(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Calendar : meeting of Budget Committee, Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco"

5 CLOSED 
STACKS 



CD 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REFERENCE 
BOOK 

l\'ol lo be taken from I he Lihmiy 



JO* , SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

""""liniHiiu jiljiii 



3 1223 05718 3585 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/5calendarmeetingo1994sanf 



— r CftU stJ 

qO<67 BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

" lx I f <f ^ _ 

WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 2. 1994 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, ALIOTO, BIERMAN DOCUMENTS DEPT 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR ALIOTO ON ITEMS 3, 10, 13, 14 « UG 2 

CLERK: MARY L. RED SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1. File 97-94-32. [Budget Review Mission and Goal Statement] Ordinance amending 
Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code by repealing Section 3.17-1, which requires 
departmental budget justification, and by adding a new Section 3.17-1 to require 
each City department and agency to relate its budget review justifications to its 
mission and goals statement and three-year program priority assessment, and 
phasing in requirements over three years. (Supervisors Kaufman, Shelley, Migden, 
Leal, Kennedy, Conroy) (Continued from 10/19) 

ACTION: TABLED at request of Supervisor Kaufman. 

2. File 97-94-33 . [Mission and Goals Statement] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 3.18 to require each City board, commission and 
department annually to submit to the Mayor a written mission and goals statement 
which also reports the body's success in meeting those standards during the prior 
year, to require the Mayor annually to develop a written City mission and goals 
statement which also reports the City's success in meeting those standards during 
the prior year and to transmit that and the individual mission and goals statements 
to the Board of Supervisors; to require each City board, commission and department 
annually to rank its programs and services in writing from "most essential" to "least 
essential" on a three-year time horizon, to require the Mayor annually to rank in 
writing all government programs and services from "most essential" to "least 
essential" on a three-year time horizon and to present that ranking and the 
individual rankings to the Board of Supervisors; to require each City board, 
commission and department annually to present a written three-year budget plan to 
the Controller, to require the Controller to transmit those three-year budget plans 
to the Mayor, to require the Mayor to create a written three-year budget plan for 
the City and to transmit that and the individual three-year budget plans to the 
Board of Supervisors, and all City boards, commissions and departments to consider 
their mission and goals statements, three-year program priority assessments and 
three-year budget plans when composing their budgets for the next fiscal year. 
(Supervisors Kaufman, Shelley, Migden, Leal, Kennedy, Conroy, Alioto) (Continued 
from 10/19) 



ACTION: Amendment of the Whole (as presented by Supervisor Kaufman) adopted; 
further amended (see file for details). New title : Ordinance amending 
Administrative Code by adding Section 3.18 to require each City board, 
commission and department annually to submit to the Mayor a written 
mission and goals statement which also reports the body's success in 
meeting those standards during the prior year, to require the Mayor 
annually to develop a written City mission and goals statement which 
also reports the City's success in meeting those standards during the 
prior year and to transmit that and the individual mission and goals 
statements to the Board of Supervisors; to require each City board, 
commission and department annually to rank its programs and services 
in writing in order of priority, on a three-year time horizon, to require 
the Mayor annually to rank in writing all government programs and 
services in order of priority, on a three-year time horizon and to 
present that ranking and the individual rankings to the Board of 
Supervisors; to require each City board, commission and department 
annually to present a written three-year budget plan to the Controller, 
to require the Controller to transmit those three-year budget plans to 
the Mayor, to require the Mayor to create a written three-year budget 
plan for the City and to transmit that and the individual three-year 
budget plans to the Board of Supervisors, and all City boards, 
commissions and departments to consider their mission and goals 
statements, three-year program priority assessments and three-year 
budget plans when composing their budgets for the next fiscal year. 
CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 7, 1994. Supervisor 
Alioto added as cosponsor. 

3. File 97-94-69 . [Library Materials Replacement Fund] Ordinance amending 
Administrative Code by adding Section 10.117-112 thereto, to create a special fund 
for the deposit of replacement charges paid by library patrons for lost books and 
materials. (Public Library) 

ACTION: Department withdrew ordinance; TABLED 

4. File 101-94-23 . [Appropriation & Certification, DPW, $70,585] Ordinance 
appropriating and certifying $70,585, Department of Public Works, for capital 
improvement project to cover ten percent overage as per Charter Section 7.203, 
providing for ratification of action previously taken, for fiscal year 1994-95. RO 
#94095 (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: Amended to delete phrase "providing for ratification of action 

previously taken." New title : "Ordinance appropriating and certifying 
$70,585, Department of Public Works, for capital improvement project 
to cover ten percent overage as per Charter Section 7.203, for fiscal 
year 1994-95." RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Supervisor Alioto 
added as sponsor. 

5. File 101-94-24 . [Appropriation, Treasurer/Tax Collector, $108,600] Ordinance 
appropriating $108,600, Treasurer/Tax Collector, for non-personal services, 
materials and supplies, equipment and services of other departments for fiscal year 
1994-95. RO #94097 (Controller) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 



3 1223 05718 3585 



6. File 28-94-14. [Eddy, Ellis, & Larkin Streets Sewer Replacement] Resolution 
authorizing the Director of the Department of Public Works to take necessary 
measures to protect the health, welfare and property of the citizens of of San 
Francisco by performing the necessary work to replace structurally inadequate 
sewers in Eddy, Ellis, and Larkin Streets in the Civic Center Area - $673,850. 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 

7. File 82-94-8 . [Noise Easements Acquisition, San Mateo County] Resolution 
authorizing the acquisition of thirty-two noise easements in unincorporated San 
Mateo County as part of the County of San Mateo's Aircraft Noise Insulation 
Project, Phase I. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 

8. File 191-94-3 . [Transfer to General Fund 1994/95 - $15,000,000] Resolution 
concurring with the Public Utilities Commission's fact finding that a fund surplus 
exists in the utilities which can be transferred to the General Fund. (Supervisor 
Alioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 

9. File 101-94-25 . [Appropriation, Registrar of Voters] Ordinance appropriating 
$56,343, Registrar of Voters, from the General Fund Reserve, to provide additional 
election services for fiscal year 1994-95; providing for ratification of action 
previously taken and subject of previous budgetary denial. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Amended to delete phrase, "subject of previous budgetary denial." New 
title : "Ordinance appropriating $56,343, Registrar of Voters, from the 
General Fund Reserve, to provide additional election services for fiscal 
year 1994-95; providing for ratification of action previously taken." 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 

10. File 97-94-41.1 . [General Assistance Property Level/Income Disregard) Ordinance 
amending the Administrative Code by amending Sections 20.56.10 and 20.57 
relating to General Assistance Allowable personal property and income disregard. 
(Supervisors Migden, Alioto, Bierman) 

(Transferred from October 25 meeting of Health, Public Safety & Environment 
Committee due to FISCAL IMPACT) 

ACTION: Consideration continued to November 16, 1994. Supervisor Bierman 
added as cosponsor. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 

11. File 97-94-41.2 . [General Assistance, Employer Wage Subsidy] Ordinance 
amending the Administrative Code by adding Section 20.57.7 to authorize a General 
Assistance - Employer Wage Subsidy Program. (Supervisors Migden, Hsieh, Alioto, 
Bierman) 

(Transferred from October 25 meeting of Health, Public Safety & Environment 
Committee due to FISCAL IMPACT) 

ACTION: Amended on page 3 to prevent jobs of employees who are on strike from 
being filled by employees of this Program. Same title. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED to Board November 21. Supervisors 
Alioto and Bierman added as cosponsors. 

7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 65 



12. File 101-90-84.11 . [Release reserved funds, Fire Department] Hearing requesting 
release of reserved funds, Fire Department, in the amount of $35,625, for trial fees 
incurred by City Attorney's Office and inadvertently charged to the Water 
Department. (Fire Department) 

(Continued from 10/26) 

ACTION: Release of reserved funds in the amount of $36,550.32 was approved 

(see Budget Analyst report for explanation of amount released). FILED. 

13. File 69-94-4.01 . [Supplemental Appropriation, BOS, $84,000] Ordinance 
appropriating $84,000, Board of Supervisors, for Mayor's Office to operate 
Municipal Access TV Channel; rescinding $84,000 in capital project funds from 
Chief Administrative Officer's Office, for fiscal year 1994-95. RO #94032 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Consideration continued to November 9, 1994. Supervisor Alioto absent. 

14. File 101-94-18 . [Appropriation, Sheriff Department] Ordinance appropriating 
$586,900, Sheriff Department, from the General Fund Reserve for capital 
improvements to the new Sheriff's facility (City Attorney, Project Management and 
Construction Management Costs), for fiscal year 1994-1995. (Continued from 
10/26) 

ACTION: Question divided; Amendment of the Whole appropriating $426,702 
(Construction Management Costs) adopted. New title : "Ordinance 
appropriating $426,702 from the General Fund Reserve for capital 
improvements to the new Sheriff's facility (construction management 
costs), for the Sheriff Department for Fiscal Year 1994-95; providing 
for ratification of action previously taken." CONSIDERATION 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

File 101-94-18.1 . Amendment of the Whole appropriating $152,768 
(City Attorney Costs) adopted. New title : "Ordinance appropriating 
$152,768 from the General Fund Reserve for capital improvements to 
the new Sheriff's facility (city attorney costs) for the Sheriff 
Department for Fiscal Year 1994-95; placing $152,768 on reserve; 
providing for ratification of action previously taken." RECOMMENDED 
AS AMENDED. Supervisor Alioto absent. 

CLOSED SESSION: The Budget Committee found that it is in the best interest of the City 
not to disclose any information revealed in its closed session deliberations in the proposed 
item listed above at this time and moved not to disclose any information at this time. 



-7 



CITY AND COUNTY 



ty 




TuBCic Libraru, "Documents (Dept. 
Attn: Jane Hudson 

OF.SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 






PS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



~,d 



October 31, 1994 



TO: 
FROM: 



Budget Committee 
Budget Analyst 



SUBJECT^-November 2, 19§4, Budget Committee Meeting 



Items 1 and 2 - Files 97-94-32 and 97-94-33 

Note: These items were continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
October 19, 1994. As of the writing of this report an Amendment of the 
Whole is being prepared which would change various dates of submission 
and funding percentages related to budget submissions. As of the writing of 
this report the Budget Analyst has not received a final version of the 
Amendment of the Whole. Therefore, this report is based on the legislation 
submitted prior to the Amendment of the Whole. 

Department: Mayor's Office 

Board of Supervisors 

Items: 1. Ordinance (File 97-94-32) amending the Administrative 

Code by amending Section 3.17-1 to require each City 
department and agency to relate its budget review 
justifications to (a) its mission and goals statement and (b) its 
three-year program priority assessment and phasing in such 
requirements over three years. 

2. Ordinance (File 97-94-33) amending the Administrative 
Code by adding Section 3.18. 

Description: In June, 1994, the San Francisco voters approved Proposition 

G which requires that the City's "line-item" budget be 
replaced with a "mission-driven" budget. Under Proposition 
G, each department must spell out its goals and organize its 
budget according to those goals. For each goal, the 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



department is required to spell out what it will do to meet 
that goal, whom it expects to serve and how much it will cost. 
The budget will also include an evaluation of the 
department's performance in the year before. 

According to Proposition G, each Department shall provide 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors with the following 
details regarding its budget: 

a) the overall mission and goals of the department. 

b) the specific programs and activities conducted by the 
department to accomplish its mission and goals. 

c) the customer(s) or client(s) served by the department. 

d) the service outcome desired by the customer(s) or client(s) 
of the department's programs and activities. 

e) strategic plans that guide each program or activity. 

f) productivity goals that measure progress toward strategic 
plans. 

g) the total cost of carrying out each program or activity. 

h) the extent to which the department achieved, exceeded, or 
failed to meet its missions, goals, productivity objectives, 
service objectives, strategic plans and spending 
constraints identified in subsections a through f during 
the prior year. 

The proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32) would also require 
departments to specifically respond to how the department's 
proposed budget is consistent with the department's "Three- 
Year Program Priority Assessment and Mission and Goals 
Statement." This requirement was not part of Proposition G. 

In accordance with Proposition G, the proposed ordinance 
(File 97-94-32) would be implemented in the following three 
phases, over three years, with the Mayor to be responsible for 
identifying one-third of the City's departments which would 
be required to have a "mission-driven" budget for each of the 
three years (See Comment #1). 

• Phase 1 Departments (beginning for FY 1995-96) : Police 
Department, Fire Department, Sheriff, Public Utilities 
(Water Department and Hetch-Hetchy), Airport, Superior 
and Municipal Courts (Trial Courts), Adult Probation, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



District Attorney, Public Defender and Redevelopment 
Agency. 

• Phase 2 Departments (beginning for FY 1996-97) : Public 
Health Department, Department of Social Services, Public 
Transportation, Parking and Traffic, Port, Public Works 
and the Recreation and Park Department. 

• Phase 3 Departments (beginning for FY 1997-98) : All 
other departments not specified as Phase 1 or Phase 2 
departments. 

In addition to implementing Proposition G, the proposed 
ordinances (Files 97-94-32 and 97-94-33) would require 
departments to submit three-year long-range budgetary 
planning information to the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors, which was not required under proposition G. 
Specifically, the proposed ordinance (File 97-94-33) would 
add Section 3.18 of the Administrative Code, requiring the 
following activities: 

1) Each City Department must develop long-term 
departmental and agency budget planning-setting goals 
and strategies, including developing an annual mission 
and goals statement for developing its budget estimate for 
the next fiscal year, to be submitted to the Mayor no later 
than January 1. The Mayor would be required to review 
each department's mission and goals statement, and the 
Board of Supervisors would consider these mission and 
goals statements as part of the annual budgetary process. 
These mission and goals statements also would require 
departments to submit additional information that has 
not been required under Proposition G, such as specifying 
how the department plans to foster its successes and 
remedy its deficiencies. In addition, the proposed 
ordinance (File 97-94-33) would require the Mayor to 
prepare a written statement of the City's missions and 
goals, which also reports the City's success in meeting 
those standards. The Board of Supervisors would consider 
these mission and goals statements, as well as the City's 
overall mission and goals statement as part of the annual 
budgetary process. 

2) Each City Department would be required to develop a 
"Three-Year Priority Assessment" of governmental 
programs and services, by annually evaluating the 
importance of all programs and services within its 
jurisdictions, and ranking them in writing from "most 
essential to least essential ". This ranking of all programs 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

must be submitted to the Mayor by January 1. The Mayor 
would be required to review each department's priority 
assessment and report in writing how it conforms or 
contrasts with the City's budget, and the Board of 
Supervisors would consider these assessments as part of 
the annual budgetary process. 

3) Each City Department would be required to develop a 
"Three-Year Budget Plan" that projects revenues and 
expenditures for the next three years. This three-year 
plan must be submitted to the Controller no later that 
January 1. The Controller would consolidate these budget 
plans and transmit them to the Mayor no later than April 
15. The Mayor then would review the budget plans, and 
report in writing how it conforms or contrasts with the 
City's budget. The Board of Supervisors would consider 
these budget plans as part of the annual budgetary 
process. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Teresa Serata of the Mayor's Office has provided the 

attached copy of a memo from the Mayor which has been 
transmitted to all departments requesting that the following 
(Phase 1) departments submit a "mission-driven" budget by 
February 1, 1995 for FY 1995-96: 

District Attorney Port* 

Sheriff Public Library* 

Treasurer/Tax Collector* Recreation and Park* 

Trial Courts Water Department 

Ethics* Telecommunications* 

Mayor* Community Health* 

Commission on Aging* Laguna Honda* 
San Francisco General Hospital* Municipal Railway* 

Police Department Mental Health* 

Purchaser* Airport 

*Although all of these Phase 1 departments are to submit a 
"mission driven" budget by February 1, 1995, those 14 
departments identified with an asterisk have not been listed 
in the proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32). 

In addition, six other departments which have been listed in 
the proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32) should be deleted from 
the ordinance because such departments were not designated 
as Phase 1 departments by the Mayor. The designated 
departments that should be deleted are the Fire Department, 
Adult Probation, Juvenile Probation, the Public Defender, the 
Redevelopment Agency and Hetch Hetchy. Therefore, the 
proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32) should be amended to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



include only those departments (Phase 1) designated by the 
Mayor as required to comply with Proposition G for FY 1995- 
96. 

2. In addition, Ms. Serata indicates that the Mayor's Office 
would also assist departments with developing clearly 
defined mission and goal statements, and is currently 
developing a method to incorporate these missions and goals 
into the financial reporting system of the Controller's Office. 

3. The Controller has determined that the Charter 
Amendment (Proposition G) in and of itself should not affect 
the cost of government. According to Ms. Serata, because the 
proposed ordinances (Files 97-94-32 and 97-94-33) would also 
require departments to respond to how their proposed budget 
is consistent with a "Three-Year Program Priority 
Assessment" and require developing a "Three-Year Budget 
Plan" which were not required under Proposition G, there 
may be some additional time expended or costs incurred for 
activities at the department level. Mr. John Madden of the 
Controller's Office also reports that more departmental staff 
time would have to be spent developing the "Three-Year 
Program Priority Assessment" and "Three-Year Budget 
Plan." Such departmental costs, if any, associated with the 
proposed ordinances (Files 97-94-32 and 97-94-33) have not 
yet been estimated. 

4. The aforementioned memo from the Mayor (Attachment) 
regarding "mission-driven" budgeting does not request that 
departments comply with the "Three-Year Program Priority 
Assessment" or the "Three-Year Budget Plan" As noted, 
requiring departments to complete a Three-Year Program 
Priority Assessment and Budget Plan is part of the proposed 
ordinances (Files 97-94-32 and 97-94-33), but not part of the 
provisions of Proposition G. 

5. Proposition G further states "Within thirty days of the 
Controller's issuance of the combined annual financial report 
of the City and County of San Francisco, the Controller shall 
report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors regarding 
the extent to which each department has succeeded in the 
prior fiscal year in achieving savings measured by the 
difference between projected and experienced expenditures 
and the extent to which each department in the prior fiscal 
year has recovered additional revenues measured by the 
difference between projected and experienced revenues. The 
people of the City and County of San Francisco declare that it 
shall be City policy to encourage the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors, upon receipt of this report, through the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



Recommendations: 



supplemental appropriation process to give serious 
consideration to rewarding those departments that the 
Controller has certified pursuant to this section exceeded 
their revenue goals or met or exceeded departmental 
operational goals expending less than had been projected in 
the budget." 

1. Amend the proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32) to indicate 
those Phase 1 departments designated by the Mayor, which 
are required to comply with Proposition G in FY 1995-96 (See 
Comment #1). Those 14 departments that should be added to 
the proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32) are as follows: 



Treasurer/Tax Collector 

Ethics 

Mayor 

Commission on Aging 

Municipal Railway 

Purchaser 

San Francisco General Hospital 



Port 

Public Library 

Recreation and Park 

Telecommunications 

Community Health 

Laguna Honda 

Mental Health 



Those six departments that should be deleted from the 
proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32) because such departments 
were not designated by the Mayor as Phase 1 departments, 
are as follows: 



Fire Department 
Adult Probation 
Juvenile Probation 
Hetch Hetchy 



Public Defender 
Redevelopment Agency 



2. Based on the prior policy decision of the Board of 
Supervisors and in accordance with approval of Proposition G 
by the San Francisco electorate, approve those sections of the 
proposed ordinance (File 97-94-32) consistent with 
Proposition G, as amended. 

3. Approval of the sections of the proposed ordinance (File 97- 
94-32) requiring departments to submit a "Three-Year 
Program Priority Assessment" and approval of the proposed 
ordinance (File 97-94-33) requiring departments to submit 
additional three-year planning information, provisions which 
were not requirements of Proposition G, are policy matters 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 




Al tachme 
Page 1 o 



Offioc of Lhc Mayor |^[ =^fT~2j )^| FRANK M. JORDAN 

San Francisco 



September 21, 1994 

Department Heads 

City and County of San Francisco 

Dear Department Heads; 

This past June, voters approved Proposition G, the Mission Driven Budgeting 
Amendment (full text attached). The City charter now requires the Mayor to 
identify the City departments to begin Mission Driven Budgeting next year. 
Therefore, this letter is to inform you that I have selected the following 
departments to begin Mission Driven Budgeting with the FY 1995-96 budget 

(04) District Attorney (39) Port 

(06) Sheriff (41) Library 

(08) Treasurer/Tax Collector (42) Recreation and Park 

(12) Trial Courts (47) Water 

(18) Ethics . . - (75) Telecommunications 

(25) Mayor (83) Community Health. 

(26) Commission on Aging (85) Laguna Honda 

(27) Airport (86) San Francisco General 
(35) Muni (87) Mental Health 

(38) Police (91) Purchaser 

Although at nurumum one-third of City departments are mandated to 
implement Mission Driven Budgeting this year, ail other departments are 
invited to participate during the FY 1995-96 budget cyde. 

The Mission Driven Budget process represents a singular opportunity to 
improve San Francisco's budget process- We will shift our focus from the 
annual incremental change in expenditure line items to the overall mission 
of the department, the specific programs that enable a department to 
accomplish its goals, the inputs used to accomplish a program's work 
program, the outcomes or end results accomplished and the sources of funds 
used to complete this work- 

I believe the requirements of Mission Driven Budgeting will easily fit into the 
Program Budget format that was prepared by each department for the FY 1994- 
95 budget. To fully comply with the intent of the new law, the information in 
the Program Budget will need to be reviewed, refined and improved. 



200 crrr iiall san iiaNCScq. olijo«>ca H ku 



Attachme nc 
Page 2 oT~2 

Mission Driven Budgeting 
Page Two 

In my view, four elements of the program budget axe critical to the Cry's 
successful transition to Mission Driven Budgeting: 

• Clear prog-ram d efinition: All departments should review, and as 
necessary rethink, the appropriate program breakdown of overall 
functions- Proper program definition in the next few months is critical 
in order to develop a consistent format with the Controller's new on- 
line PAMIS accounting sysrem- 

• Meanin gful performance measures: Numerous and quantifiable 
performance measures should accurately identify all program 
outcomes. 

• Strategic Plans; A clear strategic plan describing the methods for 
achieving program goals must be developed- 

• Accurate budge t numbers: Expenditure, revenue and position figures 
must accurately reflect each program's components. 

I have instructed my budget staff in cooperation with the Controller to work closely 
with, all City Departments to help.refine and improve these program budgets. 

Every department is invited to send a representative to a plaruung meeting 
on. Thursday October 13 from 1-3 p.m. in room 300 . 101 Grove Street. All 
participating departments are requested to send their Budget Officer to this 
meeting where we will further detail the process to complete the mission 
driven budget as well as get each departments ideas and suggestions on its 
implementation. Individual and group follow-up brining sessions w ill be 
conducted as recruired- Please contact your budget analyst directly if you have 
any questions and to confirm attendance at the planning meeting. 

The Mission Driven Budgeting amendment provides a unique opportunity' 
for San Francisco to rethink and reinvent its budget process. I want to thank 
all of you for your efforts to make it a success- 



Sincerely, 




Al,6e#&& 



?rahk ML Jordan 
Mayor' 

cc Department Budget Officers 

FMT:jm 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

Item 3 - File 97-94-69 

Department: Public Library 

Item: Ordinance amending the Administrative Code by adding 

Section 10.117-112 thereto, to create a special fund for the 
deposit of replacement charges paid by library patrons for lost 
books and materials. 

Description: Library patrons are currently required to pay on average $30 

per item for lost books or other lost materials borrowed from 
the Public Library. This amount includes the average cost of 
replacing a book at its current price, plus a $5 surcharge. 
Currently, the revenues generated from this charge accrue to 
the General Fund. The Library reports that it currently 
collects approximately $21,000 per year in replacement 
charges for lost books. 

Mr. Ed McBride of the Public Library reports that there is 
approximately $960,000 included in the Library's FY 1994-95 
for the purchase and replacement of books and other materials. 
According to Mr. McBride, very little of this $960,000 is 
actually used to replace lost or stolen books but is instead used 
to purchase new books and materials in order to keep the 
Library's collection current. (See Comment No. 1) 

Because the replacement charges collected from Library 
patrons are used to purchase new books rather than to replace 
lost or stolen books, according to Mr. McBride, Library patrons 
have complained that the replacement charges paid by them 
have not been used to replace lost books. According to Mr. 
McBride, in order to assure the public that the replacement 
charges collected from them will be used to replace lost books, 
the proposed ordinance would create a special fund for those 
replacement charges, the funds from which could only be 
expended on the replacement of lost or stolen books. 

The proposed ordinance would amend the Administrative Code 
by adding Section 10.117-112, which would establish a special 
fund known as the "Library Materials Replacement Fund." 
Under the proposed ordinance, all replacement charges 
assessed and collected by the Library and paid by Library 
patrons for lost books and materials would be credited to this 
Fund. The monies in this Fund would be subject to 
appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors as well as 
prior approval by the Library Commission. The monies would 
be used solely for the following purposes: 

• Replacement of lost or stolen books and materials; 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



• Acquisition of new books and materials; and 

• Defraying the costs incurred in the recovery of lost or stolen 
books and materials, and in the collection of outstanding 
replacement charges. 

The proposed ordinance would further provide that any 
unexpended balance remaining in the Library Materials 
Replacement Fund at the close of any fiscal year would be 
carried forward and accumulated in the Fund for the 
previously-cited purposes. 

According to Mr. McBride, the entire estimated $21,000 in lost 
book replacement charges collected annually would be used to 
replace lost and stolen books and materials. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. McBride, Proposition E, which was passed 

by the San Francisco electorate in June of 1994, will add 
approximately $3,540,000 to the Library FY 1994-95 budget for 
the purchase and replacement of books and other materials, for 
a total of approximately $4.5 million ($3.54 million plus 
$960,000) in FY 1994-95. 

2. The Public Library's budget for FY 1994-95 is 
approximately $17.4 million. The proposed special fund would 
accumulate approximately $21,000 per year, or only about 
0.001 percent (one-tenth of one percent) of the Library's FY 
1994-95 $17.4 million budget. 

3. In the professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, a new 
Special Fund as is now being requested by the Public Library 
is neither needed or justified. The Public Library has adequate 
prior experience related to replacement costs for lost books and 
other materials and can easily include any such costs in its 
annual budget request. While this Fund, as well as any other 
new special funds, which might be requested by the City 
departments might be desirable for such Departments to have, 
this proposed Fund is unnecessary. 

Recommendation: Disapprove the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



- File 101-94-23 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating and 
certifying $70,585 for a capital improvement project to pay for 
10 percent overage on the project contract budget, pursuant to 
Charter Section 7.203, and providing for ratification of action 
previously taken by the Department of Public Works, for FY 
1994-95. 

$70,585 

Street Improvement Project Fund (Surface Transportation and 
Street Improvement Bond funds) 

Charter Section 7.203 requires that an expenditure of more 
than 10 percent above the bid amount of a contract be provided 
for by a supplemental appropriation. DPW advises that actual 
contract expenditures for the Harrison Street Pavement 
Renovation Project total $1,230,831 or $176,062 (16.7 percent) 
more than the original contract bid amount of $1,054,769. The 
original project contingency was in the amount of $105,477 (10 
percent), bringing the total amount of the project budget to 
$1,160,246. The DPW now advises that the project will cost an 
additional $70,585 for a total cost of $1,230,831. 

The Harrison Street Pavement Renovation Project, located on 
Harrison Street between 14th and 23rd Streets, consists of (1) 
the resurfacing and repairing of pavement, (2) the removal of 
tracks and (3) the construction of curbs, sidewalks and parking 
areas. 

According to Mr. Joe Ovadia of the DPW, the project cost 
amount for this project has increased by $70,585 from 
$1,160,246 to $1,230,831 because the scope of the project was 
expanded as a result of (1) concerns expressed by business 
owners in the vicinity of the project and by the Calle 22 
Neighborhood Association, a nonprofit agency (see 
Attachment) and (2) additional work which was required due 
to unforeseen site conditions. The requested $70,585 would 
be used to pay for additional expenditures, as follows: (1) 
$24,947 for additional track removal and sidewalk and street 
reconstruction, to eliminate unsightly and potentially 
dangerous conditions, as requested by the Calle 22 
Neighborhood Association, (2) $38,145 for additional 
miscellaneous repair work due to unforeseen site conditions 
and (3) $7,493 for payment of a labor premium to the 
contractor to perform some of the project work on the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

weekends, due to restrictions set by the business owners 
located in the vicinity of the project. These restrictions 
prevented the contractor from performing certain project 
work on weekdays during business hours. 

Comment: The DPW reports that the Harrison Street Pavement Project 

was completed on March 29, 1994. According to Mr. Ovadia, 
the contractor has not been paid the additional $70,585 
pending the Board of Supervisors approval of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation. Therefore, retroactive approval 
of this supplemental appropriation request is not required. 
As such, the proposed ordinance should be amended to delete 
reference to authorizing ratification of action previously 
taken from the title and the body of the proposed legislation. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to delete reference to 
authorizing ratification of action previously taken from the 
title and the body of the proposed ordinance. 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



10/28/1994 12:15 415-55^-8243 



ENGINEERING BUREAU 



PAGE 01 



City and County of S^n Francisco 

Bureau of Engineering 



Department of Public Works 

Project Management Division 



w 



Memorandum 



Date: October 28, 1994 



To: Sandy firown Richarson 
Budget Analyst 

From: Joe Ov^dia, Project Manager 
\0 Bureau! Of Engineering 

Subj: Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance 
File 10t -94-24 



As you have requested, this memo is to provide explanation for the $24,947 additional 
work for the tradk removal and sidewalk and street reconstruction in the vicinity of the 
project 

The scope of work of this project included the resurfacing of Harrison Street from 
14th to 23rd Streiets and consisted of removal of abandoned railroad tracks construction 
of concrete base repairs, constructing curbs and sidewalks, and parking areas. 

During the construction phase of the work, we received correspondence from the Calle 
22 Neighborhood Association expressing concerns that the tracks on Treat Street 
between 22nd and 23rd Sts. pose a real hazard for the elderly and cause a pedestrian 
impediment (see attached correspondence). The location of the tracks is one block 
away from the Harrison Street Project. 

We have inspected the location and determined that it caused hazardous condition. 
We negotiated with the contractor and included the removal of tracks on Treat as a 
change order. 

Should you n eed additional information, please call me at 554-8250. 
Po»Mf* brand fax transmittal memo 7671 



,P££ &-<*& &*£*£ 




V^ f PtHWV. # 



^^y>- C ft/ 



£UrrJU^- 



-s>^tt?l 



1660 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94103 (415) 554-8200 / FAX (415) 554 8203 ,_ 



IB/28/1994 12:15 415-554-8243 



ENGINEERING BUREAU 



t-'Al^t Oi 



£ NOV ' 




e22 







a For um for Comm unis Planning find Action. 
"DEPT. OF-PtfiH C WORKS — — / — .. ; ."' v-< v^ 



November 3, I993fx 

John Rombanius, Directoi 
Department of Public Works 
City & County of San Francisco 
2323 Army Street 
San Francisco, CA. 94117 

Dear Director Rombanius: 



2934 - l^.nd Street. San Francisco. Ca 94110 






REPLY 

No Later I han 
/A 2gz 93 



% s X t- 

3 o • o> G . : 



o 







Calle 22 would like an update from you, or your staff, on the status of 
the railroad track removal along Harrison Street. We heard that a 
removal project is in the planning phase and we would simply like to 
know the schedule. 



The tracks, as you are well aware of during vour recent communitv tour 
of me area, are a real pedestrian impediment, especially when the tracks 
leave the middle of the street and cross through various sidewalk areas. 
The areas of particular concern are: 

Adjacent (North) to the Mission Recreation Center on Harrison, 
between 20th & 21st Streets. 

22nd & Harrison Street, where the tracks enter an enclosed yard 
area. 

23rd & Treat Streets, on both sides of the street, where the tracks 
leave the enclosed yard area and enter into a future open space 
park. 



U 



10/28/1994 12:15 



:l5-554-8243 



ENGINEERING BUREAU 



PAGE 03 



Page 2 



We recognize that Southern Pacific has a lot of responsibility in this 
track remova] and that dealing with them is not an easy task. (We have 
experience in this matter). However, we would like to see some 
progress in this area and are willing to assist you in this process. Please 
let us know if we can help. 



Sincerely, 

David Ocegueda Bracker, President 
693-5870 work, 
826-2547 homd/voice mail 

DOBrfal 



-,■ 



/■.*-: 



15 







Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

Item 5 - File 101-94-24 

Department: Tax Collector's Office 

Item: Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating 

$108,600 for non-personal services, materials and supplies, 
equipment and services of other departments for the Business 
Tax Penalty Amnesty Program. 

Amount: $108,600 

Source of Funds: Employers Payroll Tax 

Description: The Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program was approved by 

the Board of Supervisors in September of 1994 (File 127-93- 
17). Under the Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program, tax 
penalties (currently ranging from a $100 for failure to obtain a 
Business Tax Registration Certificate, to 10 percent of the 
amount of underpayment on any business tax return filed, to 
25 percent of estimated underpayments for businesses that do 
not file returns) will be waived. However, the delinquent tax 
itself, as well as interest on such unpaid taxes computed at the 
rate of one percent per month, will still be due and payable to 
the City. 

The Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program was established 
to encourage all firms doing business in San Francisco, which 
are delinquent in their Payroll and Gross Receipts Taxes owed 
to the City, to pay their delinquent taxes and/or to obtain their 
Business Tax Registration Certificate, as required under the 
Municipal Code. 

For businesses that meet eligibility requirements as defined in 
the ordinance, the following amnesty provisions apply: 

• The Tax Collector will waive all penalties owed for failure 
to pay any annual Business Tax Registration fees or for 
failure to file a tax return. 

• The Tax Collector will waive all penalties owed for 
delinquent Payroll or business (Gross Receipts) taxes owed 
under the provisions of the Municipal Code. 

• No proceeding to suspend or revoke a Business Tax 
Registration Certificate will be initiated. 

• No civil or criminal action will be brought against the 
taxpayer, for any tax period for which tax penalty amnesty 
is applied, based upon the non-reporting or under-reporting 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



of tax liabilities or the non-payment of any taxes owed 
under the provisions of the Municipal Code. 

The Amnesty Program applies to annual Business Tax 
Registration fees, Payroll Tax liabilities and Gross Receipts 
Tax liabilities for tax periods ending on or before December 31, 
1993. 



Under the Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program, any 
business which is required to obtain a Business Tax 
Registration Certificate under the Municipal Code and is 
delinquent in its Payroll and/or Gross Receipts Taxes owed to 
the City, may file an application for a waiver of tax penalties 
on its delinquent Payroll and/or Gross Receipts Taxes owed to 
the City. Their applications must be submitted to the City 
between December 1, 1994 and January 31, 1995. Such 
businesses must: 

• File completed tax returns for all periods for which the 
business has not previously filed a tax return or file 
amended tax returns for all tax periods for which the 
business under-reported taxes owed; and 

• Pay the City in full for the taxes and interest due. 

