>>[gavel] >> good morning everybody and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and

finance committee meeting for wednesday, july 13, 2016. my name is mark farrell of chairing the committee. i'm joined by katie tang and to revise or aaron peskin and john avalos. i want to thank the clerk of the committee as well as sfgov tv for covering the meeting today. mdm. clerk any announcements? >> yes. >>[reading code] >> thank you very much. colleagues, we have 24 items to get through today. we will get started mdm. clerk would you please call items one and two together. >> item 1, >>[reading code].

item number two, >>[reading code]. >> thank you very much. these items are sponsored by supervisor peskin so i will turn it over to him >> thank you chairman farrell and committee members. thank you for hearing this item. previously it is that before you for one small amendment pursuant to the capital planning committee's recommendation and i would like to offer that amendment. by way of background, some quarter of a century ago in the wake of the earthquake, then supervisor tom shade offered a $350 million general obligation bonds for unreinforced masonry building loans and here we are 25 almost years later and much of that money remains unspent.

this measure would be purpose and broaden the obligatory of those funds to allow for the acquisition improvement and rehabilitation of at risk multiunit residential buildings. the mayor's office of housing and community development made a suggestion, which i will offer as a amendment which will require one special meeting of this committee and i appreciate your indulgence mr. chairman for accommodating that. specifically, on page 4, line 14, we would like to for the cpc's unanimous recommendation, strike the words, equal to, and insert, the words, no less than so that it reads, interest rate no less than one third of the city's true cost. in other words, the city could on the

affordable housing side of the program charge more than one third of the interest if properties cash flow correctly or the nonprofits that are seeking those monies have the ability to pay a higher interest rate. >> okay. so supervisor peskin reason i see ms. hartley is here from the mayor's office of housing and community development and i don't know what they call your department anymore but public finance. >> okay. supervisor peskin has made a motion. second? moved and seconded. will entertain that after public comment it before we do that mr. rose can we go to reports for item 1 and two? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, supervisor peskin, supervisor avalos, on page four of our report, this

pertains, i believe, to what you were just referring to. under the existing market rate loan program and affordable housing loan program for market rate loans, the property owner pays the full amount of the principal and interest cost and for affordable housing loans the property owner pays the full principal and one third interest cost and the city pays 2/3 inches cost. therefore, the expand allowable use of the opposition general obligation bonds could increase the city's expanded allowable use of the proposition that are offered general obligation bonds cost for affordable housing, but it's not expected to impact the city's property tax rate of other two-way 06 property tax rate base budget however, as i understand it the committee is just considered amending that those provisions. we also note

according to the mayor's office of housing and community development depending on the additional work required by the proposed program, the mayor's office of housing and community bauman may need to add one additional full-time equivalent staff to administer the program and on page 5 our recommendation consider approval of the proposed resolution and speed is to cement his opposition to the san francisco voters to the policy matter for the board of supervisors >> thank you very much mr. rose. any question for budget analyst at this time? or staff? with that will open up to public comment did anyone wish to comment on items one or two today? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> so, we have a amendment in front of us. emotion than to accept supervisor peskin's amendment as earlier stated it's been moved and seconded. will take that without objection >>[gavel] >> colleagues, any questions or comments or a motion to approve the underlying item as amended >> no. i will make a motion to

send four items one and 212 special budget committee meeting, i believe. is that what we need to do? so date to be determined, may be monitored >> we can continue these items to the call of the chair >> all right. so i'll move to continue items one and two to the call of the chair as amended >> okay. moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >> >>[gavel] >> thank you supervisor peskin mdm. clerk please call item number three >> item number three >> we can do item 3 and four together. >> item number three, >>[reading code]. item number four, >>[reading code] .

