requested $75,000 for the asian neighborhood design is in addition to case management services already being provided by asian neighborhood design, under a separate $50,000 community development block grant managed through the office of economic and workforce development. that contract is on a citywide basis. although the requested $75,000, which specifically targets the area, the $75,000 request for services only in the area is $25,000 more than the existing $50,000 from the community development block grant funds where in asian neighborhood design is providing such services city-wide. we also note that asian neighborhood design has been selected for this proposed $75,000 allocation without using a separate competitive process, but the department points out that a separate rfp

was not utilize for the proposed $75,000 because asian neighborhood design previously went through a process to obtain community development block grant funds, and is currently providing, as i indicated, similar services citywide. our recommendations on page 6 are, one, to approve the portion of resolution to provide $250,000 for the veterans equity center, which did go through a separate rfp process, and we state that since allocation is $75,000 to the asian neighborhood design is being made without utilizing a separate competitive process, we consider that allocation to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor kim: i was hoping that you could address one of the issues that had come up in the budget and legislative analyst's report, which is why the grant to asian neighborhood

design is $75,000, given that there are currently contracted to do city-wide work for much less. good to talk about the rationale for that dollar amount and if there is a higher expectation? >> it is up to $75,000. we actually are not committed to accepting all of it, so that is one note. the other thing is that there is a high set out comes. the committee went through a results-based accountability training where we are being very much more specific with our outcomes and what we would like to see happen with the project, so i believe that what we are asking them to do is much more targeted and specific and very case management oriented, so we are asking them to work very closely with the low-income residents and workers of soma to

provide, specifically are around the citybuild academy, to do the recruitment, to do case management throughout the entire duration of the training, which lasts for a semester through city college, and after that, what we are also adding on is to do the retention and follow-up services after they are done. supervisor kim: could you talk about how that differs a little bit from the grant they got to provide the service city-wide? >> i may just ask steve, who is here, to talk. he is more -- he can talk better about the contract than i can. supervisor kim: actually, more than describing the contract, be specific about how the grant is different.

explain why this is $75,000 just to serve one neighborhood instead of serving the city for $50,000. just the explanation for that grand amount. >> our oewd contract is city- wide, but it is vocational training. it is part of our regular 14- week cycle of training programs throughout the year. the differential here -- those services are vocational training, skills, case management, outreach, to the different neighborhoods. this contract is specific to south of market. the level of detail and that we have to go to in order to locate folks to be part of the program is part of one of the differences. we are very deep in south of market. not only are we located it, but we could also under stabilization fund for the past year, but providing training as

part of our outreach. i think the real linkage -- the two main issues is an urgency, timing, and also the linkage with citybuild. our other program for the contract is strictly within our own schedule. this one actually has a linkage with citybuild and's cycles as well as their programs. the linkage is a lot broader in that way. also, it is linked specifically to the job site. the linkage and the thai requires more coordination management. the other is the urgency of this.

the next cycle starts next month, and we have to get this moving really quickly. it takes more effort, more disinformation and out -- at the folks online in a coordinated prepared with citybuild. >> if i may add something about the timing and agency as well as the other things we've included that may not be included in the contract, which is that there are sitting costs for supplies that we are planning to incorporate in this contract as well. i do not think that that is covered in their existing contract. but in terms of the urgency and timing, i think that applies to both the work force and the housing money we are trying to spin. 333 harrison was scheduled to start the construction i think last monday. as you all know, it takes a lot

of time to prepare residents and workers who have the kinds of barriers that our target population has to employment and housing, so we are trying to get both of these contracts on the ground and moving as quickly as possible. that applies to both the work force and the housing services. what we have learned is that for a project of this size and scope, usually, the biggest demand will happen in the middle of the year when we will have a demand for people to be placed on that job, so we are really looking areand -- looking at and were quickly and efficient enough to have this ready by september. supervisor chu: thank you. can i ask a question about the process? the budget analyst noted that this was a result of a process

