of the effect is on filers who have incomes over that threshold. >> supervisor cohen: so we're clear, are these joint filers or individuals? joint -- joint household income? how is the data assessed? how is it collected? if you don't know, you don't know. >> i don't know exactly. i'd have to look at that and find out. >> supervisor cohen: i thinking that a lot of the data is it's a household income. so if you have over $200,000 or $250,000 -- >> $200,000. >> supervisor cohen: then the tax impact would be what? i'm sure that there's a range. >> it would be -- it's hard to say, i mean, the one thing that we were looking at is what would have been the value -- you know, what is the lost value of the state and local income tax deduction and the property tax

deduction to san francisco filers so we think that it's about $2.1 billion for the state and local tax dedukd deduction a lot smaller, i don't know, $100 million or so in the property tax deduction. >> supervisor cohen: so overall there's less revenue going into the state budget and the local san francisco budget for us to then reallocate during the budget process? >> i don't think that it's a direct affect and if you take $2 $2.1 billion out of the local economy, you have to expect that it will affect the local business' ability to invest or to expand -- >> supervisor cohen: to hire. >> you have to expect that discretionary spending would decrease because the cost of necessities is going up and it would certainly affect your sales tax. the effect on the housing market and our transfer tax and the

property tax as a result seems like it would -- if anything -- it would have to possibly drive down prices and just reflecting the fact that most buyers are going to have higher costs to finance and then pay taxes on these new purchases that one would think that it would depress slightly the home prices but not in a way that will substantially benefit. >> supervisor cohen: so in the news that i was reading earlier this morning, i think that there are republicans from california and other high tax state -- they're putting pressure on the congressional leaders to make some considerable changes that could avert some of the most severe impacts to us being felt here in california. can you describe maybe -- if you don't know it just let me know that you don't know, but what exactly is our congressional delegation doing?

i know that two weeks ago in a very public way that pelosi was set to meet with the president but then the talks were derailed because of twitter. so where are we -- what are our lobbyists telling us in terms of in sacramento and in the capital? >> i am receiving updates from them as they're sort of more able to get current information. one piece of information we got from our federal lobbyists yesterday is that there's a bipartisan bill and i don't know who the sponsors are on the spot, who would seek to maintain more of the salt deduction, maintain the property tax deduction, and pay for it with -- i think that it was a passthrough proceeds to kind of

shift that a little bit more in favor of toward the individuals and less in favor toward the businesses. that's one proposal from two congress people. i'm not sure where that is, if it's -- where that is in the process. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor fewer, did you have questions, i see your name. supervisor fewer thanif>> superk you, i just have a comment and i think what we may see from this is that individuals who are trying to get into the home market, the real estate market here in san francisco, will have a harder time because it's so expensive to buy a home here and when you can't deduct your taxes it doesn't give you some relief at the end of the year. because the relating corporations are taxed at a lower level it just encourages corporations, quite frankly, to buy real estate because they can take a hit on not deducting on

the property tax because they're also leveling it with a generous tax package for the corporations. so i think that this is actually very detrimental to all of the housing that we're building that is at that price range that we're trying to get at with the new home buyers and this will hit them hard. and speaking of someone who just bought their first piece of property in san francisco as we're building them for them is that this group of people actually will have a harder time getting into the market considering they will not be able to get -- deduct these things on their taxes. and so i see the effect actually hitting the people that we actually wanted in san francisco versus the corporations that buy up a lot of real estate here that are going to get a huge break with this tax deduction. let's just hope that people have a moral conscience and that's

far-fetched, i know, and we'll pushback on this but i think that we are -- i mean, it's hard to see what the changes might be because everything is in flux but just looking at this i think that it could really hit a lot of san francisco, but what we're trying to do to get people -- middle-class folks in sa san francisco to invest in a small piece of real estate here, it's going to be detrimental to that effort. >> supervisor cohen: definitely. any other tax wisdom that you want to share with us? >> not at this moment. i'll turn it over to cindy comerford from the department of public health with an update on affordable care. >> supervisor cohen: okay.