>> thank you very much aye. colleagues, both these items are in front of us in terms of their two different current sales tax proposals in front of us today. that i know will be part of our discussion here. i just want to say for my perspective, why think everyone working on these issues over the past year, plus. it's taken a lot of work both in terms of city staff, in terms of members of the board of supervisors, but also organizations and individuals outside of city appeared i would think everyone in this regard. i think there's some obviously wrote a letter to go here before we get one or two of them out of city hall into the voters in november. i will say, i will certainly be supporting item number three. i'm certainly supportive of item for as well. i think was

only ones obviously only one of them will end up getting out of city hall. there will not be to the november ballot. just as a reminder, august lee, the budget we passed out of committee the other week was based upon a three-quarter cent sales tax is something i'm fully supportive of. i think both the dual issues of supporting additional funding for transportation in the city of san francisco, as well as the funding for homelessness services as well, i think is critically important to long-term sustainable funding for both these issues that are very serious issues here in the city of san francisco an incredibly important. i'll be supportive of those. so, with that, colleagues, supervisor avalos >> thank you. i have to at least called up together so we can do some amendment to item number four, which is the transportation tax of the half syntax dedicated solely to transportation and transit. essentially, what i want to do

is recommend we passed amendment that would align both the transportation sides together. this would align the amendment today, would align the transportation expenditure plan that is in item number four, with that of the charter amendment that is at the full board of supervisors. and we have people from the transportation authority to are here to explain what those with the expenditure plan would be. we talked about it yesterday at the transportation authority, but now we have the actual amendment here that is before us. we had come together as a board, the mayor, transportation authority, and representatives from transit advocates from around the city on basic structure for what we would put in the expenditure

plan back when we first introduced the charter amendment and a three-quarter cent sales tax. there's been a little but of movement since that time to make sure we can ask a gold in greater structures for affordability and to how we would anticipate changes in revenue coming in and that's what that's what-will explain here. >> good morning maria lombardi transportation authority at all keep this very brief the supervisor avalos said. the proposed changes to the half cent sales tax are to bring it in alignment with changes made to the charter amendment. of course just on the transportation side. the main three changes-all just enumerate real quickly-the first was an adjustment in the projected revenue additional

increment of funding. that increment in order to address the affordability and equity type images was put evenly between the muni transit service and affordability category division zero st. and complete streets category. that's the six category percentages. the second amendment was related to a trigger that would allow the sfmta eight to flex its capital money from category two towards category one for operations. that's meant to be activated on bad economic times to prevent service cuts. the last significant adjustment that were making to the charter is the double trigger related to the servicing category which is the category receive some of the funding. the first two triggers have to do it, if you funding is secured for street resurfacing such as vehicle license fees or the existing prop k transfer tax is reauthorized, that is the board

of supervisors and the mayor ability to we allocate the servicing i locations to the other five categories. so were not over funding street resurfacing. there's also a third trigger related to street resurfacing that says in year 2027 the board of supervisors or mayor could decide if priorities of change or funding available they could similarly reallocate funds from street resurfacing two other categories. there's other technical and cleanup changes related to the transportation sales tax such as estimating the total amount of revenue for each category. >> great. thank you just to confirm, with the triggers and the expenditure plan they'd nearer each other in this measure the half cent sales tax. >> absolute your will would get funded in the sheer category are identical >> great. thank you. after public comment i like to recommend this moves to the full board. we can then recommend both for [inaudible] it's fun. that's what i would ask the motion for >> shortages speaker this memo is for item for only? okay kid with similar provisions in item 3

>> item 3 is basically the three-quarter sales tax and then the charter amendment the company sam >> is that right, okay >> this measure martyrs that charter amendment with expenditures and triggers >> thanks very much. okay. so, with that colleagues any questions or comments? we will open it up to public comment on items three and four. would anyone like to publicly comment on item 3 or four? please, step forward >> district for residents in opposition to this item. it is a little confusing because it seems like they were both looking forward i'm a but the chamber of commerce has stated their $400 million in tax increases on this ballot alone. sales tax increases disproportionately affect low income people and people on fixed income. so, when i was going to recommend for the sake of consistency to put both of these two on the out side by side but since only one of them

is core to move forward and i'm not sure which one, that kind of changes. just to end by quoting the legislative digest on this item number four, and i would quote, the transportation authority has received .5% of the combined rate since 1990 prop b superseded by 2003 prop k. the tax imposed by this ordinance is additional to the existing taxes and would increase the transportation of the combined rate to 1.00%. thank you >> okay thank you very much. anybody else wish to publicly comment? >> good morning supervisor.

