rights. i was put through a skelly hearing on march 23, 2018. i'm certain that the people involved in it knew that the -- that this was not up to code, and they proceeded any ways. again, i ask that you take civil rights seriously and look into this. my own union refuses to deal with it. they have acknowledged that it was not a skelly hearing. they have acknowledged in writing to me and on audio that the procedures were not followed, but they are not holding the district accountable for not following skelly procedure. again, on may 11, 2018, i was put through another hearing that was not up to california code. labor relations is now calling that hearing a skelly hearing. they are putting it on writing that on may 11, 2018, a skelly

hearing happened. that is not true. i'm certain of it, and again, i ask that you investigate this. i respectfully request that the san francisco school board take civil rights seriously. i can conduct a full investigation in human resources labor relations and uesf. thank you for your time. >> thank you. the next item is proposition a, appendix f. two minutes on this, too, miss casco. >> all right. thank you, again. my -- to the school board and dr. matthews for staying so late. my name is margaret reyes, and i'm here to officially request that you investigate and

publish all about proposition a/appendix f 2018. i was employed at that time. i actually volunteered on proposition a. i have searched high and low. i cannot see that the voters or board members who voted in 2018 had any idea about appendix f. if the voters were given an opportunity to know about this, i ask that you please publish it. also, i ask that the amount of times that proposition -- or excuse me, appendix f has been used be published. i'd like a detailed explanation as to why ten years after appendix f was voted on or was pu in it remains buried in the contract. you have not baked in into the main part of the contract. several parts of appendix f

actually contradict the main part of contract. both uesf and sfusd continue to bury is in the contract. so i'd ask for a detailed explanation as to why. again, proposition a, appendix f can lead to the union having no power to veto who gets put into par. we know par is a punitive program. we know that it is discriminatory, and proposition a, appendix f did force the union to give up all their power. again, if you could give us some history, publish the history as to how that happened back in 2008, i think the public deserves to now. again, thank you for your time, and i request all information regarding the history of proposition a/appendix f. thank you. >> thank you. section m is our memorial

adjournment. i'm going to be adjourning this in memory of violeona howard w passed away at the age of 98 on may 22, 2018. she earned the distinction of having a district public school, the leola m.havard early education school named after her in her lifetime. born april 3, 1920 in ethyl, louisiana, she was the second child of oliver and lieu morgan. she received her early education in the public schools of baton rouge, louisiana. she completed her early education at university of louisiana and earned a master of arts at san francisco state

university. her childhood dream was always to become a teacher. she began her career at an educator in the sfusd on the faculty of patrick henry elementary school. later, she taught at gar eye and mckinley elementary schools. unsurprisingly, she was a consummate educator. for example, it was important to her that fourth graders begin to appreciate the communities in whichy reside. accordingly as a fourth grade teacher, she began taking children on community visits to create an interest in and familiarize them with neighborhoods. it was during her tenure at mckinley that she was appointed the assistant principal of marshall annex elementary school. a newspaper article written during the time described her as the first negro woman administrator in the san francisco school system. she also served as an assistance praent at starky

elementary school again earning the distinction as the first african american woman to hold such a position in the sfusd. under her leadership, test scores improved significantly. she retired from the school district in 1981, after 31 years of serv the superintendent robert alioto, in honor of her status in the district was the first black woman administrator, as the first black woman administrator, escorted her to her retirement dinner. it was a most joyous occasion. she was both astonished and elated -- in 2011 under the lead ship or. amos brown, president of the san francisco branch of the naacp, the san francisco unified school district board of education recognized her dedication and service to students, parents and the community by

unanimously voting to change the name of the burnet child development agency to the leona m.havard early education school. the sfusd has bestowed this honor on only two other living persons. she was preceded in death by her parents, her husband, charles, brothers and sister-in-laws lawrence and gladys morgan, clarence and evelyn morgan, and her sister, jean simms. her love, generosity, graciousness, tenacity will be missed by many. her nephews and nieces include debra simms, a former administrator in our district, and a loving church family.

