Right outcomes that the department and the Housing Providers on the street really reels or building are the best to look at were looking at more than a one year t there are anonymously i want to hear from our prospective do you think it is a good multi year kind of process look at outcomes, and, secondly it it seems to me that some coordination between the departments and the provider to see up front in front of a contract those are the things we want to look at it and have a discussion that you know of what the outcomes are their ones we can measure and fit on the street i think the board of supervisors has a lot of great input but a lot of times we should allow the people, if you will to determine the metrics most feasible. I agree that the front line providers and departments are certainly in the best position to access contract performances but i believe that there information that can be gathered that doesnt necessarily need to inform the assessment of a providers performance but
Both h s a and the other agency those are still heavily focused on conceptual compliance and we need what is more expensive conceptual comparison of outcomes u outcomes across buildings and vendors and the city s is currently engaged in our Main Findings and speaking to the concerns youve raised supervisor farrell we believe at this time master lease and nonprofit support housing are necessary components of the system because the master lease unit do make up 2 3rds of Supportive Housing portfolio and 3 thousand unit at this time it is less expensive and more available than the nonprofit housing theyre less desirable the buildings are older and although the city has created more 3 thousand unit since the adaptation of the plan in 2004 the Homeless Population has unchanged from 2005 to 2013 in general people that are being housed in addition while past analysis by the city and other government academic sources that provided the academics particularly compared to other expenditures and ot
Available unit in San Francisco versus nonprofit owned is a longer period to develop the unit but ultimately over time well use the public fund a. M. Intents over one hundred years and our market in San Francisco versus nonprofit that owned assuming we pay for it over a long period of time that the city might smooth out a little bit more; is that correct. The asset for the master less lease i think weve looked at the mart lease per unit 3 hundred to 350,000 per unit per average those will go up but the other thing i dont have the specific numbers but the master costs are increasing by quite a bit one was approved last year it is to 50 percent hive both of those will be gouch. If we think about the vision of the city over the next decades if we if you take the assumption our Real Estate Market is going to continue to go haywire then locking in the it is on a thirty year base it looks at more expensive than today walking in construction and purchase of land value purposes today for perma
Lot. The scare you part is that commissioner arce, youre absolutely right. They could set the not to exceed rate next week. They could move forward with a Shell Program and no other program, which as i said is only less than 4 of what we envision. So, but with that said, the reason that advocates have recently voted and said to the sfpuc and to lafco we would like them to proceed with these not to exceed rates is because they are now competitive with pg e. Especially if you compare it to a pg e green rate. And what ms. Malcolm proposed to us tonight are rates that will probably be even more competitive, even competitive with pg es brown power rate. The issue with the shell contract is that whether we like it or not, the local buildout that we all want is no longer tied to the small phase 1 part of the program. Its no longer tied to the shell contract. So, the reality is now that the shell contract is going to have competitive rates if the sfpuc sets competitive rates next week, now tha
Kaiserious concerns. Those are concerns that have nothing to do with the not to exceed rate. They have other program designs and we can continue to have this discussion. You doughthv need a resolution to have that continued discussion. Simply ask the puc staff, i am 100 willing to bet with anyone that ken malcolm and anyone else with the puc would be willing to come back and have those discussions with you here or if you want to have more sitdown meetings one on one with any of you that have questions, we can do all of this. I think what youre about to do is going to seriously harm this program and i would encourage you to volt no on that resolution at this time. Thank you. ~ vote thank you. Next speaker. Well, what a night. Derek burks, San Francisco green party, local Grassroots Organization in our city. So, i want to scare you a little bit and reassure you a lot. The scare you part is that commissioner arce, youre absolutely right. They could set the not to exceed rate next week. Th