City and County of San Francisco Wednesday, July 08, 2020

The meeting will come to the order.

This is the July 8, 2020,

rescheduled budget and finance meeting.

I'm sandra lee fewer. I'm joined by supervisor walton

and mandelman.

I would like to thank SFGovtv

for broadcasting this meeting. Do we have any announcements?

>> yes, Madame Chair. Due to covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public,

the board of supervisors legislative chamber and

committee room are closed, however, members will be

participating in the meeting remotely.

This is taken pursuant to the

state orders and directive. Public comment will be available

on each item on this agenda,

both channel 26 and our website, streaming the number across the screen.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak.

Opportunity to speak during

public comment period are

available by calling

408:   418-9388.

Meeting I.D., 1461315200.

Again, 1461315200, then press pound twice.

When connected you will hear the meeting discussion.

When your item of interest comes

up, dial to be added to the speaker line. Turn down your television or radio. Alternatively, you May submit public comment in either of the

following ways.

E-mail to myself the clerk at

linda.Wong at sf gov.

If you subject public comment,

it will be forwarded to the supervisors. Items acted upon today are

expected to appear on the board

of supervisor agenda July 14th,

unless otherwise stated.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   please call

items 1, 2 and 3.

>> item 1 calling for special election to be held in the city and county of catastrophe on tuesday, November 3, for the purpose of submitting to san francisco voters a proposition

to incur bonded indebtedness not

to exceed $487.5 million to

finance the acquisition or improvement of real property, authorizing landlords to pass

through 50% of the resulting

property tax increase to residential tenants providing

for the collection of taxes. Item 2, resolution determining and declaring that the public

interest and necessity demand

the acquisition or improvement

of real property, authorizing

landlords to pass 50% of the resulting property tax increase

to residential tenants.

And item 3, resolution amending

the city's ten-year capital expenditure plan to amend the proposed government obligation bond program. Members of the public who wish

to provide public comment on

these items should call

408:   418-9388, I.D., 1461315200. Then press pound twice.

Press star 3 to line up to speak. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted

and you can begin your comments.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   item number 1, colleagues, you May remember

item number 1 and 2 were continued from last week when we had approved the amendment.

And now I think heather green from capital planning are going to review with us the updated

financing numbers. >> thank you, supervisors.

Nice to be here this morning. This is items 1 and 2, this is

the second hearing of the bond legislation. Last time material amendments

were introduced to increase the

bond overall amount from 438.5

million to $487.5 million, the

bond report should now be in the file.

It wasn't shown on the website, so I have just reset with linda

to make sure that it is included, but I will recap the

changes made.

I apologize if it's not in there.

We have updated the amounts.

$207 million for mental health. $239 for parks uses.

And $41.5 million for street and right-of-ways right-of-ways. We changed eligible uses to

match the ordinance.

So that was added abilities like psychiatric skilled nursing facilities, sobering center, all

on the behavioral health side.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   excuse me. This screen. Do you have a power point to share with us.

>> I will be delivering a power point on the capital plan amendment. I also have some slides ready that show the uses if that would

be helpful, I can pull those up.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   it's just that you're rambling off numbers, I think, that it would helpful for supervisors to actually see it.

The numbers that are you are -- [Inaudible] Presentation that can show that? >> yes.

This is the same as we looked at last time.

And I will pull it up right now. You're able to see --

>> Supervisor Fewer:   yes, we are.

>> excuse me as I flip forward quickly and flip back.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   that would be great. >> these are the numbers that show the overall bond amount.

This is the 207 for mental

health and parks and 41.5 for

streets and right-of-way uses.

And then we had the uses that were added -- these are all of the eligible uses in the bond

for the health and homelessness side.

Notable as additions in the

revised bond report are the

addition of locked acute facilities, psychiatric nursing

facilities and sobering center.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   got it.

>> in the park side, that's what this looks like.

Not here indicated on the slide,

but I have eligible use we did add urban agriculture sites as

one of the eligible sustainability uses.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   got it.

>> then we also expanded the recovery park section to include

also the projects shown here, so

that the additional $54 million

for portsmouth square, priorities, jackson playground

for $10 million, south sunset

for $3 million and richmond

senior park for $1 million as

those are descriptions for the additional priority parks in the parks program.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   that's great. >> and then there was no change to the streets and right-of-way piece.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   okay. That's great. >> thank you.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much, Ms. Green.

So we heard the daily report last time. So B.L.A., is there anything new you want to share?

>> good morning, chair.

We did update our report to look

at the impact on the larger bond

issuance and based on $487

million issuance, average estimate debt service would be

$39.5 million per year.

The impact on a property owner, the property tax rate for

property assessed at $600,000

would be $83 per year. This still falls within the debt limit and tax rate policy.

We consider approval to be a

policy matter.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much. Colleagues, any comments or questions?

Seeing none, let's open item 1

and 2 for public comment, please.

We'll take item 3 separately. Madame Clerk, can you call for

public comment on items 1 and 2.

>> Clerk:   yes. Operations is checking to see if

there are callers in the queue. Operation, please let us know if there are callers ready.

If you have not already done so,

press star 3 to be added to the queue.

For those on hold wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted. Operator, let us know if there

are any callers who wish to comment on items 1 and 2.

>> yes, I do have a few callers.

I'll unmute the first caller. >> hello, good morning. Can you hear me?

>> yes, we can hear you. >> okay. Great. Thank you.

Yes, I'm speaking about the bond measure, particularly the park and rec. Good morning, my name is jeffrey.

I'm the President Of the

japanese american federation

housing incorporated. Community-based organization

comprised of the buddhist christian and independent churches here in japantown.

This morning, I would like to speak in favor of full funding

for $25 million for the

renovation of the peace plaza in japantown.

This is a very important space in japantown. Significance to our residents in the greater community.

It is a large open space. [Inaudible]

So it serves as a principle

venue for cultural events. We've held numerous public events in the plaza.

One that particularly comes to mind to me is 70th anniversary

of the dropping of the atomic

bomb in.

It also features a speech by a

survivor of hiroshima bombing.

That day in particular the peace

plaza was truly the appropriate

place for his message and our

message for world peace.

In summary, along with men organizations -- many organizations, we urge that the board of supervisors fully fund the $25 million allocated for

the renovation and the park and rec bond measure. So -- [Inaudible] Long overdue rehabilitation that it deserves.

The project has received all

approval and stands ready in the November ballot.

On behalf of the japanese

housing incorporated, we urge

you to approve in it's full entirety the $25 million

appropriation for the renovation of the japantown peace plaza.

Thank you. >> thank you for your comment.

Next speaker. >> good morning, can you hear me? >> yes, please begin your

comments.

>> good morning, commissioners. My name is glyna.

I'm a board member of the japantown task force and also

advisory board member of the japanese bilingual cultural

program over at rosa parks elementary school.

You've heard multiple testimony about the crucial role of the peace plaza and the sustainability of japantown, so I won't be redundant.

Instead, given this moment of national reckoning, I would like

to ask you to look at the peace

plaza through the lens of social justice for a minute.

Because this project is also about equity and restorative justice.

While the peace plaza is, today, the cultural heart and living room of japantown, to many families in the western edition,

it is a painful reminder of

urban renewal in the late 60s when hundreds of japanese americans were again forcibly

removed and evicted from the neighborhood.

This time by the city.

It was really the nail in the

coffin of the once vibrant commercial and residential

fabric of japantown.

And the displacement of japanese-american families was

never really reversed. But the community as it always

does made the best of it.

We've waited patiently for the

voices of the community to be heard and the deterioration of

the plaza, including the botched construction that was never

corrected, to be addressed.

Of the billions of dollars

approved rec money passed since 2000, japantown has never been the recipient of a main bond measure project.

I ask you today to advance equity and exercise responsibility in repairing some

of the harm of the past by including the peace plaza renovation in its full $25

million allocation in the

proposed health and recovery bond measure.

Thanks for your time today.

>> hello. Hello, can you hear me? >> yes. >> hello?

>> hello.

>> my name is joe. Hi.

May I begin? May I begin?

>> yes, please do.

My name is george. Born in the san francisco in the

outset of the great depression.

And trained in arkansas during the war.

I'm here to urge the $25 million allocation for the peace project.

I have a little narrative I want to read to you. Upon returning to the city after the war, I recall how hard we

all worked to get our lives back together.

You can imagine store owners and what working people face today with the pandemic and what to do

when this crisis is over, you can well imagine what we went

through, except we'd been away for four years.

When we thought we had our life

back in order, imminent do main

took a wrecking ball to our community.

The only acting grace was a gift from japan.

The plaza with the reflecting pools.

Soon after construction [Inaudible]

[Inaudible]

The plaza was -- of anything with water. Community gatherings.

