supervisor chu: welcome to the regular meeting of the budget and finance subcommittee. i'm joined by supervisor avalos. supervisor kim will be joining us shortly. as many of you may recall, this is a subcommittee meeting that was recessed from wednesday. there was an error from the "san francisco chronicle" where they had failed to publish the meeting information, and because of that, we had to be noticed the meeting for today at 3:30. again, this is a recess meeting picking up at 3:00 may 30, 1911. do you have announcements?

>> yes, please silence cell phones and electronic devices. -- this is a recessed meeting picking up at 3:30 may 11, 2011. >> item 1, resolution authorizing the department of emergency management to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $125,000 from california volunteers to recruit and train disaster corps volunteers. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm with the department of emergency management, and then joined by a legion of from the san francisco fire department. the item before you is an accept and expend for $125,000, for a program called california volunteers, which is a state agency. the program called the disaster core, which was created by the

state of california to provide training to folks in the community to help to provide for disaster response. somewhat similar to the nert program accept it takes it above and beyond with additional levels of training. members of the disaster core learn cpr, first-aid, incident command system. they get an fbi background check, and it allows them to provide a higher level of response both in sentences, and potentially to be deployed in neighboring communities following a major disaster. the grant -- the original grant that was received by the city funded recruitment and training for 250 volunteers. this grant renews the program, allows us to continue recruiting volunteers and continued trading of those volunteers. the grant will allow the city to continue to employ one volunteer coordinator to assist at the san francisco fire department. they are the coordinator for this program.

they also will serve in the emergency operations center to coordinate other volunteer resources during a disaster, which will be very important to the city. the grant creates no new positions but continues funding and existing position, and it requires no match from the city. and having to answer any questions you may have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. in terms of the nert program versus what would be accomplished through this grant, how would they be different? >> the disaster program is a specific program that the state created. san francisco was the only county chosen by the state to pilot this program. it is an advanced level of training. i am a nert graduate, and i believe some of you are as well. it teaches basic ways to search a building, to clear it following a disaster. what trainee's get in this program is cpr. they get a background check. they also get the incident

command system, which is the basic way we organize ourselves for that fire or police officers organize themselves at the scene of an incident, so it is several components of training that are of a higher level than what is currently offered. supervisor chu: great. thank you. if there are no questions, i believe we do not have a budget analyst report, so i will open the item for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? we have a motion to send the item forward as a committee report, and we had a second, so we will do that without objection. thank you very much. >> this item will be recommended as a committee report to the may 15 board of supervisors meeting. item two, resolution approving the expedited travel service lease between alclear llc and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the san francisco airport. the air force is seeking your approval of a new lease with alclear llc for approximately 700 square feet at seven checkpoints throughout the airport terminal. this contract will initiate an expedited traveler program that provides registered traveler background checks for passengers to receive expedited security screening at the checkpoints. the transportation security administration implemented a registered traveler pilot program in 2005 where private companies were permitted to charge a fee to prescreen passengers in order to expedite their movement through the checkpoints. 20 airports, including sfo, participated in the pilot project, but the service has not existed since 2009.

the currently proposed three- year lease carries oen three- year option to extend -- carries one three-year option to extend. the cost to enroll in a program is $179 per individual membership, and the cost goes down per person for a family membership or for the business membership, depending on the number of registered travelers. alclear provides expedited traveler services at denver and orlando airport, and based on current membership figures, the project the red payable will be in the amount of approximately $2.8 million over the initial three-year term of the lease. this lease is the result of an rpf -- rfp with two proposals being submitted, and alclear receiving the highest score. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor chu: thank you very

much. what will go to the budget analyst report? >> i will only add that we did also calculate what the revenues of the airport would be. we were not certain that they would get the higher revenue comes over the three-year term, our estimate puts revenues at the airport at $3 million, and we do recommend approval. supervisor chu: thank you very much. if there are no questions from the committee, when i open this up to public comment? are the members of the public who wish to speak on item two? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send the item for with recommendation as a committee report? we do have a motion and can do that without objection. thank you. item three please. >> that would be as a committee report? supervisor chu: as a committee report to may 15. >> item 3, resolution approving the luggage cart lease an operating agreement between smarte carte inc. any city and

county of san francisco acting by and through its airports commission. supervisor chu: thank you. >> the second airport item before you today is for a new luggage cart lease with smarte carte. it carries two pieces, the first being the self-service luggage cart rentals in the terminals where they provide at least 4500 luggage carts for rent to passengers throughout the various terminals at a cost of $5 per card -- cart. this generates a bit with a minimum annual guarantee of $600,000 a year or 25% of gross revenue, which ever is greater. a second component is the customs program, where smarte carte and therefore provide a list 5000 luggage carts free of charge for arriving international passengers

throughout the customs area of our international terminal. a cost to the airport to provide this customer service is $2.3 million per year or $1.20 per card use, whichever is less. based on the estimated usage over the initial five-year term of the lease, airport staff projects that smarte carte will pay on the 25% of revenue formula and in turn, the airport will pay them on the $1.20 per cart formula for the free cards in the customs area appeared essentially, we pay the net between the two, which is the airport paying approximately $7.3 million to provide the free cards over the entire term of the lease. this lease is the result of a competitive request for proposal process as well with smarte carte being the only proposal

appear the budget analyst does recommend approval but makes a resolution to amend the resolution to include eight not to exceed amount over the initial term of the lease, which airports that supports. i would be happy to answer any questions. supervisor chu: thank you for that theory to the budget analyst. >> we are recommended amending the proposed resolution to create and not to exceed amount of $9.4 million. that is the difference between the management that smarte carte would pay, and we recommend approval as amended. supervisor chu: thank you very much. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. just a question to the clerk with regards to this item, since we amended it, do you need the department to submit new

