covering this meeting. >> please silence all cell phones, and all of the speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk, items today will be on the april, 26, board of spurps agenda, unless, otherwise stated. >> we have ten items on the aagain this morning, we will try to get through them. start by calling item one. >> ordinance, amending the administrative code to codify the process for imposing sanctions for non-willful, failures to comply with the county adult assistance programs. >> thank you, madam clerk, so colleagues, when our voters of san francisco passed, we made a commitment that we are going to provide benefits for housing and services that will keep people stabilized it was one of the biggest innovations in addressing the homelessness, and the success has spoken for itself thousands of individuals have found, housing stability, since the implementation, more than a decade ago, and we have a long ways left to go on the streets in san francisco. but in working with a lot of departments last year and i want to note that joyce and i believe that scott and someone else from hsa are here today to answer any questions, that we may have, we found a minor flaw in the program that has enhanced to individuals being evicted which causes them to cycle back into homelessness and cost our city more resources in long run, than if that individual, continued to remain housed. currently, after an individual, has hit, non-compliance with the program requirements for the third time, hsa notified the individual that the benefit may be discontinued. in some circumstances we are able to get back them, but after a third non-compliance where no source and security threatened. dozens of individuals a year could face eviction, due to the non-payment of rent. so i introduced these reforms a while ago, for the housing practice m that will create a three year, rental assistance project for the participants and codify the process for imposing the sanctions for the requirements to keep the vulnerable populations secure and lower the risk of eviction, the intent is to reduce the homelessness. the intent of the reforms that we introduced to significantly reduce the risk that our cash participants will be ee viblt vikted or become, insecure. under the proposal, a three year pilot program, participants who reside in hsa funding supportive housing and have engaged in three acts of failure to comply with the program requirements will be ineligible for receive the cash assistance for a month. but make a rental payment during that month on the behalf of the client. hsa will collect the assistance under this project and the annual report to the board of spurps describing the effectiveness and the recommendation foz improvement. and the individuals who receive rental assistance under the project, must do a few things, they must reinstate the cap during the first month of the sanction period in order to reestablish the income source to allow them to resume the payments the following month and reestablish the participation in a fair party rent service in the cap. individuals will not be able to qualify for rental assistance under the pilot project, if it is due to fraud, willful, non-compliance, with the requirements or the loss of program inelbility due to reasons, including increase in income or assets for another cash assistance program. homelessness, ko nts to persist on our streets here in san francisco and it has done so for years. i do believe that we can continue to talk about here in the city hall that providing housing opportunities for the homeless can be an important thing to do and keeping those that are housed that were homeless in the houses i believe that it reconfirms to keep the people in their homes and i hope to have your support. with that, colleagues, are there any questions? for hsa? at all? push push there is no report on item one. snechlt okay. in ewith that we can return if there are any questions, we will open it up for public comment, anybody wish to comment on this item? snechlt okay. seeing none, public comment is close supervisor tang? snechlt one question is how many the pilot is estimated to cost? >> i think that, i will bring it to say that the answer and i imagine that she will have the same answer that i will is that, we expect it to be the amount, and obviously there is no budget analyst report. but we don't have a secure number at this point. because data has never been collected. but we know that the people have been evicted for this reason. >> they have been and it will be a minimum amount and we will keep track when the pilot is implemented and so we will have a sense of how much it is. but hopefully with the reach out after the third discontinuance, it will avoid people being evicted and having to pay back rent. >> we have the numbers as to the number of discontinuance, but not the dollar amounts that i am aware. >> the mayor's budget often. thank you. joyce you would know this best. but the amount of rent that each individual is paying per month is somewhere around, 100 or 20 a month. >> exactly, >> so the subdy would be for that amount, and we are not projecting an impact but collecting the data going forward. >> because no budget impact then it is not going to be included in the up coming year's budget. >> correct, it will be included in what we already have in the ongoing base for the contracts. right now we are not thinking that it needs to be increased. >> thank you. >> just to add the color on that also, we anticipate the cost savings to provide through the eviction path and we will have more reports on this going forward and it is actually more costly, than the month of rent, which is why we are implementing this program to actually save the dollars on one side and also to keep the people housed. that is the win-win situation that we are looking