services. it's essentially supporting reimbursement services for san francisco general hospital and laguna hospital and health home agency to review and file required regulatory documents with federal and state agencies to maximize revenue to the city.

. i have nothing to add, except we have senior staff here to answer any questions.

significant increase in the sense of -- >> president cohen: great, i have a question then. the contract is dated through june 2018 for added staff at san francisco general hospital. hello, i guess that's the general hospital staff behind you. it's good to see you all, thank you for joining us. really, this has been an ongoing situation with labor. for the last eight years that i've been on the board, people have been declassified, there's been understaffing in certain segment segments of the hospital. my question is, what's the plan to bring in permanent staff to bring up the staffing levels as patient census continues to increase? welcome. >> thank you. i'm terry dantonio, the chef nursing officer at san francisco general. we have a budgeted census of

285. we have been running a census of 313, and so it's seasonal. we're still trying to regulate our budget with census, and so we've moved into the new building, building 25, in may of 2016. during that time, we have notic noticed fluctuations in staffing, and those are not positions we're going to fill until we're secure of what is our actual census going to be. >> president cohen: yes, with all due respect, we've had this problem before you moved into the new building. you had it in the old building. it's an ongoing problem. when you talk to many employees and union leaders, i've done a walk in your shoes day, you know, i've seen some things that are concerning. so you know, with this new information, how do you increase the staffing levels? >> so, staffing levels -- >> president cohen: i'm not talking about descaling or classifications. >> we are filling all of our

permanent budgeted positions. these are patients that come in that are beyond staffing, and so we are trying to regulate just as an example, critical care patient requires 1 to 1 or 1 to 2 nursing, so i would need twice as many nurses if it's critical care. if it's a med surge patient it's 1:4. if it's a cna for extra patients that need coaching, so we are filling budgeted positions. these are beyond our budget, and so -- >> president cohen: how many budget positions do you have? >> we have 285 beds that are budgeted for. >> president cohen: how many are filled out of the 285? >> of the beds? these are beds, these are not positions. >> president cohen: i'm focused on positions. i'm not worried about beds. >> i couldn't give you that information now, but i can get that for you. but we do meet with the health commission every month.

we go over our budgeted census and we go over our budgeted f.t.e.s. we do have vacancies, they are all being filled. in our med surge unit, we had 24.6 va ccancies, we filled 24. so we are filling our vacancies when they come up. >> president cohen: we have unmet need, we need more positions, right, this committee, we give them more positions, they go to the board of supervisors, and now what is disconcerting is how slow the process is to fill a position. now, with that said, we had a hearing almost two weeks ago about discrimination and racial profiling when it comes to promotion retention and hiring. now, it's no secret the department of public health has some challenges when it comes to

hiring a diverse -- ethnically diverse, i'm talking about, ethnically diverse set, particularly in the nurses, and i think there's nurses aide, several different types of classifications. now, this may not necessarily be under your purview, but since you're at the mike, i might as well address you. >> thank you. >> president cohen: susan, right? >> terry. >> president cohen: terry, my apologies. terry. what i'm trying to understand a little bit is to -- what is the plan? i haven't really heard a plan to bring permanent staffing, bring these levels up to meet the demand. >> so right now we are filling our budgeted -- these are -- i guess i may not be explaining it correctly. >> president cohen: maybe my question isn't clear. i know you're filling them. >> we're filling our vacancies. this is about overcensus. we're filling our budgeted f.t.e.s, they are being filled. >> president cohen: when i say plan, first quarter of the year we're going to have 60%, second quarter we're going to have the remaining balance, so by the end

of the year or end of the fiscal year, we're at capacity. we're at, you know, have all f.t.e.s filled. that's what i'm trying to understand. >> correct. this does not -- this generally does not have to do with unfilled f.t.e.s. this goes towards overbudgeted census. so we have a total number of f.t.e.s that are for our budgeted census. we do have a few vacancies there, and we do have staff that fill that. these, the registry, is to get us and bridge us over our seasonal increase in census, which has been running about 33 over our budgeted census. >> president cohen: so is that 33%, 33 persons? >> 33 patients above our budgeted census. so we are budgeted for 285 and we're running about 313. so we have staff for as much as we're budgeted for. >> president cohen: right. >> and then beyond that, we need to staff those beds.

