the landlord is general partners in hay word california. over the years this has been used for a office that building for a variety of programs. we've providing mental health case management services to hiv and we're counseling the youth. as the form lease was a fixed rate for the last term of 10 years we have quite a bump in rates for this renewal as one would anticipate. from the prior rate of $189 annually to $14 plus annually. so this lease takes effect upon the resolution. i'd like to note we've extend the prior advantageous rate and

additional 5 months that has saved the department of health thousands of dollars. this lease expires june 30th it has a 4 year option for renewal. it has a fixed rate and it's allowing us to step up so it's more less than 3 percent. the only cost for the city is utilities and it's about $10,000 per year. the market lease is 42, 36 a skeet. it's a 3432 under the rate. there's some considerable

discussion regarding a choice to lease rather than buy at this locati location. several considerations come to mind we need a willing seller in this is example we need a certainty of program schedules and think to meet the challenging needs to the neighborhood is certainly an issue and we need to look at a total cost of ownership when comparing this to the cost of the lease. we're under a projected cost per skeet. we can remain flexible and enjoy a slightly lower tenant risk. every one of those is case by

case property. happy to have that discussion. the budget analyst has an ice toward termination or other opportunities and the desire is part of the capital plan in about a year. my team b will work closely that the staff and we look forward to this discussion. there's a recommendation to clarify the lease term. i'm happy to answer any questions >> colleagues, any questions. >> i know from the being the r budget analyst report it's almost doubling the cost of the leasing and are we going to see

that happen to other private property leased areas. >> a question about what the future looks like. the good news is we have purposefully worked on extending a number of leases over the last couple of years were we do a 5 year forecast and into 2015 and 16 we have fewer renewals or xieksz. i'm pleased we're not going to keep the market apace for the next 24 months we're not going to have a lot of leases up for rerenewal. >> this is a question that's more of a philosophical one. i'm curious as the nonprofits and city agencies in other areas of the city exceptionally around

market they're to face the same situation can the city control the nonprofits and city agencies >> certainly a key issue a topic of conversation and probably more hearings to come. we're participating to see what the city can do whether it's any small amount of space we can make available. unfortunately, there's not a lot of room at the end in the cities portfolio that's good news and bad news. we're at the table talking to our partners and others so see if there are some strategies we can comply to help. it's a prevalent issue a lot of

directors looking for spaces and recognizing there are issues in the next year to 18 months. >> thank you, mr. updyke we have a budget analyst report. mr. rose >> on page 12 the proposed mostly rent for $2.86 per square feet it's 97 percent more than the basics rent with a dollar and $0.50 per scooting. however, as dictated the proposed grant represents fair market value. on page 13 of our report we note in table 3 the total estimated cost of the rent new lease over the 4 year period it between

$2 million plus and $333,000 dollars plus. as indicated by the committee since this space has been occupied since 1981 over the period the rent and related costs is to be paid by dph is several million dollars and we recommend you provide a report on the plan including the plans to consolidate plans at fats for the next board of supervisors hearing and we recommended it be clarified that the lease is approximately 4 years and seven months rather than 5 years and we recommend you approve the

recommendation as amended >> okay any public comment on this item? please step forward everyone will have 2 minutes. >> i'm here on our related on the precisely profile of our case that will be coming up real soon of the ocean properties. it's going into foreclosure this weekend and - >> mr. washington this is a chance to condominium on this question. >> but it relates to our profile you talked about properties so it relatives to if you bet elicit me finish my public comment. so i'm saying as a it relates to the profile of our properties on the properties are getting ready tow come before this board

theres a parallel so an important piece of property is coming to your government from our community i want to show a parallel hoping the real estate department will have an opportunity to talk about this piece of property that's all i wanted to say i have no comment on this piece of property >> okay. thank you very much. nobody wish tow comment seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move the recommendation. can we move that forward. so moved >> the department provided the legislation to me at the 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

