captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- supervisor chu: good morning. welcome to the regular budget and finance committee meeting. mr. young, do you have any announcements? >> please turn off all cellphone. please fill out a speaker card if you wish to speak during public comment. items acted upon today will appear in the board of supervisors agenda on november 8, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: please call item no. 1.

>> item #one. resolution authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $5,724,203 from the department of labor for transitionsf. supervisor chu: thank you very much. for this item, we have rhonda simmons. >> the grant that we receive from dol, the department of labor, is to risk -- is to survey unique population of non-job ready, non-custodial parents. it is a citywide grant. some of these folks are 121 days delinquent in their child care payments. we are looking at a caseload spread over four years this city wide. we would use stops to access these folks, doing outreach in services across the city.

we do special outreach. the program is built off of jobs in the sense of a transitional jobs program with good will being our primary service provider for this grant. we will have a combination of case management, transitional employment, job readiness, as well as assistance for child support. we are also working with adult probation, as a number of these adults overlap in that system as well. i do not know if there is any other system that -- information you would like. supervisor chu: this item does not have a budget analyst report. we can open this item up to public comment. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues, this item is before

us. we have brought a motion on this item forward without recommendation. thank you very much. item no. 2. >> item #two. ordinance de-appropriating $17,080,000 of 2008 clean and safe neighborhood parks bond proceeds, series 2008a, which were appropriated upon sale of the second issuance to specific voter-approved projects and re- appropriating $17,080,000 to other, voter-approved projects. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, we have the recreation and parks department. >> i am happy to report that we are in the middle of a banner year in terms of implementation for 2008. in the coming calendar year we will either complete construction or start construction on every one of the 12 neighborhood parks that were called out of fun for funding and completion. just last week, we finished our first project to be completed by

the 2008 bond. appropriation is being triggered by the need to appropriate funds for the rec center, one of the largest projects in the bond, with a total project budget of over $20 million. over the past two years, and when we last approach to the board for appropriation two years ago, since that time things have shifted. we have moved faster on some things, slower of others. this appropriation allows us to move funding from projects that have been slow on the city side. projects that will lead funding over the next few months. our intention is to approach the board in february or march for a third and final bond sale. supervisor chu: thank you. taking a look at this item

before us, it might seem like it is appropriating income from existing projects, but that is not really the case. can you explain that? >> yes. we are going to reallocate funds from projects that do not need the full amount to get through the next three months. when we do the 30 final this spring, those funds will be replenished. supervisor chu:-the reason that we do not want a number of excess dollars to be outstanding without using that money, is that because every time we borrow that money, we are paying interest on it if we are not using it correctly? >> exactly. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to our budget analyst. >> madam chair, members of the committee, on page 5 of the report we point out that the projects at this time, which had

a short-term surplus, shown in table 2, the next is on page 5 of the report, eight projects. they will be real appropriated into other projects, shown on table 3. these are separate from every appropriation, then be appropriated to the eight projects shown in table 3, page 6 of our report. we recommend you approve of this supplemental. supervisor chu: let's open this up to public comment. do any members of the public which to speak out item number two? public comment is closed. we have got a motion by supervisor -- supervisor supervr mirkarimi to move this forward

without objection. thank you. item #3. >> item #3. ordinance de-appropriating $314,092,249 in existing water system improvement program project budgets and re- appropriating the funds to the revised wsip program budgets adopted by the san francisco public utilities commission, and placing $227,779,748 on controller reserve subject to completion of project-related analysis pursuant to california environmental quality act, where required, and receipt of proceeds of indebtedness, as certified by the controller for fy2011-2012. should i read item number four? supervisor chu: yes, please. >> item #4. hearing to consider release of reserved funds, public utilities commission in the amount of $27,283,174 to fund the construction for the water system improvement program cuw374 -- calaveras dam replacement, a component project within the sunol valley water region. supervisor chu: this item came

before us previously. we did not go into a leveraged details, to allow for the department to work with budget analysts to make some revisions. i believe that they have come to an agreement with some amendments. i know that todd will be speaking to us on the amendment later on. >> thank you very much. in the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission. it really speaks to the importance of the water system improvement program rebuild, as much was stressed by our colleagues at rec and park, we are well under way with construction on the rebuild. $2.6 billion is under construction right now. leaving only six left in pre- construction. we are significantly far along

with half. to put this in perspective, $4.6 billion was the budget. before you today keeps the budget at exactly $4.6 billion. it allows you, the finance committee, to carve off savings earned it chiefly so far from very low bids from contractors, put it into a savings account, subject to your release and review. as far as it extending today, we have extended cash out the door. we have also awarded contracts in controller assistants, another $3.7 billion. we are bringing the total to $3.4 billion, extending and encumbering the contracts on the way.