that went forward. it was not necessarily an rfp process that was separately run. it was an amendment to expand from the work that had been down from a previous response. can you explain the rationale for not going forward and what the reason is for amending the contract as opposed to going fall out? >> we actually had two contracts. we have one that was very similar in scope to the work that we are asking them to do. we also have an existing contract through the soma stabilization fund as well, but because of the linkage and the fact that citybuild is administered and managed out of, we thought it best to work through that contract. in the case of what we are asking of the veterans equity center, there really are not any existing contracts or work being

done like that out of our office and the system we work out of, so we knew it would be necessary to issue to issuerfp -- issue a separate rfp in the case. supervisor chu: aside from the work already being done, i suppose the rationale would be because there might be other organizations who could do the work and make a pitch for why they could do it better. was there something unique about this case where we knew that was not the case? >> i think that we considered the concept of doing a separate rfp. we realize that because oewd had done such an extensive rfp, we reviewed the language and determine whether or not the elements in it would have reasonably allowed anyone who had wanted to offer this

combination of vocational training and case management services respond in that portion. that's rfp art or -- also was so widely publicized we knew that the number of applicants would represent the broad scope of people providing the services throughout the city. so we first reviewed the language and reviewed all of the responses to determine that the response to that did indicate that they had the greatest capacity. we compared it to other organizations that could have also been able to offer these services, and we still determined upon review when comparing the response to the proposal to what the stabilization committee wanted them to supply that actually matched sufficiently to make us feel comfortable that the procurement mess it would be able to satisfy our requirements. supervisor chu: thank you. one final question -- with

regards to the stabilization fund, so far, as budget analysts pointed out, there has been deposits of about $9 million and expenditures of about $4 million. most recent years had the highest level with grant expenditures of $3.4 million. very heavy grants coming out in the last year. what is the plan overall for the usage of the remaining balance of that fund? is expected that it will be used in two years, three years? and what is the process for allocating out of that? and it's just a note, that has been spent down, a little bit more has been encumbered. once all of that has been sent down, the balance will go down, and we expect that to happen by the end of the calendar year. the community advisory committee right now staffed by our office is working on revising its strategic plan. so a few months ago, we came to this body to ask that we expend

some of the money and take a step back and evaluate the existing grants we have had, and before we expand the rest of what the balance is, we will take the next six months to do some more strategic planning, and our plan is to, around the beginning of the next calendar year, issue another rfp, a second round. supervisor chu: it sounds like there is a process happening for evaluation, and in january, there will be a remaining balance. >> that is a good projection. the beginning of 2012. supervisor chu: at the end of this fiscal year, that is when we expect there will be no funds left in the stabilization? >> not know funds. we expect the next round of funding will also be one or two- year grants. supervisor chu: ok. thank you. why don't we open this item up

for public comment? are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> good morning, committee members. my name is connie ford, and i serve one of the folks on the advisory board, and i am here to strongly say that through the process that our committee has worked on for the last couple of years, we are very excited about the results of this. the 333 harrison project, as you probably know, added more funding to our stabilization fund. it was a new pot of money that had not been requested or had not been thought about until the building happen. then, we went through with the developer and with our committee to negotiate the benefits that were put into the fund and wanted to ensure two things -- one is the citizens of soma were able to participate in

the exciting 49 units mental that will be less than 30%. that is the income that will allow those units to be filled. we are very excited about that. that is the $250,000 pot of money we put in there to help develop the readiness of folks who live there. in terms of the and funding, we are also excited about that because we have been talking about the building trade, citybuild in terms of getting folks quickly in order to become apprentices' so they will be able to start that work, realizing that the project is only 18 months. we have been waiting for it to be starting for months. i think it started on monday, although i'm not really sure. the shovel readiness is ready, but it has not quite started, or it might have just started. our apprentices for this program will be ready in six of seven months, which is exactly the

time they need to be ready to have that project. we talk to the carpenters' union. we're working with the building trades. two other quick points -- the urgency of this is why it happened so quickly. second, some of our funding will go to -- supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> it will go to the retention. hello, supervisors. good morning. so in the community for data for the community benefits program. i urge you to support this expenditure. when we first started the process, the argument was that there was an excellent development to the neighborhood. we were building all these towers, and what is the benefit for those people who are

