City and County of San Francisco Thursday, September 28, 2017
>> >> good morning ladies and
gentlemen I want to welcome you back to the budget and finance committee. This meeting will come to order and I'm supervisor melia tran and Chairman Of the committee and to my right is supervisor norman yee vice chair of this committee and joining us
shortly will be supervisor
tang. Our clerk is Ms. Linda wong. At the time I want take a
moment to thank our friends at sfgov tv charles criminal and
[Inaudible] To assist in us in today's broadcast good mme. Clerk we have any announcements this morning? >> yes. Please silent cell
phones electronic device. Speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. Items
acted on today will appear on
the board of supervisors agenda >> thank you. We appreciate that announcement. Please, call item 1
>> item one hearing on the comptroller's report voter
required spending baseline in san francisco and california and request in the office of the controller to report >> thank you the sponsors for
this piece of hearing is supervisor 10 tang and peskin did I believe supervisor tang
has a few opening remarks and where from supervisor peskin >> thank you very much. I do want to think our comptroller's office for this wonderful report. I'll keep my remarks short only because I think that
what came out of the study is actually very telling. Lee speaks on why I want to work on
the issue of addressingbaselines and set-asides here in san francisco. We have very many and I think that again when you call from the comptroller's
office you will be quite shocked. It really limits our
ability to have discretionary spending capabilities here in
san francisco and, so, after we go through the report my goal
is to work on a set of policies to address our spending baseline and see what it is we can do to allow us to have a
more comprehensive dialogue around all of the baselines we
have as well as instill certain policies within each one that May come up before us whether it is in the future,, the
present and so forth. So I want
to thank Mr. Peskin for joining me on the effort and all save more of my remarks for
after the presentation. >> supervisor peskin, welcome >> thank you Chairman Cohen and
member yee and I want to thank supervisor tang for embarking
on what I think is a long overdue effort to not only
understand the implications of
set-asides but also to figure out how we want to get it right
moving forward. The numbers as
supervisor tang said are quite startling. The baseline spending has increased from
about $200 million in the
mid-90s to $1.2 billion today, which is a huge change. All of these set-asides are for
remarkably would be good
causes but really constrains, the city the board of
supervisors, the mayor from being able to make tough decisions on an annual basis
and in many ways it's the easy way out. It doesn't require us
to look for new sources of revenue. Release constrains
our ability I think to govern and allocate money in the best
and most mature way that's most responsive to the needs of the
day. So I really thank
supervisor tang and the comptroller's office who prepared a great report and the
real work is what we do in the months ahead, whether it is going to the ballot to fix certain things or whether it's
adopting policies hear about how we are going to treat set-asides in the future and I look forward to those
discussions going forward. >> thank you. Let's go ahead and hear from the comptroller's
office.
>> good morning. I am
michelle-ffrom the comptroller's office.. I'm here with my colleague mike-I worked
on the report as well. What we will do is provide an overview of the odor adopted spending requirements which we call variously baselines were set-asides but they're all kind
of the same thing. There voter mandated spending requirements.
We are talking both those in san francisco and we also looked more broadly across the
state of california for
comparison. We have two main findings in our executive summary. The first is
supervisor peskin alluded to
just the magnitude of spending has increased over the past 20
years from $200 million to $1.2 billion in the current year and projected to grow to $1.6
billion by fiscal year 22. As we projected in our five-year
financial plan, that is just a reflection of continued
moderate but growing revenue that a portion of which gets shared with these baselines.
Possibly more important than even that number is the proportion of the budget that is no longer discretionary that's locked up by baselines. As the proportion of the
general fund budget, that has grown from just under 15%,
doubled to 30% in the current
year. Our second finding is looking across the state that this level of voter mandated spending is really quite unique
to san francisco. His voters
have adopted 19 binding spending requirements on the
board and other policymakers.
