Reduced. Its very disconcerting for me to hear the department now say they have a problem with their recommendation after they reviewed it, suggested revisions which we did do, so we absolutely stick to our recommendation when they go over the report on page 22 of our report table two. Shows the budget for the requested increase of 27,063,776. We point out on page 23 of our report, 45 million through fiscal year 14 and 15 and is requesting additional 27,000,0 27,063,776. Which is 1 million less than requested. Our recommendation is to amend the proposed resolution to reduce the request of the contract amount by 1,498,528. We recommend that you approve the resolution as amended. I want to reemphasize that we gave a draft copy to the department. They suggested change. By the way, our recommendation are based on the numbers that the department gives us. Our recommendation is to reduce by the 1 million. I dont want to upset our neighbors because were neighbors with harvey roads. But at the same time, i dont want to jeopardize the moving forward with this resolution. We have 150 preschools programs that we need to reimburse. Theres around 30 Family Child Care providers that are part of that pool that really cannot carry that cost for another month. Deputy city attorney. Just to clarify the committees options here. This is a contract approval under section 9. 118 of the charter. You have yes or no authority over the contract that the department is providing you. If the department is saying, were sticking with the 74 Million Contract here, the committee could approve that or reject it. But you can change the amount. Only the department can change the amount that theyre asking you to approve. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I dont understand, there are including on this report today, there are literally thousands of recommendations that we have made this regard. By the way supervisors, this is not an appropriation. Youre not appropriating any funds. You are just authorizing an amount of the contract. If we were wrong, which were not, lets assume were wrong, the department has every right to come back for an appropriation of funds that they would need under the authorized contract. I want to emphasize, you are not appropriating funds here. You are just stating what you believe to be the necessary authorizing amount of the contract. Thank you mr. Rose. The budget typically makes recommendations just like this. Literally thousands of times that the departments are okay with it. Every one in a while the department is not okay with changing their contract. In a situation like that, which is what we have here, the committee cant change the contract. The committee has to decide whether to approve the contract as proposed by the department or reject it and then the department can come back with a different version. The one before us is not thats amended down . Yes. Unless the Department Tells you were willing to offer a different amended down version of 68 million or what not. Supervisor tang. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification what we can or cant do. I was inclined to support the departments requester if the full amount here today. Really because i understand the transition that had occurred with the office, the newly established office of early child care education. Knowing that would have to come back here for the additional amount anyway in the next approval, i was personally inclined to support the amount that was proposed by the department. Okay. Supervisor kim. I just need to understand this disagreement of understanding again. Im just going to ask the dla to comment on the 1. 4 million and why we should include it in this contract . Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Supervisor kim, if you take a look at our table four on page 23 of our report, the data that the department submitted to us, it shows Actual Expenditures under the contract of 45. Theyve requested 27063 based on numbers that they provided to us. So that the total Actual Expenditures and requested funds is 72,892,039. Thats data boy provided by the department. The legislation request was 74,000,395. 367. Okay. Back to the department as to why this exist from Actual Expenditures . This was from prior year for 14 and 15. This was based on preschool enrollment that we had projected up to a certain amount. We did not hit 100 . Part of that have to do with the transition of the initiative. It would occur this year too. Its really 1. 5 million. We have to spend five of the 27 million of state funds. We have to spend those. Its on reimbursment basis. The 21 million, if there is no if theres a fund balance, that fund balance goes back to the public education. Then its available for future use . Correct. Regardless, if you dont spend out the 1. 5 million that the dla is recommending destruction of, it will get swept back into the Fund Available for use and future years . Correct. The reason why this wasnt articulated in your initial conversations with the dla i did. This is why we started this process back in october. Its been months. Okay, thank you. Why dont we move on to public comment. Anybody wish to comment on item six. Public comment it closed. Through the chair colleagues, i will make a motion. Open to other suggestions. I would to make a motion to approve the resolution as is. Send it forward for full recommendation. I think it will be different if we were appropriating things here. I appreciate the comments and questions and certainly mr. Rosens work on this. I will support supervisor tang and i think we all will. We can take it without objection. Item seven. Is a resolution approving amendment number Transdev Services services to administer the city paratransit program. Not to exceed 127 million for the term of april 1, 2010 through june 30, 2016. Im the paratransit coordinator. This amendment will increase the authority of our contract with transdev. Initial contract code and cost saving, we were able to extend the contract for another year without needing additional Contracting Authority. Due to new Labor Agreement and some increases in service, the projected budget for this fiscal year is expected to exceed the Contracting Authority. We do agree with the recommendation of the budget analyst that the amount can be reduced by 1. 