ir i've gone through several times and looked at the video of the hearing that was held on my matter referred by the sunset ordinance task force and the only two people that asked questions were commissioner keane and commissioner andrews i said is there any way of using the audio video equipment without extend $42,000 and the city librarian lied to him is no other way all they had to do was take the slides i know they got them and included the private individuals like the friends the san francisco public library it tomatoes not commissioner andrews fault that i guess he did what most people do listened to the department heads and

assumed he wouldn't lie especially on not television i say that without fear of contradiction it was proven commissioner andrews has shown a on several occasions to ask questions that really need to be asked i would have been controvertible with commissioner keane because he's a great advocate for from the expression and first amendment rights i've yet to see that take real effect but again commissioner andrews i think will serve as vice chair very effectively and i at least have some hope that he will take into account that the issues of the public i will point out that very often members of the public who get involved in city council like

the sunset posse have given up on they don't come here because they know you're not going to respond and you're not required to respond to my public commissioner lee's comment your your stimulated to contempt i'll ietsz telling that i say one thing that make you look bad and no one says anything in response maybe the vice chair will get something more than commissioner hur gets ridiculous looks at. >> is there a motion to elect commissioner andrews as the vice chair. >> so moved. >> all in favor, say i. i. >> hearing no one that motion passes congratulations.

>> the next item a discussion and possible action on the minutes. >> commissioner. we found one last minute tip on and on 0 on page 6 under the top of the page the first paragraph the third to the last line read he stated that chapter two 8 is not limited it should be linked. >> any other changes

public comment that is is there a motion to do you want the minutes. >> second. >> second. >> all in favor, say i. hearing none that motion passes. >> next on the agenda is at the director's report. >> just one on the language assess ordinance we processed the paperwork to translate the documents translator as soon as the paperwork is forehand or favored they'll send the documents to the translator so we'll have documents in this year. >> can i ask in terms of the percentage of documents that we are talking about what percentage that might be that will get done this year. >> at least half. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> and when i have those exact

numbers of the money we have and by next month i'll have the number of documents but we step up to the plate to have one hundred percent done from the calendar year from now if not sooner. >> thank you. >> any questions for mr. sincroy in the director's report. >> thanks under chair mr. sincroy under the enforcement summaries the stipulation that chris jackson entered into will take care of numbers two and three. >> those are an additional. >> only an additional. >> a she means to of violations 235i or fines for filings. >> and number 2 from 2011. >> i believe that's the one

from court agreement on. >> okay. >> i had a comment about this document and i know i can't but i want to make sure when we are doing this work particularly in the timeline on all the documents that could. to the commission particularly open any of the complaint that are outstanding and pending in any such documents that find themselves at the commission. >> right. >> sorry by away of theirs we're timely handling those. >> that's correct. >> that's written. >> so just under the lobbyist pro-program in your report it

says as of march 15, 19th street 26 are registered on the audit not near one hundred and 26. >> that was from last year i'm sorry could you - so in terms of the chu's who we choose to audit we chose by firm as opposed to by individual lobbyists because the reason that was chosen really our mandate to do one lobbyist we thought 4 would be more appropriate we thought when the lobbyist report if there are other lobbyists sometimes the reporting overlaps one lobbyist may not report any income they can have if there's 3 lobbyists one can report all the firms

income so we didn't liquor want to choose somebody and it turns out they have no protect but another person recorded the income to in terms of lobbyists we choose by firm if there are 3 lobbyists we'll actually audit all 3 of the lobbyists and if there's a firm where it is just one person putting out their tare shingle. >> any other questions for the executive order public comment? >> commissioners ray heart for san francisco open government the report you're talking about is on the screen and down there at the very bottom it says sunset ordinance

the interesting thing about the executive report there is nothing there but a number never an explanation what is glen eagle being done or not just nothing so i got up here i thought maybe the general public should know the rocket for enforcing the century ordinance rests with the body i had second thoughts i thought good they do recognize that for a second years literally years has begun by i'm not the only one with ordered not reinforced and can't get you to do a darn thing about them and by doing so whether you want to admit it you protect the officials that are committing of all the evidence the city librarian was accepting

thousands of dollars i brought that to the commission so did other members of the public we had to personally go to sacramento to get them to do anything and yet to get an explanation from the city librarian why we filed a statement under the penalty of perjury and allowed and said he got nothing and why he withheld records to how wide that fact and to protect the library commission to protect it arrangement $70 million and they don't know where the hell that went and you sit there and look which is what you do you sit and look and don't say anything i my case a whole bunch of statements and at any time one can stand up and show i'm wrong only problem they can't because

i'm not and they think hey if i sit quote and say nothing long enough it will go away but it's not i missed being i was in florida and i will be here until you get off our asss whether will anyone ever you tell me the law didn't say you're supposed to enforce the ordinance no because you can't that's what the law say the question is why aren't you enforcing that. >> next item on the agenda is item for future meetings. >> any proposals from the commissioners? public comment?