In our review of various source document including financial
reports, bout reports budget documents across the state when we find 10 such motor adopted records across all their local
jurisdictions in the state. A little bit of this is due to
legal authority among local
governments in california. The voters in charter jurisdictions derive their ability to bind
future boards and policymakers because they derive their
authority from the appropriation authority from
the california constitution
whereas voters in general law german jurisdictions are
subject to california government code which requires
local boards to adopt annual
budgets and you cannot find them otherwise. So, as the
charter city san francisco May adopt either type of requirement that it could be a binding requirements by
charter amendment or none binding [Inaudible] That sits
in our local code. The focus
of our report here is really on the binding requirements that
the board cannot-has no
discretion to change. The next slide is just a list of the 19 local measures kind of
chronologically according to
adoption and where they sit in
our charter. We already
mentioned there's 19 mandatory spending requirements or
baselines and two of those are
placed on the bout by initiative positions. In other
words by policy makers. We also have a shorter list of nonbinding requirements and you
can see that just bite over the
date that these are -- these became having the binding records have been much more popular in the past 10 years,
put it that way. So this is
the chartnot totally inclusive
but with key nonbinding
spending garments that voters have approved that are housed
in our administrative code.
Just in termms of structure, I think it's useful background to have that most of our baselines specify guaranteed
level of spending for a purpose and for the most of the baselines that level of funding
shifts up and down the level of discretionary general fund revenue that the city enjoys.
There are small number of mandated requirements that really output focused. For
example the place [Inaudible] 1971 police officer the city
has to achieve within its means.
I think obviously the to state the obvious the goal of the baseline is to have
certainty and predictability of
funding for a particular program area or service type.
That is why voters have
approved them. To make sure that
I can to assure that the level
of funding will continue. They achieve this certainty by removing spending decisions
from the annual budget process conducted by the mayor and board. So they are not discretionary. They can be
changed by policymakers. The other side of this coin of
certainty and predictability for some levels of funding is
just that any kind of budget
that the city expenses swings in the macroeconomy, federal
and state actions that come down to us, it could be
changing service needs that arise naturally that the board
May want to address,, but all
of those changes must be managed on a shrinking portion
of the general fund budget. So it creates volatility-increase
volatility for those-portion
of the budget that remains not
baseline. I mean, for policymakers it just means you
have fewer choices you have are able to make to increase
services or to shift funding. Our next chart is just a representation of the total
dollar value of spending over the course of our review. So
between 1994 and fiscal year 22
, this is just a picture format. From going from 200
million, to 1.6 billion in our
projections. You will see a couple jumps ups in the height
of the bars the first is in
fiscal year a one which is when
we approved baselines for mta operating expenses. That was a
very significant change from the second, you will notice is we are expensing right now the result of the 2016 bout which added three more baselines.
Those are two kind of periods where the line shift upward more than would expect just
from revenue growth. This is another version of the same
chart just with colors so you can see what sort of areas are receiving most of those baselines. The two largest
areas are mta and children services and we will see a little more detail about what those things are in just a
moment. I also mentioned
earlier-and this is maybe more important than just a dollar amount is the percent of the
general fund budget that is now
nondiscretionary to you as policymakers. Going from 14%,
up to 3% in our projections.
It just represents a reduction
in choice for policymakers.
This is a circular version of the chartof the bargraph we showed before. What we are trying to give you a visual
expression of is every single
of the 19 spending mandates are in the outer circle and the
program areas to which they belong or departments to which they belong are in the inner circle. You can see the two largest pieces are mta baselines of which there are
several for operating. They receive a share of parking tax
the population baseline was originally passed in the second-largest area is for children services including the property tax set-aside, the
children's baseline and other
requirements. So the largest
so current year mta $420 million for youth services just under
$400 million, and then police
and library and etc. We want to
give another view of each service area and the number of spending mandates that exist for that service area or
department. I think supervisor
tang mentioned we have some options to create a minimal
amount of flexibility that we've used so far in the baseline that exist. You will notice the three most recent bay lines that were adopted have a couple of features that
give policymakers a little more
flexibility including expiration dates suspension triggers and return of unused funds to the general fund. Next ration date just means that we get a chance to revisit as a city whether or not this is the right program area level of funding to have a baseline for.
The suspension triggers keep the baseline dollar amount from
growing and in deficit periods
and gives us the option the board or the mayor suspending those increasingly they don't decrease but at least they don't increase. Then, another
is that any funds that were not used for that service area
will be returned to the general fund to be repurposed by the mayor and board and subsequent
years. So we have this for the
library baseline for example.
