resources sunday and bulk up that area. it reminds me a little bit about, not to be dramatic, about global warming. it is a big problem, happen slowly. given the nature of the urban forests, which do not regenerate themselves, if you wait to fix it, it is too late. the other thing i wanted to talk about with something that jim mentioned at the very end, which is the variety of trees we're planting in the parks. the eastern end of golden gate park especially is full of trees that are an interesting and unique, and you don't see them anywhere else in the city. we have not been planting trees like that for a very long time. there was a book about the trees at golden gate park. the panhandle and the eastern end of the park is full of trees that somebody in the department years ago had a real interest in and we have not been doing that for a long time.

nobody has written a book about the trees we have been planting in the parks the last few years, so i think it would be good if we could get some attention on the department at some point. the third thing i wanted to highlight, again, the replanting at the golf courses. that was something i was not aware of because i am not a golfer, but that seems like something is broken their. at sharp park, there is almost nothing. except very mature and dying trees, so we need to have some kind of plan for the parks and squares and especially the golf courses. president lazarus: thank you. i share the view this is an important subject. i regret in a way that it came at the end of the meeting, but it was worth just listening to all. after all, what are the park's, if not at the beginning, places of nature that you can enjoy i would love to hear you come back as we make project on this fraught, if that is a luxury

that we can afford to be kept abreast of it. >> it would be my pleasure. president lazarus: great. ok. >> don't be taking the tags off the trees. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and any other commissioner comments? commissioner bonilla: in approving this item, because it is an action item, are we then supporting the recommendations that we do this 50/50 plan and we did the reforestation? what exactly are we approving? those seem like big steps. >> good question. >> the next steps are the director of operation will work with stack to develop proposed improvements -- will work with staff to develop proposed improvements to develop or

achieve some of these items. there is a lot of work to get there. what you're doing is accepting the findings of the report. this is sort of the first time this has been presented to the department. when i went to urban forestry council, we all looked at these numbers and they are tough to take, but they were all very happy this report has been done. it is a document that i think will be helpful as we move forward. so you're director of operations will be working with the general manager to come up with the implementation steps and a plan. commissioner bonilla: those are yet to be determined? >> those are yet to be determined. we would develop the plan, implement improvements, and that would be in the spring of 2011. commissioner bonilla: ok, which may include some of these elements. >> yes. commissioner bonilla: ok. >> mr. ginsberg?

>> i just want to thank the team, danny and rick and caring and gm and kelly. -- and karen and jim and kelly. i feel like i am in class when i listen to jim. commissioner sullivan, thinking long term, echoing the conclusion of the report, is duly noted. i think we obviously have had a lot of conversations about identifying sustainable funding sources, but a subset of that, i think we need to come up with a strategy to figure out how to improve the work we need to do on this front. it is a concept that a lot of things come before this commission that are divisive. protecting our trees is not. i think if we take that sort of consensus opinion and figure out how to translate that into a policy idea, to dedicate funding

for that purpose, i think we could actually take a very significant step in that direction. so i will do it to things, not remove the trap -- not remove the taxgs, and i will be thinkig about what this team how we can comeback with a strategy for augmenting our resources in this area. >> i think the good news is in the last fund, the first time, the city of san francisco was able to come before council and put $4 million in four major tree work. the most important properties that need this work will get a huge shot in the arm. that will start happening over the next year. there will be removals' and conversations and the public will become more educated about the parks. these are big, new efforts of the commission that will be taking place. commissioner lee: i just want to

say the trees have a tireless advocate in commissioner sullivan. it is a service to all of us for the commitment you have to it. thank you. commissioner sullivan: thank you. thank you. >> on that note, there was no public comment? do we have a motion to approve the report? >> i would move. >> second. and all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none. >> item 5, general public comment continued at this time, addressing the commission on items within the future agenda. these are four items that are not on the agenda. >> good evening, everybody. i know you must be tired, having been here since 2:00, but for

the benefit of the commissioners who did not attend the meeting on july 1, i will make my comments. there is absolutely no valid reason that a certificate of appreciation has not been presented to me to date for my priceless gift of the number one the prime location on the waterfront. it was $600,000. everyone thinks me for this fabulous popular park except reckoned park. the recipient. unbelievable. what is behind this? it is now approaching the 10th year. i want to know why. we must keep politics out of the commission, if that is what is going on. try walking in my shoes. how would you feel if you worked tirelessly for this project and then you get no piece of paper

in return? it is not a big deal. it is just a piece of paper. but to me, it means a lot, so i can show my grandchildren their future. life is a two-way street. is give-and-take. think of it as a goodwill investment that will pay you big, big dividends. i know that. so a little kindness goes a long way. so guys and gals, please do it. please? it just do it. thank you. >> thank you. >> nancy? >> i will now put on my hat as co-director as the professional dog walkers association has to mclaren park. this may or may not be appropriate for mclaren, but it is definitely not compatible with the new outreach area where 10 of 18 holes are proposed. this would create conflict

