. >> mr. rose your report. >> members of the committee he didn't hear if in respect questions. >> i appreciate the answer we concur with the recommended reductions were in full agreement and have had good dialog and thank christopher the support we've had through the supervisors office. congratulates mr. rose two for two so far >> thank you, mr. chairman mr. chairman and members of the committee i recommended on page thirty on 4 hundred and 18 thus plus all a ongoing savings that allow 7.3 percent of the departments 2014-2015 budget. and mr. chairman on the advisory on our second recommendation on page thirty instead of a reference to a cell this is a reserve instead of a recommendation to the cell of 19th but the reserve on the ground lease not a sale of the property and that's pending a lease of the property and the proceeds we're recommending to have a reserve of 1 hundred and 80 million and on the new location that's not been identified pending the new location to the board of supervisors for a

chair. >> mr. rose. mr. chairman supervisor breed on page 4 of our report we point out that a million 5 hundred thousand plus is generally to be proposed by mayor this is according to the fire department and in the fire departments 2014-2015 budget with our appropriation budget and another $1 million plus in not identified grants or fund is

okay mr. rose 3 for 3. by that time a to tell us it's a long season >> mr. chairman i've said this before you realize the fact that the departments are in concurrence with us we haven't cut enough. >> that's one way to interpret it i'm keeping the bating average. any questions colleagues to the staff or mr. rose on those items >> i want to respond to mr. rose. if i had the ability to take away money from some of the departments and use it someplace else in the budget it would be a lot easier to go avenue larger amazes of money but particularly the port the money gets used in that particular area and make changes a ballot measure that allows us to use the money throughout the city i don't know is that stepping on toes that will make the difference in the future >> i think we'll explore that later. colleagues, any questions on the port or airport and i library. okay open this up for public comment to items it through 4 any public comment on those items >> all right. any public comment on that item? n

. >> mr. rose. >> mr. chair and members regarding the puc's deappropriation of $95 million for the clean power san francisco program we are reporting on that request in there will under the puc's request to issue and sell $100113. for hetch hetchy bond and my understanding is that mr. chair that specific appropriation and the sale of the issuance of the bonds will be considered by your committee next wednesday that's my understanding i'll report on that subject including the deappropriation will be issued to the board of supervisors tomorrow i want the board to know it's not included in this specific budget. >> so for committee members we're going to continue the supplemental to next week's meeting so an budget analyst report then. supervisor farrell >> on item 10 is mentioned the appropriation for the clean power sf that's before us today. >> yes. my understanding. >> just our analysis. >> my understanding is supervisor avalos because of the issuance of the bond were not on the calendar that the clerk sta

mr. rose, you are up. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 31 of our report we note that the construction of the replacement jail would be financed by the issuance of certificates of participation. the certificates of participation would be paid back over a period of 23 years, ending in 2038-39, total debt service including principle interest are estimated at 629.6 million. estimated annual debt service payments would be 27.3 million dollars. on the bottom of page 31 we point out that our office previously submitted a report to the board of supervisors in january of 2014 indicating what supervisor mar has mentioned about the size of the jail. our information indicated that there could be a jail as low as 384 beds if the current average daily population remained the same. that would save about 96 million dollars if the bed count were lowered. so our recommendation, mr. chairman, as you have already stated, is to amend the resolution to specify that the board of supervisors will consider the appropria

thank you mr. rose. >> colleagues do we have any questions for mr. rose or puc i know we'll be back? okay supervisor avalos any comments now we're going to move into the other departments >> i'll hold my comments and after public comment i'm going to motion that we table the items of the a o s o and other items related to the puc and actually, i don't mind it can you see me great pain to do that our puc is the most incredible educate we have with the city and county of san francisco i have traced to the water system and our amazing people the puc but we have not worked 90 out in a collaborative way for a budget we can live with interests been a effort to communicate with the mayor directly i haven't heard back i'm alarmed of the candid tender we have we will have a new budget to come before us and one we workout our differences and shared common interests to make sure we have water coming to the residents all over the bay area and electricity for the city and our great folks in the bay area as well i want to indicate that's y where i'm going thank you

