eastern airlines and them signing on to the use and lease agreement. the terms are identical to the previous approved 43 leases, 43 previous airlines that signed on to the agreement. in addition to setting landing fees and providing for ticket and counter space at the airport the agreement is also the mechanism that ensuring the annual payment from the airport to the city through 2021. under the proposed agreements they will pay the air airport monthly landing fees listed. the budget analyst recommends approval and i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. colleagues any questions? okay. we will move on to the budget analyst report for item nine please. >> mr. chairman, members of committee on page 36 at the

bottom what is stated on page 37 and china eastern airlines and scandinavian airlines will pay the amount listed that is less than the permits. we recommend that you approve this resolution. >> okay thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions comments for mr. rose? okay. we will move on to public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. we have a motion to move this item forward with approval full board. we can do so without opposition. mr. clerk can you call item 10. >> item 10 for leases for airport lease and candy kiosk lcc and lease with marilla chocolate company airport spa with xpresspa san francisco international llc and acknowledge accessories with ilg

and llc and airport commission. >> ms. whiner welcome back. >> see what happens when i am not here for a couple of weeks. kathy wagner with the san francisco airport. the airport is looking to amend four leases and marilla chocolate company and pacific gateway expressions and xpresspa sf. these tenants are in terminal three of the airport and we can asking amendments to extend the leases as well as make payments to the tenants to mitigate the closure of that area has had on them. the board agreed to the suspension of the guarantees of the tenants in july 2011. originally the airport intended for a less dramatic redevelopment project of the terminal but as we got into the project we realized it

was going to be more extensive than we thought so we have a opening date of january 2014. the proposed amendments would extend the previous suspensions by 20 months and we are asking for retroactively to may of 2012. it would allow us to reimburse the tenants for constructions costs they have incurred during the closure. the budget analyst reported in consultation with the airport staff these payments and suspension of mags result in 1.5 million dollars of lost rent. however, airport revenue development staff projected before and believe once the terminal is open in 2014 the increased sales should help us recoup some of the costs. the budget analyst recommends approval and i am happy to answer any questions.

>> thank you. colleagues any questions or comments? thank you very much. mr. rose your report for this item please. >> yes mr. chairman members of the committee, regarding that cost estimated of the airport of $1.6 million in event as the airport knows with the break even policy anything needed to recover the airport's budgeted cost is made up by that in any event so we recommend that you do amend the proposed resolution to provide for retroactivity until that time and approve it as amended. >> thank you very much mr. rose. colleagues any questions to mr. rose? okay. we will open it up for public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues similarly we have amendments from the budget analyst office. can we do that without opposition? so moved and the underlying item as amended and do that without

opposition? so moved. mr. clerk can you call item 11. >> item 11 resolution approving the lease with pelican communications and lower the rent to 20% of gross revenue. >> okay. guess who? >> last one. chair farrell and members of the committee kathy wagner with the airport. this item seeks your approval to amend the lease with pelican communications to decrease the minimum annual guarantee percentage rent structure and again there is some retroactively here. since the originally term of the contract to provide pay phones throughout the air port in 2009 pelican communications has seen a steep decline in the use of public telephones as we all use our smartphones and cell phones with much more regularity. at this point their rent to the airport

as well as the operational costs are more than the gross revenue, so while we acknowledge the decline in the demand for public pay phones we believe it's important to the passengers that need them that they continue to exist at some level at the airport so we are seeking to work with the tenant and lower it from the 55% of gross revenues to a proposed 20% of gross revenues. that will allow them to stay in business and provide some smaller level of pay phone accessibility at the airport. the retroactively request back to 2012 is reflected as when we went back and audited the pelican books that's when they started operating at a net loss and we think this is appropriate and the budget analyst recommends approval and i am happy to answer any questions. >> part of the report -- part of

