are in negotiations regarding their employees. and one aspect of that is worker retention and the right for employees to return to their job. i know that two of the airport rental companies have been very resistant to hiring back employees who were laid off, many of whom have seniority, be andmany who have worked for avis and hertz for a long time. we should also make sure that these companies know when we're working with them and helping them in this process, particularly companies on the scale of an avis and hertz, they should be very open and willing to have a

conversation about rehiring employees that were laid off, and not trying to let go of their most senior employees and bring them back at a starting salary, as though they were resetting their entire career. i think that is wrong. i think that is unjust. i know that we're going to have a larger stimulus package conversation that will come down as part of this 1.9 trillion dollar bailout. and i did have a conversation with director satero and representative laborer, and they committed to sitting down on how that money will go forward. i'm fine with this today. i wouldn't want to hold it up and harm any concessions or businesses in the airport, or the airport itself. i just wanted to say on the record that i think it is really important that the companies that are

being given additional bailout money need to be really receptive to the conversation about being respectful to their workers. thank you, mr. chair. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor safai, and i absolutely agree with those remarks and sentiment. with that, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item? >> clerk: yes. d.t. is checking to see if there are awe callers in the cue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please dial 415-655-0001 and then i.d. 1872518978, and press pound twice and then star 3. there is one caller in the cue. can you please unmute the

caller. >> caller: hello, supervisors. this is joe with teamsters local 665. i hope you all are doing well, and thank you forgiving me the time here to make a few comments. as i think you're aware, we represent about 1500 workers in and around the airport. among those are workers for the rental car companies, specifically avis and hertz. this is a conversation for another day, but there are other non-union companies working there and shouldn't be. back on track here, i understand that as part of this relief package, avis and hertz are going to be receiving over a million in rent relief from the airport, in addition to the three plus million they already received in 2020. everyone, obviously, has been hit really hard by the pandemic at the airport, and everywhere, for that matter. but to be clear, they have not used those funds to benefit their workers and

our members. in fact -- and this is very important -- avis and hertz both refuse to bargain with us on recall rights. they both have a clause in their contracts that state that if someone is laid off for 12 months, they lose all their seniority. they may call them back, but they want to start them with lower wages, lost vacation weeks, and no medical. all of the other employers were happen to extend the recall rights so that this worldwide pandemic would not impact their employees anymore it already has. with all of that said, we're fine with this item moving forward, but we want to be clear on the record that this wasn't to benefit or members. we were not part of this discussion or previous discussions. the become line is we want a seat at the table, and

we want to be heard when the biden administration rolls ot the money to s.f.o. to make sure our members are being helped as well. thank you very much for hearing our position. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. mr. chair, this completes the cue. >> chairman: great. thank you. public comment is now closed. i do want to thank the representative who called in and really echo that point, which is that i really hope that the labor partner, the workers are at the table always, particularly when there are funds that are directed to support them and to support the recovery. and that, as we're looking at recall rights and basic worker protections and rights that we have extended in many other areas in our city, that

that, obviously, is also central and extended to employees at the airport. supervisor mar, did you want to add anything? >> supervisor: yes. thanks, chair haney. briefly i wanted to thank teamsters 665 for raising these important issues around so far the lack of the rental companies at s.f.o. being willing to negotiate over a fair right to return for the hundreds of laidoff workers, and thank you, supervisor safai, for also raising this issue. and i think this is very concerning to all of us as we see so many workers being laid off, not just at s.f.o., but throughout the city, and wanting to ensure they all have a fair process to get their jobs back when their employers start rehiring. and we're also, as a

board, considering the right to re-employment, coming up in the next weeks, that would provide this right to non-union workers across the city at large employers. i'm glad to hear there is a commitment from s.f.o. to make sure that the rental car agency workers are able to get a fair right to re-employment. this is something we'll continue to monitor very closely, so thank you. >> chairman: thank you. absolutely. i don't know, ms. gizone, if there is anything you wanted to add to any of these points. >> thank you for the comments. we'll definitely take them into account. >> chairman: great. all right. so i want to move this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. roll call, please.

>> clerk: on that motion, vice chair safai. >> aye. >> clerk: member mar? >> aye. >> clerk: chair haney? >> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chairman: great. it will go to the full board on positive recommendations. thank you, again, for your work. madam clerk, can you please call items five and six together. >> clerk: item five, ordinance appropriating 220 million from the issuance of one of more series of refunding obligation bonds. items six, resolution approving the issuance and sale of not to exceed 220 million of the general obligation refunding bonds (indiscernable) to refund certain outstanding general obligation bonds of the city and approving and authorizing various documents. members of the public who