i'm here on behalf of supervisor weiner who cannot be here at this. he just asked that i come and thank everyone for their efforts about the charter amendment and on the dedicated extended to plan in particular. it's been a long process with a lot of input from both the mayoral staff, city staff, your offices, and the advocates community and i think we come to a good place and i just want to express supervisor weiner support for where we are where the money for transportation is being allocated to and thank you all for your efforts. >> thank you mr. cretin. anybody else wish to comment on items three or four? public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> colleagues, there's a amendment proposed here for item for. what i understand though that item will have to be continued because there's a amendment. so, what we could do is if we are going to entertain a special meeting, what we can do is continue to that to the call of the chair and hopefully we can schedule it in august to be discussing these at the same, the board of supervisors. so, first, tonight entertain a

motion to amend item number four as been discussed? >> that wasn't my understanding. i do not realize this was going to be up substantive amendment. and-but i was hoping they could both go forward but i want to be clear about that. we have mr. elwin talk about that. whether we can actually make this amendment and move it to the full board? >>, one city attorney's office. i've not seen the actual text of the amendment but from the description it does sound substantive. which would require a continuance. >> supervisor avalos we were relatively lengthy agenda. oddly we will then get through we can suddenly wait until the techs comes through in a definitive opinion it would rather do that? >> that would be great. we can hold off on moving forward.

would like to do is keep them altogether. >> no, no. that's the intention of everyone. so regardless. supervisor tang >> one potential idea i know we do usually have to continue all items for a week if they have any sort of amendment it's an initiative or ballot measure. if we do hold a special meeting on monday can we do a committee report on tuesday? on item 4 >> i think that would be the idea. >> i think that would probably be the right >> right, exactly >> supervisor avalos can we move forward without now and then with a commitment to do that full intent to do that? 50 get it on the calendar but we will work towards that. >> if that's the case all make a motion to amend item for as supervisor avalos stated, and then for item 3, send that to the board of supervisors with a positive recommendation, and then for item 4, send that to work continue to the call pitcher as amended and then

will do without later. >> okay >> we will have a special meeting of the budget committee meeting on monday and have that in the committee report >> that's the full intent it again and have not the calendar yet on mission were able to do that but, yes, that's what we will do. i've no attention to the discussion at the full board without them being together with that, we've a bit about on this motion by supervisor tang we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> thank you, colleagues. mdm. clerk please call item 5 >> item 5, >>[reading code]. >> thank you. barbara hill from-to speak >> thank you, barbara hill assistant general message manager for power. the natural

license agreement with at&t for outdoor antenna systems is before you for approval. what are outdoor antenna systems? welcome i the picture here if sfgov tv could bring up the slide? so, you can see what kind of equipment we are talking about. this equipment consists of a low-power antenna connected to fiber optic lines that, then, are connected to the carriers public. the purpose of these facilities is to distribute wireless network coverage enhancing wireless cellular and data capacity. and providing benefits to san francisco.. why are we before you? well, back in october of 2014 are commission approved the streetlight program license program could include a master license agreement, terms and conditions, and authorize our general manager at the puc to execute those master license agreements after approval of

the board. we have brought 3-4 to you already. master license agreement to the board already. this one is with at&t. it has a 12 year term as have the others and it will generate in excess we are estimating inaccessible $1 million and hence, we are here seeking your approval. this slide gives you a quick overview of the master license agreement terms and conditions. i just want to highlight here for you on slide five, that the puc is envisioned to be the electricity provider for all of these city program services good we are encountering some difficulties with pg and executing that intent. pg&e is challenging a right to serve electricity to the city program without us making cost prohibitive and unnecessary investments in additional electrical infrastructure. i just want to note that because that could affect the pace with which we pursue the program and the revenues that are associated with it. so, the puc and public works work together