we have achieved very large savings, able to sell our water revenue bonds at historically low rates in the united states. the items before you today, i will summarize them. $304 million, up or down, so that the totals are the same. " we are doing with the legislation and an amendment distributor has been distributed to you. we are the appropriating be achieved savings in the system -- we are de-appropriating the achieve savings in the system. coming in in such a way that we have been able to rearrange them with other needs. those needs are down below. program, locked savings.

$104 million have been put into that savings account. we will need some additional money for water supply, however, like the drilling in the station on the peninsula, as well as a local water supply for groundwater. additional enhancement for habitat reserve programs, where we do mitigation and are impacting a landscape in search locations, making improvements in others. working with five agencies to make sure that we have all of the sacraments in place for the proposal in the project. the recycled water project is also leading the additional $7.5 billion. proceeding with the recycled water. the ups and downs of $304

million are zero with a total budget remaining the same. we are asking you to increase the reserve for this project, for those programs that had savings. that is part of the normal process. in addition, we are establishing new reserves, as recommended by the budget and a list, for the program reserve savings of 144. putting new money for habitat reserve and water on reserve, coming back before you anyway to ask for those to be awarded. leslie, the release of reserves for the project. we have reached a milestone this summer. we were able to start

construction on the first major dam built in california since the 1970's. congratulations to you and the city family for moving forward. the amendment as a whole, just to recap, realigns the budget, bringing it up to date based on what has been reviewed and reported on in every single change and update, coming not only to the commission, but to this body to go through that. in addition to the items mentioned here, we have also asked for the amendment that you allow us to take any future savings on future contract rewards and moved it to the purview that you have under your reserve, locking in savings that we would only be able to pullout if you give us permission. i know that we have concurrence

with the budget analyst on that as well. with that, i am happy to answer any questions. i am also joined by julia, who has done many -- much of the heavy lifting here. she oversees all of our capital projects. supervisor chu: if there are no questions, let's go to the budget analyst report. >> madam share, down members of the committee, under the proposed ordinance, puc would appropriate $304.1 million. this is money from six projects that are shown, in table no. 2, page 6, that money would be real appropriated -- we appropriated for five projects shown in

table 3 of the report. going to this new system program reserve fund, which she spoke to. -- which he spoke to. we had concerns that the fund would not have been subject to approval by the board of supervisors and under this proposed legislation, as stated, any expenditures on that fund would be subject to the approval of the board. we recommend that you approve this ordinance and the release of reserve funds. supervisor chu: let's openness -- these two items up for public comment. any items -- any members of the public that wish to speak of items 3 and 4? >> good morning, supervisors. ♪ i would like to see water for

free puc in an octopus' garden with electricity be would be warm in a power storm in a little octopus' darden beneath the the c p u c i would like to see more water for free puc in an octopus' garden under hsc ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that would wish to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. i would like to thank the budget analyst for his recommendation, working through language that adequately allows for the department to be able to put away savings into a central reserve, rather than have it be a natural project, maintaining

budget committee project oversight over how those allegations would come. i want to thank the budget analyst for actually working with us to make sure that that happened. we do have an amendment in full. colleagues, can it be taken without objection? done without objection. should the amendment be held? if not -- ok, the item does not represent a motion change. we have a motion by supervisor mirror real me to move the item as recommended to the board. without objection? item #4, requesting the reserves based on their new milestone and mean that new money. colleagues, do we have a motion to release those reserve funds? we will do so without objection. thank you very much. item number five, please.

>> item #5. resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute the first amendment to the memorandum of understanding with the alameda county resource conservation district for an amount not to exceed $775,000 and with a total duration of fourteen years, pursuant to charter section 9.118. supervisor chu: we actually have a request from the department to continue this item so that they can work through mou. hopefully we can continue this item. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on item number five? the side of we will, hopefully, be continuing with the additional opportunities for public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak, item number five? >> ♪ the 1% water, people who

say water are the luckiest people in alameda county ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on item number five? colleagues, can we take a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? we will do that, without objection. thank you. item no. 6. >> item #6. ordinance appropriating $3,370,001 of state revenue loss reserves and $78,826 of adult protective services federal match revenues to provide one- time bridge funding to adult day health centers, through the human services agency, in order to mitigate state cuts in fy2011-2012. supervisor chu: thank you very much. i know that we have anne and sherry to speak on this item.

