spend our prior year grant agreement, that amount, we still have authority to spend up to $27 million within that grant period. i get it. it's sort of a technical adjustment. for us, it really is that we need to spend this money and we have a plan to spend the money through the preschools that are participating in this initiative. >> thank you. mr. rose wanted to respond. >> madam, mr. chairman and members of the committee. supervisor tang, first of all, as a supervisors know, we always submit a draft copy of our report to the department for their review. in this specific case, after they reviewed our report, where we had a larger reduction, they gave us corrected information, which we revised the report, which they agreed with. we lowered the amount to be

reduced. it's very disconcerting for me to hear the department now say they have a problem with their recommendation after they reviewed it, suggested revisions which we did do, so we absolutely stick to our recommendation when they go over the report on page 22 of our report table two. shows the budget for the requested increase of 27,063,776. we point out on page 23 of our report, $45 million through fiscal year '14 and '15 and is requesting additional 27,000,0 27,063,776. which is $1 million less than requested. our recommendation is to amend the proposed resolution to

reduce the request of the contract amount by 1,498,528. we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. i want to reemphasize that we gave a draft copy to the department. they suggested change. by the way, our recommendation are based on the numbers that the department gives us. our recommendation is to reduce by the $1 million. >> i don't want to upset our neighbors because we're neighbors with harvey roads. but at the same time, i don't

want to jeopardize the moving forward with this resolution. we have 150 preschools programs that we need to reimburse. there's around 30 family child care providers that are part of that pool that really cannot carry that cost for another month. >> deputy city attorney. just to clarify the committee's options here. this is a contract approval under section 9.118 of the charter. you have yes or no authority over the contract that the department is providing you. if the department is saying, we're sticking with the $74 million contract here, the committee could approve that or reject it. but you can change the amount. only the department can change the amount that they're asking you to approve. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee. i don't understand, there are

including on this report today, there are literally thousands of recommendations that we have made this regard. by the way supervisors, this is not an appropriation. you're not appropriating any funds. you are just authorizing an amount of the contract. if we were wrong, which we're not, let's assume we're wrong, the department has every right to come back for an appropriation of funds that they would need under the authorized contract. i want to emphasize, you are not appropriating funds here. you are just stating what you believe to be the necessary authorizing amount of the contract. >> thank you mr. rose. >> the budget typically makes recommendations just like this. literally thousands of times that the departments are okay with it. every one in a while the department is not okay with changing their contract. in a situation like that, which

is what we have here, the committee can't change the contract. the committee has to decide whether to approve the contract as proposed by the department or reject it and then the department can come back with a different version. >> the one before us is not that's amended down? >> yes. unless the department tells you we're willing to offer a different amended down version of $68 million or what not. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. i appreciate the clarification what we can or can't do. i was inclined to support the department's requester if the full amount here today. really because i understand the transition that had occurred with the office, the newly established office of early child care education. knowing that would have to come back here for the additional amount anyway in the next approval, i was personally inclined to support the amount that was proposed by the

department. >> okay. supervisor kim. >> i just need to understand this disagreement of understanding again. i'm just going to ask the dla to comment on the $1.4 million and why we should include it in this contract? >> mr. chair and members of the committee. supervisor kim, if you take a look at our table four on page 23 of our report, the data that the department submitted to us, it shows actual expenditures under the contract of 45. they've requested 27063 based on numbers that they provided to us. so that the total actual expenditures and requested funds is $72,892,039. that's data boy provided by the department.

the legislation request was $74,000,395.367. >> okay. back to the department as to why this exist from actual expenditures? >> this was from prior year for '14 and '15. this was based on preschool enrollment that we had projected up to a certain amount. we did not hit 100%. part of that have to do with the transition of the initiative.

it would occur this year too. it's really $1.5 million. >> we have to spend five of the $27 million of state funds. we have to spend those. it's on reimbursment basis. the $21 million, if there is no -- if there's a fund balance, that fund balance goes back -- to the public education. >> then it's available for future use? >> correct. >> regardless, if you don't spend out the $1.5 million that the dla is recommending destruction of, it will get swept back into the fund available for use and future years? >> correct. >> the reason why this wasn't articulated in your initial conversations with the dla -- >> i did. this is why we started this process back in october. it's been months.

