and having real community center roith there in golden gate park. the question was how to best change this and we researched ant concluded the best way would be to retain an experienced professional facilities operator. so we worked to develop the request for proposal that will be issued by rec and park. on the issue of sustainability in particular, we are very excited to say that there is an agreement between us that the rent that will be paid by the operator will go directly into a long-term maintenance fund as well as support the transportation costs of the kids coming to t.l.c. finally, agreed to a tennis center -- >> i'm sorry. your mic cut off for a reason. your time is up. okay. okay. next speaker. do you have any other speakers? all right. that is great. thank you very much for your presentation and your enthusiasm.

as well as the critical feedback. the public comment is closed. any last remarks, supervisors? then let's take the matter into our hand. make a motion to accept the b.l.a.'s amendment and i would like to make a motion to approve with positive recommendation and looks like we can take both of those without objection. thank you very much. all right. moving on. item 3 please. >> item 3, resolution approving as amended the issuance of sale of residential mortgage revenue bonds for the city and aggregate principal amount of $395 million and construction of approximately 127 unit of affordable, residential housing to be located at 2015, 2060, and 2070 ballsam street. >> excellent. thank you. this morning we have miss ann romero from the mayor's office of community and housing development to prevent. this is a resolution authorizing the sale of mortgage housing

bond for low income and moderate income housing developments at 17th and shotwell. the floor is yours. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. i am the project manager at the mayor's office of mohousing and community development. and before you is the proposed tax exempt bond issuance for affordable family housing in the mission at 2060 fullsome. and there are also addressed on shotwell street. the resolution expresses the city's interest in issuing tax-exempt bonds to support the financing project and in the amount up to $95 million and accomplishes on april 22 of this year a public hearing was noticed, and on may 7, 2018, the hearing was held at mocd. and this is pursuant to the requirements of the i.r.s. code. so a little background on the project is that mission economic development agency and china town community development center we are selected by the agency to develop the project in

2015. it will have 127 units of affordable housing over community serving ground floor usage facing the new park and it will include 29 units targeting homeless and at-risk transition age youth. the community hub on the ground floor facing the new park. and anticipating the application on may 18 and obtaining an award, we will return to the board with the request to issue the bonds in fall 2018 when the project is ready to start construction. just to note these bond are conduit financing only which do not require the scity to pledge repayment of the ponds and start construction in october of this year and be complete by july 2020. so we appreciate your support. thank you. >> all right. thank you, colleagues. are there any questions for the presenter? all right. thank you very much. i see there is no budget legislative analyst report. going to public comment.

any member of the public to comment on item three? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. all right. i would like to make a motion to i a prove with a positive recommendation. >> second. >> we will take that without objection. okay. item four please. >> resolution approving and authorizing the acquisition of one permanent surface access through the easement and temporary construction easement and the well easement that includes bathroom improvements from the merced golf club for approximately $66,000 to be used by the city under the water system improvement prament. >> we have mr. brian from the p.u.c. to commit on the resolution that allows the p.u.c. to acquire land from lake merced golf club as part of a regional groundwater storage recovery project. the p.u.c. pays the grantor $66,000 for the land which was the appraised value as of 2014.

maybe you can talk to us for the appraised value of 2014 as opposed to a more current one. thank you. >> good morning. brian rally. and we have been in negotiations with lake merced golf club for quite some time. there was a lot of extenuating circumstances, so it was kind of a mutually agreed thing they accepted the appraised value that we had presented in 2014. >> all right. is there anything else that you would like to share with us? >> basically f i could, explain the regional groundwater project which is going to place 16 welled a various locations down the peninsula for use during dry weather years. in a normal rain years t wells would be allowed to naturally recharge, and the p.u.c. will supply hetch hetchy watter to the wholesale customer on the peninsula. during the dry years, the p.u.c. will pump from the wells to supplement the water supplies. so these wells will connect to the city of daly, san bruno, and the calwater facility.