mr. rose, can we get to your report, please? >> yes, mr. chairman. members of the committee, on page 18 of our report summarized in table 4, and that's on page 19, the sfmta is projected to receive a total of 3,9 26,870 in rent and that is net of 168,150 in rent credits over the 27-month term. of the proposed agreement. we recommend on page 20 that you amend the proposed resolution to reflect that the subject new license agreement at 26 50 bayshore boulevard in daly city would be retroactive may 1st 2013 to july 31st 2015. we recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. >> okay, thank you very much. colleague, any questions for mr. rose? okay, we move on to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> mr. chair, i'll move that we amend this to make it retroactive. >> okay. >> second. >> motion, we have a second, we can take that without objection. [gavel] >> the underlying motion is [speaker not understood]. we can also take that without objection. [gavel] >> madam clerk, can

okay mr. rose to our report please. yes mr. chair and members of the committee on page 17 of our report rereport our recommended reductions for the port totals 735702 that are going on savings this is $60 million or 18 percent of the 2015- 2016 budget and it totals $600,000 plus all ongoing savings my understanding the port concurs with the recommendations of the reduction are shown on packages 18 and 19 of our report we'll be happy to respond to questions >> colleagues, any questions for mr. rose at this point in time okay. i'm sorry please - okay. so colleagues, any other questions of staff or mr. rose >> so i'm sorry the controller's office should we move or propose those amendments or move on. >> monique from the controller's office you could move those items condition that the public hearing took place and you'll take final action at the end of the precedes. >> okay with that colleagues have is a motion to - yes, a motion to accept the recommendations those are final upon the public comments. >> we'll take that without obj

chair. >> mr. rose. mr. chairman supervisor breed on page 4 of our report we point out that a million 5 hundred thousand plus is generally to be proposed by mayor this is according to the fire department and in the fire departments 2014-2015 budget with our appropriation budget and another $1 million plus in not identified grants or fund is to be obtained by the fire department 2015- 2016 and the mayor's office has pledged to fund the balance in the fire departments 2015- 2016 budget but again that is subject to the board of supervisors you approval and this will be in fiscal year 2015- 2016 >> so is the language appropriate based on the fund not being yet approved? >> mr. city attorney correct me if i am wrong but we're voting on to accept this amount. >> correct. >> right. >> and so the question from supervisor breed is whether the whereas clause in the contract approval correct me if i am wrong supervisor is appropriate. it that right >> is it appropriate to apply we will be providing the additional match

mr. rose, why don't we go to your budget analyst report, please. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, supervisor breed, on the bottom of page 29 we state that the estimated project cost to rehabilitate 1500 page street, [speaker not understood] mercy housing is available funding sources total 10,341,519, which is 16,639 more than the estimated project costs. and table 5 on page 30 of our report shows the various funding sources [speaker not understood] for mercy housing 1500 page street project. on page 30, bottom of page 30, we report that the average cost per unit for constructing the 1500 page street affordable housing project for developmentally disabled adults is 6 07,346, which is 49% higher than mohcd's average of 408,98 4 per unit. on page -- the bottom of page 32, we he report that if the city purchases 1500 page street, pays the balance of the private loan by east/west bank, [speaker not understood] gives the city's outstanding loans to [speaker not understood], the net loss to the city is 3,0 58,269. however, this loss is 5,1 94,[speaker

mr. rose proposed $10 million in cuts we can consider in next week or if we back the table and consider it down the road when the mayor resubmits i want to get a magnitude to the puc what dollar amount would be appropriate given where we are. recent theirs talks within the framework not to brown-bag the puc commission and there's the discussion will joining the marina and we should have is a discussion >> we do know, we don't have a final number but based on the recent board hearings that was testified to it appears that approximately 4 to $300,000 will be all that is needed. we have part of our appropriated $6 million to start up and 1 opinion $8 million is unspent separate from the 19 and a half million we'll have the capacity to do the study work and to have about a million dollars and and a half left. we don't know the final number because it depends on if we moved as supervisor avalos has proposed in his legislation the richmond model per they were able to do it with no money down or is s