Today, japan center with its

plaza and iconic are accessible

year long, its cherry blossom

for 200,000 people annually.

After 52 years, the plaza still

leeches unclean water into the atmosphere.

it is high time to correct these deficiencies. -- our community --

>> your time has expired.

Thank you for your comments sir.

Next speaker, please. Hello, speaker?

>> good morning, are you able to hear me?

>> yes.

>> okay. Awesome.

My name is -- I'm calling to

urge the support for the japantown.

We are a group that is actually

pretty unique in that it's practiced by women.

To us san francisco's japantown

is one of the very few places

that has been a public platform at the annual festival to

celebrate and demonstrate our arts.

This is critical not just for us, but many arts.

Japantown isn't just a place to

enjoy japanese food and shopping, but it's also tied to

the survival of many of our arts. You know, also on a more

personal note, in the past 12 years of public school education that I received, nothing could compare to what I learned about

the devastation and aftermath of japanese-american internment.

Every remaining space of japantown is incredibly valuable

for the arts, but also as a

landmark that serves as a living

textbook for the generation. And the resilience of the japanese community.

I urge each and every one of you

to support the $25 million for the peace plaza.

Please help us to make the repairs we desperately need and help us make a greener space

that aligns with our vision fort peace plaza. You can make a difference for us. Thank you so much for your time. >> thank you for your comment.

Next speaker, please. >> hello. My name is nick.

I'm the chair of the park rec open space advisory commission and committee.

And we were lucky enough to be

able to meet last night and discuss the bond. I say that because we've been wanting to do that since the beginning of the pandemic so that we could stand here and actually support the bond through the commission, through

the other meetings that have happened over this.

And today I can finally say that

the park rec open space advisory committee fully supports the bond to move forward and to get

on the ballot. We hope that you approve it and put it on the ballot. And we hope we can help be part

of getting it passed to the

voters and working with rec park

to get these wonderful projects done.

As rec park has had 100%

completion rate for all the

other bonds we've worked on together. We hope to continue that.

Thank you for that and have a great day. >>

next speaker, please.

>> good morning, supervisors.

My name is stephen courier.

I am a member of the park and rec open space advisory committee.

as nick mentioned, we voted last night to support is this bond.

And I actually supported on both

ends the recovery and the park bond.

I'm vice chair of the vehicle

triage center at the upper parking lot at bart station.

So really this serves two areas

that I am concerned with.

Mental illness, homelessness and parks.

I hope that you will vote to put

this ballot on the measure in November. We look forward to supporting this.

Thank you very much.

>> Clerk:   thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please. >> hi. Good morning.

My name is alanna.

I'm a fourth generation

japanese-american working in japantown. Last week I called in and I

said, you know, we're not giving

up so I wanted to call again to show my dedication to peace plaza receiving the $25 million

for much needed repairs.

Last week I called and told you

about how the repeated displacement of japanese-americans from japantown has affected generations like mine and how many of us grow up in communities where there are no other japanese-americans.

That is so important that the

city, that we invest in these

japantowns because there is only

three japantowns left.

And these japantowns are really

the only place that as

japanese-americans we can be our

true cultural authentic self-s. i wanted to note there is a lot

of younger voices today on the

call and it really speaks to how

deeply meaningful your support

of our peace plaza is, to all parts of our community.

I really look forward to doing everything I can if our peace plaza gets on the bond to

advocate for this bond. To show how much it means to us.

So thank you so much.

>> Clerk:   thank you for your comment. Next speaker, please.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   Madame Clerk, how many people are in

the queue? >> yes, Madame Chair, I believe there is one more.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you

very much, Madame Clerk. >> hello.

Can you hear me?

>> yes.

Hi, I'm a student -- yeah. Hello, I'm a student at san francisco state university and

the founder and President Of the student union.

I am calling to show my support for japantown receiving $25 million for the peace plaza renovation plan. I would like to urge this board of supervisors to vote in favor of it. When I moved to san francisco, the first area of the city that

I visited was japantown. This is not because I was in the mood for a particular dish or shopping experience, but instead

to find comfort in a city that I

was about to call a new home.

I hope to find comfort in

japantown while I did in L.A.

When I arrived in japantown, I

found it was small and humble,

and it was a district that didn't receive the amount that it deserved. This would be a step in the right direction in terms of

being treated with respect that

japantown deserves with historical significance and

value in the community. Japantown still stands today. Needing to give the support that the rest of the city receives without question.

That said, shovel ready, it only needs your support to receive

the funds it needs to be treated

with the respect it deserves. I urge you to approve the $25

million so we as a city can continue to support the preservation of the japanese-american community and our history in san francisco and promote growth within the area through the renovation of peace plaza. Thank you for your time.

>> Clerk:   thank you for your comments.

Are there any other speakers in the queue?

>> yes, there is one final caller in the queue. I will unmute them now.

>> thank you.

>> good morning, caller. >> hello?

Good morning, thank you for this

opportunity to address the committee.

I'm reverend with the church of san francisco and member of jar.

And I would like to speak in

support of the proposal and also point out this is not only significant for japantown, per

se, but I think for the city of san francisco -- city and county

of san francisco in that it's a physical icon.

I'd like to emphasize that it represents the aspiration for

peace upon which the united nations was established 75 years ago in san francisco.

I think this is in contrast to other physical landmarks that

more or less represent the economic development of the city.

I would like us to continue the

peace plaza as a symbol of our

dedication to peace as a significant part of san francisco.

So, thank you for this

opportunity to express our

support for the peace plaza and

pagoda symbol for the people of san francisco. Thank you. >> thank you for your comment. Madame Chair, I believe we have

one more caller in the queue.

Hello, caller? >> good morning. I'm lucy fisher.

I'm on the board of the japantown task force.

And a constituent of district 8.

I'm speaking in favor of the

health and recovery bond,

specifically for the full

funding of the peace plaza project.

Two weeks ago you heard staff rec and park talk about

priorities for the funding.

The peace plaza meets all of them, conditions, assessment.

And the fact that the peace

plaza is a multiuse community hub.

And it provides business,

social, cultural and spiritual space for residents and for visitors.

So I urge you to support the

full $25 million for funding and

please know that we will get out

and vote for public support for this bond in November.

Thank you.

>> Clerk:   thank you for your comment.

Are there any other speakers in

the queue? >> yes, there is another

speaker. I will unmute now. >> thank you.

>> hello, caller? >> hi.

Good morning. My name is eric. I'm organizer with the trust for public land. I just wanted to call and thank

all of the supervisors for all

their hard work and dedication

on the bond and agree

wholeheartedly with the intent

of the bond and see this as an

important investment in park equity in san francisco. The public land believes in

public spaces for all people and

we feel this bond would be a

strong asset to all communities

and really look forward to

working with the city to have this pass in November.

>> thank you for your comment.

>> that completes the queue.

>> Clerk:   thank you.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you. Public comments on item 1 and 2 are closed. I would like to make a motion to

move 1 and 2 to the board with a positive recommendation. Could I have a roll call vote?

>> yes, on the motion,

supervisor walton?

>> Supervisor Walton:   aye.

>> supervisor mandelman aye. Fewer aye. There are three ayes.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much. I believe Ms. Green, you're going to have a presentation for

us on item number 3, is that correct? >> yes, that's right.

I have some slides I will share. Also, before you companion piece

to the bond you saw with

positive recommendations is

amending the city's ten-year capital plan. Can you see that okay?

>> Supervisor Fewer:   yes, we can. >> so this is the update to the capital plan which is updated in full every two years. It was last unanimously approved

in full by the board on April 30, 2019.

And it will be before you next fall. This is to update you.

This year it focuses on the geo bond program.

This is the context for the

November bond.

We heard from mayor's office,

director, city administrator was

asked to -- and more recently the covid-19, we wanted to be

sure to address the unemployment issue and put dollars toward shovel ready work in addition to the careful planning in the

parks department that got us all the great programs and projects

you just -- there is piece of the capital plan update as well

which is incorporating affordable housing in the capital plan.

And when the board approved the

capital plan resolution last

spring, there were two whereas clauses on the front. The first was to add affordable

housing as part of the process,

beginning with the next year obtained and to build reliable funding sources for affordable

housing, including but not

limited to another geo bond in addition to the one that passed

in 2015 and 2019. First I'll talk about the adjustments in the bond program

which is the heart of the update. So when capital planning committee acted, this was the --

this is the original capital plan update resolution.

These were the changes made.

So these are to make tradeoffs between the transportation bond

in 2022 and the public health

bond in 2023 to add funds to health and recovery bond.

They also inserted an affordable housing bond in November 2024,

which funds will be determined

within the program's constraint

not to raise property tax rates

above 2006 levels.

Available funds were all

dedicated to the health and recovery bond.

