was a deferred maintenance account that is getting transferred to the mta as part of this for operational expenses; is that correct? >> supervisors, steve lee. yes. if this lease is approved, the japan center garage corporation has accumulated $2 million in their capital improvement fund which they would transfer to the mta for mta operations. >> i'm just wondering how to think about it kind of capital improvement account going towards operational expenses. that to me is one pool that's not fit for the other pool of money and i'm just trying to get an understanding of how you guys are thinking about this that and why it's appropriate. >> well, the garage itself, in terms of operations and the operating budget and the capital account, for any amounts that exceed their capital limit of $2 million automatically flows to the mta as net income. so, this in a sense would also be considered overflow that would support mta. so, all their net income comes

to sfmta. >> is there no deferred maintenance here and other garages that it would be more appropriately used for? >> well, that's what this bond issuance is for, in terms of an mta wide, so we can address concerns related to all the garages, not just japan center. or sutter stockton. so, that is our main concern, is that knowing that not only this garage needs improvements, but city-wide as well. >> i understand that, but that seems to me like you're taking bond money, then, and transferring it through a wheel to operational expenses. to the budget analyst analyst. >> mr. chair, as we understand it, the bonds that have been issued are taking care of their capital improvement needs. * so, this in effect winds up as surplus and can be transferred for operating expenditures to the mta. so, they're not short changing their capital needs as we understand it. >> thank you, i appreciate that. i guess my question is but by

issuing the debt, you say you're not short changing the capital needs, but tame point in time you're [speaker not understood] and you're issuing bonds against it for operational expenses. you're floating bonds to float for operational expenses which we should not be doing. >> you're correct in that sense. >> well, our mta operating budget also supports the repayment of the bonds itself. for garage operations in terms of the capital improvements, we would be doing the same amount of work there as well in term of what would be available. >> okay. thanks. and to mr. reiskin, just one more question. obviously, and i absolutely understand this board and number of restaurant owners that we've gone through quite a bit and love the restaurants and people are involved in the community have influence and i think that's terrific from a neighborhood input. i can see the value there.

why not, though, have just a board, maybe not a advisory board, but a board of directors on the garage itself, but not paying the nonprofit organization a few hundred thousand dollars? you'd still have that in place, you can have all the community input you want, but not have -- one way to look at us siphoning off a few hundred thousand dollars to pay for a manager or so forth, when you can still have that board involvement, local merchant involvement, but you're just not paying folks. >> as i mentioned before, that's possible to do. that's an arrangement that we have elsewhere. it would really i think remove the board one step from directly overseeing the individuals who are managing the garage. i think you heard from the speaker who spoke on behalf of the sun dance. they have some day-to-day operational things where their ability to deal directly like that allows them to facilitate changes they need or operational things that they

need in support of events or businesses or other activities. so, it's absolutely possible that we could operate that way. i think that the way that these two corporations have been acting and providing that direct oversight of the garage operator gives them a closer connection to the operations of the garage that bring the values that the public speakers referenced. >> okay. supervisor avalos. >> thank you, chair farrell. i have a lot of difficulty just trying to figure out what material benefits there are for the community from these nonprofit organizations. it seems like there's a benefit for people who run the nonprofit organization to be able to see that the garage can work in their favor. these garages are public garages. therefore, everyone in the public can be able to use and be able to access. and to me it doesn't mach a lot of sense that we're making decisions or the nonprofit is making decisionses about how these garages can benefit the

businesses themselves. really people are trying to find parking close to perhaps use these businesses. i just haven't really heard anything to me that shows that there is a real material benefit. people are talking about community. people talk about input and decision making ability. but i don't hear anything specific about what that is. i don't feel comfortable approving what seems to be just a very unquantified activity of the nonprofit does. and we had decisions like this all the time to come before us. i think a majority of our decisions, we decide we're not going to be able to fund [speaker not understood] perhaps a superfluous type of activities. so, i don't feel comfortable supporting these leases. but i'm willing to send this to the full board without recommendation so the board can take a whack at it. i'm okay with that. it's not a whole lot of money.

me personally, it's not something i feel comfortable with. >> thank you. last question. we now have a bit of -- i think you said earlier, but a bit of inconsistency how we're dealing with some leases and how we're deal with others with nonprofits involved. could you talk a little bit more about that, kind of the policy and rationale behind it, how the mta thinks about that? if we terminate the lease yesterday for the fillmore farrell garage, and now we're coming forward approving these leases again. can you talk about the difference? >> yes. each garage and the corporations have evolved differently over time. [speaker not understood]. they serve very neighborhood specific needs. so, we do have different ways that we're and they're really suited to the needs and history and the context of the individual neighborhoods that they're serving. and what we don't think is necessarily a need for a one