>> ray heart san francisco open government when ask one of you going to step up to defend the rights of citizens of the san francisco to go to a public meeting await being harassed or beacknowledged or disparaged by the boards we have the right to respond bow not the right to shut people up i went to a library commission and she said you can't talk about that you can only tube what we put on the agenda in terms of if it's not on the agenda you can't talk about that the task force ruled against the police officer commission tried to tell me i was not loutd allowed to talk about whatnot on the agenda he told me to shut up it's amazing

in a city like san francisco think that you have the right to speak until i start to put your fist into someone's rice bowl we called it in hawaii and the city librarian is supposed to be putting down finances on his form one of you say going to say oh, my god that's terrible that is even worse that the private citizens had to go to sacramento why? because you're here to protect the people that appoint you i have news as far as i am concerned the middle eastern minute you took the oath of office you work with or for the citizens of san francisco and represent their interests and their interests alone and allowing an appointed officials

a strident head to accept thousands of dollars from a group and do nothing about it your told point blank by the members of the public it is urban consciously like supervisor farrell when we went with them approving the annual appropriation we raised the same issues i alexander acted like there was nothing wrong with that and used emphasis office to withhold public records he voted that the the full board of supervisors approve the appropriation without having him or hi staff look at a single document they not limited to that and came forward and said he didn't give mr. heart anything because we didn't have anything they recommended to the full board of supervisors they approve the proimgdz without looking at the appropriation

what it was unbelievable but i sit there with blank looks at in our icy wonder about you guys. >> is there a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> second. >> in favor. >> i. >> meeting is adjourned

. >> good morning, everyone, welcome to the it san francisco board of supervisors budged and finance subcommittee meeting for wednesday , april 1, 2015. my name is mark farrell, i will be chairing this meeting, joined by supervisor katytang, joined by supervisor mar and supervisor scott weiner. madam clerk. >> yes, mr. chair, please silence all cell phones and electronic devices, completed speaker cards and copies of all documents to be included as part of the file actions today will be appear on the april 7 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> colleagues, we were going to go in order today. we have a hearing as item no. 1, all though there was, apparently i just realized there was one item held over from last week because that was completely

cleared up, so we're going to take one quick one out of order, item no. 4. >> item no. 4, ordinance appropriating approximately 11.5 million for the renovation, repair or construction of parks and open spaces and recreation and parks department for fiscal year 2014-2015. >> donna is here to speak on this item. >> supervisors, good morning, a very brief presentation on a fairly routine item, supplemental appropriation of the 2012 parks bond. of the roughly 160 million given to us by voters we have now, we did a first sale of about 53.2 million after the election. today we have spent approximately 14 1/2 million dollars and due to various policy changes about how other city-wide projects should proceed we find us in the space where some projects have cash

that won't need it and other projects need that cash. so here we are to request a reappropriation of 52 million of projects that don't need the fublds to projects that will need the fupbtds to go into construction this summer. in general the biggest sources of appropriation of the balboa park pool which is going forward. this in any way does not impact voter approved funding, it's really just a cash flow measure and reallocating that to (inaudible) which is ready to go into construction and needs 9.9 million for us to reencumber the the contract. so this reappropriation allow us to stay on the schedule. just in terms of program milestones, we have concept plan approvals for most of the phase i projects, gilman, glen

canyon why, west mountain sunset and we started planning well in advance for willy wu a failing play grounds task force to make recommendations about which projects we should prioritize with the 15 1/2 million dollars from the failing playgrounds fund. this chart shows basically the summer and fall ahead and the major projects that we expect to go into construction. we're actually in construction right now on joe dmrapblg owe and expect to be going into construction on gilman park and soulgt like as well as west sunset and then glen park recreation center. with these projects dwoiing into construction we expect to have fully expended our first sale and be ready to approach the board with a second sale this fall, which will allow us to begin and complete design on the second phase of projects. with that, i'm happy to take

any questions. >> colleagues, any questions on item 4? seeing none, we will open this up to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. we don't have a budget analyst's report? do we? sorry about that. >> mr. chairman, supervisor tang, supervisor weiner, i did testify on this item last week and recommend you vote this forward. >> supervisor tang >> no, i had no questions from the last time around, just restating this does not change any of the project budgets for the project so i am happy to recommend this ordinance with a positive recommendation for the full board. >> we have a recommendation from supervisor tang and can take that without objection. >> hearing to discuss the expect edify napx needs recrated by the increase of people living with hiv/aids who

will lose their private disability insurance as they become eligible for social security benefits and requesting the budget and legislative analyst to report. >> thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, this item was sponsored by supervisor wiener so i will turn it over to him to run the hear ?oog ?oo thank you very much mr. chairman and colleagues, thank you for hearing this item today. today this hearing will focus on the increasing challenge that many people in our city is facing with regards to long-term survivors of hiv/aids who have been on private disability insurance policies and whose private disability insurance will terminate when they turn usually 65 and then transition on to social security, resulting frequently in a significant drop in income and resulting housing instability