the board of education and superintendent of schools extends sincere condolences to the havard and morganamilies. commissioner walton? >> thank you, president mendoza-mcdonnell. this is in memory, honest aring the work, advocacy and life of barbara brown with the san francisco unified school district, the mission district and the community at large, and her daughter is here, along with her grandson, and i know her other grandchildren were here earlier, as well as her son-in-law, and thank you all for staying this late as we honor your grandmother and your mother. whereas on sunday, may 20, 2018, barbara brown left in world to be with her family members who have preceded her in death, and whereas barbara brown worked for the san francisco unified school district for 30 years. and whereas barbara brown took pride in her career, particularly her work for almost 20 years at cesar chavez elementary school, on formerly named hawthorne in san

francisco's mission district. and whereas barbara brown also enjoyed working in the san francisco unified school district drop out prevention unit, helping many familie in keeping their students in school, and whereas bash la brown took priden her loving family, two children. and whereas barbara brown was broern in guatemala, and whereas barbara brown considered both guatemala and you the states her two homes and raised her children to be proud of who they are, and belonging to both. barbara brown left this world a better place. therefore be it resolved that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district here by honors barbara

brown's commitment to the children and families of this district -- of this district and her contributio to san francisco's community at large. and this was also read and presend to the brown family on may 25th at her memorial service. [applause] >> our thoughts are with you and your family. so at this time, we will take public comment for those who have submitted speaker cards, and i do not have any this evening. the section o is closed session. the board will now go into closed sess thus, i

>> okay. we are resum t regular board meeting, and i hav a number of votes to read out. >> okay. the section p, we are resuming the regular board meeting.

we need a vote on an interim chief. i move to approve the contract for the interim chief of fund development with a salary set at grade 6, step 1 for one year. can i hear a second, please. >> second. >> thank you. roll call, miss casco. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. vote on student expulsions. i move approval of the stipulated expulsion agreement with the parties agreeing to waive the hearing of one middle school hearing 18-16 from the district for the remainder of spring 2018 semester and the fall 2018 semester. can i hear a second. >> thank you. roll call please, miss casco. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. i move approval for a

stipulated expulsion agreement where the parties agree to waive the hearing of one high school student case number 2018-17 from the district for the remainder of spring 2018 semester and the fall 2018 semester. can i get a second, please. >> second. >> thank you. roll call, miss casco. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. i move approval of a stipulated expulsion agreement where the parties agree to waive the hearing of one middle school student, case number 2018-18 and suspend the enforcement of the student's expulsion. should the student fail to comply with the terms andtion cans of the stipulated agreement, student will be expelled from the district for the remainor of the spring 2018 semester and the fall 2018 semester. can i get a second? >> second. >> thank you. roll call, miss casco. >> clerk: thank you.

[roll call] >> six ayes. >> thank you. i move the approval the expulsion of one high school student case number 2018-19 for the remain erof the spring 2018 semester and the fall 2018 semester. can i get a second? >> second. >> thank you. roll call, miss casco. >> clerk: thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. i move the expulsion of one high school student case number 2018-20 for the remainder of the spring 2018 semester and the fall 2018 semester. can i get a second, please. >> second. >> thank you. roll call, please. >> thank you. [roll call] >> clerk: six ayes. >> thank you. i move the approval for the expulsion of one high school student, case number 2018-21, from the district for the

remainder of the spring 2018 semester and the fall 2018 semester. can i get a second, please. >> second. >> thank you. miss casco, roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: that's six ayes. >> thank you. this is the readout for the june 12, 2018 closed session. the board by a vote of six ayes, one absent, norton, approved the contract for one droor, the board by a vote of six ayes, one absent approved the contract for four program administrators. the board, by a vote of six ayes, one absent, approved the contract for principals. the board, by a vote of six ayes, one absent approved the contract for six assistant principals. the vote by a vote of six ayes, one absent, approved the

release of six teachers and one paraprofessional. -- in the matter of sfusd versus oah, case number 20180850562 the board by a vote of six ayes one absent gives the district the authority to pay up to the stipulated amount. on two matters of anticipated litigation, the board gave direction to general counsel. section q is adjournment. this meeting is adjourned. thank you.

zbls hi. good morning and welcome to. >> i am joined today by supervisor aaron peskin who's the vice chair. i'd like to acknowledge our committee clerk, john carol and also the staff at sfgov tv for ensuring that our meetings are available to the public on-line. president breed is not going to be able to attend today's meeting, and so we will take a motion to excuse. president breed, we have a motion and a second. we can take that without opposition.

