and we have mr. wooten here who presented on the shelter monitoring committee. thank you for being here. >> thank you. good afternoon. thanks for having us. matt wooten, vice-chair of the shelter monitoring committee here with ramon, lacayo, the secretary. usually we hand you this report and read it to you. today i would like to do something a little different, if that is okay? i want to take this time to bring to your attention as of november 23rd, all of the seats on the committee will be expiring. sadly a vast majority of the people in their seats will not seek re-appointment. i am one of those people. this means there will be no quorum. and the committee will be ineffective. i bring this to your attention

because i'm hopeful that rules will prioritize appointments beginning in january, especially prioritizing spanish-speaking appointees and providers. this is not to be considered a walkout or show frustration, but simply our terms are ending and we no longer have the time to commit to this. >> mr. wooten, if i could clarify, we don't have staggered terms for the committee members is that correct? >> correct. >> i think perhaps we'll work on amending that. because we certainly understand the incredible time commitment that each of the individuals volunteer and so having everyone come ot at the same time i think we have that addressed through staggered terms. it's certainly a huge commitment and we don't expect everyone to reapplyfor their seats. >> that is one of my points that i wanted to make. so i appreciate that. in addition to the whole board

vacating at once, there are a number of additional concerns that we have. how do we -- the city, maintain a committee of able and committed members? as it stands the committee is all volunteer. the workload as of now are far too labor intensive to be sustained by a volunteer board. so as you just suggested perhaps staggering terms would be an excellent idea. but this is just one issue. the officers have collectively identified a number of issues and large-scale questions, but i believe we're at a point that some changes need to be made. first the committee need goes through some major changes such as do the standards of care continue to make sense at this

time? they did at one time. but it might not make sense anymore and how can we as a committee without teeth enforce standards of care? how can we expect shelters to meet standards of care when they are unfunded? and what is a just penalty for non-compliance? certainly it doesn't make sense to fine somebody for not having enough money. so my purpose again is not to [pr-erpbt/] present frustration, but suggest a change and the committee will need the support of this committee going forward and mr. lacayo would like to say as the only bilingual person -- there are two members now, but i just wanted to say that i know that myself

and the other officer is very proud of the work that we have done and believe we have made small, but significant steps forward. >> good afternoon, as vice-mayor said i'm ramon lacay yo and i was the only spanish-speaker committee member to 10-11 months until last month we have another spanish committee member, mrs. barria, who i believe is here. i wanted to say a statement from my perspective working with the shelter system and the city and county of san francisco, i think the rules committee should prioritize spanish-speaker appointees because the amount of work, like the vice-chair said, is immense. and there is not enough staff in the shelter system. and sometimes we had to help

translating, interpreting and so on and so on. it's true that sometimes we're very strict with the shelters to fulfill the standards of care to be compliant with the standards of care. and recognize the dolores street program who had the right attitude to improve as a shelter and they have a vast majority of spanish speakers and thank you the rules committee for allowing me to serve the community of san francisco. it is very rewarding, challenging work that i think is important. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. lacayo. >> is that it? great. thank you, mr. wooten and i do

appreciate some of your recommendations and the report as we always get them. i do think it would be a good idea to think about ranking our shelters and resource centers by their compliance under the standards of care. and also thinking about how we could have staff conduct the site visits, because i know that is a lot of extra volunteer hours for the shelter monitoring committee. so our office is really committed to working on you, maybe doing amendments that include the staggered terms so we don't have everyone coming offer at the same time. it's a height commitment and we really thank you for your service on the committee. thank you and with that i will open the item to public comment. seeing no public comment -- >> here i am. good afternoon, supervisors, will daily currently serving on

the shelter monitoring committee. i will be resigning and we'll have a mass exodus. i am a sheriff's department client advocate, but i'm here on my late lunch hour today. two words for you, unfunded mandate. it becomes very problematic to legislate things for the shelters and not provide the funding. as i'm sure you are well aware the shelters were flat-funded for many years. it's great that the 2% increase in the supplemental came about this year. however, even with that, i don't know if you are aware, but recently mse south laid off several employees, because they had been eating the additional costs for many

years. i understand the budget situation at the same time and we gave a tremendous tax break for the millions to-be at twitter. we give them a dedicated municipali line which they don't use because they have a private shuttle. so you know, there is some kind of money available, and i strongly feel that if your predecessors mandated this, and it's your responsibility as a rules committee to make sure that the rules are enforced. that it needs to be in the budget every single year, not to have the shelters come begging all the time for these things. one thing in conclusion, i have

spoken with amanda freeh about >> implementing a program for all sheriff's departments to benefit from this. thank you for your time. i will be submitting a resignation letter with more recommendations. thank you. >> thank you and thank you for your service. any other public comment on this item? it's a lack of thought and lack of innovation regarding the committee itself, and i think it's -- when you look at the -- when you consider that jennifer freeden backen and the coalition on homelessness has had an monopoly on the

