So there is some things we need to decide to figure out how were Going Forward the short answer we have at the end of the year last year, we had identified a couple of specific items that we had identified as risks the biggest ones were the reduction the capitated rate for medical expansion population and this is about 167 167 million and an associated i g t that rates had been going to i pack we had the fund retired were drawing them out in fiscal year 20162017 to cover that shortfall in fiscal year 20172018 we are doing a similar were taking a similar approach to draw fund reserved but we anticipate is that well be doing that in a one time basis and then resolving the issues that are underlying the needs to draw from reserves the budget Going Forward so really not be independent on drawing from the reserve year after year were trying to use it as a way to capture on things unforeseeable and clean up things Going Forward in the budget and i think your suths e suggesting we want the reserve to be there and be visible but not independent on a recess w0789 reserve wrauflz. I mean this is that arrangement with the reserves; right . Yes. Those are the letters where we ended last year. The year positively okay looking for future uses so as then cover unanticipated fees the potential loss if anywhere on the program. Exactly thats been an stealing positive way to do things and the money will be gone and well be making executive reductions to offset this loss as that would have not happened 4 years ago. Weve given you back the money you had set aside so far health care. Exactly. Which i will point out it really a very improved process much more organized and i think that allows the dollars and the reason were trying to be prudent for our house programs we can use the same dollars to be allocated. Absolutely absolutely it puts the right incentive 2, 3, 4 place where a great amount of support from the Mayors Office and the Controllers Office to make that happen on the mayors side we had the fluktsz in the of revenue same it was our and their problems to stabilize across the years and give us a good incentive to draw revenues. Very good. I wanted to call that out a much improved process i think we have managed quite well and this is an example of which made to make the potential service cuts or whatever well cut so a prudent and useful and used our most efficient processes the past and this is then can be the reserve we can use for health programs. Very good. Thank you. Commissioners any other questions at this point we will be looking at the budget more in depth at the next meeting we are really pleased or i am we have only two or three line items in most of those are actually positive for what they were done and the explanation calendar to what we used to is streamlined in terms of the changes and a grateful credit goes to the department and the management of the finance department thank you very much. Thank you very much. Well have more line items next time. laughter . Okay commissioners we move on to item 10. Other business. Commissioners calendar a reminder well have our Planning Session in april. April 19. Th. Okay. Thank you. And any other business the commission may wish to help to agenda at this point or otherwise well going gone to the next item. The report back from the joint Conference Committees. The january meeting after the absence of two meetings from the joined Conference Committee took up the Quality Management with t the quality measure update which was pretty much in line with the past and continues to show areas that we need to shore up within the experience but with the positive areas for our quality scorecards some of that you saw from the di rectors report. In terms of recommendations where we were centers of excellence and most there was also a discussion of the department of Emergency Services flow and they were using the new lien process and our moving to try to understand better how systems are getting through and in fact, had an example in which using that process and understanding that there were lower level of patient that might be able to flow through faster i think the flow from 8 hours wait is down to 2 hours or less ill be seeing and moving to resolve the ability for patients to be discharged and similar improvements on some of the policy were now doing theyre working hard and with a very extensive report if the integer service and the lien process in regards to that the transition transition and update is showing f it is on schedule and weve been ref the Hospital Administration report and the hiring and vacancy report theyre all on target and the hiring of vacancy is on target i think that was mentioned in todays budget in terms of of what where we are and the delay of the hospital for hiring that was appropriate since you know youre not hiring until youre ready to open the hospital the hiring is k3406b8 on target in ourour distinction and their saved theyre in nursing and others positions for the opening the medical staff gave us the number of rules and regulations from the anesthesia and services and we also approved the revised pier reference requires supervisors along with pier review from other piers there was also a revision of the Emergency Department privilege list and the consent form that was revised and in the section we approved the quality and other work over the last 2 weeks thank you. I dont know if there are any questions if not well move on to the next item. 12 is you seem to mexico that along with other business so if there is anything you want to speak about or come up with suggestions as my note is that we are looking at a public