be gone and for people that come to work in the area with valet parking you can make more efficient use of parking spaces i'll note a number of projects in the neighborhood that are residential projects that have a similar arrangement and 38 bryant and that 3 beal and main are other works in the neighborhood of residential projects or projects with residential components that allow valet use of parking garages again to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of parking garages that appellant is asking for clarification it can use the approved 88 parking garages for more than 88 vehicles again, the regulations that were in effect at the time that was approved in 2005 the approval for the planning commission approval of this

project required 88 spaces no where did those limit or medication cars that might use the 88 spaces that came about as part of rincon hill zoning scheme but those regulations are not applicable to in project i'll boil it down thus, this really a fairly - there are a couple of simple questions before the board got rincon hill zoning regulations apply the answer is clearly no and the zoning administrator would agree with that do the regulations number 2 that apply to the project limit the number of vehicles that may use 7 parking garages the answer is no does the approval in 2005 limit the number of cars that may use the parking garages the answer is no

with all respect the zoning administrator determination is politically rules to this project that don't apply to this project and when you talk away oversee applicable rules no limit on the number of cars that can use this parking garages we respectfully request you set aside the zoning administrator's determination and confirm on the record no limit of cars that may use this partisanships either for the approval or the regulations that apply to this project in 2005 >> we have a quorum i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> or can do that during rebuttal. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> the property that were you brought up that have a valet system of 45 lansing and others

not in our brief two other examples do any of those properties have valet for limited number of spaces in excess of what their originally entitle for . >> so you have a number of spaces and then caps additional cars that maybe in the garage that's your question, sir i don't have the answer to your question i do know those projects operate in that way i've described. >> thank you. >> yep thank you. >> plans mraunz planning department i think that is

fairly straightforward the letter of determination sought to by determination park more vehicles in the building than the planning commission approved and the response is that no under the planning code need to seek a conditional use authorization give you a little bit of background the building is located within the rincon hill zoning district at the time the project was approved within the rc-4 and rincon hill district and residential sub district i would drawing your attention to page 4 of your own brief with the parking requirement for the rincon hill district specifically stating that parking in excess of one parking space shall not be at a later date a parking space above

and beyond the 50 percent their brief shows not was the planning code said at the time beyond that the planning commission in their approval that was approved before the rincon hill rezoning went into effect parking was a serious consideration for the commission they approved that up to one to one which is what was required at the time you have to provide one by one and state no more than that and the commission approved the one to one parking and the staff evaluated this against the rincon hill rezoning and one of the facility issues with rincon hill it changed the parking requirement and .5 half parking space for each dwelling unit and up to one to one you needed to do it in a more space

economically means by valet, etc. while it was not in the appellants brief they have other examples which i reentd in our brief that are comparable the new examples that were brought many of them are rincon hill that was approved that allows they have valet parking and unfortunately, they didn't provide those examples in their original breech so the rincon hill allows requires the parking at the time of the planning commission hearing it was evaluated against the requirement of the rincon hill zoning that was at one to one if they could have done that under the proposed rincon hill but need to do that as valet parking and the response attorney for the applicant at the hearing given the size of building it would be unfeasible to do

mechanical or valet parking that was said that will not be feasible absolutely not feasible to do valet parking they represented that in 2005 one of the factors that went into the commission and project the building was deladle in 2014 the economic crisis we went through and while the permits were issued before the rincon hill rezoning the rezoning district i'll make no claim not regulated by the rincon hill in our belief the adoption of rincon hill process there was specific exemption provisions this is not one of them while they, build the project as under the previous zoning like in the other building in san francisco

might have been legally constructed bus but under the rincon hill zoning they'll like to be one to one parking the building was built when they, do with a conditional use authorization this is our position nyu with that and again, the planning commission very clearly reviewed this and had an eir that was analyzed with the one to one parking no reference to any additional parking again, the sponsor stated that they couldn't exceed that or at least not have the valet parking the commission preferred they had maybe the same number of parking spaces but have less activation rather than doing the 3 stories of parking below grade i think that

is straightforward our determination the conditional use process and while they incline to off something beneficial for the community that is something the requirement of the planning commission to judge and need a conditional use authorization i'm available for any questions thank you. >> to the letter of determination is really a shortcut to get away from the conditional use - what you consider a more proper direction that is conditional use application. >> certainly the appeal of it certainly they have their argument why they shouldn't be subject to this requirement yes. >> you know in the discussions on i believe the previous report they analyzed the parking versus

valet it talked about a couple of other projects in the general area where they said they could have put in from the parking was 60 they could have put in 80 or one hundred valet spaces with the correlation the valet number of spaces was the moment they'll be allowed to put on that. >> which - which staff analysis because it in the appellants brief they submitted motions we left in the brief not relevant. >> part of discussion in the overall case report for the this specific site. >> point me to the page perhaps. >> that's all right. let's continue hearing and -

>> all right. thank you. >> next. >> one more question in my experience whether that is building residence for commercial hotels 88 spaces means 8 cars is that your general - >> yes. >> one spaces means one hundred cars. >> absolutely am i being naive. >> i'm agreeing they're asking to park more than cars what they've approved. >> i mean there is an argument let's talk about the vehicles we're using for parking so. >> your point they feel this is strongly for the conditional use process and practicing prove our point and this is short

cutting it. >> a quick follow-up then the idea you allow more cars your encourageing more cars to drive. >> that's one of the reasons for rezoning and downgrading rather than a minimum to discourage this. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, rebuttal. >> thank you vice president and members of the board david counsel for the appellant and really quibble want to apologize for bring up those additional projects didn't have those at the time we submitted our belief i can appreciate the questions about the policy of discouraging cars and i can appreciate the concern about this being a

shortcut of the conditional use process but what we're seeking here tonight is a clarification of rights that that property owner has under the law again, the codes that applied to this project at the time the city approved that project and the city specifically said that code applies it didn't limit cars it only limited parking spaces and allowed with the have a seaty parking i'll read you from section the one 51 cited in the approval planning code one 51 requires one parking spaces that allows up - the regulations that were in effect at the time and the approval that the city gave to this prorn property owner give the property owner certain rights again, i appreciate the concern about the

conditional use permit but that will be similarly unfair to require the property owner to go through a process that the law didn't require the pertaining to undertake but achieve a right that the property owner already has in the law as that employs to this project i completely agree with mr. sanchez if we have an approval starting today that will be subject to the plan today this is not a new approval but to clarify and verify and confirm the property rights this applicant objected in 2005 and pesticide through the years i can appreciate the thoughts that spaces should equal cars the code didn't see is that and now the codes says that back then