>> okay, good afternoon supervisors, my name is cindy comerford and i manage the policy and planning at the department of public health and today i'm going to give a very brief presentation on issues that impact health care reform. these are not all specifically around the a.c.a. but somehow impact our ability to provide health care in san francisco. so i'm going to talk about six issues that are on the slide in

front of you. i'm going to give a very brief update on each one and some of the funding mechanisms, they're very complex so i'm happy to answer any questions at the end. so the first item michelle already talked about at length which is tax reform and tax reform could potentially impact the health care landscape very significantly. as michelle said, one of the biggest issues is the repeal of the individual mandate. this is a component of the a.c.a. that requires most individuals to have health insurance or face a tax penalty. this is in the senate bill. there are also a couple other items within tax reform specifically, the elimination of the medical expense deduction and the elimination of the student interest deduction, and also the orphan drug industry deduction is eliminated. or capped within the senate

bill. and these bills are in conference committee right now and we're not entirely clear whether the house will adopt the senate's bill. it kind of goes back and forth each day. this morning it seemed more likely that they would include the individual mandate but a couple days ago that didn't seem feasible. so it's still pretty fluid on what's going to happen. the potential impact of repealing the individual mandate would mean 13 million people would have -- would not have insurance. and it also impacts premiums by causing them to increase. so that 13 million translates if you do a straight statistical calculation about 35,000 residents in san francisco. in addition, since the tax cuts are so large it could potentially trigger an across-the-board spending cuts

and this would impact medicare. and in order for it not to have impact on medicare, there would have to be federal legislation passed that would protect these additional health care programs. so the next item that i'll talk about is the children's health insurance program and also known as chip. and chip is a federal and state partnership that is designed to provide low-income children with health insurance coverage. this program provides health insurance to about 1.3 million people in california under the age of 19. so the funding for this program expired in the end of september. and traditionally this program has enjoyed bipartisan support but, unfortunately, it's kind of become a political tool. in october, the house did pass a

bill that would extend this funding for another five years. it was passed primarily along party lines and mostly rejected by the democrats because of two reasons. one, it took funding from the prevention and public health care fund which is the only federal dedicated fund to public health. and it also changed the window in which people could be late on their health insurance premiums and so it would increase the amount of people that would get kicked off their health care plan for non-payment. and so the senate -- negotiations in the senate have stalled, right now potentially we could see a bill passed by the end of the year, although right now i think that congress' main priority is around tax reform. so it's unsure what's going to happen and the a.c.a. has i

maintenance of effort clause which requires the states to continue this program through the year 2019. so california would have to pass legislation to determine how it would move forward with funding this program in the absence of a bill being passed by the end of this year. and there's approximately 15,000 children in san francisco that benefit from this program. so the next item is the disproportional hospital payments and it's known as dish payments this makes payments to hospitals that serve large number of medicaid and underinsured individuals. so based on the assumption that with the aeca that there would be more increased coverage and less individuals uncompensated it called for a reduction in these payments. so these payments have been scheduled within d.p.h.'s budget

and they were to start in the year 2014 and they were delayed to 2017, but in the chip bill that we just talked about that the house passed it has a delay of another two years, but then having a really steep reduction after that. so right now we have a scheduled $11 million reduction for this fiscal year that would increase to about $39 million by the year 2024. and these payment schedules may change depending on what happened at the federal level. the next item is community health center funding. and community health centers are community-based and patient-directed organizations that typically serve communities that have limited access to health care. so federal grants are a key component of the funding for these health care centers through the health center trust fund which includes both

discretionary and mandatory funding. so as are the chip bill, this funding the mandatory portion of this funding sunsetted in september. and the house bill did include funding for community health centers for another two years. so california could potentially lose over $300 million in funds if congress does not extend this funding for over 1,200 community health centers in california. the san francisco community clinic consortium which is a collective of the san francisco community health centers, estimates that the funding loss to san francisco would be between $5 million to $10 million with about a million dollar impact to d.p.h. and the next federal item that i want to talk about is the opioid

crisis funding. this is not directly tied to the a.c.a. but there are some potential avenues to increase funding to d.p.h. so i wanted to mention it and i know that everyone here is already aware of the opioid crisis. in 2016, we had more than 64,000 people nationwide die of overdoses to opioids. and drug overdoses are now the leading caused of injury and death within the united states. so it was expected that our current administration would act on this issue and in october our current president declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency. and in november, trump's commission on the opioid crisis released its final report with the recommendations on how to handle this and so it had 56 different recommendations. last week the house committee