3 million. We do anticipate a new paratransit contract to come to you for your approval by execution on july 1st of this year. Thank you for hearing this item and im happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Any questions . Can you explain more . I think it was a big question as to how there was some oversight on some of the budgetary needs that you were requesting from 2010 . Is that my understanding . Im looking at an email that i got from dylan. Thank you supervisor kim for that question. I pointed out in my email an item that was included in the sfmfta board item. There was three month expenditures from april 1, 2010 that was left out of the expenditures. Can you explain how that happened . Thats from almost six years ago now. How is it was left out and why it took us five years to discover that that wasnt allocated . Let me refer that question back to john who has more details. Three months that werent accounted for were not accounted for of yes. When we had when we first did the initial extension, it was only a five month period. We didnt include the three month start up that was required for the new contract. Those are csts that we didnt account for. We werent aware that they were included in the current contract. Thats why we had to include it. We made the revisions. When you didnt say you didnt realize it, you mean that transdev no, they were paid. We didnt account for that. Those additional expenditures to be included in our current Contracting Authority. When we made the initial request to extend. Sorry, i dont understand that response. As an outsider. Im christian major senior planner and the paratransit sfmta. What happened was, this was a five Year Contract with five years option to extend. We came to you to ask for a one year extension. Basically, we asked for a Contracting Authority to pay for five years plus one more year. At the time we didnt ask for additional Contracting Authority. We thought we had enough money. We thought we were going to get six years worth of service for just fight years. Five years. When we did that calculation and calculated that we didnt need extra money, we hadnt accounted for three month of service. Labor was going to go up, the labor cost were going to go up because we increased wages due to a new union and prevailing wage ordinance. We didnt anticipate the slight increases in demand. So, we really needed at the time we extended to get six Year Contract with transdev. We needed six years and three months worth of money. We didnt quite have six years and three months worth of money. Its a great deal. Were paying for all of that with just five years of money budget so far. I get that youre getting six years of service from an originally agreed upon five year dollar amount. You came back to the board for a one year extension, six months ago on july 2015. Thats what im reading in the report. I guess my question really was not whether its a good deal or not or how the good months had been inadvertently has been left out when it was over five years ago . I apologize, i started working at sfmta one month ago. Were counting information that we have from our manager. I think the calculations were done when we came to you for the extension. It was about six months when the error was made and not five years ago. Does that make sense . The error in calculation was made six months ago when we calculated, oh, we have enough money. We have 125 million. That will get us through the end of five years. Through the end of six years. Then we realized some time between six months ago and now that when we call lathed the 125, we hadnt included the three months. That already been spent and paid to transdev . Correct. By the way, i understand the wage increases and the new union i think that makes sense that those Cost Increases went up. I support that. I wanted to understand the differential of three months. Youve saying it already been paid. It wasnt included in the accounting when this came before us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Rose, go to your report. Mr. Chairman members of the committee. On page 26 of our report, we report that sfmtas total expenditures under the agreement with april 2010 through june 2015 are 100,000,000. 224000. Through fiscal year 15 and 16 included contingency of 125. 4 million. More than the existing agreement not to exceed amount of 118,000,599. Thats shown on table one on page 26 of our report. Our recommendation on page 27 is we recommend you amend the proposed resolution to reduce the requested increase in the agreement amount by 1,000,035 from 8 million. Reduce the total requested agreement not to exceed amount by the same 1,000,355. 