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 to 1991 is preferable in order to tie the feeder agreement payment to the actual number of transfer trips, which more accurately reflect mta's cost to provide feeder services. to illustrate this in a striking manner in the our report on page 5, as shown on page 3,

idealizing the 1987 methodology for 2009, 2010, it would have been $15,135,790, $12 million or 473.1% more than the $2.6 million amount that you are now being asked to approve using the sales tax methodology. it is a very significant difference by that change in methodology, which has never been documented. on page 6 of our report, the actual number, the mta now says that they will go back can renegotiate this agreement methodology to provide a clear nexus between the actual number

of transfer trips between bart and muni, therefore requiring fewer payments for 10-11 and 11-12. as you know, this agreement before you is 49-10. the mta indicates that there might be a retroactive payment for 9-10 if you approve this. of course, that is totally contingent upon board agreeing to such a retroactive -- bart agreeing to such a retroactive payment. recognizing that they need this $2 million to balance the budget. that is the representation. given the items i have mentioned, we consider that approval of the vote -- resolution. supervisor chu: in terms of the fast as reimbursement agreement, can you give us an update on how

that is going? >> since you asked us to go back and renegotiate, we have had discussions where we think we have reached favorable terms. but we will abide by the direction of the board to hold that agreement and bring it back at the same time. i think that that makes a lot of sense for the sector as well. >> you do not perceive any difficulty with the fast pass agreement? >> i think that that would make sense from our perspective, so we can look at both services together. supervisor chu: with regards to a new methodology, i would agree that we need to negotiate a methodology that really does take a look at the actual level

of service we are providing and a more clear reasoning for charging what we charge. i would be in agreement with that. have we begun conversations about that possibility? >> absolutely, supervisor. that peace is not negotiable from our perspective. supervisor kim: i just wanted to support the president's amendment to the theater agreement resolution. i am disappointed that this current agreement does not base costs on writer ships, but i do think it is important to move forward. i am hopeful that with this change, with this amendment resolution we will come back and renegotiate fast pass reimbursement agreements.

i wanted to reiterate that we would like to see a nexus more than the sales tax increase in the next agreement that comes before the board. >> thank you, a supervisor. supervisor chu: are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item number four? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion to except a couple of amendments. would you read those into the record? supervisor chiu: two additional resolve clauses at the end of the resolution. the first states that the board of supervisors presents the renegotiated fast fast agreement with bart and the theater agreements at the same time. further resolving that the board of supervisors urges renegotiation of the methodology for the fiscal year 2011 and

fiscal year 2012 agreements to provide a clear nexus between the actual number of transfer trips and the related feeder agreement payment. supervisor chu: we have a second of that motion. can we take those without objection malaprop a question to the city attorney, these are not substantive steps ups on the underwriting item, do we have a motion to send this forward as amended? without objection. thank you. item number six, please. >> item #6. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, section 18.13.1 to limit the overtime worked in any fiscal year by any employee to 20% of regularly scheduled hours and requiring monthly written reports regarding critical staffing shortages. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor chiu: thank you,

colleagues. this legislation handles aspect of a problem that we have known about for years, the city's overtime. we know that over time is complex and solutions to these issues are no different. there need to be a number of angles at which we tackle these problems. one of the ways to tackle overtime is addressing the fact that employees do not need to get an exemption from the department of human resources as long as they work hours that do not exceed 30% of their regularly scheduled hours. 624 hours of regular overtime for full-time employees. 80 hour work week for four hours of the year. not only do i think this contributes to overtime usage, there are safety issues that could be severely impacted. a few months ago we did a review of the city's over time.

in the controller's report they found that 74 employees have been granted exemptions. meaning that they had worked over 624 hours of overtime by january 7, which was only half of the fiscal year. five of them had worked over 900 hours of overtime by that point. including one station agent who had logged over 1000 hours during the first half of the fiscal year, an average of 39 hours of overtime per week. i think that this is inappropriate and potentially dangerous. if this agent needed to react to safety cuts. at this time the current situation contributes the impression that a small pool of city workers can use the system with regards to overtime. the legislation before you is quite simple. reducing the allowable percentage from 30% to 20% before the exemption is permitted by the department of

human resources. it simply says that once you hit 20% over the course of a year, at that time there needs to be an exemption. it also requires that as an exemption is granted, the written explanation be provided to exemplify and justified the exemption. i want to invite michael callahan from department of human resources, who has a presentation on this topic. >> thank you. i would like to talk a bit about the history first, then talk about what we have done and make a few comments on what we think the impact of this change may be. in 2008 the maximum permissible overtime ordinance had been amended passed maximum overtime

for additional hours, but there was no enforcement. it was largely ignored citywide. there was none of the transparency of reporting to the board. additionally it was so widely viewed as unachievable that the department simply ignored it. in reside -- revising the ordinance, we moved to a higher number, the 30% that you now see. i think that that combination has resulted in significant improvements. since 2008, 2009 and maximum permissible overtime was amended, interesting be if you look at the study for certain periods of the year, excluding mta and public safety initially , overtime hours will be wiped off.

additionally the number of employees working over 30% drop from 91 to 23 this year. the number of employees working 1000 over five hours went from 10 to zero. we did not have an opportunity to create a report on all of the items. we put them in one document for you and sent them out so that everyone would have it. >> to be clear, the numbers that you gave, you said that since the time it was implemented with more reporting, the total overtime for fell by half for non-public safety? >> yes. i would make a note that the exemption process is results will for the exemption in the overtime capped. we have granted exemptions to fire because of their short staffing. there are 1400 employees and 138

exceeded the counter in fire over the last year. puc leads the limited exemption in 18 people with only one employee for homicide investigator. only 21 exceeded the overtime capped in the last year. we're working with them to get it down close to zero. we have it one part storekeeper who has been exempted. it is not the case that -- there are some circumstances in which employees have gone over without the exemption. those may be some of the ones that you cited. it is not so many that there are a handful. we would attribute the big move in 2008 to the culture of overtime. there are people that run in

overtime. it is built into their assignments effectively. a lot of work has been done to defeat that. whether we are moving to 20%, we will not know until we do it. we could take a look at the number of people who -- what the impact would be for 10-11 for the same group. if we move from 30% to 20%, for this study. , july to march, we have 63 people at over 20%, where it was 23% over 30%. additional people in that group will be managing. with overtime perhaps you could get more redistribution. it does not necessarily mean that there is less overtime work.

other people will work it, possibly addressing the safety concerns the to raise. i want to also bring to the committee's attention -- i do not know that there is an answer for it, but once we grant an exemption for specific reasons, we do not have the capability or staffing to identify why. once we have granted exemptions, we are not able to track the services under which they get them. we can say that she could have an exemption, not if you are the only person i can do the work, and if we do not allow you to work it, people will be forced to take mandatory overtime.