>> the pine lake is natural. they take of the area around the lake. they plant natives that are drought tolerant. one that stands the dry summers here. the whole park is under going quite a bit of reconstruction. they will renovate the trails around the lake. and the big project is the capital project for pine lake meadow. they are going to returf the dog run and the meadow by the day camp. we are looking for a very busy fall. by the spring of next year should have major renovations to the mark thal make it an outstanding park. i don't ever refer to it as my park. all the parks belong to all the people. this park belongs just as much to the families in the bay view sdrishth as it does to the gentlemen that lives across the

street. i'm happy and proud to be the caretaker for them. i wake up every day and thank that i havee

supervisor chu: welcome to the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. supervisors wiener and chiu will be joining us shortly. in the meantime, if we could excuse the of your above are engaged in prior commitments. -- if we could excuse them for a few minutes. do we have an announcement? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fill out a speaker card and have them right to myself. if you wish to submit documents, please provide a copy to the clerk. items discussed today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on july 19, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. call item one please. >> would you like item one and

two? >> item 1. >> item 1, resolution approving the amendment 1 retroactive to april 14, 2011, to airport spa an amendment to the we'll look to technology stores and accessories with ilj san francisco, llc, and the city and county of sand and cisco, acting by and through its airport commission. -- city and county of san francisco. >> good morning, members of the committee. the budget analyst report deals with items one and two. do you want me to address them together? supervisor chu: we have not yet called item two. why don't we call item two? >> item two, resolution approving the amendment 1 retroactive to april 14, 2011, to domestic terminal food and beverage with baysubway airport

with luna azul corp., with guava and java inc., and with burger joint, inc., and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> thank you. the airport is seeking your approval of two items, both relating to the temporary closure of boarding area e and mitigating the financial effects of this closure on six tenants around the boarding area. the two resolutions before you for consideration would retroactively amend the six existing leases with ilj san francisco doing business as airport wireless, airport spa sf, luna azuul do business as

jalapeno grill, guava and java, and subway. we are seeking the ability to amend these leases to partially waive the minimum annual guarantee and other concessions during the renovation of the boarding area. work is expected to be completed in august 2012. the renovation will provide the airport was upgraded facilities and give us an opportunity to seismically retrofitted some of the existing infrastructure and will also allow us to increase the concessions space throughout the boarding area. unfortunately, most of the pier is closed while we do this. obviously, it results in a pretty significant decrease in passenger traffic. with the exception of mission bar and grill, which cannot continue to operate at all, as their location is behind a construction wall. the remaining leases will

continue to operate but with far less passenger traffic. airport revenue developments that as well as the budget analyst estimate that the partial minimum guarantees and fees represents a loss in revenues to the airport of approximately $470,000. airports that does believe, however, that it is likely that this amount, this revenue will be recouped at other locations as we shift passenger traffic throughout the airport. the budget analyst recommends approval of the amendment, and i would be happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. mr. rose. >> as indicated, on page 6 of our report, the airport estimates for boeing about $469,540 in annual revenues if you approve these resolutions.

however, as you know, this revenue reduction would not directly impact the airport budget because of the airport's break-even policy. we recommend that you approve both of these resolutions. supervisor chu: thank you. a question -- with regards to the break-even policy, can you explain that a bid and whether it sounds like the rate setting happens at a particular point in time. did they anticipate there would be these renovations, and were they able to take into account the loss of revenue? >> yes. as you know, the airport budget is set at the beginning of the year with anticipated revenue coming into the airport for the year. any shortfall in the revenue would be made up by increasing rates and charges the following year. because the airport was aware that the work would be done, the loss of the $470,000 would have

been contemplated in the budget and would be reflected in the rates and charges of the airport. supervisor chu: thank you. what we open up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items one and it we will? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we send these items forward to the full board with recommendation? we will do that without objection. item three, please. >> item 3, resolution approving a contract between the department of public health and the san francisco aids foundation for rent subsidies services for people living with hiv/aids. supervisor chu: thank you very much. we have some representatives from the department of public health. >> good morning, members of the committee. i am deputy director of housing and urban health, which is a section of the health

department. we brought to you today a five- year agreement between dph and the aids foundation for rent subsidies and subsidies related to its subsidies for people living with hiv/aids. this is a five-year contract, therefore, we are going over the $10 million mark, and i leave this item to you. i am year to answer any questions that you have. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> madame chair, members of the committee, the existing contractor is the only contractor that responded to the rfp. the authorized amount for this proposed five-year contract -- the existing contract is two years. the average annual amount is $3.9 million, and that is the

same amount -- same average annual amount for the new proposed five-year agreement. of the total $19,685,000.2009- 2010 contract, the amount budgeted each year will be $17.5 million. there was also a contingency amount of approximately $2.1 million, but that cannot be expanded unless there is an amendment or modification to the agreement, which must be approved by the board of supervisors -- of the totaled $19,685,000 2009-2010 contract. supervisor chu: what would we expect in terms of a contingency being tapped into? >> typically what we use the contingency for is if we reallocate funds or get a grant

funding. in the past it is usually relatively small amounts. we had a contract that got funding from the mental health services act, so we used the contingency that was in the contract to add additional funds. most likely, the only reason the contingency would be used on this contract is if there was some reason why they were reallocating general funds from one section of the housing and urban health program and giving it to this provider. typically, that would be if one provider was under delivering units of services, and this provider could deliver more units. supervisor chu: thank you. if there are no further questions, why don't we open this item up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send the

item for with recommendation and a second, and we will do that without objection. i believe that we have a representative from the mta for item four, but they are on their way, so why don't we call item 5? >> item 5, resolution authorizing the mayor's office of housing to expand so many stabilization fund dollars in the amount of $325,000 to provide housing and job readiness services, low-income residents, and workers in the south of market neighborhood. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor kim, would you like to say in the opening comments? >> i think the presentation from our staff would be appropriate. supervisor chu: ok. i believe we have claudine from moh. >> good evening. i am with the mayor's office of housing.

last year, under resolution 381- 10, the full board approved an agreement between the mayor's office of housing, the community advisory committee, and the developers of 333 harrison to deliver a particular community benefits, including the construction of 49 on-site affordable rental units for households earning more than 30% of median income and supporting local hire for construction and non-construction jobs. now, the community advisory committee is recommending to commit funds to support housing and work for services to prepare low-income soma residents and workers for the housing and employment opportunities that this would generate. a copy of the recommendations have been filed with the clerk, and there are basically two. the first is a recommendation

to expend $250,000 for a grant that will go to the veterans equity center to provide case management services to prepare residents and workers for the housing opportunities that will arise out of this project as well as other affordable housing opportunities throughout the city. the second recommendation is for $75,000 to go to -- actually, the asian neighborhood design through an amendment with the contract that exists already with the office of economic and workforce development. any questions? supervisor chu: i think that there will be some questions, but why don't we go to the budget analyst report first? >> madame chair and members of the committee, we have a table, table 1, which shows that the amount in this fund or the revenues that have been received to date since the inception --

$9,191,000 -- $1,991,923. expenditures at it from the fund from the inception to date is $4,067,518, so there is a balance in the fund of approximately $5.1 million. if you approve the $325,000, that would leave a remaining balance of nearly $4,800,000. we point out that the 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