appointees it goes to show that you the people on these committees have no dream or no vision of how to make these shelter systems better. the other thing too is that they keep talking about unfunded mandate. if they knew the history, or if they were there when that legislation was created and passed, they knew it was unfunded mandate. they knew it right out of box when they were sitting in meetings for 18 months and what makes it worse they are not even talking about how to come up with the stuff that they would need to fulfill it. because i figure you have all of these businesses. you have got all of these organizations. i mean, i'm sure somebody would want to give them something. and like the leftover toilet paper or the blanket sheets or the soap. there is a guy who run as round san francisco and he just drops

off soap. so they are not even thinking about anything innovative. they are not even get paid enough to go to the site visits and that is a problem and i will also throw on top of this is the chair of the shelter monitoring committee, they went to that shelter twice. that is what it looks like. they went to that shelter twice and couldn't even inspect the shelter. so it's really like corruption, a shelter -- a head person for the shelter -- an executive person for the shelter gets on the shelter monitoring committee and then they have this whole thing where you can't even inspect their shelter. >> thank you. is there any other public comment on this item?

seeing none, public comment is closed of the supervisor campos. >> thank you, madame chair and thank you for the presentation. i think that we have to heed the advice given and i look forward to working with supervisor kim's office to see where we're going from here. the way i see it it's not about lack of innovation or willingness or desire and i think we can work together with the existing committee members to see what some of their ideas are and to work with the agency, which also has its own ideas in terms of how we can move forward. i'm certainly committed, supervisor kim, to working with your office to ensure this body not only lives up to the

letter, but also the spirit of what was intended. i want to thank all of the members of the committee for their work. it is in many respects thankless work. a lot of time and energy goes into it and you wouldn't be doing it unless you had the commitment and the passion. and is that is greatly appreciated and i'm especially concerned to make sure that we have members of that committee that reflect the diversity of the city. especially when it comes to being able to address the language needs of certain communities. i think that is very, very important. thank you again for your work and your service. >> thank you. i want to thank mr. wooten and mr. lacay yo for being here today. i think that there is some really good thoughts and suggestions and officer the next two weeks, we'll set up a

meet and include supervisor campos' office as well. we'll prioritize the vacancies and look for spanish speakers, because i know that takes up a significant portion of our shelter community. i heard from folks about the unfunded mandate and there were things put forward in having real reforms in our shelter system. i think there are improvements that have been made, but there continues to be much move more that we can can do. it's important that we have an entire office dedicated essential or specifically for initiatives around homeless with former supervisor dufty. so seeing no further comment

-- i'm sorry, i didn't see you here. >> i have been sitting here all along. >> human services agency? >> right. >> i couldn't see you. >> so we, too at both city departments human servicesion and department of public health would like to give kudos to the shelter monitoring committee. we have worked really hard over the past two years to bring about some continuity and we have really worked well with the committee members and we're glad that you are considering staggering appointments because i think that will really help and we have gone over reports and things that we need to do better and things that they want from us. in november we're going to do a transitional meeting with

outgoing officers in order to make sure that we continue with the continuity of what they have been doing and the types of reports that they have asked of both departments to make sure that we're all on the same line. we do realize in our department that any recommendations that we make in the sheriff's department access work group is going to affect the standards of care, because it's legislated. so we have to be mindful of as we move forward with implementing those recommendations. i just wanted to say that and thank the committee members. >> thank you for being here. we know how closely hsa has been working on this issue. great. seeing no further comment, can we take a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> so playoffed and we can do that without opposition. [ gavel ] >> madame clerk could you please call i. no. 5.

>> item no. 5, ordinance amending the administrative code to extend the sunset date of the public utilities revenue bond oversight committee to january 1, 2018. >> sponsor of that legislation is here, supervisor farrell. >> the revenue bond oversight committee was started by proposition p and i want to acknowledge former supervisor hall here. thank you for being here. monitoring and reports publicly about the public unumprovidents commission expenditure of revenue bond proceeds and there according with proposition p set to expire in 2013, january 1, so just a few months away unless extended by ordinance of the board. right now the puc is expected to complete its water system improvement program in a number of years in september of 2016.

so there are years to go on spending those bonds and it's going to initiate work on its wastewater system improvement program, which will continue beyond 2020 and will include billions of dollars of public expenditures. while i understand people have ideas about the flaws, current oversight is important talking about spending billions in san francisco. i would like to call on kevin chang the chair of the revenue bond oversight committee currently to talk about the committee itself and extending it for a few years. >> my name is kevin chang and in order to oversee all of the billions of dollars, $4.6 billion in order to implement systemwide improvements for water, wastewater and sewer lines for the -- power, sorry

for the city and county for all members of public to be able to examine how the money is being spent and whether it's being spent properly and more importantly this huge capital project will be on-time and onbudget. and this has been the primary focus of the program. as the implementation of these projects, the first eight years