[ gavel ]. >> supervisor kim: mr. clerk, do we have any announcements? [agenda item read] >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, mr. clerk, can you please call agenda items 1 through 4 together. [agenda items read] >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, mr. clerk, and i see mr. brian hsu who will be

presenting on each of these items. >> good morning, brian chiu with the mayor's office of housing and community development. i come here with our annual request to allow us to accept and expand our hud allocations in these four different funding streams. as you see attached in your packet, we are moving into the fourth year of our five-year funding cycle. we are grateful that we will be able to maintain all of our grantees at the same level to which they were previously entitled this year. as you may recall, even though the president chose to zero out the community development block programs, congress saw fit not only to renew that program but actually to increase it a little bit more, which means that for us, we have a little more money to provide for our affordable housing and a little bit more money to rehab our community facilities.

in the black grant program, we also received a little more money for our home funding. that's the dollars that allow us to build new construction for our affordable housing. our emecy solutions grants program was renewed at about the same amount, and our hopwa program, housing for persons with aids also compensated slightly, which accounts for the slight decrease that we will be receiving that hud imposed on that program. we don't really have any significant program attic change from last year because we're moving into the fourth year of our five-year funding cycle. we ask that you allow us to accept these funds and expend it in the way attached. i'm available for any questions that you might have on any aspect of that program. >> supervisor kim: no questions at this time, so at this time i'm going to open it

up for public comment on items one through four. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed [ gavel ] wendy paskin-jordan madam chair, i move that we send items 1 through 4 to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor kim: thank you. and we can do that without opposition. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor kim: mr. clerk. can you please call item number 5. [agenda item read] >> supervisor kim: and maria benjamin is already up at the podium, director of bmr and home ownership. i also want to acknowledge that cice yen, as well as deputy city attorney sam ray are also

here to ask any campbell. severin campbell is also here to make comments after. >> good morning, chair kim and supervisor peskin. item 5 would allow ocb to purchase a condominium that is scheduled for foreclosure sale. it is located at 860 mission street, and the building is called soma grand. the original owner purchase it had in 2008 through the bmr program. he had a first mortgage and since 2015, mocd, the planning department and the city attorney's office has been in

contact with the owner several times to try to bring him in compliance with the program. he owes the h.o.a. over $35,000 in unpaid h.o.a. dues. in 2017, the owner defaulted on his first mortgage, and the lender, which is seline finance has scheduled an auction for the property. mocd is requesting from the board to take the most expeditious course of action which is to bid on the unit at the auction for up to $300,000 which is below the allowable maximum sales price, according to the rules. if we are successful, we would transfer the ownership to an income eligible household. if we are out bid at auction,

the unit will still have affordable housing restrictions, but it is a costly and lengthy process to work with an investor who purchases it to bring it back we're asking you to forward the legislation to the board of supervisors with a recommendation so that we can take the quickest and most efficient route to bring the property back. and as you said, chair kim, my colleagues are here to answer any other questions. >> supervisor kim: so miss benjamin, i know this came up, i think two years ago, when i held a hearing on below market rate, and it was said that at least i had heard for the first time that we had lost at least one or two home ownership units to market foreclosure to the

banks. just to help me jog my memory. what is the protocol when we know one of these units is at risk of foreclosure. it just seems plainly wrong that a bank would get to own one of these units when it was part of a contractual agreement with the city that middle class owners could purchase homes in san francisco. i'm really glad in this case we have caught the unit before it goes to sale. of course it seems wrong that we bid on this. you know, what is the protocol currently, and what can we do to amend this to strengthen our ability t procure these units back? >> the current protocol is we monitor the units, all of our units, and when the first notice of default is -- it's usually like three months before their lender has or h.o.a. has the right to actually foreclose or go to sale. we contact the homeowner, and

we reach out to them. a lot of times, they don't understand that they actually do have equity in the property, and so they -- they're kind of -- if they're in a financial problem, they are just, like, if they're giving up, we let them know what the value of their property is and then that leads to the sale of their home, rather than letting it just go. >> so -- sorry. in that instance, we would purchase the unit back from

them? >> i just want to understand the universe or the scope of this issue. i think it's pretty incredible that we have a pretty sizeable bmr home ownership program today and very few of the owners default. so that i think is pretty extraordinary, well i'd love to get a sense of -- how many b.m.r. units are there? what b.m.r. home ownerships are there, and how many fall under this category where we have to actually work through the bank? >> currently, we have 12 units in this category. they're at different phases of the foreclosure sale. like ma i can't just mentioned, the first phase is called notice of default. in that phase, we usually reach out to the owner and refer them to mocd sf and for the agency

