money on reserve, on budget committee reserve, and get a report on actual hiring of new staff to implement these new programs and service integration and, you know, there's a part that we want to hire for the current fiscal year and the bulk are going tor hired for the next fiscal year maybe in the summer we can get a report on how things have gone for the current year and we can base release of funds on those remarks from trent rourke >> to clarify, just to get specific what that would entail would be approving a salary ordinance for this fiscal year, given we have such a short period of tie, i think putting it on reserve it would just be back in a few weeks but it would be i think next year's

the hsa position ordinance increasing that. that's almost --. >> so i have a mind --. >> sorry, there's another option to thin for a week to see if everyone can figure this out and i'll throw that out there's a different option. >> we can do that too. >> again, i'm sensitive to timing and implementing, i'm sorry mr. city attorney if i screwed up my explanation there of my thought process. >> deputy city attorney john gepner. i wanted to be sure i was understanding supervisor avalos' comment. you can place funds on reserve. if you want to consider future aso amendments you can do that by continuing the item or as supervisor farrell says, approving the positions for this fiscal year, considering the position begin in next year's aso which you will be considering.

>> i just don't know how to land on the number of positions in the aso to move forward today, but we do have money that is from the state, we know it's a certify night amount that would cover the services and the positions. so what i was thinking was approving some portion, if not all, of the positions and then put money on reserve and get a report from hsa then that we can release the funds for, to cover the positions. you know but i also, i'm concerned there's a wide disparity between what the budget analyst's recommendations are and hr, a lot of positions that are before us. >> supervisor, if i could, we actually in terms of putting funds on reserve, because we are using salary savings dollars, as miss campbell said, it's not the appropriation that matters, it's the aso

amendment, it's the actual position authority we are asking for the current year. and the reason we're doing this now and not in the budget year, the budget process next month, if we get new fte in the budget we are not able to hire, there are point 75ft e6789, we are not able to hire until october, we hire in october, they get training, they are not drawing down until january or february. if we get authorization we are hire now or by mi june, get them trained and have them online by mid-summer. that's a 5 month difference. so irrespective of not drawing down the federal and state dollar for 5 months we're not serving clients and that's the sense of the urgency for us is to get the authorization for those new positions. >> so i'm fine with the whole doing it now versus in budget season, given what you talked

about. that makes imminent sense. i think where i feel uncomfortable, we don't come across very often where there's such a wide gap and to either fall on one side or arbitrarily land in the middle, which is never the right thing to do, again i think the discussion here about, you know, again, part of the discussion becomes do we need to do anything, aside from getting us individually comfortable, now we've heard the arguments to dive into the materials and look at that, again --. >> through the committee to the budget analyst, the analysis that i shared briefly with the committee on the number of budgeted fte versus the number actually filled and then overlaying the temp positions, as well as the positions that have been tx'ed, if you haven't had enough time to work with us to understand

those numbers then perhaps a week would be been fis. but i don't know if you have had sufficient time to look at that or not, i guess is the question. >> members of the committee, we could spend a week working with the committee if that would help the committee. i should consult with the city attorney but i believe you could approve the appropriation. >> then we approve the appropriation and budget committee reserve? i'm not sure i want to do that. >> i just wanted to make sure the appropriation isn't tieed to the positions, the positions have a completely different funding source. the use of the reserve isn't tieed to these positions. >> the accounting shift for

ihs is the 27 million as well as the 2 million for the cal am program. >> fund the appropriation today. >> so the aso is item 1 and the appropriation is item 2. all right, so why don't we do that, or i will make that suggestion, that we continue then item no. 1 to next week with the commitment on everyone's behalf that we work on this and spend some time, then we can move item no. 2 forward. just to be clear again, mr. rose, you did have a recommendation for item no. 2; is that correct? ?oo ?a yes, that's the $135,000 that the department as i understand concurs with. >> colleagues, can i have a motion to continue item no. 1 for one week? >> so moved. >> without objection. so moved. item 2, a motion to

