hearings from 2004 until now to walking by a construction site on my way to work. thank you for considering this. i look forward to riding a bus to the new station in a few years. >> i would move approval. >> second. >> what exactly will mr. clark's that this be? >> he will be deputy cfo with sara. he will be working on a very carpet -- part-time basis. he is a tjpa employee. he is not a consultant and has not been a consultant. he has always been a tjpa employee. his hours would become less and less. >> and his compensation accordingly? >> yes.

he is in his mid to late 80's, 70's? he is prepared to retire. >> i certainly support the appointment and refer to your dad on this, but isn't a law by the tjpa that you did not have the authority to make this appointment? >> there are certain position that we bring directly to the board. that would be the board secretary, chief financial officer position, as well as general counsel position. general counsel position is now in dennis herrera. that was from a board resolution quite a while ago. nila was appointed earlier. the chief financial officer, and of course, my position. those are the only one that

would come to this body. >> surprised we still have dennis, but i guess we still do. all right, motion, 2nd. any speakers? >> no members of the public wish to address you on this item. all in favor? >> congratulations, sara. you have been here so i cannot say welcome aboard. >> item 11 is approved. item 1item 12. election of chair and vice chair pursuant to the tjpa joint powers agreement. >> i would like to make the proposal that supervisor kim the the chair of this body as the elected official, and as the representative of the district where this is all taking place. it would seem that the best choice to me.

>> all right. we have nomination and a second for supervisor kim. any other nominations? seeing none. are there any objections to the nomination? any members of the public wish to speak on the item? >> you have got it down now. >> if elected are you willing to serve? >> i do accept and am honored to serve as chair of this body. >> we have not voted yet. director kim: would be honored. >> [laughter] all in favor? >> the board has unanimously agreed to appoint supervisor kim as chair. the vice chair? >> any nominations for vice chair? >> i will nominate supervisor ortiz.

>> second. >> nomination and second. any speakers? seeing none. any objection? all approved? unanimous. >> my sister ortiz will continue on as vice chair. we have a new chair, director kim. --that include your regular calendar. we are scheduled to go into closed session at this time. we have not received any indication that a member of the public wants to address you on the item listed. we will go ahead and clear the room. >> the tjpa order directors

meeting is now back in session. the board met in closed session for a conference with their realistic negotiators and there is no action to report. tractors, that concludes the agenda. >> are there any other questions or announcements? thank you.

>> good morning. my name is carmen chu, chaired the committee to i am joined by supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor kim. the clerk today is mr. victor young. at sfgtv, we have marked and nona. the we have announcements? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak, please turn in a card to myself. if you present documents to the committee, please provide a document to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the board of supervisors agenda on october 18, 2011 unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. call item number 1.

>> resolution approving the fifth amendment to the agreement between the city in western states oil increasing the total not to exceed amount of the contract from $50,500,000 to $75,580,000, pursuant to charter section 9.118b. >> thank you very much. >> good morning petraeus of the assistant director of the office of contract administration bigger story here to talk about the fuel contract with western state. it is for gasoline, diesel, biofuels, and that began on september 1, 2009, and it is in its third year. the city's been approximately $25 million a year on the term contract to last year, the city spent about $27 million a year. the increase was due to increase in fuel prices across all types. we anticipate this year's fuel usage will be on par with last year and have requested a small contingency in the event that fuel prices continued increase.

we concur with the report and recommendations we are requesting approval for the court to increase the total contract amount to $75,580,000 to cover fuel spent during the option time. these expenditures have already been approved in the department budgets, and what we are requesting today is the purchasing authority for this contract. supervisor chu: thank you very much. these items have already been allocated to departments in the budget, correct? >> yes. supervisor chu: you mentioned that the increase in expenditures were primarily due to rising fuel prices and not necessarily more mileage it to you -- more mileage is being used by the city? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, based on our analysis, as shown in table two of page 5 of our report, we estimate that the total not to exceed amount for this second

one-year auction time, for september 1, 2011 through august 31, 2012, should be increased by $27,800,000. that is over two -- $2 million more than the increased amount. this would result in a total not to exceed needed amount of $70.3 million, instead of the total requested amount of $75,580,000 under the proposed resolution. therefore, as stated on page 6 of our report, we recommend that you amend the resolution to increase the requested increase the amount by $2,720,000. likewise, increase the total requested not to exceed amount of $75,580,000 by $2,720,000.

we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you. if we do not have comments, let's open this up for public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take the budget analysts recommendation? we will do that without objection. to the item as amended, can we move that forward with recommendations? >> [inaudible] supervisor chu: with that require a continuance? ok, -- [inaudible] -- we are going to have to continue this item. colleagues, can we continue the amended item for a week? we will do that without objection. thank you. item number two, please. >> her item number two, resolution authorizing the amendment of an existing lease at 160 south van ness avenue with stuart b. and myrna j.