for. supervisor yee. >> what are the plans in terms of reporting back about this pilot project? is it at the end of three years? annually? >> i believe that we are going to collect data quarterly. and roll it up. and like the eviction report, sponsored by supervisor farrell we will report out at the end of each fiscal year. >> that satisfies me, i think that we need to know at the end of the first year if there is an impact or not. if there is a fiscal impact because it makes the adjustments. correct. >> any further questions? >> discussions? okay. so i would ask for the folks support. any motion on this? all right. >> through the cha, their, i wo like to make a motion. >> the motion by tang and the second by supervisor yee. you can call number two. >> resolution making changes to the city and county of san francisco special tax district no 2009-1, to amend authorized financing purposes for including accessibility for access financing for persons with disabilities. >> thank you this item was sponsored by supervisor tang. >> thank you, supervisor farrell and so this was to amend a special tax district that our city has set up for green financing. what we want to do is to allow those who are making accessibility improves to their buildings to also be able to participate in the special tax district. and so, there is an amendment that i need to offer today. which i have passed out to you and our city attorney. and it is on the third page. basically what the amendment does is that it references an ordinance that we will need to adopt in the future to authority the levy and the collection of special taxes within the special tax district to finance a cost of accessibility improvements. we had previously made it seem like we had already done so. but we actually need to do that in the future. so colleagues, if there are no other questions or comments, i think that i would just like to make a motion to amend this legislation as such. and then send it forth to the full board. >> okay. motion by supervisor tang, we will take the public comment before we vote on that. if know other questions or comments, open this up to public comment. would you like to comment on item two? >> seeing, none, public comment is closed. motion by supervisor tang to amend and the accepted underlying item to the full board with recommendation. second by yee and take it without objection, would you call item three. >> resolution, authorizing the director of transportation of san francisco transportation, to enter into a contract with skidata for the equipment and software and professional services required to install and maintain new parking access, to not-to-exceed, $20 million. >> we have the mta to speak on this item? >> great, good afternoon, supervisors my name is ted graf and i am the director of parking. i am here to present this parking contract for the equipment and 22 of the parking facilities. with the preview was late yesterday, at the long mta board meeting around 5:30 last night. quick introduction, this will effect, 22 parking facilities and one lot and parking fa tillties, they collect, 94 million in gross revenue, in the net, approximately, 47 million for the city. the current system has passed the use of life and there are concerns, primarily, revolving around the pci requirements and the service issues as well. provided a map here, hopefully you can take a quick look at it, and it might show up here. but you will notice that a number of the facilities in the blue, and those are the primary parking facilities. and our locations, in gray are our off street surface lots. and this will primarily effect the locations in blue. however, this new system will allow us to expand the sf park, pricing model, throughout the city, through the off street, facilities. and what is parks? it is not exciting as some of the on street policy and it is not as exciting as some of the neighborhood planning that we have been doing, but it is a necessary part of what we do and protects the agencies and the city's revenues, hardware and software, and gates and computers, and familiintercoms e life span is usually 7 to 10 years, some was installed as late 90s most in the early, 2000s and not produced and it is no the supported. the benefit of the new parks for the consumers are numerous, however, it will really allow the secure payments in providing increased payment options for customers. benefits of the new park for the city, and our parking operators, are really real time reporting, auditing big data, analytics and a global view, with the cds, or the central monitoring station, we will have all of the data and be able to come back in real time to get a view and make the decisions based on data. a few of our central monitoring stations. we have already begun some of the work. we have already started installing some of the fiber optic cabling throughout the streets. and we have initiated the designs for the facilities for accepting the equipment. and we have executed with the rec park who is our partner and the department of technology. and our public works division. if you choose to support this contract, the next step will be to actually schedule to be at the board of supervisors next week. and then to issue an ntp with skidata to kick off the install. >> projected time line, is about 33 months, starting in may. and the end of the warranty period will end in 2029. happy to answer any questions, or concerns that you may have at this time. >> you supervisor tang? >> thank you. so i saw on the budget analyst report the list of the garages. and i was just curious as to how you went about selecting the order for the installation. >> sure. we started with a couple of the smaller facilities it is a large project. this is one of the largest projects in the history of parking equipment, as i know in north america. so there is a