and housing instability. this issue was identified by the lgbt aging task force which, colleagues, as you know issued a report last year after we formed the task force in order to explore the challenges and opportunities around our growing lgbt senior population. the task force identified this as a looming problem for our community and the purpose of this hearing is to learn more about it and to really begin a process to determine how best to address it. in the 1980's and early 1990's, in particular, before there was any effective treatment for hiv, many people particularly gay men with hiv who were employed and who became sick during the height of the crisis became disabled

and left the work force, frequently accessing their private disability benefits. for many of these people they did not necessarily think that they were going to make it, given the lack of effective treatment and they remained on private disability policies. , out of the work force for many years. starting the mid-1990's we began to see more and more effective treatments, not to cure hiv but to allow people to stabilize their health and to live long and healthy lives. and so we are now seeing a growing population of long-term hiv survivors who are approaching or in their senior years. this is a good thing that we're seeing a growing population of hiv positive people living into their senior years, we want that to happen, we want people to live long,

healthy, happy lives, but it does create this issue and it is a discrete issue of a discrete population of largely gay men who went on on to private disability in the 1980's and 1990's that did not re-enter the work force and are now approaching age 65, an age they didn't necessarily think they were ever going to reach, but here they are and about to experience a significant drop in income. we know that in san francisco housing is incredibly challenging right now and for people who are experiencing or who are going to experience this drop in income, even if they are in stable housing, it may cause them 20 lose their housing because they can no longer afford to pay their rent and right now the last thing we want is for people to lose their housing and potentially become homeless. we want to

make sure that people are stable in their housing. this issue having been raised and flagged, i decided that we needed to try to analyze it and quantify it so we know the scope of the problem that we're facing. so i requested that our budget and legislative analyst study the issue and produce a quantification of where we are and what the problem is and what time frame, when it's going to emerge and how long it will last. so working with various experts in the community, the bla did perform an analysis and produced a very thorough and well-done report. this analysis provides us with information on which we can make policy decisions about how best to proceed. so, colleagues, today we're going to hear from the budget

and legislative analyst to present the report and i think they distributed copies as well. we'll then hear from a few folks in the community who are doing work in this area and then hear public comment. with that, colleagues, mr. chairman if i may i'd like to call up the budget and legislative analyst to present and i want to note we have representatives from the department of public health and human services here if any questions arise with respect to those departments. >> good morning, chair farrell, supervisor tang, supervisor weiner, supervisor, we were requested to estimate the number of people in san francisco living with hiv and aids who have private disability insurance and will be transitioning to social security. hampton smith from our office

will be giving the presentation of our report. >> good morning, supervisors, hampton smith from the budget and legislative analyst's ofrs and i will be, we approached the 15 largest companies by market share and asked for information dektly from them. since we didn't hear back and in a few instances company representatives simply declined to supply that estimation. we also approached state and federal agencies including the california department of insurance, the california department of state disability insurance and the centers for disease control, the social security administration, the regional office here in san francisco and washington, dc

we asked for the information from disability advocates, academic researchers, especially cornell employment disability and kaiser, ucsf and several ryan white service providers. this kind of information is generally not a part of hiv surveillance so none of the people that we spoke with had the specific information that we were looking for. the number of people with hiv living into middle age apblgd approaching retirement and social security eligibility has increased as hiv has become a chronic managable illness since the mid-90's when antiretro viral therapy was introduced. this is a nationwide phenomenon and in san francisco the number of people living with hiv 50

and older has increased to 55 percent of the total. in 200fuer, 4300 people, or about a third of the total number of people living with hiv, were 50 or older. by 20148,800 out of a total of nearly 16,000 people living with hiv were 50 or older. >> that is a really important point, not just for this issue but in general in terms of our approach to hiv, that the percentage of people 50 and older living with hiv has basically doubled in the last decade and the face of this epidemic is shifting over time. we see it in terms of general demographics but also in terms of age, so i think it's real important as we think about how we approach the epidemic to understand that it is shifting. >> i'm going to get to some of

those shifts in just a moment. another way to look at the aging of pop of people with hiv is to compare hiv surveillance age groups below 50 and above 50. the proportion of people in each group below 50 decreased between 2004 and 2013, while the proportion in each of the age groups 50 years old and older has grown in the same period with the largest growth in the 65 or older age group, which has grown by 282 percent since 2004. and there are differences in the demographic profile of older and younger people with hiv. african american and native american proportion of people living with hiv are about the same above and below 50, but there's been a substantial increase in the latino and asian pacific islander proportions below 50, latinos are 12 percent of people with hiv who are older than 50, but 21 percent of people