does that make it clear? >> president cohen: yes, it does. thank you. >> thank you. >> president cohen: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: sure. i just want to echo what president cohen has said, because i also think there's an overreliance on the registry. i think that, you know, my question is the same, why aren't these permanent full-time positions? when we look at registering nurses, they are per diem, and that we should be actually working -- if we are consistently over, then this is something actually i think should be addressed during the budget process, but to have a reliance on this registry, we are looking for actually two secure more full-time, you know, employees that are actually employees of the city and county of san francisco rather than on this relying on this registry. and, you know, the fact that these nurses are paid per diem and are full-time nursing staff or adequately compensated, i

just think that there is a big difference in the discrepancy and, you know, who we pay and how much we pay and what benefits we have, and if they are a permanent part of our staff. and i think that this is something actually during the budget process that we should be exploring, but we shouldn't be in overreliance on this registry. and i concur with what she has said, because i think that, you know, i get your explanation, but i think if we are consistently over our census budgeted beds, our people or whatever, then we should take into account during the budget process. but what i am also hearing from d.p.h., from people, nurses, registered nurses at d.p.h., is they are unable to take extended maternity leave. they are unable to do these type of things, because there isn't enough staff to take their place. and so it just brings up a concern to me about this reliance on the registry.

i see that you need it, but actually, i think that if we have nurses that we consistently rely on this registry for certain number of nurses that we need to take a really hard look at whether or not we should be increasing our permanent full-time staff for nurses, because it is not right that they work alongside other nurses that are paid per diem and then some are actually paid, you know, what we consider through collective bargaining a living wage here in san francisco. >> thank you. >> president cohen: is there any more to your presentation? >> not unless you have more questions. >> president cohen: like a girl group over there. backups. okay, just teasing. good to see you. all right. ms. campbell, what do you have for us? what are your recommendations on item 6? are we off base with our questions, or are we -- >> no, i actually think the question about permanent nursing staff as opposed to registry

staff is a very important one. >> president cohen: it's an ongoing question, or dilemma, i should say. >> i will say this increase in the context, $9.8 million to $27.7 million is mostly due, from our understanding and talking to the department, is mostly due to the increase in the average patient census, the budgeted census is $285 per day, our report says 317 per day, so they need to actually add staff to -- to staff, you know, prepare for those patients. i would say, though, if this were an ongoing increase in census, it is something that needs to be looked at in the budget in '19-'20. to summarize on page 25 of our report, the increase in the contract. it does not extend the terms of this contract, it does expire in june 2019, and we recommend approval. >> president cohen: all right, we appreciate the recommendation. any last words? >> no. >> president cohen: okay, great. we'll go to public comment at this time.

any member of the public? please come on down, item 6. >> part of department of public health, $700,000 of misappropriations of funds that was spent and misabused by that former executive director by the name of barbara garcia. she embezzled $100,000 a year, year after year, for seven years straight. then you turn around and let her retire and keep her pension plan when she should be prosecuted for tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud, and misappropriations of funds. so that $700,000 that she failed to report on that 700 form, which is supposed to be reported

on income that's coming to her household, should be used, and as an example to reduce that amount of money by approximately $700,000. and quit being so damn lenient to people who are in violation of the rights and deprive them money and treat them like they are a good person. how come the city attorney is not prosecuting her, getting that money back? how come the city and district attorney is not prosecuting her for criminal law, tax evasion, money laundering, and bank fraud? and by the same response, over $217 billion worth of tax-free money is not being collected from the high-tech companies such as twitter. with the tax cuts that's coming from the president of the united states, they have gotten over $350 billion worth of tax-free money, but you want to tax everybody else in the city and county in san francisco. and not help the most vulnerable

people in the city. then you turn around and give salary increases and the bus drivers as an example how you can't even afford to live in the city. then you give salary increases acting like you're helping people afford to live in the city, while you sit there on your tail end all day. i can tell you one place you weren't sitting at -- >> president cohen: any other speakers? any other speakers? none? public comment's closed. all right. let's take up this matter, supervisors. all right, we'll take this item without objection. make a motion to approve and send to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report. thank you. all right, next item, item 7, please. >> clerk: item 7 retroactively authorizing the port of san francisco to accept and expend a grant award in the amount of $5 million from the california natural resources agency bonds and grants office to support the

