all the supervisors and other departments and the mayor's office to put their heads together not only for this present -- not only for this present constituted board of supervisors and present mayor, but into the future as well as almost a white paper. something has to be done. >> can i just jump in here? because i want to note that we actually are going to do a follow-up hearing to discuss the larger issue of what's happening to the senior population, not only in retirement homes, but in different parts of the city. and i think that that's a much larger discussion. but i do want to get back to what's happening with this institution. so, i want to focus the discussion on that and with the understanding that we are going to come back and have a much larger discussion about what the city's strategy overall should be. >> okay. >> supervisor mar, any -- >> i wanted to thank supervisor campos for continuing the

solutions and for the hard work and with the add back. but i did want to just make a point that i think we've known about the financial issues since the newsom administration years and years ago. the department of aging services and ms. kent [speaker not understood], my hope is we're doing everything we can to look at recommendation from the community and from mr. nadal as well and address this issue. but i do see this as part of the broader eviction process going on and displacement of senior and disabled people. >> i would like to say that transfer trauma and the anxiety level among the present resident population is pretty high right now. and i remember going into a nursing home after a double shooting on ellis street, dph sent out a lot of grief counselors to talk with residents and their family members. and i've often compared this closure to the closure that results from a fire when red cross doesn't come to

counseling, some kind of emotional support, or during the katrina where only bud man and others gave support where nursing homes were flooded and they had to move to that big stadium ~. and i would recommend somehow there be a more sensitive group of people coming out to talk to the university mount because i suspect that on july 31st there are going to be people still there and i would wish that there be a more sensitive approach to transfer trauma. individuals do not know where they're going. this is the end of their life. they need, they need to -- they need to have some kind of reassurances. it's not just finding a bed. it's not just finding a roof. it's not just finding board. it's the soul and the heart of each individual and their family members. and that needs to be better addressed in the next two or three weeks. i've asked repeatedly what happens on july 31st. the pressure is on, and no answer is give en. and i'm going to be there on

july 31st into august because that's when the crunch starts and i would hope that the place would not close down. >> one quick question. you have interacted with many various institutionses, retirement homes ~. what's your sense of how the university mount has handled this situation? >> well, the closures of nursing homes have not been done very well. the closures of a small mom and pops over the 20, 30 years, there's always been availability of space. and, so, i'd say that university mount, the board of directors have not handled this closure very well. there were some promissory statements in earlier public meetings that they would entertain, a letter of intent from a similar institution, and that created a sense of expectation and hope that the family members, that individuals would not have to move out. i think there's been consistent

mixed message. other facilities that have closed have not had such a public meeting. i do not know of any large assisted living facilities yet that have actually closed. most of the experience has been with the closure of nursing homes and they have not been done very well. they've been regulatory compliant, but there has been no reaching out to public institutionses for some kind of assistance not to close. and i think university mount, as you said, is symbolic of something going on and we have to somehow reverse the trend. i would like to -- people have called me up from state, what do you do in term of relocation, do we find placements. and i have a program manual i'd like to put into the public record so that everyone knows on the board as well as state agencies -- i mean city agencies knows that the role in monitoring relocations is somewhat limited. but we can shift roles and become an advocate for not

moving out and for full complement of eviction rights. and i'm shifting from the program manual on the ombudsman role in closures and relocations to one where we're going to advocate for what the residents and family want. so, it's like taking a stand. this is a symbolic of a larger issue. >> thank you, sir. so, why don't we now hear from university mount and i want to thank you again, mr. nadal, for your amazing work. so, i think it's bill brinkman, john [speaker not understood]. if you can identify yourself, please. >> good afternoon, i'm bill brinkman. i was retained on may 1st by university mount as their interim executive director and their chief reinstruction officer. by background, i've been

helping troubled companies restructure turn around for over 20 years. supervisor, thank you for allowing me and university mount to appear before you. on may 8th university mount announced this closure, it announced it could no longer afford to keep the doors open. the primary concern as difficult a that announcement was, was to help the residents, approximately 50 of them at the time, with the transition. that condition as you heard from others, can be very traumatic. the second concern was to find a way, a path for the university mount mission of helping elders [speaker not understood] to continue into the future. whatever that meant in whatever form or shape. the board at the university mount, they did not take this decision lightly -- >> i'm going to stop you. >> sure. >> because i think that we can hear a lot of rhetoric, a lot of comments, but what it comes down to for me is this.