. >> so, mr. rose, i get no. 1, no. 2 i'll get back to you, but i want to ask mr. rourke about that. so you are not discussing about reducing 22 more. is what you are saying is those positions, each one of those actually has equivalent fte slot that exists today that are not being filled? >> in some cases there are existing vacant positions and in other cases, supervisor, we find that the positions are not justified. again, we made a budgetary review like we do during the annual budget and we saw that there was not a need based on workload for certain positions. we have a disagreement. and again i want to emphasize i understand this is state funds, but we look at it from the perspective of justification because it's still taxpayers' funds. >> thank you, mr. rose. mr. rourke, as you are up here, first of all i get pushing from april to may 1. at best we'll get this through early may now. >> we could probably push to june 1. >> just on an honest realistic, you get funding today, really given the articulation, i get it, i get the frustration, how soon can you on board

attrition on an on-going basis, it is difficult to fill all the positions at any given time. >> mr. rose, hold on one second. mr. rourke, is there something specific just on that point? >> with an fte number of about 2,000 in our agency our natural rate of attrition is about 100, 110 positions, people resigning, it takes months to fill them, you go to a list, if there's not a list you go to an exam, so there is always this vacancy churn but it's important to note that's not the same 110, 150 positions, right? it's different vacancies over time. you take a snapshot, you say there's 150 vacancies. if you take a snapshot two months later, there may still be 150 vacancies but they're different vacancies. >> what is different now these past 3 or 4 years compared to the years before that we didn't have any salary savings. >> we are now at a vacancy level of, i believe, 170. two years ago we were well over 220, 230, and that was a function of the recession years and trying to contain costs. we intentionally kept positions rather than laying people off, we intentionally kept positions vacant to

mr. rose to our potential cuts here you're suggesting or your proposed cuts today are being renegotiated to the tune of $10 million over two years and ongoing; is that correct >> mr. chairman and mercedes benz let me clarify the recommendations and again, i'm looking at page 16 of our report. for fiscal year 2014-2015 it would be about $4.5 million of that amount about $4.3 million for 2014-2015. in 2015- 2016 the total is 4.4 million and $34.4 million are ongoing and i previously mentioned we're still working with the department >> i understand. >> good afternoon mark farrell those are in the house/senate enterprise and the first year were $3.3 million i'd have to defer to water and power so the percentage of power i can't tell you at this moment. >> thank you, ms. kimble i can so based on that approximately, $600,000 is related to power so with all our customers mr. rose mentioned because of the prop 18 the water and sewer cuts have to stay with the water and sewer funds to house/senate wate

frnths >> mr. rose. >> if i understand what the department is saying, uc occupies leased space. the owners of the leased space are paying property taxes to the city so i don't understand the thrust of the comment. >> i get the point. >> ma'am, to the chair, i just wanted to advise that the university received a rebate on those property taxes so even though essentially those properties are exempt from property tax, even though the owners do make payments, the university receives those payments as a rebate since we are tax exempt so therefore, the city is not receiving tax revenues from those properties that we lease. >> clearly we're not going to get that resolved today. i want to make a couple comments and have a couple questions. i have some concerns about this mrr item. particular item. i know mission bay over many years has been in new neighborhood that's being created and it's coming along, a number of buildings, a number of people and clearly significant infrastructure needs and transportation needs. my biggest concern is that we are dealing with a lot of challenges around

report then my guess is we're going to have a robust discussion after public comment stick around. >> mr. rose. >> mr. chair and members regarding the puc's deappropriation of $95 million for the clean power san francisco program we are reporting

mr. rose to our report please. and shown no table 3 of 21. therefore we are now recommending the approval the proposed resolution since the $7 million gap is now taken away by the gap, in fact, a benefit of $8.5 million we base our recommendation strictly on the recommendation >> thank you supervisor breed. >> i think the problem we have with that there's no guarantee the property will be render and the taxs would be collected. that property has nothing to do with that property we need to treat it different we have no control over the property they occupy. i realize realize this was brought up as a argument but don't understand why we approve an agreement when we should be asking for the entire amount for the contracted. the reality is yes ucsf is one of the biggest employees in san francisco. yes, their developing with the mission bay they have partial parcels they've worked together with but at the end of the day long term ucsf is not 3w4r50bd to may taxes to the city and county of san francisco so my prospective in all fairness they should

seeing none, mr. rose, can we go to your report, please? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, on page 37 we show a table 2 which shows that excluding annual [speaker not understood] increase he the minimum rent over the term of the proposed lease is $6,8 17,955. we recommend that you approve the proposed resolution. ~ >> thank you, mr. rose. colleagues, any questions for our budget analyst? seeing none we'll move on to public comment. anybody wishing to comment on item number 10? seeing none -- >>> ray edmonds. you'd be surprised what i know about federal express. federal express was actually small business started in little rock, arkansas where i lived. they didn't have an international airport so he they moved to memphis, tennessee. that's why the memphis [speaker not understood] federal express is there. so, i think this is a good idea that we give them some southern hospitality here so that it will give us a chance to. more people to deal with, the old south in the past. ~ to have federal express i'm altos happy to see them because i kno