port's san francisco seawall earthquake safety and disaster prevention program for the period of august 15, 2018, through april 30. >> president cohen: great, accept and expend $5 million for earthquake safety and disaster preparedness program. welcome. please, we got to turn on his mike. thank you. try it again, carlos. >> good morning. carlos colon, seawall project administrator for the seawall for the port of san francisco here to talk about the accept and expend, $5 million grant from the california natural resources agency. as you may know, the seawall program is a $500 million program. so far we have secured $535 million. $540 if you include the $5 million grant from the natural resources agency. this $5 million will help pay for the $17 million planning phase of the seawall program,

which goes through april 2020, and the grant comes at a great time and will help with the potential funding gap of the planning phase until we get the seawall bond issuance hopefully in the middle of next year. and i'm sorry, i forgot to go through my slides while i spoke, but i'm here to answer any questions if you have them. >> president cohen: we've heard a lot on this item. i don't think we have any questions at this time. let's see what the -- oh, there's no budget legislative analyst report. we'll take public comment on this. public comment on item 7. seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: i'd like to make a motion we approve and send to the board with positive recommendation. >> president cohen: without objection. thank you. item 8. >> clerk: resolution retroactively authorizing the office of the district attorney to accept and expend an in-kind gift estimated at approximately

$17,000 from apple inc. to further law enforcement strategies related to retail theft for september 20, 2018, through september 20, 2019. >> president cohen: supervisor fewer is the sponsor of this and i'll give her the opportunity to speak on it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, colleagues. i think this is a usual accept and expend in-kind gift authorizing the district attorney's office, so we can have a brief presentation, but i don't see any complications. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. i'm archie wong, an attorney with the san francisco district attorney's office, and we are requesting that the entire board support our acceptance of these items from apple. they will continue to assist us and our ongoing efforts to combat property crimes in san francisco. thank you. i'm available for questions. >> president cohen: appreciate that. supervisor? >> supervisor fewer: yes, seeing you're the only report, i think we should take public comment,

but after that i'd like to just make a motion to approve this with a positive recommendation. >> president cohen: all right, that sounds pretty straight forward. all right, public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment on this item, item 8? >> you guys talk about enforcing crime from the district attorney's office. i've got numerous transactions with a racist white by the name of steve lloyd calling black people you -- and talking about i'll kill you -- and i went through all the red tape, procedures, practicing law, getting restraining orders, putting him in jail, he gets out. they don't do nothing to him but move him to another department. i deal with your supervisor gascon, go to a courtroom and the judge says take this case to trial for hate crime because he's making racial slurs while he's making the terrorist threats, and then when it comes time to get a courtroom, one of your coworkers stood up there and said we don't have a

courtroom available to process the case. you're a god damn lie. another example of your office being biased towards hate crimes that's taking place towards black people, and i'm real upset with you, especially gascon. now, if i put hands on him and start beating his -- then you'll be charging me assault and battery. and i don't appreciate it. i don't appreciate it. >> president cohen: sir, direct your comments to us. >> i'm talking to all of you, you, too. don't tell me what to do. i'm talking to all of you, and i don't appreciate you not doing nothing. you hear me? you tell your boss i said that. i talked to him here at city hall, and he stood up there and talked about he's going to follow up on it, asked my phone number, called me, ain't did a thing about it. if i snap, going to get a -- assault weapon, then you'll be acting like -- >> president cohen: linda, call the sheriff.

>> clerk: he still has 18 seconds. >> president cohen: are you done? mr. wright, mr. wright, please, come on. we don't want any trouble in here. we don't want any trouble. any other member of the public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> supervisor fewer: like to make a motion to move this with positive recommendation to the full board. >> president cohen: without objection, thank you very much. thank you, next item. please call item 15, 16, and 17 together. >> clerk: authorizing the execution and delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $18 million for the purpose of providing financing and acquisition of a

