>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting.

i'm malia. joining me is norman yee. i want to take a moment to thank our friends at sf gov tv for assisting us with today's broadcast. madam clerk, do we have any announcements today? >> yes. please silence all cell phones. items will appear on the january 9th, 2018, agenda unless err-wise stated. >> thank you. we're getting started late today. we'll try to make up the time as we go. i want to thank you for your patience. madam clerk, can you call item

one. >> regarding sorro commons. >> this is item one. mayor lee is a sponsor of this particular legislation. we've got amy chan from the department of housing to represent the housing and community development. as a refresher, supervisor tang, they need more time to resolve the outstanding issues with the lender, and they request that we postpone this. i would like to give ms. tang an opportunity to expand on this a little bit more.

>> good morning. that's correct. we're asking for the call of the chair. we're hoping to resolve the issues be the lend ever before today's meeting, but we have not come to an agreement. we'll work diligently and we'll be coming back in the early next year to the committee. >> all right. thank you very much. we'll hear from the budget analyst -- nope? if there's any member that would like to comment on this item. seeing no public comment, this is close. can i have a motion to continue this to the chair? >> so moved. >> we'll continue this. item two. >> delegating authority to the jeer manager for the public utilities commission to enter into agreement or requiring expenditures for 10 million or

more for you paer -- power subject to specified conditions. >> okay. i think this is a straightforward ordinance. we have barbara hale to present with item. this is congressman peskin. >> i want to offer my condolences. it's difficult to weather what the city is dealing with today and it's difficult to carry on business. the community choice program has been operating since may of 2016. we're now the city's default provider of electricity supply for 86,000 service points in the city. under state law, it's an opt-out

program where we provide the energy supply. pg&e continues to provide transmission and distribution services, the maintenance reliability and outage response for the distribution system. meters and bills customers. the program is truly a partnership with pg&e. through this program, we're achieving certain goals, affordable electricity that's cleaner where we reinvest for local renewables and local jobs, making sure that we are providing for long term rate and financial stability of the program. it's really a balancing act, making sure we accomplish all of those. it's one of the programs that the public utilities commission operates. we are operating two programs within it, with our clean greenhouse gas, super green, and our green program at 40%

renewable. we're proud of the fact that our program is experiencing especially low opt-out rates when compared to other community choice programs in the state. it's growing an important program at the public utilities commission. you can see here, just to give you context. today it's at about 38 million in annual operating revenue. as we grow and serve the rest of san francisco, it will be about a $250 million program serving more customers than our water department, revenues about matching our waste water enterprise. we've been preparing for the growth over the past year. we completed and presented a gross plan to our commission in may and also to lasko.

our commissions increased the renewable energy content goal from 35% to 50% by the end of 2020. that will put san francisco on a path to meet the state requirements ten years ahead of time. the pc also set out a goal to enroll all of san franciscoens eligible by 2019 or as soon as possible. this involves key steps that bring us here today. a key step is arranging for the power supply. this past summer, we conducted three different solicitations, one for renewable energy, run for bank credit facility that would provide for the credit support the program needs. it was a highly competitive solicitation.

bids were offered that would ensure that there's enough supply to serve all of san francisco by july of 2019 at competitive prices. you can see some logos here for just some of the energy companies that we've short listed, where we short-listed their proposal. on november 14th, the public utility commission approved the short-listed pool of vendors and authorized contracts, one or more, subject to a number of conditions. we've including, i believe through supervisor tang to delineate what the conditions are in section 3c. so today we're here proposing to follow the same approach that we followed when we launched the program in may of 2016, but

since it's growing, it will be for more energy. you will see higher caps. the purpose of the delegated authority that we're seeking today is to enable us to make timely decisions. we really need to operate in quite a dynamic energy market. we want to foster the competition until the end of our negotiations with our counter parties. we want to make sure we maintain some flexibility and provide options for the commission to make sure we bring in the highest quality, lowest cost, supply. the delegated authority includes a number of limitations. you see those listed in the ordinance in section 7 and also on the screen here. they're really focused on a bounded delegated authority to make sure we can bring in the amount of supply we need in a

timely way. assuming we get your support and this ordinance moves forward, we're on a schedule to begin serving the rest of san francisco, a large section of the rest of san francisco, not all but a large portion of it by july of 2018. that means that come january/february time frame, we'll be executing the credit facility and the power contracts. we'll be commencing our outreach efforts, which will be quite extensive, making sure san franciscoens are aware we're coming to their neighborhoods with this new program and enrolling customers and starting service july 1st. so with that overview, i would be happy to take any questions you have. >> thank you. supervisor yee?

