through 2014. local 38 united association of journeymen and apprentices of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry fiscal years 2014 through 2017. local 258, [speaker not understood] multi-unit fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 250 a, the transpour workers union of america 7410, effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 200, the transport workers union of america, effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 856, the teamsters, multi-unit effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the supervising probation officers effective fiscal [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood]. local 10 to 1 service employees international union effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the sheriff's managers and supervisors association, effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the san francisco city workers

united effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 3, the operating engineers effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the municipal executives association effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the municipal attorneys association, effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 1414, the machinists union, effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 261, [speaker not understood], fiscal years 14 through 17. the institutional police officers association effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 21, the international federation of professional and technical engineers effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 6, the international brotherhood of electrical workers effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the district attorney's investigators association effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the deputy sheriff's association effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the deputy probation officers

association effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the class coalition effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. the committee of interns and residents at the service employees international union effective fiscal years 2014 through 17. local 10 to 1 staff and per diem nurses at the service employees international union effective fiscal years 2014 through 16. local 856, the supervising registered nurses, the teamsters, effective 2014 through 2016 the municipal executives association for fire effective fiscal years 2014 through 2018. and the municipal executives association for police effective fiscal years 2014 through 2018. >> thank you, madam clerk for reading that all with one breath. and with that, colleagues, would anyone like to sever any of these items? supervisor tang. >> i'm sorry, i didn't mean to sever anything. but as much as it was a mouthful for madam clerk to read all those, i want to say a

number of gao, it was a huge feat for dhr staff to negotiate all these contracts and to do it on time. so, really wanted to acknowledge all their efforts as well as all the parties involved from the various unions to come to an agreement. so with that, just really want to encourage colleagues to pass all these items today. thank you. >> thank you. i would also join in the comments of supervisor tang. colleagues, unless anyone wants to sever any of these items let's take a roll call vote on the m-o-us. >> on items 39 through 69, supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim. kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> the m-o-us and the ordinances underlying are passed on the first read. [gavel]

>> yea. >> i understand that dph is here to retake up item 20, which we have already called. so, if i could ask our dph staffer, if you could please approach the microphone, i have a feeling a couple colleagues would have some questions for you. if you could identify yourself for the record. >> tim still well, [speaker not understood]. >> i'll kickoff the questions. could you explain to us this retroactive amendment? >> certainly. so, this contract is a contract that the state of california uses to enforce and structure and mandate that each county provide [speaker not understood] prevention and treatment services. the state's practice is to issue three-year contracts and this is the last month of the three-year contract with them. the contract was originally between san francisco and the state department of drug and alcohol programs. but since then the department

of drug and alcohol programs has been disbanded by the governor and the duties were reassigned to the department of health care services. and then the name of the section within the department of health care services changed again this fiscal year. so, they thought it was necessary to revise the contract. and because the contract is the payment mechanism for medicaid under drug medi-cal, it has to name the responsible state agency for the entire contract period inasmuch as settlement and audit issues are still current, going all the way back to 2011 for the contract. so, they -- that's why they sent us an amendment that would make the naming of the department of health care services retroactive to the first opening date of that contract. >> colleagues, any questions to

dph? supervisor breed. >> just a clarifying question. so, there was a contract that was previously entered into in 2010 under a different name. and so the changes under the state, this is why it's being asked to enter into a retroactive contract. so, the initial contract -- i notice that's what it says in the document. so, that's -- that actually makes sense. but you were obligated to change this contract and the responsible entities based on these state regulations and i just want to make sure that that's what you're saying. >> yes. >> okay, thank you. that helped clear it up. >> supervisor campos. >> yes. if you can explain to me when this contract, the amendment expires. does that expire june 30th of this year? >> indeed, it does.

>> and i guess why would we -- what took so long to get to this point? my understanding from reading the resolution is that the contract amendment was not sent until may of this year, which was, you know, [speaker not understood] since the last amendment expired. just wondering if you could explain that. >> no, there was a contract in force the entire time. the original contract that was signed was through june -- going back to 2010. that was the contract that was -- thats was the period, through june 2014. so, it's been amended several times, and then most recently this amendment that's before you. >> this amendment ends june 2014, right? >> yes. >> so, two weeks least. left. >> yes.

