dwd and i am working with the folks on the project and so the street scraping was an earlier phase of the set of west soma projects and the money to build those which are completed came from the same source of this money and the sales of the parcels and i am not completely sure that i believe that most of the street trees are property owner responsibility. >> i think that the ones released on the alley, i have to admit that i am not sure that if they are dpw or property owner. and they may be dpw and may be property owner, i honestly don't know and i could get you that information.

>> so, doug las could shed some light on that. >> i missed the beginning of the question, but i know that we planted a lot of medium trees along octavia boulevard that do not directly front any properties, all medium trees are maintained by the city and the department. >> okay. >> i believe that the trees that were planted we are establishing them but the intention is to transfer long term maintenance and responsibility to property owners. >> and that was taken care of prior to planting those trees? >> i don't know all of the details about... i am not sure exactly where the trees were planted and what was done. but that is our intention. >> okay. >> i had one more question about and i think that some bits and pieces of it were

answered. but specifically, i'm familiar with what happened, you know, there is a long history of what happened with octavia boulevard and what the city was required to do and how they acquired the parcels and i mean, you know, i don't necessarily need a history of that, but more importantly, i was of the understanding that the open space and the support of what happens with octavia post, boulevard, proceeds, were to basically, you know, be used within that particular area primarily, other than, you know, some of the other traffic mitigation and calming measure and things of that nature and clearly, transportation, was more of a priority in terms of the use of the funds. and just the fact that you know, this money, although small in comparison to the larger amount of money that we are collecting, it is small in

comparison, and i am not understanding exactly, why. this money is not necessarily being used to deal with some of the continual issues around transportation in the area. where there is still truly a need for it. >> development. >> the octavia boulevard projects is dictated through two agreements, not an agreement but a proposition i that was passed by the voters in 1999 and that layed off the process for how the funds remaining after we constructed octavia boulevard were to be spent and it laid out pretty clearly that we were supposed to go through the transportation authority kho was to create a freeway, and through a process that they went through and they created the priorities for the remaining funds. so that was kind of our first set of anxillary projects that

were listed on page 4 of the hand out that i gave you, and so while, i think that kind of shorthand in the city's dialogue in discussing the projects, we talk about the use of funds for transportation. and it is broader than that and it does include mitigation for, close to the central freeway and that is where these specific park uses come from and you are correct from that it requires transportation improvements and within that broad umbrella includes mitigation for transportation, and specifically these parks. >> okay. >> thank you. i vaguely recall that, but i thought it was primarily for the park, within the octavia boulevard and the plans for the kind of open space that was required to be in that area. >> yes, so it includes the area north of market, and specifically octavia boulevard

but it also does include this area just where we brought the freeway down and as an off-ramp to mitigate the creation of this off-ramp into the soma west community. >> got it, thank you. that really helps to clear things up. >> do you have a map of the octavia plan? >> we will provide it because my district is included in the market octavia plan as well. >> yeah, and i just want to add that i know that there has been a number of active participants and developing this plan there has been a lot of work that has gone into the plan which is why i am planning on supporting it. but i do take issue with increasing property in this

city and increasing the portfolio of anyone who does not have the ability to maintain the existing resources or existing property. and i have a real concern about the park patrol and what has happened there and i would hope that to get a little bit more understanding from the rec and park department moving forward on how they planned to address the situation. what are the long term plans to deal with increasing the number of park patrols in neighborhood parks and parks where there are traditionally a lot of issues. and so i just need to start looking at those kinds of things more. we can go through a ten-year process and make great plans. but we have to think about everything. and that includes how it impacts the city as a whole, and how it impacts other areas that are affected and we cannot

just neglect the old in order to deal with the new and i am excited about the possibility of having a skate park and i want a skate park in where waller is to be more permanent because i think that it is the perfect location because this is a great opportunity but i think that my concern, of course is that we are not taking care of what exists in an effort to build something that is new because it is new and exciting. so i just want to start to look at things in a different way moving for ward and happy to support this project and want to be sure that my concerns are taken into account. thank you. >> any further discussion, colleagues? >> i do have to make two amendments but i can do it after public comment. >> why don't we open this for public comment, seeing none,

public comment is closed. >> thank you,. >> supervisor kim? >> i do have two technical amendments that i need to make on this resolution and one that i handed out to the numbers of the budget committee to the clerk's office on page 4 lines one through five. and just to read it into the record. whereas to facility rpd's maintenance and operation of the dog park for dr , it would extend it to the public use of the dog park during the term of the lease and then the clerk has pointed out one other amendment that i need to make on the same page. >> actually this is item number nine. >> i am sorry, this is for item number nine but the same page, line 19. we are just changing section two to be section three that was just a typo. >> so those are the two amendments that i would like to

introduce. >> we have a motion to introduce these amendments. and a second, and we can do that without opposition and the underlining items any further comment? before we take a vote? could we do that without opposition and move those forward without opposition >> thank you. >> mr. clerk could you call item one? >> resolution amoving amendment number one to the domestic terminal food and befrage lease no 03-0193 between the gothan enterprises llc and the city and county of san francisco and acting through and through the airport commission with a minimum annual guarantee of $37,353. >> thank you this topic does not avoid us. >> we have cathy here from the airport to speak oit em one. >> members of the community from the san francisco