Since then, and what you just

acted an on and is reflected in the capital plan resolution

before you now is this further

amendment.

It is a material amendment to increase the health and recovery

bond further by trading off future parks and open space bond in 2028. You can see the affordable

housing bond still in with a

T.B.D. Amount. We're asking committee to -- that you'll continue this item

today because it needs to stay with the material changes. This is the first hearing of the

resolution at committee, but then the -- there was clause

states that the board reduces

the amount of the open -- [Inaudible]

-- to repeat the health and

recovery bond by the same

amount, to $487.5 million.

I also want to highlight the further language that is affordable housing direction

from the capital plan last year. Despite the work ahead that is

coming, part of the full plan, and thank you to supervisor yee

and supervisor haney on this for their close attention to this

language and partnership with the affordable housing stakeholders and also eric shaw and amy chan.

There is language that states

that the full plan of -- will

include affordable housing

narrative, that will include -- incorporate available

information including definitions of key terms.

2019 bond, documentation of

funding and principles for the capital investments.

The total health and production

were low and moderate income home buyers.

And the city's commitment to growing and protecting affordable housing production and preservation. All that lays ahead and I want

to reiterate my thanks to M.O.C.D. And especially the planning department who helped kind of build the frame we'll be able to follow in the fall as we

draft a capital plan update. >> thank you very much.

>> and just lastly, this shows

our geo bond curve with the new bond. You're still within the constraint of the program and

able to deliver on the

priorities as expressed by the board.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much. Could we have a report from the

B.L.A. Now, please?

>> yes, supervisor fewer, we

included our report in the

revised report on $487.5 million

in bonds to be submitted in November and if you have any

questions we are available to answer.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much, Ms. Campbell.

Any questions, comments, seeing none, can we open this up for public comment? >> yes, Madame Chair. Operation is checking to see if

there are callers in the queue. Please let us know if there are callers that are ready.

If you have not done so, press

star 3 to be added to the queue. For those on hold, please wait until you're prompted to begin

at the beep. Please let us know if there are callers who wish to comment on item number 3?

>> I have one caller.

I will unmute.

>> chapman speaking for the --

knob hill neighbors, and I

apologize if this -- [Inaudible]

The message before you is.

I want to state that it was -- [Inaudible]

-- to have affordable housing

built on all the useful

locations for infill on lower north hill and the neighborhood commercial district that are

being filled up by the city

instead with expensive condos,

promoted by lower polk neighbors among other things. If you want a permit, come and join us and then they took money

and so forth, okay? Now I did have the notice of health and I submitted a

proposal a few years ago and it said that supervisor preston wanted to -- [Inaudible]

Part of the -- and also built the housing.

Intended to do it.

And force -- the method is

true -- in seeking non-profit developers to bond any.

But it was -- the project failed

because they were listening to a

lawyer who was suing and had sued --

[Inaudible] -- you know. And [Inaudible] Support the mayor's office of housing.

We would like to have more --

like that done in our neighborhood.

None of the sites, you know -- [Inaudible]

Another site is 888 hope, the

city has the option to buy.

Unfortunately, you know, homeless [Inaudible]

Project to build simply has a

workout like the -- to house

young people all in one room,

together, promoting, you know [Inaudible]

But promoting, you know, sexual

assault and all kinds of things. We have all kinds of -- many

could be used for S.R.O. Rooms

for a process like that.

Buy that site to build on to [Inaudible]

Just as they have said to do,

you know, in a group in initial districts.

I've been told that they --

>> thank you for your comment. Are there any other speakers in

the queue? >> good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to

speak in public comment regarding this item which is

related to the first two items.

I am, by identification purposes

only, co-chair of the vico

triage center parking lot station.

In one of the projects, but goals for the triage center is

to get these people, our client, into permanent housing and affordable housing.

I just want to -- to ask that you -- to the ballot for

November 3rd and I thank you very much.

>> thank you for your comment.

>> Madame Chair, that completes the queue.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much. Public comment for item number 3 is closed.

I'd like to make a motion to

move this item -- continue this

item until the next meeting of

the budget and finance committee. Could -- okay.

No, first, I would like to make

a motion to approve the amendment? Is that correct, Madame Clerk? Yes.

I would like to make a motion to approve the amendment.

>> on the motion walton aye. Mandelman aye.

Fewer aye. Your ayes are three ayes.

>> now I would like to make a motion to continue this item to

the next meeting of the budget

and finance committee as amended. >> on the motion, supervisor

walton aye. mandelman aye. Fewer aye.

You have three ayes.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much.

Madame Clerk, can you call items

4 and 5 together?

>> 4, ordinance appropriating

$140 million of proceeds from general obligation bonds

transportation and road improvements 2014 series series to the municipal transportation agency for street and transit

projects in fiscal year 2020-21

and placing these funds on the

controller reserve pending

receipt of proceeds.

Item number 5, resolution authorizing text exempt bonds to

be designated generally as the

city and county of san francisco

general obligation bonds. Transportation and road

improvement bonds 2014, series 2020b. Members of the public who wish to provide public comment on

these items should call

408:   418-9388, meet, I.D. 1461315200.

Please wait until the system

indicates you have been unmuted.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   today we

have jonathan and timothy with

us from M.T.A.

You have the floor, thank you.

>> good morning, everybody. My name is timothy.

I'm the budget manager at sfmta.

I'm also joined today by leo,

C.F.O. At sfmta, jonathan,

senior budget manager sfmta and

the office of public finance.

Can you all see my presentation?

>> Supervisor Fewer:   yes, we can. >> great.

So I'm here in front of you guys

for two items. one is to appropriate $140 million for bond proceeds, the

second is sale of $140 million in bonds.

This is sfmta's third issuance

of plan 4 issuance of bonds proceeds.

This is for $140 million, about

$14 million of -- $134 million of which is for projects.

This bond as I mentioned is part

of proposition a. Passed by the voters, for $500 million of bonds for transportation.

From the $500 million we've had two issuances to date.

The first was in June 2015 for

$67 million in bond proceeds. The second was in February 2018,

that is the second issuance for $177 million.

So today we want to do a third

issuance on the $500 million of

$140 million in bond proceeds

with the issuance plan for

December 2020 -- sorry, starting

in December 2020 for the remaining projects.

So this slide just shows you

guys how the bond has been allocated to date. You can see how much has been issued from the different categories that we divide our bond into.

And then the third issuance, proposing $130 million mostly -- there is a category that is

called faster more reliable transit.

That category is considered to be muni forward. Two other portions in accessibility and pedestrian improvement that take up a large majority of the third issuance of this bond.

I mentioned two other issuances that happened already. From the first bond issuance,

the latest and greatest

information we have shows that about 97% spent for the first, so it's nearly done.

There are bitter and pieces remaining.

And then we're at 73% spent of the bond which is on track of what we were expecting when we did the second issuance on

presentation with you guys a few years ago. So this is just more detail in terms of the first issuance of

the bond and some of the major categories.

We're spending remaining balance remain.

As I mentioned, there is only a

bit remaining for the first issuance of the bond. Kind of the spending by quarter

for the first issuance of the bond.

Again, we anticipate this first issuance being done pretty soon

given there is such a small amount left.

The second issuance of the bond is across various categories.

And there is still remaining balances among these categories, but again as I mentioned, it's checking about on track with

what we expected. Slightly lower than when we

first -- because when we first issued these bonds. Then again, this shows you guys the projection of how we plan on -- the projection of spending for the second issuance of the bond.

This is about where the 70% mark is currently at.

We anticipate the second issuance being close to being

spent by the calendar year

20-21. So getting to the meat with the

third issuance for the $140 million.

With this issuance, sfmta has learned a lot over the last few years. Taking the advice of the capital planning committee, with this

issuance we tried to focus on

fewer number of projects, larger projects, with large project budgets that also active or nearing construction.

With the first two issuances, I mentioned earlier, I think we had over 50+ projects that

funded those two issuances.

And it did admittedly make for a lot of administration and a lot of work.

I tried to make sure that those

projects were actively spending the bond proceeds. So this time around we tried to

limit the number of projects to

try to focus on large critical projects that the city needs, that sfmta needs to deliver.

And a lot of these are

multiagency projects that we're coordinating with other agencies.

So this slide on the left shows the seven projects that sfmta plans on using the bond proceeds for.

There is a variety of projects.

Muni, 22 fillmore, 19th avenue.

A couple of projects where sfmta

is acting as fiscal agent. Where others are delivering the project.

There is the canopy projects. They're putting up the canopies in downtown san francisco, which

I think a lot of you might have seen.

There is a caltrain electrification project in which

sfmta is a fiscal sponsor of the

project to electrify caltrain. and there are more details on the projects.

On the right, you'll see the

breakdown of the $120 million

for the appropriation and sale. I mentioned earlier there is about $134 million of this bond that we plan on using for projects.