hearings in the in the tenderloin area as our next Community Meeting for this year youll you will recall we met last year the mission so this is the cap of a Community Meeting and so weve asked staff to look at it the tenderloin and the areas south of the immediate mid market so well understand the changes occurring in those areas. Ill be giving us updates. Were looking for the appropriate dates holy to have 2 the late spring. Any other suggestions from the commission . In regards to the Community Meeting . If not at this point if you have others please let us know the next item please is the consideration of closed session not Public Comment requests as a motion for holding a collection in order. So moved. All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . We will now go into closed session and thank you to all the presenter here today and ask only those responsible to be the closed session the commission will regene in open session whether or not disclose or not disclose is in outdoor aid motions to disclose. Any further discussion. All in favor, say i. Opposed . Is there any further business. Theres no further business. All in favor, say i. I. This meeting is now journeyed thank youadjourned thank you pr my name is supervisor cowen to my right is the vice chair supervisor wiener and to my left is sxheernz our clerk is alyssa id like to thank bill jackson and jim smith for broadcasting this meeting electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear on the february 23rd board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you. Please call one. An ordinance amending the Transportation Sustainability fee for nonresidential and pdr projects filed before july 24th to pay it with the partial rotunda. Supervisor alavos will be leading the discussion. Good it you this is hopefully, the culmination of years of work moving this item out of committee we the item before you amendments made to the Transportation Sustainability fee we made them in december of last year these railroad also an amendment ive attempted to make in the fall of last year before i begin i want to thank the Planning Department and the mta. All of their work developing these new fee structures for Development San Francisco they are significant improvement on the previous tdif and include the retain that had not been impacted but now in the tdif so to make that clear the proposed fee is not near significant to offset the impacts that the developments have on the Transportation Network and the Economic Feasibility study houses shows it sport a higher fee without the feasibility of the projects this ordinance has made two amendments to bring the tdif in line with the fees on the Residential Projects the first part of this ordinance with the amended changes to charge the nonresidential Square Footage over 99 thousand nine hundred plows square feet so to raise it under 2 to 21. 04 currently at 1804 weve approved the new tsf for the residential units 21 units to 99 units the fees is he over 7 increasing on the residential unit one and above 8. 74 13 percent higher and the nonresidential currently is 8 from 8 hundred to 99 thousand plus square feet is 1804 cents were proposing the new one here is going to be a dollar more for anything over one hundred feet 9 plus the residential represents o represents a higher significance of fee compared to nonresidential the nexus study show see the developments adjudicate 3 times the impacts of our Transportation System as Residential Developments generate the planning staff saw the feasibility combined with supervisor yees childcare impact fee and found the two portals are over one hundred square foot will be feasible the impact on the residual land use of 86 combined with the childcare fee will only be negative 7 percent on the two commercial protocols that is less than what the would make a project financially unfeasible this is still as i said weigh blots threshold on november 3rd the board of supervisors rejected any proposal to the nonresidential tsf nonresidential it westernly trying to make a 50 percent increase to 54 now the nonresidential footage we tried to raise it on november 3rd up that was not sports the amendments the item before you is only a 2 increase by 2 the responsibility on our nonresidential develops and generate 2 million a year in addition revenue awhile still remaining with the projects to be financial feasibility weigh blow the thresholds the Second Amendment in this legislation is for nonResidential Projects that was submitted an application before july 21st, 2015, but not received final approval shall pay the difference of 50 percent between the tsf and the tdif this is will mirror the grairthd of the Residential Projects and making nonresidential tsf policies k3467b9 with residential policies and of course this make sense we know that nonresidential buildings have a 3 times greater impact ann as residential buildings colleagues the item before you and i urge your support altogether the projects that will be affected grandfathered in will be 30 million an additional one time funding for your transportation given the t thirty process that was identified over thirty billions it make sense we comfortable together every dollar for the Transportation Services the city thank you, colleagues thank you very much supervisor wiener. You thank you very much madam chair thank you supervisor avalos for acknowledging that the Transportation Sustainability fee we passed last november was the culmination of many years of work as you recall the precursor was transit fee was passed 35 years ago with a blanket exception for residential, commercial