amongst dog owners and golfers. many professional dog walkers, in addition to dog owners, use one of the largest legal owned runs in the city. dogs being dogs will naturally want to chase the disk. people involved will be in danger of getting hit by disks weighing as much as one-third of a pound, averaging 25, 30 m.p.h. or more. that spca estimate is 40% of households own dogs. the need for this is critical. we, the professional dog walkers association, are in support of shared use, shared space with other recreational users, and many people without dogs walk in these areas. but disc golf is not a good fit. thank you. >> can i ask a question? are you just post to that one area? otherwise, in mclaren park --

>> definitely, we are definitely opposed to it being with that area. and the majority of it is in that area. >> you have an opinion on other parts of mclaren? you don't have to speak for the group. and i personally? -- >> personally? no, i don't. i don't have an opinion. i am very torn, because i know some of the disc golfers and i have had discussions about this, and they are nice people. on the other hand, they already have one course in san francisco, and there are other courses throughout the bay area. i am not sure. >> ok, i did not need to put you on the spot. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else would like to comment under general

public comment? ok, public comment is closed on the item 25. item 21, public comment on all matters pertaining to closed session. it is there anyone who would like to comment on closed session? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, we need to vote on whether to hold closed session. >> motion? >> so moved. >> all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? none. >> we need to ask everyone to >> we need to ask everyone to please leave while we >> we have reconvened into open

session, and you need to make a motion whether to disclose any or all of the discussions that were held in closed session. >> i move that would not disclose. >> move and second. all those in favor? >> aye. >> we are now on items 6, commissioners' matters. are there any commissioners' matters? >> hearing on. at any public comment on this? public, disclosed. we are on item 27, which is new business, agenda setting. comments from the commissioners? >> none, but i don't want to lose sight of commissioner bonilla's, about moving toward a committee structure. i want to direct staff that you work with the commission on directing how that will best work. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public, disclosed.

-- public comment is closed. we are on item 28, communications. is there any public comment on this item? marilyn, are you coming? ok, sorry. it is hearing on top -- seeing none, public, disclosed. >> item 29? >> item 29, adjournment. >> so moved. >> yay!

[beeping] voice: ready. ready. ready. ready. ready. announcer: it can be a little awkward when your friend tells you he's been diagnosed with a mental illness, but what's even more awkward is, if you're not there for him, he's less likely to recover. i'm here to help, man, whatever it takes. voice: ready.

chairperson avalos: good morning and welcome to the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor elsbernd. will be joined soon by supervisor campos. i would like to excuse supervisor maxwell. she is excused. do we have any announcements? >> all persons attending this meeting are requested to turn of cell phones and pagers. if you wish to present any documents to the committee, provide a copy to the clerk for inclusion.

if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out the speaker card. actions will appear on the agenda august 3, 2010 unless otherwise stated. chairperson avalos: please call item one. >> item 1, resolution approving the third amendment of the agreement between the city and western states oil, increasing the total not to exceed amount of the contract from $25 million to $50 million and extending the term for one year, pursuant to charter section 9.118. >> naiomi kelly, said the purchaser. we want to increase the contract from $25 million to $50 million. this field contract is to

support gasoline, diesel, and biodiesel for the city fleet and pieces of equipment including buses, fire trucks, ambulances, police vehicles, and other equipment to back up the hospital. the fuel contract is the result of a low bid competitive solicitation for a 1 year contract with four 1-year options to extend. the price is fixed for the term of the agreement including overhead and delivery of fuel costs. we concur with the budget analyst recommendation. if you have any questions, i am here. chairperson avalos: mr. rose, share with us your report, please. >> the only thing i would add is i do want to call to your attention on page 5 of our report that this "not to exceed amount" increase includes a

contingency, but i think the contingency is well explained. do recommend approval of this resolution. as you know, this contract was competitively bid last year and includes four options. this is the first option. chairperson avalos: very good. if there are no questions or comments, we will have public comment. public comment is open for item one. seeing none, i will close public comment. a motion to approve from supervisor mirkarimi, seconded by supervisor elsbernd. moved to the board with a recommendation for approval. madam clerk, if you could please call -- we are waiting for supervisor campos for item 2, so let us go to item three, please. >> item 3, resolution

authorizing the director of public health and the director of the office of contract administration/purchaser to contract with the san francisco community health authority to provide a provider payment services for the help the san francisco -- for the healthy san francisco program. >> this one-year contract is with the san francisco community health authority to provide payment or reimbursement to non- department providers who are critical to the overall operation of the healthy san francisco program. it was conceived as a partnership and we believe it is important for community-based organizations to deliver services to this population. we of contracted with them in the past. the body of work for this

continues. there is a current effort to ensure access to care. we concur with the recommendation of the budget analyst. chairperson avalos: very good. let's hear from mr. rose. >> mr. chairman, on page 6 of our report we point out that this contract was originally awarded on a sole-source basis to the san francisco community health authority. it has never been competitively bid. the department does explain why we concur with the department. we know that they are a separate -- that this agency, sfcha, is separate and distinct from the city and county of san francisco and as such has not been subject to any independent oversight by either the board of supervisors or the controller.