the contract was to provide pay phones? >> yes. >> how interesting. thank you very much. colleagues any questions? mr. rose can we go to your budget analyst report please. >> mr. chairman members of the committee even i have a cell phone and don't use pay phones anymore. on page 43 we report that based on 2012 revenues pelican communications would have paid the airport minimum guarantee of 499 -- gross revenues and less than the existing payment of 137479 based on the proposed 55% of gross revenues. we recommend that you amend the resolution to specify that the reduction in the annual guarantee down to 20% is retroactive to december 1, 2012 and you approve the resolution as amended. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions? okay. we will open up the public comment. anyone wish to

comment on item 11? seeing none public comment is closed? colleagues can i have a motion to approve the budget analyst recommendations? >> yes. >> do so without opposition. the underlying item of pay phones, et cetera. we can move that without opposition. mr. clerk can you please call item 12. >> item 12 resolution to authorize the department of public health to accept a grant in the amount of $238,571 from the department of public health to participate in a program called maternal, child and adolescent health. >> josh [inaudible] department of public health and one of supervisor farrell's constituents. good morning. this is approximately 14% increase to the federal grant occasioned by the reassignment of the section to additional public health nurse and i am happy to answer any questions.

>> okay. thank you very much. colleagues any questions? okay. thank you for being here. nice to meet you. we don't have a budget analyst report so we will move it to public comment? anyone wish to comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can we move item 12 with recommendation. >> so moved. >> we can do so without opposition. >> [inaudible] >> right. mr. clerk can you call item 13. >> item 13 resolution authorizing the department of public health to retroactively accept the grant of $161,499 from california tuberculosis controller association project to participate in the program entitled california tuberculosis controller association project. >> thank you. we have someone from the department of public health. >> yes good morning. this is a new grant for the department of public health that will allow the department to enter enter

into a contract to service the intermediary for the tuberculosis controller's association and i am happy to any answer questions you may have. >> colleague colleague any questions? we don't have a budget analyst report for this item. kidnap -- any public comment? seeing none. move without opposition. mr. clerk can you call 13? >> that was 13. >> item 14. >> item 14 authorizing the purchaser to execute an agreement with golden gate petroleum for diesel and biodiesel and not to exceed $94 million. >> okay. thanks for being here. >> good morning supervisors. jackie vaughn city m

-- purchaser and i am asking for this contract for golden gate petroleum and not to exceed the amount of $94 million. the contract is for september 1, 2013 through augues 31, 2016. this recommendation is based on the results of a competitive sealed bid process. we advertised the opportunity and sent bids to vendors. we received seven responses. golden gate petroleum was evaluated as the lowest bidder. based on our evaluation golden gate petroleum was over $800,000 lower than the next low bidder who happens to be the current contractor, western states oil. the $94 million contract estimate for the initial three year term is based on the full

year of use knowledge in calendar year. >> >> 2012 and contingencies for fuel prices going forward. this contract amount of $94 million is a procedural not to exceed amount, not a contractual commitment by the city to spend the money so city departments require less fuel. we are not committed to purchasing the $94 million. this has been approved by the full board during the budget process. i am available to answer any questions you might have. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you for your presentation. i believe the budget analyst may present on this idea as well. they put out in their report that -- and we had a lot of conversations

about the healthy air and clean transportation ordinance, and that we're trying to reduce our overall usage of fossil fuels and support clean air, and seems like the usage in spending as projected -- not to exceed rate is pretty much staying the same but we have goals of reducing the fuel we're using, but are there ways to modify what the not to exceed rate is so we can actually meet and create a sealing that is consistent with the goals under that? >> frankly, we do estimates based on our usage. the usage does fluctuate some. it's not a precise estimate. it is based on usage. we have seen our increases shifting really to the areas of biodiesel over the

past few years, so the not to exceed amount really is not for each specific type, but it allows for spending and the various categories, and so as mta for example shifts more -- who happens to be our largest user of bio diesel shifts more to that. we are in effect reaching our goals or moving towards our goals in terms of using cleaner types of fuels also. we also do -- try to use more electric vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles, hybrids, but those uses are minor in comparison to say mta or the fire department. >> okay. thank you. and maybe that's something that the budget