i would be happy to answer any other questions. >> u an i think it is pretty self-explanatory. colleagues, are there any questions on this? nope. i think you are going to get out of here quickly. let's go to public comment. any member to talk about item in our, come on up. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. i'll make a motion to approve with a positive recommendation. and we have a second and send that to the full board. thank you very much. madam clerk, item five. >> resolution accomplishing the appropriation limit for approximately $3.5 billion for fiscal year 2017-18 pursuant to california constitution article 413b. >> michael moretti here to make a presentation. this appropriation limit was driven up from the last analysis due to the ros of living increases like rising income,

the sugar sweetened beverage tax and the population rise and maybe you can talk about that in the presentation. >> absolutely. >> excellent. the floor is your. >> my name is michael minton. >> story. >> no worries. it happens all the time. and i don't want to bore you, but just a little built of background -- >> this is budget committee. >> okay. we want to hear -- >> the kids are gone. we're okay. >> tell us the details. >> back in 1979 and revised about 10 years later, and they put in what is often called the gam limit and this is the son of proposition 13 which was to try to stop from raising taxes and the gam limit was to stop you from spending it if you actually managed to raise taxes. the way this worked is you have a base year. for now this is 86-87. and you take all the proceeds of

taxes and then you deduct from that certain appropriations, federal mandates, capital outlays, and voter approved debt are the main ones. once you get there, is your gam limit for the base year. from that base year, that limit is then inflate ed each year by population growth in the city as well as a cost of living measure, which can be either a measure of growth and state of california's income growth. effectively it is the state of california income growth for us in the city. so what you need to do is that when you have your methodology for determining the amount of taxes and the exclusions, you need to use that same

methodology of the each year that they are after and to calculate taxes and exclusions the same way we did in the base year. this will be important on the next slide. the other thing we have here is what happens if you exceed the limit. you can exceed in it one year, but in the next year you have to be under it sufficiently so on average you are below the limit. if over those two years you still remain above the limit, then you have to years to reduce taxes to get yourself to eliminate that limit, or pass a voter initiative to raise the limit, which we'll also talk about more. so there are two things that we did this year which we have not

done in the city for 25 years, so i ole spend a moment to talk about them. the first is we adjusted the way we calculated the base in 1986, 1987. what happened in the late 80s we started deducting retirement, health benefits, and so on, and when we did that, we readjusted the base so we're calculating things symmetrically. around 1992, they stopped excluding retirement and they again adjusted the base accordingly. then in 2005 we stopped counting health benefits. at that time the city did not go back to the base year and recalculate the base year in the same year they are calculating without the health benefits. we are doing that this year. it could have been done in 2005. it wasn't done and we're doing

that now. that effectively raises the limit by $87 million in the current year. that is one of the things we have done that hasn't been done in 25 years. the next thing is we now have an adjustment for voter approved increases. as i mentioned earlier, voters can approve an increase for up to four years. we have done that in our sugar sweetened beverages tax and in our most recent increase in the tax. both of those will increase the limit by the aggregate sum collected by the taxes. in this year, that has raised the limit for four years and is going to dropened a likely if nothing else changes, we could be over the limit at that time.

and another measure to increase the limit. for another four years. i am not keeping up. the revised base is about 3.3 billion. the population inkrecrease withe california per capita income is 3.7%. and as i mentioned, the voter approved increases is 68 million which gets it to the 17-18 limit of $3.5 billion appropriations subject to the limit. we remove the deductions that are not abolympicable to the limit and the tax proceeds are $3.48 billion.

we subject it from the limit from the previous page and we see that we are at $9 million below the g.a.n. limit this year. and here is a history going back from 2010-2011 for how we have done. and as the city has boomed and as we pass the transfer tax increase around 2011 and the business increase that the revenues have been exceeding the growth in the limit. and proceeds from taxes has gone up 58% and the gam limit has gone up 37%. that is why you are seeing this narrow at this time. >> thanks, mike. that is really helpful. >> thank you.

does that complete your presentation? >> it does. >> all right. do we have a b.l.e. report on this one? please. >> an it is reconfirming or reiterating what they said. and the tax proceeds that are in 17-18 that are subject to $2.5 million and the limit for appropriation limit for 17-18 is calculated to be about $3.5 million and is about a $9 million difference between the two. we recommend approval. >> thank you. we take that recommendation under advisement. supervisor fewer? >> oh, we have to take public comment and then your motion. all right, ladies and gentlemen. anyone like to comment on item five? in california constitutions appropriation limit? no? okay. well, public comment is closed then.