wish to provide public comment, call 415-655-0001, i.d. 1872518978, then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial *3. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. thank you, mr. chair. >> chairman: great. thank you so much, madam clerk. we have luke brewer and anna nandegma from the office of the controller to present. >> thank you, supervisor. my name is luke brewer, and i'm with the controller's office of public finance. i'm here to speak on items five and six. this is for the general obligation refunding bonds, authorizing in two series not to exceed 220 million, as well as the supplemental appropriation ordinance. back in march of last year, we approved a master

resolution authorizing 1. 4 billion, and another for $225 million, and fulfilled those bonds last spring. we're before you with the next two periods of general refunding bonds, not to exceed 220 million for outstanding series of general obligation bonds, as shown in this table. they are cullable on june 2021, and they can be begin refinancing 90 days before that date. we're looking at approximately 25.2 million over a 12-year period based on estimated industry rates of 1.6%. [inaudible]

approximately 23million, which is about 11% of the total outstanding principle to be refunded. we are authorizing the master resolution, and requires that we have a minimum of 3%. so that is well in excess of our policy and the resolution. and so our current rate of finance has two different series, not to exceed 220 million, the final maturity being june 2023. the estimated closing date for the first series in april of 2021, and the second in september of 2021. and on the right is the current estimated proceeds for the two separate periods. just for reference, we're currently planning on pricing the first series this upcoming april with the opportunity to price the second series in april, with a delivery

closing which would be not having the funds delivered between investors and the city until august (indiscernable). and with that i'll answer any questions. >> chairman: thank you so much, mr. brewer. colleagues, any questions for the office of the controller? not seeing any, although i feel like my -- maybe i'm not seeing when people raise their hands. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney and members of the committee. the proposed resolution before you would approved up to 220 million in refunding bonds to refund outstanding obligation bond debt and the proposed ordinance would appropriate prate 220 million of those refunding refug

bonds. we show the bonds to be refunded on page 12 of our report, and the sources and uses of the proceeds in the table on page 13 of our report. as mr. brewer noted, it is consistent with city debt policy, and we recommend approval of the proposal resolution and the ordinance. and i'm available for questions. >> chairman: great. i don't see any questions from colleagues. all right. is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: d.t.is t. ischecking to see if there are any callers in the key. cuekey. cue.

mr. chair, there are no callers in the cue. >> chairman: i want to move items four and six to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: on that motion, vice chair safai? >> aye. >> clerk: member mar? >> aye. >> clerk: chair haney? >> aye. >> chairman: great. thank you so much. madam clerk, can you please go to item number seven? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. item seven, resolution retroactively authorizing public works to accept and expand an increased amount of 226,000 for a total grant amount of 3million from the united states department of transportation, federal highway administration, federal emergency relief program to fund the construction of the public works o'shaughnessy boulevard for the period of december 23, 2019,

through june 3, 2021. members of the politics public whowish to provide public comment, please call 415-655-0001 and then i.d. 1872518978 and then press pound twice, and *3. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chairman: great. thank you, madam clerk. we have osta continua, the transportation financial analyst from the department of public works with us today to present. >> good morning, supervisors. the resolution before you today authorizes the board to expand the increased amount of 226,000 in federal emergency relief funds for the construction of o'shaughnessy

boulevard. [inaudible] to accept and expand it to 1.8 million in the federal emergency relief fund. and the resolution before you today will bring this total to a little over 3 million. the project will install rock anchors along o'shaughnessy boulevard, to prevent future rock slides from blocking the roadway. the resolution does not change the scope of work previously authorized and retracted to allow the additional funds to follow the same eligibility period as the previously authorized funds. due to the nature of the federal emergency relief program, local agencies can increase the project costs up to 10% of the initial estimate because it is completed before the (indiscernable) and this increase is authorized by caltrans and shwa, after

they reviewed our final design. this will increase the emergency funds to be able to provide 88.5% of the total construction cost of the project. and with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chairman: thank you so much. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> no, chair haney, there is no report from our office on this item. >> chairman: any questions or comments from colleagues? seeing none, can we open this up to public comment, please? >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, item seven, please press *3 to be added to the cue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. chair, there are no callers in the cue. >> chairman: public comment is now closed. i want to make a motion to move item seven to the full board with a positive recommendation.

roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on that motion, vice chair safai? >> aye. >> clerk: member mar? >> aye. >> clerk: chair haney? >> aye. >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chairman: great, this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, please call item eight. >> clerk: resolution approving the agreement between caller health ink inc and the department of public health for covid testing services for an amount for a total agreement term of april 6, 2021, through march 31st 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please dial 415-655-0001 and then i.d. 1872518978, then press pound twice and *3.

please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chairman: thank you so much. we have drew merell from the department of public health to present on this item. >> good morning, supervisions. i'm here and joined by the deputy and health operations testing support. and toby scott, the director of testing for the covid response. the contract in front of you is a continuation of the covid-19 testing services that d.p.h. and the city began in april 2020, under an emergency contract. that contract has been amended three times, most recently in november. the current contract in front of you was actually sourced with a competitive bid process, and as a result lowers the cost of testing for the city while providing more complete end to end testing services.