size fits all model like we do in many areas of the transportation system. * these are taylored somewhat to the specific needs and desires of each community. * >> okay. supervisor mar? >> yeah, i just wanted to respond to my colleague's great questions and points. but again, move back to the history and context of -- i'm not so sure about the sutter stockton garage and the nonprofit that runs it, but i just know that for the japan center nonprofit and japantown in general, that there is a sentiment that reverend townsend mentioned that way back in the western addition, the fillmore district and japantown felt devastated by the redevelopment of the '50s and '60s that the building of the garage and even the so-called redevelopment of the area meant that we created nonprofits and community based institutions whether strong voices from merchants, but also residents as well. and i do feel that the strong

community relations built not just from the newer businesses like the kabuki theater, and i'm really happy that they've continued the supportive community-based events. but i think the nonprofit has been a key player in ensuring that the ethnic community in japantown but also the connection with the african-american and fillmore district are maintained. and you can't get that done by an mta running a garage. so, there's that historic context, but also those i think tangible benefits that many of the speakers brought up as well and that's why i strongly support japantown and [speaker not understood] comes up in chinatown a little later, that's another one that has a similar history, but not exactly the same. but i think for the did evastation of redevelopment and japantown community having to rebuild itself and the african-american and fillmore district building those ties that that's why this is such an important lease that we continue as a nonprofit and a community-based partnership.

>> thank you, supervisor mar. and i think to distinguish portsmouth, some of the members of that nonprofit agency actually work in the garage itself. so that is different. here to me this seems to be a middleman thing. i appreciate the history and involvement. my question is why are we paying a few hundred thousand dollars. we can still a have a board, everybody involved, ties to the african-american and japantown. i appreciate that, i grew up in the fillmore district but i don't see why we're spending a few hundred thousand dollars to pay for this. that to me doesn't make sense. but i associate myself with supervisor avalos' comments. i am uncomfortable right now with this. but what i would suggest is we move this forward to the full board without recommendation. we can deal with it there. to members of the japantown board and so forth, i'm happy, i would love to meet with you guys to understand more about the rationale behind this. i think the community involvement is absolutely terrific and it would be great if our more chartctiontionv were more involved with the

garages in our neighborhood and merchant requestor doors. * i agree with that. the reason we're paying a few hundred thousand dollars doesn't make sense to me. let me make a motion to send this forward to the full board without recommendation. i apologize. we have a few amendments. first we have a few technical amendments we'd like to make. they have been circulated for item number 4. make a motion to approve those amendments. >> second. >> okay. we can do that without opposition. >> [speaker not understood]. >> we're going to do 5 afterwards. we haven't called 5 yet. motion to forward item number 4 to the board without recommendation. and we can do that without opposition. >> item number 4 is referred without recommendation as amended. >> thank you very much, mr. clerk. please call item number 5. >> item number 5, resolution approving a lease agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the city of san francisco uptown parking corporation for the sutter stockton public parking garage, for an annual base rent of $1 plus surplus, with an initial term of 10 years with two

five-year options. >> thank you. mr. reiskin, welcome back. >> thank you. i actually thought the clerk previously called 5 and i was speaking to both. and i think there were two public speakers who were speaking for the uptown. so, i have nothing more to add. happy to answer if there are other questions. >> okay. can you distinguish, then, between the community of japantown which seems to me very neighborhood centric and so forth, certainly within a very rich ethnic community within our city compared to sutter stockton, seems to be very different in terms of core of downtown. maybe distinguish between the features there. >> yeah. clearly the union town, union square area and this corporation manages as i said both sutter stockton and union square garages, the latter on behalf of the recreational park department. they are arguably more dependent on the garages in terms of the neighborhood commerce that they serve. there's less street parking in

the area, there's more congestion in the area and as the speakers referenced, it's business leaders small and large in the general greater union square area that are serving on this board to make sure that the operations of these garages serve that neighborhood and it's not serving the businesses of the neighborhood. it's serving everybody who uses the neighborhood. >> okay. colleagues, any questions? okay, thank you, mr. reiskin, appreciate it. to the budget and legislative analyst? >> mr. chairman, committee, we consider this to be a policy matter for the board. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions for the bla? okay, at this point i'd like to open it up to public comment. any members wish to comment on item number 5. seeing none, public comment is closed. at this point, colleagues, i actually suggest we do the same thing we did with item number 4, forward this to the full board without recommendation. we can deal with it at the full board.

