. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the san francisco budget & finance sub-committee meeting for march 11, 2015, my name is mark farrell i'll be chairing this committee and joined by supervisor tang and joined momentarily by supervisor mar i wanted to thank the members of sfgovtv jennifer lowe and others. >> madam clerk. >>

electronic devices. completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the march 17 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> that's correct madam clerk so we have a number of items number one is a hearing i requested i know one participate is not here we'll go through the other items first and tackle item number one madam clerk call item 2. >> 2 an ordinance amending the business and tax regulation code which contains a license requirement for the merchant that have been suspected. >> thanks madam clerk we'll take them in order. >> good morning amanda freed i thought i which is here for the

wrong reason nice to be here today this is an item amending the business code to repel article 3 on the taxes for merchant this is suspended by the board of supervisors since the year 2000 the reason we're asking for an appeal we have taxpayers calling and questioning this for taxpayer clarification we want to strike this from the code. >> outcomes that's correct very much seeing no questions we'll open up for public comment anyone wish to comment on item 2 seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor tang. >> this make sense i'll make a motion to pass that to the full

board with a positive recommendation. >> we'll take that without objection. madam clerk item 6. >> item 67 is an ordinance authorizing the office of treasurer and tax collector to accept $100,000 for the resource network for the office of financial kindergarten college program to go afro-from december 2015 and 2016. >> thanks to supervisor campos for introducing this to our office a grant for $100,000 for an outreach to kindergarteners for every interkindergartener in the san francisco unified school district. >> colleagues, any questions open up for public comment anybody wish to comment on item 6 seeing none, public comment is closed supervisor tang. >> i just want to thank the

treasurers office for in great program it is great to see it continue i'll make a motion to pass on this ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> thanks very much we'll take that without objection. madam clerk call item number 3 please. item 3 an ordinance rivaling authorizing the technology department to enter into the second amendment if that the city and at at by extending the term of the agreement to 2016 not to exceed one hundred and one million. >> is miguel is not here and item 4 are for the administrative code for the amendment for the body of puc

and number 5 for the issuance and revenue of bonds in an agency vat not to exceed $48 million to capital projects with the construction of the electric power according to the chapter section. >> okay. thank you madam clerk both of items four and five restraining order - are revenue bonds is the puc here i like that we tried they're not here we don't have the department of technology here we'll work on that call item 1. >> hearing on the support of the causes for the city improvements and soon to be released housing and city report. >> thank you madam clerk and thanks to everyone who is here

and put the time in inform prepare this guess a hearing i asked and called for to review and discuss recommendations for the city's reports for the portfolio we'll deliver the best outcomes for the homeless population and the city the first report we'll review a report i requested earlier in the year release in january that examines the variations and the city programs citywide for the focus on the master lease in a review of the contracts to identify and look at the assessment experience and outcomes it provides recommendations as we as a city need to look at the cost and support of housing and highway patrol to eventually move out of housing and other housing

opportunities this happened last year the second report the auditor report on the support portfolio and their characteristics services and public health care utilization and ultimately climate report has recommendation in could he areas i looked to exploring my office look at the service provisions and effectiveness and administration and program goals again, i time to thank everyone who has put the reports together to our dph and other staff members and department heads and my office with that, no other comments we'll get this hearing started fires i'd like to call up the budget analyst office to talk

about their report. >> good morning supervisor farrell i'm from the bunt and legislative analyst office we'll be presenting this report today. >> good morning, supervisors. >> good morning. >> our analysis focused on the city's largest support housing programs the master lease program where we contract with the master lease with the hotels and the sub did i housing on behalf of the agencies with the nonprofits to be subsidizing operation costs and the dpw provides 0 providers for a medical population the reason for the focus not only are they the largest supportive programming 90 percent comes