And then the remaining amounts

are mostly for cost of issuance

and other fees that you see there.

So in terms of the third issuance, based on the projects we have, this is the planned

spending for the bond proceeds.

Sfmta does have a pretty large capital improvement program. The general obligation bonds

make up a portion of it.

And so given that, we do plan on prioritizing the spending of the bond over some of our other

funding sources, so it's possible this curve May move a little faster.

But based on the project schedule, this is the current

spending that we project for this bond going to do the end of

calendar year 2022. So getting to the actual meat of

what we're getting with the money.

I mentioned this funding of the

projects, there is 19th avenue

project, which is a multiagency

project where the 28 line runs through.

There is a 22 fillmore on 16th street.

Both of those are multi-agencies.

Puc is coming in first and doing sewer work. Public works doing paving work.

And then after that, they get

the full treatment in terms of pedestrian and transit.

there will be transit stopping location.

Signal work and various ada improvements.

Similarly, the taraval is a

project to do -- replace the ocs.

Some of the charley wires and poles to better improve safety forever the corridor and

reliability. Cat narrowy.

In the western edition, there is traffic signals upgrades that

are planned.

The 24 locations we plan on

doing countdown signals and improving signal visibility as

well as flashing beacons in

various areas in the western edition. This area is recognized as a high injury corridor where there

are a lot of collisions and pedestrian issues in the area,

so this is as a result of that.

Pedestrian safety improvements.

And then there is a safer streets project that is a

project in close collaboration

with the tenderloin community. Widening the sidewalks, some of the lanes reduced. On taylor street, there will be

one lane south of ellis and north it goes up to two lanes.

There is going to be other things that are included as part of taylor safer streets. Then I mentioned earlier, there

are two other projects for sfmta

acting as a fiscal agent. There is a project here at the top.

You see here, an actual example

of how the canopy covers the

escalator and then there is a

caltrain electrification project at the bottom. One of the lessons learned from prior bond issuances, we're

trying to focus this more on projects that are in active

construction or nearing active construction.

You'll see here these bars in

red indicate that a project is in construction.

If it's in orange, it's in design going into construction.

As I mentioned, we're trying to

focus on projects that are

active construction so we can deliver concrete projects and

get the bond spent down. In terms of need, despite the

pandemic that is going on, I

mentioned these projects are being built. We already put in a significant

amount of funding and effort into it.

So these funds will ensure that

despite the pandemic that we deliver these critical projects

so that when the economy bounces

back, we can have improved transit. So all this said, I will

actually transition it from here

to talk about more detail in

terms of the uses side of it. >> thank you. Good morning, committee members.

Thank you for hearing this item.

I'm from the office of public finance.

First in context, in November

2014, the city voters approved proposition a, general obligation bond. Prop a authorized the city to

issue up to $500 million in general obligation bonds to implement a wide range of transportation infrastructure repairs and improvements.

Earlier in the presentation, you saw the various categories of projects to be funded through the bond program. Also on the earlier slides,

you'll note that from the total

authorization, $241 million has

been issued to date, which

leaves $258 million unissued

from the prop a program. We're proposing to issue up to

$140 million of the remaining authorization here for the third

issuance in the program to fund

an expected $1334 million --

$134 million in projects, plus

issuance costs as shown in the slide. Mta just presented the plan projects.

I'll be speaking to the fiscal impacts.

Next slide, please.

The final numbers will vary somewhat based on conditions at

the time of pricing, but based

on market interest rate of 3.75 estimated that we would receive in May from the investors, the

office of public finance,

projects cost of $9,725 million.

The debt life is $193 million

and of this, of course, $136

million would be the estimated principle amount and the

remainder would be the estimated interest costs.

The property tax impact of the

bonds is approximately $3.46 for

100,000 of assessed property value.

That city charter imposed debt

limit is equal to 3% of total

assessed value in the city.

Currently the city's outstanding

obligation bonds equal.85% of

the net assessed valuation for the fiscal year 2020.

So if the board approves the

issuance of the transportation

bonds, the debt ratio would

increase by.05%.

Which is still well within the 3% limit.

Additionally, the board has

approved the capital plan and amended it. It would place a policy constraint to ensure that

property taxes, funding the program would not increase above

the levels of 12.01 cents.

And the proposed sale of the transportation bonds is consistent with the adopted

capital plan and would allow us to maintain property tax rates

for geo bonds below the fiscal year 2006 tax rate. Currently we're expecting to price the bonds later on in the month in July. And close the transaction in August.

I can try to speak to any questions you have regarding bond financing and of course,

the M.T.A. Team is here to answer questions about the

project and expenditure plan.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much. Supervisor walton?

>> Supervisor Walton:   thank you so much, chair fewer, and thank you for the presentation.

I just have a question.

I know that one of the projects are upgrades to caltrain.

And just wanted to know the latest conversations that you're

having with caltrain as a placentia bay member

of the J.P.B., I know caltrain is going through issues and concerns.

I'm just wondering the latest

conversations you've had with

caltrain, how their fiscal --

>> yeah, so I mean, this is in

regards to the actual project, I don't believe that the

project -- given that the project is getting some federal

grant money and other funds, my understanding is that the project is still going to proceed. In terms of other fiscal impacts, supervisor walton, you're right.

Sfmta is a member of the joint powers board.

We also contribute a portion of

our budget to caltrain. So it's a conversation that we're having with them right now

just in terms of making sure that we still continue to contribute to caltrain.

They have noted in the region that they have had fiscal issues

and with the cares funding that

the region has received, has put

themselves in a position to ask

for a pretty large amount given their fiscal constraints.

We're trying to partner with them.

But the conversations are ongoing. And then you can add anything

you want to add to that?

>> good afternoon, committee members. M.T.A.

The only thing I would add, we did recently meet with the caltrain staff. We have an annual meeting with them in advance of their budget

on the study and county's --

city and county's contribution. Specifically with regard to their capital improvement program, they're pretty much going with the status quo focusing on state of good repair

and the electrification program.

There are F.T.A. Dollars associated with that

multibillion dollar program and this geo specifically provides

match and is part of that full funding plan. Capital-wise they will continue

to be sustained by the city's

proposition k sales tax.

But we do, as tim noted, are continuing to have discussions

with them long-term.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   okay? Thank you. Any other comments, questions, from my colleagues. Seeing none, could we have a B.L.A. Report?

>> yes, chair fewer, members of

the committee, 4 and 5 I prove

the issuance of $140 million in

general obligation bonds for transportation improvement projects.

We summarized the use of the bond funds on page 10 of our

report and sort of the overall

bond projects on page 11 of our report. Estimated debt service on the

bond would be $9.7 million per year as discussed.

The impact on the property tax rate would be for property

assessed at 600,000 would be $20 per year.

This does fall within the city's capital debt limit and capital

plan tax rate limit. We recommend amending the

proposed ordinance to require a report on bond project and expenditures to the board of supervisors prior to December

31, 2020 and for the report to be included in the legislative file. And then we recommend approval of the resolution and the proposed ordinance as amended. I'm available if you have questions.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much. No comments or questions from my colleagues?

And so, let's open this up for public comment.

Can I -- Madame Clerk, can you

call for public comment on items 4 and 5?

>> yes, Madame Chair. Operation is checking to see if

there are callers in the queue. Please let is know if there are callers ready.

If you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue.

For those on hold, continue to

wait:   are there any callers?

>> there are no callers wishing to speak.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you.

Public comment is closed on

items 4 and 5.

Supervisor mandelman?

>> Supervisor Mandelman:   thank you, chair fewer.

My mic on off response is very slow.

I note the B.L.A.'s recommendation that we get a

report back at the end of the

year about the expenditures.

And I -- I'm curious, both from

the B.L.A. And from the M.T.A., about how best for this

committee and the board to think

about kind of time and costs associated with these kind of projects.

Like, I think we all have in our minds some very prominent

examples of projects that have

taken way too long and have cost way too much.

And these are much smaller projects and in some cases

aren't even -- you know, they're

sort of the mix of kind of bart projects, caltrain.

I mean the money is going a lot

of different places, but you

know, trying to be responsible

stewards of public funds, and

maybe this is all to the controller. How can this committee, you know, evaluate whether things are taking too long or costing

too much?

>> through the chair, supervisor mandelman, to clarify recommendation, I believe we

would like to see a report back

funded by all the bonds on prop

a, not just this issuance. We received this morning, there

are the bond reports to the citizens oversight committee,

but the board supervisors have

an oversight rule also.

There isn't an action that would block, it's simply a way for the

board to stay informed of the process of the projects and to

be able to ask questions of the bond program.

>> Supervisor Mandelman:   and

normally when that report comes

in, it lands in your e-mail, correct? >> correct.