you have a situation where because of financial reasons you could not continue to operate, and you have the city coming in and telling you time and time again and giving you various options, including not only finding partners that could come in and work with you to keep this facility open, but the city actually saying that we're willing to put up resources. and, so, i would understand if the board made a decision because it couldn't actually keep its doors open continue the mission and the mandate that created this institution to begin with, but i am at a loss to understand how you can decide to close when every opportunity has been given by the city and county of san francisco to keep you open. so, that is the question. you can say all you want about the difficulty of the decision, but why is it that given the

alternative, the option to stay open, this board of directors chose to close its doors? can you respond to that, please? >> there is no good way, in my opinion -- there is no viable option, in my opinion, to keep operating as is. and that was, thats was one of the difficult parts, as i addressed this, as the board had for years. supervisor, this issue is not something that happened last week, last month, last year, or sick years ago. this has been an ongoing issue for 25 years, as far as i can tell. we looked at numerous examples, numerous options, numerous paths. how can we fix this? as a reinstruction and turn around professional, i applied some of the same approaches through different scenarios dealing with people's lives. so, from that aspect, as we looked at the various options, the city did provide us with some recommendations. they did introduce us to a couple of potential partners, one of which did submit a

proposal. i can't speak to the specifics of that proposal. i will say this, that the proposal that were not accepted fell into a couple of buckets. the first bucket was the proposal wasn't financially viable. the partner, the plan, it was similar to doctor's medical, for example, up in richmond. five bills, ten years later. this board came on -- came in its current role six years ago. the last time that the closure was announced, they weren't going to allow the same situation to go on again. >> since we're talking about the board, and i appreciate what you said, i'd like to ask the representative from the board to come up here. is there a member of the board here? >> there is, john [speaker not understood]. >> okay, if you could please come up and please identify yourself. >> i'm john said lander. i've been a board of director

since 2008. i know the question, apparently a difficult decision -- >> the city has given you every opportunity to stay open and you and i have had a conversation, [speaker not understood], we are willing to put money on the table ~ to keep this open temporarily until we find a long-term viable solution so that we don't have to move these folks. are you willing to accept that? >> i'd like to hear a bit more about the proposal. you had stated that you would be willing to put some money on the table -- >> this is, this is the thing, right. that if you want to remain open, if you want to remain open, that's the first -- as a retirement home that serves women and others of modest means, there is a way that the city can work with you to make that happen. we can talk about the specifics and what that looks like there

is ~ there is a long-term viable solution? ~ >> i think the amount of money the city is talking about, from my understanding, is in the neighborhood of 250, $300,000. >> so, is it about money? >> it's about the amount of money we can continue with the level of debt that we're in. we are in the spot, supervisor campos, of being -- [speaker not understood] financing our operations the past six months, the past six years. trying different things, trying a number of different thing, looking for partnerships, and basically financing that with, with debt. we're at the spot of being

unable -- unable to make payroll unless we were to close this facility. i just -- i think that the -- as mr. brinkman mentioned, the notion of rates we are charging versus the cost as it was mentioned by i think mr. nadal, of caring for people this level is in many cases 7 to $8,000 a month. it's just -- it's one of those things that just is a model that doesn't work. and what we did have is an asset that would allow us to do two thing. one is to basically satisfy our obligations and to produce enough money, enough body of an endowment we can assist our residents we have now by giving them the additional money which we have a plan to do that which we announced to our residents last night. to allow them -- to give them

enough money so they can move into places that will -- that can provide the level of care that we have. >> now, i know that there is a proposal right now that this be purchased by a private school. let me say this. i am familiar with the private school. it's a great institution. they're very good players in the community and i really don't want to focus on that because i think that they are, you know, they're trying to do what's best for their school. but i want to go back to the mission under which you were created. the benefactors behind the original endowment made it clear that this was not about helping women fund their stay at a retirement home. it was actually to have this building function as a retirement home. it's very clear in the endowment that that's what happened. so, as a lawyer, can you tell me, have you checked with your lawyer? because i have asked the city attorney to look into whether

or not legally you actually can even do what you're proposing. have you checked as to legally whether or not, given that this billions was given to you for the purpose of running a retirement home, legally, can you actually use it for a different purpose? >> yes, we have. we have checked with an attorney on that and it's our opinion that we can. the purpose of the fund is for, is for charitable purposes. originally, the original concept back in 1884 was a bricks and mortar home, but it's the -- if you look at the -- if you read the articles of incorporation as they've been amended over the years, it's to -- and it hasn't been amended rerecently -- it's to provide charitable assistance in general and we intend entirely to do that. this wouldn't create a personal benefit for anybody on the board. this is only for the benefit of others. >> how much money -- what is the amount you are getting for the sale of the property?