i know there is a b.l.a. report, but we agree with the recommendation in the report and appreciate the consideration of the contract. and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> chairman: thank you. i do believe there is a b.l.a. report on this item. >> yes, chair haney and members of the committee. the proposed resolution would approve a new agreement between the department of public health for an proximate one-year period. expenditures under the proposed contract, including the cost per test and the location and number of tests per site are shown in the table of page 19 of our report. projected spending is approximately 52.3 million dollars. we recommend amending the proposed resolution to reduce the not to exceed amount of 52.3 million,

and we recommend approval as amended. and i'm available for questions. >> chairman: great. i do have a question. this is for the actual funds to cover the testing itself, i'd imagine that there is significant reimbursements for this, and sort of how is -- is all or most of this expected to be fema reimburseable. and can you speak to how that affects the contract and what is included in it? >> yes. current projections are that 75% of the expenditures in the contract would be fema eligible for fema reimbursement.

these expenditures are after we have successfully reimbursed -- that is a number that is subject to the duration of the emergency declaration and other regulatory changes at the federal and state level. but current projections is expected 75% of the total contract amount would be reimburseable. >> chairman: got it. thank you. colleagues, any questions or comments? supervisor safai? you're muted. >> supervisor: thank you. i'm looking at the b.l.a.,

and it says b.p. h. estimates a little less than 19% of the patients tested through all of these sites have insurance? whose motivation is it? is it colors responsibility and motivation to really ask and ensure people are giving their health insurance and telling them? as i've gone to the site a number of times, it wasn't really made clear why they were asking for the insurance. it wasn't made clear that they said if you provide this insurance, we will go after and ensure that your insurance company pays for this. a lot of times there are co-payments, and people get concerned they're going to get a followup bill or it is not covered in their insurance. so i haven't really seen that explained. and i think sometimes people are motivated to just say i don't have insurance, even if they

do, and so then the city ends up being on the hook, from what has been laid out here. so 75% of the costs are going to be reimbursed from fema. it looks like you all predict -- how much will you actually get from reimbursement? i know you said a little less than 19% is covered by insurance, but how much have you, over the last year, received -- what percentage have you received from the insurance company? >> year-to-date, in terms of reim. >> buzz: reimbursement has been $10 million. i don't have the percentage of prior expenses. it has been an ongoing project that color has been a contract partner with us to enter into contracts with particular insurers for payment.

it is an ongoing challenge or balancing act to both incentivize people to provide insurance when they have it, but (indiscernable) with the public health imperative being that anyone who wants testing and needs testing, subject to the public health orders, can come to the site regardless of their insurance status. >> no, no, of course. and i think colors has done a good job. but as somebody who has gone to the testing site, it wasn't really made their to me until i actually read this report. and i don't necessarily think they're incentivized because they get paid one way or the other. so it would be better if there was some emphasis put on that, and it sounds good that you all have been able to recoup about $10 million from insurance companies. but i think it would be

better as part of the rollout, as you all conveyed to them, to simply say, you don't have anything to worry about, you're not going to get charged in any way, this is part of the agreement, we send your insurance number to the provider and they're responsible for paying it 100%, you don't have to worry. as somebody who has gone and provided my insurance, someone explained that to me. and if that is happening to me, as someone who knows more questions to ask, i would imagine -- i guess what i'm trying to say, i think the city is probably leaving money on the table. >> yeah. so your point about noticing the use of why we're collecting insurance information is both to say this is to help expand and increase the reach of our kind of limited city resources, and we provide testing funding if we can capture an eligible

reimbursement dollar, we can put it into the community for other services, but also emphasizing that it is no event will a person being tested ever receive a bill -- >> right. pushing that message -- there have been several different efforts. we, as of january, edited the consent language when someone receives testing through the color site, and we push forward to see how we can better communicate it and make it more of a full-page message. to say that the purpose of pressing insurance is to bill insurers wherever they can be billed. in no event will color or the city ever see a balance bill or send a bill back to cover a co-pay expense. this is only to cover from insurance wherever possible. we've done several efforts

to adjust the information gathered in the registration cue and make insurance response a required field, not a field you can skip over. you always have the option to say, none, i have no insurance, but have you to respond. and then embedded in that is also a consent form, embedded in the religious registration, here is the information and here is what we will do with it. we can push that message more on the forefront, and that's an ongoing effort to optimize. as far as the incentives, i can say candidly that the contract does say that color will be paid for any test that goes through. they have agreed to receive payment for every successful reimbursement, and i can say that

