the transit effectiveness project should be called a transit elimination project. what has happened is the [unintelligible] has been truncated. i believe it has been proposed to reroute the six masonic. the haight-ashbury line. what is going to happen is, if you reroute that line and it was proposed it goes straight through haight street, and not go up masonic avenue, what will happen is, you are going to have people who are elderly and frail. how do you expect them to get to their homes? are they going to have to crawl? right now, people are inconvenienced with the 2 clement line. you have to walk to california

street and that is a long block. why do you on the board tried to walk that walk on a walker? suppose you are on oxygen. suppose you have hiv. it is a gross injustice to do this and i have brought this to the attention of people. they simply ran this thing through. this has been an ill-fated idea to begin with. you need more buses and need more drivers. $2 million for contractor, you can have it for the buses. if you can get those lines downtown, you can get them through the clement. you have six digit salaries. this is a disgrace and it is cruel to the most probable in san francisco. this has to stop.

this is a twisted idea from the world go -- word go. >> the report you are given does not seem like it is a contract recommendation which is somewhat disturbing. you may want to improve the contract. i accept and understand that. i am suggesting the need to have more studied than just ceqa. you need to make a look at an additional contract, may be with somebody else. historically, ceqa and nepa were passed before the ada. that is the more honorable population that would be affected disproportionately by what you start off by saying, stop spacing and then you go to orwelling doublespeak. stop optimization. you lose credibility when you

use a term like that. people began to small rat. this is distasteful. -- people begin to smell a rat. it ignores some of the data. in san francisco, seniors are disproportionately the pedestrians who were injured and injured severely. when you make seniors are people with disabilities walk, they have to cross one or two more intersections. you are not looking at this has a two are putting them through. you're not looking at the fact that when people are at two stops and it is consolidated, they're clustered more. that may mean some of us who are not as fast and agile do not get on the bus. there is double the number of passengers. that is one of the problems you are overlooking and is not part of ceqa.

i will suggest you need to do that. mission high school students last may suggested there may be some stocks added. they saw places in the mission that were destinations for them and muni has no clue. >> that is the last person who wishes to address you on this matter. >chairman nolan: is there motion? all in favor? thank you. it is nice to see you. >> item 15, discussion and vote to conduct a closed session. chairman nolan: is there a discussion? all in favor? so ordered.

>> the board did not discuss anticipated litigation. they did take action on real- estate litigation. authorizing a payment to use d im sum restaurant -- resulting from the condemnation of the property. item 17 will be a motion to discuss -- disclose or not disclose. chairman nolan: all in favor? let's adjourn in memory of the fourth member of the citizens advisory committee. we can sent a letter to the family. thank you all very much.

impossible. announcer: when you open a book, you can explore new lands... [bird screeches] meet new friends, and discover new adventures. there are amazing possibilities when you open your mind to reading. [roar] you can log onto he library of congress website and let the journey begin.

patty: hello? cathy: patty! i've decided to follow your lead and file for social security benefits online. patty: but cath, aren't you back in zanzibar? cathy: i just got on my laptop and went to socialsecurity.gov. it took less than 15 minutes! patty: wow! you are a miracle worker. cathy: well, cheers, patty. i'm off to film a baby rhino. ♪ when cousins are two of a kind! ♪ patty: a baby rhino.

supervisor chu: hello, welcome to the regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. welcome back from the board recess. my name is carmen chu. i am joined by supervisor kim. we will be joined by supervisor mirkarimi shirley. the clerk today is mr. victor young. we have jennifer and mark from the sfgtv. do we have announcements today? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak, turn out a speaker card and turn them in. it please provide a copy of documents for the file. items will appear in the board of supervisors agenda on

september 13, 2011 unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. just so folks know in the audience, we will be going down the order, item one, two, and three. before we get into the mou items, i would like to wait for supervisor mirkarimi, because i need to recuse myself from one of the items. so if you can call item number 1. >> item number one, or it's a proven in the grid with nonstop music library to license the use of the music library and waiving certain requirements of the administrative code with respect to the license agreement. i believe we have a potential amendment. supervisor chu: thank you. we have an amendment of the whole, but we also have representatives to speak about the amendment. >> good morning. i am from the department of technology. along with supervisor chu's office, we're introducing an amendment that has been approved.