on this program. what you see on this slide is a quick review of public works responsibilities to site and construct oversee the construction, of the facility and then this next slide reviews with the puc's responsible bizarre. we work with planning on the ceqa aspects and the aesthetics of the program, but really were looking at technical review purposes or impacts on our street lights that system we own and for electrical interconnection. the program as it exists provides multiple benefits to the city and to the puc. city benefits are listed here. you can see, it is really around the issue of enhanced wireless coverage for the public and for city services providing an expansion of the fiber networks that provide public benefits. the licensing component of this utilize nation of our city streetlights allows us to generate some

revenue from the program as well. along those lines, we are projecting here with the revenue estimates are for the master license agreements. you can see both for at&t and for the other carriers, these are low and high estimates. you're getting a range between almost $20 million and was $40 million a year over the 12 years. our actuals, so far, for both the one-time fees and the annual recovering revenues are shown here on slide 10. you can see for at&t, so far we've just collected some of the fees. we are not seeing any of the license components showing up as a revenue yet because we have not executed that agreement. it's pending your approval. that am happy to answer any questions you may have >> thank you. supervisor tang

>> thank you for your presentation i was just wondering if given these are all on the light poles, they'll all look like the photo that you showed us? >> primarily, yes good we have not seen all of the configurations. but were getting a lot of cooperation together with planning and the carriers to be very sensitive to what the aesthetics of this program looks like. if you have something like this outside your flat window on the second floor commit really matters. we understand that. so do the carriers and so we've had a lot of success in getting good cooperation from the carriers to keep the size and the look of these as streamlined and small as possible. >> these are the ones going on michael's like this i think that something most of us ugly would not notice when were walking down the street was also helpful for the nearby residents. we certainly have received many complaints from residents about the design and

the bulkiness of some of the installations. i know some of them for different purposes. now, when the city enters into agreements like this with the various carriers, does it mean that it may also reduce the amount of insulation that say, maybe of different sizes or shapes or more intrusive for the residential neighborhoods? >> yes. these would be instead of a larger cellular tower type installation. so, these augment the system and allow for improved service without having to add the more traditional cell towers that you're familiar with. >> okay. i would just say that for me personally, i do prefer it when our city department can find our existing city infrastructure to work with the carriers on these types of installations that look so much less intrusive but still serve

the various purposes that obviously, they need. for all of us. so, i though it, yes, the city can enter agreement like this would avoid a lot of the conflict we see with the neighbors where we really as the city don't have a lot of say in terms of where they can go and what they look like and so forth. so, i appreciate this agreement for us here today >> thank you >> supervisor yee >> thank you. it's almost off follow-up of supervisor tang's question. in regards to the placing of which polls you might choose, i am just curious, if the polls run in front of somebody sounds and they really object, what is there--the process further to appeal? >> so, it goes to the standard of appeal process for permits like this. it's my understanding it's before planning. so far, we have managed to avoid and locate-i

should say, through the collaborative process with the carriers hearing from residents, we have been able to locate these facilities we are we are not running into conflicts that end up in a full review. so, so far so good. we-the kind of feedback i'm hearing today is very helpful to us because when the carriers here you express these concerns, they take seriously when we say to them, you need to work with us so that we don't have conflicts coming to the planning, coming to the board through the review process. so, it's very helpful to hear the kinds of feedback and questions you are asking me so we can reflect those in our conversations with the carriers. we have so far received a lot of cooperation with them and relocated facilities to different locations when we encounter

this dissatisfaction by residents. >> i appreciate your answer and it's really helpful that we've had this program somewhat and i have not heard any complaints yet, but that's reassuring to them i want to support this new ask >> thank you. >> supervisor tang >> just one additional question. i think it said that we would have access or puc would've access to about four strands of fiber so, per installation on each. what does that get us as a city? >> in such a buildup of fiber network network further. i will use the city services that utilize that fiber network it were looking for opportunities to incorporate that infrastructure improvement in this program rather than having

