. >> the meting will come to ord order. this is the february 23rd, 2018 special meeting of the san francisco local agency formation commission. i am sandra leigh fewer, chair of the commission. i am joined by commissioner cynthia pollock on my left and hillary rope then on my right. i would also like to thank the staff at sfgovtv, for recording today's meetings. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> madam clerk, can you please read item number two. >> item 2 is the approval of the lafco meeting minutes of november 30, 2017 workshop, and the november 30, 2017 regular meeting. >> thank you. do any of the commissioners

have any changes to the november 30, 2017 minutes? >> yes, i do. >> under opening remarks and proposals presented by the commission, i recall it says rise chair pollock provided the following two proposals, broad band and revisiting an affordable housing study. i believe there was also a third, an expansion of clean power sf. >> supervisor fewer: okay. are there any other changes to the november 30, 2017 minutes? all right. seeing none, i will open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item 2. seeing none, item 2 is now closed. is there a motion to approve the minutes?

>> so moved. >> second. >> moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner rhenown, those minutes are approved. madam clerk, can you call item number three. >> item three is lafco regular meeting schedule. >> i believe we have a message from angela calvillo, interim chair officer. >> thank you. i wanted to introduce item three. for the first few months lafco meetings were on an as-needed basis. now lafco is suggesting that we set the next couple of meetings, particular, march 16, 2018; april 20th, may 18, june 15th, july 20th, september 21, october 19, and november 16, we have the room space available for the lafco, and this will also assist us in aligning our meetings with the regular board meetings.

>> thank you very much. colleagues, any comments? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number three? seeing no public speakers, public comment is now closed. colleagues, can we have a motion to approve the regular meeting schedule for 2018? >> great. moved by commissioner ropenen, seconded by commissioner pollock, the item is proved. madam clerk, can you please call item four. >> item four is nominating two members to the board, ending. >> i understand we have not received any applications for either of these seats, is that correct? >> that is correct, madam chair. >> commissioner pollock did

submit her application right prior to the meeting but it did not make it into the packet. >> so seeing that, with that understanding, i'd like to continue this item, but let's first open this up for public comment, are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number four? seeing none, public comment is now closed. to allow more time for applications to be submitted, i would like to continue this item for the next regular meeting on march 16th. colleagues, is there a motion to continue? >> so moved. >> thank you move. >> seconded. >> moved by commissioner ronen and seconded by commissioner pollock, without objections, item number four will be continued to the next regular meeting on march 16th. madam clerk, can you please call item number five. >> item five is a community aggregate report and a community report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael himes, director of

clean power sf for the sfpc. it's a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. i've got some remarks to update you on the status of program growth, work we've been doing since we last met. first and foremost, though, cleanpowersf continues to serve about 81,000 accounts within the city and county, and to date, our cumulative program opt out rate is 3.2%. it's been at that level for a while. probably the last time we reported it, it was there, as well. i guess another way of looking at this is we have a 98.6% participation rate. 4 4.1% of our accounts have opted up to our renewable energy, super green, and that is the highest of any cca operating in

california. and as -- well, we're also preparing a quarterly enrollment for customers that have signed up for the program since january , and that enrollment is coming up in april. that's a small enrollment of about 250 accounts that have signed up over the past few months. you might recall that in addition to the large enrollment fees is we've been inviting sign ups on an ongoing basis and then conducting these quarterly enrollments to bring those customers into the program on a timely basis. since we last presented to the lafco in late november , a number of things have happened with respect to our program development work. first, on january 23rd, the puc approved some new rates for cleanpowersf. this is a limited rate action

focused on two things. first, at reducing our super green premium for participating customers so effective march 1, next month, our residential super green rates will be 1.5 cents perhour on top of our green kilowith the hour, down from two cents. this reduction will allow the program to remain competitive with comparable offerings by pg&e. the other major actions we took were some modifications to our net energy metering. that's a program that supports customers that have roof top solar. it's a billing credit mechanism that allows customers that own solar to get credits on their bills for any energy they produce and deliver to the grid. that's tracked every month. net credits that accumulate in a given month are carried forward for application to a