aronoff revocable trust and trudy cohn as tenants in common, for the human services agency to provide construction allowance and extend the lease term. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good morning. john updike, acting director of realistic. i am joined by a member of the human services agency. this is a lease extension for 160 south van ness avenue, a property that the human services agency has been in for quite some time, since 1999. what this lease amendment does is facilitates a tenant improvement project, allows the city to defer its repayment of the expense affronted by the landlord to provide needed improvements to the space, particularly for the investigations division. there are some safety and office control issues that are addressed by this approximately $54,000. what we have before you is a

three-year extension. it maintains the base lease rate. there is no real increase. it simply amortizes the cost of this $54,000 of improvement over the three-year extension at no additional expense. there's not a path through administrative costs or enactment of capitalized interest. it is a pretty good deal for the city, which is a pleasure to bring before you. additionally, we did some market analysis to be sure that, in our opinion, this rate is consistent with market, and it is from what we found, considerably under market. finally, the budget analyst report, there is a suggested slight amendment to cap the amount of $54,000, and we're certainly comfortable with that a man that suggestion. certainly, we're here to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> madam chair, members of the

committee, as we point out on the bottom of page three of our report, and as mr. updike has indicated, the additional rent for the renovations would be $1,500 per month for the requested 36-month lease extension. that would computer out to the $54,000 because of the total monthly rent would be $30,800. that is a base rent of $29,300 plus the $1,500. and also, as indicated, we are recommending that you amend the resolution to add the language between lines two and three on page 3 to read -- for the result of the human services agency shall not read -- be irresponsible for any renovation cost above the estimate the cost of $54,000 and that you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you. a quick question for mr. updike.

i noticed that this grant agreement went into effect, and subsequent to as being there, we decided we needed additional medications to this space. were there programmatic changes that occurred midway through or is this something we had anticipated? >> as i understand, it is a case of a slight change in program and a slight change in the need for additional security issues to be addressed. these might have also been program issues beyond human services. they are responsible to other agencies. i think phil can speak more directly to that. >> good morning. we had two major changes in the way we do business at this facility. this results from moving the state fair hearings from the fox plaza to this location, which actually saved us some money because we incorporated those hearings into an existing conference room. however, in doing that, we had a great a barrier, or we feel is

spreading to create a barrier between the public who come to the fair hearings and our staff that were behind the barrier. one of the improvements in this is the barrier. the second is that we have been gradually assuming some responsibilities formerly held by the district attorney to do special investigations of welfare fraud. the other apartment is to provide more privacy and security for the investigators that we have added to our staff overtime. so there is a change of use. this building has been occupied by several city agencies, including payroll. so it is difficult to say that we should have anticipated the need when we started the lease. i think it is a very reasonable and fair way to finance it. i actually applaud realistic for coming up with this solution. supervisor chu: great, thank you. i also want to say i am very happy to see that you are back with us.

welcome back. >> thank you. it is nice to be back. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, if there are no questions, let's open it up to public comment. any members of the public who wish to speak? cnn, public, disclosed. can we take the budget analyst recommendation, which heavily the department is in agreement with? we can do that without objection. to the item as amended, can we send this out without -- with recommendations. ok, without objection. thank you. item number 3. >> item number 3, resolution authorizing the issuance from time to time, one more series, of not to exceed $1,355,991,219 aggregate principal amount of the city and county of san francisco general obligation refunding bonds, including the initial -- [inaudible] -- to refund certain

outstanding general obligation bonds. supervisor chu: thank you very much for this item. we have nadia with the office of public finance. >> good morning, supervisors. i am from the controller's office of public finance. we are requesting an authorization to issue refunding general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed approximately $1.4 billion to allow for issuances of refunding bonds, one or more series, to take advantage of a low-interest rate environment. the resolution would also include provisions that allows that flexibility. we have stated in our memo and in the resolution that we would expect to achieve 3.5% savings. we have also allowed for final majorities to pay with a series of bonds that are under

consideration for refunding. we have minimized with the cost would be. the idea is to take into account all the outstanding general-obligation bonds in our portfolio. we have about 12 authorizations, and we have multiple series because of this allows the flexibility for our office to be able to access capital markets as the environment is appropriate. when we presented today is showing, with 2.7%, we could refund today approximately $411 million, resulting in over 9% savings, equal to $36 million. we have also included an appendix a that outlines the city's financial conditions. they have been updated to reflect the budget. we expect the certification.

we have also included updates on investments, the retirement peace, in new transactions. we expected the board will delegate authority to the comptroller to make amendments. so that authority will be delegated to the controller to make those changes and give the statement. we also concur with the budget analyst recommendation to limit the term of the availability to five years, and that will be open-ended. that is it. i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam chair, members of the committee, as is pointed out on page 6 of our report, this first series will result in an interest rate savings will result2.08%.