46-unit multifamily rental housing project located at 211-291 putnam street and 1000 thompkins avenue, long-term ground lease with market heights 2, putnam street for a term of 75 years with one 24-year option to extend. item 17, resolution approvaling jurisdictional transfer of city property at 211-291 putnam street to the mayor's office of housing and community development. >> president cohen: all right, good afternoon, or good morning. just got mr. omar cortez from the office of community development to present on this item. the sponsor is supervisor ronen, as well as the mayor. welcome. got to turn his mike on, please. maybe he could use the other mike. use the other mike. okay. >> good morning, chair cohen and

supervisors. i'm here to present an item number 15 of bond resolution to fund requisition and rehabilitation of market heights apartment. an existing 46-unit of affordable housing located at 211-291 putnam street and 1000 tomkins avenue in the bruno heights area. transactions have not changed since the city was presented the project to this committee in june of this year. it's still a condo refinancing with no assistance from the city's general fund. 22 of the units will still serve families earning no more than 50% of a.m.i. and 23 units will serve families earning no more than 60% of a.m.i. the project continues to be in compliance with city requirements for the issuance of tax-exempt bond, including prevailing wage and l.b. requirements. what has changed since june, the developer has secured a debt

limit allocation from a california debt limit allocation committee. the developer and the city have identified a financing team, including a lender, an equity investor, bond, and city adviser. the financing team has met several times and developed the final issuance document and the legislative package before you. item 16 is a ground lease for approval of the same project. it's a ground lease approval, i'm sorry. the term of the lease is 75 years, with option to extend for 24 years. the annual base rent is $15,000. this and all the other terms of the ground lease before you are consistent with most city policies and other ground lease for affordable housing approved by the board of supervisors. item 17 is for a jurisdictional

transfer of the property where the project is located. it's currently owned by the real estate division who will transfer it to the city. as stated in the related resolution, both departments have determined that the property could be used more advantageously by the city for affordable housing. we asked the committee to recommend the resolutions and forward to the full board. as for timeline, the financing team is on track to close this transaction by the end of this month, and rehabilitation is expected to be completed by the early part of 2020. on behalf of the project sponsor, bruno heights neighborhood corporation, and the city, i would like to thank you for your consideration here today and look forward to your continued support for this project. i'm joined by amy chan and joe from o.c.d. and kara bott, representative of the project sponsor, in case you have any questions. with that, i would like to

conclude the staff report and answer any questions you may have. >> president cohen: thank you. mr. cortez, are you new? >> yes. can you tell? how can you tell? you are used to hearing adam. >> president cohen: thank you. i appreciate that. okay, so, colleagues, what we have here, item 15, 16, 17, simple jurisdictional transfer, it's a ground lease and revenue note for the rebuild of 46 affordable housing apartment units for tenant earnings 60%, up to 60% a.m.i. i think it's important to note that the tenants at the current building will be temporarily -- they will be temporarily relocated and will be eligible to return to the new building. it's important to note. my question for you is, the new building will have 46 units, so is that the same number of units that we will be replacing? >> it's the same number of units. it's just rehabilitation of the existing housing. >> president cohen: all right, all right, i appreciate that.

we are going to go to the budget legislative analyst. she's got comments on items 16 and 17, so we will hear from her. thank you. >> yes, we reported specifically on items 16 and item 17. item 17, i think i have this in the right order, is actually a jurisdictional transfer of the properties at 211 291 putnam street from the real estate division to the mayor's office of housing and community development. this is the only property, affordable housing property, of my understanding that's under the real estate division at this point in time. the original lease was entered into boomerang housing associates for the development of the 46 affordable housing, or 45 affordable housing and one manager unit. so in terms of this property transfer, the city owns the land, boomerang owns the building, so what's being

transferred is the building itself. they'd enter into a lease up to 99 years, with a new development, market heights apartments, who would -- market heights apartments l.p., who would then rehabilitate the land. [ please stand by ]

>> vernal heights neighborhood and the housing corporation the non-profit for which we do the 450 units of affordable housing. >> supervisor: thank you. any other member of the pub public that would like to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. i'll make a motion to approve items 15 through 17 with the positive recommendation and send it as a committee report. without objection, thank you.

all right. moving on. >> item 18 please. it would increase the commercial paper program by $160 million which would allow them to finance various capital projects across the city. please, come talk to me about your paper program. thank you, welcome. >> thank you. can we get the slides, please?

