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? >> so after the substantial completion date that is shed by the authority having jurisdiction for the project and the next eight months because they're licensing from the state of california so a lot of that is ff and e as well as the transitional planning and implementation that's primarily through the ssgh facilities and

making that happen and i think -- yeah, so if there are any other questions -- >> in terms of date for the hospital being fully operational? i am sure we have a schedule for that. can you say what that is? >>i will defer that to terry. >> thank you. >>i am terry [inaudible] with the department of public health, program manager for the hospital. the transition plan is happening right now we have engaged with a contractor. we're walking through the paces. we have a targeted date of early december early 2015 to move in. i think the official date was december 2015 and a one day move of the entire hospital on december 28 so we're trying to bring it back to early december sore either the first or second week in december. we're trying to find the sweet spot between thanksgiving and christmas that are that but those endeavors are happening right now and they

are meeting with a subcommittee and report to a steering committee and review the tasks and critical timelines for each committee and that is managed at this time. we have a two year track on that. >> great. thank you. >> any further questions? okay. thank you very much. if nothing else we will move to public comment. anyone wish to comment on items one or two? two minutes. >> good morning supervisors. i am douglas yep and i did survive working 20 years at san francisco general hospital. i would like to first thank supervisor avalos for past questioning. i think they're relevant questions that we need to put on the record and obviously we will see what happens when it's officially opened, and also i would like to note for the record whether the

new general hospital would include any facilities for the dialysis unit which had recent hearing here at city hall? i think that needs to be put on the record and we will see how that turns out. now, let's put it this way. i am looking at the agenda -- i notice there is only one sponsor. if i was going to nearly spend $210 million the main question is do i trust the sponsor? it's pretty obvious a certain person trust the sponsor and we saw what happened to him, and then one of his best friends is about to lose one of her crown jewels, and i'm asking do you trust the sponsor? and for the record i don't see any supervisor listed as a sponsor for either items one or two. if it was such a good deal i should at least see

one name and seeing no names i have a feeling it's not that good of a deal, so to summarize san francisco general hospital needs a new hospital, but let's put it this way. no matter how good the facilities it's always comes down to how well it's used and without a proper audit of general hospital, without a proper audit of the department of public health, there's always going to be instances like the current fiasco at general hospital. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment on these items? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues we have a recommendation from the budget analyst to approve the items. can i have a motion to move it forward without opposition. madam clerk can you call item three. >> item three is an ordinance

authorizing the office of workforce development to accept a grant for $500,000 for the first source hiring program. >> okay. thank you. i believe we have oewd here to speak on this item. >> thank you supervisor. >> thanks for being here. >> so as of july 1 of 2013 oewd took over the responsibilities for work force -- work force component associated with mission bay including both job placement as well as compliance. part of the terms that were in place starting back in 1998 that there were financial -- there were resources coming from the development group in three installments. there is the first of those installments.

triggered for each million square feet of commercial of leesable space in mission bay, so apparently at the time we were unaware of these resources but we did find out shortly after that first threshold had been triggered which comes with $500,000. we received the check two months ago and are now before you to give me the opportunity. these resources would go to support two new importantly aceons positions and one compliant officer 2292. >> colleagues, any questions? okay. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> we don't have a budget analyst report on this item so i will move to public comment. anyone wish to comment on this item? seeing none public comment is closed. thank you for being here. could i have a motion to move this forward with

recommendation? shcial moved. madam clerk can you call item four. >> item four say resolution approving a waiver of the payment in lieu of taxes through 1991-1992 to 2013-2014 from the housing authority from the city and county of san francisco. >> [inaudible] >> okay. go ahead. >> good afternoon supervisors. mr. chair, i am barbara smith, acting executive director of the san francisco housing authority and i am here to request a waiver of the pilot payments from the san francisco housing authority from 1991-1992 to 2013-2014 in the amount of $12 million which is approximately $550,000 a year for the past 22 years. pilot is payment in lieu of taxes and