was started around the design of the projects and now we're actually in the middle of all of the implementation in building of all the seats. this is the proper time to actually have the body extended in order to provide the public the assurance and the trust that they need that these funds are well-spent and well-placed thank you. >> colleagues, questions? >> i was wondering in the original proposition date was originally set for 2013? was that just a random date? >> i think the earlier estimates for what the projects will start and when they will end was designed around a ten-year timeframe. as can you imagine they go through a number of municipalities. largely some large projects were stalled due to environmental and community input needs and also the participation number of

government entities in order to ensure that the projects is well-designed reflective and sensitive to the communities that they trav erse. nower that designed barring any other stalls to the project they are anticipated to culminate september, 2016. >> thank you colleagues we'll open up for public comment. supervisor tony hall, thank you for being here today. >> thank you, chair kim and supervisor farrell and supervisor campos, good to see you guys in action doing the city's work. i am former supervisor tony hall and i was the writer and author of prop p that was passed in november of 2002, and

matt gonzalez co-sponsored that. now there was eminent need for the oversight committee because prop e eliminated thevores from weighing in, eliminated the need for voters to approve revenue bonds and we're not talking about hundreds of millions, but we're talking about billions. so the prop p, the revenue bond oversight committee was of eminent importance. that is why it passed overwhelmingly. what was its mission? how revenue bond were managed by the puc and city? how were they going to do this? obviously they had to employ outside agency for outside

audits and what happens is that the mayor at that time, mr. gavin newsom, along with the controller, mr. ed harrington who later became the general manager of the puc undermined the revenue bond oversight committee so they would have complete control over the monies and eliminating public oversight. the proof of the pudding the deck was stacked with staff members from the puc to contract with the city services auditing division of the controller's office. so what happened, the result was the fox was guarding the hen. >> supervisor, if i could ask you a question, so you are able to finish your comments. >> i appreciate it. >> i would like you to explain a little bit more what if you can go through your remarks in terms of what you were trying to say there? >> i don't want to take away from the other people here and

i certainly -- you know exactly what i'm saying. this was a political move to get complete control of those monies without any independent oversight. now i appreciate your effort to extend this committee, but let me be very clear here. this is not the committee i had in mind when i wrote the legislation and, nor is the committee that the board backed, nor is it the committee that the public voted on. this is a different committee. i'm not going to tell you how to vote, because that is your business and i appreciate the complexity of this matter. but please bear in mind that the allusion of oversight sometimes is worse than no oversight. and so to extend this committee which is not really the revenue bond oversight committee, you have an ideal opportunity and this snot a lecture, but you have an ideal opportunity to get this train on the right

track. if you live up to the oath of office that you took, representing the people's interest, now is the time to do it. get this thing back on track with true independent audits of how that money is being managed. i implore you to do that as a former supervisor and have i total trust will you take it that way, if you extend this committee. >> if i may ask, supervisor, do you think that it's possible to have this committee live up to the original intent as currently structured? or are there things that you think need to be changed to make that happen? >> i think that this committee and the board of supervisors has the integrity to take the right way. it could be strengthened so that the public is protected. right now you have the fox guarding the hen house and this has been going on for almost ten years. it's a joke and this is too

important. lisp i haven't been back here since i left the board of supervisors. but i said these people are reasonable and that is why i'm here. it's one of the most important issues that you could be dealing with because it eliminates the money that provides forruption. so really think about it. and again, i appreciate your concern on this. if you do decide to extend it, do it for the right reasons and i know you will. if you are going to terminate it, terminate it and form a committee that does something different. don't let it go on like it is, because it's an abop nation. thank you so much for your time. >> good afternoon i feel i represent the 1.7 million

suburban water customers that are paying the lion's share of the hetch hetchy rebuild. i think it would be prudent to contrary to what supervisor hall just said, i think it would be a good idea to extend the provisions for the following reasons. first of all, the $4.6 billion spent so far, 40% still has to be spent. at least one majority project is experiencing significant coast increases and that project is only 25%. and finally it's involved with the review of the hetch hetchy rebuild and won't be completed until april. if they were allowed to sunset, i think the board of supervisors' wisdom would be questions if there were questions tost city's stewardship of the bonds and the manner in which they are

managed. for these reasons the board should extend the sunset provision least for 2016, which is when the hetch hetchy rebuild is projected to be completed. as provided for in this ordinance. thank you very much. >> thank you. prior to 2002 all revenue bonds had to be approved by the voters. this changed with proposition e. the mayor's infrastructure task force put proposition e on the ballot to provide independent oversight of the vast expenditures then planned by the puc. this committee being the revenue bond oversight committee. this committee has never followed e. it has never hold an outreach meeting, nor entered into a

truly independent contract as mandated by enabling legislation. it's nothing more than a company union and a lap dog for those in the sf puc that need cover for their ineptitude. otherwise it's the fox that is being appointed to guard the hen house. this committee and its sf puc handlers have betrayed the voters. end this charade now. do not lift the sunset and an allusion of oversight is no oversight. tony hall had all right. go back to the drawing board and give us real oversight. don't rationalize that by keeping this cherawaed in place is just allowing the toxes toxes continued access