international airport. the item seeks your approval to the amendment with the lease with gotham enterprises doing business as peats coffee and tea and will reduce the square footage in order to close one of the coffee kiosked in terminal one. the current lease is for 3 locations in terminal one and terminal three. there are two locations in terminal three. the three, kiosks total 1,037. the terminal one location has seen a decrease, 47 percent in their sales since the airport demolished boarding area a resulting in foot traffic and passenger visibility decreasing significantly. and therefore the airport would like to reduce, the lease by 310 square feet to allow them to close that one terminal one

kiosk. th for the two remaining kiosks in terminal three which would ten total 727 square feet also are seeking the approval to reduce the mag by $15,927 from the current $53 thu, for a new mag of $37,000. >> the tenant does right now pay on percentage rent and so the reduction will not impact the revenue to the airport are the city. the budget analyst recommends approval of this lease amendment and i would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. colleagues any questions. thank you. >> to the budget analyst report, please? >> mr. chairman, and members of the committee, in 2012, gotham paid the airport, $232,in percentage rent and that was

more than the minute you mum guarantee of 539. and she has indicated that the manual guarantee would be reduced by $59,000. and as the supervisors know because of the break even policy, there is no impact on the airport's budget, we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> thank you. >> colleagues any questions for mr. rose? >> all right, seeing none, much appreciated we will open this up to the public? anyone wishing to comment, step forward. seeing none public comment is close ed. >> kie have a movement? >> could we do that without opposition? >> could you call items two and three together. >> item two, resolution authoritying directing the sale

of not-to-exceed $133,275,000, item three, ordinance appropriate ating $133,272,000 of road repaving street safety and general obligations 2001. series 2013 b. >> we have the controller's office? >> >> good morning, members of the budget and finance committee, my name is anthony, (inaudible) in the controller's office of public finance. >> i am joined with representatives from dpw, sspuc rec and park and the court to discuss the entirety of the geo bonds that the city has participated in the issue in june of 2013. what i plan to do is provide a brief overview on the financing, and the bond program and then have the members of the perspective geo bond programs to answer the questions should you have them? and the item before you, is the

road repair, and it has an issue ans of 133, million. in geo bonds to fund e various street improvements for. i would like to introduce twot in june, and the rec bond and (inaudible) safety and emergency response. and for the clean and safe neighborhood park bonds, there is an issue ans, resolution for not-to-exceed $195 million that was authorized by the voters in november of 2012. and this would be the first authorization from that bond program and so we are requesting approval of that series in addition, there is a resolution to approve 74 million in geo bonds for the upcoming sale in june.

>> >> the second is the earthquake response in proposition b approved in june, 2010, for the amount of... >> so we have not called items four and five yet. >> we will call them next. you are speaking about four and five. >> correct. >> and maybe we could call them? >> concurrently here? . >> item four resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not-to-exceed $31,905,on 000 principal amount of earthquake safety and emergency response general obligation 2010, series 2013 b. >> item five, ordinance proesht ating $31,905,000. >> we have the park sponsor would you like to speak to all of them at once. >> if that is okay?

>> okay. mr. clerk, could you call 6 through 8 also. >> six, providing for the issuance of not-to-exceed, $185,000,000 principal amount of clean and safety neighborhood parks general bonds, 2012, series 201 3a. >> number seven, direct the sale of not-to-exceed $74,030,000. >> eight, ordinance appropriate ating $74 million of clean and safe neighborhood park general obligation bond 2012, series 201 3a. >> thank you, there clerk, much appreciated. >> why don't you go forward with all of these items. >> thank you, for the city intends to issue the bond programs together, the summer and june scene with the idea of achieving the efficiencies on

the cost of issuance and on the problem program side. and june, 15th and 2013 and close soon after. with respect to the debt service, first it is the geo bonds outstanding by the net evaluation of the city. and and the capitol constraint on the rate not exceeding the 2006 double. and for those two constraints the city does not... and we are well within both. and based on the interest rate we are expecting the debt

service to be approximately $20.3 million for a term of 20 years. >> just a quick question for you. what are you building in your models right now? >> our practice is to assume a 6 percent interest rate on tax exempt geo bonds. most recently we issued the bonds last summer, for the general hospital and with the emergency response as well. the cost on that is 2.71 percent and so there is a healthy. >> okay. conservative assumption. >> thank you. >> and the other thing that i would like to mention is the resolutions approved the form of documents including the official statement, which is the offering of memo who end up producing the securities and the city's disclosure in the appendix a in thofficial

statement. it was last repaired in march of this year which the mayor's budget office and the controller's office and on a number of other departments to update the city's financial condition, and disclosure, and government and other operating data. we will update that document to include, the recently released 9 month benefit update. and the upcoming june first budget. outlining the city's outgoing covenant to disclose on a annual basis to the financial market place. i am happy to answer the questions should you have them. >> just to make sure that you covered items, 2 through 8, all three bonds?