>> Supervisor Mandelman:   I don't know. If there is a way for the B.L.A. To remind us?

I would love to have this committee do a hearing on that

report at the end of the year and kind of better understand --

have the B.L.A. And the

controller take a look and see what seems noteworthy. >> we could inform the chair of the timing and recommend a hearing.

>> Supervisor Mandelman:   I think that would make sense.

Thanks. >> supervisors, just to speak on this quick also.

as the B.L.A. Mentioned, I mean,

we do go to the oversight

committee every quarter. We do presentations to them as well as report and meet with

their committee members via

liaison meetings. In addition, we also have various controls we have in place fort bonds. That includes internally, we have various committees that

look at exactly what you're talking about in terms of

project spending versus the original approved budgets for the project, to make sure they're trending on track in

terms of the original cost estimates.

So I think through those avenues -- I mean we're happy to provide the reports we funnish

in the bond oversight committee.

And then we're happy to do individual briefings with you

guys on these to go into more detail about spending and some of the questions that you're

talking about.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   okay. Supervisor mandelman? Any other questions?

>> Supervisor Mandelman:   I think it would -- I recognize that

there are these oversight bodies, but I think it would

make sense for this board to do

some kind of hearing just to serve that to the public.

How are we trending? Are we regularly going over? Is there a pattern of being slow? That kind of thing.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   year, I agree. -- yeah, I agree.

I think that would be helpful

actually, that they come back to this board. I don't know if it's to this

committee or the full board.

And the committee caring, but I will leave that to my colleagues too follow up on.

I am out of office, so I think

that -- so, my colleagues, I'm

going to put this on you, that you will actually call this back and the B.L.A. Is going to send a gentle reminder to the committee that -- and to the

board that this has been requested at the budget and

finance committee. That's great.

So did we call for public comment on the items 4 and 5? I think we did. That is closed. So I believe that we have

actually a recommendation for an amendment that has been presented by the B.L.A.?

Would we need to memolize the request of this committee to be reminded this is something we would like to come back to in this amendment also? I'm going to ask that the advice of the B.L.A. Or do you think this is something that is not necessary, that you have in your

own notes and that we can just

amend it as you suggested? >> we'll maintain our own

records to make sure that we report back on this.

>> Madame Chair, I can also include that in our minutes for today's meeting.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you, Madame Clerk. Then I'd like to make a motion

to approve the amendment that is brought forth by the B.L.A.

Could I have a roll call vote.

>> Clerk:   yes on the motion,

supervisor walton aye. supervisor mandelman aye.

Chair fewer aye. You have

>> Supervisor Fewer:   I'd like to

make a motion to move items 4 and 5 with positive

recommendations to the full board.

>> walton aye.

Mandelman aye. Fewer aye.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   can you call item number 6. >> item 6, resolution approving and authorizing the director of

property on behalf of the city's department of public health to

lease real property located at

33 valencia street for initial term of 15 years to commence on

February 16, 2021, from 33

valencia owner at a base rent of

$2.1 million per year with 3% annual increases. Members of the public who wish to provide public comment on

this item should call

408:   418-9388.

I.D. Number 1461315200 and press pound twice. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted

and you May begin your comments.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much.

With us today, we have greg

wagner and cathy john from the department of public health.

You have the floor.

>> thank you, supervisors.

Greg wagner, chief financial officer, department of public health. I'll describe the project a bit

and then turn it over.

I think he's got the slide show

up if you can see it. But essentially, we're requesting your approval to enter into a lease with 333 valencia.

This is part of the plan for 30

van ness, which as you know in

great detail is being vacated in

the transition of city office

space and part of it it was also

the part of the department of public health relocation plan

which we have talked in some

detail and capital plans and other settings before.

But essentially, this would -- if you could go to the next

slide?

So we have about 223 staff that

are in various programs at D.P.H.

Currently at 30 van ness. Those are maternal, child

health, primary care, administrative support, public health emergency preparedness

and response team and our ems regulator team.

And those will be moving into 333 valencia.

That will free up the space at

30 van ness to move forward with

the developers' plans and finalize the exit of the lease

from that program.

Maybe a little bit behind on

my -- so we've been working with

real estate on this for quite some time. The location is good.

It will allow us to still have

proximity to the civic center area for these programs.

We're anticipating that we will

be able to move into a space

around February 2021 which is an

aggressive, but we think doable, time line.

It's an older building, but it

will have gone through a complete renovation.

It will have upgraded seismic and infrastructure. And we think it will accommodate

these programs quite well, so

we're pleased with this as an

alternative space. Then I'll let him take over on some of the details of the

transaction.

>> thank you, greg. Hopefully, the screen is coming up.

There looks like a bit of a lag.

But basically, as greg indicated

earlier, this is a transition of

D.P.H. Staff from 30 van ness to 333 valencia.

The reason for this transition

is that 30 van ness was one of

three assets that was sold and

ordered to help finance the new

one-stop permit center at 49

south van ness, which I'm pleased to say move in was started last week.

So we're starting the process of occupying that building.

D.P.H. Was one of three units

that were not scheduled to go to

the 49 south van ness building because they're not permit center related.

The solution then was to find new homes for those three units

and new home for D.P.H. Is 333 valencia. I agree with greg.

I think this is a superior solution to their current home

and also serves the departments quite well. The slide that you have in front

of you is meant to convey two things.

One, the deal points for the current deal which you will see on your right.

And second, the pre-covid negotiating position that you

will see on your left. Consistent with the direction that we received from the board

of supervisors, we have

endeavored to negotiate 15%

reduction in costs for any leases post covid.

And we were successful in doing

that in this case. Pre-covid, you see the term has not changed. We're at initial term of 15

years with a 10-year option in

both cases.

The significant savings came and base rent.

We're originally at $55 per

square foot.

We've negotiated down to $49.95

per square foot. Originally, we were at one month's free rent and now we have six months of free rent, which basically means there will

be no fiscal impact in the upcoming fiscal year. The original proposal was for

one elevator for the building.

We were able to negotiate two elevators.

Paid for by the landlord.

The tenant improvement did not change. Neither did the triple net structure of expenses nor did the purchase option.

With these changes in savings, it represents 21% savings over the first five.

That drops to 16% over the first

10. And 14% over the life of the initial term.

One thing that I wanted to also

add is that after the resolution was introduced, the building was

remeasured by the owner and some refinements were made to the tenant improvement.

As a result, the annual base

rent, landlord contribution, tenants improvement number and

the rentable square feet, all made slight adjustments. the B.L.A. Report and recommendation were based upon

these adjusted numbers and a red line of the changes has been

provided to the clerk of the board. However, with the chair's permission, I would like to read the proposed amendment into the

record.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   yes, please. >> and you should be able to see

in front of you a red line of the resolution and so you'll be

able to follow along visually as

I read the proposed amendment.

In the title line two of the

title, the figure 2,180,116

should read $2,109,239 when

referring to the annual base rent.

On line 1, page 6, the figure

2,182,116, should read 2,209,239

when referring to the annual

base rent.

On page 2, line 11, the figure

of $483,686 should read 44,229 when referring to the rentable square footage.

On page 3, line 3, again, the

figure 2,621,160 should read 2,653,240 when referring to tenant improvement.

On that same line, it should

read $6.5 million when referring to the improvement.

And lastly on page 3, line 4,

the figure 2,182,116 should read 2,209,239 when referring to the

annual base rent.

We ask that you approve the

amendment to the resolution and positively recommend the resolution to the board of supervisors as amended.

This concludes my presentation.

Myself, greg wagner, kathy jung, are available to answer any

questions you May have.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much.

Madame City attorney, are these

amendments substantive? >> good morning, chair fewer. The amendments that I saw would increase the amount payable by

the city and so, yes, they are substantive.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   okay. So this item would have to be continued.

Are we on a time line?

>> yes, but not a critical one.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   okay.

So it's okay to continue this item if we were to decide to do that to the next meeting of the

budget and finance committee? >> yes.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   okay, that's great.

Could we please hear the B.L.A. Report.

>> chair fewer, members of the

committee, the proposed base approve 15 year lease has been discussed already by the presenters, the lease terms are

summarized on page 22 of our report.

There was an appraisal that we reviewed.

It shows that the initial rent

of 49.5 square foot is at or below fair market value including the cost for tenants improvement and there is a purchase option on the building

for $56 million that would extend to 2021.

We estimate that the cost to the

city over the initial 15-year

term including $6.5 million in

tenant improvement would be $67 million. But based on information

provided to us by the real

estate, we recommend approval.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   thank you very much.

Any comments or questions?

>> Supervisor Walton:   thank you so much, chair fewer. Just a quick question as I listen to the B.L.A. Report and the presentation. Why not just try to purchase the

building outright?

>> that is an excellent question, supervisor walton. The city's practice has

generally been to acquire sites through the use of debt instrument.