faithfully for the last year they have been an aggressive partner in kind of securing these insurance repayments and also optimizing the registration collection and message out wherever we find a way to better push the message. so... >> thank you. and i'll just say, just to reiterate, just as someone who has had to use them a number of times, the way they get information back to you, the speed with which they get information back, the way they do their testing, the people on the ground doing the testing, they've been phenomenal. i want to be clear they've been a phenomenal city partner. i think we all would agree to that. my only point was as i saw this and realized more that we might be leaving money on the table. and some of it might simply be, do you have

insurance? and if you do, don't worry the insurance company be pay 100%. and that was never said to me. and if it is not said to me or others, i think leaving money on the table. i think b.p. h. is obligated. if we're costing us $17 million, that is $17 million we can use in this pandemic. any dollar we can save, it would be good. thank you, mr. chair. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor mar? >> supervisor: thank you, chair haney. i just had a few questions about the competitive r.s.p. process that led to the selection of color for this contract. i would agree with supervisor safai, from my experience they have done a really admirable job as

our testing contractor through the emergency contract, just from my experience -- my personal experiences with them and observations. given the much greater scrutiny of our contracting practices here in the city right now, you know, with the corruption -- widespread corruption of investigation playing out, so i just had a few questions. first of all, it looks like the controller's office did the competitive r.s.p. process on behalf of b.p.h., and is that a standard practice for d.p.h., to have the controllers' office do the competitive process? >> i wouldn't say standard practice. certainly a big driver here was bandwith considerations, at the time we were planning the

r.s.p., and then finally publishing it in the fall, we wa number of contracts, and so the office had bandwidth considerations. in this case, the controller stepped in as a tremendous city/family partner, and led us through the r.s.p. process. it has been done, and it is not standard, but bandwidth required it at that point in time. >> thank you. and, again, given the corruption scandal and all of the investigations around our contracting processes, with the city departments playing out over the past year plus, i was wondering if you know in the controller's office took any additional controls or steps on this

particular r.s.p. process? >> i think joe samusuki is here and can probably best speak to that question. >> good morning. joyce samusuki, controller's office, and my team ran the r.s.p. process. we received 21 proposals, and we had a rigorous panel and a two-part evaluation process. the three highest-ranked proposals went on to the second part of the interview evaluation and scores came in, and color was the highest-ranked proposal. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> chairman: yeah. thank you. and just one last question. so it looks like the -- it was pretty competitive, and those top three

proposers were pretty close in their average score for their initial proposal. so, yeah, it was -- just from the numbers, it looked like it was pretty competitive. who was on the final -- on that final interview panel that made the final selection, actually interviewing the top three proposers. >> we had subject matter experts, one from the controller's office, one from d.p.h., one from housing and homelessness, and a second one from the controller's office on the operation side as well. so we had a diverse panel of subject matter experts. >> chairman: uh-huh. great, thank you. this is all just helpful and i'm just using this as an example of understanding our contracting and competitive selection process. so thank you. i don't have any other questions, chair haney?

>> [please stand by]

to this recommendation. can i first move to make a motion to accept the amendments for this item? have a roll call on that, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes, on that motion [roll call vote] there are three ayes. >> chair haney: can we move this item to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation? roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes, on that motion [roll call vote] there are three ayes. >> chair haney: great. this is obviously a really

important program which has protected our residents and saved many lives and i'm glad that we are continuing it and we're finding it and ensuring that we are giving the greatest reimbursement possible for our city and, obviously, it's still very much needed. so this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. madam clerk, are there any more items? >> clerk: mr. chair, there are no other items to today's agenda. >> chair haney: great. happy st. patrick's day, everyone. and i will see you very soon for the next part of our meeting, budget appropriations. this meeting is adjourned. breakbreakbreak

shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services within our neighborhoods, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> my name is ray behr. i am the owner of chief plus. it's a destination specialty foods store, and it's also a corner grocery store, as well. we call it cheese plus because there's a lot of additions in addition to cheese here. from fresh flowers, to wine, past a, chocolate, our dining area and espresso bar.

you can have a casual meeting if you want to. it's a real community gathering place. what makes little polk unique, i think, first of all, it's a great pedestrian street. there's people out and about all day, meeting this neighbor and coming out and supporting the businesses. the businesses here are almost all exclusively independent owned small businesses. it harkens back to supporting local. polk street doesn't look like anywhere u.s.a. it has its own businesses and personality. we have clothing stores to gallerys, to personal service stores, where you can get your hsus repaired, luggage repaired. there's a music studio across the street. it's raily a diverse and unique offering on this really great street. i think san franciscans should

shop local as much as they can because they can discover things that they may not be familiar with. again, the marketplace is changing, and, you know, you look at a screen, and you click a mouse, and you order something, and it shows up, but to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so. . >> for tuesday march 16th 2021. i would like to welcome members of the public streaming live or listening to us as well as to the staff who will be participating in today's meeting. i also would like to provide a special welcome to