If they don't-if operations don't require of the funding their given its return to the
general fund at the end of the
year. >> so the only one that has all the bells and whistles coming back to the last slide, slide number 11, is the recreation
and park maintenance effort >> yes. One of our more recent
ones. The other finding I mentioned earlier is just the
uniqueness of san francisco's
environment here. We have 19 spending requirements so a little more into the research
we did two kind of understand
where we are compared to our
peers. We reviewed about measures, academic research to
try to identify voter approved spending mandates and local
governments in california. As I mentioned before with unified
10 that we could find in
jurisdictions compared to san
francisco [Inaudible]. A little bit as I mentioned before, san
francisco voters have more authority as a charter city versus a general law cities are
more able to do it.. It's partly structural. But, I think for comparison we did look at some peer jurisdictions across
the state. Large urban peers
and the counties in which they sit.. For that group of which
we consider peers we found five
baselines just looking at this
list and not having looked at [Inaudible] To be sure, when I
look at this I see to me it's a
proportion of the budget the lot largest one looks like open which is 3% of their unrestricted general fund. So
3% versus 30%. San diego is an
interesting [Inaudible] There
they eliminated their defined but the pension plan and replace it with a defined contribution pension plan recently and anticipated
savings from the change that they project they will be depositing into an infrastructure fund going forward. So we will see how
that actually works. Then, in other jurisdictions largely
what we found was another five set-asides we could identify
and they are largely dedications a portion of a
hotel tax revenue. That
is-there's more detail in the appendices but that is the end of my presentation. We are happy to answer questions you
have. >> thank you. Supervisor tang has a question is >> thank you very much for the presentation and the overview. Again, I think a lot of information presented is very telling especially the fact that
only half of our baseline
have expiration dates. I think that is incredibly interesting in and in addition to the fact that we have 19 baselines here in san francisco. Just one
quick question about the policy regarding any leftover unspent funds that would go back to the
general fund. How does that actually work? I don't really recall seeing very much money
return to the general fund but although on the other hand is a good thing the department is using what it needs to use to
make its department operations function. >> yes. The largest in terms
of dollar value and a significant [Inaudible] The
library enjoys two set-aside suffers an allocation of pretax revenue which we cannot change because that is specified in the charter the second piece they get is a portion of that aggregate discretionary revenue
just under 3% and the baseline languages written such that at
the end of the year if they have unspent funds the portion
of that balance that remains
that was funded by the baseline not the tax set-aside but the
baseline can be returned to the
general fund. In an average year that slightly more than 50% whatever bounces remaining at the end of the year we can take back. So that is usually in recent years that spit between five and maybe $7
million we have taken back. >> okay. >> [Inaudible] Because the
property tax revenue >> in terms of your research of other baselines in other jurisdictions, did you find
any of them have any sort of policies that -- so for example expiration dates suspension triggers, anything or anything
we have not thought of? >> nothing we have not thought
of but I know open you services baseline does have an
expiration date which is why they just had to renew it a couple years ago. I don't recall the others having expiration dates or other
suspension triggers. Sorry, san diego city infrastructure fund
does have a suspension trigger. The mayor and city council can request that it be suspended
for a fiscal year.
>> okay. I will save my other
comets after supervisor yee >> all right. Supervisor yee, you are up.
>> thank you. I am just curious
-what I can't figure out is
-only because of last year we
passed one of the three,, even though it wasn't totally associated -- it was additional income of revenues from the
increase in the transfer tax,
which pays for taking something
that already existed. So I'm just curious, of the 19, I
guess, are therewere there
others that had a similar type of situation where the
set-asides was based on some additional revenue that did
not exist prior to that? Or,
was it just that one example of
this street trees, where we
actually made that decision and
was actually additional funding?
>> good morning ben rosenfield comptroller's office. The two
in recent years that if memory
serves, are the transfer tax. There's a general tax increase
for transfer taxthe same bout as the street tree baseline.
And, there was a business tax increase on the same bout as
the affordable housingbaseline.
Those are the two if memory serves were paired with a general tax on the same ballots.
But of course they were not as a legal matter they were not
adopted as dedicated taxes. >> right. But philosophically
people understood it. By the
way, I concur with supervisor
tang and peskin this is really
interesting report I guess the
question I have,-mmaybe is
something that supervisor tang has already looked into but what would it take to make
all of these baseline set-asides
to actually have them all
returned-each one of them has to
return to funding if they
don't spend it. Would it take a charter amendment to override
everything that exist? >> yes. I think you have to amend the charter to modify the
existing charter language. >> without also be true for the other category of
suspension triggers? >> yes. In the amendment of the charter is required by the vote of the people. >> yes. So there's a possibly
than one can put before the voters to make a decision to see anything that is that
would be a set-aside, if you don't spend it you have to
return back to the general funds? >> I suppose you could
haven't >> but charter amendment vitamins each of the existing
baselines to achieve that goal.