following billing period. and then, every year, we look at whether the customer was a net producer of energy or a net consumer, and they were a net producer, we compensate them for that energy. so we made changes based on our experience to date in managing this program. after about a year and a half in operations, the changes were really to improve is simplify the customer experience, so those changes were first to -- we eliminated two net surplus compensation rates that we were using. that's the rates we pay the customer fore additional energy produced over the course of the year. we're now just compensating the customers at the higher of those two rates, which is the average super green rate. we also adopted a credit carrie forward at the end of the period at our default mechanism. customers can also request a

check rather than a carrie forward of the credit on their bills. and finally, we have adopted a policy of carrying forward credits for any customers that have been on the program less than ten months, and the intent of that is to avoid harming any customers that may be expected to get additional credits for the balance of the year. so that's a little bit in the weeds, but those are adjustments that have been made to, again, improve the customer experience, protect our koestner mers were any lost value, and also help improve the efficiency of administering the program. also on january 23rd, the board of supervisors authorized the puc to enter into power supply contracts to support the next phase of program enrollment. that legislation was signed by the mayor on january 26th. and then lastly, the puc

commission affirmed that the conditions necessary to execute the contracts had been met, and authorized the general manager to move forward with all actions in esto complete citywide enrollment for cleanpowersf. so really a major milestone for cleanpowersf. the elements are really coming into place now for a july enrollment. and towards that end, staff is -- we are working to finalize our power supply contracts and bank credit agreement. we're targeting execution in early march of our first set of agreements to come out of the solicitations we issued. we are also working on our enrollment plan, taking into consideration the available renewable energy supply in 2018 to support our customer enrollment again while meeting our overall program content

power objectives. we're providing updated program notices, program collateral and fine-tuning our outreach program for the next enrollment phase, and a lot of that is going to be centered around who we are going to be enrolling in the next phase, and that's something we're working on right now. and then, last but not least here, we're also evaluating a potential rate action for our green product. the reason why we've separated these rate actions is because we are waiting for pg&e to set its rates for this year, and pg&e had been delayed. normally, their rates go into effect on january 1. last year, pg&e issued its rates for 2018, and those will go into effect next month. and what we're seeing is -- you might recall the pcia of the exit fee that cca customers

paid pg&e. we are seeing that go up by about 14%. the -- but we are also seeing pg&e's generation supply rates also go up by about 8%. so the net result is that cleanpowersf rates will continue to belower than pg&e after -- than pg&e's comparable rates by accounting for the pcia. to the extent we do take a rate action in april, it will maintain that beneficial rate differential, and it would go into effect on july 1. and that actually concludes my update. i'm happy to take questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. colleagues, any questions? yes, commissioner pollock? >> commissioner pollock: i just want to -- excuse me. first of all, congratulations --

>> yeah, thank you for your support through this effort. >> commissioner pollock: i know so many people are so excited to see how it moves forward. i just wonder if we can get a chart, again, of the new dates for the different parts of the roll out and just when we see the big launch and how that's moving along. >> absolutely. >> commissioner pollock: okay. great. thank you. >> yeah. be happy to do that. >> supervisor fewer: commissioner ronen, any questions? okay. seeing none. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment on item number five? hello. >> good afternoon. commissioners, eric brooks for california energy choice and san francisco clean energy advocates. in the entire 14 kbraerz thyea i've been coming before this commission, this is the most important thing that i've ever had to say to you. warren buffet and donald trump are trying to get ahold of the

california electricity grid to bring coal back to california and undermine renewables. the trump administration has directed regional grid operators like this one would become under a bill in the state legislature and has directed federal agencies to subsidize coal electricity once this happens, so they will be able to make it cheaper than renewables even though it's not. there's a bill that's up last year that's coming up again this year, it's going to be rewritten so that it's easier to pass. the authors made mistakes last year and that's one of the reason they're going to be able to kill it. the result of this bill would be to make our california nonprofit electricity grid turn into part of a regional private grid of which the largest company acting, and it would be warren buffet's