process in vetting this out. the equipment and there is always a learning curve and we want to make sure that everybody is happy with the new system. there will be lpr in these garages. and as we are going through the construction phase. and it will effect the ins and out of the traffic. so we are starting the smaller and rolling out the larger. and we have the flex in the contract to move the facilities around in that order but we will try to stick that time line as best as possible. >> so my other question that i think that this probably answers why, i was going to ask, why it was going to take the course of 3 fiscal years to install the equipment, but i am guessing that you want to make sure that you are not impacting the flow of traffic in each of the gaurgz. >> correct. >> and then you mentioned that the typical life span of the equipment is about seven to ten years, is that going to be about the same for this new equipment that we are going to be installing as well? >> that is correct. we have negotiated the preventive maintenance contract, as part of this and so we are hoping to squeeze it, it is typically seven to sen years. >> that should be it for now. >> supervisor yee? >> so, this 19 million is this a -- is this a one time only? >> correct. yeah, it is staggered out and so that includes the hardware and that will be retained software, that will be retained as well as a preventive maintenance and warranty period. >> so in regards to the 94 million that is generated, and verses the 27 in net, it is not going to impact that much is it? >> we are hope thag it will actually increase the revenue with the new equipment. it will be able to actually expand our validation programs and be much easier for customers to use and it will be much quicker. we will have better customer service through the central monitoring station and intercom system. so we are hoping to see an impact or a positive impact. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, colleagues any further questions? >> mr. rose, could we go to your report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman. and members of the committee on page 3 of our report, we report that under the proposed contract, skidata will begin to deliver the parking access and revenue control system equipment to the sfmta beginning with the capitol monitoring station and then in fiscal year, 15/16, they will deliver and install that equipment in the central monitoring station, and then 22 parking facilities in the fiscal year of 15, 16, through year, 18/19, across of 13 million, and then in addition, provide warranties and mant nens in 18/19, through 27/28, at 6 million, and so we have total contract cost as has been mentioned of 19 million and that is over the 13 year and that is shown in table one on page 3 of our report. we also note at the bottom of page 3, that the table two on page 4, shows the budget for installation of the equipment. and again that is the $19 million. since the sfmta it is our understanding that the board of directors has now approved the contract that was not done as of the writing of our report we recommend that you approve this legislation. >> okay. thank you very much. mr. rose, colleagues any questions? >> okay. we will move on to public comment anybody wish to comment on item number 3? >> all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do you have questions or motions? >> go ahead and move this to the positive recommendation to the full board? >> second. >> we have a motion and a second and take it without objection. >> mat m madam clear, will you call four. >> resolution declaring the intent of the steet and county of san francisco to reimburse the certain expenditures. and submit the allegation committee to permit the issuance of the tax exempt residential rental housing bonds not-to-exceed, $175 million, and the finance costs of the construction of 311 rental housing units to be located at 510 folsom street. >> thank you, we have the mayor office of housing to speak on this item. >> good morning, chair farrell, and supervisors i'm paul simz a development specialist. and the resolution before you, will authorize the applications for bond proceeds to pay for the construction and related development costs for transbay block 9, affordable housing located at 510 fulsom street and a mixed income rental project. a portfolio, and bridge housing corporation are the project developers, the block 9 is located between, folsum and clemitena and first and ekart street, established in june of 2005, when the board of supervisors approved the transbay, redevelopment plan. when completed, block 9 will have 43 stories, 246 market rate or 20 percent of all units below market rate, for a total of, 445 units. the 109 bmr, 42, studios, 61 bun bedroom, and affordable to households earning no more than 50 percent of income. or 48,500 for a three person household. this development will be financed together as mixed bond finance project. and the mayor's office of housing and community development will issue the tax exempt residential housing bonds, and these transactions are financing that do not require the city to pledge, the repayment of the bonds. we anticipate the submitting of the applications to the allocation committee next month. and if awarded the allocation and we will return, to the board of purposes for approval to issue those bonds in the summer of 2016. >> and construction is schedule to begin, late summer and construction is anticipated to be completed by late summer, 2019. and here with me today, representing the developers is kerry and we appreciate your support. that concludes the staff presentation. >> colleagues any questions? >> no budget analyst report, for four and move on to public comment, anybody wish to xhebt on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> any other questions? >> i