means something that was not simply an oversight they moved in 2005 to fix it a couple of other quick points the original approval expressly allows this parking garages to accommodate cars of non-resident so the approval for the planning commission recognized if residents didn't use the pashlgz others from the community might users it was recognized then that at least a semi public parking garage and with that, i'll thank you for your time i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> yes, thank you. >> i guess the question why is it coming up now, did that occur to the owners they have an additional revenue source it seems like this can be clarified at the quinn. >> yeah. a couple of thoughts

open that it was the intention back in 2005 and it was not well prosecuted by the applicant and not well documented in the staff report the applicant understandings they have 88 spaces and can use oversees for motorbikes and this project because of the economy didn't open up until 2014 we started this process regarding the valet parking in at least 2015 if not 2014. >> not long after the new rules were adopted for rincon hill and no question about that no question we're not seek a new approval for the applicant thought they have that all along and got a notice that was a commercial parking space or

parking garages and here we are. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> the parking allows for parking one for one and having too many parking spaces that the commission would said you can only have 88 parking spaces but put one thousand how many cars we care about the stripes that's just a complete misrepresentation of this process that's been through further and a little bit frustrating they're not completely read in the section of the parking it notes as part of section one 15 allows one .5

that's assertsy use and the sections that is the rincon hill special use district subject to again in the appellants own belief states that requires one space per unit and no more and a full section in the appellants brief and contrary that veery parking didn't apply beyond why the appellants say and it is in their brief it clearly says in the special use district it didn't apply their misrepresenting that and i think that is quite clear what the code allows their more than welcome to seek the conditional use authorization but through this process i can't condone going around what the planning commission approval very contrary what the rules states with the planning code so i with

all due respect i respectfully ask you to uphold it as well. >> mr. sanchez it is commonly used to try to get this we've seen this many times. >> i'm putting my planning hat on is there now a parking demand in rincon hill. >> i mean i'll assume this is to be made by the property owner. >> i understand but at least from a planning side is there approval on this. >> i can't speak to the analysis there is an increase in demand what is shown here but i'm sure a demand for parking people cruz in this elsewhere

and parking here and getting out of their vehicles and going to work and it is true the motion contemplated that the idea you'll have one to one parking and not all the spades are utilized it establishes now more widespread use that's a provision now. >> okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> would you like to start. >> not really. >> i defer to my colleagues. >> well, you know, i think coagulate through the conditional use process will give the project sponsor what we

want to achieve here but give consideration and evaluate everything more fully you know my personal interpretation was i share with the zoning administrator that the number of parking spaces authorized at the time of a permit is the number of cars that are going to go into the building that's always been the intent where i'm right or wrong or indifferent not make the claim but feel more comfortable what i consider the proper channels and go through a conditional use hearing and determine that rather than taking it, it, it is surely on 88 then i will still deny the

appeal because my belief that 88 means 88; right? i'll rather deny the appeal for the purposes of going through the conditional use hearing so the project sponsor will get a fuller and broader hearing on the subject. >> i'm of a similar opinion although not necessarily because i would recommend going through the cu process that is before us this will be costly in the city and i don't think it is necessarily will be successful for the same reasons that we're faced with in terms of the discussion tonight that say that i concur with the appellant that the rincon doesn't apply to the

project i think i'm going to the 3 questions that the appellant raised i'll disagree that will be a yes answer which relates to both definitions of parking spaces the definition of what it is veery spaces i'm not prepared to support the appeal. >> neither am i. >> make a motion to deny the appeal based on. >> there was no error. >> yes. >> perfect. >> okay on the motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold did letter of determination. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner wilson that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to a zero and we'll call

the next item item number 9 to the jurisdiction request asking whether the board shall hear the excavation in the public right-of-way with the installation of new cabinets issued by san francisco public works to sbe engineering at 1157 church streets in 2016 at 315 and issued on november 1st and 16 plus at 21st 03 haight street and another one i don't have the number issued for 398 carl street on november 2016 the board received letters from the

engineering and san francisco public utilities commission requesting those appeals are dismissed to dismiss the appeals their 16, danish one 60 and 759 and before we begin i believe that commissioner lazarus. >> i'll recuse myself i have a clrlt. >> do we need to vote on that. >> no. >> can i. >> so we are going to hear this a one item and each the queries will be given 3 minutes to address the board and the permit holder will be given 15 minutes the combination of those minutes together and also the department will be given 15 minutes we'll start with the

requester for the first case. >> before you start it up madam director, can you explain to the audience a sort of unwritten policy off the board with respect to having all 3 together. >> absolutely this type of item requires 4 votes to grant jurisdiction one member that is recused and one absent if there are 3 votes and a missing members vote will make a difference in the outcome the board will vote to continue to allow the commissioner an opportunity to participate not jeopardize with a missing vote okay. we'll start q with the tongues request and building there are people here.

>> before we begin i wonder we might be able to clarify what vote is required here is this a vote to dismiss the appeal by the board or vote to make jurisdiction by the board. >> the vote to make jurisdiction. >> thank you and i see no rebuttal as well. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioner fung ryan patterson for the appellant this is a pretty unique and interesting situation with the litigations that the appellant only became aware of notice from the board very recently inappropriate or incorrect things were done by at at&t a run through of the timeline in

may of 2013 at&t applied for a number of permit to install those refrigerator sized boxes dpw at at&t appealed to the board the board upheld it and at&t then went to court in the meantime in 2014 the board of supervisors unanimously impacted infected that imposes the new requirement for those types of utility boxes can i have the overhead? i have additional copies those requirements are vegetation around the boxes and allowing murals and producing the fact and the next year the prior permit denial and in order that the prior permits be granted

a year later july 2016 at&t went to dpw and asked for prediction to install a different type of utility box with new technology dpw issued new permits and a different type of box and at&t failed to put notice in october of 2016 because of 3 failure dpw issued new permits and a few days later the appellant filled the appeal on november 7th the court ordered it dismissed because that was erroneous that the appeal was filed late and at&t went ahead and built the box with an appeal pending without an active permit so the court ordered the permit appealed but still has not -

at&t built the box anyway and what is worse built it in front of any clients home they built it at 1159 please we requested this before to at least have two conditions and understanding first, the ordinance 15 applies and this box is built in the wrong location without an active permit thank you for your time. >> okay. from the next requester mr. kelly. >> good evening members of the board of appeals on behalf of the neighbors of thirty and california i ask that you continue to have jurisdiction over the appeal of