>> okay. The other thing is
in looking at the report it's
actually not in the report but
just kind of interesting that elise the children's fund for
instance was but back to the
voters because there was a cut
off and voters still supported
it.. Do you know in the other jurisdictions I think what was already named where there are
people supported jurisdictions
the reauthorization of their
particular set-asides?
>> here, I've open first passed in 1996 which was
renewed in 2009. Santa clara
county first passed in 1972.. In 2016 they change the rate a little bit but again it was
renewed then. And, los angeles,
it's in the charter but it goes back many decades before that. I'm not sure exactly how it got there but it is there and appeared
>> so here is again this is
probably more judgmental. Even
though the numbers indicate
that funding is at 30% there's
an assumption also if there was in a set-aside you would never find any of the stuff? That's
where you get the 30%? I guess
what I'm driving at is when we
talk about this we have to be
really careful to think that this 30% would have been freed
up for us to do anything else
which could be true, but it's unlikely that the categories that were talking about would
not be funded.. To a certain extent. For instance, if you
take children's fun if you were
to be-the proposition the law the people voted on the
amendment were gone he would
not be-iin my mind I would say it's a dangerous assumption
that all the money that could be freed up would not be spent-none of it will be spent
on children's services.>> I
think that's a fair point. The answer to that is unknown because we depend on the spending decisions of
policymakers. In every single
appropriiation budget. So it's quite possible that is true but
it would really just be up to
the policymakers to set that level of spending for each level of service as they see fit.
>> yes. I'm just pointing it
out as a caution that we don't start thinking is a lump sum
of funding is-would be like we
would not spend it on these categories. I think for
instance tree maintenance in
past budgets there was money
there for tree maintenance. So,
all we did is add to its and
most likely it was not there we would've added to it anyways. Again, for future discussion. >> yes.
>> thank you. Supervisor tang or, peskin and other remarks be
will go to public comment at
this time. Any member of the public like to come and speak on item 1? Please, come up to the podium. Seeing none, public comment is closed
>> [Gavel] >> thank you college. Thank you to the comptroller's office for
the important information I think thank supervisor yee actually brought up great points as well. I think that
for me, this discussion and maybe the next step will be taking is not to say we are trying to just free up more funds in the general fund so we can have more discretionary spending capabilities, but really so we can actually a supervisor peskin mentioned earlier have that you trade off discussion occur at the same time. Usually, that doesn't happen all at once. I
think it's very easyand popular for voters to say okay what we
have a baseline proposed for muni. We will baseline proposed
for rec and park. For what have you. You take them all when at a time. It's very easy to
support. Glycerol causes I think are important as well. I
would in my funding decisions and even as a member of this committee want to fund those
services. So my goal is really
to ensure that we as
policymakers have a trade-off conversation together so that we are being realistic about what is possible the finite amount of resources. Again it's
not to say that I don't support
senior services I don't support children or lottery services.
I absolutely do. I think what is dangerous is that we-year
after year adopt these measures and the policies are all over the place. You just heard that half of them don't have
expiration dates. So future board of supervisors and maters offices essentially have their hands tied for many of these
measures. I think when there
might be an economic downturn and are probably will be at some point, we don't have the
ability to be flexible in these
funding decisions. I understand
that-in respect highly the advocates who put a lot of these important measures on the
ballot and have them passed by voters in the whole idea behind
it was to guarantee some certainty around funding. So I think that is important but at
the same time I feel sometimes with these baselines we are
also creating a false sense of security that just because there's a baseline in place that we are actually addressing all of the needs of that department. For example just because we have a recreation park baseline doesn't mean that covers all of the maintenance
funny needs that they have. So again my goal is really to
ensure that we as policymakers
compare all the different
priorities and again we have the tough conversations together. I'm really looking at the long-term view not just right now. A snapshot in time but in the long-term how is our city financial health going to
be impacted by the volume of baselines that we have. So, I think some of the basic goals I
would have moving forward are
things that I think supervisor yee touched upon which or maybe look to see that everyone has an expiration date so that we actually do have a renewed conversation that comes about and we see if we want to renew
and at what level. Do we also want to make sure that there are suspension triggers so that
when our economy swings we can aadjust accordingly. So those are some of the basic things I
would like for us to think about and I'll be working with
supervisor peskin on those ideas and we will definitely
involve all the members of the board here.. So, thank you
colleagues for your time on his hearing.