established in 1965 under an agreement between the housing authority and the city and county of san francisco. it was established in lieu of paying real and personal property taxes and special assessments. as 10% of rent payments charged to the housing authority's low income residents. it has previously been weighed by the board from these years listed and requested waivers but those requests weren't acted on. since that time the housing authority has not requested additional waivers and as i understand it the city has not included revenues for those payments in the annual budgets. in its may 2013 performance audit of the san francisco housing authority the san

francisco budget and legislative analyst recommended that the housing authority submit to the board of supervisors a request of waiver in lieu of taxes from 1991 through 2013. waiver of these payments does provide the housing authority with additional resources to address our enormous challenging needs to maintain our properties and provide services to our low income residents. i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions? okay. mr. rose can we go to the budget analyst report please. >> yes mr. chairman. members of the committee on page 10 of the report which was indicated by the department the proposed payment in lieu of taxes to the san francisco housing authority for the period listed totals about 12.1 million that is

shown in table one of page of our report. under the cooperative agreement outstanding payments are not subject to interest or penalties. we point out on page 11 of the report out of 10 housing authority surveyed throughout the country four obtained waiveers for payments to remove taxes and others made payments to local government entities. just to clarify our recommendation in the management audit report the housing authority indicated they wanted a waiver and we said it has to be brought before the board of supervisors for approval. we made no recommendation for the approval but we did make a recommendation that this issue come before the board of supervisors, so we consider approval of the proposed resolution to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. >> okay. thank you mr. rose. colleagues any questions? mr. avalos. >> in your opinion do you think it would be wise for the

government to move $80 million into the defense budget from the human and health budgets and for hud to build houses around the country. in your opinion do you think that is a wise move? >> mr. chairman, supervisor in my opinion there are a lot of things in the federal government i would like to look at but i don't want to make a decision at this point. >> it's a small part of the federal budget and we can request that. >> mr. rose are you saying it's a matter for that? >> maybe the federal government needs a budget analyst. >> i don't disagree. colleagues any other questions? at this point we will open it up for public comment. anyone wish to comment on item four? >> supervisors my name is

douglas schaaf and i noted for the record the amount is listed and as i say what's a million here and a million there? it only matters if you're an actual taxpayer. it was noted it was previously granted through years 81 through 90. i notice nobody said how much money is involved there so i think that should be clarified. let's put it this way. if we grant them a waiver in a certain sense you are awarding incompetency. now we know there is a lot of incompetency within the city and county of san francisco, but i think we shouldn't reward further incompetency by granting waivers. if you're going to do this it's only logical that you should allow individual taxpayers the same right, so why can't all the poor people that own property in san francisco apply for the exact same waiver

and it start waiving taxes for everybody under the sun and then we will gladly see whether this is a true rational decision or not, so if i say if you're going to do it now i say open it up to every poor homeowner in san francisco and the mayor's office, and the individual supervisors to come out against that idea because if you're going to reward incompetence why can't you reward people who are trying to best save their homes and yet you won't publicize this sort of activity. just by the fact there is no other speakers here is an indictment of how things are done -- how things are done at city hall. i was expecting plenty of people to speak out but i guess it's supposed to be a done deal. thank you. >> thank you. any other speakers? okay. seeing none

public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to send this item forward to the full board with recommendation? and we can do so without opposition. madam clerk can you call item five. >> item five is a resolution declare the intent of the city to reimburse expenditures of indebtedness authorizing the director of the mayor's office of community document submit documents to the california debt limit allocation committee in the bonds in aggregated amount not to exceed [inaudible] for 280 beale street. >> thank you very much. we have the mayor's office office to speak on this item. >> elizabeth with the mayor's office on community development. the resolution before you will authorize the application for bond proceeds to pay for construction and development cost for affordable housing which is located at 280 beale

street. mercy housing of california is the sponsor. when completed this affordable housing will be a 70 year small family project and 142 bedroom units and one bedroom units and one manager's unit. units are targeted to households not earning more than 50% of the total required or $50,000 for a family of four and share a podium with a market rate residential tower developed by a developeris bad in chicago illinois. block six is on folsom and beale streets the development term was selected pursuant to request of proposals for trans bay blocks six and seven and issued by the former redevelopment agency now the office of community infrastructure and investment. block seven will be an affordable family development that is currently anticipated