the excavation permit in 2013, the neighbors protested the proposed location on october 23, 2013, we met with at&t and dpw and at&t agreed the box should be on california street at&t shouldn't have appealed the location of the box on 6672 california when the courts reversed the board of appeals decision should have gone back to court to have the box set on california street i ask the board to treat the 30th avenue permit as its own case nothing in previous plans by at&t addresses the specific case of 6723 california street the only occasion to appeal this

permit occurred when dpw issued the permit this november the board of appeals accepted this appeal no court has specifically changed that. >> since 2013 we have told at&t the proposed location was wrong it is at&t and dpws duty to listen to the neighbors and act in their best interests we have to live with this now utility box the reason at&t selected the location is because the closet spot on california street is in ceqa the selection of the 30th avenue location is in the mid block so, please accept the jurisdiction of this thank you. >> we'll hear from the

gonzales family now. >> hi good evening members of the board i'm frank gonzales i'll be speaking on behalf of my father and mother so we're here to address as citizens the right to appeal when there was an external issue within our property 5 years ago my family and i received a letter from at&t suggesting to sell a piece of our land to but that in a implicit we relied and said we're not interested 6 months later they sent us the same proposal in 2015 informing us at&t installed to apply for a

box by laurel street by our street at the time my father went to sf public works and told them to didn't want another cabinet next to his property we have two already can i have the overhead? we have one here underground and we also have one next to the truck whether the stop sign is and now the new one right where the back telephone pole is. >> plus for those poles right here. >> so it is a lot. >> forevermore at&t and public works organized a meeting with any father and neighbors out u

outside of our how's everyone was against the proposal my father suggested other options to in all the cabinet in other locations that don't grillage on perimeter of our property, however, after a few months get a letter from sf public works at&t didn't get the permit to install the cabinets on 2016 we received a letter from at&t to let us know they've appealed the decision and or the sf public works to give them the permit arguing they'll install a smaller cabinet we don't want another combnlt around our house at the time we've never had an opportunity to address the comments with respect to the court that gave at&t the permits we strongly believe that when

they issued the permit automobile all parties involved should be present not just for at&t in the court thank you. >> thank you the next request requester. >> good evening my name is diane my family owns the building at 21 through plus haithd at&t installed their cabinet on their property starting october 21st one day before the excavation permits were in effect i want to you to correct an unjust with the

action to dismiss our appeal in 2014 when at&t piloted the denial with the permit for the location of haight street to the board of appeals they argued that filipino the rule of regulations and not the guidelines therefore at&t must abide by the guidelines they are recommended to the court they've come applied they have not the dpw order requires at&t identify 3 locates including city owned property through public records i objected applications for the address of the list on the 2015 court order i requested that 2 i received thirty locations of those locations at&t met the

requirement 7 times and i do not have the company documents and at&t claims that for a s ms no feasible location exist i ask do for the application for locates where cabinet war installed one application for a document in which at&t states multiple stories and multi unit and no assessable site easements that information is false earlier today, i located 3 locations one in the front and side for the s ms i took photos if anyone wants to see that there are 4 possible private easement locations and

potentially 3 for - in addition i'll ask dpw staff member when an applicant states in their application that dpw does that look at the validity of the statement they'll consider the requirement so it appears that at&t has my likely mislead the court and the court may have resolute differently there's - >> finish your thoughts ma'am. >> okay. there's evidence that at&t has acted in bad faith for those those reasons i respectfully ask the board of appeals to deny at&t request. >> thank you. we'll hear from the comments from the hoa

commenters. >> may lee wong board member and my name is curtis chang. >> speak into the microphone please. my name is ernest chang resident wear i guess at&t has built a box by my window. >> right and as the previous appealers mentioned we got no, no opportunity to against this even if we've appealed the first time when they came out and they came out and meet with the neighborhoods and did give them several other

places they can place the box and the one they choose they said that the fire department said that was a fire lane even though two fire fences we told them to put the box on, on our property we have one box already on the property why they cannot change the one box and incorporate and take into account both of those things i understand this is theoretically so they can bring what is that there as light speed. >> yeah. the light they're new technology onto the property but they put this box right in front of his house and also at the absolute narrow it part of

sidewalk wider part on the other side of the street and we understood we we heard from the city there are conduits under the street they talk about this is a concrete street which it is but those people on the other side of the street get all of their services and they go through there there are conduits and as far as i can tell not consider molten besides this site we gave them and got someone to say it is a fire line lane since fences on both end i do not see to mention it is fairly narrow. >> i want to add because since i live right the box.

>> is there time up gary. >> a quick statement, sir. >> a lot of time buses breakdown in front of my home and have people on the train and that totally makes it clog you know no room for anyone to walk you have people staying around they're waiting for a bus and then the back of the bus let's say 7 or 8 buses after that so a complete traffic jam in front of any house the sidewalks is so narrow who can walk it is ridiculous. >> all right. thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners my name is ann i'm speaking on

behalf of the permit holder at&t. >> the issue here is jurisdiction and i appreciate everyone being here late i realize this is a issue from san mateo perspective trying to upgrade the communication equipment for years it is made consumers suffer and you know it is exhausted all legal affordable housing bonus program at issue we have 80 a court order directing this board this is a respondent in the underlying lawsuit to dismiss the pending appeal as to the property permits and we apply for other appeals so you know i'll address the

specific concerns raised by not loss focus we have a court order from 13r0ishg9 court not appealed a final order the appeal from this board be in effect and controlling for the other 4 locates at issue and at&t fully agrees that the department of public works they've so forth in their were active briefs demeanor i don't want to belabor that and a obviously a register at&t receives the writ that ordered the department to issue the permit among many others because of way the technology advanced the cabinet that at&t wanted to place are smaller more

quieter and had better technology so the the city vigorously opposed us when we got the motion to enforce the writ and got the court order motion in addition directed the court to dismiss the appeal i'm happy to go into more background but this is the second time before the board i believe if there are questions i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i just want to address some of the comments earlier particularly you know this is a clear-cut case i think that was mr. patterson spoken the appellants i think donated that

at&t was in could haves and the have nots with the city and other people raised things 2, 3, 42013 or 2014 that was under the umbrella of the court order for 2015 they be issued bus the department of public works has to use their discretionary and at&t has issues regarding the cover of the cabinet and not really at issue here if there are those kinds of issues can be raised to the department of public works and that's all i have if any questions. >> are you finished with our

presentation. >> yes. >> questions commissioners. >> i have a question the appeal applied to a permit issued for 1157. >> uh-huh. >> but the appellant are indicating it is not placed there it is placed at a different address. >> i don't think that is correct but an issue to take up with the discussion not this board. >> thank you we'll hear from the department now. >> do i get a rebuttal or. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> you have time if you want to - you should use it now you have no rebuttal in the hearing request. >> thank you.

