Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE BOS Budget And Finance Committee

The recent relatively lastminute changes in the structure of this bond and the fact that the Capital Planning process has been obviated to a certain extent. When 54 million comes out and is replaced with things that were not vetted sufficiently through the Capital Planning process, i feel that is creating a precedent that could be down the road will be continually stop using the Capital Planning process. At your 10 we should be recommitting to the capital process and not starting to ignore it. So, while all of the replacement projects are worthy and virtuous, i think that adhering to the process and keeping our bonding process and the sanctity of the whole is more important than creating a whole and filling it in. I could vote for a bond those 54 million less in size. I could vote for the ponderosa originally proposed a for the bond before us today. Thank you. Supervisor tang i echo everything that supervisor peskin yes said. However, when deviation is that i will support the bond overall because i dont want to see this not passes of board of supervisors. I think the majority of the projects here originally not subject to the recent addition of the 54 million i think that all of those were great. They were well vetted through the process we normally have and i did have a lot of concerns about what had happened at the last minute. I really hope to not see that happen again. In fact, i would like to work with the Capital Planning team who works very hard on this and thank you very much to all the staff who spent so much time putting this together to make sure that our process is one that will not eventually turn into something that is happened i think this if it was disappointing to see that outcome could however, i didnt recognize in the grand scheme of things these projects are very important to San Francisco and they should move forward. With that said, i will also be introducing a piece of legislation later to when the capital plan in light of the animal care and control shelter those removed from the bond and i want to thank all the 10 cosponsors on that. Ill talk about that later, but again, i hope that today we understand that moving forward our Capital Planning process should be respected and no more lastminute changes. Thank you. Supervisor wiener im of two minds of this. Ill be honest i struggled with this. Im not voted against the bond since coming on the board of supervisors. I was tempted to do so here because i also thought it was an absolutely horrible process that led to the removal of the shelter from this bond. On the one hand, as supervisor peskin articulated, im a big believer in the Capital Planning process. On the other hand, also i am a big fan of theor am very awareits the 11 of us, the board of supervisors as the elected representatives of the people the ultimate responsibility and decisionmaking power to place or not place bonds in the ballots and to craft that bond. I believe the removal of animal care and control for the bond fails either test. It fails the test of Capital Planning process because it was removed at the last minute. I think frankly in a very transparent way that i think it also fails the political test in terms of the views of this board of supervisors as supervisor tang just mentioned, i think every member of the board is a cosponsor of the resolution to change the capital plan in terms of making sure we fund the renovations needed to shelter and so despite the fact the strong support on this board and it was part of a planning process, it was still removed at the last minute. That doesnt sit well with me. I dont think its a way to go and its my expectation that this will not happen in the future. We have to get a new shelter. Right now, the shelter is seismically unsafe and that impacts the thousands of animals who are in these shelters and also impacts the workers who, every day, working in the shelter that is seismically unsafe. So, this is not an option. Something we have to do. So im glad to cosponsor supervisor tangs measure make sure we move forward with making new shelter reality. But i will vote for the bond today. Despite my misgivings about the process. A number of very important Capital Projects in this bond and im not prepared to disregard that and vote against it even though this is not a good process. Thank you. Supervisor campos yet again i rise to agree with supervisor wiener and supervisor tang. Let me say that i am concerned by the process and i understand and appreciate what supervisor peskin said and i really thought long and hard about how i should vote and the specific issue for me has been the issue of animal care and control. I dont really know exactly how that decision to take out animal care and control came about. Im a big supporter of Mental Health, but i also believe and i think its something i quoted before, the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I really believe that. I believe the idea that we would move forward without, with a bond, without taking care of animals is something that goes against my principles and what i believe. In deciding how to vote i ended up airing on the side of supporting the bond out of deference to the process and my colleagues and because i also know that there is a commitment to make sure that animal care and control is taken care of it so, it is with that understanding, that i will support the bond today and also supports the cosponsor the effort by