elsbernd. supervisors elsbernd: i do not think anyone has raised more issues than i have on this. tw reasons why i think this should be rejected. -- two reasons. truth is, there's been significant review. we have very limited resources. i think if we are going to use those resources, we should use those to focus on those departments that have not had any review. secondly, and perhaps maybe it should not be raised, but i think it needs be raised, there have been things quoted by members of the board that retribution needed to be exacted

against the public defender's office. i do not want to be a party to that. whether you agree or disagree with what the public defender has done, we should not disagree -- should not in any way exact retribution. we all know that is what this is. let's not disabuse our power for a sort of a political retribution. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: one of the interesting things about being on the board of supervisors is you never know what is going to happen. chloé against this item in reference to the public defender, so anything is possible in san francisco. we simply say that i like audits.

but that said, i am not sure exactly why it is that this case we're focusing on the public defender. i think that it makes sense for us to look at the number of issues not only with the public defender but among the other law offices, perhaps. but i just do not see the reason to focus on it, so i would respectfully disagree with the author of this. i understand the spirit in which it is done. thank you. president chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: let me respond to both with the same answer,

which is that for eight years, almost every other instance, i have sided with a budget analyst and his recommendations. when it came to the public defender, i come out of deference to the elected official, sided with the public defender over the budget analyst, 98 times up of 100. in terms of retribution, i think where this comes from is that is when you are politically aligned with someone, and supervisor elsberd, the administration, you oftentimes are deferential to them. there are party-line votes, and you see it in the chambers of the time.

who is where, but, typically, on the important stuff, you have a difference, and i am saying that i think i was wrong. and i am not totally sure that i was wrong in budget cycle of the budget cycle, but i think that a management audit would give some clarity as to who is telling the truth. you have an 80-page document from the public defender telling one thing, and you have a 20- page report saying something different. which one is right? they are both not right. i have never called it retribution. it is not to exact revenge on the public defender. i think we should have more honesty in budgeting. making a mistake and siding with the budget analyst.

i have had a relationship with him personal and political over the years. now u.s. realignment -- now you have realignment. we are seeing right now the opposite in terms of revenge being practiced by supervisor elsbernd. i made a mistake, and i think this board made a mistake in minicycles -- in many cycles. kaat disagreed with the head of the public defender's office. -- disagreed. president chiu: colleagues, the item is before us. madam clerk, an roll call vote.

madam clerk: [reading roll] there are two ays and nine noes. president chiu: that is not passed. do we have any in memoriams today? madam clerk: yes, these people. president chiu: madam clerk,

could there be any more business today? madam clerk: know. president to:chiu: we are adjourned.

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. i 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 comment is open for item three. seeing none, we will close public comment. motion to accept and approve with recommendations? taken without objection. very good. thank you, colleagues. madam clerk, please call item 2. >> item 2, resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to renew the 2500 block of mission street business improvement district, to be known as the "mission miracle mile business improvement district" and to levy a multi-

your assessment. supervisor campos: thank you colleagues for your indulgence on this item. this is a resolution that i have introduced asking the board of supervisors to declare its intention to renew the property- based 2500 block of mission street, a business improvement district to be known as the "mission miracle mile business improvement district." essentially, we are asking to renew that business improvement district. let me make a couple points about this item. san francisco is fortunate that we have throughout the city partnerships between the city and local communities, to what is called the community benefits district. that essentially helps to improve the overall quality of life in certain communities and targeted commercial districts in mixed-use neighborhood.

when voters establish a community benefits district, local property owners are levied a special assessment to fund improvements to their neighborhood. the funds are then administered by a nonprofit organization established by the neighborhood for the purposes of improving their community. it is important to note that while our city departments continue to use -- continue to provide the same level of services within a community benefits district that they provide in other parts of the district, the community benefits district provides other additional services, an additional level of maintenance and improvement. that is why we are asking for renewal of this community benefits district. the mission miracle mile business improvement district, which is located on the boundaries of mission street between 21st and 22nd street is one of these community benefits

districts i am talking about. since it began in 2005, the improvement district has been focused on a number of things including beautification, cleaning, maintenance, public safety, and greening projects. this asks the board of supervisors to approve the renewal of this special assessment district for the next five years. its 2011 budget is set at $85,000. to provide more information if i may, i would like to through the chair call mr. phil lesser, who is the chair of the district, to say a few words. thank you for the work you have been doing. >> thank you very much for sponsoring this reauthorization of the business improvement district. it is the heart of the mission

miracle mile. it is between 21st and 22nd. if i may show a couple of pictures -- the supervisor completely articulated what we are doing. it does not really show it completely, but before we formed the business improvement district that is what the block would look like. this is what it looks like today. that is the removal of debris twice a day. but on top of that, when people say, "where is that block," i do not have to say the block on 2500 anymore. i can just say the block with all the chloral baskets. everyone knows it now. people who stand on the street now realize they have surveillance cameras. they no longer stand on that street. it is a safe, clean, green some stretch of m