financial officer of service system. i too will make this very quick. we've gone through six 6 months of the year and we are projecting for the trust to have a 23 to increase our fund balance by $23.1 million. this is $4.5 million greater than what we reported in our last meeting. we have tied up all of our money and we are in a really good financial position based on the policies that you have approved today. right now the $23 .1 million is comprised of $11.3 million in state plan net assets. $5.9 million in favorable claim experience in the blue shield flex plan. 5.3 increase in estimated

favorable claims experiences in the dental plan. reduction of a million dollars in medical insurance premium revenues after the early retirement reassurance program is applied. the account for filing claims. we still don't have -- because our run out period has not ended, we still are not 100 percent sure how everything is going to end up working with it forward. we still feel like we are going to have this increase in forfeitures..9 million in interest, point $3 million guaranteed paid by blue shield and $4 million general

transfers to general fund. we started out with having a $77 million fund balance and together we'll end up, we think we'll end up around $100 million balance in the trust fund. we are looking at, if you look at, we have to reevaluate, but based on what we've been carrying in terms of obligation and reserves it was $28.6 million. it was $131 million. i need to update my numbers to make sure there are no other things hanging there like in june. i don't think we are over funded. after funding everything that was talked about, you will have opportunities in terms of how

we deal with the excess whether it pays back, or if you want to use it to subsidize. there is various options available. in the general fund we are looking at a savings of approximately $328 million. what does that mean? it means that we have not been able to fill positions in projecting $478,000 in savings. this is again still due to testing and approval process that really elongates our ability for the time it takes to get approval to hire and hire. we are, the best thing offset by over expenditures in professional services estimated based by looking at the improvement

project that tenant improvement projects, some things that are in our professional services and as we talked about the workers comp claims. the balance that we are projecting in the general fund are sitting down with the mayor's office in the next couple of weeks in the controllers office to start talking about how we can ensure that we can carry over some of that funding for things that are -- that we may not have in terms of getting new funding. so in other words, my goal is to do horse trading. and this is the time that we have the ability, we have ask in. we have a source of money because we are under expending this year. we have to see how much they have projected that to use and we are going to start working on

horse trading with this. so, although, we would like to not be in a position with the general fund balance, i fully anticipate we are a whole. any questions? >> it's sometimes best not to disclose your strategy, but thank you for the information. >> you don't have my full strategy. believe me. all departments do exactly what i'm talking about doing, but it all has to do with timing. >> thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? >> r ccsf, what i wanted to bring up was when we were also discussing the budget it's really engaging that rose felt

nthal the controller has had meetings in the past with a number of us with regard to the financial situation at health service. i think he gained a bit of knowledge about that and i think it would be good to actively engage him and get him to better understand what we are dealing with. i'm stunned at the balance on our trust fund, but the fact that we are in a new age where we really, as long as we are doing flex funding and we are looking at things being self insured that we really need those assets and there is no question so the city shouldn't look at that kind of pot that we can grasp hold of and we are saving millions at the other end and they seem to have a problem of remembering that when it comes to budget time. but whatever you can do to engage. i think rosen field would do a good thing and the

mayor's not here to get involved. whatever you can do to support that position is what will benefit all of us here mostly. so thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none. well, we move to item no. 16 since we already have the other. >> item 16. report on network plan if any. >> i spoke to our vendors. there is no news. no news is good news. >> any public comment on this item okay. no public comment. item no. 17. >> discussion item, opportunity to place items on future agendas? >> it's not placing an item

on the future agenda but i do want it noted that i will not be able to attend the next board meeting due to preplanned travel for a conference for my church. so i'm sure you guys are able to cover all that is planned on the agenda. >> we will have to have an appeal. the appeal will be continued on an item for that next time. so i'm sure we won't have any problems finding agenda items. any public comment? item no. 18. >> item 18. discussion item opportunity for the public to comment on any matters on the boards jurisdiction? >> i want to bring up an example that some miles away from san francisco it has relevance to the city. the seattle seahawks won the

super bowl and the players play him. there are too many bullies at the work site who act like the miami dolphins coach which resulted in a major scandal. unfortunately professional football is run like city government. we need a lot less bullying and people in administrative positions and people who behave like pete carroll. because if people like employees really need to be productive. this is a lesson for seattle and it certainly has bearing here. that's one reason why i support the seahawks. forget the 49ers. >> dennis krueger, retired and active firefighters. i want to compliment commissioner or

her overwhelming reelection. i'm very happy. congratulations and also the fact that the health board is now moving into new quarters. again, will not be connected in the same building with the same retirement system. wasn't that the ultimate goal that's been going on for years. i'm glad you got that out to facilities. i was wondering on that part. >> thank you for the question. i think we've always wanted to be -- located with our retirees. that's a goal for us. we have heard that the retiree, the recommendation that the retirement system move into our same building has hit some snags and it is very important that the retiree community that's