to separately fund and implement it. so it's incremental improvements on the city's fiber networks as used for various communications needs for the city. >> okay. colleagues, any further questions the one mr. rose can we go to report for item 5 >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee. on page 11 of our report we know but over the 12 year term of the postmaster license agreement the estimated revenues payable to the sf puc from at&t and that's not including the one-time fees would range from 13 million dollars for 250 street light pole licenses, two 24 million and that would be for 500 street light pole licenses, and that shown in table 4. again on page 11. on page 12, if you combine this three existing agreements

you've already approved with this proposed agreement, then the total estimated revenues range from $19 million to $39 million, and that shown on table 5, on page 12 of our report. the report on page 13, supervisors, consistent with the previous board of supervisors policy we recommend you amend the proposed resolution specify that all revenue generated from the proposed master license agreement with at&t will be appropriated to the sf puc streetlight program in the annual probation ordinance subject of course to board of supervisor approval. we recommend to approve the proposed resolution as amended >> okay. thank you very much mr. rose. puc, any issues with these recognitions? >> no issues with the recommendations. thank you >> we will move on to public comment supervisor tang no.

public comment anyone wish to comment on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> i will go ahead and move this amendment by the budget analyst and to move it on to the full board of supervisors >> moved and seconded. taken without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call item 6 >> item 6, >>[reading code]. >> thanks very much. we have our puc as well to speak on this >> yes. so, i come here before

you today to ask for your consideration of a resolution concerning the proposed acquisition of a easement by the city to its public utilities commission located at kansas and marine streets for fair occupies of $13,500. the easement is required to facilitate the construction and maintenance of sewer improvements related to the sf puc stewart system improvement project also known as sf it. i want to show you briefly what were talking about. the area highlighted in pink is the area of the easement area were looking to acquire the gray bar is the sewer project area. our construction crew indicated that while the puc owns this property and has access to the construction area from the south, this is so narrow that construction crews can turn around so we need to find an exit. an exit route to marin and kansas street. that required the purchase of this easement. the easement is 2525 marin. the fair market purchase

price was based on an mai appraisal dated dated on august 25 and in summary, through this resolution we have the board of supervisors to approve and authorize the acquisition of the easement, doc and incorporate findings of the conveyance of this easement is consistent with the city's general plan, and it by 30 policies of city planning code section 101 dot one. in approve the purchase and sale agreement and authorize the city's director of property in or the sf puc's general manager to execute the documents make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions be one we will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on items six? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> colleagues no other questions or comments? >> i make a motion to send items six to the full board with a positive recognition >> moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel]

>> mdm. clerk please call item 7 >> item number seven, >>[reading code] >> thank you very much. mta is here. >> good morning supervise. steve the with sfmta. it is the agency's desire to establish a prevailing wage and employee

retention requirements for our coin collection and counting contract which is currently in its final year of initial five-year term. there will be 26 employees that work for circle that are impacted and with families are impacted by this requirement. there are some employees that have been working, doing this for 17 years and on average have been working there for 10 years. so we urge you approve this >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions be one mr. rose your report on items seven, please? >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 17 of our report we report that sf mta's actual average annual cost for the circle agreement 3.8 million between fiscal year 2012-13 and fiscal year 15-6 into based on increases reflected on the table shown on page 17 of our report, the sf mta estimates the proposed ordinance would result in increased cost of approximately $750,000 in