As an incentive to take advantage of the Business Tax Penalty 
Amnesty Program, if the delinquent taxes are not paid by 
February 1, 1995, the Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program 
also provides for higher penalties for outstanding 
delinquencies, beginning on February 1, 1995 (after the 
Amnesty Program ends) in the following amounts: 





Current 
Penaltv 


Penalty 
as of 2/1/95 


For unpaid or underpaid taxes 


10% of unpaid 
amount 


20% of unpaid 
amount 


For unpaid taxes past-due for over 
90 days 


none 


additional 20% 
of unpaid amount 



For failure to return or failure to 
respond to a request for financial 
information 

Non-payment, underpayment, failure 
to file due to fraud or intent to 
evade 



$100 



$500 



25% of tax due 50% of tax due 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

The Tax Collector's Office advises that a team of eight existing 
staff, including four auditors and four account clerks, or the 
equivalent of one FTE auditor and one FTE account clerk, will 
be used to process the amnesty requests over a three-month 
period, beginning December 1, 1994 and ending February 28, 
1995. 

The Business Tax Penalty Amnesty ordinance requires the Tax 
Collector to "publicize the amnesty program . . . and notify 
taxpayers about the program and about the new and increased 
penalties." Therefore, the Tax Collector's Office is now 
requesting a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 
$108,600 to carry out the advertisement component of the 
amnesty program. Mr. Sullivan, the Tax Collector, states that 
the Amnesty Program will apply to an estimated 28,000 
businesses which are delinquent in their taxes owed to the 
City. The 28,000 figure excludes unregistered businesses (See 
Comment). 

Budget: Advertising $75,000 

This would provide funds for the advertisement of 
the Amnesty Program details, including the dates 
of the filing period. This estimate is based on 
information provided by the City of Los Angeles, 
which conducted a similar Business Tax Penalty 
Amnesty Program in 1985. * According to Mr. Pat 
Sha of the Tax Collector's Office, the $75,000 figure 
is based on Los Angeles' actual advertising 
expenditures of approximately $47,000, multiplied 
by a factor of approximately 1.6 to account for 
inflation. The $75,000 includes funds for 
newspaper, television and radio advertising. 

Materials and Supplies 10,000 

This amount would be used to purchase the raw 
materials to be used in compiling approximately 
50,000 packets, at an estimated cost of $0.20 per 
packet. These packets would contain information 
on and application materials for the Business Tax 
Penalty Amnesty Program. Such raw materials 
and supplies would include paper, envelopes, 
address labels, computer supplies and general office 
supplies. Approximately 30,000 of these packets 



1 According to Mr. Sha, although the City of Los Angeles contains a larger number of businesses 
than San Francisco, the tax revenues generated by Los Angeles businesses are only slightly higher 
than the tax revenues generated by San Francisco businesses. As such, Mr. Sha advises that Los 
Angeles is similar enough to San Francisco to be used in estimating the potential advertising costs 
for San Francisco's Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



would be mailed to businesses with delinquent 
taxes or to other businesses upon request. The 
remaining 20,000 packets would be distributed at 
libraries, post offices and other locations. 

Reproduction $9,000 

This amount would pay for the printing of the 
materials to be included in each packet, estimated 
at $0.18 per packet for 50,000 packets. Such 
materials would include a flyer containing 
background information on the Business Tax 
Penalty Amnesty Program, a letter addressed to the 
business, an application and a statement 
containing information on that business's 
delinquent taxes. 

Mailing Services 8,600 

This amount would provide funds for the mailing of 
approximately 30,000 packets by City Mail 
Services, at an estimated bulk rate unit cost of 
$0,287 per packet. 

High-Speed Laser Printer 3,000 

The Tax Collector's Office advises that a high-speed 
laser printer would be needed to print payment 
stubs after receiving the business's payment of 
delinquent taxes, as well as other computer- 
generated forms. According to Mr. Sha, the printer 
that the Office currently uses would not be able to 
handle the high volume of material that needs to be 
printed over the duration of the Amnesty Program 
in addition to that which would normally need to be 
printed. 

Telephone System 3.000 

This amount would provide funds to rent a digital 
automated telephone system for three months to 
handle the high volume of telephone calls expected 
for this Program. A digital automated telephone 
system would allow businesses calling the Program 
telephone number to choose from several options on 
their touch-tone phones. The $3,000 would provide 
between five and ten telephone lines, depending on 
the cost per phone line, which is estimated to be 
between $100 and $200 per month. 

Total Supplemental Appropriation Request $108,600 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

Comment: As previously noted, Mr. Sullivan estimates that there are 

presently 28,000 delinquent accounts that are eligible for the 
Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program. As of June 30, 1994, 
according to Mr. Sullivan, a total of over $12.9 million of 
outstanding delinquent taxes was identified. Mr. Sullivan 
notes that these amounts reflect accumulated taxes from over 
several years. Mr. Sullivan further reports that the $12.9 
million does not include any unregistered businesses or 
businesses that have failed to file. According to Mr. Sullivan, 
the number of unregistered businesses and the taxes they owe 
is difficult to determine. The number of businesses that have 
failed to file is estimated at 14,734, based on the number of 
notices mailed to businesses in July of 1994, according to Mr. 
Sullivan. 

Recommendation: Based on the prior policy decision of the Board of Supervisors 
to establish the Business Tax Penalty Amnesty Program, 
approve the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

Item 6 - File 28-94-14 

Department: Department of Public Works 



Item: 



Amount: 



Resolution authorizing the Director of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW) to take necessary measures to protect 
the health, welfare and property of the citizens of San 
Francisco by performing the necessary work to replace 
structurally inadequate sewers in Eddy, Ellis, and Larkin 
Streets in the Civic Center Area. 

$673,850 



Sources of Funds: Repair and Replacement Fund, financed by Sewer Service 
Charges 

Description: 1. The DPW reports that sections of the sewer in Eddy, Ellis 

and Larkin Streets in the Civic Center Area were found to be 
structurally inadequate and that the City Engineer was 
notified on July 7, 1994, of the need to replace the sewer 
pipes. On that date, the DPW declared a Class "B" 
emergency for such replacement work. On September 19, 
1994, the Bureau of Street and Sewer Repair (BSSR) of the 
DPW discovered that the side wall of one section of the sewer 
at the intersection of Larkin and Turk Streets had collapsed. 
The BSSR requested the City Engineer to upgrade the status 
of the Larkin and Turk Street sewer to a Class "A" 
emergency 1 in order to repair the collapsed sewer. On 
September 30, 1994, the DPW declared the collapsed sewer 
wall a formal Class "A" emergency. 

2. In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative 
Code, the DPW initiated an expedited contracting procedure 
in order to retain a contractor to repair the collapsed wall 
immediately and then replace the sewer pipes. Mr. Hugh 
Havlik, Contract Administrator of the DPW, states that, in 
the interest of time and efficiency, the DPW sought one 
contractor to complete both the emergency repair work and 
the sewer replacement work. 

3. The contract was bid on September 27, 1994, and was 
awarded to the lowest bidder, Harty Pipelines, Inc., which 
bid $673,850 on the contract to both complete emergency 
repairs at the intersection of Larkin and Turk Streets, and 



1 According to the DPW, a Class "A" emergency is designated when the public health and welfare is 
threatened and immediate action is required. A Class "B" emergency is designated when there is no 
imminent danger but where failure to correct the problem would result in a Class "A" emergency. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



to install 1,740 feet of sewer replacement pipes for sewers 
under Larkin, Eddy, and Ellis Streets. Harty Pipelines, Inc., 
is not a WBE or MBE firm. 

4. On October 5, 1994, the DPW issued notice to proceed on 
the emergency repair work at the intersection of Larkin and 
Turk Streets, and the contractor began repairing the 
collapsed sewer on that date. The emergency repair of the 
sewer wall was completed on October 7, 1994. 

5. The DPW advises that the sewer pipe replacement work is 
scheduled to begin on November 14, 1994, when the 
contractor expects to receive the new sewer pipe from the 
manufacturer. The replacement is expected to be completed 
by February 1, 1995. 

6. The DPW advises that funds are available from the 
Repair and Replacement Fund, which is financed from Sewer 
Service Charges. According to Robert Hesse of the DPWs 
Financial Management and Admini strati on Division, these 
funds were allocated to the Repair and Replacement Fund in 
the DPWs FY 1994-95 budget for the purpose of emergency 
repair and replacement work. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 7 -File 82-94-8 



Department: Real Estate Department 

Airports Commission 

Item: Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 32 noise easements in 

the unincorporated area of San Mateo County as a part of the 
County of San Mateo's Aircraft Noise Insulation Project, Phase 
I. 

Amount: $139,448.67 

Description: The proposed resolution would authorize the City's Director of 

Property to purchase, on behalf of the City, 32 noise easements 
from property owners near the San Francisco International 
Airport in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. 

This purchase is part of the Airports Commission's ongoing 
Noise Easement Acquisition Program. This program consists 
of insulating private residences and schools in cities located 
near the Airport in order to; 1) reduce the noise impact from 
aircraft operations at the Airport and, 2) comply with Federal 
and State airport noise regulations and mitigation 
requirements. 

Once purchased, the easements would remain in effect for 20 
years. The City's cost to acquire the easements is $139,448.67 
or 20 percent of the total project cost of $697,243.35 to 
acoustically insulate the buildings, and pay escrow and title 
insurance fees to attach the easements to the property titles. 
The County of San Mateo, which is the lead agency in this 
noise reduction project, will pay the remaining $557,794.68 or 
80 percent of the project cost using funds granted by the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for this purpose. 

Acquisition of these easements constitutes Phase I of two 
Phases in the San Mateo County Project. According to Mr. 
Marvin Ellis of the Airport, Phase II will involve acquiring an 
additional 25 easements at a cost of approximately $250,000, 
bringing the total number of easements to be acquired by the 
City in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County to 57. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the cost to the City of acquiring these noise 

easements is $139,448.67. Mr. Ellis reports that these funds 
were previously appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1991-92 
budget for the Airport's Noise Easement Acquisition Program. 

2. The City Attorney's Office has previously reported that the 
purchase of noise easements enables the City to comply with 

BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



State legal requirements and should result in eliminating costs 
to defend against noise-related small claims lawsuits. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



Item 8 - File 191-94-3 

Department: 

Item: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution concurring with the Public Utilities Commission's 
findings that a surplus exists in the Hetch Hetchy Operating 
Fund which can be transferred to the City's General Fund. 

Amount: $15,000,000 

Description: 1. Pursuant to Charter Section 6.407 the PUC, with the 

concurrence of two-thirds of the Board of Supervisors, may 
authorize the transfer of any portion of a utilities' surplus 
funds to the General Fund upon making stipulated findings 
of fact and judgment. The PUC passed a resolution on July 
26, 1994 which made the following findings: 

a. That a surplus exists or is projected to exist after 
funding the operating and capital budgets of Hetch Hetchy. 

b. That there is no unfunded Hetch Hetchy operating or 
capital program that by its lack of funding could jeopardize 
health, safety, water supply or power generation. 

c. That there is no reasonably foreseeable operating 
contingency that cannot be funded without a General Fund 
subsidy. 

d. That such a transfer of funds in all other respects 
reflects prudent utility practice. 

2. The PUC's preliminary Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget 
included a $10,551,037 transfer from the Hetch Hetchy 
Operating Fund surplus to the City's General Fund. This 
transfer amount of $10,551,037 remained after the 
establishment of a Hetch Hetchy Reserve Fund ($14,631,532 
or 25% of fiscal year 1993-94 operating expenditures of 
$58,526,128). In the final Fiscal Year 1994-95 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance (AAO) the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors approved an increase in the Hetch Hetchy 
surplus transfer by $15,000,000 from $10,551,037 to 
$25,551,037. 

The additional $15,000,000 was available for transfer as 
follows: 

• The projected surplus as of June 30, 1994 was $1.9 million 
more than had been estimated due to power purchase 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



tT^rr* A XT A T -KTi^r 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

expenditures of less than anticipated and power sales of more 
than had been estimated for fiscal year 1993-94. 

• The projected budget surplus as of June 30, 1995 was also 
increased by $4.4 million due to updated revenue and 
expenditure estimates. These revised estimates make a total 
of $6.3 million ($1.9 million plus $4.4 million) in additional 
funds available for transfer to the General Fund. This $6.3 
million could be transferred to the General Fund without the 
findings in la. to Id. above. 

• The PUC also recommended to further increase the 
transfer from the Hetch Hetchy Operating Fund by an 
additional $8.7 million which increased the total transfer by 
$15,000,000 ($6.3 million plus $8.7 million) from $10,551,037 
to $25,551,037. In addition to approval in the AAO, the 
PUC's findings in points la. to lb. above and the concurrence 
of such findings by the Board of Supervisors are required in 
order to finalize this additional transfer of $8.7 million. 
Based on the revised revenue and expenditure estimates, the 
Hetch Hetchy Reserve Fund had been set at $13.9 million or 
25% of the prior year's actual operating and capital 
expenditures of $55.5 million. This additional transfer of 
$8.7 million would further reduce the estimated 
unappropriated surplus of Hetch Hetchy Operating Fund 
from $13.9 million to $5.2 million or approximately 9.3% of 
the prior year's actual operating and capital expenditures of 
$55.5 million. 

Comments: 1. Approval of Proposition M by the voters in November 

1993 created the new Transportation Commission. In 
addition, Proposition M amended Charter Section 6.407 to 
change the requirements relating to the transfer of surplus 
funds from the Hetch Hetchy Operating Fund to the General 
Fund. Prior to the passage of Proposition M, only surplus 
funds exceeding 25% of the prior operating and capital 
expenditures could be transferred. Charter Section 6.407, as 
amended by Proposition M, now allows the PUC, with the 
concurrence of two-thirds of the Members of the Board of 
Supervisors, to transfer any portion of a utility's surplus 
funds to the General Fund if such transfer is considered to 
reflect prudent utility practice. 

2. The City's Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget and Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance, as previously approved by the 
Mayor and Board of Supervisors, already includes the 
additional $15,000,000 transfer from Hetch Hetchy to the 
City's General Fund, which is the subject of this proposed 
resolution. Therefore, this proposed resolution has no 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



additional fiscal impact and does not add to the current 
balance of the City's General Fund Reserve which is 
estimated at $5,654,851, as of October 26, 1994. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

Item 9 - File 101-94-25 

Department: Registrar of Voters 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $56,343, Registrar of Voters, from the 

General Fund Reserve, for additional election activities, and 
providing for ratification of actions previously taken and 
subject of previous budgetary denial. 

Amount: $56,343 

Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Description: This proposed ordinance would appropriate $56,343 from the 

General Fund Reserve for additional election services for the 
November 8, 1994, general election. According to Ms. 
Germaine Wong, Registrar of Voters, the Registrar was 
required to pay for additional expenses that were not 
anticipated at the time the 1994-95 budget was prepared. The 
amount originally requested by the Registrar from the Mayor 
was $81,843 and was attributable to an increase in 
expenditures for the following additional items: 

1. The voter phamplet is 50 pages longer than originally 
estimated. 

2. Voter registration drives resulted in a doubling of the 
number of voter registration forms received in the last month 
before the close of registration (October 11). 

3. Requests for absentee ballots are running at least 30% 
higher than expected. 

4. One State-wide initiative petition relating to mobile homes 
required verification of every signature instead of the 
verification of a statistical sample of signatures because the 
sample's allowable margin-of-error threshhold was exceeded. 

5. The Early Voting Pilot Project was not anticipated at the 
time the budget was prepared. The Project provides for ten 
additional polling places which are being operated from 9:00 
am to 6:00pm on October 25-26th and November 5-6th. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



The amounts originally requested by the Registrar 
approved by the Mayor's Office are: 



and 



Expenditure 

Temporary Salaries 

Overtime 

Other Non-personal Services 

Total 



Dept. Mayor 

Request Approved 



$21,500 
16,000 
44.343 

$81,843 



$ 

12,000 
44.343 

$56,343 



Mr. Derek Chu of the Mayor's Office reports that based on his 
analysis of pre-election support spending, the Registrar's Office 
should have sufficient funding to complete the November 1994 
election without expending an additional $21,500 for 
temporary salaries. However, additional amounts of $12,000 
for overtime costs and $44,343 for increased costs for printing 
and postage were approved by the Mayor's Office. 

Comments: 1. Approximately half the cost of absentee voting, including the 

Early Voting Pilot Project, will be reimbursed through State- 
mandated reimbursement for absentee voting. These revenues 
will not be realized until the end of the next fiscal year and, 
accordingly, are not incorporated in this legislation. 

2. Because these requested expenditures have already been 
incurred, the ordinance would ratify action previously taken. 

3. As noted above, the proposed legislation states that the 
requested $56,343 was the subject of previous budgetary 
denial. According to Susan Andrus of the Controller's Special 
Projects Office, that statement is incorrect. As such, the 
proposed legislation should be amended to delete reference to 
previous budgetary denial in the title and in the body of the 
legislation. 

4. The basis of the $12,000 request for overtime expenses, as 
estimated by the Registrar, is as follows: 



Classification 




Hours 

336 
168 
416 
920 


Rate 

$16.09 
$13.03 
$11.79 


Total 


1402 Junior Clerk 

1403 Election Clerk 

1404 Clerk 
Total 


$5,406 

2,189 

4.904 

$12,499 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 






BUDGET ANALYST 

29 





Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



The total for overtime is $12,499. The total approved is 
$12,000. According to Greg Ridenour of the Registrar's Office 
the department will be able to absorb the additional $499 in 
expenditures within their existing budget. 

5. The basis of the $44,343 request for Other-Non-personal 
Services, as estimated by the Registrar, is as follows: 

Expenditure Amnynf 

Printing additional ballots $ 2,742 

Printing additional absentee booklets 9,121 

Postage for additional absentee ballots 4,550 

Printing additional Voter Information Pamphlets 17,080 

Postage for additional Voter Information Pamphlets 10.850 

Total $44,343 

6. Based on the explanations provided by the Registrar's Office, 
this request from the Registrar of Voters appears reasonable. 
However, since some of these expenditures will not have been 
incurred until election day, and since more current verifiable 
year-to-date expenditure data from the Controller's Office will 
not be available until after the November 8, 1994 election, the 
Department should submit a report to the Budget Committee 
documenting the applicable expenditures incurred compared 
with the amounts appropriated. 

Recommendation: 1. Amend the title and the body of the proposed legislation by 
deleting the reference to previous budgetary denial. 

2. Request the Registrar of Voters to submit an expenditure 
report to the Budget Committee documenting the actual 
expenditures incurred, compared with the amounts 
appropriated, following the November 8, 1994 election. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



Item 10 -File 97-94-41.1 

Note: This item was transferred from October 25 meeting of Health, Public Safety 
& Environment Committee due to Fiscal Impact. 

Department: Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Item: Draft ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending 

Sections 20.56.10 and 20.57, relating to General Assistance 
allowable personal property and relating to the Income 
Disregard Program. 

Description: Section 20.56.10 of the Administrative Code, entitled 

Allowable Personal Property , currently provides that any 
person who has cash in excess of the current monthly 
General Assistance (GA) grant for a single individual of $345 
is ineligible to apply for General Assistance. Furthermore, 
for any person who has cash of less than $345, the entire 
amount of such cash is entirely offset against the current 
monthly GA grant of $345. However, if a portion of those 
cash assets are in a savings and/or checking account, up to 
$25 of that amount in the savings and/or checking account is 
exempted from being used to offset the GA grant. For 
example, under current legislation, a person who has $25 in a 
savings account can still receive the maximum GA grant of 
$345, since none of that $25 is used to offset the GA grant. 
However, if a GA recipient has $300 in cash, none of which is 
contained in a savings or checking account, the entire 
amount of $300 must be used to offset the GA grant, so that 
the person would be eligible to receive only $45 ($345 less 
$300) for one month of GA aid. However, if $25 of that $300 
in cash were in a savings account, the person would be 
eligible to receive a GA grant of $70, which is equivalent to 
the maximum GA grant of $345 less $275 ($300 in total cash 
less $25 in savings). 

The proposed ordinance would amend Section 20.56.10 to 
allow a person applying for GA to have up to $345 in cash, 
savings or in a checking account without any of that amount 
being used to offset the monthly GA grant of $345. In 
addition, the proposed amendment would provide that any 
amount in cash, savings or in a checking account in excess of 
$345 would be used to offset the monthly GA grant on a 
dollar-for-dollar basis. For example, under the proposed 
legislation, if a person had $300, regardless of how much of 
that $300 was in cash, savings or in a checking account, none 
of that $300 would be applied to offset the monthly GA grant 
of $345. As such, a single individual would be eligible to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
HTTnCKT ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



receive the maximum GA grant of $345. However, if that 
person had $600 in cash, savings or in a checking account, he 
or she would still be eligible to receive a GA grant, but $255 
(the amount in excess of $345) of that $600 would be offset 
against the GA grant, so that the person could only receive 
$90 of GA aid for that month. 

According to the Department of Social Services (DSS), the 
proposed legislation would (1) increase the pool of eligible GA 
participants because persons with more than $345 in liquid 
assets would become eligible to apply for GA; and (2) increase 
the average length of time that a person would receive GA 
payments, since a person with cash assets of more than $345 
would be eligible to apply for GA aid sooner and would not 
necessarily stop receiving GA aid earlier, and clients who 
already receive GA payments and who would otherwise be 
discontinued for assets in excess of $345 might remain on GA 
aid for a longer period of time. 

According to Mr. Antoine Moore of DSS, DSS estimates that 
this proposed amendment pertaining to the personal property 
limit would increase the cost of the GA Program by 
approximately $69,000 annually. 

Section 20.57 (b) of the Administrative Code requires GA 
recipients to complete either 20 verifiable job applications per 
month and/or participate in Department-approved job 
counseling, vocational rehabilitation, drug or alcohol 
treatment or a work assignment program in order to continue 
receiving GA payments. The proposed ordinance would 
amend Section 20.57 (b) to clarify the definition of verifiable 
job applications by specifically defining the completion of 
verifiable job applications as (1) sending resumes and cover 
letters to apply for positions for which the recipient meets the 
minimum qualifications; (2) cold-calling prospective 
employers followed by the sending of a resume and cover 
letter; and (3) participation in union hiring hall programs 
that make use of telephone job searches. 

Section 20.57 (h) of the Administrative Code established the 
Income Disregard Program in order to provide a work 
incentive for GA recipients. The Income Disregard Program 
operates by disregarding a certain amount of an employed 
GA recipient's monthly gross income when determining the 
recipient's GA continuing eligibility and grant amount. As 
such, a GA recipient is permitted to earn income and still 
receive a partial GA grant. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



Presently, a person can receive up to $610 per month in gross 
income and still receive a grant. Under the Income 
Disregard Program, DSS disregards up to $270 of the 
person's monthly gross income in determining the amount of 
the recipient's GA grant, in accordance with Section 20.57 
(h). The balance of the recipient's monthly income is offset 
against the GA grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For 
example, the GA grant of a single individual recipient 
earning $610 per month would be equivalent to the difference 
between the $345 monthly GA grant and the amount to be 
offset against the grant, or $340 ($610 less $270). Therefore, 
$345 less $340 equals a monthly GA grant of $5, as reflected 
in the table below. 



(1) 


(2) 


(3) 
Amount 


(4) 


Gross 




Offsetting 


Maximum 


Monthly 


Income 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Salarv 


Disregard 


(Col. 1 - Col. 2) 


($345 - Col. 3) 


$100 


$100 


$0 


$345 


200 


167 


33 


312 


300 


217 


83 


262 


400 


250 


150 


195 


500 


270 


230 


115 


610 


270 


340 


5 



The proposed ordinance would amend Section 20.57 (h) of the 
Administrative Code to increase the income disregard limit 
from a maximum of $270 to a maximum of $454. Thus, DSS 
would disregard up to $454 of a single individual recipient's 
monthly gross income in determining the amount of the 
person's GA grant, in accordance with Section 20.57 (h). The 
balance of the recipient's monthly income would then be 
offset against the GA grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For 
example, the GA grant of a person earning $794 per month 
would be $5, which is equivalent to the difference between 
the $345 monthly GA grant and the amount to be offset 
against the grant, or $340 ($794 less $454). Therefore, under 
existing legislation, a single individual recipient can earn up 
to $610 per month and still receive a GA grant, but under the 
proposed legislation, a person could earn up to $794 per 
month and still receive a GA grant, as shown in the table 
below. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 







Amount 




Gross 




Offsetting 


Maximum 


Monthly 


Income 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Salarv 


Disregard 


(Col. 1 - Col. 2) 


($345 - Col. 3) 


$200 


$200 


$0 


$345 


350 


300 


50 


295 


500 


375 


125 


220 


650 


425 


225 


120 


794 


454 


340 


5 


800 


455 


345 






According to Mr. Moore, the proposed legislation that would 
increase the income disregard limit from $270 to $454 could 
potentially generate savings for the City, but only if the 
proposed legislation leads to an increase in the average 
monthly earnings of an employed GA recipient and to an 
increase in the number of GA recipients participating in the 
Income Disregard Program for the following reasons: (1) as 
the average monthly income increases, the average GA grant 
should decline since the GA grant would be offset by the GA 
recipient's higher monthly earnings, and (2) if the number of 
GA recipients participating in the Income Disregard Program 
increases, a larger percentage of the total GA caseload would 
likely receive less than the maximum GA grant of $345 per 
month. 

Mr. Moore advises that the average monthly income of 
Income Disregard Program participants is $244 per month. 
Mr. Moore estimates that (1) the average monthly income 
would have to increase by at least $118 from the current 
average monthly income of $244, which would result in an 
average GA grant reduction of at least $33 from the current 
average monthly GA grant of $290 for Income Disregard 
Program participants, and (2) the number of GA recipients 
participating in the Income Disregard Program would have to 
increase by at least 846 from the current participation rate of 
564, for the City to realize savings in the GA Program. 
However, Mr. Moore advises that there is presently no way of 
knowing whether the proposed increase in the income 
disregard limit would have these two effects. 

If these two effects are not achieved, Mr. Moore advises that 
the increased income disregard limit would most likely 
increase the cost of General Assistance because, at each level 
of earnings, a greater amount of the person's income could be 
disregarded and less of the person's income would be used to 

ROART) OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



offset the GA grant, thereby resulting in an increase the 
average grant amount. The table below illustrates, for a 
single individual recipient, the potential costs to the City of 
increasing the income disregard limit. 









Increase in 








Cost to City 




Maximum 


Maximum 


Per Single 


Gross 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Individual 


Monthly 


Under Current 


Under Proposed 


Recipient 


Salary 


Legislation 


Legislation 


Per Month 


$100 


$345 


$345 


$0 


200 


312 


345 


33 


300 


262 


312 


50 


350 


229 


295 


66 


400 


195 


270 


75 


500 


115 


220 


105 


610 


5 


147 


142 


650 





120 


120 


794 





5 


5 


800 












Mr. Moore advises that of the approximately 564 current GA 
recipients participating in the Income Disregard Program per 
month, approximately 376 persons do not receive a full GA 
grant. The average gross income for these 376 GA recipients 
is approximately $300 per month. As such, the potential cost 
to the City of amending Section 20.57 (h) of the 
Administrative Code to increase the income disregard limit is 
approximately $18,800 per month (376 participants x a 
potential cost per month, per participant of $50, as reflected 
in the table above), or $225,600 annually. 

In addition, DSS advises that the pool of eligible Income 
Disregard Program participants would most likely increase 
as a result of the increased income disregard limit. This 
increase would occur because, under existing legislation, a 
person would be ineligible to receive a grant if his or her 
gross earnings exceeded $610 per month, whereas under the 
proposed legislation, a person earning up to $794 per month 
would still be eligible to receive a GA grant. 

In addition, under the existing legislation, up to $1,500 in 
savings derived from the gross earnings of an employed GA 
recipient may be disregarded during the GA recipient's 
participation in the Income Disregard Program and for up to 
three months after the GA recipient's participation in the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

is 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



Program, if the GA recipient becomes unemployed. The 
proposed legislation would amend this provision by 
increasing the amount of savings which can be disregarded 
when determining the GA recipient's continuing eligibility 
and grant amount from $1,500 to $2,000. 

According to Mr. Moore, this proposed amendment would 
likely increase the City's costs of the GA Program by 
increasing the average length of time that a person would 
receive GA payments. However, as of the writing of this 
report, Mr. Moore was unable to estimate the amount of the 
potential additional costs to the City as a result of this 
provision. 

In summary, according to DSS estimates at this time, the 
potential additional costs of the proposed ordinance to the 
City are $294,600 per year ($69,000 in potential additional 
costs by increasing the personal property limit plus $225,600 
in potential additional costs by increasing the income 
disregard limit). 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Sally Kipper of DSS, DSS supports the 

proposed amendment to clarify the definition of a verifiable 
job search application. In addition, regarding the proposed 
amendment to increase the personal property limit, Ms. 
Kipper advises that DSS supports an increase to $100 as the 
amount of liquid assets that would be exempted from being 
used to offset the monthly GA grant, but does not support the 
proposed increase to $345, which would likely increase the 
costs of the GA Program. 

Furthermore, regarding the proposed increase in the income 
disregard limit, Ms. Kipper advises that DSS does support 
the concept of creating incentives to obtain permanent 
employment and to exit public aid, but that the existing 
Income Disregard Program already costs the City $400,000 
annually. 

2. According to an analysis completed by St. Anthony's 
Foundation, the proposed amendment pertaining to the 
personal property limit would generate net savings to the 
City of approximately $138,000 in the first year, as the result 
of a reduction in the GA caseload and administrative costs. 
In addition, the report by St. Anthony's Foundation 
estimated that the proposed increase in the income disregard 
limit would generate first-year savings to the City of 
$237,023 by (a) increasing Income Disregard participation; 
(b) increasing the number of GA recipients who report income 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



to DSS; and (c) increasing the average income of Income 
Disregard participants. Thus, St. Anthony's Foundation 
estimates an overall savings to the City of $375,023 in the 
first year as a result of the proposed ordinance. 

3. As previously noted, St. Anthony's Foundation estimates 
that the City would realize a savings of $375,023 in the first 
year as a result of the proposed ordinance. However, as 
noted above, DSS believes that the proposed ordinance could 
result in potential additional costs to the City of $294,600 
annually. DSS further believes that the proposed increase in 
the income disregard limit could result in a savings to the 
City if it leads to an increase in (a) the average monthly 
earnings of an employed GA recipient, and (b) the number of 
GA recipients participating in the Income Disregard 
Program. Whether or not the proposed increase in the 
income disregard limit would have these two effects is 
uncertain at this time. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET A.N\LYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



Item 11 - File 97-94-41.2 

Note: This item was transferred from October 25 meeting of Health,Public Safety 
& Environment Committee due to Fiscal Impact. 

Department: Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Item: Ordinance amending the Administrative Code by adding 

Section 20.57.7 to authorize the General Assistance (GA) 
Employer Wage Subsidy Program. 

Description: In order to promote the permanent employment of General 

Assistance (GA) recipients and their permanent exit from 
public aid, the proposed ordinance would amend the 
Administrative Code to add Section 20.57.7, which would 
authorize the Department of Social Services (DSS) to 
establish the GA Employer Wage Subsidy Program. Under 
this Program, the employer of a GA recipient who is (1) 
employed as a result of the proposed Wage Subsidy Program, 
(2) employed for at least 26 weeks and (3) earning a 
m inim um of $800 per month in gross income could receive a 
wage subsidy from the City from monies appropriated for the 
General Assistance Program . The amount of the wage 
subsidy would be equivalent to 14 percent of the employee's 
gross salary for the first 26 weeks (six months) of 
employment. The first subsidy payment by the City to the 
employer of the GA recipient would be made after the first 13 
consecutive weeks of employment, and the second subsidy 
payment would be made after the second 13 consecutive 
weeks of employment. 

Under the proposed General Assistance Employer Wage 
Subsidy Program, DSS would coordinate with community 
agencies to seek permanent employment for GA recipients 
who participate in the General Assistance Training and 
Employment Services (GATES) Program. The GATES 
Program provides job counseling, job search, case 
management, education, vocational and on-the-job training, 
appraisal and assessment services to employable GA 
recipients. Under the proposed GA Employer Wage Subsidy 
Program, DSS would seek permanent employment for 
GATES clients as opposed to unemployable GA recipients 
since GATES clients have undergone a screening process in 
order to assure that they are employable and job-ready. 

DSS advises that it expects to place approximately 100 GA 
recipients per year in permanent positions through the GA 
Employer Wage Subsidy Program. Based on DSS's past 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



experience with the GATES Program, DSS estimates that the 
average gross earnings for a GA recipient participating in the 
Wage Subsidy Program would be approximately $1,300 per 
month ($15,600 annually), or a total of $7,800 for six months. 
Under the proposed GA Employer Wage Subsidy Program, 
the City would pay a wage subsidy amounting to $1,092 (14 
percent of $7,800) to the employer of a GA recipient. 

The maximum grant for a GA recipient who is single is 
presently $345 per month. According to DSS, the average 
GATES client spends approximately 18 months receiving GA 
aid before becoming employed. Of those 18 months on aid, 
between four and five months are spent in the GATES 
Program. The total cost of GA payments for those 18 months 
is $6,210 ($345 x 18 months). Mr. Antoine Moore of DSS 
advises that if the proposed GA Employer Wage Subsidy 
Program does not reduce the length of time that the average 
client receives GA aid, the Program could then increase the 
City's cost of the General Assistance Program by the $1,092 
amount paid as a wage subsidy to the employer, or from 
$6,210, the regular cost of the GA Program, to $7,302 per 
client ($6,210 plus $1,092 paid to the employer). For the 
estimated 100 GA clients participating in the Wage Subsidy 
Program per year, the potential additional cost of this 
proposed legislation to the City could average $109,200 per 
year ($1,092 per client x 100 clients per year), based on an 
average salary of GATES clients of $1,300 per month. 

DSS estimates that this proposed ordinance would most 
likely reduce the average length of time that a person 
receives GA aid, but that it is not possible at this time to 
estimate the amount of this reduction. According to Mr. 
Moore, if the proposed GA Employer Wage Subsidy Program 
results in a reduction of four months (i.e., from 18 months to 
14 months), the City would realize a savings in the GA 
Program. For example, if a GA client becomes employed 
through the Wage Subsidy Program after 14 months of 
receiving GA, the City would pay $4,830 in GA payments 
($345 x 14 months) to the GA recipient, plus a wage subsidy 
of $1,092 (14 percent of the GA client's average earnings of 
$7,800 for the first 26 weeks or six months of employment) to 
the employer of the GA recipient, for a total cost of $5,922. If 
that GA recipient had received GA payments for the entire 
18-month period, the total cost to the City would have been 
$6,210, as previously noted. Thus, the potential savings 
would be $288 per client ($6,210 less $5,922) if the proposed 
GA Employer Wage Subsidy Program reduces the average 
length of time that a client spends on GA aid by four months. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



For the estimated 100 GA clients participating in the Wage 
Subsidy Program per year, the potential savings of the 
proposed legislation could be $28,800 per year ($288 per 
client x 100 clients per year). 

Attached is a table provided by DSS which shows the City's 
potential average expenditure per client for GA payments 
and the estimated cost of the wage subsidy, based on the 
client's length of time on GA aid and on the monthly salary of 
the client. 