>> thank you. How would you
like to handle the hearing? You want about
>> we can file the hearing and any policy that might come out of thiswill have another discussion them.
>> all right. Would you like to make a motion >> I'll make a formal motion to file the hearing.
>> okay. Will do that without objection thank you >> [Gavel] >> mme. Clerk please call item
number twospades who I hearing to release reserve fund for
the are fine arts museum to fund general facility maintenance and capital projects as approved by the capital planning committee. >> okay. It's been a long time
coming. It's good to see you.
Ed,you are ed?
>> at-cfo of fine arts museums good
>> good morning the floor is yours >> good morning supervisors. It's a pleasure to be a good as the noted in the analyst report
the entire amount of the 18 appropriation for the general facility maintenance and capital projects for the fine
arts museum, so 2.2 million, was placed on reserve by the budget and finance committee pending satisfactory resolution
of seiu's request that all security guards at both the
fine arts museum and the asian art museum have 40 hour per
week schedules. Both museums have been fully supportive of all guards moving to 40 hours.
In fact, tentative agreement
was signedwithin two days of the committees hold it's taken longer than expected to achieve
a final agreement with that was reached between the city
and seiu on September 21. All guards at the fine arts museum have any schedules to be to be
effective saturday, October 7.
I would like to thank the city
for the capital funding which
maintains and protects the
cities museum buildings, which,
of course house the city's collections. We also express
appreciation for approving funding for all the guards to be at 40 hours per week. We respectfully request the
committee lease the reserve so that we May proceed with several critical maintenance
projects. Thank you. >> thank you. Let's hear from the budget legislative analyst office. >>
>> good morning. Budget and legislative analyst's office. Yes, in a report on page 4 we
show the $2.2 million in
projects that will be funded by the reserve and as Mr. -- said,
they have reached agreement with the museum guards on having a 40 hour workweek. That
was a conditionthat was placed on the reserves. I do want to state one other thing that's
not in our report. The board of supervisors did in fact
appropriate funds with a-fine
arts museum and asian art budget for the next two fiscal years. This year and next year. To fund the actual increase in cost for the museum guards
moving to a 40 hour workweek. Mr.-did you meet Dr. Tatian to show how those funds would be spent increased hours the
guards and we recommend it for these reserves
>> thank you. We will hear from supervisor peskin >> thank you chair cohen. I
would think he members of the budget committee for agreeing to this reserve and think the
fine arts museums for their
cooperation and concur with the budget analyst and support the release of the reserves.
>> thank you. It's a lovefest now. [Laughing] We will go ahead and hear from public
comment. Any member of the public like to come and comment on item 2, please come up to the party. Seeing none, public comment is closed
>> [Gavel] >> colleagues, do you have a motion or last-minute thought? >> I will make a motion on behalf of the supervisor to file the hearing and release the resort. Thank you very much and will do that without objection. Congratulations >> [Gavel] >> item three please >> item number three resolution
adopting the mental health
services act program and manage
a plan for fiscal year 2017-19 fiscal year 2019 20
>> thank you. We have a representative from the department of public health to
present to the floor is yours. >> supervisors, good morning.
My name is [Inaudible] And I'm
the director of the mental health services act program and the debarment of public health could I am seeking your
approval to pass a resolution
to adopt a mental health services act three year program and a spinach or plan for
fiscal year 17-18 through 19-20. Just to give a brief
overview on the mental services
act, it's also known as proposition 63 and this was
passed by california voters
November 2004and enacted into law in November 2005. It's
designed to contribute mental health [Inaudible] Unmet needs
of individuals who are
underserved or inappropriately
circuit it's based on a five
core principles. Cultural or
[Inaudible] Inclusion, one of
I service delivery. The mental health services act is broken
down into five different components. [Inaudible] Intervention, workforce
education and training, capital
facilities and [Inaudible]. >> excuse me, we had a
question amongst us. Part in the intrusion in your presentation. This is not a
society. This is a state-prop
63 organized so this is a state law? >> correct.