>> i don't think you mentioned it, but you might have. so far, what has been the percentage of people signing up for the program? >> so we've enrolled customers. we're at about 85 accounts now. 2% of customers we approached said no thank you. what is that. 97.8 have said yes. so we have a very high retention rate, a very low opt-out rate, serving about 80,000 accounts today. >> of the 80,000, how many are super green? >> about 4% are super green. >> and do you have sort of a game plan to increase the super green percentage? >> yes. we do have an ongoing efforts to market the super green. you know, that's really where we

get our highest improvement of our greenhouse gas footprint for the city. so our communications team is regularly tabling and participating in neighborhood events, marketing the super green opportunity. facebook, social media, other social media tools are also used to make sure san franciscoens know that they can opt up to super green. >> thank you. i'm glad i'm part of the 4%. >> thank you. >> thank you for your presentation. this is very exciting. let's hear what the budget analyst has to say. >> good morning, chair cohen, and those from the budget analyst office. this was specifically authorized the puc general manager to enter into power agreements and a agreement for a credit facility without further board of supervisors' approval. specifically the ordinance would approve the form of standard

power agreements, weigh certain city contracting provisions for energy contract and contracts for credit facilities. the energy providers and the credit facility were selected to competitive process, but the specific providers have not yet been identified for the purposes of this report. there is an agreement to negotiate with jp morgan, but they've authorized puc to enter into an agreement with another credit provider. as ms. hale pointed out, the commission does not review the contract for credit provider. that's supposeded to happen in january. on page 8 of our report, we do list the expected revenues and expenditures for the clean power program. the revenues are expected to increase to 266 million by the

year 2022. this assumes that the number of customers would increase from the current 80,000 to about 350,000. by that time, the clean power program is expected to be self-sufficient in terms of expenditures. as we say in the summary on the report on page ten, because the proposed ordinance weighs the standard progresses and weighs the board of supervisors' authorities, we do consider this to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. we recommend one amendment to require the puc to submit annual reports to the board that detail the program costs, the rates charged to clean power customers to recover these costs, and a comparison of clean rates, the pg&e rates for similar products. otherwise, we do recommend this

as a policy matter. >> thank you very much. let's go ahead and take public comment. if there's any members of the public, please come up. get in line, and we'll hear your comment . you will have two minutes and you will hear a beep indicating the last 30 seconds of your time. >> i'm on the cac of the puc. i'm a customer of clean power sf. i'm also a super green customer. i am very satisfied. i think given the volatility of the energy contracts, this is the only way to make this work, and, more importantly, given the idiots that now occupy washington, dc and the administration, it is imperative for all other public entities to do everything in their power to

reduce the carbon footprint of everybody of their residence. therefore, i strongly support this. i think this is good for the city. i think this is good for mankind. i hope you approve it. thank you. >> thank you for your thoughtful comments. next speaker. good morning. >> thank you very much, chair cohen and supervisors. i want to echo director hale's comments about the mayor's passing. i'm a resident and super green customer as well. i want to thank the gentleman who just spoke for coming out. i want to remind us that over half of our city's climate action plan can be reached by moving to 100% renewable energy and maximizing energy. clean power sf is how we can accomplish those goals as expeditiously as possible. the puc needs this to move at business speed and act on prices

