>> why don't we go back to action item number 16 please. >> approval of the guidelines for generation. >> same kind of contest and same subject matter. there's repeat just custom made particular for the manager. but otherwise, always the same as same as every other strategy in terms of content.

>> these guidelines are something we discussed and negotiated with generation last six weeks. they are consistent. guidelines are consistent with the strategy we presented you in april. >> okay, great. any other questions from the board. driscoll. >> commissioner driscoll: i'm not sure he we labeled that. i do not see any limitation on them for doing that. if i read this correctly, even though it's in the theme to be low carbon sustainable companies

all wonderful. however, i can see their policy if they wish to switch 100% into carbon company, they can limit on them. it's a compliance issue. >> if they were to do that, is that contrary to the spirit which we hire them? >> you're correct. they have that latitude to do that. it will be inconsistent with their philosophy and process. >> as well as $16 billion other investors have invested this strategy for similar reasons we have. there's an understanding as to what the nature of the strategy is. >> i won't say that i understand or agree anybody else u nderstanding of the other $16 billion. that's fine. i know what our reasons were for

investing in. i'm wondering why there's not such a statement in air guidelines with them. i'll give you an example who we assume people won't do certain things. they did and we lost lot of money. did we break the rules? no, we lost the 1. money. there's something missing in these guidelines. this one was done uniquely without an rfi or rfp. they wound up with the money. >> what would you propose or how would you consider sort of dealing with this? >> i feel like i can possibly refer to the guidelines with goldman sachs funds. with do not have guidelines for that group either. they are slightly different. but the same concept. why we decided to make this

investment. we're trying to not invest -- we're trying to reduce the amount of income for appreciation we're getting from by going to low carbon investments. >> carbon constraints. >> thank you very much. we should address that here so that manager understand what they're not going to do. >> in the contract, if they would change strategy, we would terminate, pull the money out and pull the money back. well, i hear what you're saying. i don't know that we can negotiate. they would be required to meet a target of 80% carbon constrain. >> not a target. a limit. target and limits are different. that's one. we had contracts with people and

they come back and ask us to change the guidelines so they can invest in something else. everything i'm saying here is precedence for it. >> absolutely, we require a new contract if the mandate changes. we can go back to their legal counselor and find out if they would agree to a limit of overall carbon exposure and tear program. but that i think would be highly unusual for guidelines to reflect the reason and the fact that we hold them to the same level of investment in a particular type of manager. from the word go. these are just discretionary managers. certainly, we understand your concerns. i think that the guidelines have

never in the past reflected that we would require a manager to stay to the same strategy. that's reflected in the contrat not in the guidelines. >> that's correct. investment management agreement. >> guidelines here for other policies we have. correct? >> these are guidelines that are objective guidelines and procedures that put limitations on what a manager can or cannot invest in. but they never been to a point that you can't invest in a company that would put you over a target of -- put you under a target of 50% car upon constraint. we've never had guidelines in my knowledge, that would be that detail to hold someone to a mandate that the attractiveness we believe they are 80% carbon

constrain, 73%. what if their 72 or 71 percent. >> that was our goal going to 50, correct? >> just with the understanding that will not constrain them for the rest of their investors to go ahead and make that investment to bring them under 50. all it's going to say it would trigger us having to make a decision whether we pull our money from them. they are investing not just solely on our behalf where we can control how they invest the fund. this is a flag ship fund. >> this will be separated managed account. they had closed their fund or their strategy in 2010 management capacity through a wait list. she expressed interest to them in having potentially take up

some of that. capacity came available r ecently. i would say with our carbon efforts. i think we can talk to generation and perhaps what i would suggest, we can put something in here where they would notify us footprint of their portfolio toly to the 50%. i wouldn't consider the guideline. >> honestly i would. the motion that was suggested by the staff board adopted was item one, $1 billion. >> that was goldman sachs. >> then it was amended and s plit. 500 for gold. and 500 for this group without an rfi and rfp. same issue trying to reduce our carbon exposure.

>> carbon emission reduction is something that has been captured and measured for this strategy or us by goldman. they need to get data third party to measure that. i don't think that generation, actually provided that 73% q uote. >> methodology, they are both using the same vendor to determine that. >> is this something -- >> i would go back commissioner driscoll's original point. you approved up to a billion dollars and a constrain s trategy. it is not off the table that we will do that in an index format rather than generation. as a coincidence the timing of which we got the opportunity of very limited opportunity to invest in generation flag ship product, we basically said this

is even better than a 50% carbon constrain strategy. we didn't say the reason we're recommending generation is because they will maintain a minimum level of 50. we basically said the combination of a $300 million commitment to generation and $500 million commitment to the goldman sachs carbon constrain index give us better than 50% reduction for that $800 million. you've not approved the additional money for cartca. all we committed to is half billion dollars. which is half through the target of index strategy to reduce carbon emissions by 50%. in the meantime, we brought you a separate recommendation that was not true through an rfp or rfi. we would be interested in

participating in a flagship. when it became available, we brought it to the board with the recommendation. it was going to reduce that portion, that $300 million to be 73% carbon constraint. >> that was not how it was presented to us by the staff. it made other desirable attributes. >> that in my mind has never been what we presented to the board. we happen to say that we committed $500 million. board approved the generation and the cartca, we would have billion dollars in the cartca.