approve the budget analyst's recommendation for a reduction of $137,000, we can take that without objection, and item no. 2, can we move that item forward to the full board? we can take that without objection. madam clerk, can you call item no. 3. >> item no. 3 is a resolution retroactively approving a lease between north beach retail llc and the city and county of san francisco for 2449 and 2450 taylor street for a 10 year term to commence on january 1, 2014, with a 10 year option for use as a mta ticket sales room, restroom and break room for muni operators. >> i'm kirsten legary with the

san francisco mta and ask for approval of the lease. as you know, the sfmta has 76 transit lines with 146 terminals all over the city and into daly city. many routes are long, taking 43 to 83 minutes each and -- yes, could you have somebody put the presentation on the laptop? thank you very much. so operators need decent safe and sanitary facilities in which to serve them for personal needs and they need to have those close by the terminal locations in order not to have to leave the scheduled routes. we have a variety of solutions to provide restrooms for operators and other field

services staff, including 21 permanent restrooms all over the city, 15 temporary portables, which are in the process of being replaced, 22 licenses, leases and use permits and 28 free restrooms that are open to the public. we also have the operator convenience station project to install prefabricated restrooms in three phases in the city. the first 7 units in 6 locations have been approved by the city, and we appreciate your support for those. the three rooms in the north beach housing buildings at 2449 and 2450 taylor street are very important. this is the location. at the end of the powell street cable car line. they are important for a restroom, a break room for the operator bes and other field staff, and for a ticket sales office. prior to demolition of the former san francisco

housing authority development we negotiated a lease for these facilities. there was an operator restroom and a transit shelter on the adjacent sidewalk. those were demolished and these new facilities were constructed. the previous lease expired december 23rd, 2013, it had been for 9 years with a 6-year option to extend. rather than only extend for 6 years because these facilities are so critical to our operators and other field staff, we decided to negotiate a 10 year lease with a 10 year option to renew. so that is what is before you today. we weigh the advantages and came up with the 20 year lease. the first year rent is $7,920, increasing 3 percent per year with a proposed 10 year extension through december 31, 2033. and the rent payments are a total of $212,813 over 20

years under the proposed lease, which is, if you look at the net present value which the budget analyst office did, there is a savings of $13,835 over the 20 years. so i would be happy to answer any questions. >> okay, colleagues, any questions? okay, mr. rose, can we go to your report, please? >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, let me start off by saying that our recommendation to approve was a close call in our office which i have previously explained to the supervisors. as you note on the bottom of page 19 of our report and as the department has indicated, they now have an existing option for 6 years at

$6,000 a year, $36,000. that's a flat rate that they would otherwise pay if you did not approve this lease. we're recommending that you do approve it. the new lease represents a 32 percent increase in rent for the first year and that goes up by a cost of living each year. so it was a difficult decision as we looked at this, it was a close call, and when we did the present value savings with the real estate division and the department, we concur that there would be a savings, although it's minimal, of about $14,000 over a 20 year term. the 10 year lease that you are approving, if you approve it, plus a 10-year option. >> just -- you know, this is comparatively a small item here. >> yes. >> we're locking in a long-term lease in the height

of a real estate market. i'm questioning the generic theory right now. >> right, that's why i said to you that this was a close call on our part. the department right now, if you did not approve this lease, the department has a guaranteed rent for the next 6 years of $6,000 a year. if you approve this lease and not exercise that option the department is automatically paying 32 percent more in the first year and that's going to go up for the next 20 years. however, when we look at the entire 20 year period and discussed this with the real estate division as well as with the department, it turns out that the calculation for the net present value savings based upon the real estate division's and the department's projected rent over the next 20 years, which is a guess to a certain 20 --.