>> make a motion to approve that. and madam clerk, item six please. >> improve the issuance and sale of refunding of the revenue bonds by the city's finance corporation payable from the park and recreation fund to refinance the revenue bonds previously issue d with various projects. >> this allows the open space fund to issue a $41 million and refunding revenue pond to save $3.4 million. i love it when we save money and not just spending it. all right. the floor is yours. >> good morning, supervisors. with the office of public finance. and authorizes the issuance and sale of refund iing lease reven bonds and payable from the park

recreation and open space fund. the funding bonds together with bond reserves funds on hand in the amount of $15.8 million. and the remaining series 2007 bonds in the amount of 28.1 million for the aggregate total of $43.94 million. and the 2006 and 2007 bond were previously issued in 2006 and 2007 to finance the design construction and renovation of various urban park projects all of which have reached substantial completion. the 2006 and 2007 bonds are currently refundable and will be financed under today's mark conditions for the lower interest rate wills rouesult in the overall saves of $2 million net value or 4.6% outstanding. this savings means the debt

policy objective of 3% or higher. based and an estimate of 3.5% for the all interest cost on the $40 million of refunding bonds, the office of public finance estimates that the maximum annual debt service will be approximately $4.7 million per year, and this results in about $300,000 in average annual savings compared to the current debt service outstanding on the 2006 and 2007 bond. the term of the refunding bonds will mirror the existing term of the 2007 bonds with a final maturity on july 1, 2029. and the refunding bond up for approval today will be repaid by security from the open space fund pursuant to proposition c that was passed in march of march of 2000 to create the property tax set azide for the open space fund. prop c authorized the issuance of bond and other obligations

secured by the open space fund. with the approval of the ordinance, the board also approved the related financing documents in the final and substantial forms and slight lease agreement, assignment agroement as well as the -- agreement as well as the preliminary information and the continuing disclosure certificate. the city will structure the refunding bonds as a lease back structure by and between the city and the san francisco finance corporation this is a nonprofit public benefit corporation formed by the city to provide a means to finance. the sf finance corporation board is scheduled to i a prove the bond by resolution prior to sale of the bond. it is anticipated that four rec and park owned properties will

collectively serve as a collateral for the refunding bonds to secure the fees repayment obligations under the site lease. the amendment circulated to this committee today on page 6 reflect the technical amendment to add the ward recreation center as lease and pledge facilities under the state lease. i am available to answer any questions related to the financing and antonio the capital finance manager at rec park is present to answer any department-related questions. >> actually, i do have a question. what drives the safings to the city other than the debt service savings? >> the comparison of interest costs essentially when the bond were originally sold in 2006 and 2007 with the refinancing today selling at a much lower separate, you're essentially decreasing your overall debt allegation. the savings is the differential between the debt service due on

the refunding bonds compared to the existing bond sold back in 2006-2007. >> all right. thank you. thank you for that clarification. colleagues, any questions for the presenter? all right. we'll hear from the b.l.a. >> yes. and repeating what she said, these are bond from the open space fund. this differs from the general obligation fund. it is a property tax set aside. the revenues of the fund rather than the direct property tax and property owners repays the bonds. the refunding is within the city's policy of a 3% savings. the estimated savings is about 4.6% of the outstanding amount of the bonds. and there is collateral associated with this with the different centers with rec and

park. we do recommend approval. >> thank you. take that recommendation under advisement. we will take public comment at this time. any member of the public that would like to comment, item six. i would like to make a motion to i a prove -- >> i believe the controller's office presented an amendment that is on page 6 to include another recreation center. >> thank you. i don't have that in front of me. we will accept that recommendation to include palago and with that approve as amended with a positive recommendation. thank you. item 7. >> approving the issuance of the revenue bonds by the city's finance corporation to refinance the bonds previously issued to the project to issue $26 million