>> the amount is $5.7 million. >> now let me ask you another question, because, again, i have asked the city attorney just so that people know this, i have asked the city attorney that the city explore any legal action that the city can take to make sure that anything that is done with this building is consistent with the requirements of the original endowment. and, so, i think that our city attorney's office will look into that issue and decide whether or not they agree with your lawyer. but there is another thing that i want you to know, and i just want to make it very clear that i am also prepared, and i have -- i will be asking the city attorney to draft legislation to make sure that the zoning for this particular property is restricted to a retirement home. and, so, what is the board of directors going to do -- (applause)

>> what is the board of directors going to do when we change the zoning so that only a retirement home can operate in this building? can you respond to that? >> i can respond personally, but not as the board. well, in that case we would pursue other options. >> i think you will. so, unless -- thank you. unless we have any questions from my colleagues -- supervisor yee. >> just a quick question. in looking at the sales of the building and then what the proceeds may go to, i couldn't figure it out with the numbers that was in front of me. after using the proceeds to pay your debts, using some of the proceeds to help out in transition, so forth, what would be the surplus or the

balance after that? and what would you be doing with it >> okay. the surplus is not entirely clear because we have some ~ a couple of obligations which have been specifically identified. one is the withdrawal liability for the employees pension fund. but we expect it will be in the neighborhood of $3 million. the use of that money is something that we need to really think through over, not just for a meeting like this. it will be looked after by a board of directors who will be planning that. what we have done is committed to say to the residents that we have now and to -- we had at the day of closure, we have committed $6 20,000 to support their relocation, realizing that university mount is probably charging lower than anybody else in san francisco

and that they will need let's say a patch such a the city has offered. and we've offered the same level of patch, $1500 a month to assist our residents in finding new homes in san francisco. >> i guess then what's left? sounds like 1.2, 1.5 million left from the sales? >> i think there will be -- after that initial, there will be probably at that point probably $2.5 million left. >> so, my question, then, becomes when you looked at your business model and you said there is going to be a deficit and so forth, and what we're asking is can we at least look at extension so that we could have maybe some more permanent solution, if any? and since you do have over $2

million, why can't we -- why can't you use that to extend the time that people could stay there? >> okay. the reason we do have -- the reason we have the $2 million left over is because of the sale of the building. we don't have it otherwise. we're -- if you look at our balance sheet -- >> it's not that i'm promoting that you have a sale, but let' say you do have a sale. sales are made to be -- you could have contingencies to a sale. it could be contingency you could sell it but you are not going to be able to change the usage of this for two years or whatever it is. >> glad to discuss that -- that would be a new proposal we'd have to discuss with this buyer if that would be acceptable to them. i don't know that. >> why don't we go to public comment. thank you very much.

i mean, one thing that i would say about the sale is -- i mean, if i were a prospective buyer here given that the city is talking about possible legal action and that we're considering exploring rezoning of this area, i mean, i would certainly be hesitant to move forward with a purchase at this point. so, why don't we call on members of the public who would like to speak. i have to say that normally i'd give the maximum amount allowable which is three minutes. but we might actually -- i do want to give everyone an opportunity to speak so we're going to limit it to two minute. so, i apologize for that. if you can please come up and line up to our left, your right. so, francisco de costa. jacqueline maury. don peugh. sandra parker. [speaker not understood]. barbara dunn. jean maffy. june tonsic. please come up and, again, thank you for being here. supervisors. my name is francisco de costa

and i want to commend you three supervisors for having this hearing, and especially the supervisor from district 10. the time has come in our city, supervisors, where we have to take a stand for our seniors, and not only our seniors, those who are mentally and physically challenged. i have known this area for a long time, over 35 years. but the public should know that this building is over 130 years. so, there are historic and landmark considerations that should be incorporated into whatever action has to be taken. i also want to talk to the public at home, that we have these tech companies and others who are looking at such type of

facilities so that, you know, they can flip them and do as they please. and, so, you supervisors should have in place legislation where we have a list of landmark buildings with their uses so that when this -- before the flipping takes place, we have a checklist so that we can check mate these greedy developers. so, this was brought to my attention on another case and i sent an e-mail to the supervisor and to others. and this is an ongoing thing all over in our neighborhoods. greedy developers are changing the characteristic of our neighborhoods and you supervisors who represent our districts have to do everything possible to address it, and mostly to [speaker not