from the general fund and they're eligible services population in 2013 they supported many units and dph has 40 percent and the other agencies the rest they're spread across the housing sites there are 26 different vendors providing certification as you can see those are in district 68 the city has 3 primary models of support informative housing the master sro's and in addition to nonprofit supportive housing that are owned and operated by non-profit providers for homeless residents and other affordable housing that includes the set aside for the on the master utilities empathize

two-thirds of the housing portfolio as well as nonprofit affordable housing to expenditures in unit so dph and s h a average budget per square feet is 23 hundreds in focusing 2013-2014 or one thousand dollars per unit per month that's the costs and dph has been slightly hire expenditure reflecting the medical and dph population. >> just to be clear those figures are fully vacant number the wrap around services. >> correct. >> so just in terms of the assessing of the numbers we are only looking at budgeted expenditures not other support that includes federal funding or

section 8 funding and it will not include for the nonprofit development costs any public costs to develop the units or rental revenues from residents so as you can see the overall per unit cost between the premodels are relating close but there are medical differences frshs the dph buildings are the most expensive compared to the supportive housing because there are significant investments required and upgrades of the unit and provide a relating higher support services. >> sorry can you speak to that the separate the physical structure if the physical itself and the more intensify services for health care makes a ton of sense is there physical costs here.

>> i believe within dph portfolio they're providing fund to elevators and removing bedbugs features and other things in contrast the master dph portfolio have the relating lower services spending available and the most amenities the other affordable housing in dphs portfolio has the lowest expenditures because there are a large number of non-resident that is rental revenues that contribute to the management at the sites within the h s a not a large number of buildings their 25r9d to families and seniors that have higher average costs compared to single difficulties. >> so expenditures a for single

adults is 82 percent for the housing and 80 percent for the heirs as you can see senior only sites mixed sites and family only side doors sites are modest in the housing portfolio so average expenditures for single adults are the lowest of any housing type $12,000 or one thousand dollars a month whereas houshgsz for family is itself highest average expenditures they must accommodate a larger amount of folks and have better amenities than the single adult sites we see something in particular where single families have the master leases and the lowest expenditures whereas the senior only sites because of

they're great need for care and support have the highest expenditures. >> it's interesting so the unit average expenditures for unit by population not by per person; right? so the sites are the highest but if you change this to do it by individual i'll imagine it is quite a bit less. >> yes. in the next slide. >> sorry. >> we're looking at the support services expenditures you see the family only sites are a lower per unit services per expenditure a larger number of residents per housing. >> so while annual budget expenditures important the master unit reflect the costs in the city for the support of housing oh, i'm sorry no reflect all the costs in the

support of the annual budget expenditures for the unit don't reflect the public financial cost we did a case study looking at two sites and a.m. tilsz it over thirty years to get a sense of the impact development costs those are equal to $11,000 per unit for each development so without that including the development costs the average costs are compatible between the master and other unit but once it greatly increases the annual costs to over $20,000 per unit. >> first of all, that's a great statistic data to look at it that way it is interesting so you've got thirty years of financial costs so this year's sometimes longer 50 years. >> there's 50 year loans.

>> as we've talked about last year it is time i'm sure during the budget season we'll reopen the conversation the master lease is perhaps something you could do immediately or assuming that the housing market has available unit in san francisco versus nonprofit owned is a longer period to develop the unit but ultimately over time we'll use the public fund a.m. intents over one hundred years and our market in san francisco versus nonprofit that owned assuming we pay for it over a long period of time that the city might smooth out a little bit more; is that correct. >> the asset for the master less lease i think we've looked

at the mart lease per unit 3 hundred to $350,000 per unit per average those will go up but the other thing i don't have the specific numbers but the master costs are increasing by quite a bit one was approved last year it is to 50 percent hive both of those will be gouch. >> if we think about the vision of the city over the next decades if we if you take the assumption our real estate market is going to continue to go haywire then locking in the it is on a thirty year base it looks at more expensive than today walking in construction and purchase of land value purposes today for permanently affordable