in refunding bonds which again saves the city $6 million if i am not mistaken. miss jamie, the floor is yours. >> thank you. and thank you again. the ordinance authorizes the issuance and the branch library improvement program in the amount not to exceed $26.53 million payable by appropriation to the general fund administered by the san francisco public library. the refunding bonds together with bond reserve funds on hand with the additional library resources with the 2009 a bonds in the amount of $29.75 million. the 2009 a bonds were previously issued in 2009 with various

library facilities. under the branch library improvement program. all of which have since been substantially completed. they approved the appropriation of $7.56 million of the library reservation fund sources to pay down a portion of the 2009 bond which will be included as additional source of funds for the refinancing. the 2009 a-bonds are currently refundable and if refinanced under today's market conditions will result in an overall savings of the city of about $4.3 million on the net present value basis or $16.5% of outstanding par. this savings meets the city's debt policy objective of 3% or higher. based on the estimate of 3.22% of the all interest cost on $26 million refund iing ponds, the office estimates the maximum annual debt service will be approximately $2.1 million per

year in average annual savings compared to the current debt service outstanding on the 2009 a bonds. the determine of the refunding bonds will be shortened to 10 years with a final maturity on june 15, 2028. the refunding bonds up for approval today will be repaid by legally available sources. appropriated by the general fund including revenues from the library reservation fund, pursuant to proposition d which was passed in november of 2007 which created a property tax set aside for 15 years to renew the then entriesing library -- the existing library preservation fund and prop d authorized the issuance of revenue bonds with sources of fund for the branch library improvement program. with the approval of the ordinance, this board also -- this committee approves related financing documents in the final and substantial forms including the facilities lease, lease agreement, trust agreement,

assignment agreement with the notice of sale and notice of intention to sale and the information and continuing disclosure certificate. the city will structure this revenue refunding bond as a lease back structure with the buy the city and the finance corporation and the san francisco corporation is scheduled to i a prove the bond transaction by resolution prior to sale. it's anticipated the portion of the san francisco main public library will be the collateral for the refunding bonds. and there is also another technical amendment that was circulated to you today on page two switching a reference from proposition o to the correct proposition b that was passed in 2007. >> do we need to make the amendment in our motion? >> correct. >> thank you.

i am available to answer any questions on the financing and maureen is acting c.o.o. of the library for any department-related questions. >> any questions, colleagues? all right. let's -- b.l.a. report. >> yes. again, sort of just reaffirm what she said, on page 24 of our report, the funding bonds of the 28.4 million from the library reservation fund. the cross savings would be about $6 million and that is the net present value of $4.2 or 4.3 million and 16.5% from the outstanding bonds. and so this is within the city's debt service policy. the other point that i think is fair is that this is the lease arrangement where a portion of city property, in this case the

main library, would be used as collateral to distribute the bond, and rerecommend approval. >> thank you. we will take the recommendation. seeing there is no colleagues in the queue, let's go to public comment. public comment on item seven. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. make a motion to accept the amendment and the proposed change as discussed by the b.l.a. and the representative from the controller's office. and i will take that as amended with a positive recommendation and without objection. thank you. >> madam clerk, item 8. >> the use agreement submitted with the city with an estimate rent of approximately $740,000 for exclusive use of joint use space rent and levy fees for the lease term expiring on june 30, 2021. >> okay. we've got kathy back with us to make a presentation to allow

hong kong airlines to fly in and out of s.f.o. on a three-year lease set to expire in 2021. good to see you. the floor is yours. >> thank you. good morning sh, supervisors. >> the item requests your approval for a lease with hong kong airlines for three years and three months through the remainder of the airport's current lease and use agreement which is set to expire on june 30, 2021 for the 900 square feet of exclusive use space and joint use space in international terminal. the proposed resolution would approve hong kong airlines being added to the airport's 2011 lease and use agreement with other airlines operating at f. f.o. and an estimated rent of $740,234 for the office space over the term of the lease. this is in addition to the landing fees that the airline