2016-17 and based on the average annual editors of approximately 3.8 million, that would represent and 18.8% increase. in addition, based on projected future hourly wage and benefit increases, sf mta is to make the proposed ordinance would result in an increase of $913,000 for each extension year of the circle agreement. there are five extension years. that would be an increase of 24% more than the current average annual cost of the sfmta. on page 18, we report that by requiring prevailing wages and transitional employment and retention of prior contractors and employees, it is possible that the city would receive the reduced number of competitive bidders in the future, which could result in increased cost to the city. >> thank you mr. rose. colleagues, any questions be one supervisor yee >> mr. rose, in regards to your last comment, is it

possibly getting a fewer number of bidders, what is the rationale for your conclusions? >> we state, as i stated, supervisor, it is possible. we are stating that because if the existing contractor, witches start out, if paper opposed competitor to circle has to retain employees, we don't with their business plan is that that could impact this omission of a good. it is possible that would inhibit him up in our professional judgment that could inhibit his omission of a big we don't know for a fact but we are saying it is possible. >> is there a response that from mta? would you agree to that? >> supervisors, the budget analyst statement with regard to the competitiveness is possible, but also when we

establish a prevailing wage, that sort of sets the playing field level with regard to the cost of employees. so when we go through our process, will be evaluating heavily on companies experience with regard to the service. so, that's a possibility but also the fact will be leveling the playing field financially also would spur interest from companies that feel that their experience is equal to circle. >> thank you. >> okay. colleagues, any further questions do and we will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on this item? >> good morning supervise. teamsters local 665. i just wonder give you a little context regarding these employees. many of these 26 employees have been working at minimum wage

for almost 2 decades. many people believe or have believed in the overall public that they are city employees, but and, in fact they are not get their contracted employees could just that on to the last point of the budget analyst nmda spoke about about leveling the playing field, the size of the contract based on the prevailing wage we believe will be increased as was talked about so that anyone who would be bidding on this contract would understand with the wage rates would be and the employees would then be taken care. were very strongly in favor of this. we appreciate supervisor weiner for bringing this board and working on this. we appreciate the mta for the work they did to bring this forward and we are in strong support and appreciate your

budget committee taking consideration for these employees. although, few they play in important role in coin collection for the mta which is an important and often times difficult work. thank you >> thank you very much. anyone else wish to comment on item number seven? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> so, again-not again, but i'm really happy that mta is moving forward with supporting prevailing wages for our workers and i like to pass this out with positive recommendation to the full board >> okay. moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk call item 8, please >> item 8, >>[reading code]. >> thank you very much. this item sponsored by supervisor avalos so i'll turn it over to them >> thank you very much. chairman farrell. this item was

one i had originally introduced for consideration last year. when i introduced this last year it was the tax that was dedicated to be with to use for expenditures that were aligned with her raid program specifically on expanding transit, housing, and [inaudible] i thinks since then have made it a general tax so [inaudible] this is a tax that would go on utility users. the 2.5% of the total bill for parts of their that are billing ringing and non-renewable electricity and natural gas,: this a carbon tax. essentially, that's how it's been crafted to be able to charge additional or nonrenewable sources that in the carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming and climate change. and the way this tax is structured but if your overall tax bill, say, you

get complete electrical power from non-renewable sources can receive natural gas, and your total bill is $100, this would be 2.5-$2.50 additional on your bill. that is not a lot of money, but we are also crafted this measure so that those who are in the clean power sf program, which is just being launched them when not be subject to the tax on the electricity side. so, if you are receiving even the copper cents nonrenewable, that is part of the light green program in our clean power sf program, you would be exempt from paying the tax on the electricity side. if you are receiving your part of a care program for low income people, you would be exempt from the tax as well. as well, you would be exempt from the tax on the side of natural

gas. overall, this measure is to raise about $18 million a year as we see more people join the clean power sf program, which will happen in waves over the next couple of years, we will see the amount of money diminish from the electricity side, but beside on natural gas that this tax will also be on will remain fairly constant as people continue to use natural gas in their homes. i expect they'll be phased out eventually. what i wanted to do was to have this at the board with all the other tax measures that we have been saying consistently, i want to look at all our tax measures together so we can decide as a body, what our ballot looks like and i am not-i do not want to look