There is no debt instrument that

is currently available or in the pipeline for this purchase.

The city could make a policy change and decide to purchase

the property with cash. That would be a somewhat

deviation from its current

practice and in the current

fiscal environment that we find

ourselves in, that seems

unlikely the board would make that change at this time. However, that would be a policy

call for the board.

The lease as severin indicated does have the purchase option and should the board choose to go in that direction, that

option is available to it.

>> Supervisor Walton:   thank you.

>> following up on supervisor walton's question, if we were to decide in the future to purchase

the building, if it came with some sort of -- [Inaudible] -- would we be bound to the

purchase price? >> yes.

The purchase option binds both sides.

So we would be bound to that

price as would the seller.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   and if we

wanted to, we found that real

estate took a huge dip and we

wanted to take advantage of

that, could we reopen negotiations, if the other side

were actually to engage? >> well, yes.

I mean, obviously, we can achieve anything that both parties are willing to agree to.

In the scenario that you indicated, I think what would

likely happen is that the city would not exercise the option.

The buyer would put it on the

market, not be able to get the option price, and then we could

negotiate with the seller as any other potential buyer, not bound by the contract.

If we found that the market was

below the option price, we would simply not exercise the option,

but then bid for it on the open

market same as any other potential buyer.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   okay. I think we May have an opportunity and wanted to see what our options were. So seeing no other comments or questions from my colleagues,

I'd like to open this up for public comment.

Madame Clerk, can you call public comment for item 6.

>> Clerk:   yes, operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Would you let us know if there are callers that are ready.

If you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. For those already on hold

continue to wait until you're

prompted to begin at the beep. Please let us know if there are

callers who wish to comment on

item number 6. >> Madame Chair, there are no

callers wishing to speak.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   great.

I mean, fine. So public comment on item number

6 is now closed.

I have a question for you. I see that this rent, even

though we're getting a discount, is expensive.

I think that it's 5% -- it's

more like 5% above the rate, but

is it like -- is it the rent 15% discount?

Or is it 15% discount including

the tenant improvements?

>> it's a 15% reduction in the overall value of the proposed

deal based upon where we first

started our negotiations.

So -- and the key differences as I was pointing out in the earlier slide. I can pull that back up if it was helpful.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   is it the

$6 million to tenant improvements?

>> well, the tenant improvements actually, that went from $6.2

million to $6.5 million. The tenant improvements are basically the improvement that

the department needs to make the space its own.

So we -- the landlord is

contributing $60 -- let me get

this correct.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   I think

what I wanted to know is that -- the deal that we're getting is

basically a reduction in the rent? >> that's correct.

That is the main reduction.

Going from the $55 to the $49.95.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   so, I just

want to say, I think what this committee would like.

if we're going to negotiate any future lease agreements that I think 15% is admirable.

I actually think in this market

we should be aiming for 20%. This will be our new negotiating level.

I think we're able to negotiate

a 15% discount on a couple of the lease options. Now let's see if we can get

upwards of 20, 25%, considering we're a very good tenant. These are big contracts.

And also we're seeing much more vacancies in san francisco, so this could be an opportunity to

lock us in at a lower rate.

So anyway, that is some marching

orders, I think, for you in future tenant agreements. Thank you very much.

So I see that we have some

amendments to actually I prove. I'd like to -- approve. I'd like to make a motion to approve those amendments.

Could I have a roll call vote?

>> on the motion, walton aye. Mandelman aye.

Chair fewer aye.

Your ayes are three ayes.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   yes. Before I make the last motion, I

also have one more question.

So I understand that the plans

were actually made pre-covid and

to move this back into these facilities. Considering now that we are

dealing with covid, and that we

will need to physically distance

workers from each other, how

can -- I mean, will these

buildings be able to accommodate the staff that needs to move there?

Maybe that's a question for Mr. Wagner. >> thank you, chair fewer.

that's a really good question.

And as you can probably guess,

one that is still in kind of

active deliberation.

And that is for this property, but also for our other

workplaces in terms of what the

city policy is for how we'll set requirements for how we use our

space, including distancing,

barriers, et cetera. So we definitely have made plans and our continuing to work on

plans in these spaces to kind of

meet those expected requirements

in terms of deliverables.

A big question for us department-wide in addition to

this lease is going to be what

does the future of our

telecommute policy look like?

And how does that impact our

aggregate need for space across

our departmental real estate assets? And that's going to take us some time to figure out.

So we're anticipating we'll have

room here to accommodate these staff. It May take some kind of

rethinking and reconfiguring about what the tenant

improvement looks like, so we're

comfortable that this will be an adequate solution for us. But more to come for us and

other departments and we've started those conversations about space post covid.

>> Supervisor Fewer:   that's great. I just wanted to make sure to ensure when you're talking about and designing the tenant improvements, we're keeping this in mind. [Please stand by]

[Please stand by] . . . .

Members of the public who wish

to provide public comment should

call and press pound twice.

If you have not done so, press star 3 to speak. And the assistant will indicate

you have raised your hand.

And you May begin your comments. >> thank you very much.

Today we have with us jackie

hale from D.P.H. And judith

martin are also available for questions.

Miss Hale, the floor is yours. >> all right. Thank you, supervisor. Just to summarize, the purpose of this item is to extend the contract term by one year and to

add corresponding funding

bringing the total contract amount not to exceed $and as reflected in the report, the budget and legislative analyst

has reduced the original budget not to exceed by $738,759 and to

reduce unused contingency authority allocated to the t.

S of prior years. And the department is in agreement. In light of the pending budget deliberations t proposed contract extension is for only one year. We do anticipate returning after October to extend the term

further and reflect ongoing

funding based on final budget deliberations.

These are very important services within the substance abuse continuum of care and U.C. Has been providing high quality

services in partnership with D.P.H. For years as you know.

As noted in the report, the U.C. substance abuse scored the most points in the solicitation data

to continue the opioid addiction services and as consistently scored well in the annual monitoring.

As described in the report, there are several programs to

address opioid including the use

of methadone and alternatives to methadone which has had successful outcomes.

Both in their own clinic sites

and within D.P.H. Sights to expand availability. If you have any questions specific to program, as you

said, Dr. Martin and Ms. Sneed

are here to answer questions.

>> Superviser Fewer:   supervisor mandelman?

>> Supervisor Mandelman:   I am curious how the provision and demand for the services have

changed over the last three months.

>> Dr. Martin? >> hi, supervisor. And committee and I am honored

to address you virtually this

way from home.

So descend, which is the department of substance abuse and addiction medicine is the

agency at U.C. That runs this

program and they have ward 93 in particular which is an opiate treatment program with layers

and layers of regulation that are -- that would not be

consistent with covid safety,

and they have provided a lot of leadership for the six other methadone programs as well in

the city in order to prompt the

state to release some of the regulations during the emergency.

For example, people can take

home more medication and so the

time and treatment restrictions on how much unsupervised dosing

means fewer visits to the clinic which means safer.

They were able to delay some of

the routine in person exams and

lab tests yearly and the other thing they did which was very

creative is, by the way, ward 93

has been a leader throughout the country in terms of addressing

the pre-existing epidemic

overdoses and with methadone

maintenance and the ban in the bayview.

They adapted the use of a van to

provide treatment in the parking

lot so that a lot of the care

can be in the open air which

reduces some of the contagion,

of course, and to do phone

counseling and claim it at the

exact same rate as in person. And in addition the people were

helpful in developing protocols for delivering medication to the

containment centers for people

who were quarantined and all those things happened for the

first few weeks and the shelter

in place and were re-arranging the waiting room and wiping down

the dosing stations.

And doing in effect screening at

the front door for symptoms of

covid and tele counseling by phone and screening people

before they came into the clinic.

So I was amazed all the things they did.

And I have been impressed and

able to do intakes.

>> and ward 93 is in use and the rates have dropped a bit because some of the smaller clinics

weren't able to do a lot and had

several weeks where they closed their intakes. Ward 93 did not do thatened a were able toed a just with some

of the larger clinics like the bart program is able toed a just

more than the smaller programs

in terps of admitting people.

But ward 93 is doing really well. The commitment of the staff to

be sure the person is safe has

been also exemplary. And they have continued things

that they pay neared such as

observed dosing and hepatitis c treatment for people throughout this. >> great. All right.

Thank you.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you

very much. Let's see.

There is no -- yes, there is a

billing report.

Billing report please.

>> item number 7 that increases the amount by $5.1 million.

We summarized the sources and

uses with the agreement and we

have noted the reduction to

sight slightly less than $14

million and recommend approval

as amended. >> thank you very much.