>> good evening amanda with public works for the reasons stated in our public works brief we unfortunately building this board didn't have jurisdiction to hear this appeal these applications stem back to 2012 when at&t first applied for excavation permits for the sites at this point ordinance 7614 which infected the article 27 was not in effect at this point public works issued the responsibilities under excavation permits under public works order the one 7566 public works denied all the applications in 2014 at&t appealed the denied to this

board and the board upheld public works permits. >> substantial in 2015 at&t filed a petition with the san francisco superior court for a mandate the superior court is a state court and has superior jurisdiction over rules the city and county of san francisco the superior court arrested the city to issue the excavation permit that public works had previously denied after the writ at&t approached public works to allow the institution of the cabinet for a instead of a large model wanted to install a smaller cabinet ultimately the director of public works agreed to allow the substitution and public works issued the

excavation permit after the permit saw the appeal the first of appeals for the permits at&t filed a motion but with the san francisco superior court asking the court to enforce the mandate although the city opposed the writ to enforce the mandate the court agreed with at&t that the installation of the smaller cabinet was okay. and ordered the appeal to be dismissed the reasons for ordering the submittal of 16 one san francisco applied with equal force and shout outs board accept the jurisdiction of this case at&t will file similar motions point superior court and the court will issue compatible orders in terms of the appellant claims we've heard the box was

installed at the wrong location quinn with the first excavation permit in 2013 and also in the current excavation permit under consideration here the cabinet location has residential consistent throughout the process the permit itself didn't list turk street or denying or 11 turk street that lists the street treatment that is church street from 24th street and in terms of notification required for the utility excavation permit the only requirement that the permit holder post the construction signs 72 hours prior to starting construction not requiring public works to or the applicant to send out innovations to interested appellants hover in the case of

the appeals public works did e-mail the folks right to appeal the second writ from the superior court and i'll be here if you have any questions thank you. >> it our compatriot want to say anything he's been sitting here all night. >> we can take public comment please step forward. >> good evening, commissioners i'm the next door of the appellant 2011 61 i live on church street and want to quickly respond to who two things i've heard first can i have the overhead, please? and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record.

that would be helpful. >> as i understand this is - thank you. >> this is a copy listing the number of the utility excavation permits and the address a clearly - the project is supposed to be at 1157 church street. >> mr. patterson earlier mentioned while this appraisal is pending at&t went ahead and installed a utility cabinet not in front of 1157 church street 1157 church street is this building the cabinet is in front of my living room window i

was not properly notified of this and had i been perhaps i would have known to possibly entering queen so i feel i never had a proper notice of that impactful thing in front of my house that's all. >> how long have you lived there. >> sorry. >> i think 5 or 6 years now thank you. >> any other public comment. >> sorry. >> i was asking if other public comment. >> seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> you know the original 32 the denial by the department was lick the yellow brick rode;

right? >> my concern is that because of what occurred i believe all of us were here. >> not me and not rick were here at that particular time i'm not sure that the appellant got their day in court because of how that process was working there's no disagreement then what with what the court order says that is quite clear with respect to one case not clear in my mind by presuming we will know that the argument and the objection is the same as previously to allow the court

decision on that one case at a time a little bit of an issue but having been throw by the utilities too much times to remember you know i'm not also wanting to you know create not only additional issues for the citizens in terms of their time and in a situation it will be difficult given the fact that the utilities are ma ticks and winning against us every time.

>> am i correct that the board - that the city argues that the residents didn't get the opportunity to appeal this permit this was something the court. >> mined the city didn't mention that in their papers as. >> and the court was not per swayed. >> right. >> my concern is the same always commissioner fung i believe and also it was just supported by the unknowingly by the city attorney is that the superior court i believe equally with commissioner fung that

maybe the appellants didn't get their day in court but i wasn't there and am sympathetic, however, with that said there was a day in court that the position was taken by the city that the appellants were for the fully heard the superior court strongly made a decision on all but one case my feeling is that although we could take jurisdiction on this we spent a lot of time and money and make the lawyers rich and end up in the - probably unfortunately make that statement in the same place this is what is facing me work bother the court has made its position

very, very clear the financial issue will be the same and find in the same way i'm sympathetic to the appellants i think the approval is satisfied. >> i'm leaning towards that direction. >> would you like to planning commission make a motion. >> i feel for the appellants i would ask the board to consider refunding them their appeal fees on the basis that the court has changed the tenure of the process. >> i'll be sympathetic to that. > in the first case there was a crux of two conditions to deny

it on church; right? >> i'm not sure what you're referring to. >> i think that mr. patterson requested two findings. >> right. >> that's for one ways was that which law applies i don't see that the board is in a position to do that and the board won't have jurisdiction. >> i remember that one but obviously any ordinance by the city we're bound by that. >> yeah. >> it is reference to that revised ordinance. >> the initial court order on the writ makes the opposite findings they're not subject to that they were issued before the ordinance took effect.

>> okay. >> the court in the most recent orders the permit are not the ones they've ordered a i'm going to move to not grant jurisdiction and to note that the appeal fees b be refund to the 5 appellants. >> vice president would you consider also adding it to the motion the 5 appeals need to be dismissed. >> yes. i think i am. >> okay. >> and the basis is the court order. >> yeah. >> okay so the motion then from the vice

president to deny the jurisdiction dismiss them and have the boards refund the filing fees on the basis of court order on that commissioner lazarus is recused and commissioner wilson and commissioner fung that item passes and vice president. >> there's no further business. >> this meeting is those in th

please take their seats, we'll get underway. i now call the regular meeting of the health services board to order. would you please join me in saying the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> we'll have the roll call. >> roll call. scott, present. lim, present. breslin, here. farrell, expected. ferrigno, excused. follasbee, present. sass, present. we have a quorum. >> thank you. first action item. >> item 1 approval of possible modification the minute of meeting regular meeting december 8 , 2016. >> do i have a motion? >> moved and [inaudible] the minutes the regular meeting och december 8 , 2016. &second. >> there is a second. properly moved and seconded we approve the minute of the december 8 regular meeting

of the board. any comments or questions or edits by members of the board? seeing none, any public comment? if not, wree ready to take action. all in favor of approving the minute as distributed say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? so ordered. item 2. >> item 2, discussion item. general public comment on matters within the boards jurisdiction not appearing on todays agenda. >> good afternoon commissioners rich rld rothland retireee. i'm leer to talk about kaisers [inaudible] which is a property which is a transportation desert. last time i talked i look adthat web page, they have some information about bestriving