>> i'll move that. >> okay. mr. clerk, do we have the same -- >> the same amendment. >> we have a few same technical amendments with item number 5. so first i'd like to make a motion to approve these items to item number a. -- 5. we can do that without opposition. and we have a motion to move item number 5 to the full board without recommendation. >> same position. >> we can do that. thank you. please call item number 1. >> item number 1, resolution authorizing the police department to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $200,000 from the california emergency management agency for the anti-human trafficking task force program for the period of october 1, 2012 through september 30, 2013. >> thank you very much. and ms. gannet? >> yes. >> all right, thank you very much for being here. >> good morning, supervisors. we're here to request your approval on a grant, 200,000, for anti-human traffickinging. this is the continuation of a

grant we had in the prior year. * the grant budget supports personnel on the police department of about 150,000 of nonprofit that we partner with for about 50 and some small operational needs for about $3,000. i'm happy to answer any questions on the grant. >> colleagues, any questions? thanks, appreciate it. all right. at this point i'd like to open up to public comment. if there are any members of the public who wish to comment on item number 1? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> motion to [speaker not understood]. >> second. >> okay, motion to move aye number 1 with full recommendation to the full board of supervisors. we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2 in >> item number 2, resolution approving the boarding area "f" specialty store lease between avila retail development and management, llc, and the city and county of san francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, for a seven-year term with a minimum annual guarantee of $162,000. : *

>> thank you. we have ms. wiener from the airport. >> yes, member of the committee, cathy widener with the san francisco airport. the airport is seeking your approval for a new seven-year retail lease with avila retail development for 9 47 square foot specialty retail store in terminal 3. the proposed lease is the result of a competitive request for proposals process with avila receiving the highest point of the three companies that responded to the rfp. avila will pay the airport either a minimum annual guarantee of $162,000 a year or a percentage rent formula based on their gross revenues, whichever is greater. airport staff does estimate that annual sales for this location will be in the amount of $1,580,000 a year. this will result in avila

paying the percentage rent formula instead of the mag, estimated at $223,000 a year or $60,000 a year more than the proposed minimum guarantee. the proposed resolution does require retroactivity to january 1st. we've had some construction and some refurbishment activity going on in terminal 3 and there were four leases that were part of the same time process rfp, two of which require board approval. this is one, you'll see another in a couple weeks with host. we just needed to have a little extra time to finalize the exact location before we could get signed leases to ask for your approval. so, i do apologize for that. i'd be happy to answer any questions you might have and the budget analyst office does recommend approval. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? airport? okay, thank you very much. to the budget legislative

analyst. >> [speaker not understood] the airport is now projecting percentage rent on the first year which would result in about $61,000 more than the minimum annual guarantee of $162,000. we recommend that you amend this resolution to provide for retroactive approval. we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> thank you very much. colleagues, are there any questions? okay. seeing none, at this point i'd like to open up to public comment. any members of the public that wish to comment on item number 2, please step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i'll move the amendments recommended by the budget analyst. >> okay. we have an amendment -- a motion to approve the amendments to make this retroactive to january 1st. we can do that without opposition. and we have a motion to move this forward -- >> so moved. >> to the full board with recommendation. we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 3?

>> item number 3, resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into the seventh amendment between the city and xtech (part of the technology store procurement vehicle) in which the amendment shall increase the contract amount from $60,490,000 to $90,580,000 for the period of january 1, 2009, through december 31, 2013. >> thank you very much. mr. jones? >> good morning, supervisors. bill jones, office of contract administration purchasing. i'm here today, this resolution requests your consideration to approve the [speaker not understood] contract amendment to xtech, one of the technology store vendors for it services and products, and the increase is from 60,490,000 to 90,580,000, an increase of 30,0 90,000 from the period january 1st, 2009 through december 31st, 2013.

a short background. the technology store is made up of contracts to provide departments with pre-qualified vendors that provide a wide range of it services and products at competitive prices and in a timely manner. the vendors compete for business within the technology store. the vendors were selected through a competitive process and the original contracts were approved by the board of supervisors by resolution in december 2008. the contract terms started january 1st, 2009, and was for three years with two one-year options to extend. both options to extend have been exercised and the current term end december 31st, 2013. oca calculated the requested increase that we're requesting on the average expenditures from january through november 2012 and extrapolated those to the end of the contract term,

included a two-month contingency and an allowance for ongoing projects. this is a requirements contract meaning that it is available to city departments on an as-needed basis. the contract value is an administrative cap and it is not a commitment to the city to spend that amount. departments may order from any of the technology store vendors using department funds that have been approved and the board of supervisors annual budgetary process and which is certified by the controller. oca started a process to develop a new competitive solicitation to award new contracts to replace these contracts prior to them when they expire on december 31st, 2013. given the estimated contract values, oc would -- oca would be returning to the board after that solicitation to request

your approval for new contracts over 10 million. i would be glad to respond to questions. >> colleagues, any questions? actually, can i just ask, mr. jones, upping the cap $30 million, what are the additional tech expenses that you anticipate just on a bigger level that will come in? so, it looks like we may exceed the limit by march 2013. what are some examples that these large tech expenses that may be coming through the rest of the year? >> specifically on some of the allowances with you include, there are a number of ongoing large projects that were just started and the departments have not encumbered all of the funds that they anticipate to it. that is about 15 million. there is one with the treasurer tax collector in updating the bills and payments and calculations for that department. there is a replacement system

