>> supervisor: how many people do they serve? >> i don't know. they have 133 residential treatment beds and i think the rotation -- here's our person from the director of adult system of care who can speak to that. >> hi, i'm the director for adult behavioral health services. and in terms of the number of people served, our residential treatment episodes run anywhere from three, six, to nine months. on average the turnover would be 1.5 or so. so 1.5 times the numbers of beds would be the estimated number of clients. >> supervisor: okay. old -- hold on, 1.5 times the number of beds. >> 1.9 is my rough in the moment estimation. >> supervisor: you're supposed to be presenting information to

me. >> the number of beds i think is 131 beds. -- 190 beds. -- 133 beds. >> supervisor: interesting i ask a simple question about how many people you serve and i can't get a straightforward answer. >> i can get the answer. >> supervisor: great. what do you look when you evaluate whether to extend a new contract like this one? i don't know if you want to -- what due to -- do you look to and what are your qualifiers when you're extend new contract similar to this? >> well, there's a lot of indicators that are included in the solicitation. they get selected through the solicitation process. the reason this one we would

want to extend, well, first of all, they have to be doing okay in their annual monitoring and meeting all the compliance measures that we have but they have a 133 residential treatment beds which is a significant part of our system. it's not they're licensed in all those facilities so it would not be easy to replace that capacity and we rely on that capacity. they also have a very robust system of co-ops and supportive housing locations where clients are placed and they provide the wrap-around service to ensure their stability. so what we're looking for in extending them is the knowledge that they're meeting all the requirements both county and state they're meeting their performance objectives, which they are.

>> supervisor: performance objectives such as what? can you give an example? >> such as we keep track of residdivism rates, 30 days from when someone leaves, recidivism rates and discharge and treatment and there's also a tool that's used to measure a client's stability and remeasured to compare how they're improving in their own stability. and ability to manage their day-to-day functioning. there's different measures that measure both the individual client improvement as well as the agency's ability to how they're doing and if the recidivism is high maybe the client was discharged before they were stable and there's a number of compliance items that

we measure as well. >> supervisor: all right. i'm going back to my original question, how many people do you serve? >> i have a list of all the programs and the numbers served by programs it will take me a minute to add them all up. >> supervisor: okay. supervisor fewer has a general question. >> supervisor fewer: the contract states over 10 years or over $10 million goes to the supervisor for approval what if it take over 10 years? >> deputy city attorney, john gibner. the 10-year question whether the $10 million question is whether

the city anticipates the contract will cost $10 million over its term. your question about a five-year contract with multiple extensions, if there are extensions built into the contract when it's first signed and the term is going to be over 10 years, that contract comes to the board for approval. if there's a five-year contract without extensions or options to extend built in goes to the board but if it extends by two years and in year nine wants another two-year extension the department must come to the board that the point to approve because that's when it goes over 10 years. >> supervisor: okay. thank you very much. >> the target numbers and it

comes out to 1,300 clients for the beds. >> supervisor: thank you. so my question is just to pivot off this, are we increasing our reach or meeting 1300 this year, how many last year and how many the year before? i'm trying to understand more a little bit more clearly how we're reaching our target. >> i understand. the beds are used very much. they're part of our step-downs from the psychiatric and patient hospitals and some are stabilization units and we make use of the beds. >> supervisor: i want to ask the budget legislative analyst about bed utilization. in your analysis, dit , does it capture the dollars we're spending are a good return on

our investment? >> for this type of analysis we look to see what they have been spending and how the contract -- in this case it was a new contract so we look at the process to see that the process was legitimate. it was a competitive and open process and the contract itself reflects what the r.f.p. says and doesn't have different terms from what was publicly advertised and don't look at make sure it corresponds to the contract for an amendment we look at see what happened in the original or prior amendments or the original contract to see where they were with that. i would like to say in terms of a deeper look at it we completed and had a hearing and audit report looking at behavioral services an progress foundation was a contract we looked at as part of the audit.

so in that purview we did actually did look more closely at the performance and utilization. >> supervisor: what did that audit yield? >> we had several findings. we had an audit yesterday on it. we looked at how we took samples of behavior health contracts and looked at the performance indicators and how it had consistently been looked at and we focus on the performance indicators that were about client utilization and client outcomes because we were concerned to see how each of the nonprofits and the city civil service clinics were dealing with patients an progress foundation was one of the non-profit contractors we looked at and we looked at city wide utilization and looked at the behavioral health needs and

utilization. >> supervisor: and your recommendation is to auto -- is to approve this? if there's any members of the public to comment come up. seeing none, public comment is closed and i'll accept the recommendation and send it to the board with a positive recommendation and send it as a committee report. can i take it without objection? without objection. please, item 5. >> clerk: reading item 5. >> supervisor: so we've got item 5 is a contract amendment between the department of public health and toyon associates for medicaid and medical.

can you tell me what is toyon associates? what kind of a business is this? >> reimbursement services in general. >> supervisor: welcome. >> it's a medicare, medical reimbursement private company that have files medicare and medicaid cost reports to both federal and state regulatory agencies in order to recoup any uncompensated funds from the programs. >> supervisor: is toyon played a flat fee or the a money they recover? >> both. in certain instances they're paid for a fee-for-service where an hourly rate is paid and for appeal services they perform. >> supervisor: describe to me the instances where they are paid when they recoup?

>> generally speaking, there are instance where's regulation is passed down from a federal perspective or from federal regulators that counties or counties who are operating hospitals disagree with and instances where multiple hospitals have a similar issue or take on a similar case, what's created is called group appeals where the zuckerberg general hospital or hospitals in san francisco are able to participate as a group on an appeal case taken to the administrators and for those cases, it's difficult or the practice that it will receive a percentage for successful appeals. >> >> supervisor: thank you. mr. mario marino, please make your presentation.

>> good morning, supervisors. first of all, i'd like to acknowledge the contract is brought to you late due to a staff absence during the time the contract was to have been continued. we've since then addressed staff fully primarily my hire. the proposed resolution would approve a second amendment to the contract to provide regulatory reporting and reimbursement maximization of medicare and medical programs. the proposed resolution increases the contract amount by $5,555,360. we're exercising the option to extend the term for four years due to the solicitation process

as described was the structure and the basis of toyon's 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