alternative services which i didn't think was adequate enough. when i looked today all they had to drive there, nothing about muni. i don't know if they are continuing the shuttle services but it want on there and i think since we are the second largest dealer with our agency that deals with kaiser, that we should really tell them that they need to provide better transportation especially like the richmond and the sun set to especially seniors and popeal who have a hard time getting around that they need to provide shuttle service. i don't know if they stopped it or not but there is nothing listed today on the web page. you know,u csf has a great shuttle service and go around to all

the facilities, there is no reason why kaiser can't start at french and go to geary street and they have campuses i think up the street here. i think we really need to provide-kaiser needs to provide services so that they can get to owen street. i'm lucky, my doctors department wnt but he stayed at geary street. if i have to go to owens i rather go to south san francisco, it is easier for me but think the board should ask kaiser to explain what they will do about improving public transit-even active and retired members. thank you. >> thank you for your comment. is there public-other general public comment on matters not appearing. >> herbert winer, city retiree.

one concern i have and related to what the previous presenter made is it is public possibly of mta and expect seniors and disable tooz walk a quarter mile to the bus stop. i realize you don't have direct authority over this or jurisdiction or this but this is for the information the board. actually this policy is done to make the buses run faster and frankly it is a add mixture of the rationalty and cruelty as i pointed out to the board of supervisors on tuesday. this really effects our retirees many who rely on public transportation including myself. i'm able -bodied but the bord should be aware of this. the mta run amuck and has to be brought to heel. it is terrible and aprogess what they

are doing. >> they think for the public comment. any other pub luck comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the board? seeing none, we go to discussion item 3. >> item 3, discussion item. president report. president scott. >> as part of the president report today i want to acknowledge very outstanding presentation made by a on hewitt on market trends and update in the last meeting and make a formal request of them that during the benefit cycle later in the benefit cycle once we get more clarity about what is going on nationally if we ever do. i didn't say that publicly, that you come back and provide us with a update. so, we'll work with executive director dodd to talk about the time for that to happen. you have done a great

job outlining what things could and might be and think with a little time there will be more clarity and i think it is a informative reassessment of some of the things you highlighted during the presentation. i make that request of you. i am also in receipt of the following letter dated december 19, 2016. dear chairman scott and board members, thank you for your commitment to insuring quality affordable sustainable health benefits for the health system members and their depends. your efforts have not gone unnoticed by hhs members. not a day goes by that thanks are offered by employees i encounter. at end of january 2017 i will have worked 10 years for the city and coupty of san francisco and therefore eligible to retire. i will be planning to retire immediately at my 10th

anniversary but realize adding a additional month for transition is essential to set the rates and benefits process in motion >> to establish the department budget with mayors office and assist any way i can to launch a search fl a new director. this letter is to inform you i'm resigning as ecextev director on february 28, 2017. i am grateful for the opportunity for professional and personal development i had during the last 7 plus years. we have accomplished much. established a wellbeing for employers which includes data by department implemented in all payer claim database. found two successful care organizations, brought

theagy into compliance with state and federal reg ylgdsulations and maintain compliance throughout the affordable care act. launched research agenda preventing diabetes and participated in research on cancer correlation chemicals women fire fighters work with daily. most-importantly, kept overall premeial rate increase below 2 percent. we added board of education to the annual board meet ing agendas and met all customer services standards. i believe i am leaving hss in cape capable hands and there is much to do in 2017 and beyawn. i will do whatever is necessary to insure a smooth transition. i inyoied working with you the committed member thofz borebd and appreciate the support provided during the tenure with the cyst: meez do do not hesitate to be in term what i

can do to help. if i can be any help during the transition letd me xoe. sincerely catherine dodd director of san francisco health service system. there was a communication where director dodd extended the time with us until march 15th to help with the transition. i want to make a personal observation relative to this letter and director dodd's decision. it can be found in a quote by benjamin franklin. it says for want of a nail. for want of a nail the shoe was lost, with for the shoe the horse was lost, not a horse the rider was lost, not a rider the battle of the [inaudible] all for the want of a horse shoe nail.

i find it regrettable that sometimes the exceptional and superior performance of executive drether dodd over time during her tinnier and during this performance particular ly is only minimally recognized for those responsible for compensation practices and actions for department heads for the city and county of san francisco. these actions have occurred despite repeated requests and recommendations by this board even most recently as september of 2016. the consequences of this in my view and i'm stating my opinion here, process combined with some episodic communications around it that had a very disruptive near term and impact on the operations of the health

services system and it will possibly adversely or could adversely impact our services to our members. i wish that we had another outcome here and i worked both publicly and behind the scenes to try to achieve that. but we didn't. we are where we are. catherine agreed to stay on for a period of time to help with the transition and i absolute her for that and wish her every success, personal and otherwise in her upcoming retirement. also, as a part of the presidents report, i am in re seat of a resolution by the protect our benefits group and to talk a bit about process for replacing this physician. i asked and she graitiously came today, the director of human resources for

the city and county of san francisco director mickey cal hann so when you please come at this time. i asked her to come so we all can be informed about process and then i will talk a bit about how we'll work with the pauss that she will outline as we undertake the search . >> good afternoon. a bitter sweet opportunity. pleased to be able to describe to you the services and processes dhr can support the commission as they go forward to fill the position but saddened we will lose catherine. her achievements are nothing short of remarkable in her time in the position. we have not always agreed on everything, but- >> i'm shocked.

>> but she is really done her best i think for the benefit of the system. i like to talk about the general process that boards use to replace the executive directors and how dhr can support that. you may not know recently the police department has under gone a search and hired a new police chief and port commission has done the same. building inspection. art commission have all done that and we provide support to that process at the level desired by the board or commission. you can get as much or little of us as you want. we have a prequalified list of vendors who provide recruitment service and the advantage of a prequalified list is that we dont have to-if somebody is on the list a contract to perform the search can be executed fairly

rapidly. if the commission desires to use someone not on the list that can be done but the is a process of proiving they provide equal benefit squz going through the process that can slow things down significantly. typically what we would do and i'll speak generically is we would meet with the usually a subcommittee of the governing body to lead the process. we would look at-we draft a solicitation based on the level of support that the commission would like to have in the search and send that out to the various firms and they would then bid and then bring it back with a recommendation and then the commission either the subcommittee or commission as a whole will #15e79 that and we move forward with that. we have a list of-i