According to Mr. Moore, DSS estimates that if the proposed 
GA Employer Wage Subsidy Program enabled a relatively 
higher percentage of GA recipients to obtain permanent 
employment, thereby reducing the GA caseload, the City 
could realize savings in the GA Program in excess of the 
above-noted $28,800 annually. However, as of the writing of 
this report, DSS was unable to provide an estimate of such 
additional potential savings. 

Ms. Sally Kipper of DSS advises that DSS supports the 
proposed GA Employer Wage Subsidy Program not only 
because of the potential reduced costs to the City but also 
because this Program would create permanent exits from 
public aid for GA recipients. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



1 E 



i ? --. 
Ill 

win 



rx co O <0 co O 

f-. r- « CO M lO 
r-; CM. C| CM «0 C-J 

io 10 i/) io 10 m" 
</></> *o </> </> » 



MB3 >J O O t 
M WO-rj 00 
O 10 ifl -q <) n 
io o u) to <o* 

<J> </> <S> <r> </> </> 



r** eo O iO co O 

•OOCON'- "t 

co o o o o o 



u) in io iO «j in io "5 



D'ONQ-ONegn 
<jr^.-;5coN;pe> 



(OMOft'O'QdP) 

Q "^ ■". t ^ 'l "^ ^ 



CM CQ I O CO *» 
r— ^ CO CM tO O- 
CM CM CM CO co Cq 

»0 "O -O 'O «o «o 
•to o -to </> </></> 



III 



ill 



r-» to o to «o o 

to o cm >g p to 

tq tq •© -O n» r-s 

*o *o *o *o *© *© 

•c/>«/> </><r> v> «/> 



CO O 



CN » "» O CO *T 
O CO fN- r- T 00 

f> c> t> O P O 
•O -O <0 h» rC f-T 
</> co «o o </></> 



J2 o o o p o 

3 «5 5 *t 5 5 

S. "O «o -o -o «o 



u) ^ N U) p- N 



co cq co 
«e> </> v> «»</> ■«> </></» 



O >0 CN O ■© 

MIOOOJ'O 

ts.rs.rs.i«>rs.r>>rs.r>. 
•c/></>«/>«0«0"t*<»></> 



^fOOOOOO© 

^ic^cxe^e^fiCHCM 
5 <o >o <o -o «o •© <©" 





III 


S (N o o co r^ 




If 


co r- o to r» 2 

w «- m (So 
CO co 0- O o » 



r>- co o io — o- uj 
co CM «o f> co O O 
•O K c» K. tq cq o 

«) KJ IO K) «) «j U) 


•— r-N co ■— rN co 0- 
V ex i— lO CO CM tO 
C> c> O O O ^ i-; ; 
>o iO •<> -O -O -O -o 


CM CO S Q -O <» Q 

OiO^Nr- J) 

*0 *0 "O *o -o *c *o 
v> </> «o </> v> <o <j> 


•O CN CO O CN CO tj 
CO CN tO O CO -Q O 

cn cq cq cq <ej ^ ^ iq 
"O "O >0 *0 "O *o *o 


Is O O 1 IO >- O- l/> 

N r- « O W IO O- 

°. '. \ ' ^ "i "^ 
*0 *0 "O *0 *0 "O "O 
</> v> «/> </> *0 </» </> 


r— r^ co i— r^ co o 
CO -O O ■« f*» — T 
<C) <Q N N N a tt^ 
>0 •O O *0 "O "O *o 
iS> </> <r> </> </> <r> <r> 



CN CO M O -O 1 O 
CN <0 pi CO -O O 'J 

S N N CO CO ^ &■ 



NOMO'-O'lO 
O O O r^ — «» CO 
cf£ r^ r- ^- t>( CN CN 

rx iC r>C rC r» iC jsT 

</> <A <t> CO </> to <o 



■^ *» »* iq >q "d -O 
r>» hsT |C tC r«. r>T i>C 



° o o o o o o 

5 CN CN. <N c[ CN CN 

x * "O -o <o <d >o 



C> O O O >— —; ■-; 
•O r\ N s" rC rC N 
</> <r> <s> <J> </> </> </> 



— rx co — r~ co O 

cn vo o co -o o co 

cq ro cq ^x "* vq to 

rC rC tC rC rs rC rC 



<o cn co -o cm oo ^r 

•OOrtNr-^O 

■O r> N N m CO CO 

j-C iC t>T rC rx ^C isT 
</> </> v> </> <o ■«y> «> 



J=: o o o o o o 



S CO ^T O -O M O 
y rt rv r- ^ cod 
1 1 0( CM co co cq t^ 



tX CM CO -O CN CO T 

aoccSort n 
- ^ tq to -o >q -q 



rtNOONOON OONOlJNO 3NOI9NOO 

coc>c>c> °. — — CN.CN»ococq 'J^iqiqso-o-q ^rxcoeqot>0- 



C>i CM, C^ ?{ CM CN £ 

O O vo -o o -o" 



E 
2 

Cb 

o 
a 

UJ O 
< CM 

O •« 
■v> 



c -c; 

|8 

o^ 
c 
oo 

ffl c 

s e 

o 3 
8 I 

2 « 

o> ^ 

> CO 
D </> 



£0-d 



0^6f£f?5lf 'ON Xyj 



41 



20:91 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 101-90-84.11 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of October 
36, 1994. 



Departments: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Fire Department 
Water Department 
City Attorney 

Release of reserved funds, in the amount of $35,625 for trial 
fees incurred by the City Attorney's Office for work 
performed for the Fire Department. 

$35,625 

1986 Fire Protection System Improvement Bonds 

In November of 1986, San Francisco voters approved the 
issuance of $46.2 million in Fire Protection System 
Improvement Bonds to finance improvements to the City's 
Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS). The City sold $31 
million of these bonds in 1987 and the $15.2 million balance 
($46.2 less $31 million) in 1991. In April 1991, the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated the $15.2 million proceeds from the 
second sale of bonds, but reserved $13,506,943 that was 
budgeted for a variety of construction projects, pending 
specific information concerning the amount of the 
construction contracts, selection of the contractors and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 

The Department of Public Works (DPW) entered into a 
contract with Interlane General Engineering, Inc./P & J 
Utilities, a joint venture for the installation of AWSS 
hydrants and valves on Seventh Avenue, Laguna Honda 
Blvd. and Claremont Blvd., from Irving Street to Ulloa 
Street. The DPW advises that following the completion of the 
project, Interlane General Engineering, Inc./P & J Utilities 
sued the City for increased costs in labor and equipment, 
relating to delays in the start-up and completion of the 
project. The City Attorney's Office defended this lawsuit. 

Mr. David Norman, Deputy City Attorney, advises that the 
above-noted lawsuit was recently tried in Superior Court and 
the Court found in favor of the City. Mr. Norman states that 
the City Attorney's Office, has incurred $36,550.32 in 
litigation expenses (see Attachment prepared by the City 
Attorney's Office) in connection with this lawsuit and not 
$35,625 as is being requested at this time. Further, according 
to Mr. Norman, the City Attorney's Office erroneously billed 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



the Water Department for the costs of this litigation instead 
of billing the Fire Department. Mr. Norman advised that the 
Water Department then paid the City Attorney's Office 
$21,361.36 of the $36,550.32 bill. 

The Fire Department is proposing to use the reserved funds 
(a) to reimburse the Water Department for the $21,361.36, 
which the Water Department paid to the City Attorney on 
the basis of the erroneous billing and (b) to pay the City 
Attorney's Office the $15,188.96 balance ($36,550.32 less 
$21,361.36). 

1. As noted above, the City Attorney has incurred a total of 
$36,550.32 not $35,625 in litigation expenses. As such, the 
Fire Department is requesting that a total of $36,550.32 be 
released from reserve instead of $35,625. 

2. Mr. Norman advises that the subject litigation expenses 
are related to the above-noted AWSS project and, as such, 
can legally be paid for by bond funds. 



Recommendation: Release $36,550.32 in reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



OCT-24-1934 11:06 STEPHEN] THOMPSON 

City and County of San Francisco: 



Louise H. Renne. 
Crty Attorney 




<=15 55^ 3030 P.Q2 

Office of City Attorne 

Attachment 



PSJ/Interlane v CCSF (944-654): 

Costs billed to PUCSFWD through 06/30/94 

Attorney time 304.6 hours 

Out of pocket costs 

Owed to PUCSFWD 

Costs incurred Fiscal Year 1994—1995 v 

Attomey time 95.2 hours 

Out of Docket: costs owed 



? 21,254.01 
$ 107.35 

$ 21,361.36 



? 6,466.46 
$ 3, 722. 5 D 

$ 15,188.96 



Total: 



$ 36,550.32 



hk 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 13 - File 69-94-4.1 



Departments: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Mayor's Office 

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Board of Supervisors 

Supplemental Appropriation reappropriating $84,000 from the 
Capital Improvement Project, Disabled Access Modification 
account of the CAO to the Board of Supervisors for the Mayor's 
Office to pay for the operation of the Municipal Access 
Channel. 

$84,000 

General Fund - Capital Improvement Project, Disabled Access 
Modification funds, Office of the CAO 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
reappropriate $84,000 in the CAO's Capital Improvement 
Project Disabled Access Modification account to be used to pay 
for the operation of the Municipal Access Channel. 

As noted above, the source of funds for this request is the 
Capital Improvement Project, Disabled Access Modification 
account which is used to pay for capital improvements to 
improve disability access to City-owned buildings. Mr. Steve 
Nelson of the Office of the CAO advises that the CAO would be 
reimbursed the $84,000 for the Disabled Access Modification 
account by the Mayor's Office of Community Development 
(MOCD), from monies earmarked for disability access purposes 
in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. 

Under the City's Franchise Agreement with Viacom 
Cablevision of San Francisco, Viacom is required to provide one 
channel each for public, educational and government 
(municipal) access. The Cable TV Access Development and 
Program Fund consists of .2 percent of the 5 percent total 
franchise fees paid to the City by Viacom (the remaining 4.8 
percent of the franchise fees accrues to the General Fund). The 
monies in the Cable TV Access Development and Program 
Fund for FY 1994-95 are allocated equally between (1) a 
professional services contract aimed at promoting and 
encouraging the use of Public Access Cable television channels 
($50,000), (2) contract services which assist in the operation of 
the Educational Access cable channel of the City College of San 
Francisco ($50,000) and (3) the Municipal Access Channel 
($50,000). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 2, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

The Municipal Access Channel, which began operation in 
June of 1993, is included in the budget of the Board of 
Supervisors under the Cable TV Access Development and 
Program Fund, and, as noted above, is budgeted in the 
amount of $50,000 for FY 1994-95. 

The Municipal Access Channel provides coverage of the 
Board of Supervisors meetings and public service 
announcements from various City departments including the 
Department of Public Health, Police Department, Office of 
Emergency Services, the Public Library and the Academy of 
Sciences. Additionally, the Municipal Access Channel 
provides notices of upcoming City agency and committee 
meetings and an interactive computer system (Response TV) 
which the public can access with their touch-tone phone. This 
interactive system contains data on almost all City 
departments, agencies and organizations. Cable subscribers 
can bring up data on their television set ranging from a 
phone directory of City departments to volunteer programs at 
the Animal Care and Control Center. 

Comments: 1. Mr. John Taylor, Clerk of the Board, advises that funds 

currently budgeted for the Municipal Access Channel are 
work-ordered to the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council 
(MCJC). The MCJC, in turn, pays for the operation of the 
Municipal Access Channel. However, with respect to the 
subject request of $84,000, Mr. Taylor suggests that the 
proposed legislation be amended to delete reference to the 
Mayor's Office from the title of the proposed legislation. 

2. Mr. Zane Blaney, Channel Manager of the Municipal 
Access Channel has requested that this item be continued to 
the Budget Committee meeting on November 9, 1994, in 
order to allow the Municipal Access Channel additional time 
to provide specific budget details with respect to (1) its 
current FY 1994-95 budget of $50,000, (2) the requested 
supplemental appropriation amount of $84,000 and (3) its 
projected budget for FY 1994-95 of approximately $347,000. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to delete reference to the 
Mayor's Office from the title of the legislation 

2. Continue the proposed ordinance to the Budget Committee 
meeting of November 9, 1994 as requested by Mr. Blaney of 
the Municipal Access Channel. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 






Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

Item 14 -File 101-94-18 

Note: This Item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of October 
26, 1994 for purposes of having the Budget Committee discuss this matter 
in closed session. 

Department: Sheriffs Department 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating $586,900 

from the General Fund Reserve for capital improvements to 
the Sheriffs New Jail Facility. 

Amount: $586,900 

Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Description: Pursuant to a consent decree regarding the overcrowding of 

prisoners at Jail No. 1, a New Jail Facility is being constructed 
behind the Hall of Justice. The new jail will have a capacity of 
440 inmates and will include new intake/booking/release, work 
furlough and medical/psychiatric facilities. The current budget 
for the New Jail Facility is $55.1 million and is funded by a 
$33.7 million grant from the State Board of Corrections, $16.5 
million in 1990 General Obligation Bond funds approved by the 
voters in 1990, $1.4 million in bond interest income and a $3.5 
million supplemental appropriation of General Fund monies 
approved in December of 1993. 

The construction of the new jail facility was originally 
scheduled to be completed by June of 1993 but experienced cost 
overruns and time delays. In November of 1993, the Sheriffs 
Department requested a supplemental appropriation to 
address these cost overruns, which were associated with 
change orders and additional project costs resulting from an 
extended completion date. The supplemental budget request of 
$3.5 million in General Fund monies was based on Department 
of Public Works (DPW) estimates of the additional required 
"hard" costs to complete construction, and additional required 
"soft" costs, such as project management and other professional 
services, through the then revised expected date of completion 
of July 31, 1994. 

Since the approval of the previously-cited supplemental 
appropriation ordinance, the construction contractor, Green 
International, has again revised the expected completion date 
to November 18, 1994. In addition, DPW reports that, as a 
result of the change orders, the construction contractor has 
stated that it intends to file a claim against the City in the 
amount of approximately $15 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

hi 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



According to Lieutenant Michael LaVigne, Capital Projects 
Manager for the Sheriffs Department, it appears that DPW's 
previous estimates of hard costs were accurate and would also 
have been accurate for soft costs if the contractor had 
completed the project by July 31, 1994. Lieutenant LaVigne 
reports that there are presently sufficient funds available to 
cover the hard costs until the current expected completion date 
of November 18, 1994. However, DPW advises that there is 
not sufficient funding to cover the soft costs for the period from 
July 31, 1994 through November 18, 1994. 

DPW has informed Green International, the construction 
contractor, that the City intends to assess liquidated damages 
of $10,000 per day for every day that the project completion is 
delayed. However, these funds would not be available until 
after the completion of the project and would depend on the 
resolution of the contractor's pending claim. According to 
Lieutenant LaVigne, although the Sheriffs Department 
anticipates that it will start accepting inmates at the New Jail 
Facility on December 3, 1994, additional costs are expected to 
be incurred through December 31, 1994 for administration, site 
clean-up and the City Attorney's costs to defend against the 
construction contractor's pending claim against the City. 

DPW advises that the City needs to fund the soft costs until 
the project is completed and to defend itself against the 
contractor's pending claim As such, the Sheriffs Department 
is requesting a supplemental appropriation of General Fund 
monies in the amount of $586,900 for the costs of the City 
Attorney's Office, DPW Project Management and the 
construction manager, VANIR Construction, for the period 
retroactive from July 31, 1994 through December 31, 1994. An 
explanation of these costs follows: 

Citv Attorney's Office $340,000 

This estimate includes allocations for legal experts' 
preliminary analyses, document review and organization and 
the City Attorney's time incurred in the preparation of the 
City's planned claim against the project architect and the 
City's defense against the anticipated claim from the 
construction contractor. The $340,000 allocates $119,000, or 
approximately 1,253 hours at an average hourly rate of 
approximately $95, for services of the City Attorney's Office, 
and $221,000 for outside consulting services. Mr. George Wong 
of the City Attorney's Office advises that the consultants have 
not yet been selected (See Comment No. 2). A breakdown of 
the $340,000 cost is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



City Attorney: 
General Analysis and 

Preliminary Litigation Cost $36,500 

Copying of job documents 40,000 

Review of job documents 17,000 

Copying of contractor documents 12,750 

Review of contractor documents 12.750 



Subtotal - City Attorney 


$119,000 


Consultants: 




Scheduling Consultant 


$59,500 


Fire/Life Safety Consultant 


34,000 


Security Systems Consultant 


29,750 


Labor Efficiency Consultant 


38,250 


Architectural Consultant 


29,750 


Accountant 


29.750 


Subtotal - Consultants 


$221,000 


Total 


$340,000 



Department of Public Works $57,500 

This would provide funding for the salaries, fringe benefits and 
overhead of one full-time project manager ($43,556, or $4,007 
per pay period x 10.87 pay periods), one quarter-time architect 
($9,876, or $908.56 per pay period x 10.87 pay periods) and one 
part-time secretary ($4,068, or $374.24 per pay period x 10.87 
pay periods) for the five-month period from July 31, 1994 
through December 31, 1994. These three positions are 
currently working and the $57,500 would reimburse the DPW 
for its costs from July 31, 1994 through approximately 
December 1, 1994. 

Construction Manager - Vanir CM $376,672 
The construction manager, Vanir CM, has proposed to provide 
construction management services until December 31, 1994 
and claims defense assistance, at a total estimated cost of 
$376,672. Attached is the consultant's breakdown of the 
estimated cost. 

Total Estimated Cost $774,172 

Less Available Funding from Previously 
Appropriated Grant and Bond Funds ($187.232) 

Total Estimated Cost Less Available Funding $586,940 

Total Supplemental Appropriation Request, 
rounded to present need (subject of this report) $586,900 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 



The budgeted shortfall to complete the New Jail Facility, 
retroactive from July 31, 1994 through December 31, 1994, is 
as follows: 







Actual 


Projected 






Current 


Expenditures 


Expenditures 


Projected 




Budget 


7/1/91-9/15/94 


9/16/94 - 12/31/94 


Shortfall 


Consultants: 










Architectural and Engineering 


$4,200,752 


$4,200,652 


$100 


$0 


Geological Technician Services 


180,439 


176,835 


3,604 





Traffic Consultant 


52,190 


52,190 








Construction Management - Vanir 










Construction 


2,733,514 


2,849,930 


260,256 


(376,672) 


DPW; 










Project Management 


784,976 


770,693 


64,313 


(50,030) 


Bureau of Architecture Inspection 


320,042 


320,042 








Bureau of Engineering Survey 


31,200 


21,250 


9,950 





Bureau of Building Repair 


22,184 





22,184 





City Attorney 


30,000 





340,000 


(310,000) 


Water Department Work Order 


24,000 


24,000 








Construction Contract 


45,134,173 


45,004,290 


1,112,710 


(982,827) 


Contingencies (Change Orders) 


982,827 








982,827 


Art Enrichment 


223,394 


164,863 


58,531 





Parking Lot Relocation 


110,996 


110,996 








Other (Asbestos Abatement and 










Permits) 


143,906 


101,108 


42,798 





Project Reserve 


157.232 








157.232 


Total 


$55,131,825 


$53,796,849 


$1,914,446 


($579,470) 


Supplemental Appropriation Request 








586.900 


Recommended Reduction 








$7,430 



Comments: 1. Based on the actual and projected expenditures through 

December 31, 1994 as reflected in the table above, the 
supplemental appropriation request should be reduced by 
$7,430, from $586,900 to $579,470. 

2. As previously noted, the City Attorney's Office has not yet 
selected the consultants for the preliminary review of the 
City's claim against the project architect and defense against 
the anticipated claim by the construction contractor. As such, 
$221,000 should be placed on reserve, pending the selection of 
consultants and the submission of estimated hours and hourly 
rates. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 2, 1994 

3. Lieutenant LaVigne advises that expenditures have been 
incurred against the proposed supplemental appropriation 
since July 31, 1994. As such, the proposed ordinance should be 
amended to provide for ratification of action previously taken. 

4. Mr. Wong of the City Attorney's Office advises that the 
$340,000 budgeted for services of the City Attorney's Office, 
which would provide funding to prepare a claim against the 
project architect and to defend against the anticipated claim by 
the construction contractor, is a preliminary estimate. Mr. 
Wong further advises that, if the City receives the type and 
extent of claim that is expected, significantly more funding 
would be needed to continue and conclude litigation in this 
matter. Mr. Wong reports that the cost of such additional 
services cannot be estimated at this time. 

5. Because of the lack of space in the City's existing jails, the 
City has been paying Alameda County approximately $500,000 
per month to house inmates in Alameda County's jails. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
by providing for ratification of action previously taken. 

2. Amend the proposed ordinance by reducing the 
supplemental appropriation request by $7,430, from $586,900 
to $579,470. 

3. Place $221,000 on reserve, pending the selection of 
consultants by the City Attorney's Office, the MBE/WBE status 
of the consultants and the submission of estimated hours and 
hourly rates. 

4. Approval of the supplemental appropriation ordinance, as 
amended, is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 




Supervisor Hsieh Supervisor Shelley 

President Alioto Clerk of the Board 

Supervisor Bierman Chief Administrative Officer 

Supervisor Conroy Controller 

Supervisor Hallinan Teresa Serata 

Supervisor Kaufman Robert Oakes 

Supervisor Kennedy Ted Lakey 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Maher 
Supervisor Migden 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
NEW SHERIFF'S FACILITY - 5206A 
- RESOURCE UTILIZATION PLA 22JUL94 
-. VCM JOB n P-229 



Attachment 



1995 



| POSITION 


RATE 


P-l-C 


S142 


HOURS 




PROJECT MANAGER 


S97 


HOURS 




ON-SITE PRJ DIR 


$104 


HOURS 




PRJ CONTROL/FE 


S85 


HOURS f 




PROJ EXPEDITOR 


S66 


HOURS- 




PUNCH LIST COOR 


585 


HOURS 




SCHEDULER 


S78 


HOURS 




ESTIMATOR • 


S92 


HOURS 




PRJ SECRETARY 


$39 


HOURS 





RATE I AUG | SEP | OCT | NOV | DEC | JAN 



TOTALS 



120 120 120 120 



80 80 80 80 



80 



168 168 168 168 168 



96 96 96 96 96 



40 40 48 48 



96 96 



80 



80 48 



54 54 54 54 



24 32 32 80 



54 



80 



UBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES 
ESTIMATED HOURS (VCM) 550 558 

AMOUNT i 558.504 S58.816 



REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 
OFFICE EQUIPMENT 
DIRECT EXPENSES 



$818 S818 

S2.833 S2.833 



OVERHEAD® 10% S365 S365 

SUBTOTAL REIMBURSABLES 54.016 S4.016 
MBE/WBE SUBCONSULTANTS 



542 


590 


518 


S58.248 


$60,120 


.$49,664 


$818 


- 5818 


$818 


S5.388 


S3.833 


53.833 


S621 


S465 


5465 


$6;827 


$5,116 


55.116 



TESTING/SPECIAL INSPECTION 
BUDGET AMOUNT S7.912 57.912 



FIELD SECY (LUSTER) 


S34 










• 


HOURS 




168 


168 


168 


168 


168 


AMOUNT 




55.712 


S5.712 


55.712 


55.712 


S5.712 



OVERHEAD® 10% 
SUBTOTAL MBE/WBE 
[TOTAL MONTHLY FEES 



51.362 51.362 
514.986 514.986 
S77.507 577.819 



57.912 57.912 

51.362 51.362 

514.986 514.986 

580.061 580.223 



SO 

S571 

56.283 

561.063 



S5.680 



554.320 



541.600 



S71.400 



531.680 



S14.960 



531.200 



524.840 



$9,672 



SUBTOTAL 5285.352 



SUBTOTAL S25.091 

I 



SUBTOTAL S66.229 
TOTAL 5376.672 



VANIR CM 



52 



ScfO, Oy //{CfiLeMfiZ . . . DOCUMENTS DEP' 

BUDGET COMMITTEE AUG 2 7 1QQQ 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO X AN FRAN CfSCo 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 9. 1994 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, ALIOTO, BIERMAN 
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR ALIOTO FOR ITEMS 1-4 
CLERK: MARY L. RED 

1. File 101-94-2.6 . [Amendment, Annual Appropriation Ordinance 1994-95] Ordinance 
amending the administrative provisions of the 1994-95 Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance by adding Section 23.1 whereby a percentage of cost savings or 
previously unrecognized revenues realized by contract services is appropriated to 
the extent necessary to pay contract amount due; companion measure to File 
172-94-40. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Consideration continued to November 30. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 

2. File 172-94-40 . [Contract, DPH-Deloitte & Touche] Resolution authorizing the 
contract between the City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public 
Health, and Deloitte & Touche to provide operational and financial consulting 
services; companion measure to File 101-94-2.6. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Consideration continued to November 30. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 

3. File 101-94-27 . [Appropriation, CAO, $291,500] Ordinance appropriating $291,500, 
Chief Administrative Officer's Office, of solid waste impound account funds for a 
Recycling Theft Prevention and Enforcement Program Project for fiscal year 
1994-95. RO #94054 (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: Hearing held. RECOMMENDED. Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor. 
(Supervisor Alioto absent) 

4. File 101-94-28 . [Appropriation, Dept of Public Works, $300,000] Ordinance 
appropriating and rescinding $300,000, Department of Public Works, capital 
projects transferring monies from North Point Treatment Plan Project to Bay 
Area/San Joaquin Valley Water Reuse Project for fiscal year 1994-95. RO #94099 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: Consideration continued to November 16. Supervisor Alioto added as 
sponsor. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 



File 69-94-4.01 . [Supplemental Appropriation, BOS, $84,000] Ordinance 
appropriating $84,000, Board of Supervisors, for Mayor's Office to operate 
Municipal Access TV Channel; rescinding $84,000 in capital project funds from 
Chief Administrative Officer's Office, for fiscal year 1994-95. RO #94032 
(Supervisor Alioto) 
(Continued from 11/2) 

ACTION: Amended to delete reference to Mayor's Office in title. New title : 
"Ordinance appropriating $84,000, Board of Supervisors, to operate 
Municipal Access TV Channel; rescinding $84,000 in capital project 
funds from Chief Administrative Officer's Office, for fiscal year 
1994-95." RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Supervisor Alioto added as 
sponsor. 

File 91-94-1.1 . [Environmental Findings, Yerba Buena Project] Resolution adopting 
environmental findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to the 
California Environmental Quality Act and State guidelines in connection with the 
ordinance adopting the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the 
Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area; companion measure to File 
91-94-1. (Supervisors Alioto, Hsieh) 

Transferred from Housing & Land Use Committee meeting of November 3. due to 
FISCAL IMPACT 

ACTION: Hearing held. RECOMMENDED. (Supervisors Alioto and Hsieh added as 
sponsors) 

File 91-94-1 . [Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan, Amendments] Ordinance 
amending Ordinance No. 98-66, as amended by Ordinance Nos. 201-71, 393-73, 
386-76, 367-77, 420-79, 538-81 and 477-86, approving the redevelopment plan for 
the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area, by amending said plan in 
order to (1) make the redevelopment plan congruent, where appropriate, with the 
goals, policies, and land use designations of those portions of the City Planning 
Code that shape development in areas adjacent to the Yerba Buena Center 
Redevelopment Project Area; (2) extend the time for eminent domain proceedings 
to acquire property within the project area, from December 1, 1998 to May 1, 2006; 
(3) increase the amount of tax increment dollars which may be allocated to the 
agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Health and Safety Code from 
$372.9 million to $600 Million; (4) amend the provision for the establishment or 
incurrence of debt to be repaid from the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 
33670 by the agency from April 25, 2006 to January 1, 2004; (5) amend the duration 
of the redevelopment plan including the provisions of other documents formulated 
pursuant thereto from April 5, 2006 to January 1, 2009; and (6) establish January 1, 
2019 as the time limit for the Agency to receive allocation of taxes pursuant to 
Section 33670 for the repayment of indebtedness incurred by the agency; companion 
measure to File 91-94-1.1. (Supervisors Alioto, Hsieh) 

Transferred from Housing & Land Use Committee meeting, of November 3. due to 
FISCAL IMPACT 

ACTION: Hearing held. RECOMMENDED. Supervisors Alioto, Hsieh added as 

sponsors. 



O.el 
3 



CITY AND COUNTY 



B< 




(PuBCic Li6ra.ru, "Documents (Dept. 
Attn: Jane Hudson 

OF,#AN FRANCISCO 



OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 



d0 P.MMcmtc ncpT. 
NOV 8 1994 

SAN FRANCiSCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Budget Committee 



JHJNMPNTS DEPT. 
"NOV 8 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



November 7, 1994 



TO: 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT^ November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Items 1 and 2 - Files 101-94-2.6 and 172-94-40 



Department: 
Items: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

File 172-94-40 is a resolution authorizing the contract 
between the City and County of San Francisco, 
Department of Public Health, and Deloitte & Touche to 
provide operational and financial consulting services. 

File 101-94-2.6 is a companion ordinance amending the 
administrative provisions of the 1994-95 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance by adding Section 23.1, 
appropriating to contractors a percentage of cost savings 
or new revenues realized (contingency payments) as a 
direct result of contracted services previously authorized 
by the Board of Supervisors, in cases (such as the contract 
proposed in File 172-94-40) when the terms of the contract 
provide for such contingency payments. 

Compensation (contingency payments) under the 
proposed consulting contract with Deloitte & Touche (File 
172-94-40) would be based on a percentage of enhanced 
revenues and cost savings accruing to the DPH in 
operational areas where Deloitte & Touche 
recommendations are implemented by the DPH. 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Term: From date of approval of the proposed contract through 

June 30, 1998, (approximately 3.5 years). 

Description: The proposed contract with Deloitte & Touche (File 172- 

94-40) would involve management consulting services, 
which according to Ms. Monique Zmuda, Acting Budget 
Director of the DPH, would assist the DPH, including San 
Francisco General Hospital, Laguna Honda Hospital, 
Community Public Health Services and Community 
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, in 
identifying areas of improvement to position the DPH 
competitively in a managed care environment. 

Managed care is the general term for what Health 
Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) provide, namely 
coordinated health care services that emphasize 
prevention. Starting in March, 1995, the State plans to 
contract with the counties for managed care on a 
capitated basis per Medi-Cal client, at a set dollar amount 
per client, per month. Capitation puts DPH at increased 
risk because DPH will have to agree to accept 
responsibility for providing services in exchange for a set 
payment, regardless of the amount of services that may be 
provided to its clients. In order to provide cost effective 
health care services under the State's managed care 
system, the DPH is reevaluating its administrative and 
operating functions with the goal of streamlining 
processes, reducing duplication and creating an 
integrated delivery system for services and operations. 

For the past year, DPH administrators have conducted 
internal analyses of the organizational structure and 
service delivery processes, the results of which were 
reflected in FY 1994-95 budget reductions. In addition to 
these internal efforts, during the Fall of 1993 the Mayor's 
Office requested that the firm of Deloitte & Touche 
conduct a pro bono diagnostic analysis of the potential for 
revenue enhancement at the DPH. This analysis 
indicated that the DPH could increase its revenues 
through changes in its claiming practices to third party 
payers. Also, the analysis indicated that the DPH must 
increase its productivity in order to compete in a 
competitive market for Medi-Cal clients. Ms. Zmuda 
advises that based on the areas identified in that analysis, 
as well as on needs for analysis identified by DPH staff, 
the DPH issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide 
operational and financial consulting services in January 
of 1994. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Ms. Zmuda states that, because DPH administrators did 
not want to reduce direct services in order to fund the 
consulting services, the RFP specified that the consulting 
services would be compensated on a contingency basis. As 
such, according to Ms. Zmuda, the DPH would not be at 
risk for payment for consulting services if a net financial 
benefit is not realized. A total of three proposals were 
received, one of which was found to be non-responsive. 
The two remaining proposals were from Deloitte & 
Touche and Carlson Price Fass & Co. Ms. Zmuda reports 
that the Deloitte & Touche proposal was selected on the 
basis of a rating process in which proposed contingency 
fees, scope of work, recent relevant experience, 
professional background and the quality of past projects 
were rated by a DPH screening panel. DPH Contract 
Compliance Officer Hope Kamimoto reports that Deloitte 
& Touche received a total score of 78, and Carlson Price 
Fass & Co. received a total score of 56.1. Ms. Kamimoto 
states that, because of the nearly 22 point differential in 
ratings of the two written proposals, the DPH selected 
Deloitte & Touche without conducting interviews. 

The Statement of Work attached to the proposed contract 
states that major areas of analysis would include: (1) 
short- and long-term revenue enhancement initiatives; (2) 
benchmarking of DPH performance relative to similar 
facilities, and productivity analyses; (3) analysis of the 
current University of California/San Francisco General 
Hospital Affiliation agreement; (4) strategic and 
organizational analyses, including a department-wide 
strategic plan; and (5) audit functions as requested by the 
DPH related to internal DPH functions, existing DPH 
contracts and new analyses of contracting-out potential. 

Budget: Since the proposed contract would be conducted for a 

contingency fee, Deloitte & Touche has not submitted a 
budget to the DPH. The proposed contract would provide 
for monthly compensation of Deloitte & Touche based on a 
percentage of savings or enhanced revenues received by 
DPH as a result of implementation of Deloitte & Touche 
recommendations. The average contingency payment 
would be 20 percent of monthly combined savings and 
new revenues attributable to Deloitte & Touche. 

According to the draft contract, the DPH would negotiate 
and sign written Baseline Agreements for each project 
area with Deloitte & Touche regarding the documentation 
and methodology to be followed in determining enhanced 
revenues or cost savings. The Director of the DPH would, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



under the proposed contract, be authorized to execute 
these Baseline Agreements on behalf of the City. Project 
areas are not currently listed or defined in the proposed 
contract. Although specific methodology is not detailed for 
calculating the Baseline Agreements, the proposed 
contract states that most cost and revenue baselines 
would be calculated based on DPH activity over the 
twelve months prior to involvement of the contractor. 

Ms. Zmuda advises that the DPH intends to state in the 
Baseline Agreements that Deloitte & Touche would 
receive contingency payments in each project area for the 
twelve month period following implementation of Deloitte 
& Touche recommendations in that project area. The 
Budget Analyst believes that the contract language 
should be revised to define when a recommendation or set 
of recommendations would be deemed to have been 
implemented, and to clearly specify in the contract itself 
the twelve-month limit on contingency payments for each 
particular project area. Furthermore, the Budget Analyst 
suggests that the DPH include a cap on total payments to 
Deloitte & Touche under the proposed contract. Finally, 
the Budget Analyst suggests that the proposed contract 
specify that the Baseline Agreements to be signed by the 
DPH be subject to review and approval by the Controller. 

1. Ms. Zmuda advises that the DPH would like the Budget 
Committee to continue the proposed ordinance (File 101- 
94-2.6) and the proposed resolution (File 172-94-40) to the 
November 23 meeting of the Budget Committee so that 
the DPH can meet with the Controller and the City 
Attorney's Office to finalize the proposed contract. 