that are good for a few hours. if not, the program will cost city residents too much. which i know none of us want. i don't think this data was presented to you, but the level of expenditure by clean power sf by this procurement and to reach enrollment is right in line with other ccas. they've delegated authority from this by their governing boards. i strongly urge you to approve this. thanks supervisor yee for his comments. we would also love the see super green higher than 4%. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. welcome. >> good morning, chair and supervisors. my name is melissa yu. i'm a community organizer with the sierra club and here today to also show support for this ordinance and ask that the board grant authority to the puc, general manager, to help most effectively and rapidly to move

clean power sf forward, and we need to complete citywide enrollments and transition san francisco to a 100% clean energy feature. this ordinance will help the puc best acquire the needed energy supply. what jed mentioned, so many community choice programs launching in the bay area, the puc needs to be able to quickly procure energy as the market will soon be saturated with other people also wanting to purchase, and with this authorization, the puc can more competitively thrive and strategically negotiate the best business terms. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, chair. my name is adam skow. i'm a resident. strongly in support of today's residence. we're seeing the climate change

wreak havoc. we need san francisco to lead by example. this is a big important step toward that. thank you. >> thank you for your time. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. eric brooks. i'm here for san francisco green party and the local grass roots our city and on behalf of the statewide coalition that's working on californians for energy of choice. as representative of the california green party, just to say how important this legislation is, to give you a sense of just the concrete reasons why this is so crucial, the way that community choice works is it gathers all the customers together in a service territory and uses their collective buying power to purchase and build clean energy and efficiency and battery storage. so the key to opening that up to

get as many new customers in as possible as quickly as possible by 2020 is this authority that's in front of you. if the sf puc doesn't have this authority, they won't be able to get the best deal in renewable energy and won't be able to bring in the next big trench of customers and get us to full enrollment by 2018 or by the end of this year. so this authority is really crucial to the sf puc's ability to bring in new customers and so we can start hiring the thousands of people that will build that here in san francisco. >> thank you, eric brooks. i am in agreement. is there anybody else that would like to speak in public comment? okay. seeing none. public comment is closed. i just want to call everyone's attention that it looks like this ordinance is going to pass

out of this committee with a positive recommendation. we'll accept some amendments, but it looks like the entire city could be well on its way to clean power by next year, and that's something i think we collectively should be very proud of. it's an exciting time. it's also important to note that clean power has separate revenue, separate asset that the rest of the power enterprise. it's important as a member of this committee that i call that out. i also want to say the costs are estimated to increase from $37 million in 2016 to 266 million in fiscal year 2022-23. so this particular contract makes sure we don't exceed over

$70 million a year under the proposed ordinance. there's a lot in there for us to celebrate. supervisor tang, i believe you have something you want to share? >> yes. thank you so much. thank you to the puc for bringing this to us. this is very exciting to see the uptake in this program. i do have a couple of amendments that i'm going to make on behalf of supervisor peskin. [brief transition in captioning]

>> actually, just a question. could you put it back up? does this program -- is this program offered to p.u.c. customers beyond san francisco? >> this program is only offered within the jurisdictiontal boundaries of city and county of san francisco. >> any reason why we couldn't offer to all the customers? >> we could expand the program at the direction of the governing bodies. yes. we have chosen -- we have chosen not to. staying within our city, our city foot print so far.

>> when you say "government bodies" -- >> yourselfs. >> ok. [laughter] i didn't know if you meant -- >> well, if -- expansion -- we would pursue expansion if we were directed to by the board of supervisors to actually consummate an expansion. it would require other governing bodies to authorize that. to agree. for example, a service territory that we're trying to expand into would need to agree and we would need to receive certification from the california public utilities commission that that expansion is authorized. >> are there any reasons why we shouldn't? >> at this point, we're focused on making sure we meet the objective of serving all of san francisco. once we have a full program serving all of san francisco, it might be appropriate for the city to consider expanding to

other jurisdictions. i would note that all of the counties contiguous to us are already launching programs of their own. so marin, san mateo, alameda, for example, all have programs. that are either operating or about to operate. >> ok. so, there's really no need for us to expand this? >> at this time, i don't see a need. i see a need to make sure that we expand to meet all of san francisco's needs in the near term. >> ok. if -- if you ever think that we need to -- we need to do this legislatively in san francisco, let us know. >> ok. thank you. >> thank you very much. it's interesting how far we've come. i remember as a candidate filling out questionnaires as to whether or not i support c.c.a. and i always was very enthusiastic and have always said yes and how much slack