have a sheet information sheet if you would maybe you have it to pass out. it lists the firms that we used and we used all of them very recently. most recently i think anderson associates handled the police chief recruitment and alliance for director in my own department. we can also in the solicitation ask them for what experience you have in re cruting for this type of position. i do think it is a very unique position so encourage the commission not to require a level of experience that you might end up with no nobody bidding on it. depending on how much you want the firm to do i say go between $20,000 to $50,000. on the police chief it was higher because they had a lault of

meetings, meetings in the department and community areas where people came and kribed what they thought was important in the police chief and also handled it as a commit6tee of the whole because that was their decision. that took #1345u9 longer than it otherwise have but it is a option available to you. we have again you can use the full board or a subcommittee. my recommendation is use a subknhity so the committee can approve the letter soliciting, recommend the firm or choose the firm, approve the initial screening. the subcommittee or board can delegate to the firm, the job of qualifying the applicants in and ranking them in order. normally they are good, better best aming those who apply but typically they present that to the the commission and commission may say the person you said was

middle we like to interview because of x, y or z. that is the screening process that the board would decide how to handle it. there is no hard fast rule. these are exempt positions so no civil service exam. you can use the firm to do the contact squz arrange the interviews. we allow them to meet at our offices because-we like some amount of confenchalty and may not want to show up where they might work so we facilitate the interview process. and then ultimately the of course the decision is by the board. so we could-you could delegate a lot of it to the firm. say bring your top 6 as a example. or you could and you

might or might not decide they need a community meeting. meeting the board and meetings with aerts to determine the profile of the candidate. or you could handle some of that yourself. if the board decided you wanted >> student to do most yourself, dhr will help with that. sample letters and questions and helping set up skype interviews. i want to introduce [inaudible] >> sorry-what is her name? >> director of finance and administration and runs the processes and able staff member christina [inaudible] who supported a lot of board and commissions. >> i didn't hear the name of the first? >> chand saw icada. most recently the director of [inaudible] and decided dhr was better. very happy about that. >> thank you for that kind of

process. one of the questions i would have is a national starting point is you typically have a member of the staff assigned to work with the commission if we request that? >> yes and initially it is chandsa or christina. if you desire to have a person attend the interviews, and help with the questions we might at that point use somebody from our recruitment and assessment team to help give you sample questions for example or if you want to do-i don't want to say civil service but have a scoring system we can provide examples how you might evaluate and record the evaluationoffs the candidates. >> any questions from the commissioners on process? we are not talking about specifics today, just process. >> when we first became a independent department i found the other day

the job description or duties or whatever, so we can do our own duties or job descriptions? >> yes. the only thing we would-if you want to put something there that wasn't legal we would prevent you from doing that. >> i have a copy of the old one. >> that fsh a specific request that i was going to make of director-if you could send to the board secretary and i like to send the old one. >> we have the old one-these type of positions >> whauv you have on file or whatever the last that you have on file in your office i like for you to send that. our historian has a copy or anyone else has a copy-anyone else have a copy of a prior executive director position description so they can be distribute today the board to begin some

thoughtful process about what the scope of duties needs to be as we go forward. to the point that you made, i will be prepared part of the next meeting and hopefully be able to announce how we will structure ourselves as a commission to do this and we need a little discussion around that, but also i want to put on the record today that this will be a broad transparent and open process. i want to emphasis that, broad, pranz transpaernts and open process. i envision if we select a firm they are in collinitation with a variety of constituents. we have 4 different employers as part the system and they need to weigh in on this. we have retirees from the different

systems so there we want consultation about the profile. there is probably dch different views of what the expectations should be for a new executive director as we move forward so those need to be brought into being as well. who ever we select will be part of the early part of the process we want them to engage and bring that consolidated information back as candidate profile criteria report, whatever they call it and then we kind of have common cause of what we are searching for, if there is priortiizations among what various constituencies have said so that's our commitment and want that on the record. >> if i may provide information on that. we can provide you with examples of both solicitation letters and

accepted proposals where the commissions have done a lot of this outreach and it would make sense to require the recruitment firm to manage that process but that will increase the cost. if instead you wanted to have various commission members lead meetings that is another option. >> in my humble opinion and a decision of the committee, it needs to be a independent party collecting the data so it is consistently done and presented in a format that is comprehensive in the approach. that is what the broad direction from a process standpoint today is and we got tothink this through more to be sure that we haven't missed a step. any questions from commissioners? yes? >> is it ever the case that retiring director can par ticipate in a technical or advisory capacity

with a selection of a successser? >> absolutely it is up to the commission. i think given the-this probably won't work for you because the time but there is a provision you can double fill a position with a person who is existing and person coming in to have a overlap. it sounds like the outreach you are looking for there will be a gap so the commission will look how to bridge the gap until you have your selection process completed. >> that is why i'm saying we are better prepared to talk about this next month because it requires the endorsement of this board to make the approach and talk about transitional management and what have you. >> in the interim we will provide anything we got on the job description of course a generic classification which i think is department head 4. >> it is helpful if you could define or give us context of what

department head 4 means. >> yes. >> all these folks up here, most of them have been affiliated with city and county of san francisco, they know that stuff but there are a couple that dont have a clue about how you are structured, classified and do your business so if you got background information- >> we'll provide the generic department head and kning in the specific duties and provide sample solicitation letters and contracts or accepted proposals i should say for the searches. we can provide broshoes. normally what we do for confudinchalty we have a link to it the recruitment on the website, we have sth application go directly to the firm. >> absolutely. >> they are not on the job app lication system. the access to the information isn't available to

people. >> any other questions from commissioners? >> the question i have assuming this isn't completed by march 15- >> it's not going be. >> i gather that. does hr know who the active director will be or we do? >> we do. >> we have it weigh in on that. >> we can support with respect to compensation or appropriate classification or acting pay, but it falls to the commission or board to decide how you want to do that. >> anything else? >> the funding for the search team, where does that money come from? >> that is your funds, so you will have to-that is why cost is a factor. i will tell you experience-there is a pretty broad variation of what they'll

charge and i believe that the work of some of the 20 or $30 thousand is as good as the $50 thousand but you can look at the material and judge for yourself. the first order of business is have the body make decisions impaneled and help us prepare-we will help you prepare solicitation for firms. >> alright. thank you for coming on such short notice and will be more than in touch. >> i'm certain at that. thank you for the opportunity to address you today. >> thank you. having taken that bit of time and i do want to kind of suggest that we have a very full agenda and we need to be complete with our regular meeting with all the components on the