before we do that, i know that supervisor kim is a co-sponsor of this item. would you like to say a few words before we begin? supervisor kim: yes. similar to the child care subsidies that we were talking about last week, about health care has received drastic cuts from the state as well. we were able to work with the department of aging to back up that loss. we know that our seniors continue to be in need. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisors. >> presiding over the adult aging services committee of stairs, we are just very grateful that the board took this option. i wanted to give you a heads up.

the funding goes to our department and then to the contract for the institute on aging. probably within the next 30 days or so. >> good morning. i am sorry to be laid. i am coming from another meeting in the mayor's office. you would like me to just -- supervisor chu: we had originally expected a proposal. >> as you know, the governor and the state decided to eliminate adult care health centers across the state of california,

taking it out of the plan for the state. it was approved by the federal government. 50% of the money was coming from the state. because they decided to take it out of the california plan, there is no longer access to the federal or state funds. for people in san francisco, it means a $10 billion loss. in san francisco, we have a very brief high acuity raid leaving consumers in the lurch. primarily, with disclosure on december 1, we were concerned that there was no transition plan. that they would be in danger of being stuck at home, without adequate health care,

transportation, or the importance of civilization that they would be getting. so, we are proposing to spend approximately $3.4 million to keep these services going while we figure out a transition plan. primarily, what we're doing is putting together an assessment team that would run through the funds. this is something that we have never done before in san francisco. people coming to the adult day health center, they get assessed if they qualify for adult day health. hoping that some of the people could be going into alternative programs to care for the elderly and has a separate funding extremes. the other thing that we are

hoping is that some of those folks will go into a dull day care, if they need, without a higher level provisions that they can switch into. programs that are actually lower cost. we are looking to put together an assessment team to assess the adult day health, moving into lower cost programs. keeping the adult day centers open, to try to work with that the state to figure out if there is a way to drive down the federal match and working with those health officials to pay for some of this. we are asking for this to help us by some time. we realize that in seven months there will be a core group of people who need an analog to the service that we have. we have not had time to have

adequate conversations about the health plan with the state and ask about what might be possible. supervisor chu: i know that one quick question i have is that the cut we are expecting in the local area is from capital and that local establishing funding. i wonder, if we were to allocate this $3.4 million, would we be able to receive any kind of federal matching? >> what the state did when they cut this, they cut it out of the health plan. likely not. we are hoping that there are conversations going on at the state with another drawdown on the federal funds. these are folks who are eligible for services. certainly, they are eligible for health care and they are getting it in one place, of which you

would think would be more expensive to get those in different ways. that is what we are going to be doing over the next few months. supervisor? supervisor mirkarimi: was a the state that initiated these cuts? it seems very drastic to me in the way that it denies us the federal match. the way that i interpreted how this came, it could have been executed in another manner. is that not correct? >> i would agree with that. supervisor mirkarimi: i have not heard any analysis as to why the state did it this way. >> obviously, the state is looking for ways to cut services. particularly in southern california. there has been a lot of talk of

fraud by an adult day health. we know that we have a very high acuity level and we believe that they really need those services. in other parts of the state, sometimes people have not felt that strongly about the need for this service. the state is also looking at ways to push metical's folks into managed care. that is something that we will see with a lot of services for the people that we serve. supervisor chu: but -- supervisor mirkarimi: the population that benefits from these adult daycare centers in san francisco is what, approximately? >> between 1215 hundred right now. supervisor mirkarimi: per day? >> that is the total census. supervisor mirkarimi: it seems

loath to leave. i have visited many. i am surprised. >> -- it seems to me. i have visited many. i am surprised. i noticed that some of the features of adult day care, there are people on staff, volunteers on staff, that actually help these seniors. people without the ability to help manage their own funds, their own personal finances. without having to resort to a public guardian, this sort of service center seems like it really helps people maintain a certain level of independent lifestyle, if they need to.

>> money management programs. right. bayview hunters point, and i think some of the others, have this. helping people to pay their bills. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it is an invaluable service. with the aging population of san francisco, this is a complete step in the wrong direction. i wholeheartedly support this move today. supervisor chu: thank you. another question. can you explain and break out the usage of the 3.4? >> sure. basically, this is somewhat arbitrary, but we were looking at some of the senate bill totals for each year.