for the port for their asset management system. there is an online endorsing system for the puc. there is also for puc an upgrading of their share point, for collaboration with work flow capabilitieses and enhancement. and lastly, there is a large puc project for -- to measure their revenue generating services for water and power, and track payments for products and services. * >> thank you for being so thorough. thank you. >> thank you so much. all right. thank you very much. appreciate it. to the budget and legislative analyst? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, we have reviewed the oca's estimates to compute to this 30 plus million dollars. we believe these estimates are reasonable and we recommend that you approve these proposed

resolution. >> thank you. any questions? okay. at this point i'd like to open up to public comment. if there are any members of the public that would like to speak, please step forward. public comment is closed. >> i'll move recommendation, the recommendation. >> second. >> okay, we can move item number 3 to the full board with recommendation. we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 6? >> item number 6, ordinance appropriating $7,169,695 of state revenue loss and $1,800,000 of prior year designated reserves of the children and families commission to fund the de-appropriation of state revenue of $534,406 at the department of public health, and $580,300 at the human services agency, and appropriating uses of $50,000 to the department of juvenile probation, $2,424,528 to the department of public health, $3,180,461 to the human services agency, $400,000 to the art commission, and $1,800,000 to the children and families commission in fiscal year 2012-2013.

>> thank you. we have ms. howard here from our mayor's office of budget. >> good afternoon, supervisors, kate howard, [speaker not understood]. i'm here before you to approve an event over the supplemental that's before you appropriating fund from our state revenue lost reserve to a variety of programs that were reduced in the governor's budget last year. i also have with me staff from the human services agency, the department of aging adult services, juvenile probation, the department of public health, and the arts commission in the event that there are specific questions about any of the appropriations. as you will remember, last year the governor's budget proposed

and it was adopted by the legislature a number of reductions in both local revenues and direct cuts to services that affect the city of san francisco. in anticipation of those cuts, the city appropriated $15 million pending final approval of the budget and so those funds are set aside in the event of state cuts. we are recommending in the supplemental the approval of appropriation and $6.6 million from the state reserve fund. the item before you originally requested $8.97 million, 7.2 was from the general fund. but we will agree with the budget analyst recommendation based on updated information. for departments that are affected, the department of public health 3 million. the human services agency 3.2 million. and then floor amount for the

juvenile probation department and the arts commission. on the health side, this is the reductions are largely -- the effect of new fees that will be affecting the city. so, we now will be paying for -- paying more for patients who are at institutes of mental disease and not the state mental hospital. there are reductions in revenues to the city. at the human services agency, the reductions here would not have historically hit the city's budget. these are policy choices certainly for the mayor and the board to make. the state reduced direct support to adult day health centers as well as title 5 child care programs. and those are not services that the city has historically funded, but the supplemental does recommend backfilling those services.

$2.8 million for title 5 child care cuts and $400,000 for retroactive rate reduction for adult day health as a one-time support during a time of transition for those agencies. overall the city's child care system is experiencing a $5.9 million cut which the supplemental would support $2.8 million of, and the human services agency was able to absorb some of those cuts within their existing budget, as is the first five commission. our other departments, we have some new fees that are affecting the juvenile probation commission when we send youth in the courts, send youth to the state california youth administration, department of juvenile justice. so, we expect that will cost us about $50,000. and then as part of the state's

solution of redevelopment, one of the com poets of that was that agreements between city agencies and redevelopment agencies were not binding contractual agreements. our redevelopment agency made a number of commitments over the years to support funding for the bayview opera house, and that has not been able to be sustained. and, so, in order to keep that project moving we're recommending funding for that project as well. you can see the last point here. [speaker not understood] commission does have within their existing reserves sufficient funds to support child care programs within the existing budget. as i mentioned, we are in support of the budget analyst recommendations. happy to answer any questions or to ask my colleagues to do the same. >> supervisor avalos. >> just a quick question about the bayview opera house. didn't we approve funding for that last year as well to complete renovation? and how is it that -- i didn't

expect there was going to be bite at the apple for more funding for that. >> so, that project has had a number of different sources of funding over time. there has been a general fund commitment to the project. this was one element of the funding plan which has not -- has become not available any more. but overall the project has a much larger budget than $400,000, and this piece of it is a critical piece. it is also connected -- there is funding from the general fund. there is funding from the redevelopment agency. there is also a significant amount of work being done by the municipal transportation agency, for transportation improvements around the bayview opera house. and all of those pieces together are contributing to that project. >> i support the funding. i'd just like to see overall maybe a budget of like where