i did speak personally about this matter with members of the comptroller -- of the controller's office. this contract is simply hanging out there, from the standpoint that the board of supervisors has not seen the details of this, nor has the controller. this is retroactive to july 1, for the reasons explained on page 6 of our report. bottom line is we recommend you refer the resolution but we also recommend the controller consider performing a review of the fiscal condition of the san francisco community health authority. we suggest that with no suggestion there is anything wrong at all with this organization, but simply that it never does get an independent review before the controller. chairperson avalos: thank you, mr. rose. i am just kind of wondering what

other similar authorities that we have that have a similar relationship with the city and county of san francisco. i know we have our ihs authority. is that contract? is that rfp? >> i cannot speak to other authorities, but let me give you some additional context for the san francisco community health authority. the authority was created by the city and county of san francisco back in 1994 as a statewide effort to move toward a managed care system. there are 12 other authorities in the state of california, all based on state legislation. as a health and maintenance organization, which is what the health authority is, it is regulated and licensed by the state department of managed health care. part of that requirement,

because it is a health plan, is the ongoing review of financial stability and liability and integrity of the organization. so on a monthly, quarterly, an annual basis, all financial statements of the authority are submitted to the state for review. all of those various financial reports are put on the state's website so that individuals can have an opportunity to look at the financial integrity and soundness of the health plan that delivers service. so while it is true that the board of supervisors and the controller's office has not done that review, the state of california understands the importance of making sure there are financially sound hmos. so that review is on the state level. we are happy to support any controller office review.

>> mr. chairman, just as a follow up in connection with your question, you had mentioned the example of ihss. there, we report to you and we lay out all the details of that contract. it is a detailed examination. not so in this case. that would be a difference. chairperson avalos: just in relationship to the state function of doing that financial oversight for the authority, i imagine the state does that because there are state funds that go into the authority. but we also have local funds that go in. does that fact give us an additional need to have oversight from the controller's office and board of supervisors? the state is probably looking at the whole thing. is it because there are state funds coming in?

could we need a local oversight function as well in san francisco? >> the state function is in respective of the funding source that is used to provide services. as a health maintenance organization -- california is the only state that has an organization such as the department of managed health care. it reviews every health plan, their respective of whether it is state dollars, local dollars, or private funding. that is its responsibility. in terms of the oversight of the san francisco community health authority, it is a 19 member board. 14 of its members are appointed by the board of supervisors. it goes through that process on an annual basis. the additional five members of the board are designated positions. there is someone from the health commission, the department of public health, ucss, the department of mental health, and the board of supervisors. so there is significant

oversight in terms of the actual appointment of the governing body of the san francisco health plan, which is responsible for ensuring the financial stability, fiduciary role, oversight of the organization to insure it not only meets its financial obligations but it's a service obligations. chairperson avalos: may be a question to the controller's office about the recommendation from the budget analyst on reviewing the fiscal condition of the authority. what do you see is the need or importance for that, in terms of your role as controller? >> through the chair, from the controller's office, because this is a contractor of the city and county, we have access in terms of auditing. i corresponded with dr. katz

about this issue yesterday and what he offered was that there are financial statement audits that are done on an annual basis. those are shared with the board of directors. because the information speaks to the rates and how those rates are derived and so forth, that information is done in closed session. but he would be willing to share those financial statements with us in the controller's office if there was a need based on that. he is in agreement that a financial review could be performed. it has not come up on our risk management protocols at this point. we do have a risk management analysis that is done. we have an intent and a goal to audit all the functions every six to seven years. there are non-profit contracts and other contracts on that list that have some other risk or some changes, or some unusual

growth, or some issues with their boards of directors or the service delivery, that would rise to the top of the audit list. this one we have not heard either from the department or from clients or patients of the hmo that there are any issues. if the board of supervisors believes this is something we should do we can put it on our plan for this coming year. however, it has not risen to a point of there being undue risk. we will certainly take a look at the financial statements for the last three years and see if there is anything unusual. duncan katz said there were no reported conditions. that is usually an indication that their systems are adequate based on generally accepted accounting. chairperson avalos: colleagues, if there are no other comments or questions, we can go on to public comment. public