Continue the proposed ordinance (File 101-94-2.6) and the 
proposed resolution (File 172-94-40) to the November 23, 
1994 meeting of the Budget Committee so that the DPH 
can clarify the provisions of the proposed contract related 
to contingency payments by the City to the Contractor. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo Lo Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



It em 



File 101-94-27 



Oepai iment: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $291,500, Chief Administrative 

Officer, for a Recycling Theft Prevention and Enforcement 
Program. 

Amount: $291,500 

Source of Funds: Solid Waste Impound Account 

Description: This supplemental appropriation would fund a new Recycling 

Theft Prevention and Enforcement Program conducted by the 
CAO's Office of Solid Waste Management in conjunction with 
the Police Department. The program would attempt to 
decrease theft from recycling bins by conducting a public 
outreach campaign and increasing police patrols and 
enforcement during the nighttime hours when most recycling 
thefts occur. 

The requested funding for this program is available from the 
Solid Waste Impound Account, which as of November 7, 1994, 
has a balance of $294,000 for the Recycling Theft Prevention 
and Enforcement Program. Pursuant to the Refuse Rate 
Board's 1991 Rate Order, this funding is provided specifically 
to "support City efforts against organized theft of recycled 
materials,'' and cannot be used for any other program. 

Recycling bins are placed on the sidewalk in front of residences 
and businesses once a week for pickup by Sunset Scavengers. 
According to Mr. Robert Haley of the CAO's Solid Waste 
Management Program, increasing recycling theft is driving up 
the cost of recycling, creating late night noise and litter, and 
causing some residents and businesses to stop participating in 
the recycling program. The City's contract with Sunset 
Scavengers allows the company to keep the first $1.7 million 
earned annually from the sale of recycled materials. Revenues 
earned from the sale of recycled materials over that amount 
are rebated quarterly to garbage rate payers. Stolen recycling 
materials lower recycling revenue and therefore represent a 
direct cost to garbage rate payers. Sunset Scavengers 
estimates that thefts from recycling bins are now costing 
garbage rate payers over $500,000 per year. 

The proposed outreach program will encourage residents and 
businesses to help prevent theft, and the enforcement program 
will focus on the network of scavengers that drive through 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

neighborhoods late at night or just ahead of the recycling 
trucks and empty the bins into their own trucks. 

According to Mr. Haley, the Solid Waste Management Program 
has discussed a variety of theft prevention methods with 
Sunset Scavengers, such as changing the hours for recycling 
pick-up. Mr. Haley reports that Police enforcement is a 
necessary component of the Recycling Theft Prevention and 
Enforcement Program because theft from recycling bins occurs 
no matter what time of day recycled materials are put out for 
collection. 

The proposed program will run for three years, beginning in 
Fiscal Year 1994-95, and ending in Fiscal Year 1996-97. 

Project Budget: The proposed budget for the Recycling Theft Prevention and 
Enforcement Program, for Fiscal Year 1994-95 through Fiscal 
Year 1996-97 (three years), is as follows: 

San Francisco Police Department overtime 

Police Lieutenants 116 hrs. @ $42.10/hr $4,884 

Police Inspectors 5,366 hrs. @36.27/hr. 194.616 

Sub-total Police overtime 199,500 

Direct Mail Costs (305,000 pieces) 

Paper, printing, folding @.15/piece 45,000 

Label printing/afBxing @.02/piece 5,955 

Third class, pre-sorted postage @.069/piece 21.045 

Sub-total Direct Mail Costs 72,000 

Newspaper advertising in Examiner, Chronicle, 

Bay Guardian, SF Weekly, Chinese, Spanish papers 
Design, Production, Translation 3,500 

Ad Placement in 24 papers 6.500 

Sub-total newspaper advertising 10,000 

Bus & bus shelter advertising 

Design/Production 2,500 

Printing (280-300 cards, various sizes) 5,000 

Placement (280-300 cards for one month) 2.500 

Sub-total bus advertising 10,000 

TOTAL $291,500 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: Approval of this proposed new program is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 101-94-28 

Department: Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Item: Ordinance appropriating and rescinding $300,000, 

Department of Public Works, Capital Projects, transferring 
monies from the North Point Treatment Plan Project to the 
Bay Area/San Joaquin Valley Water Reuse Project. 

Amount: $300,000 

Source of Funds: 1976 Sewer Revenue Bonds 

Description: In 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 

474-92, directing that the Chief Administrative Officer and 
the Public Utilities Commission study the feasibility of 
exporting recycled water from the Bay Area for agriculture, 
habitat improvement, and other beneficial uses. No funding 
for the study was identified in that resolution. The DPW has 
now identified $300,000 in unspent sewer bond funds 
originally appropriated in Fiscal Year 1993-94 for 
engineering studies of the City's Northpoint Treatment 
Plant. According to Mr. Mike Quan of the DPW, the Bureau 
of Engineering did not spend those funds for engineering 
studies because it was determined that the Northpoint 
Treatment Plant instead requires extensive repair and 
construction work that will cost approximately $20 million. 
Funds for this repair and construction work are now 
included under Proposition D, Sewer Service Bonds, to be 
considered on the San Francisco ballot for the election of 
November 8, 1994. Therefore, this proposed ordinance would 
reallocate the $300,000 appropriated in 1993-94 for the 
Northpoint Treatment Plant studies to the Bay Area Water 
Reuse Project for the feasibility study pertaining to export of 
recycled water from the Bay Area as was requested by the 
Board of Supervisors in Resolution No. 474-92. 

Working in a joint effort with other local agencies, the DPW 
would study a proposal to export recycled wastewater from 
the Bay Area to the San Joaquin Valley. The study proposal 
includes, but is not limited to, preliminary environmental 
and engineering work to determine; a) the quantity and 
quality of recycled water that can be exported, b) the water 
storage requirements for the project, c) how the Delta- 
Mendota canal can be used to transport the water, d) 
agricultural drainage options, e) how to develop a water 
exchange program and, project costs and funding 
requirements. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

The joint agency group for this project includes the City's 
Department of Public Works, Water Department, and the 
Airport. The other participating agencies are 21 wastewater 
and water supply agencies throughout Santa Clara, Contra 
Costa, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties. 

Budget The proposed budget for the funds to be provided for San 

Francisco's share of the feasibility study for the Bay Area 
Water Reuse Project, for the period starting with the approval 
of the study in 1994 and continuing to January 1, 1996, is 
shown below. 



Project Manager (180 days) 


$47,320 




Sr. Sanitary Engineer (20 days) 


6,160 




Sanitary Engineer (100 days) 


26,600 




Sr. Civil Engineer (20 days) 


6,160 




Civil Engineer (80 days) 


21,280 




Assoc. Civil Engineer (80 days) 


18,400 




Special Assistant (50 days) 


10.200 




Subtotal Labor 




136,120 


Overhead (116% of labor) 




157,880 


Materials 




6,000 


TOTAL 




$300,000 



Comments: As of the writing of this report, the DPW was not able to 

provide details of the full scope of work that is proposed under 
the joint agency study. As such, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that this item be continued to the Budget 
Committee meeting of November 16, 1994 to allow the 
Department additional time to provide this information. 

Recommendation: Continue this item to the Budget Committee meeting of 
November 16, 1994. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 69-94-4.1 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 2, 1994. 

Departments: Mayor's Office 

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 
Board of Supervisors 

Item: Supplemental Appropriation reappropriating $84,000 from the 

Capital Improvement Project, Disabled Access Modification 
account of the CAO to the Board of Supervisors for the Mayor's 
Office to pay for the operation of the Municipal Access 
Channel. 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



$84,000 

General Fund - Capital Improvement Project, Disabled Access 
Modification funds, Office of the CAO 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
reappropriate $84,000 in the CAO's Capital Improvement 
Project Disabled Access Modification account to be used to pay 
for the operation of the Municipal Access Channel. 

As noted above, the source of funds for this request is the 
Capital Improvement Project, Disabled Access Modification 
account which is used to pay for capital improvements to 
improve disability access to City-owned buildings. Mr. Steve 
Nelson of the Office of the CAO advises that the CAO would be 
reimbursed the $84,000 for the Disabled Access Modification 
account by the Mayor's Office of Community Development 
(MOCD), from monies earmarked for disability access purposes 
in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. 

Under the City's Franchise Agreement with Viacom 
Cablevision of San Francisco, Viacom is required to provide one 
channel each for public, educational and government 
(municipal) access. The Cable TV Access Development and 
Program Fund consists of .2 percent of the 5 percent total 
franchise fees paid to the City by Viacom (the remaining 4.8 
percent of the franchise fees accrues to the General Fund). The 
monies in the Cable TV Access Development and Program 
Fund for FY 1994-95 are allocated equally between (1) a 
professional services contract aimed at promoting and 
encouraging the use of Public Access Cable television channels 
($50,000), (2) contract services which assist in the operation of 
the Educational Access cable channel of the City College of San 
Francisco ($50,000) and (3) the Municipal Access Channel 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



($50,000). It should be noted that the amounts budgeted for 
these services is subject to modification depending upon the 
actual amount paid to the City by Viacom for franchise fees. 

The Municipal Access Channel, which began operation in June 
of 1993, is included in the budget of the Board of Supervisors 
under the Cable TV Access Development and Program Fund, 
and, as noted above, is budgeted in the amount of $50,000 for 
FY 1994-95. 

Mr. Zane Blaney, Manager of the Municipal Access Channel, 
has projected that the total amount required to fund the 
operations of the Municipal Access Channel at an adequate 
level of programming for FY 1994-95 is $372,090. Mr. Blaney 
advises that although $50,000 is included in the FY 1994-95 
Cable TV Access Development and Program Fund under the 
budget of the Board of Supervisors, the Municipal Access 
Channel's actual amount allocated for FY 1994-95 is $51,313, 
including $32,757 in FY 1994-95 Cable TV Access Development 
and Program Funds plus $18,556 in Cable TV Access 
Development and Program Funds, which were carried forward 
from FY 1993-94. This $51,313 allocation is $320,777 less than 
Mr. Blaney 's projected need of $372,090 to adequately operate 
the Municipal Access Channel for FY 1994-95. 

According to Mr. Blaney, the Municipal Access Channel's 
projected budgetary needs of $372,090 for FY 1994-95 is 
$252,765 or 212 percent more than the Municipal Access 
Channel's actual budgeted amount of $119,325 for FY 1993-94. 
Of this FY 1993-94 amount, $113,000 represented Cable TV 
Access Development and Program Funds (including carryover 
monies from FY 1992-93 and FY 1991-92), $5,000 represented 
a donation from Pacific Bell and $1,325 represented funds from 
Videotape Duplication Fees. In addition to the $119,325 
budgeted for FY 1993-94, the San Francisco Community 
Television Corporation, the nonprofit agency responsible for 
the administering of the Municipal Access Channel, also 
provided in-kind services totaling $64,317 ($49,587 in 
personnel services and $14,730 in operating expenses). Mr. 
Blaney advises that for approximately the first three months of 
FY 1993-94 the Municipal Access Channel was involved in 
startup activities. The "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of the Board of 
Supervisors committee meetings began July 16, 1993. 

The Municipal Access Channel currently provides (1) "gavel to 
gavel" coverage of the Board of Supervisors committee 
meetings, (2) public service announcements from various City 
departments including the Department of Public Health, Police 
Department, Office of Emergency Services, the Public Library 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 






Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



and the Academy of Sciences, (3) notices of upcoming City 
agency and committee meetings and (4) an interactive 
computer system (Response TV) which the public can access 
with their touch-tone telephone. This interactive system 
contains data on almost all City departments, agencies and 
organizations. Cable subscribers can bring up data on their 
television set ranging from a telephone directory of City 
departments to volunteer programs at the Animal Care and 
Control Center. 

Based on Mr. Blaney's total projected need of $372,090 for FY 
1994-95, to adequately operate the Municipal Access Channel, 
there is a projected shortfall of $320,777, as follows: 





Current 
Budget 


Actual 

Expenditures 

7/1/94 - 

10/31/94 


Projected 

Expenditures 

1 1/1/94 - 

6/30/95 


Total 

Projected 

Expenditure! 

7/1/94 - 

6/30/95 


Projected 
Shortfall 


Personnel 












Channel Manager 
Coordinator 
Office Assistant 
Production Supervisor 
Camera Operators 
Headend Operators 
Fringe Benefits 

Subtotal 


$11,474 
8,427 
772 
5,500 
3,426 
3,561 
4.340 

$37,500 


$8,352 

6,764 

184 

1,770 

2,080 

12,233 

4.503 

$35,886 


$19,050 
13,528 
1,461 
12,840 
11,128 
36,049 
14.290 
$108,346 


$27,402 
20,292 
1,645 
14,610 
13,208 
48,282 
18,793 
$144,232 


($15,928) 

(11,865) 

(873) 

(9,110, 

(9,782) 

(44,721) 

(14.453) 

($106,732) 


Operating Expenses 












Professional Services 
Postage 
Telephone 
Insurance 
Office Supplies 
Equipment Lease 
Miscellaneous 
Subtotal 


$1,600 

200 

1,000 

2,500 

1,113 

2,000 

400 

$8,813 


$802 

81 

304 

1,005 

358 

2,355 

591 

$5,496 


$10, 675 

160 

890 

3,864 

5,500 

5,065 

1,388 

$27,542 


$11,477 
241 
1,194 
4,869 
5,858 
7,420 
1.979 

$33,038 


($9,877) 

(41) 

(194) 

(2,369) 

(4,745) 

(5,420) 

(1.579) 

($24,225) 


Equipment 












Remote Television 
Equipment * 
Headend Equipment ** 
Equipment Maintenance 

Subtotal 


$0 

4,000 

1.000 

$5,000 


$0 

317 

65 

$382 


$168,527 

21,911 

4,000 

$194,438 


$168,527 

22,228 

4.065 

$194,820 


($168,527) 

(18,228) 

(3.065) 

($189,820) 


Total 


$51^13 


$41,764 


$330326 


$372,090 


($320,777) 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

12 







Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

* Attachment I provided by Mr. Blaney is an itemized listing 
including the costs of the proposed remote television 
equipment. 

** Attachment II provided by Mr. Blaney is an itemized listing 
including the costs of the proposed additional Headend (small 
control room where the television signal is sent over to the 
cable system ) equipment. 

As noted above, Mr. Blaney is projecting a shortfall of $320,777 
in order to adequately operate the Municipal Access Channel 
for FY 1994-95. The proposed supplemental appropriation 
request in the amount of $84,000 would reduce the amount of 
this shortfall to $236,777. The Public Library plans to provide 
$65,000 in funding to the Municipal Access Channel, which 
would further reduce the amount of the projected shortfall to 
$171,777. 

Comments: 1. Mr. John Taylor, Clerk of the Board, advises that funds 

currently budgeted for the Municipal Access Channel are work- 
ordered to the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council (MCJC). The 
MCJC, in turn, pays for the operation of the Municipal Access 
Channel. However, with respect to the subject request of 
$84,000, Mr. Taylor suggests that the proposed legislation be 
amended to delete reference to the Mayor's Office from the title 
of the proposed legislation. 

2. Mr. Blaney advises that the Municipal Access Channel is 
proposing to continue to provide the current level of service 
through December of 1994. According to Mr. Blaney, beginning 
in February of 1995, the Municipal Access Channel is 
proposing to add (1) "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of the meetings 
of the full Board of Supervisors, and (2) an additional 10 hours 
of taping for other City departments including the Department 
of Public Health and the Office of Emergency Services. The 
above-noted projected budget of $372,090 reflects the cost for 
the additional staff and other costs required to provide these 
additional services. 

3. As previously noted, Mr. Blaney has identified the following 
funding sources to cover the projected $320,777 shortfall for 
Fiscal Year 1994-95: 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Funding Source Amount 

Projected Shortfall for FY 1994-95 ($320,777) 

Less Funds Identified: 

Capital Improvement Funds, Disabled 

Access Modification Funds (the subject 

of this request) $84,000 

Library Proposition E Funds 

(pending supplemental appropriation) 65.000 

Total $149,000 

Remaining Shortfall ($171,777)* 

* As of the writing of this report, Mr. Blaney has not 
identified a specific funding source to cover the remaining 
shortfall balance of $171,777. 

4. It should be noted that Mr. Blaney's projected expenditures 
for the 8-month period 11/1/94-6/30/95 of $330,326 are 
$288,562 or 691 percent more than the actual expenditures of 
$41,764 for the 4-month period from 7/1/94-10/31/94. Of this 
691 percent increase, salary and fringe benefit costs would 
increase by 302 percent primarily because (1) the Production 
Supervisor's average hours per month would increase for the 
period 11/1/94-6/30/95 from approximately 30 hours to 
approximately 107 hours for an average monthly increase of 77 
hours at a cost of an additional $1,155 per month (77 hrs. @ 
$15 per/hr.) or a total of $9,240 for the 11/1/94-6/30/95 eight- 
month period , (2) the two Camera Operators' total average 
hours per month would increase for the period 11/1/94-6/30/95 
from approximately 40 hours per month to approximately 107 
hours for an average monthly increase of 67 hours at a cost of 
an additional $871 per month (67 hrs. @ $13 per/hr.) or a total 
of $6,968 for the 11/1/94-6/30/95 period and (3) the three 
Headend Operators' total average hours per month would 
increase for the period 11/1/94-6/30/95 from approximately 235 
hours per month to approximately 347 hours per month for an 
average monthly increase of 112 hours at a cost of an 
additional $1,456 per month (112 hrs. @ $13 per/hr.) or a total 
of $11,648 for the 11/1/94-6/30/95 period. The overall total 
increase for the 11/1/94-6/30/95 period based on the increased 
hours for the above-noted personnel is $27,856 ($9,240 - 
Production Supervisor plus $6,968 - Camera Operators plus 
$11,648 - Headend Operators). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 9, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

5. As previously noted, Mr. Blaney's total projected 
equipment budget is $194,820 or $189,820 (3,796 percent) 
more than the original equipment budget of $5,000. Of the 
$194,820, $168,527 is designated for new remote television 
equipment which, Mr. Blaney states, would be used to 
provide "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of the Board of Supervisors 
committee meetings and full Board meetings when the Board 
of Supervisors relocate to the Veterans Memorial Building 
during the seismic retrofit of City Hall. According to Ms. 
Marie McKechnie, Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 
the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to move to the 
Veterans Memorial Building February 17, 1995. A total of 
$21,911 is designated for additional Headend equipment to 
upgrade existing equipment. The remaining $4,382 is 
earmarked for equipment maintenance ($4,065) and Headend 
equipment, which was included in the original budget ($317). 
Attachment III provided by Mr. Blaney is a detailed 
justification for the total projected $194,820 equipment 
budget. 

6. Attachment IV is a detailed budget for the Municipal 
Access Channel in the amount of $200,313, as prepared by 
Mr. Blaney, which is based on the current allocated amount 
of $51,313 plus the $149,000 in additional funding ($84,000 
plus $65,000), which has thus far been identified for this 
purpose. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to delete reference to the 
Mayor's Office from the title of the legislation. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance as amended is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Sf CTC-LIBRfiRY 

in. 13 4 12:32 



TEL NO. 415-557-4449 Jul 28 . : > 9:00 P. 02 

&JU5 331 164 3 RE SXADEB ASSOC El 002 010 



r^m%*m9 




mum 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 3 



AND ASSOCIATES, INC 

Data: 13-OU-94 

QUOTATION 



To: 




Zane Bianey 

Community TV Corporation 

P.O. Box 427190 

San Frandseo. CA 9410? 

Ph.: 557-4293 

Fax: 557-4449 


From: 


Tom Andeisun 
R.£. Snadoi & Associates, 
475 Gate Tivo Rood 
Sausalrto, CA 94965 
Ph.: (415) 332-7070 
Feu: (415) 331-1643 


Inc. 


Item 


Qty 


Model 


Description 


Unit Prlc* 


Total 


Support 


1 


s 


WVE.550 


Panasonic 3-CCO Digital Camera 


$4,500.00 


$22,500.00 






2 
3 
4 
5 


s 

5 
5 
5 


WVCB-700 
AGS-640 
WV-CA10B50 
WV-CA20T10 


Panasonic Camera Remote Control 
Panasonic Camera Power Supply 
Panasonic 180' Extension Cable 
Panasonic Remote Adapter Cablt 


S1 .100.00 
$410.00 
$170.00 
$205.00 


$5,500.00 

$2,050.00 

$650.00 

$1,025.00 









5 


S16X6.7BMO 


Fujinon 16x Zoom Lens 


$3,195.00 


S1 5,975.00 






7 


5 


CP7- 1A10D 


Fujinon Digital Pan/Tilt Head 


$3,492.00 


$17,460.00 






8 


2 


EOP-102T60D 


Fujion MuifJ Head 4x Control • Pan/Tilt, Zoom, Focu; 
Iris with 24 Presets 


$4,285.00 


S8.630.LO 






9 


5 


CPS-401A10D 


Fujinon Powar Supply with Dlfjital (RJll I/O) 


$720.00 


$3,600.00 






10 


5 


UHD-1O344A010 


Fujinon 10 Meter Control Cable (Head to Powor 
Supply) 


$280.00 


$1,400.00 






11 


5 


PM-105 


Pelco Wall Mount Adapter 


S55.00 


$975.00 






12 


2 


KM-1200U 


JVC 4 Input Composite Switcher 


$1,920.00 


$3,840.00 






13 


? 


BR-S605U 


JVC S-VHS Raeorder/Player 


S2. 107.00 


S4.214.00 






14 
15 
16 


1 
1 

1 


BR-S6220 

SA-T22U 

SA-R22U 


JVC S-VHS Recorder/Player 

JVC Time Ba6s Corrector Bosrd 

JVC VITC/LTC Time Cods Reader/Generator Board 


S4 ,080.00 
$465.00 
S320.00 


$4,080.00 
$465.00 
$320.00 






17 
>8 


1 

1 


BR-S822U 
SA-R22U 


JVC S-VHS Editing VCR 

JVC VITC/LTC Tim« Code Reader/Generator Beard 


S5.530.00 
$320.00 


S5.530.00 
$320.00 








12-N0V-S4 ^r~~ /ft rf 

Tom AnCo - iion / /^v^ I Xr«-^ 


PrODO30d 
Total 


(oontlnuod) 






Tnls Ouaiaion is firm until: 
Prepared By: 










16 



SFCTC-LIBRflRY 

10/13/94 12:33 



TEL NO. 415-557-4449 

C415 331 1643 R L SNADER ASSOC 




AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 



Jul 28, :> 9:01 P.Uo 
,._.„ ^ 0003-- 010 

Attachment I 
Pap 2 of 3 



Pate: 13-Oct-$4 

To: Z*ne Blaney 

Community TV Corporation 

P.O. Box 427160 

San Fr«nclecg, CA 94102 

Ph.: 507*4293 

Fax: 557-4449 



QUOTATION 



Prom: Tom Anderson 

R.E. Snader & Associates, Inc. 
475 Gato Five Road 
Sausalito, CA 94965 
Ph.: (4 16) 332-7070 
Fax:(415)331-1643 



Item 


Qty 


Modtl - 


Description 


UnKPrtee- 


Total 


Support 


19 


2 


PVM-411 


Sony 4* BAV Quad Monitor with Rack Mount 


51.480.00 


S2.960.00 




20 


4 


TM-900SU 


JVC 9* Color Monitor 


$545.00 


$2,160.00 




21 


2 


RK-900SU 


PEC Dual Raok Mount Kit 


$100.00 


$200.00 




22 


2 


VDA-2106 


Sigma 1x8 Video DA 


$180.00 


$360.00 




23 


4 


ADA-2110 


Sigma 1x6 Audio DA 


$1 80.00 


$720.00 




24 


2 


AFV-100 


Sigma Audio Follow Video Switcher 


8150.00 


S300.00 




25 


2 


SS2 100-6 


Sigma Rack Mount Tray 


$395.00 


$790.00 




26 


2 


MM-400 


Megni Waveform Vector Display 


$1.69500 


$3,390.00 




27 


2 


CODI 


Chyron Character Generator 


S4.000.00 


$B.ooo.nn 




28 


2 


Control Software 


R.E. Snader Window* CG Software 


$450.00 


$900.00 




29 


2 


Schedule Software 


R.E. Snader Schedule Software 


$450.00 


$900.00 




30 


2 


M208/DPC 


Delta Designs 2 Bay Consols with Casters. 2 Shelve 
2 Power Strips, and VTR Rack Rails 


$1,895.00 


$3,790.00 




31 


2 


PIN466-18 


Medlatek486 Dx2-86 W/16MB RAM. 42SMB HD, 
24 Bit SVGA 14" Color Monitor. Windows 3.1 


$2,840.00 


$5,680.00 




32 


2 


19" Rack System 


Computer Reck Mount 


$530.00 


$1,060.00 




33 


1 


MS-22? 


Clear-Corn Raok Mount 2 Channel Mam Station 


S750.00 


$700.00 




34 


1 


RM-222 


Clear-Corn Raok Mount 2 Channel Remote Station 


$575.00 


$675.00 




35 


5 


CC-86 


Clear-Corn Head Set 


S 155.00 


$775.00 




38 


3 


RS-502TW 


Clear-Corn Dual Channel Belt Pack 


$260.00 


$780.00 




37 


2 


TWC-10 


Clear-Corn 2 Channel/3 pin Cable Adapter 


$169.00 


$338.00 




38 


2 


1202 


Mackle 12*2 Audio Mixer 


S320.00 


S640.00 




39 


2 


Mine. Gables 


Cables and Conneotorc lor Installation 


$2,000.00 


$4,000.00 










Proposed 


(contlnuod) 




This Quotation is lifm until: 


12.NOV-94 ,__;• /Y% * 

lorn Arvaarscn (_jf*^"^ ^^JyK—fXA—^. ■ 


Total 


- ■ " 




Preparer) By: 





17 



;fctc-librrry 

10-13. 04 12:03 



TEL NO. 415-557-4449 
©415 331 10-13 RE SXaDER ASSOC 



R.E. 




Jul 28, :> 9:02 P. 04 

I2i004--010 

Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 3 



BBUB 

AMD ASSOCIATES, INC. 



ote: 1$-Ool 9-1 

To: Z«ne Blaney 

Community TV Corporation 

P.O. Box 4271 90 

San Fmnclsco. CA 84102 

Ph.: 557-4293 

Fax: 557-4449 



QUOTATION 



From: 



Tom Andorson 

R.F. Snader & Associates. Inc. 

475 Gat© Five Road 

Sausalito. CA 94965 

Ph.:(415)332-7070 

Fax:(415)331-1643 




Description 



High Peak Engineering Installation of Equipment 

Services Included: 

"Phase See Attached Quote from High P»ak Engineering 



Unit Price 



Total 



Support Subtotal 

1 • Proauot Suototal 

San Franolaoo Sal— T«x 



Support 

S1 9.750.00 



8upport 
Product 

"8.60% 



Is Quotation is firm until: 
epncod Fly 



12-Nov-P4 
Tom Andftraon 




$19,750.00 
$137,122.00 
311.655.37 



18 



SFCTC-LIBRRRY 



TEL NO. 415-557-4449 



Citywaich Channel 54 Equipment Upgrade Reccommendations 
Headend 



Quantity 



Item Description 



Suggested Manufacturer / Model 



Station Engineering support 

Waveform Monitor / Vectorscope Tektronix 1 740 A 
Volt Ohm Meter Fluke 79 

Set of assorted servicing tools to be specified 

Video Cassette Recorders & accessories 



SVHS Recorder/Player 
recorder TBC board 
recorder time code reader 
Video Monitors 

Production monitors 13" 

Source/cue monitor triple sets 

. rack mount adapters 
Signal processing 

AGC Video proc amp 

Dual channel TBC 
Clocks 

Master clock 
Miscellaneous 

Video Toaster Delay line unit 

Audio atrip and speakers 

Audio mixer 

CD audio / Laser player 

Remote Communications 
Vldlcraft Switcher 



Estimated total 



JVC S622U 
JVC SA-T22U 
JVCSH-R22U 

Sony PVM 1351 O 
SonyPVM-5041Q 
Sony-MB507 

FM Systems VM-7/1 with bypass 
Nova Mate M1RT2 + 2nd ch.card 

ES 562E 



Jui 29. :> 4:13 P.O 

Attachment ] 



Unit Cost 


Item Cost 


$4,395.00 


$4,395.00 


$201.00 


$201 .00 


$500.00 


$500.00 


$4,080.00 


$4,080.00 


$465.00 


$465.00 


$320.00 


$320.00 


$821.00 


$821.00 


$899.00 


$899.00 


$185.00 


$370.00 


$450.00 


$450.00 


S3.400.00 


$3,400.00 



$420.00 



Clearcom 



8.5% sales tax 



$903.00 



$^95.00 



$420.00 



Allen Avionics Model 488 T 


$325.00 


$325.00 


Crown D-75 amp & 2 JBL 4408A spk 


$500.00 


$500.00 


MackieCR-1604 16ch. 


$950.00 


$950.00 


to be specified 


S/00.00 


$700.00 



$903.00 

$495.00 

$1,716.49 

$21,910.49 



19 



SFCTC-LIBRflRY 
Uamor&ndum 



_ EL NO. 415-557-4449 



Ju i 29 ■ : > 9:41 P . 02 
Attachment i^i 



TO: ScJrtdy Br own -Richardson 

FROM: Zanc Blaney 

DATE: November 4, 1994 

Subject: Justification for Equipment expenses 



Justification for Veteran's Memorial Building Equipment 

Due to space limitations in the Veteran's Building committee room and 
legislative chamber it will not be possible to provide video coverage of 
the meetings using existing equipment. The existing equipment needs o four 
.£oot footprint in which to operate. This floor space will not be available 
in the Veteran's Building. Therefore it will be necessary to mount robotic- 
cameras on the walls which will be controlled from a small area in the 
chamber and in a "control room" in the committee room. Additional tape 
decks and character generators will be necessary to record these meeting in 
a professional manner. 

This equipment is a one time purchase and will be used in City Hall when it 
is ready for occupancy after the earthquake retrofit. This equipment will 
be much more discreet than cameras on tripods thus minimizing possible 
distraction in the committee room and chamber. 

Veteran's Building Equipment Summary 

The recommended equipment for the Veteran's Building committee rouin and 
legislative, chamber includes wall mounted robotic cameras (two tor the 
committee room, three for the chamber) , lens and other control devices 
necessary to operate them. 3n addition, the list contains muni tors, camera 
switchers, tape decks, character generators, audio and communications 
equipment, necessary to record the meetings. 



Justification for Headend Equipment 

Due to the. limited funding during the 93-94 KY it was necessary to start-up 
the channel headend with the most basic equipment. Most of this equipment 
was consumer grade quality, only four pieces of equipment, a 3/4" tape 
deck on loan from the library, a used waveform monitor donated by kron-tV 
and two Time Base Correctors, purchased new for the channel , were broadcast 
quality. All other equipment including SVHS tape decks, switchers, 
monitors and audio equipment were consumer grade. 

Although this equipment has served to get the channel up and running it: was 
never designed to perform in a cable channel headend. It has not been 
reliable or convenient to use. Not only does this equipment, have serious 
limitations, it does not have the durability or flexibility of high-end 
industrial or broadcast quality equipment. it is only due to the ingenuity 
3f the staff that the equipment, has been used in this wciy . 

1'he proposed limited upgrade is to replace some of the consumer equipment 
tfith industrial or broadcast quality equipment. The used waveform monitor 
is no longer working. The headend must have at least one quality SVUG tape 
leek plus professional monitors, signal processing and other equipment. 

20 



SFCTC-LIBRARY TEL NO . 415-557-4449 Aug 01. :> 3:08 P. 03 

Attachment Iy 
Page 2 of 2 



Without. Die equipment budgeted for the Veteran's HuiJding, the 
municipal access channe.1 wjl] be unable to continue to provide 
gavel -Lu-gavel coverage of the board of supervisors' meetings. 
Due to space limitations in the Veteran's Building it will be 
necessary to acquire wo . 1 .1 -mounted robotic cameras and the 
equipment necessary to conLroJ them. 



21 



SFCTC-LIBRARY 



TEL NO. 415-557-^449 



Rug 01 . : > 3:08 P .02 
Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 2 



Budget FY "94 - '95 



PERSONNEL 

Salaries 
Channel Manager 
Coordinator 
Office Assistant 
Production Supervisor 
Camera Operators 
H«adwnd Operators 



$27,402 
$20,292 
$1,638 
$14,615 
$13,210 
$48,285 



benefits 



$18,793 



PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 



$11,477 



OPERATIONS 

postage 

phone 

insurance 

supplies/materials 

equipment leases 

misc. 



$241 
$1,194 
$4,869 
$5,858 
$7,420 
$1,979 



EQUIPMENT 
Veterans Memorial 
Headend 
Maintenance 





$22,227 

$813 



TOTAL 



$200,313 



22 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 

Items 6 and 7 - Files 91-94-1.1 and 91-94-1 

Note: These items were transferred from the Housing and Land Use Committee 
meeting of November 3, 1994 due to fiscal impact. 

Department: San Francisco Redevelopment Authority (SFRA) 

Item: Item 6 - File 91-94-1.1 is a resolution adopting environmental 

findings and statement of overriding considerations 
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and 
State guidelines in connection with the ordinance adopting 
the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the 
Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area (File 91-94- 
1). 

Item 7 - File 91-94-1 is an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 
98-66, as amended by Ordinance Nos. 201-71, 393-73, 386-76, 
367-77, 420-79, 538-81 and 477-86, approving the redevelopment 
plan for the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project 
Area, by amending said plan in order to (1) make the 
redevelopment plan congruent, where appropriate, with the 
goals, policies, and land use designations of those portions of 
the City Planning Code that shape development in areas 
adjacent to the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project 
Area; (2) extend the time for eminent domain proceedings to 
acquire property within the project area, from December 1, 
1998 to May 1, 2006; (3) increase the amount of tax increment 
dollars which may be allocated to the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) pursuant to Section 33670 of 
the California Health and Safety Code from $372.9 million to 
$600 million; (4) reduce the time for incurring project debt to 
be repaid from the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 
33670 by the SFRA from April 25, 2006 to January 1, 2004; (5) 
amend the duration of the redevelopment plan including the 
provision of other documents formulated pursuant thereto 
from April 5, 2006 to January 1, 2009; and (6) establish 
January 1, 2019 as the time limit for the SFRA to receive 
allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 for the 
repayment of indebtedness incurred by the SFRA. 



Description: Item 6 - File 91-94-1.1 

1. This item is a resolution adopting the environmental 
findings and a statement of overriding considerations in the 
Yerba Buena Center Final Subsequent Environmental 
Impact Report ( YBC SEIR) . The California Environmental 
Quality Act (CEQA) and San Francisco's Administrative 
Code require that the Board of Supervisors consider and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 



adopt the YBC SEIR as part of formalizing the Amendment 
to the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Plan (the 
Amendment) which is contained in Item 5, File 91-94-1 and 
discussed below. The last environmental document on this 
issue which was considered and certified by the Board of 
Supervisors was the Second YBC EIR Supplement in 1984. 