would pay. this agreement is the memberich to allow flight operations and rent terminal space with a common set of lease provisions such as rent and fees and permitted uses of terminal space and the legal framework for the airport to make the annual service payment to the city. the budget analyst has reviewed and recommends approval and would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. i think that's pretty straightforward. i don't think there are any questions. what i would like to do is to go to the b.l.a. and then we'll take public comment. >> yes. this would add hong kong airlines to the 2007 use agreement and that an i greement expires in 2021 and this is for the only remaining three years of the agreement. it is exclusive use and joint use space at the airport amenity fees and the rent paid by hong kong airlines to the airport over the remaining term of the

lease is about $740,000 with the other payments for joint use space and landing fees that would be set by the airport commission and we take that approval. >> we will take that recommendation. let's go to public comment. any other member of the comment that would like to comment on item 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. >> i would like to make a motion to approve with a positive recommendation. all right. we'll take it without objection. thank you. madam clerk? >> could you please call item nine? >> item nine is the resolution approving the lease between the united states custom and border protection and the city to extend the term of the lease for an additional 10 years 2003 through january 31, 2028. >> like to open up public comment for item nine. seeing none, public comment is closeed. i would like to make a motion to

continue to the call of the chair. seblgded by supervisor stefani and we will take that without objection. number 10. >> resolution authorizing a five-year lease extension for approximately 600,000 square feet of improvement and with the landlord for use by the san francisco international airport for the period of may 1, 2018 through april 30, 2023. >> an excellent. you are back up at the podium. this is a resolution with the five-year lease extension. >> that is for the office space, correct? >> yes. >> kathy widener with the airport. the item before you seeks the approve to extend an existing lease for s. f.o. pro graphics at 837 malcolm road. this is for five years through april of 2023 with two one-year options to extend.

the department of real estate points out that the city does remain the right to terminate early after 2021 with no penalty. the lease has a 3% annual increase. the airport graphics provides the design layout for airport materials and prints, maps and directors and work orders for other city departments. the graphic staff has occupied this 6,000 square feet of office space and 10,500 since 2009. the airport does plan to move the graphics to the airport property as part of the future administrative campus phase. this is anticipated to happen in 2023 to allow for up to $669,072

to accommodate new equipment and flexibility to accommodate potential destruction and determined to be no greater than fair market rent based on the analysis of similar properties. the budget analyst has reviewed and recommends approval and i would be happy to answer any questions and i believe there is also department of real estate here if you have questions. >> where is the department of real estate? come on down. i will use every opportunity to pull you in front of the mic before you get out of here. how are you? >> i am great. thank you. >> what can i answer for you? >> what would you like to share

with us about this item? >> we are pleased to negotiate a lease here and that is 10-15%less than all the comparable optional properties in the area in burling game as well as nobray. we did an exhaustive research to possibly move the location on the malcolm drive and it was not deemed feasible. and we will effect the savings and we are pleased with that for early termination in case the space is ready before predict bid the airport with the extension with clays in construction. we tried to cover both end of the project. >> this is an extension of an existing lease. it is an extension through 2023

and to be terminated to relocate the graphics to the airport property, but also allowed for two one-year extensions through 2025 in case construction of new space at the airport is delayed beyond 2023. and it was considered by the real estate vision to be fair market. it does not trigger the appraisal review under the initial cost. and let's take public comment on item 10. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. i would like to make a motion to approve with a positive recommendation. all right, colleagues. we will take that without objection. thank you. madam clerk, item 11. >> motion approving modification

of the one city professional services agreement between aviation services and the city for airport and extending the term two years through july 1, 2018 and july 30, 2020. >> an i think we should have called all these together. kathy, come on down. >> thank you. they are all a little bit different today, but i appreciate your time. kathy widener with the san francisco international airport. this item seeks approve for the first modification to an existiexist ing gaap services contract. and the original contract was the relate of competitive request for proposals process and approved by the board in 2016. the proposed modification would exercise the first of three two-year options to extend the contract from july 1, 2018 through april 30, 2020 in order to continue to provide information and guest services at the airports and through the