that i've gotten. it reels really good to be here to be discussing this policy as we continue to move forward and provide a great service and not only a great service, but a clean and efficient way to receive energy. i believe supervisor tang has made a series of motions. let's take her -- she made one motion. to accept some amendments. if we could take that motion without objection. we'll take without objection. thank you very much. >> i'll make a motion to send forth item as amed to the full board with recommendation. >> as amended, it goes to the full board without objection. all right. we're off. let's move on. all right. let's see madame clerk, what's next? item three. please call it. >> item number three, resolution authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute amendment number two to agreement number cs-109 to continue providing additional engineering service in support of the westside recycled water

project, increasing the agreement by $2.5 million for a total not to exceed agreement of $8 million. >> all right. thank you. so, we have -- let's see here. i'm sorry. welcome. the floor is yours. >> good morning. barbara palacio, project manager for the recycled water project. thank you, committee chair and supervisors for allowing us to make today's pregnancy about proposed amendment number two to contract cs-109, specialized engineering services, recycled water projects. the westside recycled water project will produce an annual average 1.6 million gallons per day of high-quality recycled water to be used for irrigation and another nonpotable uses. recycled water will be used to irrigate and fill the lakes in golden gate park as well as irrigation of lincoln park golf

course and including the golf course and nation fall cemetery. the project includes the construction of any treatment facility within the oceanside treatment plant. approximately 7.7 miles of new pipeline, mostly within city streets. a new reservoir and pump station in golden gate park and irrigation system modifications within golden gate park and lincoln park. they initiated contract cs-109 for design and construction of the eastside recycled water project as well as to provide as-needed support to other recycled water efforts and project by the sfpuc such as the sharp park and harding park recycled water projects. the project was -- the contract was awarded in october of 2010 to a joint venture of kennedy-jenks consultants, water resources engineering. for a total amount of $3.7 million and a duration of six

years. in december of 15, the sfpuc approved amendment number one, which increased the agreement amount by $1.8 million and included a time extension of three years. this would provide engineering support during bidding and construction phase, provide technical support in assess. -- assessment of the irrigation systems as well as provide regulatory per mying process support. today we seek your approval of the proposed resolution to approve the second amendment to the existing contract. this this amendment was approved by the sfpuc in november of 2017 and would increase the agreement by $2.5 million and include a time extension of three years. this amendment would address the detailed design and engineering support during bidding and construction phases of the irrigation system modsfication work as well as preparing the resingh ld

waterments operations plan, standard operating procedures for the new treatment facility and pump station. and that is all i have. >> well, thank you for that presentation. let's hear from the budget legislative analyst office. >> if this is an extension of an existing agreement for engineering services for the westside recycled water project, it's subject to board of supervisor's approval because it extends the agreement for up to 12 years through 2022. we do show the expenditures that are expected under the amended agreement and recommend approval. >> thank you very much. let's hear what the public has to say. we'll go into public comment at this time. any member of the public, come on up. step on up. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. supervisor yee? >> yeah. i'm more than happy to support this. since this new facility would

be in my district. and i'm happy to serve the rest of the city. >> thank you. >> new system. [laughter] >> all right. thank you. just to recap, the project will construct the following, a recycled water treatment facility at the oceanside water pollution control plant, a new pump station and underground recycled water storage reservoir at golden gate park's existing central reservoir and also a new recycle distribution pipeline. so is there a motion to accept this and we can send to the full board? >> we will make a motion to accept this. and move it to full board for positive recommendation. >> thank you. we can take that without objection. there it is. please call items four and five together. >> item number four, ordinance reappropriating $4.1 billion of the improvement costs at 179th street for the renovation of the building at 440 turk street