analyst can touch upon in his report whether under this act the kind of shift we're making in the fuel usage is actually consistent and how we're utilizing alternative fuels. >> mr. rose why don't we go to your budget analyst report please. mr. chairman and members of the committee as shown in table one that is on page 47 of our report there's a projected quantity of 7.6 million dollars -- closer to 7.7 million gallons of fuel. >> >> 3.963 cents a gallon which reflects the total averagage fuel expenditure of this amount for the agreement so the projected cost of the three year agreement is three times that

yearly cost or 85.1 million and the oca has added a constituency amount of 85 million which is over 8 million and total proposed not to exceed 94 million so you have the basic amount and plus the contingency and that requests the not to exceed $94 million and as supervisor avalos has pointed out on page 48 of our report we did have a concern about the fact that the city's healthy and clean transportation ordinance is likely to result in a reduction in the consumption of fuel -- at least that's the objective over the next three years, and the reason why we didn't make a recommendation to reduce the not to exceed amount because as you know fuel prices fluctuate all over the lot so

we were reluctant to make a recommendationar for that reason and in addition by separate action as you know the board of supervisors must appropriate the funds for the fuel that is expended so that you have a control at this point and supervisor avalos my suggestion would be maybe in next year's budget when you get the budget next year we can take a look at that and report to you, and at that point it might be a basis for a reduction in the budget for the fuel that has been requested. >> okay. that's interesting. i mean this year we kind of looked at the overall purchase of vehicles but we didn't look at the prch of fuel and that could be another way for future years. >> just for clarification we actually did look at both. we did look at the actual and

projected expenditures for fuel but that doesn't mean to say that now if you approve this new contract we can look at this again in next year's budget to make sure that this $94 million amount is consistent with what you're being asked to budget. >> great. i think what was significant -- at least what i heard from administration -- there has been a shift of types of fuel that are used to biodiesel and alternative fuels that are less polluting and have less of a carbon footprint and that is significant. it would be great to have data provided to my office and jeremy pollack and myself to see how the shift is moving forward. we're also looking at amending the healthy air and transportation -- clean air transportation ordinance so it would be good useful information to have as well.

is that contract mflgdz can provide? >> yes absolutely. we are happy to provide it. >> thank you. >> okay. supervisor mar. >> i just wanted to thank i think the office of contract administration for bringing this forward. i also like supervisor avalos would like to see a reduction in the fuel use in the city in conjunction with the healthy air ordinance and different efforts going around from us and 350 .org and others focusing on the fuel crisis. i know with the peak task force recommendations from several years ago there were key suggestions given the volatility of the gas prices and i think this contract builds in some protections given how volatile the gas prices are. i did have a question about the secondary and tertiary contracts mentioned in the budget analyst's report.

i think it says separate from this contract will be several other contracts but we never used those stand by agreements. is that correct? >> yes, that's my understanding mr. chairman, members of the committee, supervisor mar that we have those in the event that the primary supplier could not fulfill the needs of the city. whether or not that has been utilized or not maybe the department can give further clarification. >> the utilization -- we did not utilize them the last time around. we have in the past for very minor amounts. my understanding is less than a million dollars and those are within oca's contracting authority. >> and thanks again, and again i want to reiterate i hope that we reduce our alliance and addiction to oil and that we significantly reduce the fuel consumption in the city. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you colleagues. any other questions or comments? at this time we will open it up for public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to approve the item? do so without opposition. do so without opposition. okay. at this time we're going to go into religion to sign our fiscal year 14-15 budget. we will be back target approximately 1145. can i have a motion to go into recess? >> so moved. >> okay. so >> good afternoon now. welcome back to the san francisco budget and finance committee meeting for july 24, 2013. we left off having gotten through item

number 14 and mr. clerk can you call item number three now. >> item number three resolution approving a historic property for buchanan street and authorizing the planning director to execute the historic property contract. >> okay. thank you very much. i think we will call up the legislative aide to supervisor breed. >> thank you. this is the property at buchanan street. it's a beautiful home and landmarked for over 40 years. the mills act is a property tax discount that will make it financially feasible to maintain the treasure down the street from us today. supervisor breed supports it and i think andy draw from supervisor wiener's office is going to speak as well. >> thank you. i am from