agenda by 4 p.m. today because there is a closed session and we have to be out of the room no later than 5 t. we have a closed session on a member appeal and the directors review, so i indulge myself to take up the time to kick off the process but ask people to be mindful. commissioners and general public to be mindful. is there public comment? >> good afternoon president scott, commissioners, director dodd. [inaudible] president of the municipal executive association which is the bargaining unit representing a thousand managers throughout san francisco city government and part of mea's mission is promote professional excellence for city managers and it is in that

context that i'm here today to speak on behalf of mea to commend director dodd for years of outstanding services to the health service system. in her work to design, negotiate and administer health benefits for over 113,000 employees for san francisco, san francisco unified school district, city college of san francisco, and superior court of san francisco director dodd has shown to be a brilliant professional who's accomplishments include professionalizing the customer interface and improving customer services such that hss is a fierce advocate for outcome frz the members. director dodd improved the sign up system and implemented wellness programs for employee squz retirees. established a data analytic section and established transparency in

both healthcare cost and quality but perhaps most impressively her work kept cost down when other public employee systems saw increase. worked to bend that cost curve from a 13 percent trend to minus 3 percent in 2015 and less than three percent in 2016. i can't say enough good things about her professional ability, commit, hard work and leadership. director doddmea commends for years of public service and wish you all the best in your retirement. >> thank you for your comment. any other public comment? >> herbert winer representing protect our benefits with this resolution. protect our benefits is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the health benefits of all city retirees in the san francisco health service

system and protect our benefits was more than 3,000 members and retireeed employees of san francisco including the san francisco unified school district, community college district and san francisco cort system and in our diverse experiences as employees retirees we have a common goal. protecting the health benefits we earned over the years and protect our benefits through proposition c 2004 established the health service system as a independent and separate city department and whereasprop z 2014 established the 7 member board consisting of 7 members, 4 elected by the members and 2 appointed by the mayor and 1 by the board of supervisors with the city attorney to serve as legal advisor to hss and

whereas the charter amendment in 2004 established the health service commission with full authority to hire the director and proposition c 2011 changed the health service system commission by eliminating one of the 4 elected members positions to the commission and whereas proposition c enl tw 2011 weakened the input of the hss commission by changing the 2/3 rule vote for adoption of plans for members to a simple majority and whereas under charter ab 422 adoption of plan for members. the hss board has the power and be duty by majority vote of the entire to adopt a plan or plans

for rendering medical care to memberoffs the system or for the indim fiication of the cost of said care and for [inaudible] against such cause for such care. such plans may be adopted shol not be effective until approved by ordinance by board of supervisors adopted by 3 /4 of the members. the board of supervisors secure a report of the cause and effect och any proposed change in the benefits of the health service system or rates of contributions before enacting a ordinance or before voting to submit any proposed charter amendment providing- >> may i suggest there are three additional whereases can you move the resolve? >> i will delete the whereas.

i'm- >> thank you. >> the director is responsible for developing and executing policies and methods effecting city wide employee benefit program said. exercising- >> i don't want to be rude, i'm asking you to move the resolve portion the resolution which is the next item. >> here is where the resolve comes in and will give a copy. >> we have a copy. >> it is also for review by members the board as well. you can use a extra one. here is where i state the resolve. resolve that protect our benefits committee as a representative group protecting the health benefits of all city and county retirees play a part in the hiring process and encourage the board to create a national and open such to insure fair iness to all member thofz health service system. >> thank you.

>> signed [inaudible] >> thank you for your comment. any other public comment? >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is eileen hurst a current city employees with the sheriffs department and former mea president and i would just like to speak to the delima you have in front of you of replacing catherine dodd. i don't know how you will do that and don't envee your task. [inaudible] how mea feels about catherinefelt i can tell you just about every city employee feels the same way and just want to add two things that i think she did spectacular lee well. she promoted wellness and got people to come to helths fairs. she made it easy to walk across the street and get your blood pressure checked and cholesterol check without making a doctors

appointment and information how to take care of yourself and goot a flu shot so she made health accessible and the think i loved most is how you had these yoga classes and zumba classes in city hall so people members of the public and city employees are walking by and here are all these people in there exercising. it is so promoted health and that was something that was so missing from the helths system before you came. i know that is part of keeping cost down as well but you will never know how many city employees and how many members of the public are healthier because you are here and i thank you very much. jerk thank you for your comment. any other public comment? >> dennis kruger active retired

fire fighters spouses and widows. i have sit here second longest to anybody in the room [inaudible] in that time i watched a number of directors come through here and i have never had a director of this organization more qualified to direct it then catherine do dd. i will mitss the meetings every three months. #y0u are lucky to have here. glad you are taking a real wide view of somebody to replace her because i know it will be very difficult and i'll just through out a name for a starter. clar suvansy. >> any other public comment? >> clar suvansky to refute that last comment. representing r serks

ccsf. from my time on the board i remember when phil carny retired actually died. he was father of high school chum and my colleague randy smith took over. it is a long time ago. i have watched a long succession of directors in that position. none had the qualifications or expertise and none have much as their been a few we loved dearly, none have actually accomplished as much as catherine has during this time so think the shoes are going it be very difficult to fill. more like boots because there is a lot in there. i wish you well in the process. i don't envy you the process. i offer my perspective for whatever if you ever want to consult or get any assistance from me. i'm here and available to do that but i just want to say it

is extremely hard to go forward because catherine has such a high threshold with regard to everyone who has filled the position and many have come from similar types of commissions and boards and had a great deal of expertise but not the level of catherine and expect the next couple meetings will be full of accolades in that regard. i think it will be a very-i don't know it will be a simple process, but i think that we owe it to our system and to our members to do the best search we can do and most-thorough search we can kw use catherines expertise as much we can to find the new successor. i won't take anymore time but good luck. good luck members hof board and former colleagues and good luck to you catherine. i think this is a difficult

decision you have added so much to the process. you have also added so much to the department. you brought in some incredible people and i think that should be noted as well that we now have probably one of the most funomsl omphenomenal staff and still short staffed given the number of people and benefits we provide we are still operating on a very tight personnel-it is small department. it is too small for what we do but think and good luck. >> thank you for public comment. any other public comment? if not we will move to the next item, which is directors report. >> item 4, director report. >> director dodd i know this is the last time or next >> to the last time but take

your time. >> thank you very much and thank you to all these who commented on my stewardship. i think my directors report is and has consistently been a reflection of what great work the hss staff do. i am merely go to meetings and pull people together. we have a remarkable staff. i am pleased to say that we currently have only two benefit technician positions open and one benefit analyst position open and that we are in the process of making a offer hopefully to a communications manager. that position is vacant since august. and then we have two position open for [inaudible] savings and hopefully won't