537. We recommend that you approve the proposed resolution as amended. Thank you mr. Rose. Any questions for budget analyst . Seeing none, we will open up to public comment. Anybody wishes to comment . My name is aetna james. Im president of a commission on aging. Im there was some concern in our commission from about 30 organizations about transportation for seniors. One of the things is that they offer Free Transportation sometimes and then they cut it off for the seniors. How is that affect the budget and its confusing for the seniors. I wanted some input on that and is that the organization that provides that transportation . Yes, the San FranciscoMunicipal Transportation Agency does operate muny. I believe youre talking about the free passes for seniors and persons is it free muny for can i ask, you can take this offline . After we work on this item . Okay, great. Thank you very much. Any else wishes to publicly comment. Public comment it closed. We have a budget analyst recommendation. Through the chair, ill make a motion to accept the budget Analyst Recommendations for the reduction and approved and send forward to the full board. We have a motion by supervisor tang touch eight hearing to consider the annual recover and adoption the proposed draft budge for fiscal year 20162017 for the board of supervisors of the clerk of the board and requesting the office to report. Thank you very much. Members of the committee. Im angela, the clerk of the board. Im join end by my budget manager. Others in my office mr. Lane and, mr. Jason freed. To begin ill provide a high level overview of the departments current budget and present several budgetary adjustments for your review. Its fiscal year 20152016 slide. Nonpersonnel cost of nearly 3. 5 million comprised the next largest expenditure. These funds are primarily for budget and legislatively Analyst Services contract to pay for a portion of the cost associated with developing the car the department received a one time funding of 250,000 for record or digitation project and one time funding of 175,000 for the aab office reengineering project. Which ill talk about in a second. Lastly, slide four highlights the proposed budget changes which respond to organizational priorities and the needs and to implement projects. The modest personnel adjustments that were requesting include substituting a 1093 i. T. Operation support number three to 1094 i. T. Operation support number four in our Administrative Division which will reflect growing job demands from implementation of new application. Were making one downward substitution of 1454 executive secretary tear to legislation clerk. In the legislative division, to provide uniformed centralized assistance for filing examination and compliance and appeal coordination. These are two existing positions. They have a net change of approximately 16,000 in salary and benefits. Im making a small increase in tempt salaries of 5000 there to assist with personnel needs that are arising from vacancies and leaves. At the december guideline hearing, i requested your direction on the last two items, the general Fund Appropriation from lafco. The department has included these items in the proposed budget and defer to the committee to whether or not include these items in the Department Budget for june. Moving to slide five of nine. As you can see, we projected 310,000 decrease in the assessment appeals board revenues. Due to the significant reduction in the number of appeals filed, as a result of the continued improvement in the real estate market, as you know, aabs revenue goes through a cycle that is tied to the swings in the real estate markets. The revenue peaked in fiscal year 11 and 12 it has been steadily declining as the Property Values has been have been going up in San Francisco. Our current budgets includes more revenues due to sharp increase and withdrawal of appeals. The Department Revenue are planning appeals surcharges and the Outreach Fund will remain unchanged. Slide six provides a summary table of the total costs in each fiscal year of the proposed adjustments. Which are subject to change based on the direction well receive from this committee on the open issues of lafc homeworko. Slide seven, the aforementioned combined with increase in salary and associated benefits mandated by the mous. As stated earlier, with the generous support of coit and director kate howard, we have received funding in the engineering and record digitation project. Both projects are under way and will be delivered in the budget year. The beauty with the assessment appeals initiative, were working closely with the assessor chu and her team to streamline the process. This requires technology and changes to our business procedures. We have 175,000 already funded which will be usedder temporary Program Position to fully complete all aspects of the project. Which will include phase five which we have not yet brought to this committee. But current funding will actually take care of both phase four and phase five. Records positive tory to get all Historic Records digitized and rfp forming electronic Data Management system are being developed and will be issued this year. Looking ahead, we have even more Important Technology projects on the horizon which will discuss further in june. Currently, we must put into place a new contract for agenda Management System towards end of the second year of the budget and were now enumerating required expected experience from different stakeholders and breath of services to issue solicitation in next year. We have a funding request to coit for this project in the amount of 360,000. Regarding the creston system, we need to replace this system, this audio visual control system. So it can accept hd resolution. These changes will include the experiences and the experience of the public. It will facilitate new open government requirement. The funding request is already at the Capital Planning in the amount of 693,000. I want to thank john updike an his team for submitting that necessary work. When is that expected to happen . The capital plan calendar youre familiar when they will make these decisions . I dont know the exact time line of when the Capital Planning expenditures will be made. Theyre typically final recommendations usually released some time in april i believe and are made in may. So its slated to go in this year . Thats correct. In summary. For fiscal year 16 and 17, the proposed budget shows less than a 1 increase. While it provides for necessary changes needed to meet the increasing complex demands in our department, it will fund a current critical i. T. Project. As a reminder, i will await your direction for the two policy matters listed, the budget analyst cola and lafco general fund suppor