>> item 19, the board of directors met in closed session to discuss alan black and verses staoet attorney, the board of directors voted to settle the case, with the director nolan absent and anticipated litigation and no action. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> not disclosed. >> all right, directors, you are moving back to consideration of item 13. >> directors discussion on item 13, we have a lot of public comment and then we went to closed session, any comments from anyone? >> i have a couple of comments. >> one of the concerns is the quality of the vendor that we are going to use and i did the

research on the web on them and i know that in nevada, where they are based, the nevada transportation authority had the problem with the systems just in terms of privacy issues and i understand in new york they are running a test on 150 cabs and so my concern becomes, when we look at a 6 million dollar contract on an untested vendor, would it be more prudent to say that we do a pilot of 150 to 200 cabs to see if he can deliver the goods? >> it has one of the largest taxis fleet and they have a fleet and, a limo fleet and a

settle operation at the airport. and the technology that they have developed was over the years, some, the things that they developed in the house and seeing the utility of it for their own fleet, they decided to start this transportation infrastructure company. and this is not their first product. i believe that their first product was an advertising platform that was qualified by veriphone. >> and they have a cashiering system that is a software system that has been in operation, over a year and a half at the airport that handles 900,000 trips a year. so this is not the first technology project and there is a shuttle management system and this is not the first product and they have had other

successful software products before and as to write the integrity itself, it has been installed in several 100 cabs in las vegas, as a pilot program since july of 2013. and it is being installed into some limo fleets for the nevada transportation authority to collect data. and to enforce regulations with respect to limos. and so while they are a new company, they are not completely untested company, nor is there a completely untested product. and i have seen, demonstrations of it, and our it staff, and initially raised concerns before we ever entered into the first contract with fti which expressed the same perfectly legitimate concerns and however, after they saw the integrity of the program, demonstrated, that was no longer a concern for our it staff, they felt that this was a product, that was ready for

consumption. >> i just want to emphasize that last point. the business customer for this, for this service. or product. >> that is all that i have. >> any other questions,

directors? >> not so much, questions, just a few comments, if that is okay. there were goals stated on the record for the agency. i think that goes to the advertising perhaps for the apps that are currently in use and we talked about the traffic but i think they send end of the day is the goal of having a city wide app that really leverages the entire or a large portion of the fleet and we have two apps that are hopefully getting closer to that but that is really the goal here. and so, to enable that, we need the data, and to enable that we need to gather the data and i think that when we first envisioned this, my goal personally and i think that there are others here who agreed with this and maybe including the director is that the companies would supply this data. and you know, it has been mandated that they collect the

data internally and it would obviously save us money if we got the data from them, there are some claims that they have not gotten a written spec, so forth and so on, there is some claims that the companies have not been giving the ability to provide this data, i think that rather than figure out who spilled whose milk here and we have certainly heard it from both sides and the thing to do is that as the existing. proposal says is to give to the first to give the data time to be provided and have the written spec given in the clear form to the taxi cab companies to move forward with the data gathering and regulatory, you know, assessment aspects of the contract.

i would propose an amendment if that is all right, madam chair woman. >> yes. >> and what i would say is that we postpone or take the portion of the contract dedicated to the expenditure for the on board devices. and postpone that portion until after february first, making clear that after february first, it will require board approval for the agency to make that expenditure portion of the contract, the rest of the contracts would go forward. and in the meantime, let me be

personally clear, i have heard from the taxi cab companies that we did not have the real chance to give this information to the agency. and mr. son made the point in public comment. okay, now is your chance, you are going to get a written spec, and so let us know if you don't. and then, use this opportunity to see if we can work this out so that the information can come from you, practice rather than putting another on board device in the cabs at the expense of the mta and raising all of the issues that we have talked about today. with that amendment, which i guess that i should just say, that is my proposed amendment. and did i state it clearly enough? >> could you, could someone rephrase the amendment, please? >> so the amendment will be to require additional action by the sfmta board of directors, prior to the expenditure for the on board devices after february one, 2014.

>> okay. >> and i would like to get a motion and a second and then i would like to open it up for public comment on the amendment only. >> could i have a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> and i would like to open it up for public comment on the amendment and if you like to comment on it please line up and you will have two minutes. >> directors, thanks for making that amendment and i do want to point out clearly that you are giving a contract to a company despite what they said have never facilitated it and never put a dispatch system in the fleet and it is very suspect from this industry, and as a matter of fact, i feel very strongly, that this vendor wants to put in equipment so that they are, and we are beholding to them in terms of services and equipment that they control in the future. i just want to make that clear

and put it on the record. i suspect this company wants to use a cloud based meter system and make sure that they can charge for air time and other services using the equipment that they would deploy. if we are able to use the existing equipment, i want to address the fact, please, if you owned a small business, do you think that it is appropriate for a government agency to say, we are going to take your data, and we are going to give it to any third party, for-profit company with or without your agreement, to start putting your business in making profits for this company, and i cannot tell you how disruptive this will be. and it is another thing to give it to a company without the choice and consent to put the cabs on the network, that is in this plan and it is not being addressed. and is it unreasonable, for me, as a small business owner, to say, please, let me have some