berkshire-hathaway, who has attacked companies in other states. once our grid is part of a private grid than state grid, our california electricity grid will be under the control of the trump administration. this could kill community choice aggregation, and it could kill renewables in general for a decade, possibly more. this is the biggest threat we've ever faced, and it's vital that you oppose it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> hi, commissioners. jed holtzman from 350 bay area. i just want to say attending the sf meetings, we're ready to

go full steam ahead. the one thing i would say for lafco's role, as going forward, as we discussed in the workshop, the role you could play in cleanpowersf, the puc staff has a tremendous amount of work to do to roll out the program, get everyone enrolled, make sure that they're happy, make sure that the city, the board is happy with the budgeting and contracting divisions. i think one role that the lafco can play going forward is as advocates, we get reports on -- and i hope mike doesn't get mad at me. we talk with him about this all the time. we get reports on what silicon valley is doing. now i'm getting reports on what east bay is looking like, and now i'm getting some reports on the north bay. what i'd like to do is transmit a lot of those best practices where possible from other cca and kind of just instead of growing at our own pace, not

enrollment wise, but program development wise, that can he can kind of take the best pieces of the east bay, north bay, and south bay wherever possible, and we'd like to talk to lafco at some point in the future. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: all right. thank you. seeing no further comments, public comment is now closed. there's no action for the commission to take on this matter. madam clerk, can you please call item number six. >> item six is the interim administrative officer's report. >> supervisor fewer: miss calvillo, do you have anything to report? >> thank you, madam chair, members of the commission, angela calvillo, interim officer. i wanted to provide just a

brief introduction to what i've done with the lafco's budget without permission from lafco, but i think it's a good thing. essentially because the budget process for lafco is not on the same timeline as the budget process for the board of supervisors and the city in general, what used to happen is the executive officer would provide me a ballpark figure from lafco that wouldn't be confirmed by lafco until june, so while we are, a city department, submitting our budgets to the mayor and controller as of yesterday, february -- yeah, thank you, 22nd, i asked the budget committee, and the committee has provided me permission to put in the statutory amount that lafco is entitled to, which is $297,342. so by the time lafco does determine its needs and actually comes up with a

figure, if it's lower than that amount, then, we'll just adjust the department's budget by that amount. this will make things a little easier for us in our conversations with the mayor's and the controller's office, so with your permission, i appreciate your indulgence to do that today. the last thing i'll say is that i'm the interim officer, and all of the work that we have done over the last couple of months is all done with the great assistance of alisa, your clerk, especially the rfq for executive officer. i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? no. seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: oh, i'm

so sorry. [ inaudible ] >> so eric brooks again, san francisco green party, local grassroots organization, our city, californians for energy support, which is a statewide organization for community choice aggregation and clean choice energy advocates. i would just urge you real quickly to make sure -- in light of what happened last year, let's make sure lafco has full leverage on its own budget and can -- and so make sure you retain the power to not allow any shenanigans to go on in the future like we saw last year. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now

closed. there is no commission action to be taken on this matter. can you please call item seven. >> item seven is a discussion on lafco's strategic plan. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. we have discussed a range of things worth exploring, but until we have an executive director, i propose we suspend any further discussion until our march 16th meeting. colleagues, does that sound okay to you? great. now let's open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item seven. >> surprise, surprise. eric brooks, californians for energy choice and all the other groups that i mentioned before. so the -- we've heard from the interim executive officer that the bids that came in on the request for qualifications are proprietary, and they're not allowed to be released. the public, of course, really would like to see the applicants and who they are,

and so that we can weigh in on who we think would be the best person, but we can't really do it without that information. this is a question for the attorney and for the executive -- interim executive officer, but if we can even get the names of applicants, then, we can look them up themselves and decide what we think and then maybe make comments before your next meeting. i don't know if that's possible, but anything you can give us so that we can, as the public, weigh in on the process, that would be great. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other public speakers? and do we have a response for mr. brooks? >> thank you, madam chair. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> in -- in -- in discussing this issue with mr. eng, who is working in conjunction closely with the office of the city attorneys on this, unfortunately, because we are still in the determination process about whether or not