started having hearings on this report and then the white house appointed kellyanne conway to lead this effort. so the public health emergency declaration doesn't provide any direct funding to d.p.h. but it does open up some avenues to increase addiction treatments and this is specifically around eliminating the i.m.d. exclusion so that we would be able to get reimbursement for hospital stays through medicare and also it would increase the access for medical assisted treatment. and the last item that i'll present on is our 340-b drug discount program. this is a federal program that requires drug manufacturers to provide outpatient drugs to eligible health care organizations at reduced prices. so it's a safety net hospitals such as s.f. general buy these drugs at a discount from pharmaceutical companies and then they'll reimbus for those

services from medicare and extend those savings through patient care. in november, it was announced, a final rule that cut the 340-b payments, a lawsuit has been filed by hospital groups to prevent this from happening and two house of representatives have introduced a bill that would also prevent this cut. this final rule would impact -- would reduce the program's revenue by about 28% so it's $1.6 billion nationwide and the impact to d.p.h. would have been about half a million dollars. so those are some of the federal policies that are potentially impacting d.p.h. and i'm happy to answer any questions at this time. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, cynthia, i appreciate the very thorough and important update. colleagues, any questions at this time? no? seeing no questions. one question. supervisor fewer seeing that

this could really -- >> supervisor fewer: seeing that this could effect a lot of people in san francisco, what are our plans -- do we have any plans if these were to go through? and how do we intend to backfill some of these services or do we? >> so a lot of the federal policy changes would then impact the state so i think that our first line of defense is really working with the state legislation to see how we can mitigate the local impact. so i think that a lot of these issues are really fluid and they're changing day-by-day and so we don't have a formalized plan, but a lot of these programs go through medica well other thal, sowe'll see legislad on a state level to combat these issues at a federal level. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: thank yo you. heavy subject matter.

thank you. colleagues any other questions and we can go to public comments on items one and two. ladies and gentlemen, if there's anyone that like to speak on items one por or two, come on u. >> hello, i'm dina lawn, the vice president of internal affairs for the san francisco clinic consortium. as cynthia mentioned we're a coalition of the non-profit coalitions and the northeast medical services, etc. i made an error in supplying information to d.p.h. and i want to correct that and to talk briefly about the impact of the health center's fund not being renewed. i had originally given an estimate of $5 million to $10 million and in doing that i made an error because i didn't realize that the same fund had contained funding for our health care for the homeless program. so the san francisco community clinic consortium is the

recipient for san francisco of the health care for the homeless funds and we then sub-grant those funds to several of our clinics and to several of the d.p.h. clinics, and we also run a very effective outreach van that goes around the city to certain places and provides kind of urgent care but more importantly a connection to primary care for any homeless people that we can convince that they want to be welcomed into one of our clinics or the d.p.h. clinics and enroll in whatever they are eligible for and get health care. we don't usually come before you very much and the reason for that is that of all of the non-profit community clinics only 4% of our funding comes from the county and the majority is from the state and the federal government. this money is critically important for our clinics and especially for our health care for the homeless program and it will have an impact on the

entire city so we want to make sure, a, that we corrected the number which should be $14.4 million and make it clear that this is absolutely crucial and we have communicated with nancy plohse and harris and finestein are all onboard and we're hoping that the res liewgdz to -- we hope for a res liewgdz inresolution on this. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, i appreciate your perspective and thank you for sharing it. any other member of the public that would like to share? seeing none, public comment is closed and i want to comment on a couple things, we voted recently on the release of a $9 million reserve to backfill the federal and state impacts so i thought that it was important to have this hearing to get a timely update on the overall federal budget. specifically the proposed federal tax plan and how it's going to relate and impact our local budget so thank you for your presentation, both from the controllers office and now from

the budget director's office on -- more doom and gloom, i hope not, i don't know. alyssa? >> so what we're going to do now is we're going to not take a vote on items one and two but we're going to take a motion to hear and file items one and two and we will probably call them up again in the new year once we have a final idea of where the federal tax cuts will come. so melissa, are you -- just for clarification -- i thought that you were presenting on item 22, is that right? okay, so let me get my motion and we will call your item, okay? so i'd like to make a motion that we have heard and like to file items 1 and 2. >> so moved. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, we can take that -- madam clerk.

