supervisor chu: just a question for you. is there any flexibility in looking for alternative locations, at this point in time? i would imagine most of the city garages are located in the city center where there are larger a lot of vehicles, but it does not get to the issue of geographic equity. to the extent that in the outer avenues, where we may not have city-own the garages, some of those areas would not be covered. >> this is the first phase of what we are doing with the chargers. supervisor chu: right, do you have any flexibility within this phase to look at that? >> we are going to the garages where we have existing, older infrastructure and can most easily install the new ones, based on working on an older infrastructure. we have distributed among as

many garages as we can. at this point, i do not believe we have flexibility because we have identified the specific locations, gone the approach it requisites, exemptions, and so forth, but certainly, going forward, we are looking and border distribution. where we can, through the municipal property, install additional chargers. we hope to be doing that next year -- later this year. supervisor chu: so there is no flexibility because the application was predicated on certain ceqa evaluation based on the site. >> it has moved forward with these ceqa reviews of the specific sites. supervisor chu: with regard to the dept.'s overall thought process, one of the things that i continue to be disappointed in in the departments is a lack of geographic equity, where you place benefits for residents of

the city. residents on the southern edges of the city do not get the benefits from these programs. that is something that is severely lacking. what can you commit to, going forward, with these projects, not only chargers, but other things related to energy efficiency? >> i can speak to the electric vehicle part of it. that is the area i am responsible for and work on. we certainly have been reaching out to the electric vehicle users, other stakeholder groups within the community, so that we can identify locations where there is the most need and how we can distribute equitably throughout the city, opportunities for electric vehicle charging. i can say definitely, as we move into the next phase, we will use that as a filter. one of the input for determining where we place these publicly

available chargers. supervisor chu: i appreciate the department will look at it in the next phase, but if i could ask folks to consider in your first phase to think about the outer edges of the city as well. that is something we really need to look at. we should not say, center, center. there are other folks that can benefit from the programs that we have that i do not think are being considered. i appreciate that we are going to look at it as the next step, i appreciate that we do not have much flexibility here, but just placing my displeasure at the fact that we do not have anything at the outer edges. >> because of the requirements of this grant program, we have looked at the city-owned garages. i did want to mention, in the next couple of phases, we will be looking and working closely with car sharing companies. i think there is a lot more flexibility to bring electric

vehicles within those companies, that will help us reach some of those outer parts of the city. we would be happy to share with your office the details of that plan. supervisor chu: i appreciate that. i just have to register, in the sunset, we do not have many cars sharing pods, many garages, we do not have many taxis going out there. so transportation option for many of my residents are not out there. to the extent we are thinking about implementation of certain phase one activities, i would love to see the department of the environment take a more pro- active role to look at the outer edges. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i support this very much. i think it is sensible, makes sense to fortify our accessibility by providing these charger enhanced installations. i also want to support chair chu's comments.

the west side and south side of the city have been terribly underserved in the modernized approach of getting people to really go green in of a way that allows them to find alternative modalities, car share, electric charging, whatever the case may be. i have to tell you, there are wholesale land use changes being considered. in parker said, when i look at that project, -- park merced, when i look at that project, while they are not building parking garages, i would like to see a stepped-up effort from the department of the environment and planning environment. they have diagrammed for us a percentage, when there are these small and large scale developments, that compensate for the fact that there are not garages in these particular areas.