the named individuals that you were speaking about actually meet the minimum qualifications, we are not yet ready to present that information, but we will definitely provide the public that information relatively around the same time we provide that information to the commission. okay. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public speakers, public comment is now closed. i would like to continue this item until our next regular meeting on march 16th. colleagues, is there a motion to continue? thank you very much. great. moved by commissioner pollock and seconded by commissioner ronen, without objections, item number seven will be continued to the next regular meeting on march 16. madam clerk, can you please call item number eight. >> item number eight is an update on obtaining executive officer services for the commission and possible direction to staff. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i want to invite our interim administrative officer to give an update on the rfq process.

miss calvillo. >> thank you, chair. so at the direction of lafco our office issued an rfq for executive officer services. the deadline was extended to february 13th, 2018. the anticipated not to exceed contract raid is $75 an hour. the panel deliberation was scheduled for this morning, and we will issue a notice of intent to prequalify, we're hoping by february 27th. at this time, the details of the respondents are confidential in accordance with the administrative code chapter 67.24 for mr. brooks, but may be subject to disclosure once the panel scoring and the issue of the notice of intent to prequalify has completed. respondents are not gasuarante a contract if they meet the

qualifications because it is on lafco for the qualification and certainly as the chair as she was authorized to conduct this r 23 q process, and the respondent's ability to complete the necessary administrative requirements in order to become an approved city vendor through the general services agency. respondents who are prequalified will remain eligible for consideration and contract negotiation on an as needed basis for five years from the prequalification notification date. we look forward to keeping you apprised on this issue, and i'm available for other questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number eight? seeing none, public comment is now closed. do we have a motion to continue this item to our next regular item on march 16? >> so moved. >> thank you very much. moved by commissioner pollock

and seconded by commissioner ronen. without objection, the panel will continue item eight to our next meeting on march 16. item nine. >> consideration to approve the agreement with renne sloan holtzman and safai. >> supervisor fewer: i wanted to allow teresa tristricker to present on this item. >> i am speaking here in my individual capacity and not as your legal advisor as the contracts before you pertains to the firm that i am currently affiliated with and the firm that i will be affiliated with starting next thursday. our firm that has been providing legal services to you

is splitting. the firm will be splitting into two firms. a new firm is being created called renne public law firm, and that is the group that i will be affiliated with, starting on march 1. we will be located in the offices that are currently located in, and have a similar name, but it is a brand-new firm. in order to allow me to continue to provide legal services, we have made the request that the lafco agree to an assignment of the existing contract with the existing firm under the same terms and conditions without any additional extension from the old firm to the new firm for services beginning on march 1. any services that are provided between now and the end of february , including, for example, my attendance here today, will be provided on behalf of the current firm, and the current firm will eventually submit a bill for

those services for anything between now and the end of february . and so with that, i'm going to go ahead and defer to your interim administrative officer for any additional questions, but if you have any questions about the split of the firm or how that is going to work or what this means for you, i'm happy to provide that information. but as far as from my perspective, you will not see any change. the only change will be the name of the firm that i'm affiliated with. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. yes, miss calvillo? >> yes, thank you, miss stricker. the other point that i wanted to make is we had the city attorney's office review the terms of the assignment agreement, and they have signed off on all of the language. we're happy to provide that to you, as well, members of the commission, and that beginning march 1st, the assignment agreement will take place, and we will have all of the files

transferred from the hyde, miller, owen and troste to the new renne law group. >> supervisor fewer: okay. colleagues, any questions, comments? okay. let's open this up to members of the public. are there any members of the public wishing to comment on item nine snoo seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to approve the contract for renne law group, llc. great. moved by commissioner ronen, seconded by commissioner pollock, so approve the contract for the renne law group, llc as our law group. madam clerk, can you please call item ten. >> item ten is public comment. >> supervisor fewer: this is the time for members of the public to address items on the panel's jurisdiction and not on the agenda.