understood] our senior citizens. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. next speaker. (applause) my name is tom peugh. and, david, i want to thank you for calling this meeting. we're here because we live in a broken world. i think the director of the mount have fallen off the wagon. they're on the wrong road. we should be on the road of social justice. i also want to point out that we're also losing the hospice. they had a hospice at the mount. i had planned to go over there in my last days and finish my time there. but now without a hospice, i'll just sit down in a gutter and call 311 and have them come and pick up my body. thank you, again, david, for calling this meeting. i appreciate everything you've

said. you're on the right road. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. hello. thank you for calling this meeting. my name is jacqueline maury and i'm a lifelong resident of the portal district. i've known the mount since i have memories. i am not going to focus onal tavis that school because i believe with david. ~ terrific new partner within the neighborhood. the issue here is the board of university mount, and not taking seriously the issue of losing these bed, these -- the hospice and not -- and just -- i don't see how this is going

to help seniors. i mean, i guess it really is good to have control over million of dollars and not think about the loss of the mount and how it's going to not only impact the people there now, but in the future with this aging population. and i cannot imagine that with the eight offers or how many offers that were -- that there was not one that could take over this facility and be able to provide the services. so, certainly needed in the city. we, my husband tom and i saw this happen with san francisco convalescent about six, seven years ago and saw how with a lady in particular how she slipped after she what

transferred to another facility. and i hate to see this happen to people that i know there. and, so, that is my statement, and thank you once again. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [inaudible]. >> i'm sorry? i'd like to use the overhead. >> go ahead, ma'am. thank you very much. okay. good morning, supervisor campos, supervisor mar. thank you for the hearing this morning. my name is sandra parker. i'm [speaker not understood]. today i'm speaking on her behalf. she's 89 years old. she's a resident of university mount ladies home, as i said. the home is not forthcoming with their financial information. when i explored university mount ladies home as a possible placement for what i was led to believe would be my mother's final care facility, it has

since become quite apparent that the board now has plans to quickly sell the building, turning the senior facility into a private school. have there been financial records kept that have been kept more easily, i would have considered other residential care facilities to avoid having to move my mother a second time this late in her life. it is a well known fact seniors have frequent difficulty with major life changes. clinical literature suggests that moving to another facility is one of the greatest stressors for all people and much more for seniors. the last few weeks my mother ha expressed increasingly more anxiety about her move and how she'll get her things together. ~ i would additionally like to state my mother and other residents have formed deep relationships and which would unfortunately be severed if she were forced to move. i would like to believe that we are a society that treasures

our seniors. the best service to the seniors of university mount lady home would be that they could remain in place the rest of their lives. university mount is not just a facility, it's a community. a place of warmth and care and loving people that work there and friendships. i urge you to support university mount's continued operation. thank you so much. >> thank you. before you go, can i ask you -- (applause) >> i think sometimes we lose the human side of this. could you tell us just a little bit about your mom? my mom will be 89 july the 24th. my mom was a world war ii [speaker not understood]. there are a couple world war ii veterans there. she's not the only one. bruce is also a world war ii veteran. he would have been here had he been able to. many people that would have actually like to have been here haven't been able to.

my mother worked all her life. she worked up until her 80s. she was a transporter for hertz car rental, transporting people all around, people from out of town. so, she's very vibrant. given the fact that she was born with a disadvantaged right arm, it was broken at birth, she's very vibrant. she's very articulate. she knows what's going on with the mount. she's very upset about leaving. >> that's it. thank you. thank you. >> i think it's sad that we're at a point where we're thinking of evicting a world war ii [speaker not understood]. next speaker, please. my name is [speaker not understood]. thank you, supervisors, for arranging this meeting for neighbors to come here and express their thoughts and their feelings towards closure of the university mount ladies home.

as you mentioned, this was set up for that purpose, to take care of these seniors. the assisted living there. and for so many years, for 130 years, that was the purpose of it. it was not built for a school. and at that time there were 25 acres left. 25 acres landical klatted, it was from [speaker not understood] to felton from you haderthv to cambridge street. they sold all those properties so they can put that money in endowment. and evidently they mismanaged that money. that endowment was supposed to be in the bank and provide interest. that interest was supposed to take re