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 as a high priority for figuring out how we can do this effectively, develop best practices, which will then make it easier in the city and

throughout the state for during this on a far broader basis. i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you. this item, in a different way, came to us, or the idea of establishing electrical charge stations can to assign different ways. it is when we were putting it on public facilities. at that time, when the department of environment came forward, i asked about the outreach efforts in the sunset district or western parts of the city or other areas that do not benefit from either as much density, so there's not as much of a need. i am wondering with this new opportunity, how do you see the department reaching out to other areas? in some ways, if we're talking about italy being located in apartment buildings, we may also lose out on an opportunity to see charge stations on the western part of the city or other areas that do not meet those criteria. >> this particular program, through the state demonstration project, is multi-family

buildings, and it can extend into units including triplexes, so we're going to that level. we will be working with every list that we can for reaching out to people throughout the city, through the apartment builders association, building owners association, and we have done out reached worked on our energy programs to residential and commercial establishments. we will be happy to, and certainly well, work with, among others, your offices on identifying potential buildings within the areas where your districts are, to make sure we are reaching out as broadly as we can. supervisor chu: great, i appreciate that and look forward to that. we're finally getting a city car share, i suppose, parking spots out in the district in the outer avenues. i appreciate the effort, but would really help the department

of environment actually does look vigorously in the area. it is a hard area to improve from, but i think it is worthwhile. >> we certainly will. we will be happy to work with you in qualifying buildings in their districts. supervisor chu: thank you. this did not have a budget analyst report. so let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number four? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have got a motion by supervisor mirkarimi to send this forward with recommendations. a second bite supervisor kim. we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, to we have any other items? >> the completes the agenda. supervisor chu: thank you. we are adjourned.