that is a level of upgrade that the department of ienvironment can answer. there are areas that are underserved. >> point well taken. certainly, we will increase the efforts and share with you those efforts we are taking to reach out to those areas. among the types of things that are -- for instance, where there has been a great deal of work and planning -- one is this development through a separate grand activity -- grant activity. mta will be instituting electric vehicle and tax programs. there receive funding from the metropolitan commission to

develop a fleet of taxis that are battery electric. the intent of that was to develop a system that can serve the outlying neighborhoods with better service of both taxis, provided with electric vehicles. that is one example of things under way. i would like to have the opportunity to share with you, as we develop more concrete plans, how we can proceed with this. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we send this sort of recommendations? supervisor mirkarimi: please. supervisor chu: without objection. item five please. >> item 5. resolution approving the form of and authorizing execution and delivery by the city and county of san francisco of an equipment lease supplement no. 17 (series 2011a bonds) between the city

and county of san francisco finance corporation, as lessor, and the city and county of san francisco, as lessee, with respect to certain equipment to be used for city purposes, a related certificate of approval and a continuing disclosure certificate; approving the issuance of lease revenue bonds an amount not to exceed $16,500,000; approving the form of the official statement and the distribution thereof in preliminary and final form; providing for reimbursement to the city and county of san francisco of certain city expenditures incurred prior to the issuance of lease revenue bonds; and providing for the execution of documents in connection therewith. >> good afternoon, supervisors. angela whitaker with the office of public finance. we are made up of three officers appointed by the mayor. currently, we have two new officers sworn in in december. ken cleveland, arnold lob. the current officer is pamela june. the proposed series 2011 bonds were -- would finance the purchase equipment bonn for 2010, 2011. the city request consists of fire department, police department, dph, dpw, and rec and parks. the city requests the finance corp issued a series 2011 a

bonds in an amount not to exceed 16.8 $5 million. currently we only expect to issue $16 million in bonds. it added authorization provide the city with flexibility to address an interest-rate in other market conditions. per charter section 109.8, the charter costs needs to reflect that the interest rate will be lower compared to other borrowers. the series 2011 a bonds are expected to be sold on or about april 19, 2011, as soon as a stable market bond conditions, and will close two weeks after the sale. debt service will be payable on april 1 and october 1 of each year through april 1, 2017. the first payment will be due on october 1, 2011, and the principal payment will begin on

october 1, 2012. there are other related financing documents involved with the issuance of the bond. that includes a preliminary official statement, which includes appendix day. that will be updated again to reflect the most recent information and other documents included in the preliminary -- that are related to the financing, including the official notice of sale, notice of intention to sales, continuing disclosure certificate, the 18th supplemental indenture, and equipment lease supplement #17. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. we have a budget analyst report on this. mr. rose? >> madam chair, members of the committee, on page 3 of the report, we point out the debt service requirements -- estimated debt service requirements under this leasing transaction -- $60 million in

proposed bonds over a six-year period, estimated to be $70 million. that includes $60 million in principal, $1.9 million in interest. the average service would be $2.9 million over a six-year period. debt service costs are also subject to supervisor approval. attachment one has been previously approved by the board of supervisors. we recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. interesting to point out, in 1990, the authorization to allow the city to enter into a lease revenue bonds for equipment was actually accrued with proposition c, which is interesting to note. let's open this up to public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. supervisor mirkarimi: motion to approve the recommendation. supervisor chu: we have a motion to send this forward without recommendations. thank you. can you call the next item, item six. >> item 6. resolution approving the issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds, by the abag finance authority for nonprofit corporations, for purposes of section 147(f) of the internal revenue code in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $120,000,000 to finance and refinance various capital facilities owned by episcopal senior communities. supervisor chu: thank you very much. come on up. >> good afternoon, members of the budget and finance committee. the item before you approves the issuance of a not to exceed $120

million in revenue bonds on a tax-exempt basis to finance various projects of the episcopal senior communities. the financing has no fiscal impact on the city and this is not obligated for payment. should you have questions on the project itself or the financing, mr. bill tobin with the communities are here for your questions. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe this item also does not have a budget analyst report. >> there is no fiscal obligation to the city. that is why there is no budget analyst report. supervisor chu: thank you. again, this would not result in the general fund being obligated to pay back any of this potential debt that could be issued, correct? ok. why don't we open this up -- item 6 -- for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item?