to provide education for the homeowners. the housing counselor will do financial analysis for the household to see if they can initially keep up the payment of the property. of course there are all kinds of programs help out with the homeowners. mocd, internally we have the program called mortgage assistance loan program which is specifically designed to help homeowners who are in default of mortgage payment or at risk of foreclosure. so it depends on the household situation. there are different options available fort household? i would say on a more quarterly basis, we were able to help between three to five households to bring them back current or help them with different mortgage options. the reason why we have 12 units on this category because we are still actively working with

them. they are still also working with their first mortgage lender to do ownerp modification. >> how many units have we lot to foreclosure. >> for the inclusionary program because our restriction survives the foreclosure, so we actually -- just in the last two years, we only have one unit that was actually sold under foreclosure, but now we're working on it, and the new owner understands the restrictions and willing to work with the city to sell the unit to the next qualified buyer. >> supervisor kim: okay. okay. >> supervisor peskin: my recollection was we had two -- >> supervisor kim: yeah. >> those two units were not inclusionary units. they were former redevelopment agency properties, where we don't have the -- the restrictions do not survive

foreclosure. >> supervisor peskin: right. and once those were foreclosed on, they became market rate units forever. >> the inclusionary rate unit, we're talking about, which survives the foreclosure. the inclusionary units, we lost that. that's part of -- the affordable restriction does not survive the foreclosure. >> supervisor peskin: and those are the ones we want to stop. >> those are t ones -- since that time, we have not had any. >> supervisor kim: how many units are like this? this is the mission walk. so how many units are like the mission walk? >> our portfolio right now, we have 700 units under ,ra which either the restriction does not survive foreclosure. the units, we have about 1300 units. >> supervisor kim: 1300 unit total? >> 1300 total, but for the

sfra, we have 1300 total. in addition to the two programs, we also have the conversion below market rate program, which is the oldest b.m.r. rate program, which was suspended in 1988, and for that program, we have about 900 units there. >> supervisor kim: but of what we consider the traditional below market rate units, there's about 2,000 below market rate home ownership. >> 1300. >> 1300. >> supervisor kim: and of the 1300, there are 1200 in various stages of foreclosure shall we are working with. >> that's correct. >> supervisor kim: and do we require notice to mohcd for all

of these units? >> correct. for all the units, we have a copy of request of notice for default. so that will automatically notify the lender whenever there is a default, but for the unter conversion b.m.r. unit that i mentioned, those were on the very old program. that time, we did not have the process to have that documenting ready, but mohcd, we have a system, and that system actually sends daily e-mail updates for all our portfolios, so whenever there is anything happen to our unit, we get notification. >> supervisor kim: okay. yeah. thank you very much. i do have to say that 12 out of 1300 units is pretty extraordinary, and at some point, i'd like to have an understanding of what we do to

ensure people remain successful in their home ownership. but it is for this item before us. >> thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you, miss yen, and thank you, miss benjamin. why don't we open it up for public comment on this item. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i would move item 5 to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor kim: great. so we can adopt item 5 without objection, and we can do that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor kim: mr. clerk, can you please call item number 6. [agenda item read]

>> supervisor kim: thank you. rachel alonso, the transportation financial analyst from the department of public works who's here to present on this item. >> good morning. the proposal allows us to accept a total expend of $926,426 in t.d.a. state grant funds. this is an annual funding source, and the expenditures are similar in nature to previous years' resolutions. the transportation development act of 1971 earmarked one quarter percent of the general state sales tax for funding. m.t.c. allocates funds annually to the nine bay area counties in accordness with the sales

tax collected in each county. public works and the m.t.a. are submitting a joint resolution. improvements could include but are not limited to striping and signing changes, bulb outs, safe hit posts, and bicycle turn lanes. public works proposes to use $232,000 to repair public sidewalks, curbs, gutters and angular returns at various locations citywide. the remaining $232,000 will be used for planning and design of curb ramps at various sites throughout the city. locations will be selected from a list developed by public works and the mayor's office of disability. curb ramps designed with this grant will be constructed in fiscal year 18-19 with funds from prop k. the m.t. ds not require local matching funds, and i am

joined today by m.t.a. and public works staff. we'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. seeing no questions or comments from committee, at this time we are going to open it up for public comment for item number 6. seeing no comment, public comment is now closed [ gavel ]. >> supervisor peskin: and madam chair, i would make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor kim: thank you, and thank you, miss alonso, for presenting. we will move this forward without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor kim: mr. clerk, please read the next item. [agenda item read] >> supervisor kim: thank you so much. and we have kerrie huang,