>> thank you >> so as I was under the mental health services act is broken
into five different components. Support services prevention, workforce education and training, capital facilities
technology and innovation. In
san francisco for the sake of
program planning and processes we have decided to break these five components and what we call service categories. As you can see on the right hand side
of the table under service categories, that that provide
different levels of services including case management
prevention early intervention, [Inaudible] Reduce stigma and increase access to care. Workforce development and
training and [Inaudible] And capital facilities and information technology to
improve the infrastructure of
the health system. Just to give
you a bit about the plan development every [Inaudible] In the state of california required to treat a three-year
program and plan [Inaudible]
Update to those bent those plans for fiscal year 17-19
through 19-20 we had about [Inaudible] Supervisor districts in the city and
county of san francisco.
[Inaudible] 200 individuals and after the program planning
was completed we posted the
plan for a 30 day public review period at which is required. After the posting we held a public hearing and mental health board which was held
last week on September 20. Now were at the final stage in the reason why I'm here which is
seeking your approval to pass
the resolution adopting a three-year plan. This plan was
developed in collaboration with [Inaudible] Pierce and individuals with experience and
service providers. Just a brief highlight to some of the key
plans for the next three years. There's a board called no place
like home. It's [Inaudible]
July 1 of 2016 two a $2
billion bond to be distributed across counties to develop housing for individuals who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness work chronically
homeless were with serious mental [Inaudible] The money
for the housing bond because the stigma it was repaid over 20 years with mental services
act funds. [Inaudible]
Overtime. Also, [Inaudible] A
lifespan up to five years to increase the access of
outpatient programs for individuals being discharge from our intensive case
management program. Obviously, we will continue to monitor and
evaluate all current [Inaudible] In the programs and
continue to develop
solicitation for proposals for
[Inaudible] And also because
[Inaudible] Is a 1% tax on personal income of individuals make one nine dollars a more
it's very volatile so it's important we monitor our revenue and expenditures on an ongoing basis. Thank you.
>> thank you. So you actually
touch a point I want to tease that a little bit. You mentioned that the program is
based on a 1% tax
>> of millionaires
>> yes. This program has been around since 2005. Is that correct? >> correct. >> what kind of volatility have you seen? Have you been able to track any kind of trends? >> so what we've done recently
is to track a five year trend which brings the average about $26.2 million. However, just to give an example of the volatility in fiscal year 14-15 we had revenues about 32
million. In fiscal year 15-16
it dropped to 26 million. And
16-17 it [Inaudible] So this trend goes up and down. So very important, which is part of the
requirement we have a reserve
a plan for [Inaudible] >> how much do you have in the resort? >> right now, we will five dollars but [Inaudible] $11 which and also help us to address some needs and times
where revenue has a drop >> do other counties also have a similar structure that we
have set up, kind of the
ability to save money as well as -- safe the unallocated funds I guess a matching
>> yes. The requirement[Inaudible] Has
reserved every county makes an effort to manage revenues and expenditures and allocate
funds for the reserve. >> thank you. Colleagues, any other questions? Supervisor
yee. >> I might be missing a point here. Is the sort of a having this is a budget committee and
there's no budget having
there's no numbers have. Except 1 million. It just tells you
where it comes from. So what is your annual budget for this and
how are you spending it? I
don't even -- do you have-this is
really high level.. Here's a
plan but what is the plan?
>> I do not know- >> can you help me understand this? A >> yes. I think you should
have a copy of the plan which
is more comprehensive, 120 pages but our revenues are very
volatile. On average our budget is about 35 nine dollars which
is 10% of the overall behavior
health services budget. The program is is to help services division of the department of public health. So, based on the various components of [Inaudible]
Within the legislation there is
law that specifies how those revenues should be allocated
within these five components each component is designed to
address certain types of
service. So I will give an example. For services support,
those are services that more treatment but case management, more wraparound services for individuals experience in
seriousand persistent mental illness. Prevention illness [Inaudible] Visa programs that
are designed so [Inaudible]
Other mental health in an
effort to [Inaudible] Access to
care. As we know stigma is a big factor that prevents people
from accessing care >> I think with supervisor yee is and, you've done a good job
of showing us with a high level the programs are we don't know how much these programs cost.