legislation to you, or are you able to make the changes? >> i request that the department said that the revised legislation to me by monday at noon. supervisor chu: thank you very much. can we take the recommendation? supervisor avalos: move forward as a committee report. supervisor chu: we have a motion to accept the amendment put forward to include a not to exceed amount and to send the item forward as amended as a committee report for may 15, and we will do that without objection. to the apartment, if you could submit legislation to our car. >> absolutely. -- to the department. >> item four, resolution authorizing the lease of approximately 11,700 square feet at the 230 golden gate avenue with 220 golden gate clinic elsie for the department of public health for use as a health clinic. supervisor chu: thank you. on this item, we have john

updike from real estate. >> good afternoon. acting director of real estate. the item before you is a first for lease at 230 golden gate avenue for the tenderloin primary care and wellness center. this is really all about creating some efficiencies within the department of public health and how they deliver clinic care. once restructuring both this facility and two other facilities, the estimate is that almost 1000 patients per year can be served with primary care through this facility. the lease itself i will speak to. i am joined today by mark, who will give you any particular details about operations, should you have questions. the lease is fairly straightforward. as i say, it is about 11,700 square feet on the first floor of this mixed use development. under construction now is a former ymca. the lease rate is $12 a square foot per year. it is a 10-year initial term

with five five-year options. those options and renewal process are set forth through a consumer price index adjustment, so that means essentially we are gaining control of this asset for a 35-year period. we did look at if it were physically possible to acquire the site, even though it is not an option. we did look at the numbers and found that this is actually a more intelligent fiscal decision to lease the property because of the rate that we have been able to negotiate. this is about one-third of the market rate per hour analysis at $12 a foot. overall, this is an $84 million renovation of this former property, and includes the 170- something supported housing units above in this first floor development.

and then, as i mentioned, dph will be restructuring how they deliver services and moving some elements out of the clinic, as well as a facility at 23480 street, once the project is completed and ready for occupancy. the budget analyst report notes there are additional costs be on the base rate we pay. those are for janitorial, security, and utilities, and it is outlined in the budget analyst report. happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor chu: just to clarify, it sounds like the rate that is part of this contract is you believe 1/3 of what the going rate for comparable space would be at this time. >> that is correct. >> looking at the rate in comparison to potentially an option to purchase, it made more sense to continue to rent, however, even an option to purchase is not truly there. >> even though it is physically possible, we do not think it is fiscally prudent. supervisor chu: can i ask mark to speak about the program at a

component of this and what plans are with regards to movement of your operations? i guess, part of it from tom woodell and eddy street. >> this to me seems like another of those only in san francisco project. it is a great overall project that includes 172 units of new support of housing for the direct access to housing program for the health department, and given the former site and this large commercial space that existed on the ground floor, it really lend itself to a new state of the art health clinic, which is only going to really help us provide health services to the tenants above as well as many of the other folks in support of housing and homeless people we currently serve. we have been looking to find a more adequate site for these services for quite a long time. it is pretty well known that the health plan is very impacted.

it is on 50 it street in the alley behind 101 grove, and it never was meant for a clinic, and it has a postage stamp size waiting room. it is very uncomfortable for clinic -- clients. it is actually not the safest space for clients and staff in general, just given the nature of what that space is. and then the clinic known as the housing and urban health clinic is sort of sandwiched into a commercial space of a master least -- leased sro. they do not lend themselves to modern primary care and all the things we need to do to be a more efficient deliver of health-care services, and the marriage between the housing and health space is just really advantageous to us. supervisor chu: can you speak to what will happen at the other sites? will you continue to operate at

toom wood -- tom woodell? >> we are going to keep it. it is in the city-owned building. our plan is to separate out the primary care services that are there from the urgent care services. right now, in addition to a very busy primary care clinic, it also serves the urgent care, which is drop-in services for homeless people, and the two of those together is fairly untenable in terms of the nature of the traffic and so forth, so what we plan to do is take the primary care services and move that over to the new site and rationalize and kind of improve the ability of ourselves to provide urgent care. that will stay there. in terms of the 23480 street site, we want to hold onto that space. it is part of the overall master lease. it is essentially a long corridor that is in that building, and we want to allow

the support services that we provide in the 90 units of up to sort of expand into that area and have some private counseling space and so forth, which they do not have currently next door in their lobby, essentially. supervisor chu: with regards to the new expense, roughly about $200,000, actually with utilities, it is a little bit more than that. is this included in your budget? >> yes. it is budgeted this year for the six months that the project will operate. it is going to open in january, and we will annualize it next year. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> at this clinic, our estimate is in the first year, dph tells us they plan to include it in the budget.

these are general fund costs. we estimate the cost to the general fund will be $3.7 million. we consider this to be a policy matter for the board because it does commit to new general fund costs. supervisor chu: thank you. in year one, the expectation is you are budgeting half a year worth of rent and utilities, given a january 1 start, and in year two, and to will be a 12- month operation, correct? >> absolutely. supervisor chu: are you expecting an increase in clients? are you expecting to be able to draw down additional funds from federal health care reform reimbursements? can you speak to that quickly? >> we expect to add about another 1000 and duplicated clients with the efficiencies of having this clinical laid out in the way it is in these new exam rooms. with health-care reform, more of those people will be insured,

so probably 1000 on duplicated clients represents about 6000 health care and counters because our clients are seen by their doctor more often than a regular private practice, so, yes, it will draw down more medical revenues. >> and sorry, what did you say -- 6000? >> client encounters appear our clientele seen -- tend to be seen 6 to 10 times a year compared to 0.5 to 1. supervisor chu: is the expectation that it provided more care that you would not have as many counters? do you expect to be able to reduce the number of encounters? >> perhaps. we hope to gain efficiencies by separating out the urgent care