good morning. i'm with the san francisco public utilities commission. the item is to authorize the expansion of the fupucs commercial paper program from its existing $90 million amount to $250 million. if i may, i have a brief presentation for you. >> supervisor: yes, please. >> this focuses on the debt funding effort to date. i'll focus more on the lower bullet points the lower half of the slide. it's most salient to the item before you today. so as part of the debt funding effort in december 2015, the enterprise authorized a $90 million commercial paper program the board authorized at the time. fast forwarding to this year, february 2018, the p.u.c. adopted a 10-year capital plan

in the amount of $371 million. finally, this year also in june of 2018, the voters approved proposition a. it can issue revenue bonds and commercial paper or other forms of indebtedness to quote, unquote, reconstruct, expand, repair, or expand facilities. so today we're seeking an increase from the $90 million up to $250 million. this increase supports the larger power capital plan to be financed as a result of proposition a. what is a commercial paper program do? it provides low-cost interim funding for the power capital

projects. typically commercial paper gets taken out with long-term parabonds. in today's market commercial paper all-in cost would be 2.5% with long-term debt it's about 4%. the commercial paper program is similar to our existing water and commercial waste water commercial paper program. in order to support the program, we'll be entering into two letters of $125 million with bank of america and another bank. the letter secures payment and we'll be expending the existing dealer agreement with goldman sachs and rbc and the dealers are responsible for the selling and remarketing of the c.p. to investors. in summary -- >> supervisor: real quick before you continue, explain to me your commercial paper note program. >> so, it's very common when

have you a large capital program like we do in our water and waste water enterprises do as well, to provide interim lower-cost funding during the construction period of the capital project. ultimately you want to fund the project with long-term debt, 30-year debt but this is interim funding. commercial paper you can issue for up to 270 days, so less than a year, because of that it's much lower cost. so once the project is built and in operation then the goal is to take it out with long-term financing, revenue bond financing. typically, 30-year financing is what we -- >> supervisor: so you're asking us to increase the program by $160 million. what exactly does that mean? >> it means that now the commercial paper, well, the commercial paper program now has up to $90 million to play with,

really. we've used up that capacity given the power enterprise now has a larger capital fund to fund projects and in-city projects which proposition a narrows out to debt fund and commercial papers is a form of debt. we feel that we need to expand the program from 90 $90 to $250 million. >> supervisor: and what leads you to believe you need a higher threshold? >> the larger capital plan -- well in the capital plan we had projects that could not be funded with debt. proposition a now allow the projects to be funded with debt. we know -- now have more

debt-funding needs. >> supervisor: we've been operating -- i guess my question is is it in the p.u.c.s best interest to come to us and ask to us issue more debt. tell me the benefits of going into more debt will do for the p.u.c.? >> we have a larger capital plan? >> supervisor: how much larger? >> it's a 10-year capital plan as a mentioned in my presentation of $371 million. >> supervisor: and it's an increase by how much? the capital plan has increased by how much? >> about $160 million or so. >> supervisor: what's that percentage from your baseline? >> it's about two times, two and a half times. >> supervisor: i'm trying to understand a little bit if the increase is comisserate with what you were going say.

i'm asking you to make the argument, how do we know $160 is the best number? >> so, it's an evolving number. we don't necessarily would have $250 million issued at the same time. so if we issue commercial paper, say we issue $10 million of commercial paper, we eventually take this out with long-term debt. that now creates more capacity within the $250 million. that revolving feature of the commercial paper program we feel will allow us to meet the new power enterprise commercial paper needs based on their capital plan which is now reinforced from a debt-funding standpoint by proposition a. >> supervisor cohen: i am going to pause your presentation

unless you've completed. >> no, other than in front of you is the requested action summary and i just wanted to say that we appreciate the b.l.a.'s efforts on this and thank them for their positive recommendation. >> supervisor: i'm actually interested in hearing their analysis. >> chair cohen, members of the committee. commercial paper is short-term interim revenue debt. because it's basically cost effective to do it that way. when the board originally approved the $90 million in commercial paper for the power enterprise, the power enterprise was only authorized to use debt to issue revenue bonds to repair and replace existing opportunities. proposition a approved by the voters changed that so power

enterprise can now issue revenue bonds for expanded projects or new projects for expanded facilities going back to the voters. it just requires a two-thirds vote by the board of supervisors to do so. as we understood it under the existing $90 million in thaergs for commercial paper, $10 million has already been sold and the p.u.c. is planning to sell an additional $80 million against the existing authorization. they're requesting now the $160 million to allow them to fund up to $314 million in power projects using this priority issuing bonds. we do summarize it on page 40 how the issuance of the commercial paper and use of bonds against the power projects. now, this commercial paper would ultimately be paid back by bonds. the bonds are subject to board of supervisors approval and