interested in seeing us get engaged in that conversation. i encourage that and i hope, keep my fingers cross and if they do move into the same building. there are a lot of retirees that we see on a daily basis who struggle to get to our office and have a hard time to get from our building to retirement. i really hope it happens. >>. that is the last of our items. >> one thing i don't think we are clear after the closed session is the decision to not hold a vote about whether to disclose what was said. i just want to make sure that's clear for the record. >> we couldn't vote because we didn't have a quorum. >> yes, and also i believe everything that was discussed in closed session would be

covered under the confidentiality provision of hippa so there wouldn't have been an ability to disclose even if you wanted to. i just wanted to make sure that was clear. the vote the moot due to that confidentiality issue. >> thank you. i also want to acknowledge our new attorney for this meeting. she is not eric rap port. lauren, thank you for being here today. that's it. if there is no objection, this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you. >> >> [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> >>

welcome to our rules committee meeting for thursday, february 20, 2014. i am supervisor norman yee and i will be chairing this meeting. i'm joined by supervisor campos and katie tang. the committee would like to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv jennifer low and ross. who record the meetings and make the transcripts available online. madam clerk, are there any announcements. >> please submit speaker cards to the clerk. items will be on the march agenda unless otherwise stated. >> >>supervisor norman yee:

madam clerk please call item no. 1. city clerk: item 1: 130401: health code - hazardous materials]1304011.ordinance amending the health code to require electronic applications for registration of hazardous materials and for underground storage tanks be filed through the california environmental reporting system, to eliminate the requirement that registration of hazardous materials plans include a program for reduction of hazardous materials, and to provide for fee adjustment; and making environmental findings. city clerk: sf 11234 >>supervisor norman yee: i believe cindy from the department of public health is here to present. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is cindy, i manage planning and fiscal policy in the environmental health branch. i'm here with paula, our senior staff at our hazardous material and waste program. it's part of the environmental health branch of the san francisco department of public health. the program implements six state environmental mandates and two local mandates. there are three amendments being proposed to article 21 of the health code. the first so

conform to state law 25404 of the health and safety code. they require all facilities to present certification through the california environmental reporting system also known as sers. the regulated committee will be able to enter data. state legislation was at ab 2236. environmental health staff has provided technical support on our reporting system and now it's easy to update their existing information and provide a paperless one stop shop for multi-businesses.

the 2nd amendment eliminates the hazardous material plan for the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous waste. this is again conforming to local legislation state law. this was enacted in the early 1980s when hazardous materials were more abundant. most facilities are reduced their hazardous storage to low levels. we have a health prevention and green business program and we now accomplish reduction through working with our businesses and consultation instead of regulatory action. businesses are still required to provide health waste reduction plan. a 3rd amendment is a fee adjustment. if the fees in the facilities invoiced from the department don't accurately reflect the facilities current activities, the facility may now address a fee adjustment for them with correct

information with the fee payment. the businesses may have reduced or inventory since their last renewal and inspection may not be conducted in this time period. the fee adjustment form allows for a mechanism to adjust their fees accordingly. i'm happy to answer any additional questions to the amendment and legislation. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? no questions. thank you. any public comments on this matter? seeing none public comment is now closed. can we have a motion to move this to the full board. no objection. item passes. item no. 2. city clerk: item 2: 130710: [terms of and expansion of scope - existing local agency formation commission positions]1307102.sponsors: avalos; campos and marresolution amending the terms of the existing local agency formation commission lafcoo positions by expanding the scope of services for the senior program officer; extending the term of employment additional three

years through june 30, 2016; and utilizing the existing lafco budget to continue funding this position. city clerk: item 2: 130710: [terms of and expansion of scope - existing local agency formation commission positions]1307102.sponsors: avalos; campos and marresolution amending the terms of the existing local agency formation commission lafcoo positions by expanding the scope of services for the senior program officer; extending the term of employment additional three years through june 30, 2016; and utilizing the existing lafco budget to continue funding city clerk: item 2: 130710: [terms of and expansion of scope - existing local agency formation commission positions]1307102.sponsors: avalos; campos and marresolution amending the terms of the existing local agency formation commission lafcoo positions by expanding the scope of services for the senior program officer; extending the term of employment additional three years through june 30, 2016; and utilizing the existing lafco budget to continue funding this position. >>supervisor norman yee: 1234 >> okay, i see supervisor avalos office is present. please come to the microphone if you have comments to make. >> thank you, good afternoon supervisors, frances shea with avalos office. thank you very much chair yee for scheduling this on the agenda today. since the membership of the rules committee has changed a little bit since we last heard this item i hope you will indulge me if i go over it again. supervisors, as you are aware lafco advisory board of the community choice aggregation program has diminished. supervisor avalos response to these changes is start to examine lafco's future scope of work. the item before you doesn't focus on that element of the