clerk: the motion must be made by a member of the federal select committee. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. so i believe that -- i am a member and supervisor fewer is here, perhaps you can make a motion acknowledging that we have heard this hearing. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, chair cohen so, yes, we have heard these two items and i'd make a motion to file them. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: i appreciate that. thank you, we'll take that without objection. so now we'll pivot and go back to our regular budget committee meeting and we still have a quorum and i want to recognize item -- we're going to call item 22. >> clerk: item 22, ordinance appropriating $9.6 million from state and federal contingency reserve to backfill the loss of state in-home supportive services and revenue at $4.5 million and fund the

anticipated payment liability to the state for the ihss maintenance and the effort due to the anticipated change it is at the state level of approximately $4.8 million. >> supervisor cohen: i would like to adjourn the federal select committee at this time. that meeting is adjourned and thank you, supervisor fewer, for standing in and so we called item 22 and i want to give adam cray from the mayor's office of housing, we'll hear from you next. thank you. melissa, you're next. item 22 is up. >> great, thank you, chair cohen and i'm melissa whitehouse and the mayor's director. and we released budget instructions to the departments and we talked a lot about the risks and the issues that you all just addressed and i think that similarly relate sid relate supplemental that i'll talk about today and so the board and the mayor were very smart and

thinking ahead to budget a $10 million state and federal unknown impacts reserve in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 budget and i appreciate the willingness to do that and today i will talk about a $9.6 million appropriation of that amount, so almost the entire amount. we have representatives from the city's administrator's office, and d.p.h., tracy packer and from h.s.a., dan caplin, so if you have additional questions on any of the uses in the supplemental let me know and i'll do a walk-through at a high level right now. so as i just stated we had $10 million reserve in the budget and at the time that we proposed the budget, the board of supervisors on june 1st we did not know if this reserve would be needed or not needed and as you can see today we are asking you to appropriate almost the entire amount right now. and so what is that going to be used for?

the largest portion by far will be on the in-home support services program and the funding for grants and daka support. so here's a dollar value, so as you can see $8.8 million to the in-home support services program, about $700,000 for the department of public health for h.i.v./aids cuts and about $70,000 for dhaka support through the office -- through the city administrator's office for immigrant affairs. and so i'm going to go over these briefly and if you have detailed questions i'll defer to the departments and i was remiss at the beginning and not thinking that the budget analyst office thank you ar thanking the report and we're in agreement with it. and so for the in-home support services program, this program provides services to 22,000 senior and disabled san franciscoians to help them to

remain their homes and we had negotiated with the state a maintenance effort cost increases an in about 2011 and o we anticipated them to grow from a rate of $80.7 million in 2016-2017 to $95.9 million to 2021-202 and after the governor's billion came out last january with a large cut to counties on this entitlement program and then the may revised showed reductions that we budgeted of about $7 million and $14 million in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 respectively but the detailed regulations had not come out and that came out after the adopted budget by the mayor and the board and it turned out that the specific recommendations made this program a much larger cost shift than we had originally anticipated and in the current year it went from a $7 million impact -- sorry -- the impact increased by almost $9 million

that is included in the supplemental that you see today and i think that we'll come to see you in january to talk about the updated joint report which is a report that our office does with the controller's office and the budget analyst which is going to show that these costs are going up almost $80 million annually by the fifth year of this cost shift from the state so that's what this chart is showing you. and here is a detailed cost breakdown of the impacts that i mentioned. so i apologize, the $11 million that we assumed of the hit in 2017-2018 is closer to $20 million and the difference is the $9 million that is in the supplemental today. so this is a great concern for us and something that we'll be highlighting a lot in the mayor's budget instructions and in the joint report. next we found out in november that the c.d.c. notified us that we'd receive a $1.4 million for h.i.v./aids around surveillance and prevention and so this