thank you. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send items 6 forward with recommendations? ok. without objection. why don't we return back to item one, please. >> thank you. because there are no amendments that our office has to make to this particular legislation, our recommendation is to move this legislation without recommendation to the full board but set for tuesday, april 5. >> [inaudible] supervisor chu: thank you. we have a motion from the committee to send item for without recommendations at this time, not to be heard at the

upcoming board meeting, but to be heard at the next meeting after that. just in talking about the specific legislation, i would like to add my name as a co- sponsor to the legislation at this time. i think the legislation is unique and that we are looking at an area that has a high vacancy rate, that we have tried a number of different ideas for. we have seen this were previously in areas like mission bay, and i think this legislation can do the same for the mid market area, in particular with technology. because it is so limited in its time frame, we are really taking a look, to see whether this thing can work. it does have a limited impact in terms of the number of years. again, i would like to officially add my name as a co- sponsor of this and look for to the upcoming conversations we

will have at the board. supervisor mirkarimi: my name is on the roster to speak. supervisor chu: supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: procedurally, this is a bit clumsy, potentially. there is the introduction of the notion of a cba. i do not care if it is done here at the budget committee or at the full board. it is just consistent with the process. i do not think we can to change the process. there should be public comment on the cba. it is an accessory to pitching the deal as to why this ordinance is attractive and being justified. that part of justification should be properly vetted and given an opportunity to have some public review. i do not mind it happening here or at the full board, but do not shortchange the process. it undermines the integrity of this discussion.

so i am open to suggestions, if supervisor kim wants to advance that, then i am fine with that. but we need to have public comment either there or here. supervisor chu: thank you. we have a motion on the floor. i appreciate the comments you did make. given that we have had two hearings, i would recommend to remove the item out to the full board so that they can take a look at this. it is not unusual where previous transactions, previous legislation has moved out of a particular committee without recommendations, so that information can be provided in the ensuing weeks. we have done that for a number of items in the past. that is not an unusual process. your point is well taken, so i would like to call the roll on that item. supervisor mirkarimi: hang on, on the process -- deputy city attorney.

the question is, this agreement has not been vetted by the budget analyst, nor the controller. i have the words right here, draft. i realized what was just given to me just 15 minutes ago is not in the ordinance, but a complementary document being used in part of the justification for this particular consideration passage of this ordinance. i would think, even if we are not having city analysts look at it, that there be proper review provided to the public. why would that seem to be out of step with what we are doing, which is what this committee seems to be leaning towards? >> supervisor mirkarimi, deputy attorney cheryl adams. i will lay out a couple of principles to keep in mind. these community benefit agreements, first of all, will only apply to a company that has an annual payroll expense that

exceeds $1 million. that is under the terms of the legislation. as the committee knows, section 2114 of the charter says that it is misconduct for board members to interfere in the administrative affairs of the department. also, charter section 9.118, which states the board only has authority over contracts that exceed $10 million or 10 years. so to the extent that one of these committed to benefit agreements was a 9.118 contract, then the board would have authority to review it. thbut if it is an agreement that will be entered into between the board and property owner, the board will not have any approval authority over it. by law, the board cannot grant itself a party that it does not have.

we tested that a few years ago, you may recall in the sns trucking matter. so the board always has the power of inquiry, and you can conduct a hearing and ask it of armond about what it is doing, but you are not allowed to interfere or dictate or suggest what kind of agreement and apartments should enter into. supervisor mirkarimi: but it has been articulating them, by supervisor kim, that she and presidents chiu are engaged in the development. as a representative of this body, i would think that then implicates us from being able to understand, this agreement that has been passed on to us is an accessory document to the justification to the passage of this ordinance, is minimum. all we are talking about is providing public review of this document. that is all. why would that be inconsistent