supervisor tang to ensure theres proper funding of animal care and control. If i believe, as this process moves forward, though we havent taken enough action or havent done enough to address the needs of animal care and control, i withhold the right to withdraw my support, but it seems that were going to do everything we can as a city to take care of animal care and ginger. The issue of Mental Health and animal care, theyre directly linked. You cant really do one without the other. I think that the reason why you want to make sure theres a commons approach that includes the issue of taking care of animals is that i just dont think it would have the success you need to have on the Mental Health side without doing that. So, with the understanding that we are going to take care of animal care and control, i will be supporting the bond but again i will continue to monitor the situation to make sure were doing what we can and especially San Francisco, i can tell you this, not just in my district and i dont say this because im a gay man, but theres no way that san franciscans will support a bond if they feel that were not doing right by the animals of San Francisco. I dont see that happening. I think its in our interest because its the right thing to do but also politically to make sure we get this right. Tang. Supervisor yee agreements agree with the comments that have been made. In regards to this vote it was difficult because of the Budget Committee there was a reason why it wasnt passed out without positive recommendation to the board and partially because of the issues that were already noted. The process itself, theres been a process that was developed for these type of decisions and i was going to fully support what was originally presented that included the animal care and control shelter, so two things about this vote that makes it difficult to one, we might have lost the opportunity to shoot the care of that shop i just visited the shelter of a few weeks ago and its deplorable. The conditions people to work in and the animals living there and something needs to be done. So, i will also be supporting or cosponsoring the supervisor tang resolution to make sure this is going to happen. I think the process again i want to be respectful of the people that took the time to vote these concepts and the vetting of what to put on the bond. It seems at this point is somewhat of a process that didnt quite fit that. Its really easy for one to get up upset with that and not support this bond, but there are so many things that need to be done that was on the original bond. When i weigh out the factors, i will be supporting this item. I might have to bite my tongue on this but i will support it. Supervisor cohen i think its an interesting time that we are living where nuns in a soup kitchen are getting addicted we cant even get our act together to rebuild an animal care and control shelter where weve got seniors struggling to remain in San Francisco and our Young Children are afraid of the police. That isthose are many of the issues were dealing with here at this board one thing that has been consistent them at least a couple weeks in this chamber, has been a desire to see process and established process, followed through. No shortcuts. I am hopeful that Department Heads and staff as well as those in the Mayors Office are listening and paying attention that its unfair for people to come to us in the 11th hour with urgent requests and expect us to ignore our process. Its unfair to the people San Francisco. Iso funded a little ironic that we have a process discussion last week where an item was asked to not go to committee to come to the full board when we guess its a board rule but we have a process that we send legislation through to the rules committee. So, i had to point out that. I also want to point out something that is phenomenal in the bond that is incredibly important in the southeast part of San Francisco. Last week, we dont with the Wastewater Treatment plant and this week i want to talk about the Southeast Health clinic. There are some phenomenal pieces, phenomenal projects, that are in dire need of support. First, is General Hospital. You know we are going through many upgrades with General Hospital and General Hospital, think by her own admission, previous occasions, recognizes the importance that the staff, doctors and researchers, the wonderful work they do time in an timeout is oftentimes a thankless jobSan Francisco General Hospital is slated to receive 222 million of this bond. Department of Public Health Community Centers and clinics slated to receive 50 million and again 30 of that 59 is slated for the Southeast Health client. Ambulance deployment facility and they put fire station which again is in bayview slated to receive 50 million of muchneeded upgrades. Then, of course the albatross in the room, homelessness, Homeless Service Sites Program also slated to receive 20 million. This is quite a significant bond that we are going to be debating and hopefully putting forward to voters in the november election. But, i want to ask a few questions to the Capital Planning team is here with us in the chamber. Please excuse my back. A couple questions for you. So, many of the changes have been proposed as lastminute change. Perhaps you can talk to us about your staff internal process on how you came towith things like swapout one 11 project for other project could maybe you can talk about how that came about . Brian strom. The Capital Planning program. The