discussion but this item. specifically given that less time is required to assist with the development, implementation and operation and management of the c ca program it would be better to develop the cost duties to include executive officer duties. currently lafco contracts with miller and ian for it's general council service. ms. miller was also the council and filled the director position on an interim basis. direct deuces include preparing contracts and rfp's and commission items and staff reports and sfpuc staff and monitoring contracts and preparing budgets and reports

for the commission and general services related to what comes up on the agenda for lafco. in the last fiscal year the amount that has charged for general council services was a little over $2,000 for 8 hours of work. during that same period of time, the amount for executive services is -- in the current year lafco has paid a little over $5,000 and nearly 28,000 for the executive director work. regardless of the duties she fulfills whether they are the general council, the bill is the same. the resolution before you today is a result of conversation that lafco has had in a few years and an

attempt to address this inefficient use of budget. this resolution does two things by consolidating the executive director duties into 1975 senior development specialist position and that rate those services could be built at the lower rate of $52.86 an hour. in the last fiscal year this would have saved $54,000. this allows for the funding source of the director duties. this allows for the continuation of that. and i know there is a question about how much was in there. currently there is a little over $375,000 still in the fund and we have an agreement

with sfpuc with cca and there is $665,000 left. this also does is it extends the possible term for the 975 position for the 3-year period. to be clear this resolution doesn't guarantee that this position will remain for 3 years. it allows the position to stay open, to extend for another 3 years. as i referenced earlier lafco and it's commissioners are planning to review the work scope and future work plans and as a result of that discussion, that will ultimately determine what the future work scope and length of contract for the 9975 position is. this resolution allows it to go up to 3 years. so i hope that's enough background and information for you to support this item today. i can try answer any questions you might have. the clerk of the board isn't here and available, so we may have to call on lafco staff if you

have any operations questions. in the meantime if you have anything, any questions for me. >>supervisor norman yee: thank you, frances. supervisor campos? >> thank you very much for the excellent presentation. i'm actually somewhat surprised that this item has taken so long to get out of committee. i would strongly urge my colleagues to move it's item forward. i have been a member of lafco since i got elected to the board of supervisors and for a number of years was the chair of lafco. what you have to understand is that the history of the lafco in san francisco is a unique one and lafco in san francisco has not played a role as other jurisdictions. i think that has been a mistake in the sense that there is a lot of potential for lafco playing the role of ensuring good government, best practices within city agencies. in fact that's what other lafco's do.

they provide oversight and provide ideas on how to more efficiently effectively manage and provide government services. and it allows for agencies like the board of supervisors to use resources other than the general fund to conduct issues and reviews. the perfect example is what would with the issue of garbage and waste management where lafco was instrumental in helping with that. what this does is it simply allows us to be able to proceed with expanding the scope of that work. in that sense it brings the san francisco lafco in line with every other lafco in the state of california. i also think that to the extent that there are specific concerns about how the individual position has been filled will be filled and how that will be managed. i can

tell you as chair of lafco and i know the commissioner supervisor avalos does the same thing that there is a lot of time and care that goes into managing lafco staff. when i was chair of lafco as is the case with supervisor avalos, it's very careful monitoring of staff, scheduling and all of that. i think that it's really imperative to move this item forward. i don't know what the hesitation has been but i know that we are sort of tying lafco's hands by not moving forward and i ask that that happen expeditiously. >>supervisor norman yee: supervisor tang? >>supervisor katy tang: thank you supervisor campos. i do agree with the change of the scope of the position for the senior program officer and i

believe the cost and savings is very justified. the question that i do have, again i do understand that we as a board of supervisors we are not here to -- i mean lafco is here to serve and there are members of our board who serve directly on lafco, but die want to know given the current state of affairs what are some of the things that we are directing lafco to work on and i think that the component that i'm a little bit concerned about which i know that frances did address was extending the term of employment for an additional 3 years given this. i was wondering why we could not consider doing this on a year to year basis. again, i know that discussion are supposed to happen to determine the exact duties and what will be coming out of lafco and then at that point you will be determining the length of time for the employment, but i want to know here at this point

why we could not take that on a year to year basis. >>supervisor david campos: i don't know what ms. shea's response would be. from my point it would be very impractical. the scope of the duties determines how much work the person will be able to do. if you have a situation where the process requires lafco to come back every year and we have seen this happen. there are delays and maybe when committees meet, when something gets scheduled. i think what this does in the best way to do it is that to not do a five or 10-year term but actually for a 3-year period so lafco doesn't have to come back every year to make sure that the definition of the responsibilities of the individual are broad enough that the person is busy. so i think that