>> can i hear from mt on this? first of all what are your assumptions? obviously in order to be from four grand a month to 7900 a month and say we are saving money means your (inaudible) needs to be pretty high. if you have for 6 years right now locked in at six grand, why are we doing this? >> one reason is because it's a critical location and it's difficult to find other restrooms in thary and there are no facilities including across the entire city where there is also a break room and a ticket sales office included in the deal. so this is a unique location with a unique set of needs so we have looked at comps through online services that the mta subscribes to, including costar and loop net, and comps were that this is a reasonable rent and that rents, yes, are, they are high now but who knows what

they will do in the future. they could go up and they dwo down, but in order to have less uncertainty regarding this location and will we nose to ask for a 10 year lease with a 10 year option. >> 20 years. >> yes, so it's a 20 year total. >> okay, sorry, mr. rose, anything more? >> no, i want to emphasize, it's your very question that i started off my presentation by saying it was a close call in our office by making this recommendation to approve. we stand by that recommendation but i did want the committee to understand that. so our recommendation is simply to amend for retro activity, this is a lease that is effective january 1st, 2014 and to approve as amended. >> colleagues, any questions? we'll open up to public comment. any public comment on

item 3? seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. look, it's pretty close for me. i don't understand, i get the value of the space, it's a unique space and you can look at costar and loop net and do things like that. i think however locking in long-term things i'm not so sure the wisdom of that, but this is ultimately smaller dollar amounts and if there is security i will bow to that with the mta to make sure -- and i know having restroom facilities on our drivers is incredibly important for the right places but i think when we do these types of things during these boom times, if you will, we talk about rents, we are talking about affordability, i think there needs to be a broader discussion on that going forward. i am probably laying exactly where mr. rose did.

>> move to amend the proposed resolution for retroactive and approve the resolution as amended. >> motion to amend, can we do that without objection? so moved. and the underlying item as amended? can we do that as well? madam clerk. >> item no. 4 is a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $30 million aggregated principal amount of port revenue bonds for the purpose of financing or refinancing certain capital improvements related to the port, approving the forms of documents relating there to, approving the issuance there to, having a public hearing with the director of public finance. >> elaine ford, support staff. just as a bit of contextual information, the port starting in 2010 re-entered the bond market after a bit of a hiatus due to increasing our internal

financial capacity and also with the support of the mayor's office and the board of supervisors to make more investments in capital, in our capital infrastructure, and the intention of the revenue bond program is really to invest in larger scale investments and with your approval today will be at about $100 million since 2010. the city issued cop's on our behalf in 2013 around this will round it off. you did previously approve our ability to issue bonds in the amount of 25.3 million in may of 2013, you gave us access to the city's commercial paper program which allowed us to keep phase ii of the cruise ship terminal on target. the purpose of these bonds is phase ii of the cruise ship terminal and also to make improvements at pier 31 in the northern waterfront in the amount of 1.9 million and

we're using additional funds for pier 31, but that will allow us to open up red tagged facility, meaning it's shut to public use for private leasing and we're very excited about that project. today we have the financing documents for your review and final approval and that's the preliminary official statement, the second supplement to the indenture, the bond purchase contract and the continuing disclosure agreement. the budget analyst report notes that from your prior approval the resolution has increased 4.29 million dollars. you will see in the budget analyst's report we're not increasing the project amount and actually bond issuance costs are going down a bit. we increased this amount when we went through the commission process because we thought interest rates might be trending upward. fortunately they did not trend upward to the extent we thought so we don't need this additional reserve at sale so we wouldn't

need the appropriation amount but we're keeping the amount consistent with what the commission approved. we concur with the budget analyst's approval and i want to end with thanking you for your support of the cruise ship project. our cruise calls are coming in higher, we have 75 this year, for next year we already have 82 bookings and that means about 300,000 people coming and visiting us through cruise calls so it's good for the economy and it's good for the port. it's just been, we're really happy we've made the investment with your support. so i'm here to answer any questions. >> thank you, miss ford. colleagues, any questions? okay, mr. rose, can we go to your report, please? >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, on the bottom of page 24 of our report as shown in table 1 of the total qued not to exceed amount of $30 million, the port estimates

that 29.5 million would be expended, which is 4,4 85,000 which is more than the port's previous expenditures and as the department has indicated this is for the cruise terminal project and the northern waterfront historic structures project. and also as miss ford has indicated, this increase not to exceed is comprised of two components, bond issue costs which would go down by about $760,000 and then the bond reserve cost which miss ford indicated she will not need of about $5,050,000. >> anybody wish to comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed.