would like to make a motion to send this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> motion by tang and seconded by yee and take that without objection. thank you very much. >> madam clerk, call item 5. >> motion authorizing the execution and performance of an amendment to the 99 years in length between the city and laurel gardens of bethel and ame and located at 1555 tushg street. the mayor office of housing speak. >> legal lohello, i am a projec manager at the mayor's office of housing and community development. i am here to seek your approval for the amendment for the long term ground lease. for the property located at 1555 turk street. it is known as laurel gardens it is affordable housing, 52 units. this amendment updates the original, ground lease which was executed with the former redevelopment agency, in 1998. to today's current standards in our office. and we are doing this amendment in connection with the refinance, in the substantial rehabilitation of the project. and also, accompanying that refinance is a 20 year renewal of the section eight, contract. the updates to the ground lease acommendment that we are updating are the payment structure, this will include a $15,000 annual payment. and then, any residual ground lease payment is split between available cash flow after expenses, one-third to the sponsor, and two-thirds to the city. the city's portion is capped at $250,000. and that is ten percent of the appraised land value. and a new appraisal in connection with this refinance and the land was appraised 9.5 million dollars. after having included the exterior and the interior up grades it will be a new hvac system, electrical system, fire, safety system, and other up grades including ada improvements. and this concludes my presentation. and i am here, if you have any questions. and as is john up dike from the real estate department and the sponsors here as well. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues any questions? >> okay. again, we will move over to mr. rose's report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page eight of the report, they have applied to citibank, a private bank for up to 13 million mortgage loans to refinance and redevelop the 52 units at 1555, turk, will pay the bank fees, and use the proceeds to pay off four existing loans and fund construction improvements of $6 million for a total cost of $11,722 stsh 845. so the net difference of a million that is the 13 million loan, less the 11.7 million cost will provide, one-third to bethel and 424,000 in two-thirds of the city, 855, which the city will hold in a reserve account to be drawn by bethel for affordable housing purposes subject to approval by the mayor's office. and with the loan proceeds, they will provide, 6 million of improvements to the 1555 turk street property. on page nine of the report, march 17th a private evaluation, firm, issued a report, for the acre and which, that appraisal determined that the as is, market value of the leased property was 9 million, 500,000 or 138 dollars per square foot and we recommend that you approve this proposed resolution. >> thank you very much, there rose, colleagues any questions or comments? >> okay, we will move on to public comment. and anybody wish to comment on item 5? >> all right, seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you for the presentation. and colleagues any questions? comments in motions? >> move it out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> we can take that without action. madam clerk, will you call six? >> resolution approving the second amendment to a lease at pier one with amb pier one including an option to extend, and approving the first amendment to the port of san francisco sublease at pier one, each approved by the port commission. >> thank you very much. we have support here? come on up. >> good morning, supervisors jay edwards, and senior supervisor at the port of san francisco. i am here to seek your approval for the second amendment with the amb pier one and the subways between pier one and the port. and we appreciate the recommendation here by the budget legislation analyst office. and i would like to provide just a summary of the key points to the agreement here. and we seek your favorable approval here. so the first item is that as outlined in the budget legislative analyst report is a $500,000 of additional participation rent and the support that we received. by entering into this equipment. and second key term is the agreement by amb pier one for lodges to mitigate certain sea level ride protection in the pier one level structure. and the third key is to remain responsible for the management and the capitol required to maintain the premiseses during the extension terms. and a fourth key benefit is outlined the agreement to pay it, and to pay, the minimum fair market value rent during the extension term and that includes no event less than the kcurrent rent and to continue to pay the participation rent as outlined in the report before you. during that extension and another benefit is that it will comply with all of the current city requirements. in addition, for the dodges, pier one will invest, $10 million, and $10 million into the pier one facility with another least, 2 to 3 million dollars of improvements. and then in terms of the port's benefits we received a 1 time right to terminate the lease. and in the year 2031. and that concludes my presentation, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues any questions for the port staff? >> look forward to having the gga lease come up for the port some time soon. you don't have to comment if you don't want to. >> mr. rose, would you go to your report for item 6? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee as shown on table one of page 15 of our report, amb pier one is to pay the port $6,808,538 in total rent, in 2011, 2015. including 100823 in participation rent, and in table two, the estimated rent to be paid to the port is $7 million. and that is from 2016 to 2020, which includes the approximately, 500,000 in guaranteed participation, rent. and we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you there rose. any questions comments? >> okay. we will move on to public comment. item six? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a recommendation to approve? >> i would like to make a motion to send forth the resolution to the full board. >> we have a motion by tang and seconded by yee and take that without objection. >> would you call item seven? >> resolution authorizing a director of property on behalf of san francisco public works, to execute a lease of 9900, rental kwar, feet, and costing the city, $3.2 million. this is sponsored by dpw and mr. up dak is here. and we will turn the mic over to you. >> thank you chair farrell. so this item seeks approval of relocating the material assessing lab to 2000 oak dale, that is a property owned by 1030, polk associates lt and our apoll guapology being different than the name that owns the property, and that is controlled by matthew as the general partner. the materials pesting lab was actually formally located in city hall. if you can believe that. or not. then, it was moved to this current location, at 2099 kearny or the noerlth point plant, that is puc, property. and in order to make way for a new hydraulic pump project at v and they have respectfully requested the public works relocate this operation and so we have been engaged in that process. and so i am joined by both puc and public works officials who can address any questions that you might have about both of the nexus and the reason for the move as well as why this location works very well for public works. if you have questions? >> this item is a ten-year, lease. and it has three, five-year renewal options and so assuming that the renewals are approved that takes care of this location, until may of 2041. i probably will not be back here for that renewal discussion. >> come on. >> well you never know. rent for the property, is set at 15.15 a square foot and it is an industrial gross rate and the city pays the expenses beyond that bait for the 9900 of improvements. increases are bracketed no less than 3 percent and month more than 5 percent per year. when we did a search with the assistance of both cdre and the calco company of the industrial properties in the area, rates ranged from 18.60, to 25-80, and again we are at 15.15. renewal rates are at 95 percent of fair market rent. with respect to the budget analyst recommended changes, we have no problems with those changes. we will revise the tenant improvement project cost to cap it at 2.7 million dollars. there is an additional 99,000 contribution from the landlord so it is actually 2.799. as the total delivery cost. and then with respect to the purchase opportunity should it arise, and that is how it is drafted if there is an opportunity, we have and we can pursue a purchase at this site. and we had anticipated that it would not happen any time soon. certainly, depending on chapter 23, amendments would likely be processed by the board. >> which dictate the appraisal requirements and so the an advertisetation an advertisetation that it would be raised. and so again, colleagues at the puc and wubl works here to answer any questions that you might have, otherwise i will handle in any lease questions that you have. >> supervisor tang, thank you. so just a question, so the puc will be occupying 2099 kearny indefinitely. >> that is correct for the new project. >> and then you mentioned earlier in your statement about kind of the nexus between why this particular arrangement would work out for both departments could you elaborate on that? >> puc can speak to their plans and you will sort of understand why the material testing lab is not a fit in those plans. >> good morning, i am from sfpuc. and i am aa senior project manager there. this is one of our critical sources for the upgrade project and this existing pump station is 36 years old, with aging and electrical and mechanical systems. the existing pump station, treats about 150 million gallons a day in the wet weather and the new pump station will allow us to maintain the compartment compliance, and the delaying this project is upstream, flooding, and so we need to, we need to meet our level of service goals, that were endorsed by our commission and so this is the project for us to build. and we add in the design phase and we anticipate to start the construction in 2017 on this site. do you have any questions, i am happy to answer. >> supervisor yee? >> what are you designing the new pump station to handle? >> we are adding design page at 35 percent design. we will be completing our design, early next quarter of 2017. put it out for bid. and then start construction later that year. >> let me rephrase the question. the existing station, pumps about 160,000. >> no 150 million. >> what would the new one? >> the same capacity. 