it basically gives us the authority to make a retroactive payment for the services provided. supervisor chu: thank you. a question for the city attorney, whether or not that is a substantive amendment? if i could ask the city attorney and the department to share the eminence. first, let's have the budget analyst report on the item. >> madam chair and members of the committee, according to sfgtv, as well as the requested waivers of the city's contract in requirements, which are shown in our report, are considered reasonable and standard and the broadcasting industry. i would note that both the city's risk manager and the city attorney concur at the requested waivers of the city's

contracting requirements being reasonable due to the minimum risks involved. those waivers are on page four of our report. we recommend that you minnesota to this ordinance to provide for retroactive approval, since the start they would be september 1, 2010. based on the representation of both the city attorney and the risk manager, we recommend that you approve this ordinance, which is $750 a year for nine years, and it would automatically continue unless the department decides not to accept it. and of course, the $750 an ounce in future years would still be subject to annual appropriation by the board. >supervisor chu: thank you. you did not cover generally what the item is about. >> this gives us access to a music catalog that provides

background sounds of music for meetings that have been here at the state hall, board of supervisors commission meetings, task force, and it allows us to use a video and sound, rather, access to that for the productions that we do throughout the city. all the programming you see on two government channels, sfgtv and sfgtv2. the music that you here, this contract allows us to be able to access this music catalog. we obviously do not have the resources to create the music ourselves, so we have to go outside to be able to do that. we also, with this contract, we are also given the authority to actually sell copies, and we sell about 200 copies of dvd's annually of the meetings. with that sale, discovers the necessary publishing rights that people may have through this

contract. supervisor chu: thank you. in terms of the amendment, are we simply talking about the retroactive approval to a september 1, a 2010? >> that is correct. we would be allowed to make the first payment this month to make as current. we will be able to do that subsequently every year for nine years. $750. supervisor chu: to the city attorney, with regards to the amendment to provide for the retroactivity, is there a sense of change? ok, thank you. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item, item number one? >> thank you very much. mr. brown. yes a very impressed with this. you're doing due diligence on an item that is $750 a year. in all the years of watching the board, i have never seen anything like that. let's hope we do due diligence on item 20. that is the $110 million a

ticket of deposit which essentially is a junk bond. where you choosing this particular method of refinancing? it is precedent -- preposterous. i tell you why you do not, because you do not have to go back to the voters for it. supervisor chu: thank you. anyone else? cnn, , disclosed. supervisor kim. >> [inaudible] >> one moment. supervisor kim: in the future, i am very uncomfortable with retroactive contracts in general, and i would be very selective in which ones i would support in the future. this is a small dollar amount for licensing of music, which i think is important for us to be paying for and authorizing. if i could ask the department

to address the retroactivity? >> we started working on this a few months prior to the contract ending. so we started in about july and august 2010. what happened was there was an ownership change. the original company was bought out by a subsidiary of warner brothers. at that point, we discovered that warner brothers will not accept the contract in terms we had initially. so it actually took about six to eight months to work those things out, and we worked diligently with the attorney's office. we are finally able to bring that to you for consideration. we have been trying to work out the issues as it relates to the not agreeing to the terms of our confecting and licensing agreements with the city and with the automatic renewal system. supervisor kim: thank you.

there is a request to amend it to provide for a retroactivity to september 1, 2010. can we take that without objection? that will be the case. and on the item as amended? in a positive recommendation. we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations, and we can do that without recommendation. item two, please. >> item number two, resolution amending resolution number 291- 06 that approves the contract between the city and county of san francisco and the san francisco in-home supportive services public authority for the provision of administration, health, and dental benefits to ihss independent providers for july 1, 2006 to june 30, 2016 in the amended amount of $419,058,271. supervisor chu: thank you very much for this item. >> a good morning. i am the director of contract in

the services agency. with me is the senior contract manager and our program manager at the ihss program. the resolution before you, first, we need to amend the amount. the amount listed on the agenda is $419,058,271. the amended about should be $419,187,910. it was just a carry-forwards error in the projections. what we're doing on this amendment is we are extending the term of the amendment, and we're adding some more funding to the contract this year to cover the health and dental benefits. with that, i will have mr. florez to give you the background of the program. we will go from there. thank you. >> good morning, madam chair, members.

the institution code 12-300 mandates that all counties provide the ihss program, which provides supportive services to eligible blind and disabled persons to safely maintain these individuals in their homes. the department estimates approximately 22,000 recipients under san francisco's program. in 1995, this board established the san francisco ihss as an end to the public agency pursuant to the code to be the designated public authority for the county to provide administrative and operational support services for the ihss and for providers and administer health and dental benefits for the providers. the end of the providers deliver non-medical personal care and other household assistance to eligible ihss program assistance. approximately 85% of all in-home supportive services are provided