suffering from the onslaught of these towers? this is one of the first programs that is actually very focused on making sure every benefit that comes from this project will be something that we can count on, that residents can seek -- look at this and say we can access the opportunities for the housing, access for the jobs. we have an opportunity to go through, the train, the apprentice, and that actually have a site on the location. we are looking at kiosk opportunities to have businesses at the site as well. we're looking at permanent jobs from this as well from janitorial to groundskeepers to any other opportunity. this is -- we have heard timing is an issue. obviously, timing is an issue. citybuild starts in august. we need to get people in the program.

it is very vigorous. the retention drops significantly. we need to make sure that once they are on site, that they have the full support of the community behind them. when they are on the site, a lot times, that is when they really fall out of the -- all of that training went to waste if we do not have people out there to support them on a daily basis. this is a dream we have had for the stabilization fund, and i urge you to support it. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other speakers who wish to speak on this item? >> good morning, supervisors. tenderloin resident. i am year to support the appropriation to the governance center, but i am also here to oppose the appropriation to the asian neighborhood center. hopefully i identified that non- profit correctly. the recent i am opposing the

appropriation is twofold. one, there was no rfp, and that is not a good business practice. the city can no longer afford to have non-competitive bidding go out to nonprofits. secondly, probably more importantly, this non-profit has already received $50,000 to provide the same service city- wide that they will be providing now to residents for an additional $75,000. that makes no sense to me. if they are already providing the service, which is basically filling out, i guess, applications for a building that may be completed in the next few years. they have already received funding for that. $50,000 on a community development grant. it does not make any sense to me why they are entitled to another $75,000. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you.

are there any other speakers who wish to speak on this item? >> good morning. i have been working in the south of market for 10 years and actually grew up in the soma until i was 10 years old. i have seen a lot of changes from growing up in the neighborhood and also from working in the neighborhood. with this opportunity to actually help residents and really help them with case management and help them through the process that applies to this affordable housing, we thank you for the opportunity for our program to grow, and we know that this will make a huge impact in the south of market community. we urge you for your support for this expenditure. thank you. >> hello. chair of the community stabilization fund.

wanted to talk a couple of items. thank you for supporting the design proposals. in terms of some of the critique, i wanted to remind you of the negotiations that were occurring last year with the developer as we tried to make sure that the funding and financing would come together. a major issue in terms of the need for the emergency finding was the inability to get a decision from the developer on a timely basis in order to move forward, so we want to encourage you not to use the process as a way to stop or inhibit residents from being able to get jobs on this project. a large portion of this money is going towards stipends as well as uniforms and tools for the trainees. specifically not to limit the ability of residents' ability to get jobs and training. thank you very much. >> supervisor chu: chu thank you -- supervisor chu: thank you.

any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion by supervisor mirkarimi to send the item forward with recommendation. we have a second. we can do that without objection. item four, please. >> item four, resolution approving the feeder agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district for payment of transfer trips with the term from july 1, 2009, to june 30, 2010. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have sonali bose from mta and jason lee. >> we are here this morning to seek retroactive approval. this is one of the two major agreements between the two agencies. you heard the fast as agreement a couple of months ago. as you remember, you table it, and now, it needs to go back and

renegotiate. we are here with a second agreement appeared about a year- and-a-half ago -- after almost two years ago now, mta and bart began discussions. the agreement initiations were put aside pending resolution of the fast as agreement. bart is fully aware that until it intentionally negotiates the agreement going forward, once the fast pass agreement is approved, which we expect to have before you soon. given the delay in resolving the agreementresolvingbart -- in resolving the agreement, bart has not paid in a while. we intend to be before you with a new methodology next time we speak. we asked the board of supervisors to take any action. just a brief background on the agreement -- barred pays mta a lump sum each year for the provision of bus and rail

