1. 3 million which include the construction and the installation at this site. If you have any program questions, i do have chris here to answer those. And if you have any lease questions, i can answer them. Thank you, i appreciate that. We will go to the budget legislative analyst. We note that over the initial ten year term of the lease, the department of Emergency Management and the department of technology will pay an estimated 2 million, 592, and that is for site improvements and the equipment, and that is shown on page six, and we do recommend that you approve this resolution. Public comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Colleagues, should we take these recommendations. I will make a motion and i dont think that there was a recommendation and i take this with the positive recommendation to the full board. We can take that without objection. And madam clerk . I believe that the item is item 12 . Yes. Resolution authorizing and approving a 25year telecommunication ground lease of 859 square feet existing emergency Radio Telecommunications tower and associated equipment with the state of california, department of general services, and department of parks and recreation, as landlord, for the department of Emergency Management and the department of technology at San Bruno Mountain state park, south hill site, san mateo county, at a yearly initial base rent of 43,844 to commence upon approval by the board of supervisors and mayor; and approving payment of 175,000 to the state park benefit fund. And this is as a similar lease for the same project. And this is an existing tower, that the city had put on property that had believed to have been owned by the city of daily city. And it is a lease for 25 years. And the terms or the rent is based on this states mandatory guidelines so there was not a lot of negotiation, and however, we did negotiate a small reduction, because we are a Public Agency and they gave us that, and so it is basically what we believe is below market rate at this point. They did increase the annual adjustment to 3. 75 this year and we estimate that the utilities are 2700. The state required that we pay a payment to the state park benefits fund, which actually will go to san bruno state park to go into the various projects there and that is in lui, and in light of them waving their legal right to go for the back rent because we have been on the property until now without paying rent. And the state may place one antenna on the tower in the future, if you have any programming questions again, i have a representative here or if you have any lease term questions, i can answer them. I dont think that we have any questions. Supervisor yee. Do you, was there any analysis done to look at whether or not the daily city would have maybe a comparable area to put to the tower, and with it, and have been a cheaper, and to suggest just to move to the tower and rebuild the tower. And still have no rent . Or the 25 years . Yes, i believe that when the project and when this, and the larger project started and they looked at moving the various towers and this was one of the original six towers from the original project back in the 90s. And that is why the tower is where it is, and they looked at moving the tower, however, based on the calculations and the studies that are done with the 6 original, to move this tower and to change its height or the location would have required all of the other initial towers to either move or change height, and therefore, the cost was too high to actually do that. In addition, we did look at, or we didnt, but the dt, and the dem looked at moving the tower to i think, that it is called tower hill or whatever it is, over there. And in san bruno and they would not provide the security that we need, and we would have had to connect the power and our own power up the mountain, which also was absorb and they could not afford that and so it needed to stay where it is. And at least, thinking about those things. Thank you. And all right, lets take the Public Comment, seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Item 12, colleagues, excuse me. Lets hear from the budget legislative analyst. Madam chair and the members of the committee on page, 32, the proposed ground lease provides for the an uppal, and that is to the state increasing by 3. 5, percent each year and over to the 25 lease term, and the dt will pay the state the total rent of 1 million, and 7 on 9 and in addition they will pay for it across the approximately, 7200 a year, and it has been stated in addition to the city will make and will contribute a one time payment of 175,000 to the state park benefit fund and we do recommend that you approve this resolution. Thank you we will take that under advisement. Colleagues, what would you like to do with that recommendation. Lets go ahead and make a motion. All right. And pass it out of the committee, with the po sive recommendation. We will take that without objection. Is there any other business before this body. No further business. We are adjourned see you at one. If you frequently travel before i van ness i might be surprised van ness will goodwill go the First Transit corridor to have brt as more frequently known the goal to get conveniently van ness and geary boulevard one of the most reliable transit systems in the country van ness avenue is a major connecter between potrero hill and mission on the south side of San Francisco correcting connecting us to the marina and state highway in the financial with the western edition neighborhood it is mostly residential a lot of the geography of van ness the rain that is wide it was uses is a firebreak in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake a lot of building occasion that helped of hoped to stop the fire from jumping van ness had a light rail or sprash separating and along geary 0 when we came to the question of how to address the needs on haven because of its cost effectiveness we have found in the brt system with the new vehicles. The new mr. Secretary is a change we will actually have transit in the middle the far legal unit and a broadly prom one of the reasons it is in the center a was it is an clouf rightofway a set of pedestrians will cross from the sidewalk to the middle of the street a. To move the reliable along the corridor with this travel time had been signifying reduced we think the ripped will go from 16 thousand a day in that portion the corridor up to 22 thousand and well have those beautiful new one like this one. With the dedication of the signal and lighter saying that between stops we were able to estimate a. 32 improvement in travel time and a 50 percent reliability improvement as a result. Were pitting u putting in a up to date modern system of new thirty foot high light fixtures and pedestrian lights on the same pole again inviting a comfortable environment for pedestrians. It has become a 3 dimensional street project. The water that is my understanding under the ground and the emergency firefighting water system month will be replaced and new street lights and traffic lights and the paving and stripping the trees both in the medium and on the side. The main core of the project goes from market it lombard thats where well be replying the sidewalks. There are a number of trees that need to be replaced and they will be additional new planting. Were planting a lemon gum that gets to be 50 or 60 feet tall that comes over the offer head wires that wee when we get done van ness it will look like a new street it will visit fresh new looks like the grand boulevard again. Were going eliminating left turns off of van ness into the side streets and places the left turning traffic backs up the traffic and upgrading the signals to the mini traffic will flow more smoothly and traffic impacts as we execute the construction signed were working to minimize these but impacts that will likely shift the traffic up franklin and well pick up the traffic. Right now that looks like were skeleton to start in march ever 2016 are of our construction. In the past people prospective of bus traffic that go unreliable and noisy and very fluting were here to remake the vehicles are on the streets and with the combination of the brt improvements much more rail Like Services with the technology. The public is in for a city of San Francisco good afternoon, everyone, thank you for joining us today. This is the regular meeting for the budget and finance committee. My name is Supervisor Malia Cohen . To my left is supervisor katy tang and supervisor jane kim and well be joined