by 15,041 independent providers in san francisco. the remaining 15% are provided under contract under the consortium, with its primary vote is on delivery of services for more severely disabled clients, requiring more intensive care and case management. and increasingly older demographic in san francisco has led to higher caseloads for ihss in the 10 providers. kansas: 2007-2007 weren't 2,902. for 2011, 20,616. projected to increase 23,000 four hundred six for 2015 and 2016. as has been indicated earlier, this represents an increase of 30.5% over the fiscal year 2006- 2007 level. the increase in caseloads as necessary -- necessitated an increase in the number of independent providers to meet client needs. provided to previously did not work enough hours to qualify for benefits, which currently is a

minimum of 25 hours per week, now do so. health and dental enrollment for providers to increase by 50% since july 2006. cost for providing health and dental benefits have been flat since fiscal year 2009-2010. projections for 2015-2016 to not include any assumptions of an increase in cost for those benefits. revenue support for the program currently stands at approximately 49% federal participation, 10% state participation, and 41% contribution from the city, county general fund. those revenues are expected to remain constant. we are available to answer any questions you may have, and we think the budget analysts for their report capito. supervisor chu: do we have any updated information about any state budget impacts to the ihss program? >> not currently.

we do not expect anything until probably late november. but it is still obviously on the table to be discussed. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair and members of the committee, as we point out on the top of page four of our report, the proposed four-year extension of the existing agreement reflect projected average annual expenditures of about $52,590,607. that is over the four years, or increase in average general expenditures of approximately $17.8 million over the four years, which is an increase of 51.1% as compared to the last six years and will average of $34.8 million.

as the department has just indicated, the primary reason for the increase in average general costs, $52.6 million, is an increase in the number of cases for the ihss in the pan to providers. we recommend that there is an error in the amount, so we recommend on page 6 that you amend the resolution, the last line on the title, and on page one, line 23. that would change the total authorized amount from $419,058,271 to $419,187,910 an increase of $129,639 from the resolution that you have. and we do consider approval of this resolution as amended to be a policy matter for the board. we state that only because of the annual expenditures are increasing by 51.1%. supervisor chu: thank you for

the report. one last question about the trajectory of ihss caseload. a large part of this contract increase has to do with an increasing caseload that is projected and the population we expect to serve in san francisco. where do you see that trend going in the next few years? >> we only see it escalating, as we indicated from the very first year of this contract. from back in 2006. we have seen an increase of 38.5%. we see it escalating dramatically. again, the constant here is not the change in costs for providing the benefits. the fact is we have to provide the benefits for more providers, and the providers we currently have under our employment provides the public authority are now working more hours, which now allows them to qualify for benefits with which they're definitely taking access to. those are really the cost drivers for this. >> i think we're seeing the

trend and the population of san francisco as people age. more and more seniors are using these services. supervisor chu: in terms of the programs we have with the ihss, we had the consortium and the public authority. >> yes, we're one of five counties that provides two different modes of service in ihss. we have the consortium, which is the contract no. this serves the most difficult for the most needy clients that need more intensive services, more one-on-one services. the majority of the seniors, as they are functioning pretty well in their homes, can avail themselves to the public authority mode. the public of the remote is probably the most cost- efficient. that is why we have 85% of the case load under the public authority mode. >> and do we see, in terms of the growth patterns of either one of them, are we seeing more and more growth in consortium? >> it is difficult because it is

based on individuals. at their functionality either increases or decreases, the switch back and forth. the clients are reassessed one time a year, and in the pick the most appropriate mode for that client at that point in time. >> good morning. i am the manager -- supervisor chu: one moment. victor, can you work on that? thank you. >> the contract mode we find more and more young or mentally disabled clients. there is an increase in that respect. and there is the ihss social work stuff, and those are the ones were not able to interview or hire their own home care workers. that is why that is reflected in the contract mode. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this

item, number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. to the clerk, our computer system is not allowing us to designate when we want to speak or not but you might want to call somebody. i have a question for the representatives. i am supportive of this bitter i am curious, based on the census data that is coming out, especially with an increasingly aging population and people requiring that special level of service, in-house supportive care, and more, do you have a future projections on the population growth of this universe so that we can get a better handle on what we're looking at over the next five, 10, 15 years? >> the gridley pointed out from our projections from 2006 to

date, we have seen a 38% growth. -- growth period over five years. we see that continuing. people do age. it is a little hard to predict it, because you do not know when someone is going to stop functioning well on their own independence that is living by themselves. supervisor mirkarimi: but if it is about 38% from 2006 to date, five years, you think it is going to keep to that? >> i think so. i think it will be up to an 8% increase per year. supervisor mirkarimi: really? at of that might be potentially a little bit low, a contender ring -- considering what we saw with the over 55 san francisco population growing city-wide and people living longer. many of those people who are unable to move out of the city for whatever reasons,