with us providing public comment, whether here at budget for this document, or at the board of supervisors, as the full board? >> i think the better approach to do something like that, so that the board and committee are working in a way consistent with the charter, would be to call for a public hearing, and using the board's power of inquiry, to understand what this being pland to pube put in the community business agreement. you can ask how they will post to the agreement, allow for public input. that is something department could do on its own. i cannot address what they are going to do. supervisor mirkarimi: it is a cart before the horse concern. passage of this document already prrecludes the particular agreement. in order to be supportive of the efforts of the representatives that want to assure this along,

i am suggesting, round this process up in the most efficient way possible. now it becomes sullied, if we do not allow any new documents to be entered in the discretion for public consider -- consideration. it is a mistake, tactically, even for the strongest opponents, to be moving in this direction. supervisor chu: thank you. if i could help to move the conversation along. generally, the city would be providing a payroll tax exemption for companies that have -- who move into or are part of the mid market area, part of the specific geographic boundaries. at this point in time, legislation has not passed, the benefit does not exist, and no company or individual organization is obligated to pay into any community benefit, enter into any committed to benefit plan. for us to say, any organization

should receive it, one, there is a conflict with regards to the . second, there is no company able to benefit from this at this point in time. we have not passed legislation. what can do is we can move forward the process and make sure we question the departments when it is implemented. we cannot say there is any benefit from the benefits package at this time. there are no companies obligated to do that. and there is a conflict with the charter will regarding -- the charter rule regarding our responsibilities in jurisdiction. what needs to be improved is the public process, insuring that that process be a fair one, -- ensuring that that process be a

fair one. supervisor mirkarimi: i appreciate that refereeing. we have had cases of it. i have been on budget for five years. these examples have been vetted for consideration by any one of us who would have said the introduction of the new document -- it is the courtesy of providing public review. it is not a violation whatsoever. that is where i am a little bit unclear. ok, i hear that. my largest concern is i think the city is potentially linking and linking to soon -- too soon. we are negotiating almost in

happenstance. now this raises questions potentially about, well, should we risk the urban image by moving to the suburbs? now we are linking demand by the potential of the promise of the community deal, but we do not perceive what the content of that community deal is pure yet -- community deal is. i think this is in in your favor. i do not want to make this process too onerous. i think need to combine with your ideal of being inclusive. by not doing so, we undermine the integrity of the process. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor mercury me. supervisor kim? supervisor kim: can lead to a

hearing just on the process being put in place, to coordinate the benefits agreement? supervisor chu: sure, you could introduce a hearing request that could come to this committee and it could be as broad as he wanted to be. the board always has the power of inquiry. you cannot use the authority of the board to dictate to the department how they should enter into the agreement. supervisor mirkarimi: but to the supervisor kim's question -- i asked the department last week -- supervisor chu: was that your question? supervisor kim: yes. supervisor mirkarimi: sari. i thought she was done.

there had been analysis accompanying the upgrade of muni service as it is implicated in the mid-market transformation. we are now getting word with the controls being precise from the various stations. there is no financial data attached to what we are losing and any other neighborhood stations. i feel like we are not in the negotiating seat. but we do have is the power of inquiry. that power of inquiry, i think, is best supported by either having continued process or the process of a hearing, but that hearing should not come after a vote is taken. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. just be clear -- the comments i

have heard indicate that the officer will be extending their walk one block. this is, i think the testimony from our budget analyst, it indicated the extension would be for one block. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: let's underscore that. supervisor kim: i just wanted to reiterate that the bus line or the -- i think there is a degree of input on the structural services through the budget process. there is nothing in the legislation that indicates the potential for the 47 going to caltran to civic center in the

legislation. my preference would be to bring this to the full board for tuesday, april 5. we will be more than happy to consider a hearing just on the development of the mta process at the budget committee. there is nothing in the legislation for discussion or amendments at this point. the point of contention is -- supervisor chu: if i could ask members of the public to respect the work of the committee. when we have public comment, we will allow you to complete your comments. thank you. supervisor, which like to finish? -- would you like to finish? supervisor kim: [unintelligible]