needed and i think this is >> good morning everyone, and welcome to the it's budget and i think you shoumd the numbers of almost 5 how does of anticipated expenses for this current fiscal year which were denied by mayor's office and brfrdz. so those were what i supplement memory health department i'm

blown away by $49 million. i don't even know what that looks like but clearly that's significant. and my southern is with any supplemental in i'm i'm thinking of priorities that i want to see the city have and i'm thinking that every single time there's a supplemental that takes away from what i want to see deal with some of the issues and challenges and i do know and i'll say this i'm not happy about anyone who brings a supplemental before the board. i've known our public defender since i was a kiddie defended many people's in the community i

live he continues to be gave you about defending people and assessable to people. you don't i know that does - i do think this process has provided me with a lot of clarity why this is necessary and that i mean, i know that in my mind based on my review of all the materials this is something we have to pay for its expenses that are basically - those expenses i guess if - from my understanding if we don't approve this it's about potential layoffs and potential drastically change to the department. i'm not a fan of subpoena

members of the jury, i think this is something we're obliged to do to continue the service of the department. from any prospective i don't want to see any changes as it relates to investigators but again, i'm not really happy that it's being dealt with in this way. i don't believe it's not fair to ask a department head to sign a document that clearly they're going to run into a problem like this. the department of public health walked into a position thinking that they were going to be facing a situation this year. we can't keep doing business the

same way but as i said when i look at what's necessary to move forward in this department we have to do this as a board. i agree with supervisor farrell in that someways departments are all looking at this a say well, if that's the case i'm going to exceed my budget and ask for a supplemental i want to put out a warning to all department heads this is not something that should be common place. the budget is coming up we need to make sure that steps are being taken in each and every one of these departments we don't get faced with a

significant number of supplemental requests we get in the coming years. that's my $0.02 and i believe we'll be moving forward and thank you. i do agree with part of what was said specifically about you and the office and this is one of the best defers office in the country. i know a lot of people in the office and i know i'm going to catch a lot of flack. you're the only department head that's hanging around here at 3:00 a.m. and other departments are not doing that so my criticism has nothing to do with the professionalism for which you run the department.

i think you have a failure of memory there was one time you did get sued and i defended you. so i have nothing but respect for this office we do have a difference of opinion here. i respect your position. we're expecting as i said 3 attorneys who are going to be retiring we'll be in a much better position next year but again, this is a problem we need to fix and if we don't fix it believe me i'll be back here again and i don't want to do

that >> i want to act on supervisors wiener's comment. i want to marry you know how much respect i have for you. and this is as i've expressed more of a budget issue >> so colleagues unless there are any other comments are questions do we have motions? at this point we'll take public comment. before we take public comment mr. rose your report >> good evening chairman. i think the committee as thoroughly examined this issue

i'll be brief in our report on page 4 we have 5 positions or 4 for example t e positions authorized by the board. on page 4 we believe that the projected fiscal year shortfall of 4 hundred and 66 thousand 8 hundred salaries step increases 4 thousand 9 in premium pay and other payments and one hundred and 527 for temporary salaries should be approved for a totals of 895698. i do, however, question the 1

hundred and 61 thousands of expenditures already incurred but it's my understanding that such expenditures are an obligation of the city, however, the analysts recommends that the balance of the salary not yet incurred for the june 2013 be disapproved base they were not authorize in the budget permitting the department to pay for positions not authorized by the board of supervisors i - we recommend to amend of the ordinance to rouse from 751312 to get for the temporary salaries not incurred but

authorized by 2013 appropriation as amended and i'm be happy to respond to any questions >> colleagues any questions? >> much appreciated. thank you at this point, i'd like to open up for public comment on item 6? >> good evening. let's look at the dollar amount for this item the dollar amount compared to item 3 is very different. if the mayor's office would do something with mr. alvarez a lot of that money saved on that pension would sort of number 6.

i'd like to propose that idea whether that's a valid certain or not. the public defender w the poor the city miss take care of the poor the city does not have to take care of the americans cups or does not have to raid the oakland warriors so if you're going to argue about dollars-and-cents i think item 6 is a lot of higher and i'd like to publically for the record question the aggressive kwaeg that's occurring tonight and i'd like to know whether that same aggressive questioning when the firemen and police men talk

their salary and we won't have to be here to late >> any other members of the public? public comment is closed. >> mr. chair i'd like to recommend or move the recommendation of the budget. >> we have a motion to easement the budget analysis recommendation and we can do that without opposition anything else? and to me this is i'd like to move this item forward with the remedies from this committee. >> ongoing colleagues if there aren't any other motions i'm going to request a role call on this motion and on this motion

alters amended? >> (calling names). the motion passes. okay. the motion passes. mr. clerk do we have any other items? okay. we are adjourned after 7 and a half