are there any members of the public that would like to speak. >> yes. eric brooks. this time i'll speak on behalf of our city, san francisco and the san francisco green party. as you move forward and start working on affordable housing, there's a desperate issue that's not being addressed in san francisco and that is small businesses, local small businesses. they are going out of business as if there's a wildfire going through the city. the costa hawkins repeal bill and ballot measures that are in planning are not going to solve the problem. in my neighborhood, we've lost micano's possibly the best greek restaurant in the united states. polk street produce went out of business because of increased rent.

the gangway bar, one of the most historic bars in san francisco for the lgbt community is going to have to go out of business or move. in commissioner fewer's district, she knows there's a natural food business that's being driven out of the district because of the decision by the building owner. we are losing key businesses so fast in this city that san francisco's not going to be recognizable in the next decade if we don't do something about this. so as you move forward on supporting affordable housing and the homeless, we also need to think that some of those homeless may be small business owne owners that went out of business because no one can cap their rent. and that in turn is replacing all of our businesses with formula retail. it's just -- we're not going to have san francisco unless we solve this problem, so i'd urge you to put that on your future

agenda. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. seeing no other public speakers, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, can you please call item number 11. >> item number 11 is future agenda items. >> supervisor fewer: are there any future agenda items that my colleagues would like to comment on or discussion. seeing none, let's open this up to members of the public. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number 11. seeing none, item 11 is now clerk. madam clerk, are there any other items of business before us today? >> that concludes your items of business for today. >> supervisor fewer: there being no further items of business, we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon >> the clerk: we'll bring the commission to order and ask the sector to please call the roll. [roll call] second item is the approval of the minutes of february 2018. >> so moved. >> the clerk: so the minutes are before you and there's been a motion to accept the minutes. is there a second? >> second. >> the clerk: are the re corrections? those in favor as written say aye. opposed? the minutes have been adopted. our next item please. >> item three is the director's report. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the president did sign a

continuing resolution for a two-year budget framework into law and that will allow us to not have a government shutdown until fiscal year 2019. there are specifically in the measure the funding for extending the childrens health insurance program for an addition four years. reauthorizing funding for more than $7 billion to community health centers that includes the department's dollars for homeless services. it provides $6 billion dedicated opioid treatment and mental health service and funding to national institutes of health and the child home visiting program. we are still tracking the 340b issue as well as the fact we know potential of cuts and future cuts in services including in cdc, samis a, nih

and other areas and keep you informed as we know. senator scott wiener announced a new conservatorship for addiction and homelessness as part of the definitions. we hope that we are in support of this with the senator and we can do a press conference the last week on that. part of the legislation allows us to continue and we've been positive in being served versus being in locked facility. the prep campaign ink to address hiv disparity by reaching out to african american there was a new

campaign in the fight against hiv to end the disparities impacting african american men and the focus is to prevent hiv infection and a new campaign launching will help close this gap by engaging black san franciscans to support in prep messages. gender health recognized an event and i kind of see them of them in the audience. we want to acknowledge them and the mortality rate of black infants is more than twice of white infants and a growing body of evidence shows stress may be among black women caused by racial discrimination and as you saw in today's report some work is finding better results by

focussing on those kinds of issues including working in the community and managing individual stress from the african american community. i do want to make sure we recommend the staff today. >> director, i had one question off the present -- i guess the continuing resolution it then would not have the let it of another shutdown -- i'm trying so information how that works.

i and tis we could have another shut down but this allows us to go forward with the initiatives. >> and on the report our congratulations for all those who have been recognized at the event. >> thank you for the report and the next item. >> public comment and i've not received any requests. >> could i ask karen to come up to acknowledge her? >> surely, please. >> i know you have experience now and if you can give the

commissioners a little bit about your background and the work you've been doing for us. >> i did hiv prevention back in 1999 and have been working there since 2017 and looking for the transgender community. >> we want to acknowledge her for her award at the hearts and heroes. >> congratulations. >> thank you, sir. >> item five is from the commit from today. >> president and members of the public, the community public health committee met this afternoon. we had two very specific items on our agenda in the child and adolescent health.

