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 to the hen house. >> thank you. >> hi. >> i'm concerned about the

impacts on the voters, the economy and the tenants. i actually went to that committee to see what was going on after hear something reports about problems there. i made a couple of visits and i did not like what i saw. i think i heard a lot of testimony this afternoon about things getting swept under the rug and you are hearing a little bit of that carpet being pulled up right now and we're seeing reports about some problems there. i think it's not the unusual expiring of sunset and committees. you are starting to see there are issues here and like tony and the other speakers, i think you are faced with a bit of a problem in that have you two choices. one choice is to do something dramatic, like say, no this is not the time we're going to extend this committee. we're going to slow it down. and maybe reconstitute it and take a look at what we're doing and the other possibility is

that because the function may be mandated by law, and we really do want to have that oversight work well, you might have to really take a look at the functioning of that committee. everyone agrees that the oversight is huge. there is billions of dollars at stake. it impacts the entire economy and that is one of the reasons that i think the problems are persisting. the other thing that is going on it's in the qwon connecticut context of the state mandate and the oversight that was intended from what i personally saw it's not functioning it's should. thank you. [speaker not understood] i serve on the puc citizen

advisory committee. i did want to speak in support of an extension. i'm not sure if this is the right amount of time, if it should be more or less. i'm happy to work with supervisor farrell and others to look at things that we could tweak about the composition or the reporting, so that it is more effective. i have heard a number of concerns over time about whether it's being too -- no effective enough -- no enough -- we certainly have a general obligation bond oversight committee and we have bond oversight at the city college. so we have a more tradition of bond oversight than in the past. if this is not extended my understanding is that there would be effectively no oversight of the literally billions of dollars of [pwo-pbts/]s bonds that the

puc has. so i would just offer those comments. on the legislation itself, sorry i did read it online 9-10, there there is no reference to section 1. there are section 2 and 3. unless you have any questions, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> through the chair to our city attorney real quick. does that make sense to have that in there, section 1? >> yes. >> we have it online? >> right under "be it

ordained." >> can i take time to answer the question why we put 2013 into the legislation? soly so i will give you an honest answer. i was the economist on it and the sf puc said give us a plan and we'll >> instructor:

>> instructor: so we picked 2013 for a reason, because state law, bay area water conservancy passed ab 1823 that said you must spend 50% of the money by 2010. 1 only% i hope you will take supervisor hall's advice and take the whole committee under advisement. think about bringing it back to the board of supervisors and

make sure they fill with positions of people dedicated to their jobs. if you have any questions. >> seeing no questions. thank you very much there are no questions from the committee [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed [ gavel ] supervisor farrell. >> thank you, chair kim and thank you to the member oz came to speak, both in favor and raising questions and supervisor tony hall again thank you for being here and credit for you to the vision back in 2002. i think we have had heard some concerns about the committee for sure. and i have heard them before. at the same point in time we do

have billions of dollars that are getting funneled through in terms of bonds through our public utilities commission currently, both ones that have been the subject of oversight and those that will be coming up. in my opinion i would rather extend this committee right now for a number of years, acknowledging there are areas of improvement. what we're going to end up january 2nd is no oversight at all and i think to me that is the worst of the two outcomes. i would rather fix it internally, if there are some issues. i think the composition of that committee rests with our rules committee and the board of supervisors and the other items that were talked about rest with the committee itself. we could certainly work and i know they have expressed a willingness to work together on these issues. so i would very much be in favor of supporting it. it's legislationings that i sponsored. but it's a broader thing that i think that the puc would

benefit from the oversight. so with that, i will go ahead and make the motion to forward this to the board with recommendation. >> supervisor campos? >> thank you. thank you, supervisor farrell. i want to thank all of the speakers for coming to this committee. and i especially want to acknowledge supervisor hall. you know, i am definitely in support of having an oversight body that looks at how the money is being spent. i do see the wisdom in what supervisor farrell is saying. with that said, the question that i have is more given that the expiration date is not for another few weeks, i'm

wondering if there is any benefit to at least thinking about ways in which the structure of the committee can be changed now. i worry, when you have a former supervisor, who is the author of the body of this type, who is coming to us and telling us his concerns, i have a worry about moving forward and simply saying that we will extend it and then deal with. it and so i am wondering whether or not we should i maybe at least have a conversation and i don't know if you have had an opportunity to discuss some of the ideas that perhaps supervisor hall has. so that if it needs to be changed, why not just take the time to do that. you know, before it actually goes into effect. if it's not working and i don't have one way saying