2. In general, the YBC SEIR updates the environmental 
analysis presented in prior documents related to this 
Redevelopment Area and brings the Yerba Buena Center 
development process into compliance with environmental 
planning standards adopted by the City. For example, YBC 
developments will be required to implement transportation 
programs such as increasing rapid transit access, 
decreasing long-term parking, and encouraging car pools, 
bicycle use, and pedestrian-friendly development. Air quality 
will be maintained by requiring developers to minimize dust 
during construction, sweep streets, and cover trucks hauling 
debris, soil and sand. Other environmental mitigation 
measures described in the YBC SEIR and its Addenda 
include requiring developer compliance with the City's 
hazardous waste and underground storage tank removal 
programs, groundwater conservation measures, and 
requirements for emergency planning for earthquakes. 
These are examples of the environmental issues addressed by 
the YBC SEIR . 

3. Article IV of the YBC SEIR details the mitigation 
measures which have been adopted, as well as those that 
have been rejected, to meet the environmental impacts of the 
YBC developments. Three environmental effects which 
cannot be mitigated are also raised in the YBC SEIR . These 
are: a) a cumulative impact on traffic and on passengers 
riding BART and MUNI in the City, b) a possible violation of 
the fine particulate matter (PM10) air quality standard, with 
accompanying health impacts, due to the traffic and 
construction resulting from the Project and c) an increase in 
the number of people who would be subject to danger in the 
event of an earthquake in San Francisco, even though new 
buildings in the YBC Project Area will be built to the latest 
seismic standards. 

4. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a 
project against its unavoidable environmental risks when 
considering whether to approve the project. If the benefits 
outweigh the adverse effects, those effects may be considered 
"acceptable." Article VII of this proposed resolution is a 
"Statement of Overriding Considerations," which specifically 
states that the Board of Supervisors considers the economic, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 



social and other benefits of the Yerba Buena Project to 
outweigh the significant environmental effects, and that 
those effects are "acceptable." 

5. The YBC SEIR . along with the Amendment, was adopted 
by the City Planning Commission and by the Redevelopment 
Commission in December of 1992. Prior to adopting the 
Amendment and the relevant environmental documents, the 
Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Commission 
held a joint public hearing on January 23, 1992. An 
additional public hearing was held on the Amendment, by the 
Redevelopment Commission on June 21, 1994 and continued 
on July 26, 1994. In addition, the City Planning Commission 
and the Redevelopment Commission have since considered 
and adopted two Addenda to the YBC SEIR which dealt with 
planning changes to some parcels within the Yerba Buena 
Center (YBC) Project Area. According to Mr. Thomas 
Conrad of the Redevelopment Commission, Addenda to the 
YBC SEIR do not require public hearings. All property 
owners, tenants and business owners in the Project Area, 
however, have received notice of the Addenda and been 
offered the opportunity to comment on them in writing 
according to Mr. Conrad. 



Item 7 - File 91-94-1 

1. The City of San Francisco adopted the Downtown Plan in 
1985 and the South of Market Plan in 1990. These two 
planning documents address development in the areas 
surrounding the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project 
Area (YBC Project Area). Since the adoption of these two 
plans, the Redevelopment Commission and the City 
Planning Commission have worked together to revise the 
Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project to make it compatible 
with the goals, land use designations and policies of the City. 
This proposed resolution adopts an Amendment to the 
Redevelopment Plan which details the changes resulting 
from this process. Virtually every part of the Yerba Buena 
Redevelopment Project Area is affected, with changes 
proposed to 11 of the 13 parcels of land in the YBC Project 
Area. Only the two central blocks, from Market Street to 
Folsom Street between Third and Fourth Streets, which 
presently contain among their developments the Marriot 
Hotel, Ana Hotel, and Yerba Buena Gardens, are not 
affected. The changes contained in the plan Amendment are 
summarized as follows: 



HOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 



2. Reductions in Development Intensity, Height and Bulk. 

The Amendment generally reduces the intensity of 
development originally planned for YBC by adopting City 
Planning Code zoning restrictions and regulations governing 
the permitted and prohibited uses in the various areas, floor 
area ratios of new buildings, height limits, freight and 
service loading standards, and other regulations. YBC 
developments will also be designed to meet the City's goals of 
retaining a compact downtown core and a mix of 
commercial, residential and other land uses. 

3. Housing. According to the SFRA, the proposed 
Amendment would result in the addition of up to 610 market 
rate housing units to YBC, bringing the total number of 
housing units in the Project Area to 2,395. The Amendment 
projects that, as a result of the increased housing, 
approximately 1,200 additional residents, for a total of 4,000 
will be added to the Downtown area and surrounding 
vicinity. According to the SFRA and the Planning 
Commission, these units and residents will help achieve the 
City's goals of increasing the number of residents who can 
walk to work, increasing the vitality of the Downtown area 
during non-working hours, and creating affordable housing. 
The Amendment emphasizes the importance of retaining 
existing housing stock, creating live/work space and building 
low-income housing in the South of Market area. In 
addition, the Amendment, encourages, but does not mandate, 
housing for future owner-participants, which could result in 
up to 1,020 additional housing units. 

4. Job Preservation and Economic Development. According 
to Mr. Thomas Conrad of the SFRA, the Amendment will 
result in an estimated 300 construction jobs and, at full 
project buildout, 23,120 permanent jobs of which 84 percent or 
19,421 would be office jobs, 12 percent or 2,774 would be 
primarily retail/commercial, recreational or institutional 
jobs, and 4 percent or 925 would be jobs in cultural sectors. 
Under the previous Redevelopment plan, the projection was 
for the same number of construction jobs, 300, and for 21,800 
permanent jobs, or 1,320 fewer permanent jobs than are 
projected under the Amendment . 

5. Light Industry. According to the SFRA, the Amendment 
"substantially" reduces the amount of light industry that will 
be permitted in the YBC Project Area in order to make the 
Project compatible with the City's goals of encouraging 
mixed-use development and retaining the use of the southern 
blocks in particular as a residential area. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 



6. Downtown Plan Requirements. The Amendment adopts 
the Downtown Plan's requirements for business developers to 
build or contribute to the creation of affordable housing and 
child care, as well as the requirements for wind and shadow 
restrictions designed to enhance pedestrian comfort in the 
area, space for public art, and requirements for 
transportation management. 

7. Historic Preservation. The Amendment establishes a 
procedure for the YBC Project Area like that in Article 11 of 
the City Planning Code for designating buildings and areas 
that have special architectural, aesthetic or historical merit, 
and protecting them from demolition. 

8. Cultural. The Amendment, plans for the construction of 
significant amounts of cultural space in the YBC Project 
Area, including a Children's cultural center, and sites for 
the Mexican Museum and Jewish Museum. 

9. Open Space. In accordance with the City Planning Code, 
the Amendment requires new development projects in the 
YBC Project Area, whether new or substantial additions to 
existing structures, to provide publicly accessible open space. 

10. Plan Extension and State Law Changes. Under the 
existing Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena area, 
project activities are scheduled to expire on April 5, 2006. 
This proposed ordinance would change this expiration date to 
January 1, 2009. In addition, specific amendments to the 
Project plan are required by State statute and would: 

a) Reduce the time for incurring project debt from April 25, 
2006 to January 1, 2004. This means that bonds to fund YBC 
projects will have to be issued by January 1, 2004. 

b) Establish a time limit of January 1, 2019 for the project to 
receive tax increment funds for repayment of debt. 
Previously there was no time limit for the receipt of tax 
increment funds. 

c) Extend the time for acquisition of property through 
eminent domain from December 1, 1998 to May 1, 2006. This 
will enable the Redevelopment Agency to acquire the 
properties necessary to complete the Amended plan. 

d) Increase the amount of tax increment dollars which may 
be allocated to the Redevelopment Agency from $;J72.9 million 
to $600 million, an increase of $227.1 million. This increase 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDC JET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 



of $227.1 million will fund acquisition, construction, debt 
financing, and other activities. 

11. Project Budget. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to 
use the extended plan period and increased allocation of tax 
increment dollars to complete YBC Plan elements that are 
listed in Attachment A. In addition, the Redevelopment 
Agency proposes to use some of the tax increment dollars to 
fund housing construction in the South of Market area and 
other areas of the City. 

The total project budget limit under the previous tax 
increment limit of $372.9 million was estimated at 
approximately $280 million. With the proposed increase in 
the tax increment limit to $600 million, the project budget 
limit is estimated at approximately $306 million, an increase 
of $26 million. Of this $306 million, approximately $188 
million has been committed already in the Yerba Buena 
Redevelopment Project Area, and $118.8 million would be 
available for future project expenditures in both the Yerba 
Buena area and other areas. According to Mr. Conrad, 
approximately $78 million of the $118.8 million would be 
proposed for projects in the Yerba Buena Project Area, and 
$40 million for low and moderate income housing 
developments in other areas. 

Attachment B shows the estimated project expenditures for 
all areas by line item from 1994-95 to 2004-05. After 2004-5, the 
Redevelopment Agency estimates that project expenditures 
would increase by approximately 3 percent per year, and, as 
noted above, that the majority of funds would be devoted to 
housing projects. All project budget expenditures will be 
detailed in future Redevelopment Agency budgets, which 
must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors 
on an annual basis. 

12. Bond Funding. The $118.8 million project budget 
described above would be funded from the sale of bonds that 
would be repaid from tax increment funds. The total cost of 
repaying the debt used to fund the $118.8 million in project 
costs is estimated to be approximately $227.1 million, 
assuming an average interest rate of 7 percent per year. The 
bonds would be repaid over periods ranging from 9 to 23 years 
since all bond debt must be retired by January 1, 2019. The 
estimated project budget, debt issuance and debt service 
schedules are shown in the table below. 

While the proposed subject ordinance only allows for bond 
debt to be incurred for the Yerba Buena Redevelopment 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 



Project Area until the year 2004, the Redevelopment Agency 
also has the option under State law to incur bond debt for low 
and moderate income housing construction after that date. 
The financing plan shown below, as well as the budget 
discussed above, both reflect the Redevelopment Agency's 
plans to propose low and moderate income housing 
construction in the South of Market and possibly other areas 
of the City, to be funded through bonds issued after 2004. 



Schedule of Project Budget, Annual Debt Requirements and Total 

Payments from Tax Increment Funds 

(dollars in thousands) 







Term 


Annual 


Fiscal 


Project 


of 


Debt 


Year 


Budget 


Bonds 


Service 


1995-96 


$7,482 


23 


$751 


1996-97 


$7,501 


22 


767 


1997-98 


7,536 


21 


787 


1998-99 


7,559 


20 


807 


1999-00 


7,598 


19 


832 


200001 


7,634 


18 


858 


2001-02 


7,671 


17 


889 


2002-03 


7,709 


16 


923 


2003-04 


7,749 


15 


962 


2004-05 


7,790 


14 


1,008 


2005O6 


8,024 


13 


1,086 


200607 


8,264 


12 


1,177 


2007-08 


8,512 


11 


1,284 


200809 


8,768 


10 


1,412 


2009-10 


9,031 


9 


1,568 



Total Payments from. 
Tax Increment Funds 
Over Term of Bonds* 



Total 



$118,828 



$17,269 
16,876 
16,522 
16,143 
15,800 
15,453 
15,110 
14,771 
14,437 
14,107 
14,118 
14,125 
14,126 
14,121 
14.112 

$227,090* 



^Calculation differences in this column, and the difference between the total of 
$227,090 in total tax increment expenditures shown here, and the $227,086 shown 
in the table accompanying the paragraph below, are due to rounding factors. 



13. General Fund Impact. The tax increment bonds which 
would be issued to fund the amended YBC Project plan would 
create a long-term financial obligation for the City. Tax 
increment dollars which are committed to financing 
Redevelopment Projects (which are intended to increase 
property tax revenues in a project area as a byproduct of the 
Redevelopment activities) reduce property tax revenues that 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 



would otherwise be available to the taxing authorities such as 
the City. The impact on the City's General Fund of additional 
tax increment expenditures is to reduce property tax revenue 
that would otherwise be available by an amount equal to 
approximately 64 percent of the tax increment expenditure. 
The table below shows the use of tax increment funds to retire 
the additional expected debt for this proposed Amendment to 
the YBC Redevelopment Plan. As shown below, the 
expenditure of approximately $227,086,000 in tax increment 
monies would be funded from approximately $145,336,000 
(approximately 64 percent) that would otherwise accrue to the 
City's General Fund over the 23-year period from Fiscal Year 
1995-96 to Fiscal Year 2017-18. 



Total Tax Increment Payments (Principal and Interest) 
and General Fund Share by Fiscal Year 



Fiscal Year 

1995-1996 
1996-1997 
1997-1998 
1998-1999 
1999-2000 
2000-2001 
2001-2002 
2002-2003 
2003-2004 
2004-2005 
2005-2006 
2006-2007 
2007-2008 
2008-2009 
2009-2010 
2010-2011 
2011-2012 
2012-2013 
2013-2014 
2014-2015 
2015-2016 
2016-2017 
2017-2018 

TOTAL 



Tax Increment 
Expenditures 

$751,000 

1,518,000 

2,305,000 

3,112,000 

3,943,000 

4,802,000 

5,691,000 

6,614,000 

7,576,000 

8,584,000 

9,670,000 
10,847,000 
12,131,000 
13,543,000 
15,111,000 
15,111,000 
15,111,000 
15,111,000 
15,111,000 
15,111,000 
15,111,000 
15,111,000 
15.111.000 

$227,086,000 



General Fund 
Share 

$481,000 
971,000 
1,475,000 
1,992,000 
2,524,000 
3,073,000 
3,642,000 
4,233,000 
4,849,000 
5,494,000 
6,189,000 
6,942,000 
7,764,000 
8,668,000 
9,671,000 
9,671,000 
9,671,000 
9,671,000 
9,671,000 
9,671,000 
9,671,000 
9,671,000 
9.671.000 

$145,336,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 9, 1994 

Recommendations: Item 6 - File 91-94-1.1 . The proposed resolution, which would 
adopt the environmental findings and statement of 
overriding considerations of the Yerba Buena Center Final 
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report , is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 

Item 7 - File 91-94-1 . The proposed ordinance, which would 
allow the Redevelopment Agency, through the annual budget 
process, to request up to approximately $145.3 million in 
future General Fund revenue for projects in the Amended 
Yerba Buena Redevelopment Plan and other areas over the 
23-year period from Fiscal Year 1995-96 to FY 2017-2018, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Maher 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Shelley 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



31 





3 


O 


iET. o 




3 O 






c 


< 




3 

» 3 






o 


m 


S3 








n 
3 


C/3 


3"E 




5"£ 






rs 


3 CB 




_- 3 ° 






C/3 


CL 
CD 






OQ CB 


00 
"a 






< 


113 „ 




CB 3 


CB 
O 






o 


X' 3 




00 CO 


5i 






X5 

3 
o 

3 

o 


•— • co 
CB -. 

CO ■"! 

si 

no 




3* ST 

.0 5' 






O 


00 






—I 


CB 3 




»-- EJJ 


OS 






3 

m 


3 

=t o 




O 3 

3 °- 


3 

D. 






? 


to -», 




CO 


O 






o 


03-73 




•• Cl 

CB 
< 

CB 


<S". 
cb" 







ci" 


u>SL 




O 

■a 


<" 

CB 
CO 






CO 


«< 




3 






o" 


6 




CB 










S 




3 








£ 


3 
CB 




O 








o 


CL 








TJ -O 


HH 


2 O 


omp, ^0 


10 "o r> ^ ^ 0- -0 
."** EJ 8 en 2 e; 3 e; 

O "— ' CB n O 




roject C; 
ersonnel 
Costs = 


3" 

CD 


3" 

o 


CB *_; 
3 03 


co 03° 5 ~ 
' ■ 3 ~ 






2 

o 

X 


° n 

Is 

s.s 

o « 

c 

5 o 


773 SLg 

-O CB co 

o\o 2. -o.3 


el EB2A - 500,000 sq 

:lopment 

el EB2C - 290,000 sq 

1 development 

Retail/Entenainment 

retail/entertainment c 

:el 3751-H Superma 

00 square foot super 


OO 

^3 CB 

3 S. 


ipital Costs = $1 
& Administrati' 
$10,000,000 


3" 

C 

CO 

CO 

c 

3 


n" 

3 

c 

CB 

C 

3 


63-A - 50,000 squa 
al or residential deve 
2,000 square foot off 
,000 square foot offic 


-0 m 


CB tj 
CL CB 

►■•» < 

C> 

2 O 

3--0 

3 

3 2 

CB 3 


ON 






o -, 

CB - 

3 

2 o" 

r 1 CB 
O J, 

St 


uare 
uare 

Site 

ompl 
rket 

mark 


X 

»-» fa 

< o- 


o 

o 
o 
o 






re feet of retail, 
lopment 
ice building 
:e building 


foot 

foot housing or 

- 350,000 square 
ex 

Housing Site - 
et and 204 units 


CB O 
s_^ CB 

*<• 2 

n & 

-1 c 

CO i-| 

CB 

CO 








The 
the 
or r 
offi 
cult 




O-TJ " -i 










cr o CB no _ 




-3 CO O co 










complet 

oal of a 

habilita 
e, hotel 
iral, and 




e projec 
ompleti 
ically di 
sssed ar 


X 
a O 








3 3o3o 




(i <» - 
P cb 3 y> 


will tl 
ivelo 
endit 








fj -- CO ~ O 




o2,| 








S _— 3 C -> 




~ * 3" 


C "O =r 








these fac 
re of use 
d new de 

1 commei 
itional us 




en comp 
he redev 
ated and 


e goals a 
ment pro 
res elinr 








1 n < " -• 

!" B2.3- 

- O — CB 




leted, 

elopm 

econo 


f 5 CL 










obj 
its, 

te b 








wil 
e pr 
mer 
esid 




allr 
ent 
mic 


3". CJ CB V 

3- cl ~. ; 








CB ~ O 




y O " 


^ r 








3 " *S' tJ 




rr — >"o 








" K 2 

5'3 2 z 




^3-3 


^C/5 








~ •-- c: CB 




co CB 


c 








-1 < 




3 


c 








CB CB 




- 


tl 

? * 



32 



*^> <-o oo — a <?v 



S^. 



LXS »"X? *» 



m t» -o c~ O 



0^ 



^-^ O **« *» flp 

•tj ca wm <r*\ «-*- ^*- 



cj^ <r± t^* era 

e=» *-< o o 

cx+ ts re> CD 

*T3 <^> ^> £i* 



i& 3 



cr s 



r+- o*> m ►— «•- T3 



o» C"» to rt. -o 



O O- <"t- o» c3 f— • 

(3 fc* 0» <» 

«-•- ** fr-0 CO «* 

5= 3 



en en 

— o —a 
Cn w 



ii cn cn 



en 
cn en 






tn CO II VI oo 



r-o 


c = > 




^. 


Cn 


ro 


C=3 


e*> — o 


—5 


< — 1 


c=» 


"=S 


C3 Cn 


Ol 


CZ> 



II «^> —a 



C~o O N «s> e^» —J 



<=> 


en 


CO 


►»- 


M 


«=^ 


to 


-^> 


o» 




«~0 




c^» 


<=r> 


•— *• 


o 


«=> 


e=> 



O Cn 

Cn cn 
*«» co 



ii en en 

ii cn en 
II ro co 



en — » n cn 



er» e? co <=» en 



en o tva o c-» 



£. 



to €13 e^o c=> oj —a 

o> cd o «=» o cr» 






oa —a 1 1 oo — o I 

a* - ll • - i 

»>» — ( ll »~» — -» l 

cr> o ll ct> <rz> i 

.»- CO II ,*.. CO I 



c-» «=> e-o co 

.»». o o <=> 



CO <y> CO 



>^> t*o cn 



33 



. |^» 



J>F , DOCUMENTS DEP~ 

o ri/) * - • ■ ■ ■>■ 

BUDGET COMMITTEE AUG 2 7 1996 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS „ AN FRANCIS rn 

CTTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ^BLIC LIBRARY 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16. 1994 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 



PRESENT: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, ALIOTO, BIERMAN 
CLERK: MARY L. RED 

1. File 118-94-4 . [Fees for Animal Care] Ordinance amending the Health Code 
Sections 41.9 and 41.10 to increase fees charged by the Department of Animal Care 
and Control for animal adoptions, redemption of impounded animals, spay/neuter 
deposits and daily care if impounded animals and authorizing Animal Control 
Officer to charge the actual cost of spaying or neutering impounded animals, to 
waive any fees in the event of the owner's extreme financial difficulty, and to 
charge a penalty fee for redemption of animals impounded more than once by 
animal control. (Animal Care and Control Department) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. 

2. File 73-94-1 . [Embarcadero - Lower Market (Golden Gateway)] Ordinance 
amending Ordinance No. 301-59 as amended by Ordinances No. 208-61, 196-64, 
194-64, 123-67, 204-68, 479-76, and 476-86, approving the Redevelopment Plan for 
the Embarcadero-Lower Market (Golden Gateway) Redevelopment Project Area, by 
amending said plan in order to comply with the provisions of the 1993 Community 
Redevelopment Law Reform Act (AB-1290) by establishing the following time 
limitations; (1) the time limit for the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan as 
January 1, 2009; (2) the time limit for incurring project debt to be repaid from the 
allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Health and Safety 
Code by the agency as of January 1, 2004; and (3) the time limit for the agency to 
receive allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 for the repayment of 
indebtedness incurred by the agency as January 1, 2019. (Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED to full Board on December 5 for public hearing. 

3. File 71-94-1 . [Amendment to Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan] Ordinance 
amending Ordinance No. 25-69 as amended by Ordinances No. 280-70 and 475-86, 
approving the Redevelopment Plan for the Hunters Point Redevelopment Project 
Area, by amending said plan in order to comply with the provisions of the 1993 
Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act (AB-1290) by (1) extending the time 
limit for the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan from January 20, 1999 to 
January 1, 2009; (2) extending the time limit for incurring project debt to be repaid 
from the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Health and 
Safety Code by the agency from January 20, 1999 to January 4, 2004; and (3) 
establishing January 1, 2019 as the time limit for the agency to receive allocation 
of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 for the repayment of indebtedness incurred by 
the agency. (Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED to full Board on December 5 for public hearing. 



File 67-94-1 . [India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Plan] Ordinance 
amending Ordinance No. 26-69 as amended by Ordinances No. 474-86 and 141-87, 
approving the Redevelopment Plan for the India Basin Industrial Park 
Redevelopment Project Area, by amending said plan in order to comply with the 
provisions of the 1993 Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act (AB-1290) by 
(1) extending the time limit for the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan from 
January 20, 1999 to January 1, 2009; (2) extending the time limit for incurring 
project debt to be repaid from the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of 
the California Health and Safety Code by the agency from January 20, 1999 to 
January 1, 2004; and (3) establishing January 1, 2019 as the time limit for the 
agency to receive allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 for the repayment 
of indebtedness incurred by the agency. (Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED to full Board on December 5 for public hearing. 

File 151-94-1 . [Rincon Point - South Beach Redevelopment Plan] Ordinance 
amending Ordinance No. 14-81 as amended by Ordinances 50-84, 405-91, 137-92, 
and 270-92, approving the Redevelopment Plan for the Rincon Point - South Beach 
Redevelopment Project Area, by amending said plan in order to comply with the 
provisions of the 1993 Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act (AB-1290) by 
(1) extending the time limit for the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan from 
January 5, 2011 to January 5, 2021; (2) extending the time limit for incurring 
project debt to be repaid from the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of 
the California Health and Safety Code by the Agency from January 1, 1996 to 
January 1, 2004; and (3) establishing January 5, 2031 as the time limit for the 
agency to receive allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 for the repayment 
of indebtedness incurred by the agency. (Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED to full Board on December 5 for public hearing. 

File 161-94-7 . [So. of Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Plan] 
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 234-90, approving the Redevelopment Plan for 
the South of Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area, by 
amending said plan in order to comply with the provisions of the 1993 Community 
Redevelopment Law Reform Act (AB-1290) by (1) extending the time limit for the 
effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan from June 11, 2000 to June 11, 2010; (2) 
extending the time for incurring project debt to be repaid from the allocation of 
taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of the California Health and Safety Code by the 
agency from June 11, 2000 to June 22, 2010; and (3) establishing June 11, 2020 as 
the time limit for the agency to receive allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 
33670 for the repayment of indebtedness incurred by the agency. (Redevelopment 
Agency) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED to full Board on December 5 for public hearing. 



7. File 97-94-41.1 . [General Assistance Property Levei/Income Disregard) Ordinance 
amending the Administrative Code by amending Sections 20.56.10 and 20.57 
relating to General Assistance Allowable personal property and income disregard. 
(Supervisors Migden, Alioto, Bierman) 

(Continued from 11/2) 

(Transferred from October 25 meeting of Health. Public Safety & Environment 
Committee due to FISCAL IMPACT) 

ACTION: Consideration continued to November 30. 

8. File 30-94-25 . [CHIP Program Funds for Fiscal Year 1994-95] Resolution 
authorizing adoption of the County Description of Proposed Expenditure of 
California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) Funds for fiscal year 1994/95 
and that the chairperson or duly authorized representative of the Board of 
Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco can certify the County 
Description of Proposed Expenditure of CHIP Funds for fiscal year 1994/95. 
(Supervisors Alioto, Bierman) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisors Alioto and Bierman added as sponsors) 

9. File 65-94-1.1 . [Giants Stadium Lease Amendment] Ordinance approving sixth 
amendment to stadium lease between the City and County by and through its 
Recreation and Park Commission and the San Francisco Giants. (Supervisors 
Alioto, Hsieh, Bierman) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED TO BOARD DECEMBER 5 with condition that 

Recreation and Park Department and the San Francisco Giants amend 
language in Agreement in three areas: Rent Credits for Stadium 
Operator Admission Taxes; Rent Credits for Tenant Improvements; and 
Police Security. (Supervisors Hsieh and Bierman added as cosponsors) 

10. File 30-94-24 . [Center for Special Problems] Draft Resolution urging the 
Department of Public Health to request and urging the Mayor to approve 
supplemental appropriations of $400,000 for fiscal year 1994-95 to restore the 
offender programs at the Center for Special Problems and assure that the offender 
programs continue to be administered by the Department of Public Health. 
(Supervisors Alioto, Hsieh, Bierman) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Hsieh added as cosponsor). 

11. File 101-94-28 . [Appropriation, Dept of Public Works, $300,000] Ordinance 
appropriating and rescinding $300,000, Department of Public Works, capital 
projects transferring monies from North Point Treatment Plan Project to Bay 
Area/San Joaquin Valley Water Reuse Project for fiscal year 1994-95. RO #94099 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

(Continued from 11/9) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. 



01 
IS 



CITYAND COUNTY 



^ 




f PuBCic LiBraru, 'Documents (Dept. 
Attn: Jane Hudson 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



OARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



November 14, 1994 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst Keton^t^AJ/tfAJ*, 

SUBJECT: November 16, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



D qp! iMctrrq nEPT. 
NOV 1 6 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 - File 118-94-4 

Department: Animal Care and Control 

Item: Ordinance amending the Health Code Sections 41.9 and 

41.10 to increase fees charged for animal adoptions, 
redemptions of impounded animals, spay/neuter deposits and 
daily care of impounded animals and authorizing the Animal 
Control Officer to charge the actual cost of spaying or 
neutering impounded animals, to waive any fees in the event 
of the owner's extreme financial difficulty, and to charge a 
penalty fee for redemption of animals impounded more than 
once by animal control. 

Description: Sections 41.9 and 41.10 of the San Francisco Health Code 

establishes fees charged by the Department of Animal Care 
and Control. 

Under the current law, Animal Control charges $3, plus the 
cost of a dog license, for the adoption of any dog from their 
shelter, but charges no fee except for the existing dog license 
fee of $12 to any owner who surrenders a dog and then later 
returns to reclaim it. Animal Control also charges $3 for the 
adoption of any cat, rabbit, bird or other small animal and 
$10 for the redemption of any cat, rabbit, bird or other small 
animal impounded by Animal Control. Animal Control may 
waive the redemption fee for owners who demonstrate 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Novemberl6, 1994 



extreme financial difficulty. In addition, an owner must pay 
a $20 deposit for each dog or cat spayed or neutered and $2 
per day for the daily care and feeding of the animal in the 
shelter. Currently, Animal Control may also charge owners 
the actual cost of any extraordinary expense incurred while 
sheltering their animals. According to Mr. Carl Friedman, 
Director of Animal Care and Control, examples of 
extraordinary expenses are instances in which an animal is 
struck by an automobile and surgery is required or an animal 
has cuts and suturing is required. 



The proposed ordinance would amend the Health Code to 
increase the fee for adoption of dogs, cats, rabbits, birds or 
other small animals from $3 to $5, begin charging a $5 fee for 
owners who surrender and then reclaim their dogs, increase 
from $10 to $15 the fee for redeeming impounded cats, 
rabbits, birds or other small animals, increase from $20 to 
$25 the spay/neuter deposit for dogs and cats, and increase 
from $2 to $5 the fee for daily care of impounded animals. 
The proposed fees will be effective on January 1, 1995. 



Under the proposed Ordinance, Animal Control may charge 
a penalty for release of any animal impounded more than 
once, in the amount of $30 or two times the proposed 
redemption fee of $15 for the second impoundment and in the 
amount of $45 or three times the proposed redemption fee for 
three or more impoundments. Presently there is no such 
penalty charged, as previously noted. Animal Control is 
authorized to waive any fee for the release of an animal if the 
owner demonstrates extreme financial difficulty. Finally, 
Animal Control may charge owners for the actual cost of 
spaying or neutering any impounded animal estimated at $25 
instead of the present fee of $20. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Novemberl6, 1994 



The following table compares the existing fees and the 
proposed fees of the Animal Care and Control Department: 











FY *94-95 


Estimated 








FY *93'94 


Estimated 


Annual 


Existing 


Proposed 


Annual 


Annual 


Revenue 


Type of Service 


Fees 


Fees 


Revenues 


Revenues 


Increases 


Adoption 












For each dog 


$3 


$5 








For each cat 


$3 


$5 








For each rabbit, 












bird or small animal 


$3 


$5 








Surrender and 












reclaiming of dog 


$0 


$5 








Total Adoption 






$6,969 


$13,969 


$7,000 


Redemption 












For each cat 


$10 


$15 








For each rabbit, 












bird or small animal 


$5 


$15 








Total Redemption 






12,1501 


14,150 


2,000 


Spav/Neuter Deposit 2 












For each dog 


$20 


$25 








For each cat 


$20 


$25 








Dailv Care 












For each dog 


$2 


$5 








For each cat 


$2 


$5 








For each rabbit, 












bird or small animal 


$2 


$5 








Total Daily Care 






4,794 


9,794 


5,000 


Totals 






$23,913 


$37,913 


$14,000 


Comments: 


1. Accord 


ing to Mr. Carl Friedman 


. Director of Animal Care 



and Control, the waiver of fees for extreme financial difficulty 
occurs when the owner of the impounded animal is homeless 
or is poor. The waiver is granted at the discretion of an 
Animal Control Clerk and is reviewed by a Supervisor to 
insure that there are no abuses of the waiver process. 



1 Animal Care and Control does not track fees per type of animal but only fees per type of service. 
■^These fees are not revenue to the department but rather are deposits which are collected when an 
animal is adopted and are returned to the animal owner when he/she produces proof that the animal 
has been altered. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Novemberl6, 1994 

2. The $14,000 increase in estimated revenue from the 
proposed ordinance has already been included in the 1994-95 
budget estimates. The budget assumption was that the fee 
increase would be effective July 1, 1994. According to Mr. 
Friedman, the Department believes that there are other 
variables, such as an increase in the number of adoptions, 
that will allow the department to make up the estimated 
$7,000 shortfall that will result from a January 1, 1995 
implementation date. 

3. According to Mr. Friedman, the reason for the proposed 
increase in fees is that the current fees are low by comparison 
with similar fees charged by seven other counties. 

4. Mr. Friedman reports that his Office conducted a survey of 
the fee structure in the counties of Marin, San Mateo, Contra 
Costa, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Alameda. 
Attached is a copy of the survey provided by Mr. Friedman 
which includes the existing fees for San Francisco as 
compared with the fees charged in the seven other surveyed 
counties. 

Recommendation: Based on the fact that the proposed fee increases were 
included in the Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget that was 
previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors, approve the 
proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SIJPERVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



NOU-10-1994 11:45 RNIfffiL CPRE & CONTROL 

DM T /APIC/A /-\IMIIVIJ-VL oncL i en 

Update 5/1 1/94 



4155549424 



Attachment 

■pren 



--r^y^iiii 


Adoption 


Adoption 


Redemption 


License 


License 


S/N 


Keep 


Owner 


Owner Req. 




Altered 


Unaltered 


# Impounds 


1 Altered 


Unaltered 


Deposit 


Per Day 


Surrender 


! Euthanasia 


Alameda 


5 


5 


25 








♦15/26 


7 


20 


20 


Fremont 


15 


•25/40 


20 


"8/12/14 


♦♦16/24/28 


♦10/25 


5 


20 


20 


Hsyward 


12 


♦18.5-46 


15 











3 








Marin 


12 


12 











20 


5 


20 


35 


Monterey 


15 


15 


15/30/60/120 








♦22/32 


5 


15 


20 


Oakland AC 


12 


12 


25/50/75 


o 








5 








Oakland SPCA 


20 


50 


20 


o 











10 


15 


Pate Atto 


10 


10 


20 








•20/30 


7 





25 


PHS 


12 


10 


1 5/25/50 


5 


15 


25 


7 


10 


30 


Santa Clara 


23 


•48/53 


2S 


5 


15 


O 


7 








Santa Cruz 


10 


5 





1 


1 


♦25/40 








20 


SFACC 


3 


3 


10 


5 


5 


20 


2 








Sonoma Co. AC 


•25/30 


10 


5 


5 


5 


♦15/20 


2 


10 


10 


Sonoma Co. HS 


10 


10 


10 








•20/25 


3.5 


30 


20 


«j»m 


Adoption 


Adoption 


Redemption 


License 


License 


S/N 


Keep 


Owner 


Owner Req. 




Altered 


Unaltered 


9 Impounds 


Altered 


Unaltered 


Deposit 


Per Day 


Surrender 


Euthanasia 


A tamed* 


10 


10 


25 


'••3-22 




30 


...7-., 
6 " 


20 


20 


Fremont 


15 


15 


20/40/60 


•♦8/12/20 


♦ • 1 6/24/28 


♦25/30 


20 


20 



Hayward 


23 


•57/61 


25 


2 


♦♦10/-/20 





4 





Vlarin 


20 


20 


35/50/75 


• '7/13/18 


••20/39/57 


30 


10 


20 


40 


Monterey 


15 


1S 


1 5/30/60/1 20 


7.5 


17 


♦40/45 


5 


15 


20 


Oakland AC 


17 


17 


25/50/75 


••5/10/13 


10/20/26 





5 








Dakland SPCA 


30 


50 


20 














10 


15 


*alo Alto 


10 


10 


20/35/45/85/100 


0/0/* "5-2 


0/0/' * '6-36 


38/44 


12 




to" 


37.5 
30 


3 HS 


20 


18 


30/60/90 


10 


20 


35 


10 


jama Clara 


23 


63 


35 


10 


25 





10 








Santa Crvz 


5 


10 


15/30/75/125 
15*" 


12 

••6/12/18 


24 

•♦12/24/36 " 


40 
20 








20 


5FACC 


3 


3 


2 








Joooma Co. AC 


20 


20 


25/50/100 


7 


14 


30 


6 


10 


10 


Sonoma Co. HS 


♦55/65 


20 


25/50/100 


7 


14 


25 


7.5 


30 


•••20-65 


mmmmM 


Adoption 


Adoption 


Redemption 


license 


license 


S/N 


Keep 


Owner 


Owner Req. 