>> the last amendment ~ ended june 18, 2013. isn't that correct? >> i would have to look at that. >> i say the last amendment was voted on by the board june 20, 2013. i'm just wanting to understand the dates here rent >> i understand it was amended last year ~. i honestly believe at that point it was amended to cover through june 2014. >> okay. and, so, the amendment increases it by 1.6 million? >> yes. >> can you explain a little bit about that? >> sure. so, it's basically three funding mechanisms that regulated this contract. one is a submission of federal fund from the prevention treatment and block grant which

is an annual allocation from the department of health and human services down to the state and the state reallocates it to the county. so, that amount tends to be adjusted at the federal level for inflation. so, if you're looking at the same contract for the same services, it increases a little bit for every fiscal year so it will be a little higher than it was last year. that's one. the other sorts of funding [speaker not understood] to the regulations here ab 109 public safety regulations where we have the realignment of state tax revenues to the county so rates have also increased in the last year. and the third piece is the state's estimate of how much they need to encumber to be able to indemnify us for our drug medi-cal claims, and that estimate has changed also based on the change in rates, and also on the changes in drug medi-cal eligibility as of january 1st, 2014.

>> yeah, i'm going to support this item, but i do think that it is a little odd that we are essentially retroactively increasing a contract, you know, two weeks before the term with the increase is supposed to expire. i don't think that's how you want to do business normally. you know, i think it's important that we raise the red flag when something like this happens. >> if i could just ask a follow-up question. again, we're talking about the city receiving money to do these services, right? >> the county. >> the county receiving money. >> it is a county function that this is [speaker not understood] to. >> colleagues, i guess from my perspective, we are increasing this so that we can receive money, which is a little different in my mind than if we were to enter into a contract so that the city can pay money to someone else. that being said, i do agree that we should try to resolve these issues before retroactivity issues occur.

although i know it happens a lot as it does a number of items that we did not talk about today. i am also going to support it, but again, just want to thank you for coming here and, by the way, i understand mr. still well, you're retiring in a few weeks. >> yes. >> just want to -- >> couple of hours. >> couple of hours. thank you for coming down in a final last moment to get your final appearance in front of the board. appreciate that. colleagues, any final questions? with that can we take a roll call vote on item 20? >> on item 20, supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener absent. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 10 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted. [gavel]

>> supervisor wiener just stepped in. i understand supervisor wiener wants make a motion rescind this vote. second to that motion. seconded by supervisor breed. without objection, that item is rescinded. [gavel] >> roll call vote again. >> on item 20, supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. there are 11 ayes. >> this resolution is adopted. [gavel] >> colleagues, it's now 3 o'clock and we have three special orders, but i would first like to suggest is that we take the third special order from dpw around assessment cost, take that item first so that the parties can have an opportunity to resolve their issues with city staff. madam clerk could you call

items 37 and 38. if members of the public, if you could please be seated just for a moment. we're calling items 37 and 38. what we will hear from this hearing first is staff from the public works department to give us the report on the assessment costs for sidewalk and curb appeals. then we will hear from members of the public that wish to appeal any aspect of this report who will have up to two minutes to speak. from then i will ask dpw staff to step in the hall to have a conversation with any public to see if we can amicably review this and i will ask dpw staff to come back later in the meeting, likely after one or both of the special orders to give a final report back. dpw. >> excuse me, mr. president. >> yes, if you could please read the items 37 and 38.

>> thank you. pursuant to a motion no. m-14-0 94, approved on june 10th, 2014, the board of supervisors will convene a committee of the whole for items 37 and 38. a public hearing to consider objections to a report of assessment costs submitted by the director of public works for sidewalk and curb repairs through the sidewalk inspection and repair program. >> let's now hear from dpw. >> thank you. my name is robert kwan, i'm with the department of public works. this report is for properties inspect and had notified and repairs made and invoiced by the city under the sidewalk inspection and repair program from april 2013 through april 2014. during that period the department inspected and repaired sidewalks and curbs along city blocks and portionses of the marina, lower pacific heights, western addition, cal hollow, potrero

hill, lake street district, bernal heights, golden gate heights, outer sunset, hayes valley, telegraph hill, lone mountain and claire don heights issuing 3,97 2 notices to repair and [speaker not understood] which goes to city agencies and, and private utility companies at a cost of 1,5 56,754 dollars for notices to repairs ~, $1,6 49,387 for [speaker not understood] for a total of $3,206,141. [speaker not understood] invoices were sent out to property oresctionv of which 1,528 property owners paid allowing the city to recover ~