mr. rose's report. >> i think the department has clearly brought out the question that we have raised in our report. on page 9 in our table we show that the estimated pilot over 30 years is 39.8 million. the payments that you see would make the one time payments total 32.1 million so there is a gap of 7.7 million, so we state on page where is that 32.9 million going if we don't do this? it would go to the former ocii, the [inaudible] agency. i think when i had been briefed on this it was uc didn't have to pay anything and this was kind of a gesture so maybe we can have a discussion about that. >> tiffany, for the record. this is a private property transaction. you see the state agency exempt from all local redevelopment regulations, but for this tax payment agreement between fossil mb, who's the master developer, they own the property and a subsidiary of alex san dree y'all those tax payment agreements run with the land. it ran did not want to not file for a tax exemption on the property it had to make these payments under the contractual obligations. it is -- to your question, where wou

>> okay, mr. rose, could we go to your report on item four. >> yes, mr. chairman, members of the committee on page 18 of our report, and we point out that it is shown in table two and table two on page 19, and under the terms of the proposal the original, to the original lease, auto desk is required to improve the subject 3400 square feet by an estimated 2,405,000, and inincludes the building shelf that is offset by the credits of up to $400,000, on page 19, we report that after adjusting for the month of the rental credit, the port anticipates receiving net revenue of 109 sf, 898, as shown in table three and then it is on page 19 of our report. >> and, we note on page 20, of the top of page 20, the city administrative code section 2.6-1, space with leasing the city owned property must be awarded through the process unless they find that the bidding procedures are impractical or impossible, however they award the original lease to auto desk without submitting legislation to the board of supervisors to exempt the lease from the requirements and the adminis

. >> i'm amy i live on illinois street i'm a next door neighborhood to mr. rose murray the two large trees i recently purchased many condo on january 14th and find out about this development only recently. those are two last year big beautiful trees i can attest to the humming birds and the flowers it's a big reason i purchased the condo this beautiful neighborhood in the dog patch we need to protect that's why i am a homeowner and feel honored that i have an opportunity to talk about that i feel pride. so mr. price from the rain tree partners are saying those trees are not remarkable is untrue and creating an unattractive landscape those trees are beautiful i believe they can be saved through a little bit of maintenance there's garbage all over the place in the planter so i think if it's inattractive they need to asking have care. so when i learned about the proposed building and the paratransit i was upset because the plan is not approved by the board yet which i think we should hopefully, if you can resend the agreement to having the trees torn down to see wha

video monitor for our viewing audience much of our budget is staying the same and it was known by mr. rose for the budget analyst for round one. the operating budget is growing over the next 2 years approximately $140 million and it recommended to capital on slide 6 you'll see that $53 million is related to capital investment and in each case water, power and sewer it's one hundred-year-old facility that we have the stewardship responsibility that includes the general reserve to curb on the facilities like the rim fire we're actually recovering from the third largest wide fire no california and doing the lower cherry aqueduct and thank you for looking at those recovery projects. the budget is going up because of capital regulatory electrical costs in particular the subsection agreement and pg&e has proposed to do very significant rate increases for transition distribution as well as the street lights of all san francisco. personnel covets and other costs are largely increasing the majority of our budget is in capital related. the next couple of charts summarize the important things like 90

video monitor for our viewing audience much of our budget is staying the same and it was known by mr. rose for the budget analyst for round one. the operating budget is growing over the next

. >> could you respond to that, to what mr. rose just said? >> the budget analyst report is accurate, there's tax payment agreement on the property, it provides for only two payments relative to housing and infrastructure because those are the covenants that run with the land. we believe it's a good deal for the city and ocii for the reasons stated that are accurately identified in the report and materials to the boards. >> in terms of the 7 million, what do you think the city got in return for that? >> i think the city is getting affordable housing with no hit whatsoever. you see is paying that so that's -- otherwise property tax increments that would flow through [inaudible] that money will not flow for infrastructure and affordable housing. the totality of that payment now -- >> timing issue you're saying? >> yes. >> so the city is getting that and uc is getting to pay smaller amounts. that's what it gets in return for that? >> in return we're getting supportive housing built sooner, father mily housing sooner, parks for dog patch, getting