Altered 


Unaltered 


M Impounds 


Altered 


Unaltered 


Deposit 


Per day 


Surrender 


Euthanasia 


Uameda 


•"5->25 


•"5->25 














7 


20 


20 


remont 


5 


5 


5/10/15 











2 


20 



20 

"o" 


iayward 


♦♦•54 


•••5 ♦ 


15 


o 








3 


Aarln 


♦•♦3/5/8 


•••3/5/8 














5 


5 


15 


Monterey 


5 


5 













6" 


5 


b 


"•b/10 


)aklend AC 


12 

" 10 


12 
• • •10/30 


25/50/75 
20 




o 


o 




•••5/10 



30 




••'•5/10 


fakland SPCA 





3.5 


alo Alto 


••♦5/10 


•••b/10 


10 

•'•5-50 

25 











7 


o 


25 


HS 


♦♦'3/5 


•••3/.5 
5 




6 



" 





•••1.5-a 


•• "10-25 
10 


•'•10-30 
10 


anta Clara 


5 





2 


ante Cruz 


•••2.5/3/5 


••'2.5/3/b 


15/30//5/125 











•••2/4/5/10 





•••5/10 


FACC 


3 


3 
2/5 


10 
5 














b 


7 

2 







10 

• * ■ b/1 0" 


onoma Co. AC 


2/5 


10 


ononis Co. HS 


•••5/10 j 


••■5/10 I 


10 





o 





3.5 


30 




1 




J 

j 




I 

I ""I 

r 




1 


Fees vary according to stx of a 
* Annual fee lor 1 3 year's | 


limnl 




- 






* 'Fees very according to rype/ac, 


e/w tight of a 


limal 






' 


1 


1 


! 










5 













Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

Items 2. 3. 4. 5 and 6 - Files 73-94-1. 71-94-1. 67-94-1. 151-94-1 and 161-94-7 

1. The Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act, which was adopted by 
the State Legislature in 1993, mandates amendments for Redevelopment Plans 
containing tax increment financing provisions by establishing time limits for (a) 
performing redevelopment activities, (b) incurring debt and (c) receiving tax 
increments for the repayment of debt. 

2. The proposed ordinances would approve amendments to the 
Redevelopment Plans for the Embarcadero - Lower Market (Golden Gateway) 
Redevelopment Project Area (File 73-94-1), the Hunters Point Redevelopment 
Project Area (File 71-94-1), the India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Project 
Area (File 67-94-1), the Rincon Point - South Beach Redevelopment Project Area 
(File 151-94-1), and the South of Market Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment 
Project Area (File 161-94-7) by (a) extending or reducing the time limits for the 
performance of redevelopment activities; (b) extending the time limits for incurring 
project debts to be repaid by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency from tax 
increment funds; and (c) establishing time limits for the Redevelopment Agency to 
receive tax increment funds for the repayment of indebtedness incurred by the 
Redevelopment Agency, as follows: 



Redevelopment Plan 

Embarcadero - 
Lower Market 
(Golden Gateway) 

Hunters Point 



Time Extension/ 

Reduction for 

Performance of 

Redevelopment 

Activities 
From To. 



October 6, 
2010 



January 1, 
2009 



January 20, January 1, 
1999 2009 



Time 

Extension for 

Incurring Debt 

From To. 



Time Limit to 
Receive 

Tax Increment 
Funds 



May 25, 
1989 



January 1, 
2004 



January 20, January 1, 
1999 2004 



January 1, 
2019 

January 1, 
2019 



India Basin 
Industrial Park 

Rincon Point - 
South Beach 



January 20, January 1, 
1999 2009 

January 5, January 5, 
2011 2021 



January 20, January 1, January 1, 
1999 2004 2019 

January 1, January 1, January 5, 
1996 2004 2031 



South of Market 
Earthquake 
Recovery 



June 11, 
2000 



June 11, 
2010 



June 11, 
2000 



June 22, 
2010 



June 11, 
2020 



3. Item 6, File 73-94-1 - In accordance with the existing Redevelopment 
Plan for the Embarcadero - Lower Market (Golden Gateway) Project Area, project 
activities are scheduled to expire on October 6, 2010. This proposed ordinance 
would change this expiration date to January 1, 2009. Further amendments to the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

Redevelopment Plan, as required by State law, include the extension of time for 
incurring project debt from May 25, 1989 to January 1, 2004 and the designation of 
January 1, 2019 as the time limit to receive tax increment funds for the repayment 
of debt (there is currently no time limit). The Redevelopment Agency proposes to 
use the time remaining to complete plan elements, including the improvement of 
presently vacant and unused parcels and the redesign of the plaza located at the 
former site of the Embarcadero Freeway. 

4. Item 7, File 71-94-1 - Project activities at the Hunters Point 
Redevelopment Project Area are currently scheduled to expire on January 20, 1999, 
in accordance with the existing Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan. This proposed 
ordinance would change this expiration date to January 1, 2009. Further 
amendments to the Redevelopment Plan, as required by State law, include the 
extension of time for incurring project debt from January 20, 1999 to January 1, 
2004 and the designation of January 1, 2019 as the time limit to receive tax 
increment funds for the repayment of debt (there is currently no time limit). The 
Redevelopment Agency proposes to use the time extensions to complete plan 
elements, including the construction of additional townhouses and housing units, 
the repair of Shoreview Park for conveyance to the Recreation and Park 
Department and the conveyance of open space areas located within or adjacent to 
existing housing developments. 

5. Item 8, File 67-94-1 - Under the existing Redevelopment Plan for the 
India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Project Area, project activities are 
scheduled to expire on January 20, 1999. This proposed ordinance would move back 
this expiration date to January 1, 2009. Further amendments to the 
Redevelopment Plan, as required by State law, include the extension of time for 
incurring project debt from January 20, 1999 to January 1, 2004 and the 
designation of January 1, 2019 as the time limit to receive tax increment funds for 
the repayment of debt. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to use the time 
extensions to complete plan elements, including the repair and maintenance of 
streets and sidewalks, landscaping, the paving of parking areas and the 
continuation of activities to reduce unemployment and increase business ownership 
opportunities. 

6. Item 9, File 151-94-1 - The current expiration date for the performance of 
project activities for the Rincon Point - South Beach Redevelopment Project Area is 
January 5, 2011, in accordance with the existing Redevelopment Plan. The 
proposed ordinance would change this expiration date to January 5, 2021. Further 
amendments to the Redevelopment Plan, as required by State law, include the 
extension of time for incurring project debt from January 1, 1996 to January 1, 2004 
and the designation of January 1, 2031 as the time limit to receive tax increment 
funds for the repayment of debt. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to use the 
time extensions to complete the following plan elements: (a) the construction of an 
office building at Rincon Point; (b) the re-routing and improvement of The 
Embarcadero; (c) the development of the Rincon Point Waterfront Park; (d) the 
construction of housing units in South Beach; (e) the rehabilitation of several 
warehouses in South Beach; (D the improvement of Pier 40 and the construction of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGETANALYST 

7 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

either an office building or a small hotel; (g) the development of the South Beach 
Waterfront Park; and (h) the development of other sites in South Beach. 

7. Item 10, File 161-94-7 - In accordance with the existing Redevelopment 
Plan for the South of Market Earthquake Recovery Project Area, project activities 
are scheduled to expire on June 11, 2000. This proposed ordinance would change 
this expiration date to June 11, 2010. Further amendments to the Redevelopment 
Plan, as required by State law, include the extension of time for incurring project 
debt from June 11, 2000 to June 22, 2010 and the designation of June 11, 2020 as 
the time limit to receive tax increment funds for the repayment of debt. The 
Redevelopment Agency proposes to use the time extensions to complete plan 
elements, including the construction of housing units, the rehabilitation of housing 
units in the Hugo Apartments building, the Rose Hotel and the Seneca Hotel 
buildings, economic development activities, and the improvement of sidewalks, 
streets, street lighting and public facilities. 



Comments 

1. Expenditures for all of the above project activities will be detailed in 
future Redevelopment Agency budgets, which must be approved by the Board of 
Supervisors on an annual basis. 

2. According to Mr. Tom Conrad, Chief of Planning and Programming for the 
Redevelopment Agency, the purpose of the proposed ordinances is to comply with 
the State Community Redevelopment Law Reform Act, which requires the Board of 
Supervisors to establish the proposed time extensions and limits by December 31, 
1994. Mr. Conrad advises that the effect of the proposed legislation is to provide the 
Redevelopment Agency with additional time to perform redevelopment activities 
and to incur and repay debt. Whether additional debt will be incurred in the future 
for the purpose of performing redevelopment activities at the foregoing sites is not 
known at this time, but such a decision would be subject to the separate, future 
legislative approval of the Board of Supervisors, according to Mr. Conrad. 



Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed ordinances is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



Item 7 - File 97-94-41.1 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 2, 1994. 

Department: Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Item: Draft ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending 

Sections 20.56.10 and 20.57, relating to General Assistance 
allowable personal property and relating to the Income 
Disregard Program. 

Description: Section 20.56.10 of the Administrative Code, entitled 

Allowable Personal Property , currently provides that any 
person who has cash in excess of the current monthly 
General Assistance (GA) grant for a single individual of $345 
is ineligible to apply for General Assistance. Furthermore, 
for any person who has cash of less than $345, the entire 
amount of such cash is entirely offset against the current 
monthly GA grant of $345. However, if a portion of those 
cash assets are in a savings and/or checking account, up to 
$25 of that amount in the savings and/or checking account is 
exempted from being used to offset the GA grant. For 
example, under current legislation, a person who has $25 in a 
savings account can still receive the maximum GA grant of 
$345, since none of that $25 is used to offset the GA grant. 
However, if a GA recipient has $300 in cash, none of which is 
contained in a savings or checking account, the entire 
amount of $300 must be -used to offset the GA grant, so that 
the person would be eligible to receive only $45 ($345 less 
$300) for one month of GA aid. However, if $25 of that $300 
in cash were in a savings account, the person would be 
eligible to receive a GA grant of $70, which is equivalent to 
the maximum GA grant of $345 less $275 ($300 in total cash 
less $25 in savings). 

The proposed ordinance would amend Section 20.56.10 to 
allow a person applying for GA to have up to $345 in cash, 
savings or in a checking account without any of that amount 
being used to offset the monthly GA grant of $345. In 
addition, the proposed amendment would provide that any 
amount in cash, savings or in a checking account in excess of 
$345 would be used to offset the monthly GA grant on a 
dollar-for-dollar basis. For example, under the proposed 
legislation, if a person had $300, regardless of how much of 
that $300 was in cash, savings or in a checking account, none 
of that $300 would be applied to offset the monthly GA grant 
of $345. As such, a single individual would be eligible to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



receive the maximum GA grant of $345. However, if that 
person had $600 in cash, savings or in a checking account, he 
or she would still be eligible to receive a GA grant, but $255 
(the amount in excess of $345) of that $600 would be offset 
against the GA grant, so that the person could only receive 
$90 of GA aid for that month. 

According to the Department of Social Services (DSS), the 
proposed legislation would (1) increase the pool of eligible GA 
participants because persons with more than $345 in liquid 
assets would become eligible to apply for GA; and (2) increase 
the average length of time that a person would receive GA 
payments, since a person with cash assets of more than $345 
would be eligible to apply for GA aid sooner and would not 
necessarily stop receiving GA aid earlier, and clients who 
already receive GA payments and who would otherwise be 
discontinued for assets in excess of $345 might remain on GA 
aid for a longer period of time. 

According to Mr. Antoine Moore of DSS, DSS estimates that 
this proposed amendment pertaining to the personal property 
limit would increase the cost of the GA Program by 
approximately $69,000 annually. 

Section 20.57 (b) of the Administrative Code requires GA 
recipients to complete either 20 verifiable job applications per 
month and/or participate in Department-approved job 
counseling, vocational rehabilitation, drug or alcohol 
treatment or a work assignment program in order to continue 
receiving GA payments. The proposed ordinance would 
amend Section 20.57 (b) to clarify the definition of verifiable 
job applications by specifically defining the completion of 
verifiable job applications as (1) sending resumes and cover 
letters to apply for positions for which the recipient meets the 
minimum qualifications, with copies of these documents and 
the telephone number of the prospective employer provided to 
DSS; and (2) participation in union hiring hall programs that 
make use of telephone job searches for currently available 
positions. 

Section 20.57 (h) of the Administrative Code established the 
Income Disregard Program in order to provide a work 
incentive for GA recipients. The Income Disregard Program 
operates by disregarding a certain amount of an employed 
GA recipient's monthly gross income when determining the 
recipient's GA continuing eligibility and grant amount. As 
such, a GA recipient is permitted to earn income and still 
receive a partial GA grant. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



Presently, a person can receive up to $610 per month in gross 
income and still receive a grant. Under the Income 
Disregard Program, DSS disregards up to $270 of the 
person's monthly gross income in determining the amount of 
the recipient's GA grant, in accordance with Section 20.57 
(h). The balance of the recipient's monthly income is offset 
against the GA grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For 
example, the GA grant of a single individual recipient 
earning $610 per month would be equivalent to the difference 
between the $345 monthly GA grant and the amount to be 
offset against the grant, or $340 ($610 less $270). Therefore, 
$345 less $340 equals a monthly GA grant of $5, as reflected 
in the table below. 



(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 






Amount 




Gross 




Offsetting 


Maximum 


Monthly 


Income 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Salarv 


Disregard 


(Col. 1 - Col. 2) 


($345 - Col. 3) 


$100 


$100 


$0 


$345 


200 


167 


33 


312 


300 


217 


83 


262 


400 


250 


150 


195 


500 


270 


230 


115 


610 


270 


340 


5 



The proposed ordinance would amend Section 20.57 (h) of the 
Administrative Code to increase the income disregard limit 
from a maximum of $270 to a maximum of $454. Thus, DSS 
would disregard up to $454 of a single individual recipient's 
monthly gross income in determining the amount of the 
person's GA grant, in accordance with Section 20.57 (h). The 
balance of the recipient's monthly income would then be 
offset against the GA grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For 
example, the GA grant of a person earning $794 per month 
would be $5, which is equivalent to the difference between 
the $345 monthly GA grant and the amount to be offset 
against the grant, or $340 ($794 less $454). Therefore, under 
existing legislation, a single individual recipient can earn up 
to $610 per month and still receive a GA grant, but under the 
proposed legislation, a person could earn up to $794 per 
month and still receive a GA grant, as shown in the following 
table: 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



(1) 


(2) 


(3) 
Amount 


(4) 


Gross 




Offsetting 


Maximum 


Monthly 


Income 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Salary 


Disregard 


(Col. 1 - Col. 2) 


($345 - Col. 3) 


$200 


$200 


$0 


$345 


350 


300 


50 


295 


500 


375 


125 


220 


650 


425 


225 


120 


794 


454 


340 


5 


800 


455 


345 






According to Mr. Moore, the proposed legislation that would 
increase the income disregard limit from $270 to $454 could 
potentially generate savings for the City, but only if the 
proposed legislation leads to an increase in the average 
monthly earnings of an employed GA recipient and to an 
increase in the number of GA recipients participating in the 
Income Disregard Program for the following reasons: (1) as 
the average monthly income increases, the average GA grant 
should decline since the GA grant would be offset by the GA 
recipient's higher monthly earnings, and (2) if the number of 
GA recipients participating in the Income Disregard Program 
increases, a larger percentage of the total GA caseload would 
likely receive less than the maximum GA grant of $345 per 
month. 

Mr. Moore advises that the average monthly income of 
Income Disregard Program participants is $244 per month. 
Mr. Moore estimates that (1) given that the number of 
participants in the Income Disregard remains constant, the 
average monthly income would have to increase by at least 
$118 from the current average monthly income of $244; or (2) 
given that the average monthly income remains constant, the 
number of GA recipients participating in the Income 
Disregard Program would have to increase by at least 846 
from the current participation rate of 564, for the City to 
realize savings in the GA Program. However, Mr. Moore 
advises that there is presently no way of knowing whether 
the proposed increase in the income disregard limit would 
have these two effects. 

If these two effects are not achieved, Mr. Moore advises that 
the increased income disregard limit would most likely 
increase the cost of General Assistance because, at each level 
of earnings, a greater amount of the person's income could be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



disregarded and less of the person's income would be used to 
offset the GA grant, thereby resulting in an increase in the 
average grant amount. The table below illustrates, for a 
single individual recipient, the potential costs to the City of 
increasing the income disregard limit. 









Increase in 








Cost to City 




Maximum 


Maximum 


Per Single 


Gross 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Individual 


Monthly 


Under Current 


Under Proposed 


Recipient 


Salarv 


Legislation 


Legislation 


Per Month 


$100 


$345 


$345 


$0 


200 


312 


345 


33 


300 


262 


312 


50 


350 


229 


295 


66 


400 


195 


270 


75 


500 


115 


220 


105 


610 


5 


147 


142 


650 





120 


120 


794 





5 


5 


800 












Mr. Moore advises that of the approximately 564 current GA 
recipients participating in the Income Disregard Program per 
month, approximately 376 persons do not receive a full GA 
grant. The average gross income for these 376 GA recipients 
is approximately $300 per month. As such, the potential cost 
to the City of amending Section 20.57 (h) of the 
Administrative Code to increase the income disregard limit is 
approximately $18,800 per month (376 participants x a 
potential cost per month, per participant of $50, as reflected 
in the table above), or $225,600 annually. 

In addition, DSS advises that the pool of eligible Income 
Disregard Program participants would most likely increase 
as a result of the increased income disregard limit. This 
increase would occur because, under existing legislation, a 
person would be ineligible to receive a grant if his or her 
gross earnings exceeded $610 per month, whereas under the 
proposed legislation, a person earning up to $794 per month 
would still be eligible to receive a GA grant. 

In addition, under the existing legislation, up to $1,500 in 
savings derived from the gross earnings of an employed GA 
recipient may be disregarded during the GA recipient's 
participation in the Income Disregard Program and for up to 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



three months after the GA recipient's participation in the 
Program, if the GA recipient becomes unemployed. The 
proposed legislation would amend this provision by 
increasing the amount of savings which can be disregarded 
when determining the GA recipient's continuing eligibility 
and grant amount from $1,500 to $2,000. 

According to Mr. Moore, this proposed amendment would 
likely increase the City's costs of the GA Program by 
increasing the average length of time that a person would 
receive GA payments. However, as of the writing of this 
report, Mr. Moore was unable to estimate the amount of the 
potential additional costs to the City as a result of this 
provision. 

In summary, according to DSS estimates at this time, the 
potential additional costs of the proposed ordinance to the 
City are $294,600 per year ($69,000 in potential additional 
costs by increasing the personal property limit plus $225,600 
in potential additional costs by increasing the income 
disregard limit). 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Sally Kipper of DSS, DSS supports the 

proposed amendment to clarify the definition of a verifiable 
job search application. In addition, regarding the proposed 
amendment to increase the personal property limit, Ms. 
Kipper advises that DSS supports an increase to $100 as the 
amount of liquid assets that would be exempted from being 
used to offset the monthly GA grant, but does not support the 
proposed increase to $345, which would likely increase the 
costs of the GA Program. 

Furthermore, regarding the proposed increase in the income 
disregard limit, Ms. Kipper advises that DSS does support 
the concept of creating incentives to obtain permanent 
employment and to exit public aid, but that the existing 
Income Disregard Program already costs the City $400,000 
annually. 

2. According to Mr. Ed DeBerri of the St. Anthony 
Foundation, the St. Anthony Foundation concurs with DSS's 
cost estimate of $69,000 resulting from the proposed increase 
in the personal property limit. However, the St. Anthony 
Foundation believes that the proposed amendment 
pertaining to the personal property limit would also generate 
savings to the City of approximately $286,000 per year, as 
the result of a reduction in the GA caseload and in 
administrative costs. Thus, the St. Anthony Foundation 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



estimates a net savings to the City of $217,000 per year 
($286,000 less $69,000) by increasing the personal property 
limit. 

The Budget Analyst concurs with DSS and the St. Anthony 
Foundation in estimating that the increased personal 
property limit would likely cost the City an additional 
$69,000 per year. However, the Budget Analyst agrees with 
DSS in that, in our judgment, it is unlikely that the proposed 
increase in the personal property limit would also generate 
savings to the City that would offset this cost. 

3. In addition, according to Mr. DeBerri, the St. Anthony 
Foundation also concurs with DSS's cost estimate of $225,600 
resulting from the proposed increase in the income disregard 
limit. However, the report by the St. Anthony Foundation 
estimates that the proposed increase in the income disregard 
limit would also generate first-year savings to the City of 
$430,046 by (a) increasing Income Disregard participation; 
(b) increasing the number of GA recipients who report income 
to DSS; and (c) reducing the GA caseload. Thus, the St. 
Anthony Foundation estimates a net savings to the City of 
$204,446 per year ($430,046 less $225,600) by increasing the 
income disregard limit. 

The Budget Analyst concurs with DSS and the St. Anthony 
Foundation in estimating that the increased income 
disregard limit would likely result in additional costs to the 
City of $225,600 per year. The Budget Analyst also concurs 
with DSS and the St. Anthony Foundation in that the 
proposed increase in the income disregard limit could result 
in a savings to the City if it leads to an increase in (a) the 
average monthly earnings of an employed GA recipient; and 
(b) the number of GA recipients participating in the Income 
Disregard Program. However, the Budget Analyst concurs 
with the DSS statement that it is uncertain at this time 
whether or not the proposed increase in the income disregard 
limit would have these two effects. 

4. In summary, the St. Anthony Foundation estimates that 
the City would realize an overall net savings of $421,446 in 
the first year ($217,000 by increasing the personal property 
limit plus $204,446 by increasing the income disregard limit) 
as a result of the proposed ordinance. However, as noted 
above, DSS believes that the proposed ordinance could result 
in potential additional costs to the City of $294,600 annually 
from these two measures. DSS further reports that if the 
proposed ordinance leads to an increase in the average 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



monthly earnings of an employed GA recipient and to an 
increase in the number of GA recipients participating in the 
Income Disregard Program, then the proposed increase in the 
income disregard limit could generate savings for the City. 
However, both the DSS and the Budget Analyst cannot 
conclude with any certainty that GA recipient earnings and 
the number of GA recipients participating in the Income 
Disregard Program would in fact increase. 

5. Attachment 1 is a letter from Mr. Brian Cahill, the 
General Manager of DSS, which compares DSS's cost/benefit 
calculations to the St. Anthony Foundation's cost/benefit 
calculations. 

6. Attachment 2 is a letter from Mr. Stephen Bingham of the 
San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation 
which contains comments regarding DSS's cost/benefit 
calculations. 

7. As of the writing of this report, the St. Anthony 
Foundation had not provided a written explanation of the 
methodology it used in arriving at its cost and savings 
estimates. 

8. According to the Office of the Author, the Author has 
requested that this item be continued to the Budget 
Committee meeting of November 30, 1994. 

Recommendation: As requested by the Author, continue the proposed ordinance 
to the Budget Committee meeting of November 30, 1994. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



WV- 8-94 TUE 16:18 h FAX NO. 4154319270 Attachment 1 

Page 1 of h 

ity and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services 

Brian F. Cahill 
ASSET LIMIT General KUnager 

11/8/94 Assis tant General Managers 

Sally Kippar 
Pat Reynolds 

DSS POSITION: Johnny*, 




* Raising the General Assistance asset limit from $25 to 

$345 would increase costs to the County approximately $70,000. 

* We are willing to raise the asset limit to $100, which would 
raise costs by only approximately $10/000. 

We believe that raising the exemption: 

* increases the number of eligible applicants 

* prolongs the average length of time a client stays on aid. 

* is not likely to result in significant savings. 

CALCULATION OF SAVINGS ; 

* St. Anthony estimates that raising the asset limit would 
save the County $286,000. We disagree. 

St. Anthony's position: 

St. Anthony's savings estimates derive from: 

1) Decrease in staff time on reapplications and hearings 
($22,000). 

2) Clients exiting GA earlier ($264,000) 

St. Anthony estimates 800 clients would exit GA one 
month earlier. 

[ 800 clients * $330 avg grant /mo. - $264,000 ] 

DSS's position: 

1) Staff time. While staff may spend less time on 
reapplications, the County does not save actual dollars. 
Staff will put their time into other activities needed to 
manage the highest caseloads in the Bay Area. 

2) Early exits. We agree with the assumption that 
approximately 800 clients have assets of more than $25 but 
less than $345. However, we believe that liberalizing the? 
program will result in clients remaining on ai d, rather 
than being discontinued. 

There is no evidence to suggest that raioing the asset 
limit will allow anyone to leave public assistance one 

17 



NOV- 8-94 TUE 16:19 A FAX NO. 4154319270 Attachmen t 1 

Page 2 of A 



month early. Current income disregard clients/ who have 
jobs and a somewhat higher standard of living, stay on aid 
the same length of time as other GA clients who do not 
work. And they are allowed to save up to $1,500. The 
Department does not believe that all clients with assets 
between $25 and $345 would be able to leave one month 
early. St. Anthony's estimates assume that every client 
would exit, on average, one month earlier. 



CALCULATION OF COSTS : 

DSS's position: 

* Raising the asset limit allows clients to apply sooner 
and remain on aid longer. 

Approximately 800 clients were denied or discontinued last 
year for assets between $26 and $345. Clients with assets 
greater than $25 are not eligible to apply until the assets 
can be spent down. Under St. Anthony's proposal these clients 
would remain eligible. 

* GA payments are approximately $11.50 a day. 

St. Anthony's position: 

St. Anthony's agrees with the Department's cost estimates. 
Formula - 

1) Determine the number of potential extra days on aid. 

2) Find the average cost / day for early eligibility 

3) Multiply average cost by the estimated number of 
additional people. 

EX: $345 - 25 = $320 $320 / $11.50 = 28 extra days 

Each additional day is $11.50. Assuming an equal 
distribution of clients across days, the average cost is 
the average cost for all days between the 1st and the 28th 
day. 

Sum of the cost of all extra days / total number of extra 
days = average additional cost. Average cost is 
$86.25 

Multiply average cost by the number of additional people. 

$86.25 * 800 = $69,000 




3V- 8-94 TUE 16:20 A FAX NO. 4154319270 Attachment 1 



yity and County of San Francisco Department of Social Services 

^l^-^X Brian F. Cahiil 

General fr'iinager 

fX Assistant General Mutagen 

SAJtV Xjpp^f 

INCOME DISREGARD Pat FkyTiokis 

11/8/9 4 John «. Vara 

DSS POSITION ; 

* The increased cap may produce a cost or savings, depending on 
the number of people in the program and the amount clients 
earn, on average. 

* Much uncertainty surrounds the income disregard program, and 
the Department would prefer to put off raising the disregard 
for a year to see whether the economy continues to grow 
stronger . 

Increasing the income disregard cap 

* would allow clients to retain more of their earnings than they 
can currently at each level of earnings beyond $100. 

* could prolong the length of time some clients stay on aid 
(i.e. those who currently make between $610-$800 are presently 
discontinued for excess income, but would not be if the cap 
goes up) . 

COMPARISON OF COST/ SAVINGS : 

DSS and St. Anthony differ in their approach to calculating 
cost and savings estimates. St. Anthony estimates the County 
will save more than $236,000 by raising the income disregard 
limit. Their estimates are based on projections of 

1) increase in the number of clients participating in 
IDP and 

2) an increase in idp clients who will leave public 
aid 

They estimate that IDP's participation rate will increase 27% 
and the total GA caseload will decrease 151. Both estimates 
appear to be somewhat arbitrary and do not appear to be 
grounded in any substantive data or analytical framework. One 
cannot know whether additional clients will be motivated to 
find jobs or to what extent. 

Because of such uncertainty, DSS's estimates are based on what 
would have to happen to make the disregard program 
cost-neutral. The Department then determined how reasonable 
such scenarios are based on current circumstances. 

The Department conducted an analysis of the current disregard 
program. The results were as follows: 

19 



NOV- 6-94 TUE 16:21 A FAX NO. 4154319270 Attachment 1 

Page 4 of 4 



About 564 people participate in IDP each month 

The average grant for these clients is $290. 

The average wage of IDP clients is $244. 

The average IDP client remained on GA an average of 5 1/2 to 

8 months in a year. 

Of that time, approximately 3-4 1/2 months was spend in 

the income disregard program. 

Approximately 10 clients were discontinued each month for 

excess earnings above $610. 

Approximately 60% of those clients earned more than $800 

a month. Average earnings were $1,050/ mo. 

Those who were discontinued for excess earnings spent 

roughly the same amount of time on aid as other IDP 

clients. 



DSS'S FINDINGS ; 

* To produce savings, the proposal must produce both an increase 
in average earnings, and an increase in the number of 
clients who participate. If one happens without the other, 
it would take an extremely high level of increase to produce 
cost-neutrality. 

* If participation and earnings remain the same, the increase in 
the disregard could increase costs by $225,600. Under the 
proposed change, those who make more than $100 will retain 
more of their earnings and receive a higher grant. 

* There is an additional unknown cost for those clients who 
currently earn between $610 and $800. Based on current 
estimates, for each additional month on aid, these clients 
will cost the County an additional $3,072. 

* There is an additional unknown cost for raising the savings 
limit from $1,500 to $2,000. For each client who is currently 
discontinued because of having savings in excess of $1,500 
(but less than $2,000) the county will pay $345 for each month 
they remain on aid. 



CALCULATIONS ; 

* 564 people participated in IDP 

* 67% of those (or 376) do not receive the full grant 

- their average grant is $262. 

- their average earnings are $299. 

* 33% receive a full grant (of $345) 

* Based on current average earnings, clients who do not receive 
a full grant would receive an increase of $50, on average, in 
their grants. 

Formula - 

376 * $50 * 12 mo's = $225,600 

20 



NOU-09-1994 05:^5 FROM S.F.N.L. A. F. TO 92520461 P. 02 

Attachment 2 
Page 1 of 4 

San Francisco 
■Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation 

GOVERNMENT BENERT8 UNTT 
40 POWELL STREET 
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94102 
TELEPHONE (415) 627-0200 



November 8, 1994 



Harvev M. Rose 
Budget Analyst's Office 
S.F. Board of Supervisors 
1390 Market St., Ste. 1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Re: Item 9 of 10/25/94 Health, Public Safety and 
Environment Committee Meeting, File 97-94-41.1 
(G.A. Allowable Personal Property and Income 

Disregard Program) 

i 

Item 10, File 97-94-41.2 (GA Employer Wage Subsidy 
Program) 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

At your invitation, I am forwarding comments about l the 
cost/benefit calculations furnished by the Department of Social 
Services to you with respect to the above-captioned matter. 

! Your Report of October 25 analyzes the fiscal impact of 
the cited GA reform proposals. In doing so, it cites cost 
estimates provided by DSS although it also notes that these 
estimates are based on assumptions which are not particularly 
reliable or fact-based. The following are comments on 
assumptions made by Antoine Moore of SFDSS which resulted in the 
cost/savings estimates referred to but not endorsed by you. I do 
not attempt to offer alternative costs/savings figures as I do 
not believe this is possible to do so without better tracking of 
GA recipients' work behavior. I only discuss invalid assumptions 
or valid assumptions which were ignored. 

Incom* Disregard Program 

In estimating costs, SFDSS makes a number of unwarranted 
assumptions: 

1. SFDSS assumes that those on IDP will stay on GA the 
same amount of time, regardless of whether the IDP formula is 
liberalized. However, the typical GA recipient may go on and off 

21 



NC"J-39-19S4 09:46 FROM S.F.N.L.ft.F. TO 92520461 P. 03 

Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 4 

aid several times as s/he gets hired/f ired/rehired. Extremely 
low-paying jobs are like that. The types of jobs currently 
unavailable to IDP participants because they pay too much are 
jobs Which are more likely to lead to permanent employment, which 
in turn will result in one having no further need for GA and a 
consequent cost savings for CCSF. 

Furthermore, data might also show a greater effort made 
by relatively marginal employable people to find work, since the 
reward would be greater. It is unfortunate that DSS does not 
keep tihe kind of data which would help us evaluate how the : 
disregard program works, even though the ordinance explicitly 
requires it to do so. 

While I am unaware of national data in the GA area,! 
there 'have been interesting studies showing how AFDC recipient 
work behavior is influenced by how much "work pays." Mark ■ 
Greenberg r one of the Nation's leading welfare reform advocates 
reports the following: 

* A New York experiment liberalizing earned income j 
disregard rules resulted in average monthly earnings which were 
27% higher than a control group.' 

* Michigan's liberalization of the earned income 
disregard rules in 1992 resulted in the percentage of earned 
income cases in the total caseload rising from 15.7% to 23.3%. 

* Utah and Illinois have experienced similar results. 

2. DSS thinks only in terms of total GA grant 
expenditure. Ignored is the fact that because of higher monthly 
income 1 , those on IDP can pay more for rent, thus freeing up • 
scared $260-$280/mo. SRO housing. 

3. The report also ignores that those with more income 
spend imore. Poor people spend 100% of their income. That helps 
the overall economy more than might be expected through the j 
operation of the "multiplier effect" which measures how one ' 
dollar is respect several times, resulting in economic activity 
substantially more valuable than the one dollar itself. 

4. Finally, IDP changes should be viewed in the context 
of the new employer incentive ordinance. This improvement in IDP 
will presumably open up more opportunities for those in IDP to 
move into full-time employment. It might even be possible to set 
up the Employer Wage Subsidy program so that it gives preference 
to those in the IDP. 



1 Hamilton, Curstein, Hargreaves, Moss and Walker, The Nov 
York State Child Assistance Program: Program Impacts, Costs, and 
Benefits (Abt Associates, July 1993) . 

22 



NOU-09- 1 994 0«:47. FROri S.F.N.L.ft.F. TO 92520461 P.0J 

Attachment 2 



Page 3 of 4 



Allowable Personal Property 



Mr. Moore of DSS argues that increasing the asset limit 
will simply mean that somone will be able to apply for GA sooner 
since available resources will not have to be spent down to; $25. 
Consequently, he argues, that person will receive aid longer, the 
period being measured by the number of days earlier s/he can 
apply. 

Such an assumption is absurd. It is at least as 
reasonable to assume that not requiring someone to go into utter 
destitution before applying for GA will result in that person 
being able to stablilize his/her situation sooner and 
consequently leave the GA program, thus saving CCSF money. At 
SFNLAF we have seen clients who are evicted because they have 
used up all of their resources before being able to apply for GA 
and are unable to pay their rent. While SFDSS regulations permit 
the issuance to the landlord of an emergency rent check if such a 
situation is imminent, many GA applicants are unaware of such a 
possibility -and consequently do not alert their intake workers. 