>> good morning everyone, and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and subcommittee, for march 27th, i'm farrell and joined by avalos and we will be joined by eric mar in a few moments. i would like to thank stgtv for covering this meeting and also the clerk, mr. young. >> do we have any announcements? >> please, silence any cell phones and electronic devices and complete the speaker cards to be as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be on the board of supervisor's

agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> i know that we have a number of people for item four and we will call a few items and have a chance for public comment could you call one and two together. >> authorizing the issuance and delivery of the multifamily housing revenue bond in an aggregate principal amount not-to-exceed, $23,900,000 for the purpose of providing financing for the acquisition and construction... and item two, resolution approving and authoritying the mayor's office of housing, as auk ses forhousing agency to the redevelopment agency to amend an existing term ground lease with broad way sansome associates, lp, a california limited partnership... >> thank you, very much. we have kevin, from the mayor's office of housing. >> thank you, chair, farrell, and good morning supervisors and thank you for giving me a chance to present on the resolution, first, this resolution is follow up from

the june, 2012 endusment resolution authoritying the office to comply for a bond allocation of $23.9 million. that allocation was approved by sidlac in 2012. and these bonds are allocated for the construction development of the apartments and you should have received the various accompanying legal documents. it is important to note, like similar deals, these transactions do not require the city to pledge, replayment of the bonds, rather the only recourse for the payment are the project payment themselves or any credit enhanced by the lenders. they are sponsoring the apartments which as the clerk mentioned is 75 units of housing, and all will service householding earning 50 percent emi and below, it was formally

homeless households. it consists of ten studios, 31, one bedroom and 23 two bedroom and 5 three bedrooms. the mayor's office is pleased to present this affordable development and also received positive community support. we anticipate the closing of this transaction to happen on april 11th, 2013, slated to begin construction in mid to late april of 2013. developer is in possession of all of the project approvals. we are ask for your approval. we look forward to any questions that you may have. we have members of the development team here, and members of their consultant team here. i can also speak to the ground lease if you wish or close here and you can call them. >> we call it already.

>> okay, great. the ground lease which you will be reviewing and approving is the same operation, 75 units of affordable house, the initial term of the lease is 7 years and to extend another 29 years for a total of 99 years. in december 2006 mo issued a request for proposals and selected china town as the developers. they have all project approvals and financing in place, which enables them to commence construction in mid to late april. it is integral to the success of the apartments and we respectfully ask for your approval of the ground lease and ask for any questions that you may have. you should have all of the legal documents and we are available for any questions. >> supervisor avalos? >> any questions? >> okay. >> thank you very much. the budget analysts report?

>> mr. chairman, supervisor avalos, as we report on page 6 of our report and indicated by the mayor's office of housing this morning, although the city would issue the proposal multifamily housing revenue bonds the obligation to repay the bonds would rest on the project and the obligations of the project developers are such that the city will incur for financial liability from the issuance of such bonds. we also report that the city would based on the amendments to this ground lease the city will potentially have received an estimated $161,000 from surplus cash under the existing ground lease, in addition to base rent, as compared to an estimated $78,506 under the proposed grounded lease that is a reduction of $82,500 over a 15-year period.

in addition, as a result of the proposed amendment to the surplus cash, the city would be some what less likely to receive any surplus cash which the project may generate each year. we do recommend that you approve this legislation. >> okay. thank you very much. any questions? >> okay. seeing none, at this time i would like to take public comments on items one and two, any members of the public that wish to comment please step forward. >> good morning, supervisors, my name is douglas yep and i have lived in san francisco for 61 years. when i think about how the city and other government agencies have increased or influenced in economic activity, it reminds me of a series of discussions

back in dc. and basically, it brings up the question of whether there is too much expansion where any local government agency somehow has too much influence in future developments, especially economic develop.s like this one, and then a certain sense crowds out private industry. there is a lot of argument these days why private industry is not flourishing in the so-called economy. and i think that this is a good example of it. if this was such a nice development, it is an obvious, high-rent location, then why hasn't a private developer done this type of project, of course, following the guidelines of the city, and then, this way, it would encourage private companies to expand rather than having the growing influence of the government and whatever partnership it chooses to