so, colleagues, we have no. 4 in front of us with a recommendation to approve. >> we have a motion to send this item forward we can take it without objection. madam clerk. >> item no. 5 is a resolution finding the proposed hall of justice jail replacement project is fiscally feezable pursuant to chapter 29. >> brian strong, director of capital planning. good morning, thank you very much for having us here. i'm just going to quickly introduce this fiscal feasibility study that the department of public works introduced and they will walk through it. jauft as a reminder, this is one of several pieces of legislation on the jail that will be coming before you and again this has been a key item in our capital plan since 2006

and you are aware of the seismic vulnerabilities in the hall of justice which is why we are trying to move as quickly as we can to get this jail replacement project going forward. so i'm going to introduce jamoke taylor, she is the project manager for the jail replacement project. we also have chef tee chief sheriff matt free man here to answer any questions. >> good morning, supervisors, i'm going to run through the presentation, i think you have a copy of it. the project

introduced by dpw on behalf of the sheriff's department. we are seeking authorization, in order to proceed with our environmental implementation process. it's important for us to obtain a ceqa clearance, sb1022 we believe will be around again sometime next year so this would help prepare the project to be able to, to be eligible for that funding when it comes up and also admin code 29 does require that we seek your determination before we proceed with the environmental evaluation process. the budget analyst's report also recommends that you approve this resolution because we found that the project is fiscally responsible and there is also an opportunity for you to, for us to seek your approval at a later date and

the approval would be on the bed count for the facility and to also approve the funding in december 2015. this is the schedule, i just ran through the schedule of when we will be coming before you again to seek your approval on the bed count and also on the funding. now the background, brian had mentioned that this project has been part of the capital plan since 2006. and this is part of the overall justice facilities improvement program. the hoj, we all know that it is seismickally vulnerable and it's important for us to have a replacement facility before the hoj becomes non-operable at some point in the future. the 640 bed came from, it was arranged from the controller's forecast of 2013 and they have predicted needing between 481

and 688 new beds and the sheriff came up with 640 as a prudent number to work with now. and having that number in the environmental application, it's better for us to submit with a higher number and then if the forecasters come with lower numbers it's easier for us to move down as oh poed to ramp back up. that's why we are going with the 640 now. the new forecast update will be available late spring. this is the site. we're looking at two sites for the environmental application and that is site a and site b site a is the block directly opposite the hall of justice and option b is the west wing of the hall of justice. so the new facility is going to move from the currently

designed to the podular design, moving from the traditional linear design to the podular design. i just mentioned some of the benefits of moving from that traditional lineal design to the podular design. also i think one of the important features with the new design is the program space that the sheriff has for the rehabilitation aspect of this jail and also the medical and mental health units that would be part of the new facility. just a few slides to go on the fiscal feasibility office, the bureau office already prepared a report. we feel the direct

and indirect financial benefits to the cd to brief the benefits of the new facility before the hoj becomes non-operable, we don't want to ramp up costs, there would be associated costs with temporary jails if, in the event of an earthquake, the hoy becomes non-operable we would have to find temporary space for the current inmates and also the cost of expedited construction and the savings from inflation construction inflation if we do construct a facility before the hoj becomes non-operable and the capital plan also states that there will be about 2800 new jobs as a result of construction to the city in san francisco. so the estimated capital project budget is about $290

million. that's what is estimated right now for the 640 beds. and the available financing, according to the office of public finance, is through the issuance of certificate of participation and it would be paid back over a period of about 23 years. the debt load would be $629,610,000 with an annual debt service payment of $29,634,000 and they do note it will not exceed the city's 3.25 limit. the operating and maintenance costs, the current operating and maintenance costs of cj5 was used as a benchmark because of the similarity of design they are estimating $930,000 a

year in operating costs. and that's the end of the presentation and do you have any questions for me? >> colleagues, any questions? actually i'll just ask this one but maybe it's more directed to i'm sure deputy sheriff friedman. the 640 bed number, i know you said having it high and reducing it if we see a trend of reducing the jail population, i'm just wondering, given the previous hearings we have had with the decrease from different alternative programs in the community and a lot of the people that are opposed to a new jail have been saying the number should be reduced downward and i'm