supervisor wiener's office. on behalf of the supervisor i would like to thank supervisor breed for this resolution and the support of the house at buchanan street. the city places a significant burden on historic buildings and costs and time and other administrative obstacles. the supervisor sponsored legislation last year that simplifies the process. the fact that san francisco has five mills acts contracts in existence and los angeles has hundreds is a testament to the challenging process and to simplify the mills act process was passed unanimously by this board. the supervisor believes that mills act contracts are one way of helping homeowners with the most significantly -- the most historic significant and

so with that light the supervisor would like to have the committee's support and with that i turn it over to the planning department. >> sounds good. >> good afternoon supervisors. susan parks planning department staff. the item before you is a mills act historic property contract for buchanan street historically known as the nightingale house and legislation enacted by the state of california and admitted into the san francisco administrative code and lets cities to go with this program and lets property owners to reduce the property taxes and reinvest the savings back into the rehabilitation and maintenance of the property. in san francisco the mills act has been in the past been used

infrequently compared to other cities across the state. for example san francisco currently has five mills acts contracts and los angeles recently signed the 600th and this board passed legislation which was authorized by supervisor wiener. these revisions have made the application process quicker, cheaper and more predictable. additional applications are expected this year and the nightingale house is the type of scopes of work you can expect to go forward. this house was designated under article 10 of the planning code and august 28, 1972. the property is located on the west side and it's by one of the primary builders in the neighborhood.

mr. nightingale was a real estate developer and a 49er's and san francisco alderman and the owners submitted their application and the planning department placed the application on hold due to changes and now that has passed we are bringing this forward and repairs to the roof and foundation improvement and it is restoration of missing features. a complete copy of the rehabilitation and maintenance plans are included in the packet. despite the lengthy process the owners have been ideal and working with the planning department to meticulously restore the upon property. the planning department recommends approval of this contract in conformance with the unanimous recommendation of approval this

year. the application rehabilitation and maintenance program is consistent with the requirements of the mills act. i am available to answer any questions about the application and the program and a representative from the assessor's office can answer questions about the reevaluation. >> okay. >> good afternoon supervisors. trisha on behalf of the assessor's record's office. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today. i am here with my colleague who can address specific questions. before i turn it over to mike i want to acknowledge the hard work of mr. stein and mr. peeps and for their understanding and commitment to historic preservation i want to acknowledge the need of supervisor breed and wiener and

the fine work of the budget analyst so thank you very much. we do have revised financial impact for your consideration today. as you might be aware our office is preparing the estimated application for this so you can understand the financial impact before taking action. our city realized there was an error made on our part on the calculation. the bottom line that the mills act value should be closer to 1.1 million instead of $1 million and impact to the city of $6,000 versus $7,000. i did note that we consulted with the city attorney and noted this lower estimate is not substantive and would not require a continuance and now i would like to turn it over to michael who will address the

general mills act process and for the corrected estimate rational. >> thank you trisha and good afternoon chair farrell and supervisors. i am here to speak on the general process the assessor's office goes through evaluating a mills act property. i can speak on the specific evaluation for buchanan street. for all of properties we are to do this and what is the facta [inaudible] value and the original purchase price and the inflation factor added each year and then a market value of the property. by looking at sales in the area we look at what could the property sell for at that time and this is a mills act value

and proscribed by state law. the code says the rate that we should be using the risk rate we should be using depending on the property type so before you have two sheets, a summary page and a detailed evaluation page. i would like to walk you through the detailed evaluation page and point out where the change was made. we began estimating what the market rent would be for the buchanan street. from that market rent we subtracted and allowable vacancy and collection loss. we subtracted some operating expenses that should be allowed for the property to approve at the net income. the change was made in the risk factor. for over occupied buildings it's 4%. for all other property types the risk factor