about with all these different measures. so, this one i want to get in a discussion but i'll be making my decision on the overall measures we see moving forward and if there's consensus on good i'm not clear that on this one but i want to make sure we can have a discussion of the full board. so, after public comment, i would be interested in seeing getting a motion to the full board >> okay. colleagues, any questions or comments at this time? we will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> supervisor tang >> thank you supervisor avalos for your willingness to be, i guess, conscientious about all the different revenue measures before us. pending for our november ballot. so yes i'm very interested in having a discussion holistically as

well. i'm going to move forward item 8 to the full board with full recognition we do have a conference of discussion. i will move it forward. my recommendation would be without positive recommendation only because, for me personally, it is a general tax and i know that there has been some discussion about this being used towards some type whether street maintenance or installation of trees, which i would support but because it is a general tax it is a little bit more tricky. so, for me personally, i would recommend without recommendation to the full board but obviously interested in see what my colleagues have to say as well >> i would just say for my perspective that's fine did i think of a holistic conversation it's no problem. i'd be happy to support that. supervisor yee >> i so we want to move this to the full board so we have that discussion. i would've preferred that it's a positive recommendation, but if the both

of you want to support it just to move to the full board without recommendation, i'll make it unanimous >> okay. is that a second then? moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk call item number nine, please >> item number nine, >>[reading code]. >> good morning supervisors. underneath martinez airport finance director. this item is for the approval of an interdependent-excuse the intergovernmental agreement between san mateo county and the city and county of san francisco to the airport commission. the proposed agreement would allow the airport to reimburse san mateo county a pro-radish care for the cost of public safety

dispatches to the airport. the reimbursement amount is not to exceed $1 million for a five-year period. that would be retroactive to july 1 2015 emma and last through june 30, 2020. under the proposed agreement, san mateo county would also share with the airport half of the collective transit occupancy tax from the operation of the new airport hotel currently under development. this arrangement of the sharing of the hotel room tax would last until either the airport receives a maximum of $8 million about work through june of 2029, whichever occurs first. the agreement was approved by san mateo board of supervisors on april 12 2016. the budget analyst recommends approval in i be happy to answer any

questions. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? mr. rose committee report lease for item number nine? >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 21 of our report the bottom of page 21, it is not known how much that cost of the 911 emergency call dispatch to the airport will change over the term of the agreement, but the cost of the airport will not exceed $1 million or the five years under the terms of the proposed agreement and could be less. if that cost and 91 emergency do not increase from the 14-15 levels. the source of funds would be the airport's operating budget subject to probation approval of the board of supervisors. on page 22 of our report, we state that san mateo county as the department indicated, will share 50% of the first 16 million in hotel taxes collected from operation of new hyatt hotel. that's expected to open on july 1, 2019,, and with

the airport has received the $8 million through a combination of hotel taxes and aviation fuel tax, all hotel taxes thereafter will clue to the san mateo county and is shown in table 2, page 22 of our report, airport staff project the total hotel tax for the first 10 years of the hyatt hotel operations we proximally 34 million and we state that assuming the hotel is ready for occupancy around july 1, 2019, models economic shot in the year 2022 reduces room revenues the airport will receive the maximum amount of $8 million in hotel taxes sometime in 2024. we did make one recommendation on page 23, and that is to amend this resolution for retroactivity to july 1, 2015. we recommend you approve the proposed resolution as amended >> thank you very much mr. rose. colleagues any questions for budget analyst? we will

move on to public comment did anyone wish to comment on this items you seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> i will move this item with the amendment and is a positive recommendation. >> second >> moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk please call items 10-22 together, please >> item 10, >>[reading code].. item number 11, >>[reading code]. item number 12, >>[reading code]. item number 13, >>[reading code]. item

number 14, >>[reading code].. item number 15, >>[reading code] . item number 16, >>[reading code]. item number 17, >>[reading code]. item number 18, >>[reading code]. item number 19, >>[reading code].