addition to the bond are items that that are noted in the capital plan that we had to get a Capital Planning committee eating with was up amendment to bond. Thats what we have a consideration of putting Animal Shelter into the cop program, which the Capital Planning committee was fully supportive of. Then, also had discussion about looking at these three other programs. The fire stations are certainly a large need in the capital plan and the part of an ongoing program. That Program Addresses these needs progressively over time, so we know that we could actually put considerably more money in the fire stations and was still being significant need that. That was a summer situation with our Health Clinic where we know over the next five years, this close to 60 million in renewals, just to keep the Health Facilities in the state of good repair. Then weve also received a number of requests over the years from the department of Public Health around trying to implement this new more family centric wellness model. We also have that as a deferred item in our capital plan. So those are there. The shelter the Homeless Service sites are sites that are we have less definition over. We do know we have three shelters that have significant needs. Again, just to keep them in a good state of repair and renewal. Thank you very much thank you. Supervisor kim im not can repeat the concerns brought up by supervisors but i think there were a lot of questions around the process, which mr. Strom just somewhat addressed today. I know this is in theyou can refresh my memory, is the additional cost of moving the animal care and control shelter out of the program into certificates of partitioned Participation Program . Nadiaoffice of public finance. A capital plan proposes in the toolbox to fund Capital Projects. The general Obligation Bonds and certificates of participation. General Obligation Bonds are highly rated. With certificates of participation, their notch or two differentials in terms of rating and because it doesnt have the full faith and credit is the least obligation and is more cosseted so the premium price to it. For purpose of this analysis, infinity, is a 60 basis point differential and as a result in additional interest cost. What is that additional amount. . I understand the bond and the cop. Under this structure be required to have use and occupancy of the acid. Because of the Construction Permit what is the dollar amount difference . Because they notice the dollar difference is 36 Million Properties of this and ousted based on second assumptions it could be lower right now were projecting a 36 million difference if you can walk me through, again, why this was determined to be more costeffective or perhaps it was not the reason behind moving the shelter out . I assume in the swapout maybe other Capital Projects were considered under the cop program. Is that the case . I want understand the rational one when into the program and whats been recommended for the cop . I cant say that by adding the animal control under the certificate of Participation Program or the general fund program would still meet capital plan policy, which is 3. 25 of discretionary revenue. We had capacity sword falls within that capacity but beyond that the other option was to pay cash i dont want to interrupt you but my question is not to i questions, visit we get the animal care and control shelter in the bond and then the items were put in. So its mainly the fire station, the new health centers, and a variety of different neighborhoods, and is it right to say the cityowned assaulters and subsides rabbit . Yes Sophie Knotts walked in those programs and get the animal care and control, what wouldve happened to these three other additions to the bond program equips how we have funded it . What would be a schedule look like . I just want to understand what we weighed before this ultimately came before us . Brian strom with a Capital Planning committee. City administrators office. As i mentioned, we have a lot of needs in the capital plan. So, these three projects were proposed to eight amendment process. I mentioned with the neighborhood fire station, ongoing needs with evident fires this meet if they were not prettier they would probably would be expected to take part in the next earthquake safety Emergency Response bond which is an 56 years. If youre talking about the Health Clinics, we have a bond of believe its in 2020 or 2021 and as with some of those of the next the address where they would been deferred from the plant. As you recall, we have seen the roomthis bond was originally a higher amount. May room so we could also do the housing bond that was last november. So, those are sort of part of the decisions. The shelter the Homeless Service sites, we actually have an submerging it in the capital plan working with Human Services Agency Departments to look at how they can better utilize their space. Thats ongoing. Though in the past year theres been discussion about a new department so will effectively needs around that new department as well i do understand that our d is much greater than any single bond we put before the voters can accommodate and i dont have i only a member of this board has any issues with us rehabilitating i need fire stations, community Health Clinics, or homeless shelters and service sites. I just want to summarize what you said. If we do put the in this bond [inaudible] it shows they would been part of a greater bond so that maidens and rehab would be deferred. So i