the debt service over an 19-year time span, the annual debt service will be about $25.4 million. as she indicated, we have made a recommendation to put a time limit of five years on the issuance on this refunding bonds. supervisors, that would be consistent with what the board of supervisors did in 2004 on a similar piece of legislation. our recommendation on page 8 is to amend the resolution to limit the authorization issuance from time to time, of not to exceed $1,355,991,219, refunding bonds to five years. then we recommend you approve the resolution as amended. supervisor chu: thank you. given no additional questions, let's open this up for public comment. did you want to add something,

nadia? >> i know we talked briefly about some amendments. we are suggesting to the resolution, page 6, 1, changing the sentence that reads -- the board of supervisors to the controller to fill in any blanks in the bond. then moving to line 20, changing it from the city treasurer to the controller, and changing registered by to the city treasurer. supervisor chu: thank you. >> i forgot to mention, most important is that this will result in about a $36 million net present value savings, which of course we feel is very good and should be considered favorable by the board. supervisor chu: thank you. do we anticipate that there will be any refunding opportunities coming up that we have not yet

budgeted or anticipated? >> we are working on mosconi, which was approved a few weeks ago, and that was anticipated. this one has not been anticipated, at least for this calendar year. so there will be some more opportunities here. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. public comment. any members who wish to speak on this item from the public? >> good morning. my name is douglas, and i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. when i take a look at this item this morning, i thought it was kind of interesting that there are so few people here to discuss a $1 billion item. for the city of san francisco to approve a $1 billion item with so little public participation seems a bit superficial to me, so i think that i would like to suggest that maybe items like this should have a little more

publicity, so at least people realize that we are only dealing with $1 billion, and i am sure the city has a lot more debt than $1 billion. also, it is a little surprising that in this hearing so far for this item, there is very little discussion as to what that $1 billion actually covers in terms of city spending. obviously, the city spends money for whatever projects and things it wants to spend money on, but i would like to suggest that in the future that the city put aside any savings, like from this resolution, and put it aside for necessary future spending, rather than just spending it on, you know, political projects. it is kind of obvious that $1 billion needs to be studied. we do not want to make the same mistake like the federal government and just give a company $535 million with very

little oversight. in my opinion, secretary steven chiu should have done more, and i hope he is not the fall guy for the loss of $535 million, which is not a drop in the bucket, especially for the city of san francisco. in regards to refinancing, everybody agrees that you're going to save money because of the lower interest rate, but then at the same time, it is not going to help the city of we're not going to rein in spending. i would like to suggest for the members of this committee to read the article month -- from monday on the top city earners. it is no surprise to me that the top 10 were all from the department of public health. if i remember street, nine of the 10 were from san francisco general hospital. to close, i would like to say hello to louis.

i remember her from kcbs. if i remember correctly, she used to do a news show out of denver. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker, please. are there any other speakers who wish to come forward with this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to appreciate the public comment that was made. i do want to clarify for members of the public might not be here in this room or have not had the opportunity to read the item, this is not additional new money that is being requested to be issued by the city. in fact, the city had, in previous years, for many years, issued a number of debt issuances to finance large public works improvements and projects. this item allows the city to refinance, much like you with your own home, it the interest rates are such that we will generate savings from it. in all, this is an item that would actually save the city money if we go forward with refinancing, just let you with a

home mortgage when the interest rates are low. just wanted to clarify that. this is not new money. this is refinancing of existing dollars that we're already obligated to pay. ok, colleagues camino -- colleagues of a given that we have heard public comment, there is a recommendation. can we take the recommendation without objection? moved by supervisor mirkarimi. a second bite supervisor kim. let's do that without objection. to the item as amended, can we send that forward with recommendations? we will do that without objection. thank you very much. final item, number four. >> item number four -- supervisor chu: actually, one moment. we have to rescind the vote quickly. we did not take into the record. if we can, just rescind that vote. we will do that without objection. we have already taken the amended of the budget analyst recommendation to the were additional amendments that were read into the record. quickly on page 6, it indicates

online 1, where it references the clerk of the board of supervisors, should actually read controller. allied 20, or is the city treasurer, it should read controller. online 21, is says registered by him or her, but it should say registered by the city treasurer. those are the amendments. can we take those amendments without disagreements? thank you. and those are not substantive, correct? ok. to the underlying item as amended, can we take that without objection. thank you. ok, i'd never four. >> item four, ordinance authorizing the department of the environment to accept and expend funds in the amount of $100,000 for coulomb technologies inc. to provide administrative and outreach services for program to install electric vehicle charging stations in multiple-dwelling units and amending ordinance number 146-11 to reflect the addition of one grant funded

position at the department of the environment. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> thank you. gosset robert with the san francisco department of environment. this item is to accept $100,000 and operates the expenditure of it for implementing a program for conducting outreach to depart -- apartments and condominiums and other multi- family buildings in the city, for a demonstration program on installing electric vehicle chargers, and also to authorize one position that the department of environment for implementing the program. the funds are actually state grant funds from the california energy commission, in a grand they awarded to the company that manufactures electric vehicle charging and equipment, coulomb technologies bit of that grant is to conduct a demonstration program to provide information and best practices on how to

actually get multi-family buildings to have electric vehicle chargers. the company and the california energy commission had decided to conduct that entire demonstration program here in san francisco. this is a sub-award from the contract to us to help administer it and to do outreach so we can effectively conduct of reach to building owners in all parts of the city. the program will be a complement to what we have underway for putting charging infrastructure on public property for people to use during the day for charging during the day, but this is for people to have their base home charging capabilities. multi-family buildings have been a particular challenge in doing this, for a variety of reasons. so this is seen by the state