airport's information desk program, provide management for the international terminated passport control program as well as to operate the airport's lost and found program. the modification increases the contract not to exceed amount by $15,803,224 for the extension term. the budget analyst office has reviewed and recommends approval and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. i actually don't have any questions. the budget legislative report and public comment and keep going. >> the original contract was approved for january 1, 2017, and was an 18-month contract. and two three-year extensions. this is the -- or three two-year extenseings. this is the first of the two-year extensions. on page 39, for contract amount in the first year of extension

is $7.8 million and what is driving the increases is salary and benefit costs for staff and rerecommend approval. >> anyone like to speak on item 11? seeing none, public comment is closed. sir r you here to speak on item 11? okay, thank you. sorry, john. a motion to approve and madam clerk, we can do that without objection. and item 12. >> item 12 is hearing on the feasibility of developing and implementing the open source voting technology system in san francisco. all right. and thank you very much for calling this item. colleagues, i have calls for the hearing and the presentation to

discuss very important matter about the feasibility of open source voting. i want to recognize the director of the department of elections and recognize that we will hear again from the corrector of the department of technology. we will hear from chris -- my apologies if i mispronounce your name and the elections commission and james cunningham from is it slalom consulting? good morning. good to see you. >> so i am here to speak on the fiscal and technical feasibility of open source voting at today's hearing. and just to give some brief

voting and to i a allow for the software code to be posted online and while the system is being developed and the code would be posted online after the city implements the system and is using the voting system and punts of the public can look at the code and write in code and suggest new improvements and also anyone can use code to create the own voting systems. but with this in mind, the department of elections issued a request for information, r. f.i., in and which includes the possible development of on open source coding system. the elections commission organized a hearing with r.f.i. in november of 2015 and inviting respondents to present information. regarding time and cost, theened

were not ranged from six months to a few years or more and the cost ranged in $200,000 to $13 million or more. after the r.f.i. process was complete and after the hearing in fiscal year 17-18, the committee and information technology allocated $300,000 to the department of elections to issue a request for proposals to identify and to assess the feasibility and developing the open source voting system. of that $300,000, $175,000 was allocated to agreement with the contractor. and $125,000 was allocated to hiring the f.t.e. to assist with writing the r.f.p. and work following the issuance of the business case. the department was unable to hire the f.t.e. which means that the $125,000 for that position remains available for the

project. and contractors and to identify through the r.f.p. process in march of 2018. after issuing the business case t department of elections and the department of technology drafted an application to develop an open source voting system. the next application requested from coit and $960,000 for fiscal year 18-19 to identify the specifications for the system and the resources necessary to develop the system. the application requested $23 million for the next two fiscal years for developing a voting system and then coit considered the application and beta allocation of $300,000 for fiscal year 18-19. it has not yet considered the allocations for years further out in time. coit is also adding $125,000

that remains from the department in that hiring of the f.t.e. and fiscal year 17-18 which bridges the total to $425,000 available for the open source for consideration of the developing the open source voting system. the coit funding is to identify project manager who will draw and gather the specifications required to develop fund and implement and maintain the open source in the time needed to do so. and the project manager will utilize the business case of the foundation for next steps. so the big question, what is the timeline to implement the open source voting system? right now there is no set timeline for developing the voting system and the specifications are unknown. and the timeline is also impacted by the city not knowing which specific options to utilize for developing the voting system. and the elections commission stated that it wants the city to implement a new open source voting system for the november 2020 election.