item number 20, >>[reading code]. item number 21, >>[reading code]. and item number 22, >>[reading code]. >> thank you mdm. clerk. airport is here. thank you. >> good morning chairman farrell and members of the budget and finance committee. before you today are 13 releases awarded to 12 tenants for food and beverage locations in the international terminal overwhelmingly and is one location and therefore is

facing terminal three at domestic terminal. these leases are the result of a competitive process in which we received 90 responsive postals get the total package should rely sales of approximately $60 million per year and the minimum guaranteed rent over the life of these leases is 34 million dollars. the budget and legislative analyst office recommends approval and am happy to answer any questions about this lease >> thank you very much. mr. rose, can we go to report for always items, please?. yes. as you say this pertains to all the items.. on page 20 of our report, the airport estimates the annual including the annual consumer price index increases to be paid by those security tenants at the airport at the international terminal will range between $1 million and

$9 million. now, with regard to the pre--security candidates, airport estimates the minimum annual guaranteed rent including cpi increases are to be paid by those tenants by the airport will range from between $878,000 to 1 million dollars, and that again is shown in table 4 on page 28 of our report we recommend you approve this legislation >> thank you mr. colleagues, any questions for budget analyst? will open this up to public comment. anyone wish to comment on the sentence? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] edict colleagues can have a motion to send the settings to the full board with a positive recognition? moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk would you please call item 23 >> item 23, >>[reading code].

>> >> thank you mdm. clerk. dph is here to speak >> thank you i michelle with the department of public health. this is one of our ongoing contracts that provides rental subsidies to persons with hiv aids. there's a view different types of subsidies provided but this is an ongoing long-term contract that we have and would like to continue it through the term allowed by the current rfp. i'm happy to answer any questions. were in agreement with the recommendation, which is essentially, reducing unspent funds in the years, in the prior contract term period. >> thanks very much. seeing no

questions mr. rose, go to report, please? >> yes, on page 31 of a report the actual estimated expenses for this agreement from 2011 are $18 million and the projected extended just over the five years from 16-17 through 20-2120 10 dollars. so, that results in total expenditures of $39.8 million shown in table 1 on page 31 of our report. we recommend you to amend the proposed resolution to [inaudible], 39.39 two and we recommend you prove the proposed resolution estimate >> thank. colleagues, any questions or comments? will move onto polk if anyone wish to comment on item 23? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> colleagues, and emotions? be dick moved it with positive recognition >> mr. chairman i believe

there's a amendment proposed by [inaudible] >> yes, sorry >> moved to accept the amendment and move with positive recommendation >> moved and seconded. we will take that without objection. thank you mdm. clerk >>[gavel] >> please call item 24 >> item 24, >>[reading code]. >> thanks very much. dph is back. >> department of public health. this also is a long-term contract, actually a spinoff of a larger contract that he provides long-term care for are most severely mentally ill who are not able to live in the community. so, we are

requesting this, too, for the first time because it's come to the $10 million mark and also we like to extend this contract through the end of the term allowed under the rfp through june 30, 2018. we accept the recommendation. >> okay. i do not see a recommendation i think in my report. mr. rose to your report on item 24? >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 34 of our report, the contract not to exceed amount would increase by $400 from 9 million to 40 million and that's over the proposed two year extended period.. table 1 on page 35 of our report summarizes the request of the increasingly 4.79. we recommend you prove this resolution. >> thank you very much.

colleagues, any questions? will move on to public comment at anyone wish to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> motion to send this item forward colleagues? moved and seconded. we can take it without objection >>[gavel] >> mdm. clerk to live any other business in front of us today? >> no other business. >> okay. thanks everyone. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >>

>> madam secretary call the roll please. sure. >> roll call sdmadz commissioner woo ho item 2 approval of the minutes for the june 2016 meeting >> i. >> opposed? >> next speaker, please. >> item 2 public comment on executive session. >> any public comment on executive session seeing none, public comment is closed. item had executives session >> so session. >> second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? i move to not