partner with. now, i mentioned this just to bring up the question of whether local government has too much influence, especially how it wraps together with non-profits. because, when you get too many connections, there is always the possibility of accessive, maybe it is legal, maybe it is not legal, influence pedaling, and i would like to bring up for the record and hopefully it will be discussed and also i would like to thank the subcommittee for not canceling this hearing like the last one, thank you. >> thank you very much, any other members of the public that wishes to comment on items one or two? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to approve item one and two and send it to the full board with

recommendation and do that without objection. >> could you please call item three. >> resolution providing the sale of certificates of participation evidencing undivided proportion nature interests in the right to receive and concern rental payments to be made by the city and county of san francisco under the lease agreement to finance capital projects at the moscone convention center providing the sale of the certificates by om petive sale, approving the form and pub bli indication of the official notice of the sale and notice of intention to sell the certificate... >> and we have the controller's office here to speak. >> good morning, nadia from the controller's office of public finance. federal security's law imposed on the city, the obligation to insure that is offering documents are accurate and complete.

this obligation applies to the individual members of the government bodies approving the disclosure documents as well as the city staff charged with preparing the documents. in 2009, the board of supervisors approved the execution and delivery of the certificates of participation of up to 45 million to partially finance, 65 million to the center. the project has... up to 35 million today and we have used commercial paper to fund the improvements. the remaining $20 million was paid from assessments from (inaudible) district that was established in 2009. the board last approved the distribution of offering statements for and independent day in june of 2012, and the resolution in connection with the issuance of general bonds, 2012, of approximately 290 million for san francisco general hospital as well as (inaudible) emergency response

bonds. this resolution approves the form and authorizes the approval (inaudible) and the form of appendix a, which is contained in the offering document. appendix a to the official statement covers the general information about the city government structure, the budget process, and the property taxes and other tax and revenue sources, the city expenditures and label rerelation and employee benefits and retirement costs as well as investment bonds and obligations. i will give you a highlight of the changes that occurred since june of 2012. the (inaudible) financials were released early this year. the board accepts the budget in the fall of last year, we issued 290 million dollars in general obligation bonds, it has been updates to set the state section as well as the federal budget piece, and it is

also being controlled by the budget updates that are now reflected in appendix a as well as the five year financial plan and the ten year plan that were released this march, additionally, i just wanted to highlight this as the result of commercial paper, we have resulted in a savings of three to five million, and at the time that the board had approved the original transaction we had estimating issuing up to $40 million, and (inaudible) with the final maturity of 2018. and so the structure and the strategy that we have been using in the past has really worked in our favor, and so thank you for your indulgence. >> so a question here, just where do you see where she is in favor of commercial paper does that add to the discussion around the paper program is there another reason that we are doing it now. >> we have been using the commercial paper and the

project is complete and we are doing the take out and this will free up the capacity for the future capitol projects of the city. >> avalos? >> okay. thank you very much. we do not have a budget analyst report on this item, so this will be opened up to public comment. any members of the public that wish to comment on item number three, step forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send three forward? >> full recommendation and we can do that without opposition. will you call item four. >> item number four, resolution finding that 20,000 net rentable square foot is suitable and sufficient for the law library, authoritying the director of property to enter into a lease with van ness post center llc for the law library at 1200 van ness avenue and finding that the proposed relocation of the law library

to such space is in conformance to the city's general plan and priority of the policies of planning code, section, 101.1 and authoritying the director of the property to find the alternative comparable space if the lease with van ness post center cannot be finalized. >> thank you very much, mr. clerk, let me tell you how we will be going into item four, we will be entertaining closed session. first i will have public section, i have a number of speaker cards, they are available here and we can submit them there. and we will call you up and we will have two minutes for everyone to speak in public comment. after public comment, the committee is going to entertain a motion to hold a closed section to confer with the city attorney, the committee will not take action during the closed session, but at the end of the session, we will reconvene and hear the budget analyst and consider taking action on the resolution before us. so at this point, i would like to open up to public comment. for item number four, and what

i am going to do is call speaker cards, please line up in approximately the order that i call you and you can line up on the far wall. public comment can relate to any aspects including whether the board should adopt the resolution or not, whether or not we should confer to the attorney and whether or not we should disclose any or all of the discussions. if there are additional cards feel free to come up. and i apologize if i butcher names it is not intentional. >> julite., barciad. michael oconol,. and bill herbert and steven miaki. >> that speaker over there. >> yes, i thk