say in, that data that i give you, about giving it to someone else before they put all of my cabs on their network. that is still in this plan. please, i ask you, respect my business. respect the efforts that i am doing to provide service and look at that very carefully. finally. the private industry has already done this. flywheel has two-thirds of the cabs on the network and soon, probably every cab, and we are going to go to the ford with this? >> thank you. >> next speaker here we are and i can tell you about the transportation and i know them really well and if you have been to las vegas, you know that there is no dispatch cabs, as much in the suburbs as there is in san francisco. and it is the airport to the hotel. 900,000 people are transported from the airport to the hotels, okay, and so when you can't call a cab and you can't flag a

cab in las vegas, you have to be at a hotel. and that is how it works down there, and you can't go on the streets to flag a cab. >> specifically addressed to the amendment. >> just the amendment, cnt has already given the information to donovan and you can ask him that he has everything that he is looking for our computer dispatch and it is already there and you know what? it is free. >> thank you. >> our next speaker. >> all right. andrew, and i will speak directly to the amendment and i appreciate the opportunity to address you, i think that it is important as i said to provide the written specifications and i think that it would be unreasonable to say that the written specifications if they are written in such a way that we can't respond, there ought to be an opportunity at least to take a look at it, and let me give you an example. right now the staff requires a 15 second, real time data and i think that most of the cab companieds are 20 and i think that it is likely that we can

get to 15 seconds but i would hate to see the specifications say that i want all of the items in red ink and knowing that the data comes in blue ink and so i would like to get the written specification and like to have the opportunity to come back and say that these are all of the things that we can do and there is a little bit of at least a discussion about how we can make that data meet the requirements that are written. because sometimes, i think in error, some people will write up some things knowing that they cannot be met and i hope that is not the case here but we are a little bit concerned. we have the data and we are more than willing to provide it to you, the written specifications will organize that data and make sure that you will get it but i hope that the written specifications that come out of fti are not written in a way that does not allow us to respond appropriately. thank you, next speaker. >> with regard to the special attention to the hardware or the software, i think that kim

is correct, to ring a bell of warning about the efforts to retool the whole situation so that through the cloud computing or whatever sorts of devices with webb 2.0 or other ways of administering the fees. and more comes under the rubric. and it is in our gate. and so, if there is a sneaky way of creating more fees, that is not going to work, very well. and certainly will not be popular. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> the heart is that they do not want a universal app system. they want to have their own appand they want to contract

with the companies that they desire to contract with to provide these app services. and their objections are basically the same that they had to centralizing or integrating the dispatch and it is, it is proprietary and understandable that these are understandable and private business and they like to control everything that they possibly can. and first of all we are in a regulated situation, second of all, we are in a competitive crisis, right now. and we have to have the tools and we have to take the steps that are necessary to combat that. i am still greatly concerned about all of this information sitting in the mta's computers, and without any guidelines or standards, for their use, i would, you know, if this goes through, i would love to see some of that put in the form of regulation.

and so that we know what the information is going to be used for, how and where and when and why. >> however, that does not mean that the eta system should not go forward in and off itself, it is simply a matter of having a method of locating a particular cab so that is on the cloud based system there can be contact between a rider and a driver. and i think that it makes sense to do that on the city wide basis if we don't, we are digging a deeper hole for ourselves, >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> i know that you have given this a lot of thought and i appreciate that you are trying to make an amendment here to make it, you know, more palatable for everyone.

my concern is, that i am thankful for the thought process of the first step that has been taken and my concerns will remain for a while on some of the things that have already been mentioned about the data collection and how it is going to be used and so forth and i guess that my concerns are, yes, we are regulated and it is never going to change and, we are regulated more than any city that i am aware of in the country and i don't expect that to change. i just don't want it to get to the point where it is so over reaching that somebody has forgotten about, that they are the regulators and we are running in the private business and we need to follow the regulations and we don't need to tell someone how to run the business, and i think that is where our concerns come and it is not a matter if we don't want to cooperate but we are running a private business and we are do follow the regulations as soon as the people tell us that here is how you have to do it, we get concerned. thank you for your amendment, and director, and you have proposed.

and i think that i am sure that we are going to continue to watch things closely. so that we don't or something else does not jump out of the bag and bite us. okay, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> any more public comment? >> we have a motion and a second on the amend. >> could i have a vote? >> all in favor >> aye. >> and no, opposed and now we have the amended before us, do i have a motion on the amended, and a second? >> second. >> second, all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> great. >> and the aye have it and that passes as well >> madam chair and directors, that concludes the business before you this evening, >> just a reminder that we are adjourning in memory of..., thank you, sorry. >> thank you. >>

. >> good morning everyone.

welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for november 20, 2013. i am supervisor farrell and i will be chairing this committee and joined by supervisor avalos and we will joined by eric mar and i want to thank sfgtv and as well as the clerk of the committee linda wong -- sorry, madam clerk do we have any announcements. >> yes mr. chair. please silence all cell phones and complete speaker cards and documents to be part of the file should be submitted to the clerk and will be on the november 26 agenda unless otherwise stated. >> great. can you call items one and two together. >> item one is sale of general obligation bonds - general hospital improvement not to exceed approximately $210 million and item two is

appropriation - general hospital improvement general obligation bonds fy 2013-2014 authorizing the issuance of these bonds and earthquake safety for the hospital and trauma center for fiscal year 2013-2014. >> okay. thank you very much. do you want to speak first on the item. >> good morning i budget and finance committee. the item before you is a resolution to authorize the sale and issuance of city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds and amount not to exceed $209,955,000 and the supplemental proceeds the same proceeds to finance the cost of the general hospital project. i will give a introduction to the financing and talk about the bonds and there are representatives from sfgh and

dpw available to answer project specific questions. so in 2008 the voters approved proposition a and not to exceed the amount of the general hospital rebuild and of that amount some funds have been issued and leaving $209,955,000 unauthorized and unissued. this is the fourth sale of bonds of proposition a for the hospital rebuild and contribute 207 million to project costs and additional $1.9 million for cost related to the issuance of this discount and citizens general obligation bonds oversight committee. sebt service on the bonds if approved is approximately $18 million a year over the 20 year life and $151 million in interest payments and three 61 principle and interest over the years. the three has two constraints on

the issuance of these bonds. the first is the charter limitation of amount owed at any given time and 3% of assessed evaluation. if approved by the board that limitation will still be maintained and the bonds will cause that rate to increase by 0.1 2% to 1.2 two and the other constraint is the property tax rate for the capital planning committee -- if approved that rate will remain within the constraint of the 2006 property tax levels, and is included in the fiscal year 14 tax rate for geo bonds and finally the resolution approved finance documents willing the official notice of sale and notice of intention to sale that announces -- provides legal notice of time and date of the sale and the

issue nsance and approves the statement that provides investors with information concerning the bonds themselves and risks and securities and financials for the city and we intend to include the audit when it's available for investors [inaudible] that provides that notice to the investors as it occurs. i am happy to answer questions and we have other representatives here also. >> thank you. dpw do you have anything to present on this item or anything to add? if you don't that's okay too. we don't have questions at this point. mr. rose, can we go to the budget analyst report please. >> yes mr. chairman, supervisor avalos on page six of the report we report that she has advised that the not to exceed amount

of $209,955,000 are project to have annual interest rate of 6% over 20 result in the debt payments of this and 210 million in principle and the rest in interest and the annual estimated debt service payments listed also. on the bottom of page six we report with a single family residence and assuming a homeowners exemption of $7,000 the average annual additional property tax is payable to the city would be $52.61 per year. if the board authorizes the $209,955,000 in the series 13 bonds to be sold. however, according her any increases to the property tax rate due to the sale of the bonds is off set by decreases to the tax rate due

to the retirement of other general obligation bonds. we recommend that you approve both the proposed resolution. as well as the ordinance listed. i am happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you mr. rose. colleagues, about questions. supervisor avalos. >> thank you. it's a question not necessarily for mr. rose but like we have done on occasion with the water system improvement program it would be good to get a status update of the hospital rebuild project and i can introduce a hearing for that just to see where we're at in terms of that project and how we're meeting all of our time line and financing goals or maybe you can provide a short summary now. >> good morning. i'm with the department of public works. i am happy to give you an update on where the project is right now what we have accomplished

to date, so it's been a busy five years since the prop a was approved in 2008. i have maybe a few slides i can give you. i have it set up. so if you look on the screen there's a couple of milestones that we have accomplished to date. we have been able in 2009 complete the phase one site utility successfully as well as finish all of the structural work and the construction of the mat foundation, the isolation system for the building as well as the entire structural framing as well as the currently in progress we are working on the skin of the building basically trying to enclose the building which is working in conjunction with the building itself built out so what we call in the increment four interior build out and essentially makes the

building functionally so we have been doing for the last five years getting the structure standing. there are photos of what the hospital currently looks like. on the outside it looks completed but in the interior we have a lot of work to do and that's our object objective for the next two years to get through this completion in may of 2015 is to finish the interior build out which is the mechanical, electrical, plumbing systems as well as finishing the skin of the building and making it functional. i am happy to answer any other questions. >> and in terms of meeting our goals around maintaining costs how are we doing in that regard? >> based on the current cost trends in the schedule we are on schedule with our substantial

completion date of may 2015, so we are tracking under -- the entire bond which is 887.4 million and we will be under that amount at this time. >> what is the contingency on the overall project ? >> overall roughly $30 million for the entire program. >> and do we expect to be dipping into that or how is that looking at this point? >> yes. i don't have the exact numbers but over all we believe we will be under that amount. >> and when we have a completion date, may, 2015, is that ready to actually start taking in patients or do we actually have to having that -- you know, furniture and fixtures? when do we expect that all to be completed and have it operational? >>