starts in january 2018 which is why we brought the supplemental at the end of 2017 for your consideration. and this is just backfilling, and we'll have to deal with the ongoing cut in next year's two-year budget. and lastly i was approached by adrian pond and several supervisors this year after the announcement from the federal government around daka and about the need to really streamline and to speed up the waiver of the $495 application fee for recipients that were applying before the october 5th deadline and we did agree to move forward with this and we really didn't have time to wait and i am really proud of the department and all of the good work they did. to make sure that we got 142 people additionally to have their fees waiverred and apply for daka before the october 5th deadline and that's included in this supplemental. and because we got asked a couple questions about other funding provided in the budget around immigration services over

the past couple years championed by the mayor and this board we wanted to include a slide on that and all of the money that could have been used to fund those fee waivers had been exhausted which is why we authorized the department to move forward with additional funding. and that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to take any questions and thank you for your time today. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for your presentation and an incredibly thoughtful and high level. i don't know if there's any other level of detail that you want -- well, thank you. i'm glad that we had the foresight to set aside the $9 million. -- billion dollars. so thank you for that. colleagues, supervisor tang i see that you have a question? >> thank you so much. so i know that the item before us today is regarding a $9. $9.5 million funding that we would have to backfill all of these cuts, but i'm just wondering if you could speak a little bit more towards kind of the ongoing impact that all of

this will have on our city's budget? i mean, this is $9.6 million fill right now but i do anticipate that it will be a lot more down the line? >> absolutely, supervisor tang, thank you for your question. so one of the things that could impact our current year budget and that we're unclear on is on our sanctuary city status and we get about $1.5 million to $1.6 million that supports staff positions on this area so this is something that we're watching in the current year and for the budget year that you're totally right that this committee is going to be grappling along with the mayor of absorbing the ongoing costs. so right now in this supplemental the ihss cost impacts of almost $9 million in the current year on top of what we had budgeted is just one-time revenue source supporting an ongoing cost increase and it gets even worse in the outyears as the chart shows and we'll have to figure out how to include that in the mayor's

budget that we will propose on june 1st so that's something that we're actively thinking about and also same thing with the aids cuts and that's an ongoing cut that we are using a one-time reserve to fill about half of the year and that's something that we'll have to figure out by june 1st how to address these cuts before we propose a balanced budget t to u all on june 1st. the daca funding was a one-time -- sorry, one-time source for one-time use and just stepping back you just all heard from the controller's office and the department of package health and i think that there's much more risk also around federal budget and tax reform and health care changes that we're watching actively and we'll report back to you whenever you call the committee and then also when we do the joint report update in march 2018. but it's definitely something to watch. >> thank you very much for that. and, you know, this is two members of the board right now, me and chair cohen, but, certainly, i do hope that this message, you know, gets through

to the rest of our colleagues because although there are generally about five members on the budget committee this is a real problem that we have coming down from our state and federal governments, unfortunately. so i hope that we'll keep all of this in mind as we move forward in the budget process in the spring. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, supervisor. before we commence to public comment i'd like to hear from the budget legislative analyst, i believe that there's some thoughts over there. >> yes, i am echoing some of what miss whitehouse is saying and on page 37 37, of our reporn the $9.6 million, $8.8 million is for the increased county share and city share for the ihss program and we do detail what those details are in terms of the costs and it includes not only the cost share with the state but also increases for the city's minimum wage and other city costs. and then on page 38, we detail

sort of the changes, the d.p.h. budget had estimated $6.4 mill dwromillion for surveillance ane grant award was only $5 million and this grant begins on january 1st, the revised amount. so the request for approximately $700,000 from the supplemental is about six months backfill reduction in the grant. and then the remainder, of course, is the $72,000 allocated for fee waivers for the daca program. and we do recommend approval. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for the recommendation. let's go to the public comment section. any member of the public to come and speak come up to the podium and we'll give you two minutes. >> hi. i'm -- good morning, everybody. my name is mr. coryand, the staff from the local 2015 and we

represent the workers in san francisco county and we have our members going to speak in spanish and going to use translation. >> supervisor cohen: we'll allow four minutes for translation. >> [speaking spanish] >> fly maimy name is claudia ana member of the local 2016. >> [speaking spanish] >> supervisor cohen: there's an additional mike for you so you don't have to share the mike. i just wanted to point that out. >> thank you. >> [speaking spanish]