$1,290,360. the balance of the property owners elected to have the cost of the sidewalk repairs placed on their property tax or otherwise have not paid the city in a timely manner. in this report there are 217 properties with outstanding invoices totaling $2 27,575. >> thank you, mr. kwan. unless there are any questions to dpw staff, let's now hear from members of the public that wish to contest any aspect of the appeal. what i'd like to ask you to do is line up on the right-hand side of the chamber, starting with you, sir. please feel free to step to the mic. and i would ask every member of the public, you have up to two minutes, if you could state your name, your address, the basis for your appeal, and once you're done feel free to take a seat and i'll ask you to meet with mr. kwan outside in the hallway. let's hear from the first speaker. >> my name is tom chan ~ and i

received a notice on the building address 5 20 through 524 filbert street. all three of those units ~ are tenant occupied, they're not owner occupied. no one ever received any invoice for any work being done and, therefore, we have no way of knowing what to pay or who to pay. we're perfectly happy to pay it. we just never received an invoice. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is dana chu, i'm one of the property owners [speaker not understood] in san francisco. like the gentleman before me, we did not receive any notice nor amount or an invoice regarding the item of of repairs. we don't know when it was repaired, how much was repaired and what the cost.

if the dpw could let us know how much is due and owing and when this was -- when the work was performed, be happy to pay. and i would recommend in the future that they make better efforts to notify and clarify what work is going to be done. in the notice here it says that there is a reference to the work and the amounts that are charged and it's not available anywhere either online or attached to the notice of the hearing today. >> thank you. next speaker. yes, my name is tom [speaker not understood]. my spouse and i live and own 21 79 [speaker not understood] avenue. we actually purchased our house in 1999. when we moved in, we were told that the large chinese elm on the sidewalk was actually maintained by the city of san francisco. a couple years ago the roots on the elm tree actually broke through the sewer pipe that go from our house to the city

water system. we figured since the pipe is in our driveway we had to fix it. that cost us $55,000. [speaker not understood] any damage from the tree. we did additional research and actually found out that the city of san francisco is not allowing [speaker not understood] these kind of trees due to all the damage caused by its invasive root system. we were not overly surprised when the invasive root system of the tree caused damage to the city sidewalk. we were, however, surprised when we received a notice from the city that we would have to pay for the damage that the tree the city had put in, had agreed to maintain and the city now says should never be put in again due to its invasive root system. imagine if the city had hired someone who had agreed to maintain something it sold to san francisco, and that person then said, we're not doing it any more. i doubt the city would [speaker not understood] on that.

or someone causes damage to the city by driving their car through a city door and demanded the city fix it, again, i doubt the city would go for that. [speaker not understood] a hearing on this matter at public works. [speaker not understood], discussion unusual because [speaker not understood] kinding i shouldn't have gone to the hearing, which seemed kind of weird. during the hearing, the hearing officer told me that everything was fine until i received [inaudible]. >> thank you very much, sir. thank you very much. you'll have an opportunity to speak to the dpw staffer. sir, everyone who comes to the board chamber, you have two minutes to speak. we'll have to keep that rule with everyone. i appreciate it. thank you. sir, your microphone has been turned off. you'll have an opportunity to

speak with the dph staff. next speaker. next speaker. thank you very much. my name is jacqueline [speaker not understood], i live in [speaker not understood] bernal heights. [speaker not understood] the sidewalk inspector was carrying out the work in front of my house. i asked what was going on. i was told my sidewalk needed to be repaired. and i was told i had the following choices. the city could do the work and charge me, i could have my own contractor do the work, but i would need to get a permit that would cost $500. i could do the work myself and follow the guidelines from the paperwork i was given. then we discussed what needed to be repaired and i was told the cracks were quarter inch wide or more would need to be filled. my sidewalk was basically in good condition with some small cracks. i would say some of the cracks had been marked were less than