long-term director of ageing and adult services to present on this item. >> good morning, chair kim and supervisor peskin. we are requesting authorizati to enter into contract with brilliant corners for rental subsidy to facilitate independent living for eligible residents within the city and county of san francisco. services include rental unit identification and acquisition, rental subsidy allocation, unit habitability, tenant well-being inspections, and the modification of housing. just to give a brief background in 2006, the community living fund was established under section 10.100-12 of the san

francisco administrative code to fund ageing in place and community placement alternatives for individuals who might otherwise require care in an institution. perthe code requirements, daas provides the board of supervisors two documents: the community living fund six months report twice a year detailing the level of services and costs incurred, and second the annual plan once a year. the goal of the community living fund is to assist those who are at imminent risk for and to prevent institutionization whenever possible. this includes transitioning individuals from skilled nursing facilities like laguna honda hospital which has a dual purpose of allowing people to live independently while freeing beds up for those who need it. this concludes our report.

>> supervisor kim: thank you. and john, thank you also for being here today. i just had a quick question. this is a very low dollar amount, which is great. it's not that i want us to spend more, but i'm just curious, what can you do with $16,000? >> it's 16 million. >> supervisor kim: oh, i'm so sorry. clearly, i just came back to work. this is a large dollar amount, then. could you explain -- it's closer to 17 million, thank you, supervisor peskin. could you explain what this contract costs cover, and i am familiar with brilliant corners and their work, but what services would be provided under this contract? >> sure. it covers everything from the point for the preparation for moving into the individual up till the time that they leave. so it does a lot of -- they do a lot of work in terms of unit identification and finding

appropriate market rate community settings in fair market housing, and it's looking also atommodaions that a person might need. for example, someone might need a roll in shower or an elevator because they need wheelchair access. they do things in -- in preparation for the move, including looking at floors and if there needs to be a rug or not be a rug. if someone has a wheelchair, maybe they need a harder floor. they'll do things like grab bars, and they manage all the logistics of what one might need prior to move in. once someone has moved in, they'll do regular checks more intensively in the beginning to make sure that person is settled in. this might include, you know, making arrangements with the landlord if something is not working properly. they serve as a liaison between management and the client. thereafter, once things are stable, they'll meet with them

every month to do what's called housing retention visits. this requires an individual going out and meeting with the client one-on-one and just kind of doing the -- you know, everything from the -- the habitability of the unit to repairs to any landlord tenant issues. if they need social services, they'll make the recommendation. if someone is ready for termination, they will make those arrangements, as well, and help ease the facility transition. >> supervisor kim: and how many clients will this serve? >> this contract has a capacity to serve probably up to 120, that amount. of course it's a moving target with rent rates going up. this contract currently serves 102 participants. we had a -- we transitioned a couple of new people out, and then there was about nine people that transitioned in this year. that number is always moving

and we're always trying to maintain a pipeline as much as possible so people can be housed. >> so brilliant corners acts as an advocate between a landlord and a tenant, and why is that approximately $140,000 perindividual. it's a 17 million contract, and it serves, you said, roughly 120. >> yeah. i'm the director of contracts for the human services agency. the bulk of the contract is the rents itself. >> supervisor kim: oh, i'm sorry, so this includes the rent. >> yeah. >> supervisor kim: what portion of that is the rents versus the services? >> 16% of it -- i did the math right before. it's about 16% is just administration costs, and the other three -- it's in the budget. the other 80-something percent is all rent. >> supervisor kim: the other -- i'm sorry? >> so for an approximate cost of about 3 million a year, 2.4

is rent subsidies. >> supervisor kim: 2.4 of the 17. >> it's about 3 milln a year, so 2.4 is administration. the way we setup our contracts is we have a set base amount, and then we have a contingency. >> supervisor kim: i understand. i understand. thank you so much for that clarification. just one other question. this is actually separate from this particular contract. several residents in my district are recipients of section 8 and work with brilliant corners and are having so much difficulty finding a landlord that is willing to accept section 8 even as a section 8 holder. so as a policy matter, what can we do to support our tenants who are even -- you know, that are lucky enough to even get section 8, a rent subsidy and

get them into housing. it's been incredibly painful to see in particular some of our s.r.o. tenants who won section 8, lose section 8 because it expires. >> it's a very challenging question, but the focus of community living fund and brilliant corners primarily are keeping people out of institutions, so these are individuals that if they were not assisted, they would be sitting in laguna honda or a skilled nursing facility where it would be thousands of double a month. i think it's double than community living. so the people that have access to these pipeline of units are folks that would otherwise require institutional care. it's a different population. these are folks that maybe need help with their activities of daily living.