>> so it's within the plan and was submitted to the board of
supervisors I have time. It has
lots of details on the budget
distribution across all-over 80
programs in the mental health services act >> when I think of trying to say in the future we have
preferred to have seen you, 152 page document and put it down
into that she. So we will know the community program plan
cost this much with a 30 day
-I'm sorry, the integrated service delivery many collaboration all the different
programs you are doing we don't know how much it cost. >> so just to give you again
this is high level each component-once we see a revenue this is how we distributed across the components. So 5% of our revenue goes to innovation
which is one of the [Inaudible]
Of hsa. [Inaudible] Goes to
committee service. 20% go to
prevention early prevention and
workforce education [Inaudible] [Inaudible] Up to 20% of the revenues
>> what is the total budget you're working with?
>> so I last revenue for fiscal
17 was $33 million. However, we have budgeted plan and set of $5 million because this program
some of them actually generate
medi-cal revenue and also we
generate interest on those.
>> okay. Please.
>> so the report you just held up, you said you already had forwarded to us? >> that is correct.
>> okay. Would you re-forward
it. I like to take a look at. We get a lot of things going
through so sometimes we Miss It. >> supervisor tenting and
earmarks? Okay thank you. I'm
going to ask public comment at this time. Any member of the public like to come and speak
on item 3? Please, come on up. Seeing none, public comment is closed >> [Gavel] >> so colleagues what would you like to do this item?
>> I will go ahead and make a
motion to accept this plan and possible with a positive recommendation to the full board
>> okay. Will take that spell. Will send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. But in a future when you come
back >> definitely. >> this of the budget committee committee bring a some budget thank you. >> [Gavel] >> mme. Clerk please call item 4-5 together >> item for resolution of amendment to the treasure
island childcare between treasure island development authority in the united states navy to extend the term for one year for a summer first 2017 through November 30 22. Item
number five, resolution to approve amendment number 42
the treasure island master lease between treasure island development authority and the united states navy to extend
the term for one year free period of December 1, 2017
through November 30, 2010 >> right. We have Mr. Peter sommerville here to present >> thank you chair cohen supervisor tang yee. For the record peter-with the treasure around development authority the two items before the committee our annual master
lease extensions of that you remain a master lease with united states navy for both of
for a one-year term. Beginning beginning December 1, 2017
through November 30 220 is no revenues or associates expended associated with these leases we request approval of both items to address a question
that was actually raised this time last year by supervisor
yee regarding the annual extensions question of along the lines of can we longer terms, or try to avoid the need
to come back for this residual speed and every year, we did raise the question with the
navy in the past year and their general real estate policies
are to do these year-to-year
extensions. So in their estimation, you would be a lot more work to do a separate term than to just have this annual extension. We did raise the question and that was the answer brought back be thank
you. >> with that I'll conclude by report and be available for any question. >> great. I think supervisor
yee has a question for you. >> refresh my memory in
regards to the childcare
itself, is it actually operating? >> it is, yes. We have an
annual operating agreement with catholic charities who operates
the childcare center for primarily families on the island, children on the on but
I do believe there are children from elsewhere in the region that utilize it as well.
>> how long has catholic
charities been operating this?
>> -- I think was a different organization >> correct. I think was [Inaudible] In the last 5-7
years as part of the tie-dye group was services on the
island it's been offered by catholic charities >> do you know how many
children answers? >> approximately 50-60. Ages 0-1 through four.
>> okay. Thanks for the-I was just carries about that. Is nothing to do with the lease.
>> thank you. Thank you for your presentation Mr. Somerville. Seeing no questions, and we have no
report from the bli, we will go to public on any member the public like to comment on the other? Seeing none, public
comment is closed >> [Gavel] >> colleagues, is there a motion to send to the full board with a positive reclamation? >> so moved. >> without objection that motion passes >> [Gavel] >> mme. Clerk item 6, please
>> item six resolution
[Inaudible] Certain
expenditures for future bond in debit indebtedness authorizing the director of the mayor's
office of housing and community to moment to submit an application and related documents the california debt
limit allocation committee to permit the issuance of residential mortgage revenue
bond in the agri-principal amount not to exceed $130 million for 2675 fulsome st. And 970 treat ave.