while the city was considering the steps and the feasibility to develop the open source voting system t department of elections issued the request for proposals on february 1 to obtain a new voting system. the reason that the department issued the r.f.p. is the contract with the current voting system vendor terminates at the end of 2018 which means at the end of the year the city would have no voting system to use going forward. dmin nonwas the responsive bidder to the r.f.p. and the term will begin in january 2019. the first system had been used for the november 2019 election. >> regarding the current system, the city ruhr chased the federal grant fund. and the next contract, though, with dominion will be for a lease. the city will not purchase the equipment but will lease the

equipment instead. a lease will also allow the city to upgrade the equipment during the term of the contract which would not be possible if there were the purchase of equipment. and there would be no additional cost under the terms of the contract if there were an upgrade during the term. with the current system, the city will expand $2.3 million for services and fees and i expect the city will expand $2 million a year for services and lease fees. again, the reason that the can want issued the r.f.p. for a vendor-based voting system is no system that has been approved by the secretary of state and california for use by the counties. i can take any questions at this time. >> i have a couple of questions, but before we go further, i want to also set the context of the

hearing tabbed goal of the hearing is to address what financial investments are needed for open source voting. the second goal is what is the timeline to implement open source voting and the third is what are the technical constraints and risks that ewith must consider in order to move into such a system. and so as you know, last month i authored a letter of support to state senator wonner and assembly member david chiu to request that the california state budget for matching funds for open source voting. i thought and so we could get involved in the conversation. recently there's been a push for the clean money campaign at the state level to provide matching funds to counties to develop and certify publicly owned source paper valt system. i love the concept of this. and the hearing is to help us

explore how we can get there. and so colleagues, i hope that you get something out of this. and at the base level, i want to be well informed and with the session continues to mature particularly around the budget cycle because there is a budget ask. and i believe it's for $4 million and so that that is from the state to match it and i ap hopeful that we will get there as we continue the budget cycle. what i heard from you, director, is what leads me to a couple of questions if you don't mind. why is there so much difficulty in hiring the full employee? >> the applicant didn't have the combination of experience with the r.f.p. and regarding the voting systems and developing the open source voting system and identifying a contractor to

write a business case and assessing the feasibility of the open source voting system. after many interviews, i decided it would be more effective to wrote the r.f.p. myself and the department issued. >> i am with that, too. i like things that i do better also. fair enough. so would the department of elections be the best city department to issue the r.f.p. to venner tos for the open source voting? >> i don't think. we could add our knowledge about elections to any r.f.p.s that are issued, but the department doesn't have the technical expertise and experience to draft an issue and any recommendation on which xapt would be the evaluation? >> i think the and i think the department of technology to speak on that more going forward. >> right, right.

do you predict a similar issue as the one in travis county, texas, where it would be identify a vendor once we issue the r.f.p.? >> an it is difficult to say and in the bay area there is plenty of still and ability to be responsive to the r.f.p. regarding the software development and system development. and i think the challenge will be finding the venner to or respondent -- a vendor on respondent that can learn the requirements for voting systems at the state and federal love and the testing and application. and i don't know and we'll have to wait and see who responds and was sort of what skill sets they bring to the table. >> fair enough. i hope this body and the board of supervisors will be helpful in making sure that we have the appropriate persons executing

oen the appropriate functions so it doesn't get lost in the system for lack of a better what i to describe it. another question, did the committee on information technology, also known as coit, did they ever explain or provide reasons why they only granted $300,000 of the of the $960,000 that was requested by the department. >> it is my understanding they consider it to be sufficient for the specifications for a voting system and issue the voting system. >> did they justify the reasoning? you believe that it's enough money. so what led them to that conclusion? >> i think after consultation with the consultants and contractor, and other stakeholders, i think that's how

coit came to its decision. >> okay. and do we have a representative from coit here today? >> okay. i will follow back up with them as i don't want to put you in the uncomfortable position of having to speak on their behalf. i was curious to hear your interpretation as the reasons why. i am sure you asked the same questions. so why do you believe that version three, the general public license provides the best open source voting license software? >> go ahead. >> i have a follow-up, but answer that first part. >> the version three general public license put forward when it passed the resolution and the principles that the department and i have used when i drafted r.f.p.s. as far as maintaining the permissions under the license for development of an entire system, it is probably unlikely because other components will have their own license and to