for department of homelessness and supportive housing. item number five, hearing to consider the reserve fund to the department of homelessness and supportive housing in the amount of $1.. 7 million for the 440 turk street project. >> ok. thank you. so, colleagues, yesterday you may recall we had a robust conversation at the full board about the emergency declaration regarding 440 turk. particularly conversations about the process. ultimately the board has decided to continue this item until january. so, seeing that these two items are directly related to 440 turk, i want to propose that we should also continue item five and send item four forward, particularly without a recommendation. and i'll take up a motion for this. by just wanted to open up and indicate exactly where my thoughts are on this. we have a presentation from the domestic of homelessness and

supportive housing, welcome back. i think you are the director of finance. >> that is correct. >> please introduce yourself and the floor is yours. >> good morning, madame chair, members of the committee. i'm g.g. whitley, deputy director for admin and finance. i have a presentation prepared. i can do that or just answer questions. >> no. no. we'll take your presentation. >> so good morning again. as you recall, we were here over a year ago with the purchase of 440 turk street, a property owned by the san francisco housing authority. it is 25500 square feet and the board and the federal government have, prior to today, approved the purchase price for $5 million. a little bit about the existing conditions of the building. this is based on analysis done by the department of public

works. it's currently a parcel that has three condos as part of it, including a residential area for affordable housing. we share the centralized building systems with 430 turk street, including all of the gas, fire alarm-sprinkler systems as part of purchasing the building. there has been a recent update to the boiler system and the related pumps and currently there is no central air conditioning and the elevator in the building needs some work. as you can see from the picture, it's a unique building with a unique layout and the openness and the flexibility of the floor plan are limited by structural walls and some columns in the building. that as well as the elevator repair has been a driving cost and some of the tenant improvement costs. this is just an artist

rendering done by the department of public works as to what the proposed use may look like in terms of work stations and office space on the top floor, conference room space as well as access point on the first floor for clients. as you heard yesterday, this is really the access point. not only to our department, but to our coordinated access point centrally located in the city that would provide other amenities potentially. as i was saying, the top floor would be h.s.h. headquarters, the top floor would be staff office space for the majority of our employees. open during business hours. the bottom floor, the first floor, would be the coordinated entry access point as well as meeting space for client appointments, intakes. the access point itself can accommodate up to 30 to 50 clients and although the details are still to be worked

out, we've been proposing 12 hour a day site, seven days per week. the site would include some limited showers, washer/dryers, storage facilities. for clients going through coordinated entry intake and that is really what we've envisioned in matching clients to the appropriate intervention that they need immediately to help resolve their homelessness. some of the building upgrades that are part of the construction budget include changes to the interior partitions, to create a more open layout, especially on the top floor where we can put work stations, a new ceiling system with carpet, painting and finishes. plumbing upgrades, especially in the ground floor where the bathrooms need to be created and showers put in. new lighting and controls that are required by building code.

a.d.a. upgrades to the restrooms as well as the elevator and to upgrade the hvac system within the building. what you see before you here are the total estimated project costs. the project is estimated to be $12.86 million. $5 million of that is the negotiated purchase price the purchase will close either later this month or in early january. $6.1 million for the rehabilitation antenanl improvement costs that i just mentioned and $1.7 million allocated for furniture, fixtures, equipment. that is the staff space for work stations. the i.t. wiring. all of the client access spaces and furniture and appliance, etc. there are two main sources for the project. the general obligation band

first issuance funding has already been appropriated. that's $4.85 million. $2.2 million in future geobond proceeds when the second issuance goes forward for that bond. you may recall from the 2016 item on the ballot that part of the public health and safety bond -- part of the public health geo bond had $20 million for homeless shelter repairs as well as new client serving spaces. and finally $5.8 million in general fund money, including funds for ff&e. based on analysis done with public works, 63% of the rehab and purchase cost are allocated to the proportion of the building that's really going to serve clients or support homeless services access point. the ordinance that you are reviewing today really allows the department to move general

fund money within its already approved '17-'18 budget. there is no additional general fund impact because of this motion, but you may recall from both the budget process in june and then the subsequent lease that was before you for office space for our department, we had already appropriated through the budget process over $4 million for leasing antenanl improvement costs of another site on 9th street. what this ordinance allows the department to do is shift that funding. much of that general fund is already appropriated for the dp's office space for another site and reappropriated to the 440 turk street project. so that that project can move forward for the dual uses that i mentioned earlier. the second item is committee action to release the reserves that were put on reserve during