>> Madam City attorney, is that substantive? >> no, chair fewer, it is not. >> thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the queue, let's open this up for public comment. Madam Clerk, public comment on item number 7. >> yes, Madam Chair. Operation is checking to see if

there are any callers in the queue. Please let us know if there are

any callers that are ready. Press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until you were prompted to begin at the peep.

Please let us know if there are any callers who wish to comment

on item number 7.

>> Madam Chair, there are no callers wishing to speak. >> public comment is now closed.

I would like to make a motion to the amendment and can I have a roll call vote please.

[Roll call vote]

There are three ayes.

>> I submit the smoegs to motion to

move to the board as amended. Supervisor walton? >> aye.

>> supervisor mandelman? >> aye.

>> chair fewer?

>> aye. >> thank you very much.

Please call items 8, 9, 10, and 11 together.

>> yes, Madam Chair.

Item 8, accept and expend grant

from the office of economic and

workforce development from the california employment development department a recipient of the grand awarded from the united states department of labor from April

10, 2020 to March 31, 2022.

Item ninety, resolution

retroactively authorizing the

amount of $75,000 from the california employment development department for

wioa25% dislocated worker support services during the grant period of March 1, 2020 through September 30, 2020.

And item 10, resolution retroactively authorizing the office of economic and workforce development to accept and expend

a grant in the amount of $452,659 from the california employment development department, a recipient of the grant award from the united

states department of labor for

the rapid response program

during the grant period of July 1, 2019.

And June 30, 2021.

And am 11 resolution retroactively authorizing the office of economic and workforce

development to accept and expent

grand of $999,000 from the united states of labor for the

worker emergency additional assistance during the grant period of May 1,2020 through

March 31, 2022. Members of the public who wish

to provide public comment on

these items should call

408-418-9388, meeting I.D.,

146 131 520 # o and press pound twice.

And the assistant prompt will

indicate you have begun.

>> Superviser Fewer:   we have a serious of accept and expend grants retroactive from the

department of labor.

And so today we have us jen hand

from oiwd.

The floor is yours.

>> thank you, supervisor fewer,

walton, and mandelman for

hearing the request to accept

and expand.

And joined bying threes who have

overseen the programs.

And for context for federal work

force funding and in the area of san francisco.

And all four were dislocated

workers displaced by economic

conditions related to covid-19

and with the california development to them to pass through the united states

department of labor for the

first grant from employment recovery. This will access reemployment and career services, job placement, training and supportive services.

These services will include one

on one job search, resume review, and resume preparation

and job coaching and placement

and unemployment and will

provide up to $226 per client in support of services for

transportation, clothing, child

care and other item.

Indirect costs were capped at

10% for this grant. >> this is another competitive

grant which provides supportive

services cash funding up to $800

per person for a minimum of 850

workers in the system who

recently lost their jobs and the

support services are sachtory

and child kair clothing and

laptops and providing internet.

While the grand May fund workers and they had significant introductions and this

prioritized services for english

language learners and dislocated

workers who are monolingual adults. For the incorrect costs and

staffing were not allowed.

So we needed to rate them.

And with the rapid response and the response program provides services to employers and

employees affected by layoffs

and this is designed to provide

early intersection with svss due

to down sizing to insure this is as seamless as possible.

And they typically give local

economic boards two years to

have the annual and ours was

$452,659 so generally we have opportunity to correct budget if we need to pull down more and

due to the increase in staff

times during the pandemic and we need authorization to stand down

the entire allocation.

And we're have the additional amount for the full grant award for two years.

The indirect costs are capped at 10%.

For the last grant, the dislocated worker and will provide reemployment services

for up to 400 recently laid off union members specifically in

the hospitality industry.

And trade industry.

And through the covid-19 special

training program and ard skills

and job readiness, individual

employment plans, with

occupational stills training.

And my colleagues and I are

available for any questions.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much. There is no billing and you did

address the issue of retroactive.

>> what is the reason for that?

>> they requested we get the

money out the door as fast as possible.

We submitted the accept and expend.

>> Superviser Fewer:   Madam Clerk, can you call public

comment for items 8-11.

>> Clerk:   operation is checking if there are callers that are in the queue.

If you have not done so, press

star 3 to be added to the queue.

For those on hold, please continue to wait until you are

prompted to begin at the beep.

Please let us know if there are callers who wish to comment on item 8-11. >> I have one caller in the

queue.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you

very much.

>> Caller:   supervisors, this

item should have been advertised

in the sense that those leaders,

so-called labor leaders should have been listening to this

explanation and about the grants. So the way it is presented is in

a very convoluted manner.

And if you look at how it is

presented and however which name

they have and with the money so that they can extend the grant

to do that services first.

Nobody knows about these grants. So the best way for people to

know what is happening with the

grants is to have a report ar on

audit and with the as dit on the backside which you do not have.

During this pandemic, the office

of economic development has done

a very poor job. Very poor job.

And the suffering of the workers

who have worked so hard is not

looked at with empathy and compassion.

You can see how this is presenting.

In a nonchalant manner.

No compassion. No empathy.

So supervisors, wake up.

You can look at it in a nonchalant manner.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you for your comment. And also we prefer comments that

are not personal attacks on

people, quite frankly. Thank you very much.

Are there any other speakers in the queue?

Seeing none, public comment is

now closed on items 8-11.

I would like to make a motion there is no billing report on all the items so I would like to

make a motion to move items 8-11

to the board with a positive

recommendation. Could we please have a roll call vote?

>> Clerk:   on the motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. Supervisor mandelman? >> aye.

>> chair few sner >> aye.

>> Clerk:   there are three yays.

>> Superviser Fewer:   please call

sigh tem number 12.

-- call item number 12.

>> Clerk:   to accept and expend

retroactively from public works for public works annie north plaza project for the period of

October 1 #, 2019 through December 31, 2019. Members of the public who wish

to provide public comment should

call 4081-418-9388, meeting 1461315200, and press pound twice.

If you have not already done so,

dial star 3 to line up to speak. And a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand and wait until the

assistant indicates that you

have been unmuted and you May begin your comments.

>> Superviser Fewer:   we have

elizabeth ramos from public

works and also jerry spits and

john thomas are available.

You have the floor, Ms. Ramos. >> good morning, supervisors.

I ap a capital finance analyst

at public works.

The resolution authorizes public

works to accept and expend the amount in the amount of $21,993.56 for costs associated

with excavation work at the annie north plaza.

Last year in March of 2019 the

yerba buena community benefit

district identified hazardous

landscape and hazardous soil

underneath the brick pavers and offered a cost share with the

thorough abatement and disposal services. The abatement work had to be

completed before public works

could provide the ybcbd with the

final costs and the total project cost is $54,983.

And on April 30, 2020, they offered the gift of $21,993.56

and public works portion is funded with the general fund.

The item did not require a budget and legislative analyst

report and john thomas is available to answer any project specific questions. Thank you.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much. Colleagues, any comments or questions for Ms. Ramos? Seeing none, let's open this up for public comment. Can we have public comment on item number 12. >> operation is checking to see

if there are any callers in the queue.

Please let us know if there are callers that are ready. Press star 3 to be added to the queue. For those on hold continue to

wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. Please let us know if there are

any callers who wish to comment

on item number 12.

>> Madam Chair, there are no callers.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much. Public comment on item number 12 is now closed. I would like to make a motion to move to the board with the positive recommendation. Can I have a roll call vote please? >> yes. On the motion, supervisor walton? >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> chair fewer? >> aye.

>> Clerk:   there are three yay yays.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, call item 13.

>> Clerk:   resolution approving

modification and general airport

security services and aviation

and security llc to increase the contract amount by $6,285,254

for a new contract amount not to exceed $11,785,254 through June

30, 2022.

Meeting I.D. 1461315200 and press pound twice.

If you have not already done so,

please dial star 3 to line up to speak. A system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.

Wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you

May begin your comments.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much. We have kathy from san francisco international airport. Hi, kathy. >> good morning, chair fewer and members of the committee. The item before you seeks approval for the first modification to an existing

contract between the airport and covenant aviation security for

general airport security services.

To increase but not to exceed

about by $6,285,254 and exercise

the first of two two-year options to extend the term

through June 30, 2022. This t scope of the contract

includes T.S.A. Mandated

security services for commercial

airports that include post security, vendor screening of goods and personnel, the guarding of passenger security check points at exit lanes

during non-tsa operating hours, random inspections at direct

terminal access points, and vehicle inspections at air

operations area access gates.

This contract is the result of the 2018 request for proposal with covenant security services

being awarded the contract as

the highest scoring proposer. This is to comply with requirements of the T.S.A. Airport security approved program and T.S.A. Security directive.

This contract extension is also

subject to the airport professional services contract

5% reduction for fiscal year

2021 as part of the airport's

covid-19 economic recovery plan. The budget analyst has reviewed

the contract and modification and has recommended approval, and I would be happy to answer

questions that you May have.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much.