the equipment, other software project would be as close as possible to attain the permissiveness under the license such as version three, general public license. >> and will the software meet the stages and the needs of the particular project that we're undertaking? or that we would like to undertake? >> that is the difficult for me to say. i think it will be a combination of licenses. i don't think one license can be the one standard for the system. >> fair enough. thank you, director. as always, nice to see you. i want to just pivot real quick to the budget office, kelly kirkpatrick. if you could just and talk to us about your department's perspective on the budget ask for $4 million. and i would hov to hear his

voice in this discussion. >> kelly kirkpatrick, acting mayor's budget director. i wasn't aware of the $4 million ask. however, that doesn't mean it wasn't made. and i am getting up to speed on all of this. >> it was public and been in the papers and a whole -- >> totally. i can speak to though, generally the $300,000 coit recommendat n recommendation. and again, my lack of knowledge about the $4 million doesn't mean that other people in the office aren't, but i am not prepared to speak on that. i apologize. but to say that following the report, our perspective and is it raises the next step discovery and our sense that per coit recommendations and with the $125,000 would be an important next step forward moving in that direction. and additionally, as the report

highlights the role of the state in something that we're really curious to further delve into that any investments that would provide a solution on the state woid, county level, and something that and as the hearing continues to unfold, you will certainly hear the ask of $4 million and take that back to the mayor's office and if possible, build that into his budget that he will be presenting to us on june 1. thank you. all right. i am going to change things up a little built. i want to hear from john seville and james cunningham from the consulting firm hired to conduct the feasibility assessment for open source and do you have a presentation to load up on the laptop? it's not a problem. just load it up. director ernst can help you and

we'll get started. we also have the paper copy for you. >> after this presentation the director and c.i.o. and then we will hear from chris from the department or from the elections commission. then we will take public comment. >> the presentation is pup after and sfg tv, turn to the laptop. take it away. >> sorry about the font. we were asked to come in and write a report and a final report that talks about what would it take to mike a highly accessible, open source voting system and what options to do this and for each one of the options for the cost and whatter the risks, the timeline, and

what are the next steps? >> your name? >> john pavel. >> okay. so because your presentation is pretty dense, and at some points technic technical, i am going to be peppering your presentation with questions, all right? >> high level and all about six options. and the six options from the interview list of about 40 people throughout the city, the state, and with the six options it was all about the cost, the timeline, the risk, and next step. with that, i was going to pass on to james to talk about where we came with the high level recommendations. >> sure. >> all right. >> one thing that it was not, this was not a full detailed scoping of what the voting is is. this was not -- that is really a key thing here is that z we estimated based on what we believe the voting system could be and used that as the basis for everything, but not a full,

detailed design of what a voting system would be. the next area we wanted to summarize what we learned to share that and the complexity that wenlt into the report and the detail with the options which ranged from the department of elections and with support from vendors and the city collaborating with other jurisdictions. and both inside and outside california with the types of approaches that you can take. and what we learned from assessing the options to

maximize we believe the project's success from cost time and risk is that the function of management and the department of technology based on the expertise they hold in the city here. and base and the multiple skill sets an and the open source community to commit to building and creating that community. that can be part of producing that tlusolution, but from the critical nature of elections, there is no order of existing community that will be able to do this in the way that i believe the city wants to have the project. we observe the lessons from l.a. county's project would be very valuable to adopt. and specifically around the

accessibility of this project scope. and not so much the open source but the accessibility. that was an equally important overview or requirement. and so the time spent developing the solution was very valuable, and i think we can learn a lot and potentially partner with them. similarly and not specifically l.a., but another jurisdiction in california. the secretary of state approval for voting systems is by state, so if you are able to do that within, say, in collaboration, and simplify the bodied a not working across more than one body. and to look to what has been established with other open source voting groups, there are a few that exist. reaching out to them and improve the design system in terms of the time and potentially reduce the cost as well. approaching the project in an

agile manner and develop and deploy elements of the solution as incrementally as you can to improve the functionally and until this is complete. and evaluating the license types and throughout the assessment we discovered the range of constrai constraints. and developing the project and all these points brought us to upper air disturbance the scope and the -- to understand the scope and approach and the logical step. >> i have two