>> okay, thank you. >> why don't we move on to public comment. anybody wish to comment on item six. public comment it closed. >> through the chair colleagues, i will make a motion. open to other suggestions. i would to make a motion to approve the resolution as is. send it forward for full recommendation. >> i think it will be different if we were appropriating things here. i appreciate the comments and questions and certainly mr. rosen's work on this. i will support supervisor tang and i think we all will. we can take it without objection. item seven. >> is a resolution approving amendment number transdev

services services to administer the city paratransit program. not to exceed $127 million for the term of april 1, 2010 through june 30, 2016. >> i'm the paratransit coordinator. this amendment will increase the authority of our contract with transdev. initial contract code and cost saving, we were able to extend the contract for another year without needing additional contracting authority. due to new labor agreement and some increases in service, the projected budget for this fiscal year is expected to exceed the contracting authority. we do agree with the recommendation of the budget analyst that the amount can be reduced by $1.3 million. we do anticipate a new paratransit contract to come to

you for your approval by execution on july 1st of this year. thank you for hearing this item and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. any questions? >> can you explain more? i think it was a big question as to how there was some oversight on some of the budgetary needs that you were requesting from 2010? is that my understanding? i'm looking at an e-mail that i got from dylan. >> thank you supervisor kim for that question. i pointed out in my e-mail an item that was included in the

sfmfta board item. there was three month expenditures from april 1, 2010 that was left out of the expenditures. >> can you explain how that happened? that's from almost six years ago now. how is it was left out and why it took us five years to discover that that wasn't allocated? >> let me refer that question back to john who has more details. >> three months that weren't accounted for -- >> were not accounted for of >> yes. when we had -- when we first did the initial extension, it was only a five month period. we didn't include the three month start up that was required for the new contract. those are c-sts that we didn't account for. we weren't aware that they were

included in the current contract. that's why we had to include it. we made the revisions. >> when you didn't say you didn't realize it, you mean that transdev -- >> no, they were paid. we didn't account for that. those additional expenditures to be included in our current contracting authority. when we made the initial request to extend. >> sorry, i don't understand that response. >> as an outsider. i'm christian major senior planner and the paratransit sfmta. what happened was, this was a five year contract with five years option to extend. we came to you to ask for a one year extension.

basically, we asked for a contracting authority to pay for five years plus one more year. at the time we didn't ask for additional contracting authority. we thought we had enough money. we thought we were going to get six years worth of service for just fight years. -- five years. when we did that calculation and calculated that we didn't need extra money, we hadn't accounted for three month of service. labor was going to go up, the labor cost were going to go up because we increased wages due to a new union and prevailing wage ordinance. we didn't anticipate the slight increases in demand. so, we really needed -- at the time we extended to get six year contract with transdev. we needed six years and three months worth of money. we didn't quite have six years

and three months worth of money. it's a great deal. we're paying for all of that with just five years of money budget so far. >> i get that you're getting six years of service from an originally agreed upon five year dollar amount. you came back to the board for a one year extension, six months ago on july 2015. that's what i'm reading in the report. i guess my question really was not whether it's a good deal or not or how the good months had been inadvertently has been left out when it was over five years ago? >> i apologize, i started working at sfmta one month ago. we're counting information that we have from our manager. i think the calculations were done when we came to you for the

extension. it was about six months when the error was made and not five years ago. does that make sense? the error in calculation was made six months ago when we calculated, oh, we have enough money. we have $125 million. that will get us through the end of five years. through the end of six years. then we realized some time between six months ago and now that when we call lathed the 125, we hadn't included the three months. >> that already been spent and paid to transdev? >> correct. >> by the way, i understand the wage increases and the new union i think that makes sense that

those cost increases went up. i support that. i wanted to understand the differential of three months. you've saying it already been paid. it wasn't included in the accounting when this came before us. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. rose, go to your report. >> mr. chairman members of the committee. on page 26 of our report, we report that sfmta's total expenditures under the agreement with april 2010 through june 2015 are $100,000,000.224000. through fiscal year '15 and '16 included contingency of $125.4 million. more than the existing agreement not to exceed amount of

$118,000,599. that's shown on table one on page 26 of our report. our recommendation on page 27 is we recommend you amend the proposed resolution to reduce the requested increase in the agreement amount by 1,000,035 from $8 million. reduce the total requested agreement not to exceed amount by the same $1,000,355.537. we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. >> thank you mr. rose. any questions for budget analyst? seeing none, we will open up to public comment. anybody wishes to comment? >> my name is aetna james. i'm president of a commission on

aging. i'm -- there was some concern in our commission from about 30 organizations about transportation for seniors. one of the things is that they offer free transportation sometimes and then they cut it off for the seniors. how is that affect the budget and it's confusing for the seniors. i wanted some input on that and is that the organization that provides that transportation? >> yes, the san francisco municipal transportation agency does operate muny. i believe you're talking about the free passes for seniors and persons -- is it free muny for -- >> can i ask, you can take this offline? after we work on this item?