150. >> okay. i just, just a comment. i am really glad that we are actually anticipating that there is a possibility of purchasing in that we are going to actually get somebody to appraise it ahead of time. thank you very much for that. >> colleagues any further questions? >> okay, mr. rose, could we go to your report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee o page, 19 of our report, the estimated rent to be paid by the city to the landlord in the cities offering in the cities over the year, the lease term are $2 million, and in that is shown in table two as a stated on page, 19. on page 20, the estimated design and construction costs are 2 million, 799,000 in which the city share is 2,700,000 and that is on table three on page 20. we do have a series of recommendations as mr. up dike indicated. they are shown on page 21, and we recommend that you amend the ordinance, that she shall do it prior to making an offer to purchase the property in the event that the lan lord offers the property for sale. and we recommend that you amend the proposed resolution, to the estimated tenant improvements. and further, we recommend that you amend the resolution, and that the city's cost will not a, and that the city will not advertise any of the costs for improvements and finally we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. >> thank you, mr. rose, any questions on those amendments? >> proposal by our budget analyst? and i want to confirm mine as saying, dpw and real estate are okay with these? >> okay. with that, why don't we open up to the public comment, anyone wish to comment on item seven? anything none, public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions or instructions that i think that we have a number of proposed amendments and then the underlying item. >> i would like to make a motion to accept the budget, analyst recommendation and send it forward admitted with the positive recommendation. >> and motion by tang, and seconded by yee, and we can take that out without objection. >> could you call eight please. >> resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2016, annual joint, fund-raising drive for officers and employees of the city and county of san francisco >> thank you very much. >> chair farle and members of the committee i am from the office of the city administrator and we have reviewed the seven applications to participate. and all meet the criteria of the administrative code. linda from the black united fund is with me also, if you have questions. >> okay, thank you very much. >> colleagues, supervisor tang? >> thank you. would you mind just maybe, stating for the record the new applications that have come in and are being approved today? >> the 7 are the asia pacific fund, bay area, black united fund, local independent charities of america, earth share california, global impact, united way of the bay area, and the community health charities of california. >> thank you. >> >> okay, colleagues, any further questions? >> okay. much appreciated we do not have a budget analyst report for this. so we will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on eight? >> good morning, i am the vice president of public policy and community investment for the united way of the bay area. thank you for your consideration of the resolution. we are very much honored to be part of the joint fund-raising campaign, with the other esteemed organizations, thank you so much. >> okay, thank you very much. >> any further public comment? >> okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? any discussion or a motion to move this item forward? >> i make a motion to move it out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> motioned by yee and tang and take it without objection. >> will you call nine? >> resolution authorizing the director of risk management to enter a second amendment of a contract with alliant insurance services. for insurance broker and risk management consulting services. to increase the contract limit from $32,288 t 248 to $59.8 million, from june of 2013, to july, 2018. >> thank you. >> thank you chair and supervisors, matt hansen, and the resolution before you, authorizes my office, to extend a contract second amendment, with alliant insurance services for the provision of property insurance for the city and county of san francisco's majority enterprise facilities. as well as the city owned art collections in the three museums. the proposed amendment is similar to those exceeding in the past and provides for not-to-exceed values, in our annual insurance renewals. these renewals have gone up in the last couple of years due to some lost activity, within the city. and as well as increasing values the. we brought the new facilities on-line, which increase the total value for what we are purchasing. what we have here before you, are amounts that are intended to be included as well as in the participating departments annual budgets so this is not a new amount, it is something that you will be seeing coming before you in the annual budget process. and i will be happy to take any questions. >> thank you, colleagues any questions at this time. >> mr. rose, could you go to your report for item 9? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page, 25, we have a table one which shows that the budget of 29 million, for the requested contract amendment with alliant and the total expenditures to date, are shown in table one, on the previous page and that is page, 24 and the requested contract increase of 29 million, 819,487 and so that provides the total contract not-to-exceed. and we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> any questions for the budget analyst? >> okay. seeing none, we will move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item nine? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues motion? >> i would like to make a motion to send to forward with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> from tang and seconded from yee, and take it without objection. >> will you call last item ten. >> resolution approving the issuance of waste water revenue bonds to be issued by the puc in the amount not-to-exceed $621 million, to finance and refinance capitol projects benefiting the waste water enterprise. >> okay, thank you very much. madam clerk, i know that there is a presentation that you are loading up. >> yes. eric sandler, and cfo of the puc. >> i have a brief presentation for you today and the items the transaction and the use prove he seeds and i will be talking about the board resolution and what is contained in it as well as disclosure items. >> so, the transaction is a 621 million dollars not-to-exceed. issuance of long term fixed rate debt. we are pending a green bond certification. and the interesting thing is that we will be the first issuers of green bonds under the water climate bond standard, which is the highest standard for the green bonds. and we will be financing all of the waste water enterprise, capitol projects. and as well, the transaction will refund, 135 million of commercial paper. this next slide contains the sources and uses of the bond issue. and you can see the proceeds of 621 million and you can see the project fund deposits that includes, the 125 million of the paper that will be refunded as well as the cost of issuance of the underwriter's discounts. now the board resolution, approves the issuance of the bonds through prop e. and afirms the covenants in the waste water, bond and including the rate covenant. and which obliges the commission to set the rates and charges to cover all of the expenses of the enterprise. we will approve the form of transaction documents as well as delegating the authority to the general manager to conclude the sale. for this next slide, outlines the various transaction documents that you will be approving. the preliminary official statement is the most critical document. it is the offering document that sets forth to investors all of the material information that they would need in order to make an investment decision. we went through a thorough review of the tos, internally. to insure that it is accurate and up to date. and the other transaction documents, items 2 through six, or a standard set of documents required for all bond issuances. so, we went through a fairly rigorous training process with the commission recently, about the disclosure requirements, and here are the vital questions, to ask and answer when approving any bond issue. so the purpose of the issuance we have discussed, is structure, is a long term fixed rate debt. and with all of our existing debt, and the method of sale will be a competitive sale, and the repayment will be waste water, service charges. and now the waste water enterprise has about 700 million dollars of debt outstanding this will ee shally be close to doubling the amount of debt and have the i am when fully hitting the rate base of $8 a month and as long as the commission and the board approve rates and charges, as outlined in the ten year plan, the issuance of this debt is not anticipated to impact the credit rating of the enterprise. so this next slide, is the transaction schedule. the commission has acted on march 22nd, where we are before you today. and assuming that you approve the item for passed, and passage to the full board, and it would be the action taken on the 26th and price the bonds and close in may. thank you and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. >> colleagues, any questions or comments? okay. could we go to your report on item ten? >> yes, mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page, 28 of our report, we report that the uses of the 621 million, in bond proceeds consist of 577986 and funding for waste water projects. and additional 40 for the remaining 13,000 for the related bond costs and that is shown in table one on page, 29 of our report. >> on page 30 of our report, we report that the proposed issuance of 621 million will increase the sfpuc total debt to $1 billion, 290 million and increase the debt service plans to $80,17,981, when the repayment begins in 2018, 19, the debt service payments are included in the puc's ten-year, financial plan. puc expects to pay a billion, 7 million, 9,000 in total debt service costs through the firscl year, 46, 47, and we also note supervisors on page, 31 that in order to meet the increased cost, for the bond issuance, the sfpuc let me clarify here in this paragraph, there are two errors that i want to kreblth, the first one is in the third line down where it says 17, 18, it should say 18, 19, and in table three where it says annual increase it should say monthly increase. so with that, in mind, i started to state that in order to meet the increase costs in the bond issuances, the sfpuc plans to increase the rates resulting to increases to customer bills by approximately, $8 a month and that is in the fiscal year as i stated 18, 19. and these increased rates were included as part of the sfpuc ten year financial plan, table three. which is on page 31 of our report, shows the total estimated changes in the sfpuc waste water rates for the next nine years and that is from fiscal year, 16, 17 to fiscal yeerp, 24, 25, we recommend that you do approve this resolution. >> okay, thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions for our budget analyst? >> okay. we will move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> okay. we have this item in front of you. recommendation, by a budget analyst. thanks for bringing it forward. i understand that it is going to be a real uptick in our water bills. and so be it. colleagues any questions or motions? >> sure, i make a motion to move it out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> second. >> motioned by yee and seconded by tang, and we can take that without objection. >> okay, madam clerk, do with he ve noo other business in front of us. >> no other business. >> we are adjourned everyone. thank you. i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regular meeting of the board of supervisors budget & finance committee for thursday, march 17, 2016, my name is mark farrell chairing this committee joined by supervisor tang and supervisor yee and supervisor scott wiener i want to thank the clerk clouks as well as charles kremack and nona melkonian for c co-this meeting mr. clerk, any announcements? >> >> yes. electron