housing and versus the winds of a rising real estate market thirty years from now it is a good discussion to have for the long hall my immediate concern unfortunately, we've seen there are individuals on this streets we want to help today and we're going to driver's license a strong implementation to help with the master leasing but the long term we're putting our city funding in the long haul to make sure we not only take care of that today but tomorrow. >> and too the recommendation for the finding one we actually consider the master lease has an important part of the housing stock 50 percent currently but the other thing we recommend to throughout the city the city needs to engage in the tenure

plan for the temple year plan has expired and now the change. >> thanks. >> so invocation we've looked at the dpinlt referral and assessment procedures this is fairly basic but different buildings and programs will have eligibility based on the population characteristics and income and medical needs a variety of providers that will refer residents into the system and the different programs will have different evaluations and assessment so the single adult population no formal evaluation but there will be for family units and dph g side a clinical

evaluation for the clinics as well as in terms of the compliance two broad areas maintaining the laugh behavior and paying rent and beyond those compliance criteria that are house rules in terms of you know expected behavior. >> so while there has been some increased standardization at both h s a and the other agency those are still heavily focused on conceptual compliance and we need what is more expensive conceptual comparison of outcomes u outcomes across buildings and vendors and the city s is currently engaged in our main findings and speaking to the concerns you've raised

supervisor farrell we believe at this time master lease and nonprofit support housing are necessary components of the system because the master lease unit do make up 2/3rd's of supportive housing portfolio and 3 thousand unit at this time it is less expensive and more available than the nonprofit housing they're less desirable the buildings are older and although the city has created more 3 thousand unit since the adaptation of the plan in 2004 the homeless population has unchanged from 2005 to 2013 in general people that are being housed in addition while past analysis by the city and other government academic sources that provided the academics particularly

compared to other expenditures and other expenditures such contraction and hospitalization the actual costs of per secret are expected to slate in terms of the development costs with the nonprofit or affordable housing development and finally there are numerous program procedures in case of the data on high levels of key spending is not available because the contractors have been structured and the contracted performances and outcome manufacturer are not sufficiently detailed to track the effectiveness particularly having targets original towards transitioning people out of housing and specific details in the types of housing if and when they're able to support the housing so finally you know the

10 year plan considers the housing permanent and didn't discuss whether the residents ca can transition because they don't assess it from a higher to lower level service and the city therefore needs to consider whether africa be permanent housing or some sort of transition housing lard is possible so we believe the board of supervisors should convene a working group of various city agencies or organizations and adapt a new 10 year plan on the housing those will discuss the citywide coordinated system and more expensive performance manufacturer to understand the services abatements which the auditors report will address the

available of tentative housing and the projected heirs of the city's supportive housing thank you. >> thanks for your report thank you for the authorness and the power point a few questions i think that before we move on to our city's service audit report you talked about something we've been struggling where it's too too much whether we should dive into the details and instead of talking about the structure i see the valid it but let's dive i love our personal opinion we've asked our housing provider and value everyone's opinion the coordinated assessment model system

similar we talk about the central listed intact system although that's a separate topic that the general technology can you talk about or not that's it feasible but if it's feasible to implement i see the benefits i want to me it's a no-brainer. >> certainly the other departments will be able to speak around the funding challenges and the data challenges of having you know those various systems were not designed to talk to each other but i think that the point we're trying to make is that, you know a necessary and sufficient component of any long term planning in the city's housing so currently you know it is very difficult to assess people move in and out of the system during case points and having a better understanding of those needs

will help evaluate costs in the future so i think they're currently they're doing a trial on the federally sports populations and i think that community colleges will be a worthwhile investigation we'll be taking lessons learned from the trial and moving into the city. >> in terms of you talk about the contract monitoring i think the performance outcomes we'll here later from the general the people that have been involved in the housing providers network and they're already talking about measurement of performance outcomes on a multi year approach i don't want to put words in their mouth but looking at it from a long term there's a temptation to have the outcomes we is the board of supervisors determine they may not be the