from your perspective? street repaving, parks, and earthquake safety? >> that is correct and also the supplementals. >> thanks. >> all right. colleagues any questions? >> and items two through eight? okay, seeing none, to the budget analyst we have a number of your reports to cover here. >> mr. chairman and member of the committee mr. chairman should i go through all of the items. >> on page, 9 of our report, he advises that the estimated park, par amount, road repaving and straight safety bonds have a rate of 6 percent over 20 years that would result in estimated debt service payments 96.6 million in interest, on the part of that of a principal, with estimated average annual debt service of 11.3 million and then in

regarding as a supervisors know as the existing bonds are being paid off, there is some what of a reduction of new costs so that should be taken into consideration and i am going to be... we recommend approval of that. going to the next issue, on page 16 of our report, the estimated 31.1 million in earthquake safety and emergency response bonds, are projected to have again the same interest rate of 6 percent over 20 years and the debt service would be about 54.3 million including 23.1 million in interest, and 31.1 and the home owner's

exempt with the owners assess the at 500,000. and we recommend that you approve that resolution and ordinance. and finally on page 23 of our report, again with the 6 percent interest, the par amount of 72.2 million of the debt service of 125.9 million including 3.7 million in interest, and 72 in principle and estimated average annual debt service of 2.2 million over 20 years. the home owner would pay an additional property taxes on a $500,000 residence of 12.92 cents per year and we do on

page 26 recommend that you approve those two proposed resolution and proposed ordinance. i would be happy to respond to the questions, thank you. thank you questions for mr. rose? >> okay, must appreciated. >> we have items two through eight up, anyone wish to comment on any of those items please step forward. all right. all of those items. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed, colleagues we have these items in front of us. a motion to approve altogether? >> we may. >> a motion to approve two through eight? >> supervisor kim, without objection, and we can do that without objection mr. clerk we have a 10:15. we have a 10:15 special meeting

call item one. >> item one. resolution authorizing the use of space and communication services within an existing data center located at 3101... >> good morning. >> this is the perfect day to have the hearing on this item. and as you may know, many staff are involved in the guardian emergency exercise and i know that i started my morning at the eoc today. and many folks are involved in that. and certainly this is a great tie to our emergency preparedness. and this particular item requests your positive recommendation on an agreement that vastly enhances our disaster discovery services of the city information technology infrastructure, the services

allow staoet to maintain and recover critical information and technology systems from an out of area location. and these services need to give us the ability to replicate the city data on a regular schedule to be accessible by the city and verifiable through the regular testing and a secure and table environment distanced from san francisco. and be reasonably priced. and the agreement is before you to establish that relationship. with the state of california office of technology services using their robust facility which is located in rancho cordova. it is used by many entities, and we currently have an off site agreement and there is significant information regarding that in the budget analyst report and provide similar service and however the cost is great. and the provision of services frankly does not meet our needs today, or going forward.

and so this agreement follows on the heals of communication and technology and plan last month and calls for implementing a disaster recovery plan, particularly, what this agreement delivers. >> it is for extending to two year periods under conditions and periods, and those are at the city's discretion, and the state has similar authority already existing at the office of technology services and so it will a fairly smooth to extend to two years. the rate is one time set up charge of just less than $5,000 and annual service and space costs of $130,476 per year and these costs will be allocated

70 percent to the general fund and it reduces the costs therefore by over 60 percent. and while it improves, the scope, and the reliability of that service. so the budget analyst report details for you the capabilities and advantages of the facilities and i am also joined by gina thomas and david of the department of technology should you have any particular questions about the service provided for us at rancho. >> thank you, mr. up dike. >> any questions? >> okay, seeing none, to the budget analyst report? >> mr. chairman, the committee is shown on page 4 of our report, and in table two. the annual city cost under the agreement of $130,474 the total first year costs including the one time cost that he

mentioned, are $135,417 and i would also emphasize on page 5 of the report that the beginning in physical year 2014, the cost to the state office of technology services of $130.5 million. and 130,000 for the agreement is 209,526, or approximately 62 percent less than the annual rent of the existing lease between the city and the guard of 340,000. so, of course, we recommend that you approve this legislation. >> all right. thank you, any questions for him? >> seeing none, oh,? >> thank you, futa from the controller's office and i just wanted to add supervisors that this is a terrific project, currently the plan is to take all of the financial system and back them up so that we have disaster recovery in the event of an emergency, we will be able to continue to process payroll and pay our vendors and

move on with the financial affairs of the city. and once the controller's office have the systems up and it is properly backed up, we will invite other departments including the assess or and the tax collector and the other financial departments in the city, and then we know that the public utilities commission and the other departments will be interested, and so we are hoping that this will go into a very, robust disaster recovery site for us that we can duplicate for the city to make the systems safe. thank you. >> any other questions? >> okay seeing none, we will open up to public comment. anyone wishing to comment? >> seeing none, public comment closed. >> i could have a motion to move this forward? >> so moved. >> without opposition. >> that concludes the agenda for both meetings. >> thank you, we are adjourned. thank you.