a quarter of an inch and i proved it with a ruler. so, now the cracks were wider he, i was told i could do the work myself ~. i told them i would and was given a deadline the next week and purchased the materials and completed the job. at a later inspection i was told that none of the work was acceptable. at this point i felt pressured to have the work done by the city's inspectors, but i had also noticed that some of the sidewalks on my block were much worse, in much worse condition and had not been marked at all. this made me question the professionalism of the inspectors. i was also told that the tree outside of my house was buckling the sidewalk and i would be billed for the work by ann arborist. no work was done by ann arborist, but i was billed for that. i was charged and the bill was removed. my total was [speaker not understood]. i was then charged an additional 12% administration fee. there was never mention the

total now is 1,22 1.50. i paid 5 49.50 of that. i am of a limited income so i have no choice in the matter, was forced into paying the city's contractors to pay something that i was already adequately repaired. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is [speaker not understood]. i live at 1567 42nd avenue. like the speaker before me i saw my sidewalk was being repaired. i moved in 15 days prior to that. it was a little surprising [speaker not understood]. the cost is small. it's a little over $400, but it's more the principle of the pacific loan pool company that actually owned my house, not paying for this. and someone like myself who is on a limited income having to

pay for it. so, again, the notice to repay to pacific pool on august 16, our closing date was on 10-5. the repair occurred on 11-16-2013. the adjustment had been on november 1st. and i'm asking that this be paid for by pacific loan or for them to be accountable and not us. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is gail mel ton. i live at 225 and 2 27 andover street. [speaker not understood]. they sent us a bill which included two items, which was tree root pruning and tree basin bricks for $590, neither of which was necessary nor which the city did. so, we asked them to remove those two items and we would

pay the bill. they said they would send an inspector to make sure our tree did not require the pruning or that the backfill had not been done. nobody ever came out, so, we waited for them to come and verify the amount. and the next thing we got was the notice about this hearing. so, we just wanted those item removed and then we'll be happy to pay it, but we don't want to pay the 12% administrative fee as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is rp gordon from [speaker not understood] san francisco 94 11 2. i did not receive the information ~. i would like to not have to pay the administrative fee as well and [speaker not understood] i'd be more than happy to do that and take care of it. thank you. >> next speaker, please.

my name is [speaker not understood], last name is maladian. i live at 329 contera street in san francisco. sometime in september 2013 i had a major accident. [speaker not understood], crushed my pelvic bones, cut my bladder and everything. i end up in the hospital. after six days i was taken to -- i had to go to a rehab center. and then when i came back after one month the work was done already. but i've noticed the vent was smelling and it was overflowing. so, i called the department and they said they're going to send somebody to check, but they never did. so, i called the water department emergency, they came in. they had to break the vent outside and then they had to

put pressure just to open up the cement. it was clogged up. but they told me this would happen again so you better call department again. so, i called them a second time after one month and they said, we have your information on the list. we're going to send somebody, but they never did. but from that time until now i have to go ahead with time and press on, push water in there just to unclog this. so, i think they should come and fix their problem. i cannot live with smelly [speaker not understood] sewage. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. supervisor avalos, do you have a comment you want to make? >> i was planning to [speaker not understood], but i just want to make sure that when dpw representative speaks with the community members here, the real common thing i'm hearing is people didn't expect to get

administrative fees or some of them didn't get information about what fees are being put on. seems to me thats was the concern, that is the case. i want to make sure dpw is responsive to the concerns when they're raised when they meet outside the board chamber. >> thank you. next speaker. my name is john plant. i live in bernal heights at 10 20 cortland avenue. we received a notice that we were going to have some sidewalk repair in front of our house. they showed up in a few days later and started work. we were kind of surprised. they did the work and then a few days later, we notice that there was like an overwhelming amount of [speaker not understood] completed. [speaker not understood], its was nasty and glowtion. we had to call 311. they came out and fixed it. it happened 20 times we had to call 311. there was sewage in our street from the work dpw had done. finally they got a camera down

there after 20 times and they found out they had left the [speaker not understood] of towels and tools in the pipes. kid kept getting sick. it was gross. it was awful. there was environmental damage. they told us in a written paper we have, that they are at fault for the clogging of the pipes. they did come out and fix it, but like any contractor, i would not pay for such shody work. so, thank you for your consideration. ~ shoddy work. so, thank you for your consideration. [speaker not understood]. i don't speak english very good. i prefer to speak spanish.

a few months ago you -- i don't know how to say that [speaker not understood]. [speaking through interpreter]