>> duly noted mr. updyke. we'll make sure that happens. i see our sheriff's department do you want to come up and talk on this item? we're on the other mike >> as he discussed the sheriff wants at that one year extension of the contract that will there the commission by 65 percent for 65 thousand dollars for to the welfare fund. we discussed amending the title of the resolution to make it clear for a total dollar value of the entire contract of

$4 million. we're here to request that it pass out of committee to the full board >> thank you very much supervisor mar. >> i want to thank you for the information. i asked about the number of inmates with children it's a huge percent >> it is. >> can you say that for the audience. >> of course, our population that has children it approximately 40 percent sprooirls under the national average of 50 percent. >> thank you. >> it's so important we provide services ease invested in the one family program and a okay. thank you very much any other questions we'll go to mr. roses budget analyst report. the committee has recommend we approve the resolution and i'll be happy to respond to any questions >> okay. thank you mr. rose.

>> if no other questions thank you. we'll open it to public comment public comment is closed. okay. can we move this item forward mr. clerk call item number 5 >> item 57 elections to enter into an agreement with the voting system incorporated to extend the term of their all the time to december 13th not to exceed the agreement to approximately $19 million. >> good morning, supervisors. john. the contract all the time is for 3 years. there's no other system in california that can predict the elections there's nothing coming

in the election offices. so if we have a 3 year contract the current system in unifies we'll have a new system. there are notice cost increases it's a flat extension to 3 more years. and you know, i, take any questions on that >> supervisor mar. >> a real quick one. it seems like if the duo minimum has a monopoly are there other companies that are developing the item in their own systems >> i'm not aware of any. in 2005 there were 3 major vendors that have voting systems in california and we had a current vendor at the time and

another company. they implemented the choice voting starting in 2004 decided not to upgrade their systems. so the other companies actually told us that they weren't going to bid because of the voting system. right now titus it seems like they'll be the vendor coming into california >> i know that as different state level legislation moves forward on technology to there voting easy and access i'm wondering would the do minimum systems are they looking at other online systems for voting

or tech driven changes in the voting system. they are in canada they've had limited test programs where they allow people to vote on line. it's in canada. not that i'm aware of in california. there's been more and more discussion and questions in the last few years. people are more accepting of the idea that it's one component of voting but then there's always the concern of security. so people access that >> and this is as closely related to the item we're discussing but in discussions with other city people around the country some of moving

towards all mail in ballots. i know we have a history of going to the polling place but people have proposed we go to a exceptionally in off year elections more of a male in ballot >> it's been before the legislation to allow all counties to do it that way it's been voted down. there are some counties that are having expectation to the rule and vote by mail. so that's an option for san francisco if it wants to go that route. but at the same time there are polling places in san francisco that are well loved. when we talk about the voting places there are option again

ideas. but i know san francisco exceptionally geographically the way it's situated it would be possible to have voting places around san francisco. the last question i know the legislative analyst budget analyst suggests this is a policy consideration but for a 3 year contract or extension did you consider maybe a 1 to 2 year extension maybe companies will catch and do enemy maybe the only compa company >> there's a thought there might be a better system coming

but right now when things i know legislation has been passed in california to allow secretary states to bypass the federal elections commission but still the current process takes six months to a year to get it certified. right now there's nothing before the states office the duo minute massachusetts has the component side of it but there's the fee side it would be tough to have a system be approved on secretaries day to be awarded the privilege to execute a contract and the system to be up

in a couple of years >> just is quick question to follow up. the question about an all mail in election you have to be enabled by the state; right? no matter what type of election whatever it is it has to be approved by state >> that goes back and forth. i've heard it through the vote by mail but really it might be r be a question formerly to the city attorney's office >> complaegz any other questions i hope you get some rest and a mr. rose budget analyst report. >> yes. as shown this tables 2 and 3 those tables are on pages 17 and 18 of our report. the proposed cost a as indicated

would remain at the same rate of $400,000 plus and 3 hundred plus for maintenance and license agreement and ross the rates that are currently charges under the existing 2007 to 2013 agreement. we also point out over the 3 year shown in table 3 the total costs to the city would be $3 million plus. and we discussed the policy matter on page 19 of our report we fully occur with the decision to not competitively bid we recommend you approve the proposed ordinance thank you very much mr. rose. colleagues, any questions. seeing none, we'll open it up to

public comment any public comment on this item? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues. supervisor avalos. >> actually, i have a question i'm trying to get my memory jogged on the original contract in 2005. i wasn't on the board at the time by the way, by wasn't there something around the storage of the documents of configuration of the department elections. there was some storage elsewhere. i'm not sure that was packaged with the original contract do you recall. >> i recall the storage issue but not the specifics of that issue and how that was finally, resolved. >> i know about it.