has been paying the transit impact fees for 35 years last year november for the First Time Ever we after years and years of work and after a previous related effort fell apart at the board of supervisors three years ago almost 4 years ago we were able to move through the board of supervisors and extension of the transit impact fees to residential so Residential Development is now First Time Ever paying transit fees not just projects that are big enough with an agreement we negotiated this is a big, big win and in addition to not paying the impact fees that ordinance increased what commercial Pace Commercial development pays versus under the impact fees so it was passed increased and in fact, it increased it the legislation that was introduced and then in committee as chair cohen recalls we increased it on commercial by enabling it another dollar per square feet with it was originally introduced tsf and the Residential Developers were not happy they especially\fight us on it we passed that ordinance after years and years of work and the mayor as i understand it into law. New system that is significantly increasing transit sxheekz for commercial and for residential i dont know why we need to going to the well and say well it is not good enough lets take on a few more dollars we can tackle more impact fees and every good enough as someone that fought very, very hard sometimes winning and sometimes losing to increase the funding for Public Transportation is not the way to do legislation the board passed this legislation and rejected the identical amendment and let this ordinance work and, in fact, it is already working ill nobody be supporting this ordinance today, i think we need to look at different ways to fund transit and not looking to one source probation officer make sure this is broad basis funding for transportation this is frankly sometimes lacking building thank you very much thank you supervisor peskin. Thank you, madam chair and supervisors its been i feel like a rip van win he will moment in the board on the 2009 sustainability fees as indicated was for commercial Development One time capital and by way of operating money the c3 that area grow over time encompasses the waterfront and move forward south and supervisor wiener indicated some years ago was extended to Residential Development i was there and one of the votes on the board to bring back that fee at the time that was not updated in many, many years in alignment with the proper rates at the dawn of the 21st century some 1 or 16 years ago and there is no question but that these costs need to be these fees need to be upgraded i enjoyed the nexus study and the Economic Feasibility study and respectfully part company with supervisor wiener having read the findings and i actually think over the course this think an balancing act you have to great competing the housing on the one hand and keeping on the transportation side on the other other and finding the swop is our goal but interested in reading this i think those fees should are been updated at the beginning of this boom and not waiting until 2015 but noirnl will have the at least impact from the transportation of sustainability fee the residential cost burden to the due do the imposition of the tsf is equality to the costs of one to two percent depending on the cost of construction the neighborhoods where the bulk happens this will not impact the overall faent or the housing a lot of further analysis but predicated on a fundamental change the way the city undertakes the evaluation of transportation l o s level of service and easily reduces the in the amount of and the costs the fundamental studies and predicated on that if you look at did rages so forth the Feasibility Study at 100 percent or one and 25 or one and 50 percent i have to say that with all due respect i think we could realize for money for the capital and sequester operating i noticed in reading all the material and in discussions with folks is that the transit impact fee could be spent on capital and on praits costs as compared to the p. S. F only on capital i maybe missing something but like to revisit and see if we can semester the possibility of putting praits costs back in so it will be same thing the tdif can be spent on operating i have a number of amendments colleagues that id like to offer to the tsf legislation but for one think that the extra 2 for projects over one thousand square feet are sustainable is financially not stop housing thats been expressed in the Economic Feasibility study and quite frankly that was done in 2012 with the discussion began and i realize a lot of work has been done by any colleagues and the legislatively branch and the other agencies but well have that 30 million youve seen in our pocket now. Thank you. Thank you supervisor avalos. Thank you well, this is actually, i worked on multiple methods of raising money for muni this is not the only way im trying to raise money for money as supervisor wiener indicated and ill again echo my comments and, of course, supervisor peskin comments these fees we fell short of the kleenex of those fees based on the analysis from the Planning Department and, yes the city has been working many, many years on tsf and it only was last year, i got involved with that process and thank my staff member jerry but to the Planning Commission and talking about raising the fee levels and the Planning Commission voted to race that when it came before the board of supervisors we didnt raise the levels until it was discussed but when it come forward weve settled on American People arbitrary number well below for the fees it is an arrest w