last but not least let's not forget the surface station where caltrain is working on the foundation piles central subway as a fte in the program that has contract specific goals from 6 to thirty percent those goals are based on the type of works to be performed and the ability of the krarthsd to perform the work the tunneling contract only had a 6 percent goal because there isn't any dbes to do the tunneling work now as of the challenges he mentioned earlier we need to continue with the advocacy for the new funds they've been

coming in a timely number and quantities, however, because they require congressional approval we need to insure the funds are allocated to fund the project second one is, of course the alternative funding that see required to replace the tuning materials the third although the project is within budget it is slow based on the fta recommendations, however, when april comes along and the tunnel contract is complete that recommended contingency will go in terms of the accuracy of the funding. >> on that point what's the

contingency required and the level. >> right now $140 million at this point that is required and the project has $81.2 million in reserve so when in april when the tunnel contracts reaches completion the required amount will be down to $75 million so that's more than more than adequate funding. >> thank you. >> and the final challenge because, of course, the project of this size has changes is that the revenue service date remains unchanged, however again based on the fta foundations the contingencies scheduled is lower the recommended amount

project has about 4.8 months contingency scheduled and the requirement is for 8 however, in april again, that's what we're talking about earlier that requirement will go down and deficit will be smaller won't disappear but go down to 4.2 months so the project is well positions to complete with the scheduled budget and that concludes my presentation. i'm also joined by john the mta's senior project manager. >> supervisor yee i have a general question related to that but not directly to our presentation anyone will have

the answers. >> i guess as has it been studied to extend to fisherman's wharf or not and what's the cost that of that. >> it's official together. >> right and everybody else has - >> we have the transportation authority staff directly with mta has finalized the feasibility study of that extension and looking at different options and station locations so, now it's a matter of continued to move forward and mta has indicated they like to reprioritize and kind of move forward work those things take time so it's not going to happen

anytime soon but it is moving forward this actually came about from the local contingent who actually came to the mta and requested that this extension be put you can on the burner at least. >> next speaker. >> not opportunity but on the burner that's where we are with that. >> director chang yes at the request of the community at the time that supervisor christensen was leading this they asked the planning department to look at the ability to extend the central subway to fisherman's wharf it is there it ranks from $$21 billion to $2 billion depending on the alternatives it

is a wide range and mta has agreed to consider this within our plan and undertook it at the citywide level and looking at other rail capacity needs we'll write them and have a proposal to have a presentation to the capacity plan that will be of interest. >> supervisor christensen. >> that will be welcome thank you i didn't will add i didn't plan on interject this but i'm getting enthusiastic response for all so i think we're going to be asked i want to be clear on the topic of funding where did our $75 million go and how are we're going to make it up is there small business that can answer that question what's the state doing with our money.

>> i'll answer all those questions the $75 million is really a cash flow issue we're looking at so the funds are guaranteed to san francisco and city of san francisco we're looking at the fund ability across the state or the state meets overall they can't provide the cash within the period of the project immediately what we can do to meet the contingency to meet the gap in the contingency we have $100 million paper program we entered into just in case to keep the project funding going so the project can pay off that's up to 2018 we're exploring and have explored with the metropolitan transportation we've looking at internally how to take the dollars and swap out

over 7, 8, 9 to meet cash flows needs we'll have to take the $75 million and swap it out with funds with the mta so it is complicated we went through assault weapons on projects and what might be feasible and it wouldn't work out united states way we hoped the fte requirement to reduce the contingency amount it is a problem we need to look at it and hopefully, we'll hope that the project continues on track to the full conspiracy is not needed matrix you've heard that state was said $75 million is the contingency we need so really managing 9 cash flow and working with the federal partners to get higher levels of that every year with the

recommendations it is $165 million that is a little bit more than projected so more cash up front we're not concerned with meeting the deliveryables but we have to escape out the $75 million. >> one more question so when the streets are replaced at union square there's money in the budget for the restoration of the roadways that are being displaced; right? you guys are going to put the street back when our done; right? (laughter). >> john the program director yes, we will supervisor. >> and currently the plan to replace them the way you founded them other studies for alternative. >> since you brought up that topic we had a successful winter

walk we temporarily closed the street and opened and reopened to the public for padded purposes that was a huge success with the residents alike i know that working with the union square improvement district they're interested in looking at a more permanent solution to that approach once we're complete with the central subway at the end of 2018 at this point from prior to 2018 the central staff will be more than happy to work with a complete street type of approach for the two blocks to stockton street but i think that the test case this winter was a huge success to put things into prospective we're have two more winter we'll be reopening the streets to pedestrian and

hopefully learn from the experience and apply those lengths lops learned to future opportunity to arrive a more complete streets for stockton. >> we're looking at the entire thirty stockton routes i'm w working with the mta to sort the continuous ideas to tie the ice cream study both that and i'm endeavor to do that. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other colleagues questions i'm glad to hear the project is moving forward and the only issue is the contingency that's a good thing i think we'll open up for public comment any public comment on item 7 seeing none, public comment is closed this was an informational item so item 8 please. item 8 instruction of new items

introduction of new items. >> seeing none okay moving on to item 9 and general public comment i'm sorry - >> oh, i apologize so public comment is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed and now we'll move on to item 9 general public comment any members seeing none public comment is closed and item 10 and adjournment. >> thank you sfgovtv jessie larson and jonathan.

>> 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