Wage Subsidy Program 

I have only one comment to make since there seems little 
disagreement that this program is worthwhile. Your report noted 
the calculations of SFDSS with respect to a reduction by four 
months in the amount of time someone receives GA. There is in 
fact absolutely no Way at the present time to estimate how many 
people will receive GA for what lessened amount of time. As I 
said at the hearing, this will depend entirely on the response 
from the employer community. We can easily figure what the 
savings would be if someone receives X months less of GA. But 
that doesn't teach us anything useful. 

What is important to emphasize is that national studies 
consistently indicate that the longer an unemployed person 
remains without work, the less job ready s/he is and consequently 
the less likely to find work. This is the case of many GA 
clients. A number of them have exhausted their 26 weeks of 
Unemployment Insurance Benefits and are at a critical stage:, if 
unable to find work relatively quickly, their employability 
decreases rapidly. The wage subsidy program is valuable 
precisely because it targets this population. 

Conclusion 

I hope these comments help illustrate why the additional 
costs to CCSF projected by SFDSS are wildly speculative and that 
alternative assumptions which should be made about client 
behavior strongly suggest important savings to the General Fund. 
I am not of course able to guarantee that such savings will 
results, only that analogous studies suggest such savings. Until 
SFDSS is better able to track how behavior varies depending on 
the IDP and asset limit formulae, it is unwise to rely on 

23 



NOU-09-1994 09- - 48 FROM S.F.N.L.fi.F. 



TO 



92520461 P. 05 

Attachment 2 
Page A of 4 



untested assumptions. The figures which were calculated by St. 
Anthony's for the IDP suggest that instead there may be 
substantial savings to CCSF from these reforms. Only employer 
interest in the wage subsidy program will limit the amount of 
savings which that program could create. 

Thank you for including these comments in your report to 
the Committee. 




!ephen| Bingtt 
Staff Attorney 



cc. Brian Cahill, SFDSS 



[migdletl.sbw] 



24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 15, 1994 

Item 8- File 30-94-25 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution authorizing the adoption of the County 
description of the proposed expenditures of California 
Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) funds for Fiscal 
Year 1994-95, and that the Chairperson or duly authorized 
representative of the Board of Supervisors can certify the 
County description of the proposed expenditure of CHIP 
funds for fiscal year 1994-95. 

In October of 1989, the DPH began its implementation of 
State AB 75, the Proposition 99/Tobacco Tax Bill. State AB 
75 created the California Healthcare for Indigents Program 
(CHIP) to provide counties with funds for the provision and 
expansion of health care services to medically indigent 
adults. 

Local CHIP funds are used to reimburse participating county 
hospitals, and non-county hospitals, for inpatient, outpatient 
and emergency services and participating private physicians 
for emergency, obstetric and pediatric services provided to 
indigent persons. The DPH advises that State regulations 
require that the City submit to the State, on an annual basis, 
a description of the proposed expenditure of the CHIP funds. 
The DPH reports for FY 1994-95, the City will receive an 
allocation totaling $9,404,699 in CHIP funds as follows: 



County Hospitals 
Non-County Hospitals 
Physician Services 
Other Health Services 
Total 



$6,258,375 

570,808 

720,832 

1.854.684 

$9,404,699 



The total amount of $9,404,699 reflects a decrease of $176 
from the originally anticipated grant amount of $9,404,875, 
which the Board of Supervisors previously approved (File 
146-94-22). According to Mr. Jeff Leong of DPH, the State 
revised its allocation formula which resulted in a decreased 
amount for San Francisco for FY 1994-95. 

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) has been designated 
as the City's recipient of CHIP funds earmarked for county 
hospitals. As noted above, for FY 1994-95, the total amount 
available for expenditure by SFGH is $6,258,375. Under 
DPH's proposed expenditure plan for these funds, $5,879,373 
or 94% of the $6,258,375 allotted to SFGH would be 
allocated to pay for indigent health care services and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 15, 1994 



$379,002 or 6% would be used to pay for administrative costs 
directly related to the CHIP program. 

The total amount available for expenditure for non-county 
hospitals is $571,475 ($570,808 plus $667 from prior year 
interest). The DPH reports that under the Department's 
proposed expenditure plan, 49.9 percent or $285,404 of the 
CHIP non-county hospital funds will be allocated to the City's 
ten local non-county hospitals on the basis of a formula. The 
remaining $286,071 or 50.1 percent of these funds will be 
allocated by the DPH under a discretionary category. The 
formula allocation is based on the State Office of Statewide 
Health Planning and Development's (OSHPD) 
uncompensated health care data, collected from all non- 
county hospitals statewide. Under State regulations all local 
non-county hospitals are entitled to a share of the formula 
allocation based on each hospitals level of uncompensated 
health care costs. 

The 50.1 percent balance of $286,071 in CHIP discretionary 
funds are not required by State regulations to be allocated to 
all non-county hospitals. Therefore, the DPH has the 
discretion to allocate these funds to one or more non-county 
hospitals for the provision of health care services to indigent 
persons, as it deems appropriate. However, DPH intends to 
allocate the $286,071 by reimbursing all ten non-county 
hospitals and pay for the associated costs as follows: 

Non- county Hospitals* $254,677 
Professional Services Contract: 

Medicus Systems Corporation (see Comment) 26,981 

DPH Administrative Cost 4.413 

Total $286,071 

* The ten non-county hospitals include (1) California Pacific 
Medical Center - California Campus, (2) California Pacific 
Medical Center - Pacific Campus, (3) Chinese Hospital, (4) 
Davies Medical Center, (5) Medical Center at the University 
of California, San Francisco, (6) Pacific Coast Hospital, (7) St. 
Francis Memorial Hospital, (8) St. Luke's Hospital, (9) St. 
Mary's Hospital and Medical Center and (10) University of 
California - San Francisco/ Mt. Zion. 

In accordance with State regulations, the DPH has 
established an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) account 
and a New Contracts Physician Services account for the 
receipt and deposit of the CHIP Physician Services funds. Of 
the $720,832 allocated for physician services for 1994-95, 
$608,832 or 84.5 percent would be deposited to the EMS 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 15, 1994 



Comment: 



account and $112,000, or 15.5 percent would be deposited to 
the New Contracts Physician Services account. 

DPH reports that the total amount available in the EMS 
account for FY 1994-95 is $610,627 ($608,832 plus $1,795 
from prior year interest). Under DPH's proposed expenditure 
plan, the $610,627 would be expended as follows: 

Physician Services $549,744 
Physician Contract Services: 

Medicus Systems Corporation (see Comment) 38,901 

DPH Administrative Costs 21 r 982 

Total $610,627 

The DPH advises that the total amount available in the New 
Contracts Physician Services account is $112,000. The 
DPH's proposed expenditure plan provides for the 
expenditure of the $112,000 as follows: 



Physician Services 

Child Health and Disability 

Prevention Treatment Services 
DPH Administrative Costs 
Total 



$79,200 

21,600 

11.200 

$112,000 



According to the DPH, the total amount available under the 
CHIP Other Health Services category for FY 1994-95 is 
$1,854,684. Under DPH's proposed expenditure plan, 
$1,742,366 or 94 percent would be used to pay for inpatient, 
outpatient and emergency care services to indigent patients 
at SFGH and the remaining $112,318 or 6 percent would pay 
for SFGH and DPH Central Office Administrative costs 
associated with the CHIP program. 

The DPH advises that it would continue to contract with 
Medicus Systems Corporation for the provision of fiscal 
intermediary services for the participating non-county 
hospitals and private physicians. These services include the 
receipt, processing and payment of claims in connection with 
the CHIP program. In addition to the fiscal intermediary 
services, Medicus Systems would continue to be responsible 
for provider relations, information dissemination and data 
reporting, and would assist the DPH in the CHIP program 
management. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

Item 9 -File 65-94-1.1 

1. The proposed ordinance would request approval of a sixth amendment to 
the Stadium Lease between the City and County of San Francisco (by and through 
the Recreation and Park Commission) and the San Francisco Giants. The 
existing lease expires on April 1, 1995. The sections of the existing lease that 
would be amended by this proposed ordinance are discussed below. 

2. Term: The existing lease expires April 1, 1995. This proposed lease 

amendment would extend the term of the lease to the last day of the 
Baseball season (or Championship Schedule, if any) that occurs in 
1999 unless terminated sooner (see below). The lease can be extended 
on a year-to-year basis for five additional years at the option of the 
tenant (the San Francisco Giants) to the last day of the Baseball 
season (or Championship Schedule, if any) that occurs in 2004. 

3. Early Termination: When the second amendment to the Giants' 

Candlestick lease was approved in August, 1989, an early 
termination clause was inserted which allowed the Giants to convert 
the remainder of the term of the original lease to five one-year 
options. This was permitted under the amended lease because 
Proposition P, a ballot measure for a new ballpark at China Basin, 
was defeated by the voters in November, 1989. 

Under this proposed lease amendment, the prior early termination 
provision is deleted and a new early termination provision is added to 
the lease. This sixth amendment to the lease would permit the 
Giants to terminate the lease effective October 31 of any year upon the 
submission of the written intent to do so by the Giants as of July 1 of 
the calendar year in which they intend to terminate the lease. 

This lease amendment further provides that, in the event the Giants 
give written notice to the City to terminate the lease, the Giants shall, 
for at least 120 days after giving such notice, consider offers from 
persons who wish to acquire the Giants franchise and who have 
indicated their intention to keep the Giants in the San Francisco Bay 
Area. According to Mr. Jack Bair, Director of Legal and 
Governmental Affairs for the Giants, this provision will benefit the 
City in that the Giants cannot be sold or relocated without providing 
an opportunity for the City to find a buyer that will keep the Giants in 
San Francisco. In 1992, the owner of the Giants sold the team to 
interests in Florida without consulting the City and, because of an 
exclusivity arrangement with the prospective buyers, the Giants' 
owner was not permitted to negotiate with other local buyers. 

4. Stadium Club Operation: The current lease provides that the San Francisco 

Giants has the exclusive right to operate the "club and restaurant" 
(the Stadium Club) during the baseball season and Championship 
Schedule, if any, and the football season, and that the City and 

Board of Supe rvisors 
Budget Analyst 

28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

County may make arrangements with the San Francisco Giants 
during the balance of the year for City operation of the Stadium Club. 

The proposed lease amendment would provide that the City and 
County would not have the right to make arrangements for operation 
of the Stadium Club on the day before, the day of, or the day after the 
date for which there is a scheduled football game (other than the 
Super Bowl); that the City and County would either use the Giants' 
Stadium Club concessionaire (Butler Catering) for operation of the 
Stadium Club or pay the concessionaire a fee of $200 for each day of 
use of the Stadium Club. 

According to Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation and Park 
Department, this new language is consistent with the current lease, 
in that the Giants operate the Stadium Club for football games, but 
would permit the City to operate the Stadium Club for the Super Bowl 
in January, 1999. 

5. Rent Credits for Stadium Operator Admission Taxes - The proposed lease 

amendment entitles the Giants to a rent credit for any Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax imposed on tickets for baseball games 
played after April 1, 1995. The current Temporary Stadium 
Admission Tax for school sports programs is excepted from this rent 
credit provision. 

According to Mr. Arnold, this added language would cost the City 
approximately $80,000 annually based on current Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax receipts from the Giants on a full season basis for 
tickets costing $25.02 or more, which are taxed at a rate of $1.50 per 
ticket, and for tickets sold for any baseball game at which paid 
attendance exceeds 42,500 (which are taxed at a rate of $ 0.50 per 
ticket). 

6. Rent Credits for Tenant Improvements - The proposed lease amendment 

also permits rent credits for "Qualified Improvements" paid for by the 
Giants after the end of the 1994 Baseball season. Qualified 
improvements is defined as: 

... renewals, replacements, alterations, revisions, repairs, 
additions or other capital improvements to the premises of 
every nature or description (including, without limitation, 
equipment used in the operation, maintenance or repair of the 
premises) which are first approved in writing by the 
(Recreation and Park) Commission;... 

In addition, the Giants will be entitled to rent credits up to $50,000 per 
improvement for all qualified improvements that have been approved 
by the Recreation and Park Department General Manager or her 
designee, without Recreation and Park Commission approval. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

7. Parking - The original lease provided the Giants with 100 parking spaces at 

Candlestick Park in designated areas at no charge to the Giants. For 
the past several years however, the Giants have set aside 603 parking 
spaces for this purpose. The original lease was subsequently 
amended and the Giants became the parking lot operator, with the 
City realizing no revenue from the parking operation during the 
Baseball season. 

This proposed amendment will provide the Giants with the same 603 
"non-revenue" free parking spaces in specific areas of Candlestick 
Park. The amendment also provides that the Giants may use a 
specific parking area (known as "Area C) which includes 250 of the 
603 set aside parking spaces, for other promotional purposes during 
special events such as opening day. During such events, the Giants 
would then be permitted to use an additional 250 parking spaces, 
which would be removed from revenue service. For such special 
events, the City would therefore not receive the 25% Parking Tax on 
the parking spaces which would be removed from revenue service. 
The estimated loss of Parking Tax revenue would be approximately 
$350 per special event. 

8. Police Security - It is the current practice for the Giants to pay for Police 

Department uniformed officers inside the stadium during baseball 
games. This practice was begun approximately ten years ago by the 
previous Giants ownership to assure improvements to internal 
security. However, the existing lease requires that the City pay for 
uniformed security inside Candlestick Park during baseball games. 

This proposed lease amendment adds language that the Giants shall 
bear the reasonable cost of uniformed police up to an amount agreed 
in writing between the Police Department and the Giants. 

Currently, the Giants pay for such police services in an amount that 
is negotiated with the Chief of Police, but not put into a written 
agreement. Police Officers who provide such service are paid 
overtime wages by the City but the Giants' negotiated reimbursement 
to the City is typically less than the City's actual cost. The difference 
between the payment by the Giants and the cost to the City over the 
last full Baseball season was $275,742 for inside-the-park uniformed 
Police security (the cost to the City was $595,560 while the Giants 
reimbursed the City only $319,818). The net cost to the City of $275,742 
was a General Fund expenditure. 

While the Police Department has informed the Budget Analyst that 
this cost of $275,742 was incurred by the General Fund, Mr. Bair has 
stated that it is his understanding that the Giants have paid the 
Police Department whatever costs were included in the invoices 
which the Police Department submitted to the Giants. Nevertheless, 
it is the representation of Lt. Ryan of the Police Department that the 

hoard of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

City's General Fund pays for some of the security services provided 
by the Police Department at Candlestick Park. 

The negotiated amount paid by the Giants for police security in the 
stadium in prior years has been less than the actual cost to the City. 
While the proposed language in this lease amendment states that the 
Giants shall "bear the reasonable cost" of uniformed Police, this 
proposed language does not assure that the City will be reimbursed 
for its actual cost. 

9. Coordination of Baseball and Football Schedules - Because the Giants are 
the primary tenant for Candlestick Park, the Giants have scheduling 
priority at times when the Baseball and Football schedules overlap. 
Also, when Candlestick Park is used for an event other than Baseball 
during the Baseball season, such as a Football game, the field must 
be returned to the Giants in a normal condition within 36 hours prior 
to any date designated for use of the Stadium by the Giants during the 
season (the "thirty-six hour rule"). 

This proposed lease amendment would add a provision that the 
Giants would cause Major League Baseball to avoid scheduling any 
games at Candlestick Park for at least two weekends in August, two 
weekends in September and one weekend in October when 49er 
games are played at Candlestick Park. Also, the Giants have agreed 
to cause Major League Baseball to avoid scheduling games in such a 
manner that would result in the 49ers being required to play more 
than three consecutive weekends on the road. The Giants have 
further agreed to cause Major League Baseball to avoid scheduling a 
game within a 42 hour window before and after the scheduled start 
and conclusion of a weekend football game in order to provide 
additional time for conversion of Candlestick Park seating from a 
baseball configuration to a football configuration, and to waive the 
"thirty six hour rule" of the original lease. Lastly, the Giants have 
agreed to pay for any incremental cost associated with an expedited 
conversion of Candlestick Park from a baseball configuration to a 
football configuration should a baseball game be scheduled within the 
42 hour window. 

According to Mr. Arnold, this added coordination with the 49ers 
football schedule will prevent the 49ers from seeking an alternative 
venue for home football games during the Baseball season. The loss 
of a football game at Candlestick Park results in the loss of 
approximately $400,000 in total revenue consisting of stadium rent, 
Stadium Operator Admission Tax, Parking Revenue and Parking 
Taxes. Mr. Arnold states that this has happened once, during the 
1993 football exhibition season, when the 49ers played an exhibition 
game at Stanford Stadium due to the baseball schedule. According to 
Mr. Bair however, this was not a result of a scheduling conflict, and 
Candlestick Park was available to the 49ers for that home game. 

board of Sup ervisors 
Budget Analyst 

31 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

Comments: 1. In summary, the following lease amendments appear to be 
favorable to the City: 

• The term of the lease would be extended for five years, 
with an option, exercised at the Giants' discretion, for 
up to another five years. 

• The City and County would have the right to operate the 
Stadium Club, and thus realize additional revenue, 
during the January, 1999 Super Bowl. 

• The payment by the Giants to the City for uniformed 
Police security inside the stadium during baseball 
games would become a formal provision of the lease. 
Although the Giants have paid negotiated amounts for 
this service in the past, it was not incorporated in the 
writing in the original lease agreement. 

• The improved coordination of baseball and football 
schedules should prevent the loss of a 49ers football 
game during the baseball season due to the 
unavailability of Candlestick Park which would cost the 
City approximately $400,000 in total revenue per football 
game. 

• The agreement by the Giants to avoid scheduling of a 
baseball game within 42 hours of a football game and the 
waiver of the "thirty-six hour" rule will permit the 
orderly reconfiguration of Candlestick Park without 
unnecessary expense such as additional overtime wages 
or temporary labor. Also, should an accelerated 
conversion be required by the Giants, the Giants would 
be responsible for the incremental cost to the City. 

2. The following lease amendments appear to be more favorable to 
the Giants: 

• The current Early Termination Provision granted to the 
Giants in the 1989 lease amendment is continued 
through the year 1999 and through the year 2004 if the 
Giants exercise their five, one-year options. However, 
the City would now have 120 days notice to attempt to 
find a buyer for the franchise that would keep the Giants 
in San Francisco. The lease amendment does not 
specifically state that the Giants will be required to 
accept such an offer. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget analyst 

32 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



The Giants will be able to claim approximately $80,000 
annually in Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenue 
as a rent credit. 

The Giants will also be able to claim rent credits for 
"qualified improvements" with approval by the 
Recreation and Park Commission only; and by the 
General Manager of Recreation and Park Department if 
the improvement is valued at $50,000 or less. Therefore, 
under this proposed amendment, the Giants can receive 
rent credits for an unlimited number and an unlimited 
amount of improvements to Candlestick Park, subject to 
the City's funding availability for payment to the Giants 
in the form of rent credits. Such rent credits to 
reimburse the Giants for improvements to Candlestick 
Park would be made without being subject to approval of 
the Board of Supervisors. 

The Giants would be able to remove 250 parking spaces 
from revenue production during special events such as 
opening day, resulting in the loss of approximately $350 
in Parking Taxes per special event to the City's General 
Fund. It is unlikely, according to Mr. Bair, that such 
special events would occur more than five times a year. 

While the Giants have agreed to pay the "reasonable 
cost" of uniformed Police providing security inside 
Candlestick Park during baseball games, such payment 
will be based on a negotiated agreement between the 
Giants and the Police Department. Under this wording, 
there is no assurance that the City will be reimbursed 
the full cost of such Police services. In 1993, the last full 
Baseball season, as a result of the Giants not 
reimbursing the City for the total security costs provided 
by the Police Department, the net cost to the City's 
General Fund for such services was approximately 
$275,000. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



n 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



3. The Budget Analyst considers the lease provision allowing the 
Giants to terminate the lease early at any time during the term 
of the proposed agreement to be a significant policy decision for 
the Board of Supervisors. The City's General Fund would lose 
an estimated $2.0 million annually comprised of such revenues 
as Payroll Taxes, Sales Taxes, Parking Taxes and Stadium 
Operator Admission Taxes, as previously estimated by the 
Budget Analyst in a December, 1992 report to the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Recommendation: The Budget Analyst recommends that the proposed sixth 
amendment to the Stadium Lease between the City and the 
Giants be amended as follows : 

• Do not grant rent credits to the Giants for Stadium 
Operator Admission Taxes and tenant improvements. 
Granting rent credit to the Giants for the Stadium 
Operator Admission Taxes imposed on tickets would 
cost the City an estimated $80,000 annually. Granting 
rent credits to the Giants for tenant improvements, 
without approval of the Board of Supervisors, could 
result in an unlimited cost to the City, subject to funding 
availability, and subject to approval by the Recreation 
and Park Commission or the General Manager of the 
Recreation and Park Department. 

• Insert a requirement that Giants payments for Police 
security services provided at Candlestick Park during 
the Baseball season are to be made in an amount 
equivalent to the full costs of such Police services borne 
by the City. Such a requirement would result in 
estimated increased payments to the City of $275,000 
annually which is the amount now being absorbed by the 
City's General Fund. 

The fact that this proposed sixth amendment to the Stadium 
Lease between the City and the Giants is a product of 
negotiation between the Giants and the Recreation and Park 
Commission makes implementation of the Budget Analyst's 
recommendations specified above to be policy matters for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

34 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

Item 10 - File 30-94-24 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

Item: Draft resolution urging the Department of Public Health 

(DPH) to request and urging the Mayor to approve a 
supplemental appropriation of $400,000 for FY 1994-95 to 
restore the Offender Programs at the Center for Special 
Problems and to assure that the Offender Programs continue 
to be administered by the Department of Public Health. 

Description: In June of 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a 

resolution (File 100-94-9) urging the Mayor to include $800,000 
in his FY 1994-95 budget proposal in order to restore the 
Offender Programs at the Center for Special Problems, which 
had been scheduled to be eliminated on July 1, 1994 because of 
budget reductions. However, a source of funding, overbudgeted 
premium pay for Police Officers, in the amount of $400,000 
was identified by the Budget Committee of the Board of 
Supervisors, thereby enabling the Offender Programs at the 
Center for Special Problems to continue offering services for 
the first six months of FY 1994-95 (July 1, 1994 through 
December 31, 1994). The Offender Programs are scheduled to 
be discontinued on January 1, 1995 unless additional funding 
is identified. 

The Offender Programs at the Center for Special Problems 
provide psychiatric treatment and case management to 
assaultive and violent mentally ill offenders who are Court- 
ordered to receive treatment, to adults who sexually abuse 
children, and HrV services to these foregoing populations. 
There are approximately 290 persons currently enrolled in the 
Offender Programs. 

In order to continue the programs through the end of the fiscal 
year (June 30, 1995), the proposed resolution would urge DPH 
to request and the Mayor to approve a supplemental 
appropriation in the amount of $400,000 for the Offender 
Programs at the Center for Special Problems. Specifically, the 
$400,000 request would fund permanent salaries and operating 
costs for the programs, from January 1, 1995 through June 30, 
1995 (six months), as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 



Personnel: 

No. of 
Classification Positions 

1424 Clerk Typist (vacant) 1 $14,068 

1426 Senior Clerk Typist (vacant) 1 16,939 

2932 Senior Psychiatric Social 

Worker (one vacant position) 2 41,989 

2930 Psychiatric Social Worker 

(one vacant position) 2 53,597 

2232 Senior Physician Specialist 

(vacant) 1 52,565 

2574 Clinical Psychologist 1 38,775 

2593 Health Program Coordinator 1 14,694 

2736 Porter (vacant) _1 15.542 

Subtotal - Salaries 10 $216,891* 

Fringe Benefits (25.0%) 54.223 

Total - Personnel $271,114** 

Operating Expenses: 

Professional Services $29,048 

Other Non-Personal Services 

(inc. rent, phone, etc.) 95,338 

Materials and Supplies 3,000 

Reproduction 1.500 

Total - Operating Expenses 128.886 

Total Estimated Cost $400,000 

According to Dr. James Kent, the Medical Director of the 
Center for Special Problems, if additional funding is not 
identified, it may be necessary to lay off one or two employees. 
Dr. Kent advises that any employees laid off would have Civil 
Service bumping rights. In addition, Dr. Kent advises that the 
Offender Programs would be able to operate only at a 
significantly lower level of service if additional funding were 
not identified. 



The correct total of the 10 positions listed above for six months is $248,169. According to Mr. Larry 
Doyle of DPH's Mental Health Division, DPH would not fund all ten of these positions, which would 
cost $248,169 for six months, but would allocate $216,891 to fund the four currently occupied 
positions and some of the six vacant positions. As of the writing of this report, DPH was not certain 
which of these ten positions would be funded with the $216,891. 

In DPH's FY 1994-95 budget request, DPH reduced permanent salaries and fringe benefits for the 
Offender Programs by $618,254. The Mayor then restored $347,140 of that amount for salaries and 
fringe benefits for the Offender Programs for six months. The difference of the $271,114 request 
above for salaries and fringe benefits represents the unrestored balance for salaries and fringe 
benefits for the Offender Programs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 16, 1994 

According to Mr. Doyle, as of the writing of this report, no 
alternative sources of funding had been identified that would 
prevent the discontinuance of the Offender Programs on 
January 1, 1995. Mr. Doyle advises that if DPH submits a 
supplemental appropriation request to the Mayor's Office, the 
source of funds would likely be the General Fund Reserve. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Monique Zmuda, the Director of Business and 

Operations in DPH's Mental Health Division, advises that 
Offender Programs services at the Center for Special Problems 
are provided as a result of a Court-order and as a condition of 
parole, or as an alternative to incarceration. According to 
DPH's Mental Health Division, there is no other organization 
in the City that provides Offender Programs' services. Thus, if 
DPH eliminates the Offender Programs, there is no immediate 
alternative program to which the Court can send mentally ill 
offenders. The clients referred to the Offender Programs by 
the Courts would either not be released, or would be released 
to the community without the Offender Programs' services. 

2. According to Dr. Kent, the Offender Programs at the Center 
for Special Problems have a two percent recidivism rate, 
compared to 30 percent for individuals released and untreated. 
In addition, DPH reports that the treatment offered by the 
Offenders Programs costs the City $1,212 per person per year, 
compared to $100,000 per person per year for State 
hospitalization of the same mentally ill individual, or $23,000 
per person per year for incarceration in County jail, in addition 
to the costs of arrests, prosecutions and victim care. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 16, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Ttem 11 - File 101-94-28 



Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 9, 1994. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DP W) 

Ordinance appropriating and rescinding $300,000, 
Department of Public Works, Capital Projects, transferring 
monies from the North Point Treatment Plant Project to the 
Bay Area/San Joaquin Valley Water Reuse Project. 

$300,000 

1976 Sewer Revenue Bond Funds 

In 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution No. 
474-92, directing that the Chief Administrative Officer and 
the Public Utilities Commission study the feasibility of 
exporting recycled water from the Bay Area for agriculture, 
habitat improvement, and other beneficial uses. No funding 
for the feasibility study was identified in that resolution. The 
DPW has now identified $300,000 in unspent sewer bond 
funds originally appropriated in Fiscal Year 1993-94 for 
engineering studies of the City's Northpoint Treatment 
Plant. According to Mr. Mike Quan of the DPW, the Bureau 
of Engineering did not spend those funds for engineering 
studies because it was determined that the Northpoint 
Treatment Plant instead requires extensive repair and 
construction work that will cost approximately $20 million. 
Funds for this repair and construction were recently 
approved by the voters as part of the Sewer Service Bonds 
proposition passed on November 8, 1994. 

Therefore, this proposed ordinance would reallocate the 
$300,000 from 1976 Sewer Revenue Bond Funds appropriated 
in FY 1993-94 for the Northpoint Treatment Plant Project to 
the Bay Area Water/San Joaquin Reuse Project for a 
feasibility study pertaining to export of recycled water from 
the Bay Area. 

The feasibility study will address the following major issues: 

a) Development of a system for recycling and exporting 
wastewater through the Delta-Mendota Canal to the San 
Joaquin Valley for agricultural uses. The feasibility study 
will also consider the option of exporting water to other areas. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 16, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



b) Development of a water exchange system within the water 
export system by which San Francisco and other urban water 
agencies may be able to gain potable water for their future 
needs, and by which Delta water could be reserved to protect 
habitat and wildlife in the Delta and Bay. 

c) How water recycling and export could help San Francisco 
meet the terms of a Cease and Desist Order from the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board to stop wet weather 
overflows of treated wastewater into the Bay from the City's 
Islais Creek facility. 

d) How water recycling and export could help meet San 
Francisco's other needs for future disposal of treated 
wastewater. A successful wastewater recycling and export 
system could preclude the City from having to build costly 
additional facilities to transport wastewater from the east 
side of San Francisco to an ocean outfall on the west side, and 
could help the City meet more stringent Federal and State 
water quality requirements for Bay discharges which are 
expected in the near future. 

The proposed feasibility study has been recommended for 
approval by the City's Capital Improvement Advisory 
Committee; consisting of the CAO, Controller, and Staff 
Director, plus the Directors or General Managers of the 
Departments of Public Health, Planning, Recreation and 
Park, Public Works, Property, Public Utilities, Port, and 
Airport. 

The proposed feasibility study would be carried out by existing 
DPW staff who are presently funded by Sewer Revenue Bond 
funds. Such staff would be reassigned to the Bay Area/San 
Joaquin Valley Water Reuse Project, and funded by the 1976 
Sewer Revenue Bond funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 16, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Budget 



The proposed budget for the feasibility study, which would be 
for an 18 month period, is as follows: 



Class Position 



Davs 



Rate/Day Total 



5506 Project Manager II 

5249 Sr. Sanitary Engineer 

5246 Sanitary Engineer 

5210 Sr. Civil Engineer 

5208 Civil Engineer 

5206 Assoc. Civil Engineer 

1360 Special Assistant 

Subtotal Labor 

Overhead (116% of labor) 
Materials 

TOTAL 



140 


338 


$47,320 




20 


308 


6,160 




100 


266 


26,600 




20 


308 


6,160 




80 


266 


21,280 




80 


230 


18,400 




50 


204 


10,200 


136,120 

157,880 
6.000 



$300,000 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 




[arvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Hsieh 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Maher 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Shelley 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



MINUTES DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

BUDGET COMMITTEE AUG 2 7 1996 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS qAN cranCiSCO 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO p UBLtc LIBRARY 

VVEDNESDAY.^NOVEMBER 30. 1994 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 
MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, ALIOTO, BIERMAN 
ACTING CLERK: GREGOIRE HOBSON 



TIME MEETING CONVENED: 2:17 P.M. 



File 172-94-40 . [Contract, DPH-Deloitte & Touche] Resolution authorizing the 
contract between the City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public 
Health, and Deloitte & Touche to provide operational and financial consulting 
services; companion measure to File 101-94-2.6. (Department of Public Health) 
(Continued from 11/9) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Dr. Sandra Hernandez, Director, Department of Public Health; Teresa Serata, 
Mayor's Office; Monill Zamuda. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: Josie Mooney, 
SEIU. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Add a 
further resolve clause to read: That the contractor's contingency 
payments be capped at 200 percent of actual billable costs incurred by 
the contractor in performing services under the contract. AMENDED 
TITLE: Approving the form and authorizing the execution and approval 
of a contract between the City and County of San Francisco Department 
of Public Health and Deloitte & Touche LLP to provide operational and 
financial consulting services; providing a cap on contractor's contingency 
payments. (Add Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0 



3UDGET COMMITTEE Page 2 



File 101-94-2.6 . [Amendment, Annual Appropriation Ordinance 1994-95] Ordinance 
amending the administrative provisions of the 1994-95 Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance by adding Section 23.1 whereby a percentage of cost savings or previously 
unrecognized revenues realized by contract services is appropriated to the extent 
necessary to pay contract amount due; companion measure to File 172-94-40. 
(Department of Public Health) 
(Continued from 11/9) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Dr. Sandra Hernandez, Director, Department of Public Health; Teresa Serata, 
Mayor's Office; Monill Zamuda. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: Josie Mooney, 
SEIU. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (Add Supervisor Alioto as 
co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Page 3 



File 97-94-41.1 . [General Assistance Property Level/Income Disregard) Ordinance 

amending the Administrative Code by amending Sections 20.56.10 and 20.57 relating 

to General Assistance Allowable personal property and income disregard. 

(Supervisors Migden, Alioto, Bierman) 

(Continued from 11/16) 

(Transferred from October 25 meeting of Health. Public Safety & Environment 

Committee due to FISCAL IMPACT) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Daisey Gordon, representing 
Supervisor Carole Migden; Brian Cahill, General Manager, Department of Social 
Services; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. IN SUPPORT: Jean ZarBrooks, President, 
St. Anthony Foundation; Susan Slider; Steve Leone; Terrence O'Connor; Barry 
Hermanson, President, Upper Market Merchants; Ed DeBerri, St. Anthony 
Foundation. OPPOSED: Mark Rodeman, Community Partnership. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. On 

Page 8, add a Section 3 to read: Review of Effects of Implementation of 
This Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors requests that the Department 
of Social Services provide a written, informational report to the Budget 
Committee of the Board of Supervisors by July 31, 1995. This report 
shall review the effects of the implementation of this ordinance. The 
Department of Social Services shall provide an additional written report 
to the Budget Committee by January 31, 1996. This second report shall 
also review the effects of the implementation of this ordinance. The 
Budget Committee shall conduct a formal review of the effects of the 
implementation of this ordinance following the Committee's receipt of 
the second report from the Department of Social Services. The Budget 
Committee should keep in mind during its consideration of these two 
reports, that many of the costs that will be incurred in the 
implementation of this ordinance will be incurred during the first six (6) 
months this ordinance is in effect, and that most of the General 
Assistance Program exits that may result from the implementation of 
this ordinance will occur after the first six (6) months this ordinance is in 
effect. The Board of Supervisors requests the Department of Social 
Services to work with the St. Anthony Foundation in developing criteria 
to be used in determining and evaluating the effect of the 
implementation of this ordinance. AMENDED TITLE: "Amending the 
San Francisco Administrative Code by amending Sections 20.56.10 and 
20.57 (General Assistance Ordinance) relating to allowable personal 
property and to income disregard; establishing a process to review the 
effects of the implementation of this ordinance." 