>> thank you. This will affect supervisor ronen's district in district 9 and she's a sponsor the legislation we have adam crave for the mayor's office of housing.>> good morning supervisor. As mentioned my name is adam-manager for the mayor's office of housing and committee development I'm here
to present resolution for two projects. 2675 fulsome and one
church but we will discuss 2675 fulsome. It's a conduit financement it won't require
the city to [Inaudible] And the city will not be providing a gap funding for this particular
project. The project is a new construction project. It's a wondered 17 unit unit mixed income building located 2675 fulsome st. Between 22nd and 23rd st. In the mission
district 20% of the units will serve households earning no more than 50% of area median income. The property management
of the income will include 5100 square-foot part art gallery and studio space. Residential
lounge and courtyard. Large rooftop space and underground parking area with charging stations, bicycle parking in residential storage him. As I
said it's only a vacant lot and
[Inaudible] Displaced by this development. For this
particular project sponsors
plan to submit a [Inaudible] By October 13 of this year so in the next couple of weeks and if awarded we will return to
the board for issuance of approval early next he could on behalf of the project sponsor like to thank you for your consideration or to forward to
your support for the parts. With that I'll conclude staff report in answer any questions >> thank you I see no questions at that time. Appreciate your
presentation. We will go to public comment. Public comment on item 6, ladies and gentlemen? Seeing none, public comment is closed >> [Gavel] >> thank you Mr. Cray. So colleagues I would like to send
this with a positive recommendation as a committee report
>> so moved. >> thank you without objection >> [Gavel]
>> item 7, please mme. Clerk >> item seven resolution declaring the intent of the
city and county of san francisco
to reimburse her next manager and authorizing the directive
mayor's office of housing and community developer to submit an application and related documents the california debt limit allocation committee for
the issuance of residential mortgage revenue bonds in accurate principle not to exceed 45 nine dollars for one church street 45 treasury and one webster secured
>> all right. On item 6 we had the project would include 93
market rate units, 24 affordable housing in this and item 7 we are project that includes 93 affordable units to the sponsor supervisor sheehy
and so this would go into district aids. Mr. Cray.
>> yes. Again like the last project it's conduit financement so the city [Inaudible] Repayment of the
bonds. The city in his case again is not providing a gap funding or other subsidy for the project. This is an rehab
project as you mention for 93 unit all over the boatbuilding
this time located wondrously
between herman street and dubois avenue all the units of project will serve households
know more than 60% of area median income. The scope of the rehabilitation were quickly repairs related to water
intrusion replacement of [Inaudible] Waterproofing
assembly stucco and trim. Repairing water damage on roof parapets. Replacement of went skipping and some repainting. The residence we permanently displaced as a result of the rehabilitation is residents will have the right to return following any temporary relocation that might be
required. Also, any temporary temporarily relocated residents will not be financially responsible for the costs
related to their relocation.
Again, this project will summon an application california debt limit allocation committee on October 13 of this year for the return to the board for approval early
next year. Without all complete my comments
>> thank you mustard supervisor yee. >> so this is one project
located in three different parcel property. Is that what is? >> that is correct. The
particular parcel just happens to include three different
address. For the purposes of tougher inducement we include
all the addresses but actually this is one church street.
There's other addresses in the parcel associated
>> but [Inaudible] Is across the street, isn't it?
>> no. This is all part of the
same block. On the same block. >> okay. I thought church ends
on one side of the [Inaudible] And webster starts on the other side of dubois
>> so if we had a map it's difficult but on the southern
side you have got-I want to say
dubois and it does and at
church and above that one
street above, is herman that
goes all the way through so,
yes, I am not sure-I think the
webster address was for commercial space part of the building and again as I said it's included just to put
folks on notice that all the addresses associated with the
project are covered are tougher noticing. I'll take a look at
it though. [Laughing] >> okay. I'm sort of familiar
with that area. It's been 10 years of my life around there
so it's it's odd I didn't
think they were connected >> well, we have a represented from the developer here that
might shed some light on. Thank you. >> hello. I'm allie-woodbridge house. To explain it, the project takes up the whole city block. So that's white has multiple addresses on all four
sides the actual project. As adam mentioned, the webster street addresses small commercial space that's right on the corner that's within the
same building. It is all one project. >> okay. I believe you. [Laughing] >> all right. Thank you for your present and we will go to public comment. See no public
comment ladies and gentlemen public comment is closed >> [Gavel] >> >> colleagues, I like to make a motion we send this to the full board with a positive recommendation and we will send it as a committee report. >> so moved.
>> without objection thank you so much >> [Gavel] >> mme. Clerk any other
business before the body? >> no other business before the body. >> all right. Friends, we are