the budget process for furniture and fixture and equipment. that was $1.7 million. as i said, that includes i.t. costs, work stations, computers, new telephones, all of the furniture and equipment that will be needed for clients to access the access point. and those costs were based on actual costs, either from clients serving furniture that we used in other navigation centers or costs we spent to replace washer/dryers at our shelter -- within our shelter or other recent city projects like the medical examiner's office. that concludes my presentation. if there are any additional questions, i'm happy to take those now. >> thank you for your presentation and bringing clarity and elevating the urgency of the nature and the mission of the organization of your department.

i appreciate it. a sobering reminder. colleagues, do we have any questions? >> i don't have any questions at this point. but just in light of the discussion that happened at the board of supervisors yesterday, i mean i really enjoyed the presentation. i think it is a matter of talking to all the colleagues here and making sure that everyone is on the same page about the plans. so, pending public comment i do agree with supervisor cohen that i would like to send this out to the full board without recommendation first and then let this item catch up with the others that are still pending that we'll discuss in the new year. >> thank you, supervisors. thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the items. and we're happy to support as we need. >> i appreciate that. we're going to pivot to the b.l.a. and hear their report. >> there are two pieces of legislation before you. one is a ordinance appropriating $4.1 million in general fund moneys to this project. another is a release of

reserves so $1.7 million for furniture, fixtures and equipment for the project. the details of the expendituress are on page 22 and page 23 of our report. i believe ms. whitley has gone over the expenditure details. we are recommending a reduction in the release of reserves by a little more than $390,000. this reduction is based on our estimated costs for purchasing computers and telephones for 118 staff to be relocated to 440 turk street and actual recent costs for technology equipment and other furnishing bids and such for furniture for the project. so the reduction would be from the current amount of $1.7 million that is on reserve to 1309775. we do recommend approval of the reappropriatation and, as i said, we're recommending a reduction in the reserves. >> thank you very much. we can respect and take those

amendments -- or are youer recommendations. thank you very much. colleagues, do you have any last remarks? >> so, the funding for the items that would be spend on would be if the 440 turk proposed project is accepted. i imagine that the funding -- you wouldn't need this funding until things were renovated first. >> that is correct, supervisor. through the chair, given the discussion yesterday about the emergency declaration, and pending discussions on mow quickly the project could move forward, we would be in a holding pattern until that decision was made. >> but this -- this -- this funding wouldn't hold up the project if it were to move forward immediately. >> so, i think if their

recommendation to approve the ordinance without recommendation goes forward, that ordinance can catch up with any decision about the emergency declaration. the release of the reserves, i'm happy to come back in early january and have the committee take action on that. , is -- >> i guess my question was -- >> short answer, no. it will not hold it up. >> right. so, chair cohen, her opening statement wanted to continue the item here. and i believe supervisor tang, you are recommending that we don't hold it up at committee, but to bring it to full board? >> through the chair for item four, yes, i do recommend that we have everything discussed all at once. i think it totally makes sense.

>> considering -- i don't know what chair cohen is that the point, but i'm ok with leaving a desire at our committee by continuing the item. even though the -- at the end of the day, we might consider the whole project as an emergency. this funding is not needed until things are renovated so there is no urgency to be out of committee at this point. >> supervisor, i agree with you. so, what i was going to propose is that we continue item five and send forward without recommendation item four. so that we are teed up and still in a strong position should the declaration and the logistical stuff that supervisor kim wants worked out, we're in a strong position to move forward and meeting our deadlines. is that something you are