>> i'm here today to ask you please to approve the funds for the program as assessed and to pass the m.c.o., the minimum compensation ordinance, because i'm living here in san francisco and i want to stay living in san francisco and working in san francisco. >> [speaking spanish] >> that is very important because our clients, the consumer, the people with the elderly people cannot stay living in their own houses, they don't need to go to a nursing home that is going to be more expensive for the city and the county. >> [speaking spanish]

>> and i hope that you're going to pass this and thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much and just for clarification, the agenda item that we're discussing today is a $9 billion supplemental and not the m.c.o. is not calendared but we're working to get this calendared as soon as possible and thank you for your testimony. any other members of the public to speak, come on and do so. this is for item 22. please come on up. you can speak from any microphone. welcome. >> hi, so my name is crystal wa and i'm the staff board at the local 2015 for san francisco county and i'm here for helping her to translate. >> hello. [speaking spanish]

[speaking foreign language]. >> hi, everyone, good afternoon, i am anita lau and i'm coming here to ask the mayor and the board of supervisors to continue to support the san francisco living wage bill which is also called m.c.o. >> [speaking foreign language language]. >> so the current hour that we have paid right now is already -- it's already with the reason why we set up this m.c.o. like 15 years ago. so it also cannot compare with the minimum wage that we have in san francisco right now.

>> [speaking foreign language language]. >> so we appreciate the support of the supervisors here and to also bring other ideas to add to m.c.o., so to raise the pay centers in san francisco. >> [speaking foreign language language]. >> so we're going to represent as the 19,000 homecare workers in san francisco and we hope that all of the supervisors can support us so we can live -- we can survive in this city. thank you.

>> supervisor cohen: thank yo you. anyone else that would like to speak on these items? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor tang. >> so i'll make a motion then to approve item 22. and send it to the full board for a positive recommendation. as a committee report. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, we'll take that without objection. thank you. ladies and gentlemen we need to take a two-minute recess. thank you.

>> supervisor cohen: calling the committee back to order. all right, thank you. this meeting is called into order. item 21. >> clerk: item 21, authorizing the issueance and sale of multifamily housing revenue

bonds in an aggregate principal amount to not exceed $110 million for financing for the acquisition development and construction of a multi-rental housing project located at 2675 fulton street and 973 housing. >> supervisor cohen: 2456r7bg, we have mr. cray here to speak to the motion. >> so good afternoon, chair cohen and supervisor tang. and as you mentioned i'm adam cray for the housing come community development and here to have a fund bond development for and the conduit funding and the city is not providing any gap funding or subsidy to this particular project.

and 2675 fulsome is a 117 mixed unit income building between 22nd and 23rd streets in the mission district and 20% of the units serve households and the proper amenities include 5100 square feet of art gallery use and courtyard and large rooftop space and underground parking area where folks will be able to charge their electric cars and park bicycles and things of that nature. and as the site is a vacant lot no tenants are displaced by the development. in terms of what has changed since the resolution a few months ago the development team has made a lot of progress since i presented that resolution for the project to the committee just two months ago and there's tax credit investors and bond council and other attorneys and the city's municipal advisor and the financing team has met

several times and developed the find bond documents before you. and barring any unforeseen problems the developer is a week away from securing an allocation from the california debt allocation committee as well. and as for a timeline on this project w anticipate it to close in two weeks and it's trying to avoid the negative consequences of the proposed repeal of private activity bonds in h.r.1 so it's pushing to close before the end of the year to preserve the tax exempt status of the bonds and the tax credits that result. and construction is expected to be complete by march 2020. the last thing to mention before closing is that in your packet the bond purchase agreement has been amended to include the name of the bond purchaser as

deutsche bank incorporated and it was the new york branch previous and it's been clarified that deutsche bank incorporated. and on behalf of the mayor's office of community development i thank you for your consideration today and i look forward to your support for this project and i will answer any questions that you may have. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much, i appreciate it. supervisor tang, any questions. let's go to public comment. seeing no public comment public comment is closed. all right -- >> to send it to the full board as a committee report. >> supervisor cohen: without objection. okay, next item please. i believe this is the last item, item 23. >> clerk: item 23 hearing to consider the review and approval of the budget guidelines for the board of supervisors and the clerk of the board annual budget

years, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. welcome to the chamber. >> thank you, chair cohen and supervisor tang, and i am angela calvillo, the clerk of the board and i'm here with my colleague who prepared our presentations. the board needs to provide budget instructions to assist the department of the board of supervisors in developing its proposed budget during the month of december and today i will present a high level recap of the current year budget and brief updates for projects that are in progress or nearing completion. i will continue to meet with the members of the board to learn about their suggested initiatives and return by february with the draft budget for your review. and i have just a very quick couple slides. and the next three provide brief updates for the projects coming to fruition in the next couple weeks and the first i will point out is the high resolution touch

panel system that has one bug to be worked out by january and it will be complete and you can view the departmentations with more clarity. and i'm pleased to inform you that the fourth phase of the assessment process and the antiquated support supports the business operations and work flow and on slide 3 the management system and the records repository systems are concurrent and we will create a customized system to implement

the state charter of local laws and board rules that make up our legislative process and that project will have city-wide implication as it impacts every department. and it should be rolled out by august 2015. and this is a project, and in february or june we may return with the new costs to be associated with the second and third phases. and our data should be integrated into the new l.m.s. system as well. and there's the constituent management system and it was conducted of all offices to meet

the management demands of the district offices and the city currently has an enterprise agreement with the sales source and we're hoping to jump on to that, for the solution, and we have been vetting the solution to ensure that it's configurable to the needs of the district offices and by february or june the proposed budget will have the new plugged in numbers and the costs associated with that important project. slide five, these graphics show that the department's current year budget $15.7 million and the chart on the left shows expenditures by divisions and these are rea relatively unchand year to year and the table on the right shows expenditures by category and provides detail within each category and the largest cost for the department is salary and benefits at 74% of the total budget and growth is attributed to the natural wage

base growth and benefits by the m.o.u. increases year-to-year and the committee and the board as a whole has kept our full-time employee or f.t.e. count the same over the last 20 years and the next largest category is non-personnel services at 23% of which budget and legislative analyst services makes up the majority and the costs is at $2.2 million currently and material and supplies makes up the remainder of that line item. and, finally, our policy direction for your consideration, the general fund appropriation for lavco currently -- because the budget process is on a different timeline than ours they have yet to make their request, if they're making one, and currently they have yet to make that. a maximum amount that lavco is entitled to is approximately $300,000 and if there's a request it should be reflected in the february or the june

budget and we're modernizing the policy and we're in the process of updating it to include meals for official business consistent with the controller's city policy to cover trainers for office retreats and strategic planning. there is no budgetary impact for these proposed changes and i'm just being transparent with those changes for the public. and a new issue that will also not have a budgetary impact is that the assessment appeals board members are reviewing their stipend based upon a survey of other jurisdictions and they may propose a slight increase to the board which i will move via an ordinance through the board come the new year. and as mentioned earlier by june or -- if not earlier and we'll have the next phase funding request for the constituent management project in the l.m.s. and at this point if these items are agreeable to you i will come back in february with the proposed budget and i'm available for your questions or

that concludes our presentation. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, thank you for your thoughtfulness and transparency. supervisor tang you have any remarks? miss calvillo we will go to public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment on the item? item 23. seeing none public comment is closed. and thank you. may i get a motion. >> thank you, so i'll make a motion to file the hearing then? >> supervisor cohen: thank you. all right, we'll accept that motion unanimously. thank you. madam clerk, any other business before this body? >> clerk: no further business. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, we are adjourned. . tion of the meeting.

>> thank you.meeting. since we have a new commissioner michael papas, i would like a few comments about his background and tell us about himself. >> thank you, mr. chair. i am michael pappas and i have served as the executive director of the san francisco interfaith council. our interfaith council's constituency comprises of the 800 congregations in the city and county of san francisco. a lot of theed ed ed ed ed eee base within this region and we convene the c.e.o.s of the major faith-based social service agencies. each of these constituencies in some way touches our aging adults and people with disabilities, as well for the last six years and three months, i have served on the human rights commission, and in that capacity served for five of those