>> supervisor kim: so do you have a 100% housing rate with this cohort? >> yes. >> supervisor kim: so my question is separate and apart from this contract. because this contract with brilliant corners is before us, i'm asking what we can do to help these tenants find housing when they get a section 8 voucher and they're working with brilliant corners to obtain it, to obtain the housing. >> so this question's outside the scope of contract. >> i think this is a new contract to us that had been previously held by the department of public health, and we're taking it on. i don't think we're tully aware of what brilliant corners has. >> supervisor kim: got it. thank you very much. all right. so seeing no further questions from committee members -- actually, is jennifer malvo here from brilliant corners? could you come up, please?

hi. thank you. thank you for being here today. >> of course. >> supervisor kim: i was hope that you could awer my question. so completely separate from the contract itself, given the scope of your organization, what are some of the challenges and ideas that brilliant corners has to help some of our tenants who have won section 8 but are not getting housing on our rental market here in san francisco, and what are some things that even legislatively or from an advocacy standpoint can the board of supervisors or city do to help these tenants because i have several residents in the tenderloin who have been fortunate enough to land section 8, and then languish because they're never able to find housing on the market, and then, their section 8 expires. incredibly frustrating. >> i don't work on that particular program for brilliant corners. i do know what it is, and i can

speak to what some of the challenges are. a lot of the challenges are poor credit scores. a lot of the landlords don't want to work with individuals that don't work or don't have high incomes. those are the main challenges that we see at brilliant corners. we're working internally on some of that stuff, but it's a bigger issue. it's not something that we can resolve, like, today or tomorrow, but those are the issues, like, landlords are discriminatory. in our case, in our program, we advocate for the client, so we speak directly with landlords and we build that relationship. unfortunately, i can't speak to the other program that brilliant corners has, but those are definitely some of the challenges that we have as an agency working directly with landlords. >> supervisor kim: okay. thank you. i'm sorry to put you on the spot, but i just thought that you were here or brilliant corners is here, and this is something that has been dogging our office because tenants win

section 8, and then watch them languish because they're not able to get section 8 housing. i'm just wondering if there are ways that we can support these tenants legislatively. >> i can put you in touch with the director of that program, and she can give you more information. >> supervisor kim: okay. thank you very much. so at this time, we're going to open this up to public comment on ice number 7. seeing none, public comment is now closed. [ gavel ] wendy paskin-jordan madam chair, i move that we send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. we can do that without objection. [ gavel ].

>> supervisor kim: mr. clerk, will you read the next item, please. [agenda item read] >> supervisor kim: thank you, and we have mickey callahan, director of human resources, presenting on this item. >> thank you very much, madam chair, supervisor peskin. i'll be brief but certainly i'm here to answer any questions. i'm here with community relations director carol isen, as well. we're here with a number of contracts, particularly the

fire mou's. there are many changes. our highlights covers most of them, but there are a lot of updates, but parties came with a lot tot table. as a result we did end up in arbitration. there were a lot of work that people wanted to do, and the results of these arbitrations are the agreements before you with respect to police and fire. additionally, we have a number of mou changes which reflect the agreements that we made with our unions to correspond to ab 119, new employee orientation, and some other minor changes really on the order of howusekeeping to deal with organizational issues and other contracts. i'm very happy to awer questions. maybe that's the best way to proceed. >> supervisor kim: okay. thank you so much, director callahan. there are actually no questions at this time on these items. >> supervisor peskin: let me just say for the record, we've discussed this plenty in closed

session, so it's not as though the members of this panel are just saying yes. we -- i think we have had maybe three, maybe four closed sessions particularly around local 798 and the p.o.a.'s contracts. we're familiar with the balance of these. i want to salute you and the employees relation division for all the work that you've done over these past many months, and thank you for your work with the board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. so at this time, we will open it up for public comment on items 8 through 20. seeing none, public comment is now closed. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i would like to move items 8 through 20 to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor kim: and we have a motion to move that forward. without objection, those items pass. mr. clerk, are there any other items before this committee?

>> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor kim: thank you. we are adjourned.

>> roll call. [roll call] >> item 2, approval of minutes for the may 22 meeting. >>