Any questions for Ms. Widener?

Seeing none, the budget report.

>> to approve the modification to the existing contract and security services at the airport

to extend by two years and

increases it to not to exceed amount of $11.7 million.

we show on page 434 of the

report that because of increased passengers through the airport, the actual expenditures under

the contract May be lower and beginning of the next fiscal year.

So our table shows expenditures

ranging from $11.2 million to

$11.4 million total.

This rebim you aresment basis,

excuse me, and we recommend approval.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much. Let's open this up for public comment.

Are there any members of the

comment who want to comment on item 15?

>> Clerk:   operation is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue.

Let us know if there are callers that are ready. If you have not done so, press

star 3 to be added to the queue. For those already in the queue, wait until you are prompted to begin at the beep. Are there any caller who is wish

to comment on item 13?

>> Madam Chair, there are no

callers wishing to speak. >> Superviser Fewer:. Thank you very much. And public comment on item 13 is now closed.

And I do have some questions for you about this contract.

And I think my questions really

concern around the whole

staffing level of security and

policing and coordination, so I

understand that this contract is

for T.S.A. When -- for security

when outside of the regular

T.S.A. Hours, is that correct? >> partially.

This contract is a contract that s.F.O. Has with covenant

aviation security.

Coincidentally, the T.S.A. Also has a contract with covenant aviation security to staff all

of the check points as part of the federal government's role in

screening passengers that come through commercial airports.

This contract is a much smaller contract. It does pick up some of the

requirements that the T.S.A. Has

for us to secure exit lanes when check points are closed. They are not responsible for that. That is the airport's responsibility.

This contract also screens all

of the food and beverage and

retail products that go post-security.

And the tenant employees that go post security as well as

employee verification when we enter secure areas and vehicle

access to the airfield.

>> Superviser Fewer:   okay. So considering that we are

really looking at a severe reduction of use of our airports or people at the airports and

people even working at the airports, so this contract

actually gives me a little pause

because are rereally looking at

the reduction of air traffic and people at airports and services

at airports including the concessions? Including people with food and beverage and everything else and also products coming in at a much lower level because there is less people there.

So isn't this a little bit in

excess of what we really need?

>> as the budget analyst report

points out, it is strictly on a reimbursement basis,sor any reduction that happened would not be -- would not be passed

through to the contractor.

That being said, the airport is open. There are quite a few members of staff here.

We have a lot of the airline employees.

Everything that happens post security, we're going to be by the end of the summer back to almost 50% of all the

concessions open, so while we have seen quite a reduction in passengers, the airport continues to operate and this contract in particular doesn't necessarily deal with passengers.

It's more internal operations and staff verification. So if it were to be reduced because of the lower volume of

traffic that we're seeing, it

just wouldn't be paid. We wouldn't spend as much on the

contract as we anticipated.

>> Superviser Fewer:   my concern

is that actually we actually

don't know the full effect of

air traffic and what kind of --

we are going to a whole another

spiking phase of covid-19 and not only that, many countries are not allowing us to fly into their countries.

And also people who are tele commuting. So I am looking at this contract

and wondering, you also have actually a lot of law enforcement there.

I am wondering why we might need this contract when we have

excess law enforcement there at

the airport as the report just gave us in the other report and

I am sure that the supervisors have reviewed that.

So I wanted to ask, are we on a time ron standard state? I would like to continue this item to the next finance and budget committee hearing so I

can get a better picture. I believe that we will investigate and ask some questions. I would like to continue this item to the next budget and finance committee meeting if we

are not under a time constraint for this.

>> the only time constraint

would be they need to have the board consider this contract prior to budget. It is part of the budget and

half of the services are long-standing prop j services so

that would be the only time constraint.

I just feel like I should say for the record while it is continued, we are required to

have the terminal check point

staff and the contract will continue until it is continued to next week.

>> Superviser Fewer:   and prop j and that provision is really

about when it is an emergency situation. We May have layoffs of the own

security guards that we hire through the city and county that

might be facing layoffs and

wondering if they could do these

duties also and prop j shouldn't be taking jobs from city and county folk. Let's continue this item. I make the motion to continue

this item until the next budget and finance committee.

Can I have a roll call vote please? >> on the motion, supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> chair fewer? >> yay. >> thank you very much. Please call item 14.

>> item 14 resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to

accept and expend a grant in the

amount of $883,,000 from the

california department of public health for participation in a

program entitled "sexually transmitted disease program management and collaboration for

the period July 1, 2019 through

June 30, 2024."

members of the public who wish

to provide public comment should

call 408-418-9388. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted

and you May begin your comments.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Today we have with us Dr. Susan phillip from the department of public health.

Doctor, the floor is yours.

>> thank you very much, chair fewer. Thank you, supervisors walton and mandelman. Thank you.

I am coming today to talk about

this grant which recognizes that unfortunately california has

among the highest rates of S.T.D.S in the united states. Rates are going up nationwide

for chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis. That is true in california as well.

And unfortunately in san francisco also. So this grant from the state was

meant to recognize that local health jurisdictions such as san

francisco need additional resources in order to try new

and innovative partnerships and approaches. The emphasis that we are using

this funding for is primarily on syphilis.

Syphilis has increased 11% between 2018 and 2019.

It remains primarily an infection in san francisco among men. Infections in women are increasing. And in women one of the large

concerns with syphilis is the

possibility of congenital syphilis transmitted from a pregnant woman to the unborn child which is one of the most devastating complications of S.T.D.S. And this has been increasing nationally and in california.

And we have seen increases in

women with syphilis.

And had 11 pregnant women with syphilis in 2019.

And of which unfortunately despite very intensive efforts by our health department teams

to provide navigation and care

for children who are impacted by

congenital syphilis.

And these pregnant moms were very much associated with people experiencing homelessness and

true throughout california as well through substance use and

behavioral health issues and so

we want to think of innovative ways in which to partner and to

try and address and reduce the

impact of syphilis among women in san francisco. So majority of the funding is

going to go to partnership with

the ucfs project lilly team in

the ob-gyn and to deliver

prenatal care and prevention to who have housed and women who are experiencing homelessness to reduce impact on their health and health of the children as well. This is the largest part of the grant.

We also are seeking to work with

the ucsf prevention and disease intervention specialists. These are the staff that are

very famous now very some of the

covid work that they have been

doing and the core group of

staff and experts with people who have syphilis and helping identify the partners and

treated for presengs services as well. This would be the purpose of the dollars and we feel it is really important for the efforts

overall to improve sexual health in san francisco to be able to utilize them. >> thank you very much.

Any comments or questions for my colleagues? There is no billing report on this. I have one question which is, do

you have the racial demographics for this upward trend of people

who are contracting syphilis? >> we do.

I am happy to share those data.

In a rate per population, it is

most impacting people of color, burglarly black african-american women and happy to share the

exact rates with the committee.

>> Superviser Fewer:   I hope that

the funds are really targeted to

the population.

And we have a high infant mortality rate among african-american also and this

just combines even more, so I am

just asking that we can be assured that these funds -- and these aren't a lot of funds to

fight this huge problem, but

that funds are really geared

toward our african-american community and women that we are seeing a rise in and the

majority of people that are actually of this group. I just would be -- you are shaking your head.

I am assuming, doctor, that that is true.

>> I will work with project lily to see how they distribute the fund and see what the overall client base is, but because they

are working with the most vulnerable pregnant women in san francisco, I think that the

funds will be used in how you intend to really protect the most vulnerable residents who

are experiencing pregnancy and

all the comorbidities at the same time.

>> Superviser Fewer:   and that is great because you know as you worked so much with covid-19

stuff is this is a community that actually already has a lot

of health disparities and also

that outreach is much more

challenging at times. I think that it requires much

more resources to do it. I wanted to make clear this is a committee and the whole board

that actually would like to see these funds really expended in a

way that is targeted toward this population that already has such health disparity.

Thank you.

Let's open this up for public comment.

Item 14 please, Madam Clerk.

>> Clerk:   operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Please let us know if there are caller that are ready.

If you have not done so, press

star 3 to be added to the queue.

For those on hold, continue to

wait until you are set to begin

at the beep. Let us know if there are caller

who is wish to comment on item 14.

>> there are no callers.

>> Superviser Fewer:   I would like to move item number 14 to

the board with a positive recommendation. May I have a roll call vote? >> on the motion, supervisor walton. >> aye. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair fewer? >> aye.

>> there are three yay yays.

>> Superviser Fewer:   thank you very much. Do we have any other business for us today?

>> Clerk:   there is no further business.

>> Superviser Fewer:   I would like to mention that we are

starting our budget and appropriations meeting earlier today at 12:30.

We are anticipating a rather

long meeting and I will see you all in 45 minutes. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.