be asked for more in the budget process this year. i really want you to take a look at the numbers in terms of how many calls we answered. our call increased by 25 percent. now the speed to answer increased equally but we maintained with the exception of a couple days when there were glinchs industry standards if not better in the call and in-person assistancement we mailed out 72, 905 conformation letters. quh i came here we mailed out 5 $5 54,000. when you think of that increase it is a profound increase and one the reason our call volume is what it was is because the mail house when we had no control over held on to the

letters for two weeks. they went out two weeks late and arrived in the holidays and cut staff and given people time off. so, there are glitchs in the december numbers and there will be glitchs in the january numbers because we had a difficulty with blue shield for the split families. we have done everything we possibly could to meet those goals and i'm still proud of the numbers. we are going back and review with the communication company the mail house where the glitchs were and why things were two weeks late and will make recommendation tooz the purchasing department. the office of administration for the y whether they should continue to be used mpt we also had to answer calls on the new voluntary benefits. over 5 thousand people signed up for voluntary

benefits and it is interesting, that is a huge percentage. it is more than responded to our questionnaire and i was at a meeting yesterday when people were talking about voluntary benefits and everyone is talking about pet insurance which is one thing gregg menshzed. i hope people realize pet insurance is a legitimate desire just like yoift theft or cretical care insurance t. is throughout the industry one of the most popular benefits there is and think we are serving our employees well by giving them that security that they won't lose that loved one in their family. data analytics has a very busy end of the year. they have to figure all the-this may sound simple but have to go through all the domestic

partnerships and decide whether their income tax eligible and transmit all that information to carefully and accurately to pay roll so the w 2's can besent out. we validated the data for the w 2 and up graded all the pages on the website. dat a analistics was busy in december. equally-you think of december being a easy time. finance and accounting reviewed in preparation of the city wide financial system which we are all waiting for, all the policies. they converted the medicare united healthcare to the new city plan effective january 1. they finalized their agreement with fidelity

national technology images so we are beginning to move those files that take up a huge room offsite and scan them so they are electronic. and they completed what you started early last year, the form for applying for reimbursement for surgacy and adoption. in terms of wellness i want you to look at those numbers that are in the draft. we had a 5 percent increase in visits to the wellness scepter and looking at 644 per mujt. epa had a tremendous increase with 3720 employees reaching out. eap is working on hipaa requirements to do telephone services coming up. and wellbeing service increased by

12 percent over 2015. click on those links in terms of the wellness report, it is very remarkable. in terms of my business, i met with participating interviewing the communication manager and worked with ann on performance guarantees. we have taken some sthofe choosing wisely recommendations on performance guarantees such as only 29.3 delivery by c section and looking at mri use for low back pain so we are participating in eliminating duplication and over expenditure. we will be bringing to you a proposal for dependent verification audits. i realize we did a verification

audit on children in 2011 and it saved the city $3.2 million going on and we continued that. you can drop a illujtimate dependent through open enrollment but we will look for them so the city is only paying for people who they should be paying for so that proposal will come to you and fairly certain we can get funding from the controller to pay for it. that completes my-i did want to let you all know that next monday is a holiday. we are celebrating marthen luther king birthday and will travel to san diego. tuesday i'm giving a talk with pbgh on value based care. coming back wednesday and then thursday and friday i'll be in washington dc for the

march. i will not be in the office next week, but as i said before, when i'm in the country i am always available by phone or e-mail and staff can tell you that. i am never farther than my i pone unless it is so cold back there it freezes. mitchell will be in charch while i'm out of the office and that's it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you for all the accolades. >> any questions by members of the board? any public comment? seeing none we will move to item 5. >> item 5, discussion item. hss financial reporting. pamela leaven. >> director leaven, we are trying to gallop through as you know. >> pamly leaven chief financial

auftser. i report on the revenues for expenditures for the trust fund and general fund as of 11-30-16. we have in the trust as of june 30, 2016 the net position was 68.6 million and project 68.9 million. the 11.7 million is subsidized the rates for city plan and favorable claim experience for blue shield which increased by 8.5 percent over the same period in fy 2015/16 and that is partially off set by rate increases we had first 16 to recover the 14 deficit and the rates for 2017 to recover the 2015 deficit.

we also had better claims experience in the self insured dental plan. in the report we show a balance of 58,000 for the healthcare sustainability fund. i show the transfer of $150 thousand from performance guarantee received prior to the had current fiscal year for the surgacy and adoption benefits. the benefits was effective as of january 1, 2017 and have no applications wim continue to report on that and no performance guarantees are received for the current fiscal year. for the general fund based on the 5 months of expenditures we are projecting to end the year at budget. >> thank you very much. please remain there. are there any questions from members of the board? >> the best doctors, when you

report on that the money going in and out for that is that under the sustainability fund? >> it is out of rates. >> isn't that part the 3 dollars that goes out each month? >> it is separate. i suppose i could but it is a per member per month rate and i could put that in a separate line. >> i think that would be good because i like to see how many people are using this and how much we are paying for it. >> director dodd? >> it is based on a pmpm so not a per member use utilizing it. it is dollar 40 time s however many members we have each month and believe they are scheduled to bring a report after the first 3 months the year.

>> just so there is a report. >> they commit today do that and said we #wd do that with all the new benefits so that will come back in a format rather than through the financial report. we know the cost. any other comments or questions from board members? is there public comment? seeing no public comment, we'll move on. >> item 6, discussion item. review of health service system fiscal year 2017/18 and 18/19 budget instructions. pamela leaven. >> you have report in front of you. i'm highlight the staleiant points. the mayors office released 17/18 and 18/19 instructions for general fund and have projected deficit of 119

million and 2 834 million in 18/19. this is due to increase in the employer contribution to employee pensions, rising health cost, new baseline and voter approve set aside rkss increase in service and position and ongoing costs. the projections do not include unknown impacts from the labor negotiations in 16/17. we have i believe around 40 or 45 unions that are negotiating this year. any supplemental or new budgetary commitments that the board of supervises might make, any changes in the state or federal budget year-current year over spending is sup lltal appropriations and

change in the economy. the mayors instructions we are to propose on going reductions equal to 3 percent in both years. this means that the 17/18 budget request need to be reduced by 97, 442 as compared to the base which is the current years budget and then the cuts must continue into 18/19 along with another additional 97, 442. we are suppose today implement a approach to the future fte approach. this does not mean that we have to do any layoffs, a hiring freeze or keep positions vacant but can't create new fte tfs. we can't request any additional positions. the idea