service to bart stations. currently, the payment is based on sales tax revenue methodology. unfortunately, we have not been able to locate the document that supports the change from the initial methodology, which was based on service, and boarding the net cost, the current methodology, but we believe the change occurred sometime around 1991. for fiscal 2010, assuming the sales tax methodology, but owed, and we have been carrying that on our fiscal year 2010 financial statement as a receivable on its books, and that has been there for over a year. over the last fiscal years, sales tax revenues have declined by 18%. in april, the board approved the feeder agreement with the condition that mta would negotiate future feeder grievance using and methodology

that more accurately reflects the level of service -- using -- would negotiate future feeder agreements using a methodology that more accurately reflects the level of service. we are seeking retroactive approval so we can address the receivable on our books and the payroll on bart's books and intend to be there for you for fiscal year 2011 at a future date once negotiations are over. with that, if there are any questions, we are happy to answer them. supervisor chiu: thank you. first of all, could you explain why it is that we are approving this today? i do not think any of us are fans of approving retroactive contracts, but what led us to this late date? >> we had originally intended to come before you with both the fast pass and peter agreement together, but given the complexity of the fast pass agreement, bart wanted to resolve the fast pass agreement

first, which took over a year- and-a-half, so the feeder agreement decision was made to put it aside. unfortunately, given the length of time it has taken to address the issue, we are having to come back before you with a retroactive approval of the feeder agreement. unfortunately, that is the situation we find ourselves in. supervisor chiu: you alluded to documents from the early 1990's that you were not able to find. can you talk about what happened there? they just disappeared? >> it is unclear the intent of the methodology of change, so we have been trying to get our hands on the 1991 agreement. it appears that the payment was made. because we do not have the underlying agreement, we do not know if it is annual or perpetual, but payment has been made on the basis of treating it as a perpetual agreement. we asked bart if they can find a copy as well, and they are looking for as well.

1991, annual payments had been made on sales tax methodology, and we are unclear as to the rationale at this point why and what authority. before we come before you, we hope to have that mystery resolved. supervisor chiu: you think it is fair to suggest that, i think, and to the current sales tax methodology, the city is being shortchanged. seems like a fairer way of measuring our contribution based on the actual number of trips that have been taken? >> we cannot say we are being shortchanged, but what we can say is there's no nexus or relationship between the sales tax level collected compared to the service we provide. there is no connection, and sales tax is not a good surrogate. we do agree that the sales tax methodology has no relationship to the service that we are

providing. supervisor chiu: thank you. colleagues, i have just heard it to you a couple of amendments to the resolution we have. i think we all understand that none of us like to approve retroactive agreement, but given that this has already happened and that there still is money that the city is both, i think it makes sense for us to move forward. that said, i think for the future, it is important for the mta to ensure a couple of things -- first of all, the future agreements for the renegotiated fast pass with bart and fiscal year 2011-2012, as well as the peter agreements with bark ought to come to the mta and hopefully be approved by us at the same time. i think it is important that we state the imperative of renegotiating the methodology by which we are compensated for our contribution to really look at the number of trips between bart and unique, so i would like to make a couple of amendments in

the resolve clauses that affect that. supervisor chu: thank you. before we take that motion, let's hear from the budget analyst and take public comment. >> madam chair, members of the committee, incidently, i totally agree with the commons, but it begs the question as to why the methodology change from 1987 to 1991. that is the key. i do not understand. there is no documentation. methodology in my judgment should not have changed, or at least the m.t.a. should have not agreed with bart to enable such a change. the 2009-2010 proposed payment of the feeder agreement to be made by bart to the mta, that is shown at the top of the report.

is $262,941 less from the $2.9 billion that bart paid the mta in 2008-2009, but that as a result of the new methodology -- i do not mean to be critical about that -- because of the change and the decrease in sales tax revenues. however, the alternative methodology to the changes in the sales tax revenue formula, which is now used to determine bart's feeder agreement payment to the mta -- is the methodology used by bart and the mta from 1987 to 1991. as stated, that is tied directly to the actual number of transfer trips between bart and muni. we totally uncut -- concur with the position that the formula utilize from 1987