amenable -- >>ly support that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i'll make a motion to continue item five and look at item four. the motion passes without objection. thank you for your presentation. i think it is an elegant solution to a very difficult problem. please call item six and seven together. >> no comment on that? >> i'm sorry. i thought we did take public comment on it. my apologies. madame clerk, did we not take -- >> we have not. >> my apologies to you. do we need to take a motion to amend or open up for public comment? >> a motion. >> may i have a motion -- >> motion rescinded. >> a motion has been made by supervisor yee to rescind the vote on item four and five and take that without objection. thank you. public comment is now open. my apologies to you, please. the floor is yours. . >> even though this demonstration pertains to item four and five, i'd like to have it incorporated to number one, too. as you can see right here, the

mayor calculated that there is approximately $88.2 million deficit and by the same response, he wants each and every city department in the city to cut 5% of their expenditures on their continuance process of their departments. i'm bringing this up because this is very important, just like i brought up over a year ago that the tax breaks that twitter is getting as far as city taxes and payroll taxes i estimated that a minimum of $125 million a year is not being collected by the city. now this also applies to five other high-tech companies. as a result, that is the total of $3.1 billion a year of unchecked funds from high-tech companies, twitter and the other five companies that is getting these high-tech tax breaks here in the city.

now this has been in exist *ens for a minimum of seven years. that is a total of $217 billion, minimum, that's not been collected in city revenue funds. so, as a result, to put it on the backs of city departments, when the truth of the matter is that a great deal of preferential treatment pertaining to revenue is being given to these high-tech companies. i feel it's unjust. moreover, it's contributing to the high cost of rents and causing people are on fixed income to be priced out of being able to afford housing. and every time the mayor's office on housing comes up with accepting new applications, you make the requirement to move in these buildings at an income level of people who are on fixed income can't afford to move in. as a result, you got homeless people out in the street and you claim that you wanted to

take care of the homeless problem. in fact, it brings into question and demonstrates this is a price gouging. so i move to have -- [bell ringing] an audit of all these high-tech companies -- [audio stops] >> thank you. thank you. you raise an interesting point. perhapss the mayor's budget office could perhaps respond. just thoughtfully. let me rephrase the question for you. mayor lee gave budget instructions to his department heads to make a certain percentage of cuts. the question, if i heard correctly, was how do we make cuts but yet continue to expand our services for the homeless? did i hear that correctly? >> yeah. it's unjust to put millions of dollars in building navigation centers, which does nothing but

concentrate people who need permanent housing just like everybody here in the boardrooms and everybody -- >> ok. hold on. public comment -- your public comment time has expired. i wanted to make sure -- through the board rules i can't allow you anymore time to speak. but i wanted to answer the question as i hear it and give melissa an opportunity to address the concerns that you raised. >> thank you. the mayor's budget direct to and i'd love to respond to this in a couple of ways. the first thing to keep in mind is the target proposals that we ask for from departments are really just suggestions around how the mayor can make a decision around balancing the budget. we do not take those cuts and automatically implement them and way can tell you at least for mayor lee is that he had really prioritized efficiency proposals and revenue target proposals. he did not propose any service cuts in the past -- well i think in my year, actually, that he proposed a budget. and i had anticipated that that would be similar in this upcoming year.

and i will definitely be speaking with acting mayor breed about that. and just on the homelessness piece, so we are definitely looking at expanding navigation centers and have been for several months. obviously again, it is a little bit up in the air now exactly what will be happening. but i can tell you that that is not the only thing we were doing. there is many other things that have been funded in this budget and would have been funded in next year's budget around adding supportive housing units. so, the budget that you all approved last year included 172 new supportive housing units. in addition to funding for navigation centers, rental subsidies and many other centers. we we're not looking at it as a solution for the city. the department can go into more detail if you like, but we're looking at permanent solutions as well as temporary solutions. >> all right. thank you. thank you very much. i'm sorry, sir. this is not a forum for you to -- for us to go back and forth. it's just public comment. i've already benefit the -- bent the rules as it is.