subject to recommended approval. >> supervisor: we'll go to public comment on item 18 if there's any member that would like to comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i think we can take this without objection. i make a force to approve and go to the full board with a positive recommend and a committee report. without objection, that passes. item 19, please. >> clerk: reading item 19. >> supervisor: i want to acknowledge supervisor peskin and supervisor safai. i don't see names on the roster. i don't know if any one of you want to make opening remarks. >> i'll have supervisor peskin

go first, please. >> supervisor: welcome. >> thank you, madame chair, colleagues, this has been a long a >> you -- arduous road and many colleagues who have been involved are no longer in this building and one of them is no longer even alive. and in recent iterations, supervisor safai and supervisor fewer and myself have been at the table with the building trades and with the l.b.e. community and a number of months ago in the mayor breed's office got to a conceptual place and there's been subsequent discussion and i want to thank ms. brus from the mayor's office

for working on the amendment. i have come to the table with profound respect for our local hiring processes for chapter 14, chapter 12, chapter 82 of our code and the long history of make sure contracting in san francisco is fair i also believe p.l.a. will bring stability in the contracting process in san francisco as it relates to the san francisco building trades. i want to thank the building trades and the l.b.e. community, particularly mr. galarza for being at the table. i commend these amendments to members of the committee for getting us to point.

step two is the negotiation the a in p.l.a. stands for agreement and this is the road map for the agreement and i hope and expect the l.b.e. community and the various city players from the city administrator's office and the department of public works and rec and park and the trades will all be at the table to hammer out the agreement in the months ahead. thank you for your indulgence, madame chair. i'll turn it back over to you. >> supervisor: my pleasure. i want to give supervisor fewer also to make a few opening remarks. >> >> supervisor fewer: thank you, chair cohen. i agree with everything supervisor peskin said. it's been a long process. there's been negotiating back and forth. i want to say also while i was on the school board i actually authorized the largest and

strongest project labor agreement in the history of san francisco unified school district. i think an important thing to remember is that all of us make up the working construction business in san francisco and our organized labor partners it's very important they have stability and we look to them to actually deliver on us for construction needs in san francisco and also we have what is an important part and part of the team that helped to build san francisco and the future of san francisco. i would just like my fellow board members to keep that in mind as we go into these negotiations but also as we discuss this today.

thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, supervisor fewer. supervisor safai. briefly, briefly. >> all these qualifications. >> supervisor: can you read them? >> yes. i want to start by thank a number of people. i'd like to thank the construction and building trades, community for engaging in this process, i'd like to thank the l.b.e. community and the city team along with the mayor's office and i want to acknowledge the mayor's office within the first 90 days of being in of the has embraced in advance two major issues significant to the labor community and one is the min mum compensation ordinance and moving the process moving it close to the goal line and

andrea brus is here. this is two years in the making starting with previous supervisor farrell and advanced to the previous administration. then in the spring when president breed and i and supervisor fewer and supervisor peskin en caggaged with the may office we've made significant process. we moved with the l.b.e. community and building trades and the effected city agencies in multiple, multiple rounds of meeting and received significant input, significant suggestions and we have before you today and madame chair we'll talk in terms of the amendments introduced today and we're asking for them to be introduced. i wanted to recognize the historical significance and interplay between the community

and affected communities of color. i know there's a long history with african american community and the longshoremen and the development is tied to the hunter's shipyard in san francisco. i want to acknowledge that we made and have made significant strides in this city over the course of the last 25 years what prior to doing away with affirmative action programs, we then with city administrator in previous h.r.c. director, mayor lee, put in place significant advancement and encouragement of under represented and impacted communities and the programs that have now evolved into the l.b.e. program is something that's integral to the history of san francisco. we've embraced it and encouraged

it. this legislation begins to acknowledge the perspective of workers and those working in the industry. we do everything we can to advance, enhance and protect the city build which is the strongest program in the in terms of a pathway into the construction and building trades. we looked to advance and encourage and protect our lment l.b.e. community and are looking at how the p.l.a. will ultimately be thinking about the prospective of workers and protection of worker and that's one thing the legislation is trying to achieve through a city wide negotiated p.l.a. as supervisor peskin said, this is 50% of the work. this is setting the macro framework of what will then be negotiated over the course of the next year with the building trades, the l.b.e. community, the city administrator and all