there's three items discussed in detail. pre-term birth and children's oral health and child abuse. next item was food insecurity in san francisco and talked about hunger in the faith community and over the next few months and later in the year, data will be provided on the ethnicity and perform level and we look forward to hearing from them as a competition. that con cloud my report. >> thank you. i was able to be present at the committee meeting and was struck with the presentation on food security which i understand will be expanded and be available for presentation to the full commission and understand the importance of food as one of the

sociodeterminates of health and what the department is and as a strategic plan working on in order to move forward on that as an important pillar. so we will be agendizing that for a fuller presentation as part of the department's overview. >> thank you, commissioners. >> the clerk: item 6 is the budget and today you'll vote on the issue. if you recall this with us introduced at the last meeting february 6. >> very briefly and then i'll turn it over to our budget

director. as you know we had a hearing in our last commission meeting with a set of initiatives proposed for the budget. this is the second hearing we'll be requesting a vote to forward to the mayor's and comptrollers office. the budget we submitted to you was roughly balanced, however, as we noted during the hearing it was uneven between years where we were over balanced in the first year and under balanced in the second leader and while we hit a target it created an issue because when we're short in the second year it carries forward to the future budget and affects our ability to hit our longer term financial planning goals. so what we've come back with today for you is a second set of initiatives that introduced the items we were not prepared to

bring to the last hearing, but furthermore corrects the balance to we're hitting our target in each of the years and we should be in a good position for our ongoing -- to meet our ongoing general fund target. i'll turn it over to jenny with the initiatives.

[no audio] >> hopefully members of the audience can follow along until we get a larger screen.

so commissioners, as mr. wagner said in the last hearing, we've submitted our base budget overview. we committed a number of proposals that didn't meet target and the concern on the initial proposal is we were very lopside in how we spread out our savings and how we met the target over two years. at this commission hearing we're bringing forward a complete balancing plan. one that actually corrects for the lopsidedness using appropriations and pre-funded appropriations for project in year one. that should hopefully address that issue as well as an additional handful of issues we'd like to bring forward for your consideration. most significantly is the electronic health records initiative we brought forward and we have paper copies here. let me walk you through this

table. the first line is an updated projection of what we feel the project will cost from '17, '18 through 1920 and from mr. kim's presentation last year when he updated on the project basically the bulk of implementation has begun for 1920. the numbers were updated after we finalized the contract with epic and enabled us to figure out what were the services we were getting from epic and other services and we're expecting we'll have $247 million worth of costs related to i mplementatio and this is the updated number from the fall and winter once we finalized the contract. the second set of numbers you see and so many commissioners

may remember over the last several years we've tried many strategies to fund this program given we were progressing $377 million over 10 years when it was something we cannot do overnight. to summarize we did a combination of some base project funding. we did some one-time appropriations and project funds and additional infusion of base project funding and also had a mechanism we started in '15-'17 and we were able to capture the one-time revenues you've seen in the financial statement relate to cost-report issues -- favorable cost-report issues that were able to recognize it's not money we feel comfortable budgeting or baseline budget but it is a revenue that we see fairly often but not always in

our financial statements. and we believe we have $244 million in appropriations available for expenditures which is a couple millon -- million shy of what we had and the project expenditure and work in the baseline were things done before the budget. and last week we had an issue with our funding with the affiliation agreement where they believed in several years ago they could actually hold their affiliation agreement flat to help support the procurement of the electronic health records but recently this fall with updated projections they didn't feel they could maintain that agreement with us anymore and so there's a $10.3 million issue we had to contend with to make sure

we continue to support the services that you it provides for us. so that $10 million issue basically combined with our shortfall and our deficits over the last three years results in a $12 million shortfall in just looking at the issues. and then as we mentioned before, in addition to this issue we also had the issue of being lopsided in terms of our balancing in our initial budget proposal. so what we are proposing to do here is to shift the funding of the project earlier into fiscal year '18-'19 instead of '19-'20 and allows us to move dollars and enables us to reduce year