sir, i'm sorry. your time is up. your time is up. any other member of the public that would like to speak? ok. thank you very much. public comment is closed. i appreciate your comments. now, again, i want to reintroduce the motion to continue item five and send it forward without a recommendation. thank you. we'll take that without objection. thank you so much. now madame clerk, could you please call item six and seven together? >> yes. item number six, resolution approving amendment number two to department of public health contract for behavioral health services with richmond area multiservices inc. and rehabilitation program to extend the contract by two years and 10 months with a corresponding increase of approximately $13 million for a total amount not to exceed approximately $22.6 million. item number seven, resolution approving amendment number one to the department of public health contract for behavioral

health service for richmond area multiservices inc. for peer-to-peer employment program to extend the contract by go years and six months with a corresponding increase of $11.6 million for a total amount not to exceed approximately $20.8 million. >> thank you. [please stand by] >> so i guess my initial

question is does that mean they will not be doing the services, or will they continue as a contractor? we need to turn the mic on. >> they will continue. we're exercising an option unden a job that's not supported, just out in the real world. for this one, we accept the recommendation by the budget analyst office, which looks like a big reduction. it is a big reduction, but it's not impactful because it's reducing funding expenditure authority out of the time period that's passed. >> thank you. you may continue with your overall presentation. >> i think you covered it. >> the more i have on this contra contract. i can speak on the other one. it's essentially the same

vendor, richard area multi-services center. this request is to extend the contract by two years and six months, bringing the total term through june 30th, 2020, so essentially the same situation it's authorized under the existing rsp authority, and we're exercising an option to continue the contract. so this program is providing peer training and employment. these are actual employment opportunities where the peers have been hired to do the specific work. the other pieces of pierce certificate program, which is providing training and background and specific skills targeted toward enabling consumers to work in our behavioral health collin -- clinics and primary care clinics

which is in response to the affordable care act. also, it is an effective way to help people to navigate through the system to be able to work with other peers, and this also has a reduction in it that reflects the unused expenditure authority for the contract which has passed. so we're okay with the amendment. >> thank you very much. we' we're going to go to the bla and hear their thoughts. >> on page 28 of our report, we recommend the reduction not to exceed from 22.6 million to 27 million. this is a reduction of 1.864 million. this is based on the actual contract expenditures over the remaining term. and then for item no. 7, on page

31, we recommend a reduction of 1.7 million from the requested 20.7 million to 19 million. again, this recommendation is based on actual expenditures to date and projected expenditures over the remaining term. we do recommend approval of both contracts. >> thank you. so summarize the recommendation, they're suggesting to amend the resolution not the exceed the amount by $1.7 million. this is from 20.7 million to 19 million to match the contract amendment before us. are you in agreement with that? >> yes. >> let's take public comment on item no. 7. is there anyone who would like the speak. we're six and seven. let's get a motion out there. >> supervisor yee? >> supervisor norman yee: i will make a motion to make the amendments as outlined for both items six and seven and pass

both of these items out with a positive recommendation, as amended. >> supervisor cohen: we'll do that without objection. no. 8. >> clerk: requesting controller's office and mayor's office to report. >> supervisor cohen: thanks for hearing this item today. it's an incredibly difficult time for us as a city. last year, i directed the budget analyst and controller's office to conduct a report on our process. also, a further analysis on how other comparable counties conduct their budget processes. more specifically, i also wanted to look at see how the local processes were influenced by the state and federal budget process.

what we learned, we learned several valuable lessons. from the moment it was sent out to when the departments honor those directions and at the end, what has become apparent is there are many things i think we can begin to enhance and improve and really fine tune our legislative budget process. so i want to signal to everyone that my goal this year is to learn from last year's process and make the immediate improvements to make this year's process more efficient and a better experience for everyone, including our stakeholders. so today we have a hearing from the budget legislative analyst. we have a presentation from the controller's office, as well as the mayor's budget office, all whom have had a chance to review

and had a response to various recommendations proposed by the bla and the controller. i'm grateful for their expertise and helping us in this area. first, i would like to bring up the budget legislative analysts to present their findings. thank you for being here. >> thank you. good morning, chair cohen and members of the committee. i will be presenting on the report of the budget review process. in response to a request from supervisor cohen's office, we conducted a survey of how comparable cities and counties conduct their budget processes. these included california cities with mayors and other peer cities with similar characteristics to san francisco. in all, we surveyed eight california counties, six california cities, and nine u.s. cities.