to begin contribution in late 2015. these transactions do not require repayment of the bonds and anticipate submitting to the california debt limit allocation committee in january 2014. if awarded an allocation we will return to the board of supervisors for approval to issue in april or may in 2014 and slated to begin construction in may 2014 and complete by july 2015. today is the sponsor representative from mercy housing california. we appreciate your support and look forward to seeing you at the groundbreaking events. this concludes staff report and i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions? very much a appreciated. we don't have a budget analyst report so we will move to public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to move this forward and

we can do so without opposition. madam clerk can you call item six. >> item six is the issuance of tax-exempt obligations - pacific primary for nonprofit corporations and aggregate not to exceed $4,500,000 to finance krears facilities owned pacific primary. >> okay. thank you very much. this item is sponsored by supervisor breed. i believe the legislative aide will speak on this item. >> yes briefly. i think we have more qualified people than i to speak. this is in district five and supervisor breed is happy to support the refinancing and i will let them speak to it specifically. >> thanks. >> good morning. i am executive director of pacific primary. pacific primary is a nonprofit full day year round school that is at grove and baker since 1974. in 2008 we opened a

brand-new school so that we have a total of 155 children and we did that only to keep families in the city and to offer the type of education that we give children two and a half to six, and we very much appreciate the supervisor's attention with this request and i hope that we can get your support. >> okay. thank you very much. colleagues any questions? okay. similarly we don't have a budget analyst report so we will move to public comment. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to move this forward with recommendation and do that without opposition as well. madam clerk can you call item seven. >> item seven is retroactively approving the modification between the city and guardsmark to provide security services for the human services agency to extend the term by one month

for period of december 1, 2008, through december 31, 2013 in the modified amount of $21,226,260. >> thank you. we have someone to speak on this item. welcome. >> good morning. i am from the human services eajz. we would like to request an amendment of this resolution to extend to january 31 for the full 1.9 million. the reason is that we have the successor contract to this contract. it's been out for bid. the bids have been evaluated. we went out for supplemental questions and evaluating those and we hope to make a tentative award next week but as you remember this is a highly competitive contract and in the last go around in 2008 there were several protests, one lawsuit and appeal of a lawsuit that we ultimately prevailed upon so we want to make sure we have enough time to get the new contract back in front of you in december, but realizing december will be a short month for

hearings, probably be the first of january when we get the new contract in front of you. >> okay. quick question to the city attorney's office. by extending it by a month and i want to ask mr. rose about it can we amend it and approve it today or do we have kick it a week. >> city attorney. you have to kick it for one week and consider it next week. >> okay. anything else you want to comment about? >> no. except i would like to thank the budget analyst report for rex piindicting the report on this and apologize for the tardiness bringing this to you on a contract that expires in december and we take full responsibility for that. we have been monitoring expenses against budget and should have been against budget and board authority and we ran out of board authority by the end of september which is why we're here. >> much appreciated. thank

you. colleagues any questions at this point? mr. rose maybe we can go through your report and also if you have comments about the extension for a month. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee as i understand the department there is delay in the competitive process that seems reasonable to me that it could be extended for two months instead of one month. that would not change our recommendations whatsoever. >> okay. >> [inaudible] >> and mr. chairman, members of the committee on page 15 we show the departments and analyze the departments projected need for the increase in security services that. is shown in table one on page 15 report and contingency in that projection to get to the 1.9 million. we believe that a 10% contingency

instead of 26.4 contingency is justified and would result in needed increase amount of numbers requested and our recommendation on page of the report we recommend that you recommend the proposed resolution to reduce the increase in the not to exceed amount by $276,000 and for the total listed to reflect a 10% contingency or $168,000 in lieu of 24-point 4% contingency or $440,000 and we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> okay. thank you mr. rose so with the one month -- now does that change things here? >> yes it does. we concur with the report for that end date but by pushing it to january 31 i would like the opportunity to