two by $10.3 million and reduces an additional $10.7 million of ongoing costs for the h.r. project because we've already pre-funded the e.r.h. project in the future -- i'm sorry, earlier. so what this does is overall all see we will actually have a balance of money for the next two or three years we expect to fully expend by the end of '19-'20 but we do believe we can provide the appropriation of $247 million over the next three years. this is something that we are going have to watch because we didn't reduce our ongoing appropriation and it does make that project a little bit tighter because we are projected to be at zero at year three but it's something at this point we

believe we can manage. i know i threw a lot of numbers at you. do you have specific questions on what i just walked you through? >> in regards to the ucsf changes, has there been a review with ucsf in terms of what the affiliation agreement is expects in the future to have made assumptions or hope for promises and then to come in at the budget time to say that we actually can't fulfill that and there may be very legitimate reasons would seem to be a short-sighted type of process rather than one that should have had a more continuous dialogue that allows us -- because this is a long-term project, to understand and work together to

manage all the sources of funding recognizing there was good will in coming in to say they would participate in the h.r. process. >> yes, thank you for the question. we have been work myself along with a hospital executive team, dr. erlach on her staff and what the directions entail and you'll see the funds removed from the project from the affiliation agreement and in addition we discussed at the prior hearing there's an assumption in the mayor's deficit projection we will fund the non-physician staff on an on-going basis and between the two sources we

believe that there is efficient funding that we will not -- sufficient funding we won't have to come back for an ask. it will be a process we'll have to work through and already started with u.c. so that process is going to be some added layers of oversight and collaborative financial management. so we'll be looking at enhanced process to evaluate whether those need to be refilled. we'll be looking at opportunities both now and through the e.h.r. revenue process and the fees woul offset the need for an affiliation agreement. we are going to be looking at whether there's opportunities to streamline consolidate, identify efficiency in the affiliation

costs and the below the line items in the agreement. there's layers in this but they'll be putting in plis a process we'll put through the next 18 months and beyond to make sure we're including the same level of i guess certainly or oversight in the projections for the affiliation agreement that we are in other items we're bringing before the commission and the mayor's office and five-year financial planning process. so i'm confident it's going to be work but confident everybody's on board between the central office and hospital administration and the dean's office that you see everybody's committed to continuing to work through this to make sure that we can live westbound the appropriated dollars. >> commissioners, any further

questions? we felt it needed some explanation. director gars yeah -- garcia, do you want to make comments on this? >> we know about their commitment and asked for an audit on the costs so we ensure what we are providing will be sufficient. i think it's the same as any other organization as well. i think we'll work through that and as you know we are very dependent on these services and we want to make sure they're qualitative. we will continue to provide the oversight. >> there's actually co-dependents here. i wonder if anybody from either the hospital or ucsf would like to make comments concerning this?

>> good afternoon, commissioners. we have worked closely with the university to look at the costs and revenue opportunities. we've been doing that ever since i got to the hospital actually two years ago. so i feel very confident that going forward we'll be working together collaboratively on costs and revenue to make sure it's all controlled and maximized as appropriate and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners? >> thank you very much. >> the clerk: you're welcome. thank you. we'll move on with the presentation. if the commissioners have questions even related back to the h.r., we can take them up again as we move forward with the remaining changes in the budget.

>> the next initiative is also an i.t. project relate to the controller's office of financial systems project also known as f.s.p. the went live july 5 and as the system has a lot of capabilities as you've seen with the different ways to report on the budget there's also been challenges and the implementation of the new system. most significantly for us was an interface between the financial system and our procurement system. we were the only city to implement the procurement module and upon implementation we saw many links were broken,

essentially. so we lost a lot of our automated capabilities so there's the short-term issue of keeping the trains running and making our payments and making orders on time and reconciling systems and it's requiring extra staff and we've been work with the controller's office to understand the i.t. issue but we feel we'll need to create a new interface between the two systems to be able to automate it in the future. obviously we are not interested in doing manual reconciliation moving forward. so it's a one-time increase in the funding we have for a project we expect to use over the first 12 to 18 months of the next fiscal