>> okay, great. >> thank you very much. any else wishes to publicly comment. public comment it closed. we have a budget analyst recommendation. >> through the chair, i'll make a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendations for the reduction and approved and send forward to the full board. >> we have a motion by supervisor tang >> touch eight hearing to consider the annual recover and adoption the proposed draft budge for fiscal year 2016-2017 for the board of supervisors of the clerk of the board and requesting the office to report. >> thank you very much. >> members of the committee. i'm angela, the clerk of the board. i'm join end by my budget manager. others in my office mr. lane

and, mr. jason freed. to begin i'll provide a high level overview of the department's current budget and present several budgetary adjustments for your review. it's fiscal year 2015-2016 slide. nonpersonnel cost of nearly $3.5 million comprised the next largest expenditure. these funds are primarily for budget and legislatively analyst services contract to pay for a portion of the cost associated with developing the car --

the department received a one time funding of $250,000 for record or digitation project and one time funding of $175,000 for the aab office reengineering project. which i'll talk about in a second. lastly, -- slide four highlights the proposed budget changes which respond to organizational priorities and the needs and to

implement projects. the modest personnel adjustments that we're requesting include substituting a 1093 i.t. operation support number three to 1094 i.t. operation support number four in our administrative division which will reflect growing job demands from implementation of new application. we're making one downward substitution of 1454 executive secretary tear to legislation clerk. in the legislative division, to provide uniformed centralized assistance for filing examination and compliance and appeal coordination. these are two existing positions. they have a net change of approximately $16,000 in salary and benefits. i'm making a small increase in tempt salaries of $5000 there to assist with personnel needs that are arising from vacancies and leaves. at the december guideline hearing, i requested your direction on the last two items,

the general fund appropriation from lafco. the department has included these items in the proposed budget and defer to the committee to whether or not include these items in the department budget for june. moving to slide five of nine. as you can see, we projected $310,000 decrease in the assessment appeals board revenues. due to the significant reduction in the number of appeals filed, as a result of the continued improvement in the real estate market, as you know, aab's revenue goes through a cycle that is tied to the swings in the real estate markets. the revenue peaked in fiscal year '11 and '12 it has been steadily declining as the property values has been have been going up in san francisco. our current budgets includes more revenues due to sharp

increase and withdrawal of appeals. the department revenue are planning appeals surcharges and the outreach fund will remain unchanged. slide six provides a summary table of the total costs in each fiscal year of the proposed adjustments. which are subject to change based on the direction we'll receive from this committee on the open issues of lafc homeworko. slide seven, the aforementioned combined with increase in salary and associated benefits mandated by the mous. as stated earlier, with the generous support of coit and director kate howard, we have received funding in the engineering and record digitation project. both projects are under way and will be delivered in the budget

year. the beauty with the assessment appeals initiative, we're working closely with the assessor chu and her team to streamline the process. this requires technology and changes to our business procedures. we have 175,000 already funded which will be usedder temporary program position to fully complete all aspects of the project. which will include phase five which we have not yet brought to this committee. but current funding will actually take care of both phase four and phase five. records positive tory to get all historic records digitized and rfp forming electronic data management system are being developed and will be issued this year. looking ahead, we have even more important technology projects on the horizon which will discuss further in june. currently, we must put into place a new contract for agenda

management system towards end of the second year of the budget and we're now enumerating required expected experience from different stakeholders and breath of services to issue solicitation in next year. we have a funding request to coit for this project in the amount of $360,000. regarding the creston system, we need to replace this system, this audio visual control system. so it can accept hd resolution. these changes will include the experiences and the experience of the public. it will facilitate new open government requirement. the funding request is already at the capital planning in the amount of $693,000. i want to thank john updike an his team for submitting that necessary work.

>> when is that expected to happen? >> the capital plan calendar -- you're familiar when they will make these decisions? >> i don't know the exact time line of when the capital planning expenditures will be made. they're typically final recommendations usually released some time in april i believe and are made in may. >> so it's slated to go in this year? >> that's correct. >> in summary. for fiscal year '16 and '17, the proposed budget shows less than a 1% increase. while it provides for necessary changes needed to meet the increasing complex demands in our department, it will fund a current critical i.t. project. as a reminder, i will await your direction for the two policy matters listed, the budget

analyst cola and lafco general fund support. which we will know further in june. i may come back in june for additional funding potentially for the language access pilot program should the board determine that program needs to continue. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you might have. >> thank you. i appreciate your presentation. look forward to having you continue discussions around policy stuff over the next few months. any questions now? we'll open up this up to public comment. anybody wishing to comment. public comment it closed. can i entertain a motion to continues the item. >> so move >> we can take that without objection. madam clerk. do we have any other business. >> mr. chair would you like to

excuse supervisor yee? >> good idea. we can take that without objection. any other business in front of us? >> there's no further business. >> anyone thank you. we are adjourned. [adjourned] >> good evening welcome to the meeting of the wednesday, february 10, 2016, of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer is commissioner president honda and he's joined by commissioner vice president fung who will be here