it was was it part of the original krablt or based on the storing of documents in that as i recall. you know what i'm talking about. there was no document storage there was a billed out we have a pier 48 part. there was a built out of the site >> that would have been separately from this contract for election services. >> the build out was in the contract original and when the contract was in place. >> right you so that's not part of this contract currently. >> no. there's no build out. >> it's already done. >> right. >> any further questions. >> okay. can i have a motion to move this

item forward without opposition >> item 67 resolution extending an agreement between the 71 and s and s trucking corporation and increasing the stimulated cumulative amount of 89 million plus for hauld sold and grid. we have a few speakers here >> thank you for having me good morning, supervisors. i'm tommy. i'm the general manager for the puc. the matter before you is a matter of a contract approval for the grit hall for 2 years. the board approval is needed pursuant to the charter it must

be accepted and the total cost will exceed the $2 million threshold. it will be needed in a lot of city we have solids we have to haul outside the county and the intermit that must be hauled out. if we didn't have this service we would have two days left of holding and the sludge would pile up. the puc would have this contact where the trucking has provided the services to date. the resolution before you exercises a 2 year option for the trucking by rem this resolution it will be preventing a gap. we ask you move this forward and

happy to answer any questions you may have >> colleagues, any questions. supervisor avalos. yes, thank you for your prevention. there was a lawsuit that was done by s and s trucking to the city and i believe it was based on it has been resolved because we got the contract and i heard the concerns about s and s not paying prevailing wage and their truckers are dependent contractors. i'm wondering what assures we have that this company is meeting the standards we have as

a city. so we have s and s truck but we have ron to talk specifically about this line >> supervisor ron from the city attorney's office. the first one was about a lawsuit there wasn't a lawsuit at first, it came to the board to be approved and that does not get approved and a s and s sued and under the charter provision 918 b this cowered had no authority. this extension would put it it above the authority so the lawsuit is an old matter. as for praefl wages at the time the contract was under 21 c 5 for hall and a sludge and it

required that the employees be paid praefl wages. the law changed that any individual who hauled be - it not be applied to other contracts it is amended and only applies to new contracts so it wouldn't apply to old contracts only new contracts >> and do we know the magnitude of people who are doing hall that perhaps are not paid praefl wage that are independent contractors. >> i believe that is the contractor. >> so what we do know they're meeting our exceptions even though their providing a service they're meeting our l.b. e

controls and that's why we're here to ask for an extension to incorporate that into the next contract. >> i assume that s and s would be responding to a future r s p. so they want the track record >> that's the assumption they're here to answer any of your questions. >> thank you. well, if they're here i have a couple of questions >> supervisor avalos. if there are s and s trucking folks here >> i'm the vice manager i'll be happy to a answer questions. >> while i was the administrative aid it was knoll people in s and s company who

had done the working with work and this is clearly a new small business. and people who had that extension so my concern moving forward is the standards people are paying the praefl wage is that something you want to make standard and you're continuing to meet with the future work >> that's something we've met with the work. i'm not about the new rules for future contract. i know that the d i r has set the standards for the prooefl wage. several publications that owner operators are not included from the wage but if you're paying

all the money you're paying to the truck and it equals the praefl wage the driver should get that. it would seemed to me that the use of owner operators or independence is an issue for the city or this board. i remind you the city has in place a goal an l.b. e goal. the experience was met only by owner operators that were l.b. e for the city. to say we're users owner operators and that's not the goal and to have the l.b. e's meet the the goal is a double standard. the goal was 7 and a half percent and