the effected city agencies in finalizing it. i want to highlight three key points before we get in the major amendments that were integral and were a major piece of the negotiations. one of the objectives was looking at a threshold and the threshold on contracts and covered projects in the city. the agreement was that on bond projects the flesh -- flesh hold -- threshold would be $5 million in what was covered and step down. on non-bond project the threshold would remain at $10 million and that's incorporated into this and we'll produce those amendments today. we also allow for an opportunity for the l.b.e.s and contractors as we learned through the process in data collection that a $10 million threshold, most the projects and contracts issued in the city over $10

million, almost 100% are l.b.e.s signatory with the appropriate building and construction trades. so the conversation really narrowed over the last six months and in the legislation to think about the micro l.b.e. community or those working on smaller contracts so there's a threshold on the general fund work in the hundreds of millions annually and also overall, regardless of what source of revenue the money is coming from, there's a $5 million threshold written in to protect and allow for the growth and transition time for many of the l.b.e.s to work towards being signatory or excepting or being a part of the city wide p.l.a. finally, i would say enhancing, encouraging and advancing the

opportunities for a pathway for direct entry into the city build program is also part of the process transition in the step-down and an integral part for the mayor's office and members of this body and board. there's an acknowledgement in terms of the amendments that we talk about today on data collection and the controller's office and the role the controller will play in setting a baseline for where the status of things are today versus the status of where things will grow over time. so we acknowledge that in the amendments today and i can talk about them later, madame chair, if you'd like or where appropriate. i'd like to thank supervisor fewer. >> supervisor cohen: that's why i said brief but let's get on with it. >> let me know when you want me to talk with the final

amendment. >> supervisor cohen: perfect. i appreciate that. i don't flow noe if the mayor's i don't know if the mayor's office has anyone to thank. >> i'll be brief. we have been work in partnership with the supervisors as well as the city department and l.b.e. community and members of labor on this project. as the supervisor mentioned, the key three issues around threshold provide $5 million runway for l.b.e.s and language to facilitate direct entry for city build graduates were key priority so we're here to answer questions if needed. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for representing the mayor's office. at this point we're going dive in and start talking about the amendment. we'll start the discussion and take public comment and then take action on the item. very quickly, before we go to the amendments i want to pivot

back to the budget legislative office and hear their report to us. >> this legislation, if enacted, would probably result in some cost to city departments. i know there's been some discussion with members of the board. we have not provided a specific cost estimate in the absence of knowing what the implementation would look like. the city services auditor did a review a couple years ago. they looked at p.u.c. which had five positions of p.l.a. for the water improvement program about a $4.8 billion project. some are part-time and some full time and ranged in classification, some are higher level positions and some are aides that provided community outreach and other kinds of work. the other departments that would probably have cost if the city were to implement this is the office of labor standards enforcement, public works and

recreation and parks. we did talk to the city administrator's office and labor standards enforcement and they were looking at eight positions. i would say we'd have some concern in knowing what the position in the work flow. this is an office that already does a lot of contract monitoring in ways in which they can use their resources effectively. there would probably also be a one-time cost for i.t. implementation and without knowing what that would be we did not do a cost estimate and there would be an approval and we'd be certain to look at the position request and work load analysis and we do consider approval to be a policy matter. >> supervisor cohen: can you confirm the fiscal impact will

come later when there's actually a formal agreement that we're negotiate from what i understand we're negotiate road map. >> i believe any further analysis on our office's part unless requested otherwise would be at the time the departments would come together with an appropriation request. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i appreciate that. all right. ready to start discussing the amendments? >> yes, ma'am. >> supervisor: in respect to my committee woman, would you like to begin with your amendments. supervisor, safai, we'll begin with your amendments when you're ready. >> madame chair, supervisor ronen was attempting to be here to speak and can we call up her aid to say a few words on the record real quick.

>> supervisor: sure. >> she's coming in right now. >> supervisor cohen: we're ready. i love how they stroll in chillin' while here waiting. the mic is all yours. >> good morning. i'm an aide with supervisor ronen the supervisor had to go to another engagement and was hoping to be here. this is why i'm so sorry i'm rolling in like this, president cohen. supervisor ronen wanted me to express her support for the agreement. she feels we've been talking about these policy concerns for two years and it's time to make a decision and wants to make sure we can really move forward out of committee today. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: now we're ready for you supervisor. >> thank you.

i highlighted the previously agreed upon amendments that were incorporated into legislation as introduced the change to the thresholds and the $531 million and the runway for l.b.e.s to transition where they're not exempt to let the p.l.a. regardless of revenue source.