>> unfortunately we have documentation of our initial contact with generation. we have documentation of the notification of us that they know that we're on a waiting list they're opening up or c losing down their headquarters and they want to be h eadquartered in san francisco and they thought it would be to their public relations benefit to have us as a partner. we have documentation of the entire contact that we had d ating back three

>> right before the game starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful,

but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply. i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to

put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille, can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team.

we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day. renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that

and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful learningm 14.

>> i would be happy to be brief. if you turn to page 16. a top line is your total fund performance. that is the time waited for the fund for one, three and five years, your returns have been substantially higher tan your seven and a half. bill is going to report on his report fiscal year to date, you're already almost at 11%. we'd expect, unless june c

rashes, it year you're going to have fiscal year return 7% r ange. you have more equities than median public fund. look at your three month rank. you have more equities than the median public fund. which returns nine bases points you were at 1.3. that is extraordinary. you got there partially because of extraordinary performance on your active managers, your equity portfolio did extraordinarily well. .1 extraordinary performance versus your assumed rate and peers. as you can see from the risk statistics your risks is g radually reduced as it will be and staff implements your new plan. if you turn to page 17, this is

your asset allocation target versus people and policy range all policy within range. under allocation versus long term policy are absolute return 5% and private credit, 8%. new and setting up that money that is not in those asset c lasses resides largely in equity. that is part of your outperformance but it's also part of risk as everybody has heard here. equity markets are incredibly overvalued by historic s tandards. if you turn to the next page, we talked about diversification. cambridge and tory cove talked about diversification as your best long term protection. your total portfolio level look at the bar to the right which is your policy versus where you've

been. you'll see much less concentration in equity. you have the effect of adding absolute return which is a very strong risk mitigator and the private debt. good positioning for the future, extraordinary performance from what you done. i'll stop there. every single asset class that you are invested in with the exception of absolute return outperformed benchmarks in the quarter. >> president stansbury: thank you for that report. i will open up for public comment. any members of the public like to address the commission on this item? seeing none. close public comment. any questions from the board? >> i read the pages statistics versus universe with interest. i had a quick question about one year performance. just taking a look at the sharp

ratio comparatively. do you have concerns where they are. we've been looking pretty good over the last three, five, ten plus years. this one is little bit different in terms of relationship between the two. >> again, your portfolio more recently is shifting to more diversification. as you do that you're lowering the volatility in portfolio. thattives you a high -- that gives how higher sharp ratio. you had higher ring than your peers you've been awarded for i t. as markets get more threatening, you have moved to a more diversified -- your targeted to move to more diversified portfolio. it takes time to do that. but in the meantime, i think you certainly have -- you should have concerns about the amount of money you have in equities and the equity markets are

highly valued and diversifying into other asset classes. it's going to be an important objective. i don't see any over concerns there. your active managers have done extraordinarily well in combination with one another in a difficult period. they've outperformed very substantially. >> president stansbury: commissi oner driscoll. >> commissioner driscoll: i'm going to suggest to my c olleagues on the brooder. - board. pages 31 through 33. it's a break down of effects. we talked to you about the tactical allocation that cio is making. all the uncalled capital, uncommitted capital are parked in one of the asset classes. how has that helped us or not? these numbers indicate that has helped us yet in terms of

earning additional points and keeping contributions down. it's not very well understood chart. at least it's graphical. i thought i bring that to your attention. >> i'll be happy later date when we have more time to walk through that. there's more time. that page that does suggest breaking down that out performance. versus managers doing better than benchmark. joe said, for the one year period, that 1.3% is strong. only 39 bases point is tactical positions. it's not a ton but it has been positive. largely because the money has been parked in equities and equities have done well. that's an over simplification. your manager selection is quite strong. it's in the same categories just heard tory cove talk about real

assets, global equities outperformed. very substantial and consistent performance across asset c lasses. >> president stansbury: i think this is area for board to have more discussion around. i would find way to come back later day to talk more detail about what happened in first quarter. it is a test case. we have public comment and ask questions. why don't we move on to -- how is the board on time? people need to go? we're going to take item 19 and 21 as submitted. for good of the order. we have a sense where that is.

that will happen next month. member reports and comments. we'll take those as submitted. our last item is item 15 then. public comment on all those. all are continued. last item of the day is item 15 then. >> item 15 is manager's under review. every quarter we have an obligation to -- >> for the items you're a ccepting, submitted, you'll have public comment. >> president stansbury: i'll be continuing next month. >> managers under review for the quarter. we have mechanic al process for placing public managers on a list. if they happen to under perform their benchmark over three to five year period or if concern about staff turnover or organizational changes or violated the guide guidelines.

if my view this is a mechanical process. we had eight managers last quarter, three of which have come off. i would state really from mechanical reasons these three stand capital i reference earlier all of them are actually well ahead of their benchmarks. and past performance exceeds their peers 50% of their peers over other time frames. fast what i will highlight. those three have come off. we have not added any -- i'll leave it to your question. >> president stansbury: question s from the board? no questions. comments? open up to public comment. any members of the public that like to address the commission regarding this item?

close public comment. commissioner driscoll. >> commissioner driscoll: no comment. >> president stansbury: i thought maybe you were going to ask a question. anything else regarding that o ne? >> no. >> president stansbury: we'll continue everything else. is there any objection from staff? all the other items being continued. please correct me on this, do we need motion to adjourn? meeting adjourned thank you everyone.

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 emergency 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 into compliance. so 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 to 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 ownership 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 the 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 sfra, 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 counter 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.c. does 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 authorization 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 at accommodations 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 million 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 answer 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