VOTE: 2-1. Supervisor Alioto absent. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Pa 6 e 4 



File 79-94-2 . [1995 Community Development Block Grant Funds] Resolution 
approving the 1995 Community Development Program, authorizing the Mayor, on 
behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to apply for, receive, and expend the 
City's 1995 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement from the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, transfer and expend reprogrammed 
and reserved funds from prior year Community Development Programs and program 
income generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $29,955,061, 
which include indirect costs of $120,000; approving expenditure schedules for 
recipient departments and agencies and for indirect costs, and, determining no 
environmental evaluation is required, authorizing the receipt and deposit in 
contingencies of 1995 CDBG entitlement funds in excess of $24,166,000. (Mayor's 
Office of Community Development) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Larry del Carlo, Director, Mayor's Office of Community Development; Lori 
Schwartz, Chairperson, Advisory Committee on Community Development. IN 
SUPPORT: Faye Lacy representing Joe Lacy; John King; Cynthia Bennett, 
Innovative Housing. OPPOSED: Larry Johnson Reid, OMI Community Recreation 
Center; Charles Rathborne, Housing Committee; Lester Olmsted Rose, Community 
United Against Violence; Diane Chin, Intergroup Clearinghouse; Ira Glasser; Mr. 
Saki, Samona Affairs; Tony Hollister, Samona Affairs; Carla Valentino, Samona 
Affairs; Sue Vananto, Somona Affairs; Michael Ma, Chinatown Resource Center; 
Edith Lim Chinatown Resource Center; Robert Pender, SF Tenants Network; Rod 
Amos, Mariposa Youth Leadership; C. Zinter, Somona mo Somona; Olin Silin, YMCA; 
Connie Kalbaker; Alexander Allete. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 
Amended to fund the following: AIDS/HIV Life Center increase by 
$93,000; YMCA Youth for Service add $30,000; Tide Foundation/The 
Housing Committee add $25,000; Chinatown Resource Center add 
$30,000 and Intergroup Clearing house add $25,000. Correct clerical error 
to change $120,000 to $100,000. ADDITIONAL AMENDED TO TAKE 
THE BUDGET ANALYST RECOMMENDATIONS PER HIS REPORT 
DATED NOVEMBER 23, 1994. (File to be completed pending 
amendments from the Mayor's Office of Community Development.) 
AMENDED TITLE TO BE FORTHCOMING. (Add Supervisor Alioto as 
co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Page 5 



File 68-94-14 . [Federal Grant, 1995 HOME Program] Resolution authorizing the 
Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and administer a 
grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a total 
amount not to exceed Five Million Six Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Dollars 
($5,684,000) for the HOME Program authorized under Title II of the National 
Affordable Housing Act of 1990, Public Law Number 101-625, and approving the 
HOME Program Description as described in the Consolidated Plan for 1995 Action 
Plan. Indirect costs associated with the acceptance of these grant funds will be paid 
by Community Development Block Grant Funds. (Mayor's Office of Community 
Development). 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. On 
Page 2, line 1, replace "1994" with "1995." (Add Supervisor Alioto as 
co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

File 68-94-15 . [Federal Grant, 1995 Emergency Shelter Program] Resolution 
approving the 1995 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and expenditure schedule and 
authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to apply 
for, accept and expend a $621,250 entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants 
Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (Mayor's 
Office of Community Development) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (Add Supervisor Alioto as 
co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 2-1. Supervisor Alioto absent. 

File 97-94-72. [Weights and Measures - Permit Fees] Ordinance amending 
Administrative Code, by amending Section 1.13-5 thereto, to increase fee rates 
charged for registration and inspection of weighing and measuring devices, and 
adding fees for electric meter and gas vapor meter inspection and testing, effective 
January 1, 1995. (Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Pa 6 e 6 



8. File 28-94-15 . [Emergency Repair, Ferry Building Roof Deck] Resolution approving 
a declaration of emergency for the Ferry Building Roof Deck Surfacing Repair; Port 
Contract No. 2603 - $35,000. (Port Commission) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. On 

Page 1, line 18, after "emergency" add the following: "in the amount of 
$41,790. In the title, Page 1, line 3, replace "35,000" with "41,790. 
AMENDED TITLE: "Port Contract No. 2603, approving a declaration of 
emergency for the Ferry Building roof deck surfacing repair, $41,790." 
(Add Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

9. File 101-91-40.4 [Release reserved funds, Airport] Hearing requesting release of 
reserved funds, Airport, in the amount of $457,368, for contractual services for 
infrastructure repair and maintenance work. (Airport Commission) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RELEASE OF $457,368 APPROVED. FILED. (Add 
Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

10. File 101-94-26 . [Appropriation, District Attorney] Ordinance appropriating 
$1,000,000 District Attorney's Office, from the General Reserve Fund, for 
permanent salaries and mandatory fringe benefits, to address underfunding, for fiscal 
year 1994-95; subject of previous budget denial. (Controller) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Honorable Arlo Smith, District Attorney, Honorbale Michael Hennessey, Sheriff; 
Teresa Serato, Mayor's Office; Ed Harrington, Controller; Brigett Bain, District 
Attorney's Office. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Adda 
Section 3 to read as follows: Although the City has incurred no legal 
obligation under the Charter, the Board of Supervisors does hereby 
appropriate the funds necessary for the obligation and does hereby ratify 
the action previously taken. In the title, line 3, after "denial" add the 
following: ";providing for action previously taken". AMENDED TITLE: 
"Appropriating $1,000,000 from the General Reserve Fund for permanent 
salaries and mandatory fringe benefits, to address underfunding in the 
District Attorney's Office, for fiscal year 1994-1995. Subject of 
previous budgetary denial; providing for action previously taken." (Add 
Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Pa 6 e 7 



11. File 101-94-33 . [Appropriation, District Attorney] Ordinance appropriating $650,000 
District Attorney's Office, from the General Fund Reserve for salaries, fringe 
benefits and training to address underfunding for fiscal year 1994-95; subject of 
previous budgetary denial. RO #94115 (Controller) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Honorable Arlo Smith, District Attorney, Honorbale Michael Hennessey, Sheriff; 
Teresa Serato, Mayor's Office; Ed Harrington, Controller; Brigett Bain, District 
Attorney's Office. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. QUESTION DRTDED. Divided by appropriating 

$153,111. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Add a Section 
3 to read as follows: Although the City has incurred no legal obligation 
under the Charter, the Board of Supervisors does hereby appropriate the 
funds necessary for the obligation and does hereby ratify the action 
previously taken. Remaining $496,889 continued to the Budget 
Committee meeting of December 14, 1994. (See below.) NEW TITLE: 
"Appropriating $153,111 from the General Fund Reserve for salaries, 
fringe benefits and training to address underfunding in the District 
Attorney's Office for fiscal year 1994-95. Subject of previous budgetary 
denial; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Add 
Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

File 101-94-33.1 . [Appropriation, District Attorney[ Ordinance 
appropriating $496,889, from the General Fund Reserve for salaries, 
fringe benefits and training to address underfunding in the District 
Attorney's Office for fiscal year 1994-95. Subject of previous budgetary 
denial; providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Add 
Supervisor Alioto as cc— sponsor.) 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO 
DECEMBER 14, 1994, MEETING. 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Page 8 



12. File 101-94-29 . [Appropriation, Sheriff Department] Ordinance appropriating 
$690,572, Sheriff Department, from the General Funds Reserve, for salaries, fringe 
benefits, other non-personal services, materials and supplies, and equipment to allow 
opening additional beds at the new jail and continue the Work Furlough Program for 
fiscal year 1994-95. RO #94098 (Controller) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Honorbale Michael Hennessey, Sheriff; Teresa Serato, Mayor's Office; Ed 
Harrington, Controller; Brigett Bain, District Attorney's Office. IN SUPPORT: 
None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 

Reduce appropriation to $661,627 and add a Section 3 to read as follows: 
Although the City has incurred no legalobligation under the Charter, the 
Board of Supervisors does hereby appropriate the funds necessary for the 
obligation and does hereby ratify the action previously taken. AMENDED 
TITLE: "Appropriating $661,627 from the General Fund Reserve for 
salaries, fringe benefits, other non-personal services, materials and 
supplies, and equipment to allow the Sheriff Department to open 
additional beds at the New Jail and continue the Work Furlough Program 
for fiscal year 1994—1995; providing for ratification of action previously 
taken." (Add Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

13. File 101-93-113.1 . [Release Reserved Funds, Department of Public Works] Hearing 
requesting release of reserved funds, Department of Public Works, 1990 Earthquake 
Safety Bond, for the Brooks Hall New Exit Stairs and Disabled Access Modification 
Project. (Department of Public Works) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RELEASE OF $1,604,303 APPROVED. FILED. (Add 
Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 2-1. Supervisor Bierm an absent. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Pa 6 e 9 



14. File 101-94-30 . [Appropriation, Dept of Public Works] Ordinance appropriating 
$269,771, Department of Public Works, for permanent salaries, mandatory fringe 
benefits, department and division overhead and other non-personal services and 
rescinding $46,811 from capital improvement project (Hardship Loans), for fiscal 
year 1994-95. RO #94100 (Controller) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 

Reduce appropriation to $114,824. AMENDED TITLE: "Appropriating 
$114,824 for permanent salaries, mandatory fringe benefits, Department 
and Division overhead and other non-personal services and rescinding 
$46,811 from Capital Improvement Project (Hardship Loans) for the 
Department of Public Works for fiscal year 1994-1995." (Add Supervisor 
Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

15. File 101-94-31 . [Appropriation, Dept of Parking & Traffic] Ordinance appropriating 
$21,000,000, Department of Parking and Traffic, of parking meter revenue bond 
proceeds for various capital improvement projects and reimbursing advances from 
the Parking Revenue Fund for fiscal year 1994-95; placing $113,594 on reserve. RO 
#94106 (Controller) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Ed Harrington, Controller; Kevin Hagerty, Department of Parking and Traffic; Steve 
Maltenex, Department of Public Works; Kathern Howe, Department of Parking and 
Traffic. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. AMENDED. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Adda 
Section 3 placing a reserve on $1,200,000 for St. Mary's Square Garage. 
Total reserve placed $1,313,594. AMENDED TITLE: "Appropriating 
$21,000,000 of Parking Meter Revenue Bond proceeds for various Capital 
Improvement Projects and reimbursing advances from the Parking 
Revenue Fund for the Department of Parking and Traffic for fiscal year 
1994-1995; placing $1,313,594 on reserve." (Add Supervisor Alioto as 
co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Pa b e 10 



File 45-94-66 . [Settlement of Lawsuit] Ordinance authorizing settlement of 
litigation of Gannett Outdoor Co. of Northern California against the City and 
County of San Francisco for a payment of $220,000 by the City to Gannett, plus 
interest at the apportionment rate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 
1263.350 from January 1, 1994 until the date of payment. (Department of Parking 
and Traffic) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (Add Supervisor Alioto as 
co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 2-1. Supervisor Alioto absent. 

File 97-94-74 . [Cash Difference & Overage Funds, Create, DPT] Ordinance 
amending Administrative Code by amending Section 10.88 thereof, relating to "Cash 
Difference Funds" and "Overage Funds". (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. 

VOTE: 2-1. Supervisor Alioto absent. 

File 82-94-9 . [Sewer Easements, Islais Creek Transport Project] Resolution 
authorizing the City and County of San Francisco to acquire on behalf of the 
Department of Public Works the permanent sewer easement known as 1CT 10B 
through a portion of the real property identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 4347B/4 
and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate 
Department) 

SPEAKERS: None. 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 7, 1994, MEETING. 
(Add Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

File 270-93-3.1 . [Earthquake Emergency Relief Fund Expenditure] Resolution 
retroactively approving expenditure of $35,000 placed in reserve in Resolution 77-94 
from the Mayor's Earthquake Relief Fund for the services of a technical writer 
consultant to modernize and revise the City and County of San Francisco Emergency 
Operations Plan. (Also see File 270-93-6.) (Mayor's Office of Emergency Services) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
IN SUPPORT: None. OPPOSED: None. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (Add Supervisor Alioto as 
co-sponsor.) 



VOTE: 2-1. Supervisor Alioto absent. 



BUDGET COMMITTEE Pd fc e 11 



20. File 172-94-44 . [Purchase and Sale Agreement, Clean Water Program] Resolution 
approving the form and authorizing the execution and delivery of a forward purchase 
and sale agreement; and authorizing other actions related thereto. (Chief 
Administrative Officer) 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 7, 1994, MEETING. 

VOTE: 3-0. 

21. File 207-94-16 . [Semi-Automatic Weapons] Resolution urging the Mayor to urge 
the Police Commission to approve the purchase and standard issuance of 
semi-automatic weapons to all officers of the San Francisco Police Department. 
(Supervisors Alioto, Maher, Kennedy, Bierman, Hallinan, Hsieh, Shelley and Conroy) 

SPEAKERS: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES: Lt. Ryan, Police Department; 
Officer Donny Cartwright; Officer Michael Serujo, Pres. Latin Police Officers. IN 
SUPPORT: Al Casciato, Police Officers Association; Shelley Salieri; Sue Slider; 
Jean Hayes. OPPOSED: Terrence O'Connor. 

ACTION: HEARING HELD. RECOMMENDED. (Add Supervisors Hsieh, Shelley and 
Conroy as co-sponsors.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

22. File 97-94-56.3 . [Courthouse Financing] Ordinance approving delivery of a site 
lease between the City and the Courthouse Corporation, a lease agreement between 
Corp. and City, an assignment agreement between Corp. and Trustee and a trust 
agreement between City, Corp, and Trustee; approving form of certificate purchase 
agreement by City, Corp, Trustee and Underwriters; approving offer/sale of 
certificates, form of official statement; approving form of letter of credit 
agreement; authorizing officers of City to obtain credit, take other actions to 
consummate execution/delivery of not to exceed $63,000,000 certificates of 
participation to finance project; ratifying actions previously taken. (Supervisor 
Hsieh) 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 7, 1994, MEETING. 
(Add Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 

23. File 101-94-34 . [Appropriation, Courthouse Construction] Ordinance appropriating 
$2,000,000 of Courthouse Construction Funds for capital improvement project of the 
Superior and Municipal Courts for fiscal year 1994-95, placing $2,000,000 on 
reserve. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: CONSIDERATION CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 7, 1994, MEETING. 
(Add Supervisor Alioto as co-sponsor.) 

VOTE: 3-0. 
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED: 7:10 P.M. 



p 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Tufrlic Library, 'Documents (Dept. 
of/Zan franc>js^. Jane Judson 



/^OARD OF SUPERVISORS ^vTsBM^' 

BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANC.SCO 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



November 28, 1994 



/A 



TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: November 30, 199>Budget Committee Meeting 



Items 1 and 2 - Files 172-94-40 and 101-94-2.6 

Note: These items were continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 9, 1994. 



Department: 

Items: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

File 172-94-40 is a resolution authorizing the contract 
between the City and County of San Francisco, 
Department of Public Health, and Deloitte & Touche to 
provide operational and financial consulting services. 

File 101-94-2.6 is a companion ordinance amending the 
administrative provisions of the 1994-95 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance by adding Section 23.1, 
appropriating to contractors a percentage of cost savings 
or new revenues realized (contingency payments) as a 
direct result of contracted services previously authorized 
by the Board of Supervisors, in cases (such as the contract 
proposed in File 172-94-40) when the terms of the contract 
provide for such contingency payments. 

Compensation (contingency payments) under the 
proposed consulting contract with Deloitte & Touche (File 
172-94-40) would be based on a percentage of enhanced 
revenues and cost savings accruing to the DPH in 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Term: 
Description: 



operational areas where Deloitte & Touche 
recommendations are implemented by the DPH. 

From date of approval of the proposed contract through 
June 30, 1998, (approximately 3.5 years). 

Contract Services 

The proposed contract with Deloitte & Touche (File 172- 
94-40) would involve management consulting services, 
which according to Ms. Monique Zmuda, Acting Budget 
Director of the DPH, would assist the DPH, including San 
Francisco General Hospital, Laguna Honda Hospital, 
Community Public Health Services and Community 
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, in 
identifying areas of improvement to position the DPH 
competitively in a managed care environment. 

Managed care is the general term for what Health 
Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) provide, namely 
coordinated health care services that emphasize 
prevention. Starting in March, 1995, the State plans to 
contract with the counties for managed care on a 
capitated basis per Medi-Cal client, at a set dollar amount 
per client, per month. Capitation puts DPH at increased 
risk because DPH will have to agree to accept 
responsibility for providing services in exchange for a set 
payment, regardless of the amount of services that may be 
provided to its clients. In order to provide cost effective 
health care services under the State's managed care 
system, the DPH is reevaluating its administrative and 
operating functions with the goal of streamlining 
processes, reducing duplication and creating an 
integrated delivery system for services and operations. 

The Statement of Work attached to the proposed contract 
states that major areas of analysis would include: (1) 
short- and long-term revenue enhancement initiatives; (2) 
benchmarking of DPH performance relative to similar 
facilities, and productivity analyses; (3) analysis of the 
current University of California/San Francisco General 
Hospital Affiliation agreement; (4) strategic and 
organizational analyses, including a department-wide 
strategic plan; and (5) performance studies as requested 
by the DPH related to internal DPH functions, existing 
DPH contracts and new analyses of contracting-out 
potential. Within each major area of analysis, the 
Statement of Work includes a Scope of Work statement, 
with a list of expected project areas. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Selection of Contractor 



For the past year, DPH administrators have conducted 
internal analyses of the organizational structure and 
service delivery processes, the results of which were 
reflected in FY 1994-95 budget reductions. In addition to 
these internal efforts, during the Fall of 1993 the Mayor's 
Office requested that the firm of Deloitte & Touche 
conduct a pro bono diagnostic analysis of the potential for 
revenue enhancement at the DPH. This analysis 
indicated that the DPH could increase its revenues 
through changes in its claiming practices to third party 
payers. Also, the analysis indicated that the DPH must 
increase its productivity in order to compete in a 
competitive market for Medi-Cal clients. Ms. Zmuda 
advises that based on the areas identified in that analysis, 
as well as on needs for analysis identified by DPH staff, 
the DPH issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide 
operational and financial consulting services in January 
of 1994. 

A total of three proposals were received, one of which was 
found to be non-responsive. The two remaining proposals 
were from Deloitte & Touche and Carlson Price Fass & 
Co. Ms. Zmuda reports that the Deloitte & Touche 
proposal was selected on the basis of a rating process in 
which proposed contingency fees, scope of work, recent 
relevant experience, professional background and the 
quality of past projects were rated by a DPH screening 
panel. DPH Contract Compliance Officer Hope Kamimoto 
reports that Deloitte & Touche received a total score of 78, 
and Carlson Price Fass & Co. received a total score of 
56.1. Ms. Kamimoto states that, because of the nearly 22 
point differential in ratings of the two written proposals, 
the DPH selected Deloitte & Touche without conducting 
interviews. 

Implementation of Contractor Recommendations 

Ms. Zmuda states that a DPH Steering Committee, 
composed of the Director, the Budget Director, and all 
DPH Division Directors, will review all Deloitte & Touche 
work products and make decisions about which 
recommendations to implement, subject to any Health 
Commission or Board of Supervisors approval that might 
be necessary. For example, a Deloitte & Touche 
recommendation to contract out services that are 
currently performed by Civil Service employees would 
require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Zmuda 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

advises that the proposed contract does not commit the 
DPH to implementation of Deloitte & Touche 
recommendations. 

The proposed Statement of Work includes references to 
Deloitte & Touche providing assistance, such as data 
entry or clerical help, in the implementation of some of 
their recommendations. The proposed contract states that 
Deloitte & Touche would receive the contingency 
payments explained below (see Budget/ Baseline 
Agreements) regardless of whether or not the firm is 
involved with implementation of the recommendations. 

Budget/ Baseline 

Agreements: Ms. Zmuda states that, because DPH administrators did 

not want to reduce direct services in order to fund the 
consulting services, the RFP specified that the consulting 
services would be compensated on a contingency basis. As 
such, according to Ms. Zmuda, the DPH would not be at 
risk for payment for consulting services if a net financial 
benefit is not realized. Since the proposed contract would 
be conducted for a contingency fee, Deloitte & Touche has 
not submitted a budget to the DPH. 

The proposed contract would provide for monthly 
compensation of Deloitte & Touche based on a percentage 
of savings or increased revenues received by DPH as a 
result of implementation of Deloitte & Touche 
recommendations. The average contingency payment 
would be 20 percent of monthly combined reduced 
expenditures and additional revenues attributable to 
Deloitte & Touche. 

According to the proposed contract, the DPH would 
negotiate and sign written Baseline Agreements for each 
project area with Deloitte & Touche regarding the 
documentation and methodology to be followed in 
determining enhanced revenues or cost savings. 
(Tentative project areas are listed in a Statement of Work 
attached to the proposed contract.) The Director of the 
DPH would, under the proposed contract, be authorized to 
execute these Baseline Agreements on behalf of the City. 
The Baseline Agreements would not be subject to Board of 
Supervisors approval. 

The Baseline Agreements would establish the revenue 
and/or costs anticipated in a particular project area, 
independent of implementation of any Deloitte & Touche 
recommendations. The Deloitte & Touche contingency 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



payment for that project area would be calculated by 
comparing the revenues and/or costs during the post- 
implementation period to those defined in the Baseline 
Agreement. The proposed contract states that the 
Baselines would be defined using DPH budgeted revenues 
and expenses, or, where possible, using actual revenues 
and expenses (such as in the case of a project area that 
involved the way DPH makes third party claims for 
services that have already been provided.) Baselines could 
be adjusted, by mutual agreement of the DPH and 
Deloitte & Touche, to account for unanticipated factors 
that effect revenues and costs, such as changes in service 
utilization or federal reimbursement levels, or health care 
reform measures. 

Deloitte & Touche would receive contingency payments 
for any enhanced revenues or decreased costs, compared 
to the Baseline, during a twelve month (unless specified 
otherwise in the Baseline Agreement) performance period 
to be established in the Baseline Agreement. The 
performance period would presumably commence upon 
full implementation of the Deloitte & Touche 
recommendations for that project area; the actual start 
and end dates of each performance period would be 
specified in the Baseline Agreements. 

As noted above, under the proposed contract, Deloitte & 
Touche would receive an average contingency fee of 20 
percent of monthly combined reduced expenditures and 
additional revenues attributable to DPH implementation 
of their recommendations. The proposed contract would 
cap annual contingency payments to Deloitte & Touche at 
no more than five percent of the total DPH budget in any 
City fiscal year. In other words, Deloitte & Touche would 
receive a 20 percent commission on net reduced 
expenditures and additional revenues to DPH, up to the 
point in a given contract year where such commission 
amounts to five percent of the DPH budget for that fiscal 
year. 

For FY 1994-95, the total DPH budget is approximately 
$712 million. Therefore, payments to Deloitte & Touche 
could be as much as approximately $35.6 million (five 
percent of $712 million) in FY 1994-95, if the DPH finds 
that Deloitte & Touche recommendations saved the DPH 
$178 million in that year. ($35.6 million is 20 percent of 
$178 million.) During the approximately 3.5 year term of 
the contract, if the DPH total budget remains fairly level, 
total compensation paid to Deloitte & Touche by the City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Payment Procedure: 



Comments: 



could, under the terms of the proposed contract, be as 
much as approximately $124.6 million ($35.6 million 
times 3.5 fiscal years). Such compensation would be paid 
if the DPH agreed that Deloitte & Touche had continued 
to make proposals that provided the DPH with $178 
million in new savings each year. (As noted above, 
contingency payments would be paid for a particular 
Baseline Agreement program area for a typical period of 
12 months.) The term of the contract could be extended 
beyond June 30, 1998, if work commenced on a Baseline 
Agreement prior to June 30, 1998 but the performance 
period for measuring "revenue enhancements" extended 
after that deadline. In that case, the compensation cap 
would increase based on the number of fiscal years 
included in any contract extension. 



The proposed amendment to the administrative 
provisions of the 1994-95 Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance (File 101-94-2.6) would add Section 23.1, which 
would appropriate the amounts due to pay contingency 
contracts approved by the Board of Supervisors that are to 
be determined by a percentage of cost reductions or 
previously unrecognized revenues which are identified. 
Ms. Kathy Murphy, Attorney for SFGH, states that this 
provision will allow the Controller to set up special 
accounts to administer payments on the proposed contract 
(File 172-94-40), since the proposed contract does not 
carry a fixed appropriation amount. Ms. Murphy advises 
that the proposed Section 23.1 would become part of the 
boilerplate language in each Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance, until and unless the Board of Supervisors took 
specific action to delete it. 

1. Ms. Zmuda advises that the FY 1994-95 DPH budget 
includes revenue enhancement projections that were 
made on the assumption that the proposed contract would 
be approved and that Deloitte & Touche would be able to 
identify certain short term revenue enhancement 
opportunities that had been outlined in a preliminary 
report prepared by Deloitte & Touche. Specifically, Ms. 
Zmuda reports that the San Francisco General Hospital 
(SFGH) FY 1994-95 budget includes $2 million in 
anticipated new revenues resulting from the proposed 
contract, and the Laguna Honda Hospital FY 1994-95 
budget include $3.5 million in anticipated new revenues. 
If the proposed contract is approved, DPH will direct 
Deloitte & Touche to start their work by looking at short 
term revenue enhancement opportunities at SFGH and 
Laguna Honda Hospital. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH will 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



have to adjust its budget, subject to further review, to 
make up any anticipated difference between budgeted 
new revenues and expected new revenues, after Deloitte 
& Touche completes an initial assessment. 

2. Ms. Zmuda reports that the firm of Carlson Price Fass 
& Co., which submitted an unsuccessful bid for the 
proposed contract, challenged the award of the contract to 
Deloitte & Touche on the grounds that, as a certified 
public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche would be 
violating a professional Code of Conduct prohibiting CPA 
firms from being compensated on a contingency basis. 
However, Ms. Zmuda states that the challenge was 
resolved after reference to the Code of Conduct of the 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 
(AICPA), which permits members to perform management 
consulting on a contingency fee basis, as long as the CPA 
firm is not providing financial accounting (profit and loss, 
or balance sheet) reporting services to the same client. 
Ms. Zmuda states that Deloitte & Touche has represented 
that they have no other contracts with the DPH or related 
to the City's General Fund. According to Ms. Zmuda, 
AICPA regulations would prohibit the firm from obtaining 
financial or accounting contracts with the DPH or related 
to the City's General Fund during the term of the 
proposed contract. City Controller Mr. Ed Harrington 
reports that an existing Deloitte & Touche contract to 
audit the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would not be 
effected by this contract, because the PUC operates under 
an independent enterprise fund. 

3. In the professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, 
the proposed compensation cap of 5 percent of the total 
DPH annual budget for each contract year is excessive, 
even factoring in the risk which the contractor is taking in 
the proposed contingency contract. The Budget Analyst 
believes that the cap should be tied to actual costs 
incurred by the contractor. 

Ms. Zmuda states, however, that DPH believes it is not in 
the best interests of the City to lower the cap or to define 
it based on contractor costs. Ms. Zmuda advises that the 
proposed contract is designed to be a win-win situation for 
the City and the contractor, because the contractor can 
only receive compensation to the extent that the City 
achieves actual cost reductions or new revenues. 

The proposed contingency contract is designed to give the 
contractor a strong incentive to find cost savings and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

additional revenues for the DPH. The Budget Analyst 
believes that such a goal can be accomplished without 
signing a contract that could potentially give a contractor 
windfall profits. The Budget Analyst recommends that 
compensation under the proposed contingency contract be 
capped at 200 percent of the actual costs incurred by 
Deloitte & Touche in performing the services, at their 
normal municipal billing rate. This would require Deloitte 
& Touche to provide the City with cost data, and would 
necessitate an audit of project activities by the City upon 
contract completion. However, a cap tied to actual services 
performed by Deloitte & Touche would serve the purpose 
of preventing windfall profits, while still compensating 
Deloitte & Touche for taking on the risk of a contingency 
contract. The Budget Analyst believes that the 
opportunity to earn up to twice the firm's normal rates on 
a major, multi-year contract would provide a strong, on- 
going incentive for the contractor. 

Summary: In summary, the proposed resolution would approve a 

contract between the DPH and the firm of Deloitte & 
Touche for a wide range of management consulting 
services to be delivered over the next 3.5 years in an 
attempt to assist the DPH in streamlining operations, 
resulting in reduced expenditures and increased revenues 
to meet the challenges of the competitive managed care 
environment. 

Because DPH administrators did not want to reduce 
direct services in order to fund the consulting services, the 
contract has been designed to compensate Deloitte & 
Touche on a contingency basis, under which the firm 
would receive fees equal to approximately 20 percent of 
cost reductions and additional revenues generated by 
implementation of Deloitte & Touche recommendations. 
The contract relies on a series of Baseline Agreements, to 
be negotiated by the DPH after contract approval, to 
specify the bases from which cost reductions and 
additional revenues in numerous program areas would be 
measured, and the performance periods under which 
Deloitte & Touche would receive contingency fees. The 
contract is therefore vague and unspecific on these 
subjects. 

The nature of the proposed contract and the complexity of 
defining and interpreting the baselines and the benefits 
attributable to the contractor leave wide room for 
interpretation. For this reason, the Budget Analyst cannot 
recommend approval of the proposed contract unless 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

potential payments to Deloitte & Touche are capped to 
prevent the possibility of the contractor receiving windfall 
profits from the City. The proposed contract caps annual 
payments at up to five percent of the annual budget of the 
DPH (or $35.6 million in FY 1994-95). The Budget 
Analyst believes that this cap is excessive, and 
recommends instead that the proposed contract be 
amended to cap payments over the life of the contract at 
200 percent of actual contractor costs, at the contractor's 
normal municipal billing rate, subject to audit by the 
Controller. The Budget Analyst believes that the 
opportunity to earn up to twice the firm's normal rates on 
a major, multi-year contract would provide a strong, on- 
going incentive for the contractor. 

Recommendation: 1. A Budget Analyst recommendation to require that the 

Baseline Agreements that would be negotiated between 
DPH and the contractor following contract approval would 
have to be reviewed and approved by the Controller has 
already been incorporated into the proposed contract. 

2. The nature of the proposed contract and the complexity 
of defining and interpreting the baselines and the benefits 
attributable to the contractor leave wide room for 
interpretation. For this reason, the Budget Analyst cannot 
recommend approval of the proposed contract unless 
potential payments to Deloitte & Touche are capped to 
prevent the possibility of the contractor receiving 
windfall profits from the City. While we understand that 
it is highly unlikely that the contractor would obtain cost 
reductions and additional revenues for the City that 
would enable the contractor to receive $35.6 million per 
contract year, or $124.6 million over the life of the 
contract, this is technically possible under the proposed 
contract, which uses a cap of 5 percent of the annual DPH 
budget. In the professional judgment of the Budget 
Analyst, the proposed cap of 5 percent of the total DPH 
annual budget for each contract year is excessive, even 
factoring in the risk which the contractor is taking. The 
Budget Analyst believes that the cap should be tied to 
actual costs incurred by the contractor. 

Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
contract authorized under the proposed resolution (File 
172-94-40) be amended to cap contractor contingency 
payments at 200 percent of actual billable costs incurred 
by the contractor in performing services under the 
contract. While the City has entered into contingency 
contracts for collection services, the Budget Analyst is 

B OARD OF SU P E RVI SO RS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



unaware of any prior City contract, such as is being 
proposed, under which contingency payments to a 
contractor are partially based on the implementation of 
the contractor's recommendations to reduce the City's 
expenditures. For example, contracting out, subject to 
Board of Supervisors approval, is one possible type of 
expenditure reduction that could be recommended by the 
contractor. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution (File 172-94-40) as 
amended, and approve the proposed amendment to the 
Administrative Provisions of the 1994-95 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Item 3 - File 97-94-41.1 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 16, 1994. 

Department: Department of Social Services (DSS) 

Item: Draft ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending 

Sections 20.56.10 and 20.57, relating to General Assistance 
allowable personal property and relating to the Income 
Disregard Program. 

Description: Section 20.56.10 of the Administrative Code, entitJod 

Allowable Personal Property , currently provides that any 
person who has cash in excess of the current monthly 
General Assistance (GA) grant for a single individual of $34G 
is ineligible to apply for General Assistance. Furthermore, 
for any person who has cash of less than $345, the entire 
amount of such cash is entirely offset against the current 
monthly GA grant of $345. However, if a portion of thos" 
cash assets are in a savings and/or checking account, up to 
$25 of that amount in the savings and/or checking account ig 
exempted from being used to offset the GA grant. For 
example, under current legislation, a person who has $25 in a 
savings account can still receive the maximum GA grant of 
$345, since none of that $25 is used to offset the GA grant. 
However, if a GA recipient has $300 in cash, none of which ig 
contained in a savings or checking account, the entire 
amount of $300 must be used to offset the GA grant, so that 
the person would be eligible to receive only $45 ($345 less 
$300) for one month of GA aid. However, if $25 of that $300 
in cash were in a savings account, the person would be 
eligible to receive a GA grant of $70, which is equivalent to 
the maximum GA grant of $345 less $275 ($300 in total cash 
less $25 in savings). 

The proposed ordinance would amend Section 20.56.10 to 
allow a person applying for GA to have up to $345 in cash, 
savings or in a checking account without any of that amount 
being used to offset the monthly GA grant of $345. In 
addition, the proposed amendment would provide that any 
amount in cash, savings or in a checking account in excess of 
$345 would be used to offset the monthly GA grant on a 
dollar-for-dollar basis. For example, under the proposed 
legislation, if a person had $300, regardless of how much of 
that $300 was in cash, savings or in a checking account, none 
of that $300 would be applied to offset the monthly GA grant 
of $345. As such, a single individual would be eligible to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



U 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



receive the maximum GA grant of $345. However, if that 
person had $600 in cash, savings or in a checking account, he 
or she would still be eligible to receive a GA grant, but $255 
(the amount in excess of $345) of that S600 would be offset 
against the GA grant, so that the person could only receive 
$90 of GA aid for that month. 

According to the Department of Social Services (DSS), the 
proposed legislation would (1) increase the pool of eligible GA 
participants because persons with more than $345 in liquid 
assets would become eligible to apply for GA; and (2) increase 
the average length of time that a person would receive GA 
payments, since a person with cash assets of more than $345 
would be eligible to apply for GA aid sooner and would not 
necessarily stop receiving GA aid earlier, and clients who 
already receive GA payments and who would otherwise be 
discontinued for assets in excess of $345 might remain on GA 
aid for a longer period of time. 

According to Mr. Antoine Moore of DSS, DSS estimates that 
this proposed amendment pertaining to the personal property 
limit would increase the cost of the GA Program by 
approximately $69,000 annually. 

Section 20.57 (b) of the Administrative Code requires GA 
recipients to complete either 20 verifiable job applications per 
month and/or participate in Department-approved job 
counseling, vocational rehabilitation, drug or alcohol 
treatment or a work assignment program in order to continue 
receiving GA payments. The proposed ordinance would 
amend Section 20.57 (b) to clarify the definition of verifiable 
job applications by specifically defining the completion of 
verifiable job applications as (1) sending resumes and cover 
letters to apply for positions for which the recipient meets the 
minimum qualifications, with copies of these documents and 
the telephone number of the prospective employer provided to 
DSS; and (2) participation in union hiring hall programs that 
make use of telephone job searches for currently available 
positions. 

Section 20.57 (h) of the Administrative Code established tlv: 
Income Disregard Program in order to provide a work 
incentive for GA recipients. The Income Disregard Program 
operates by disregarding a certain amount of an employed 
GA recipient's monthly gross income when determining the 
recipient's GA continuing eligibility and grant amount. As 
such, a GA recipient is permitted to earn income and still 
receive a partial GA grant. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Presently, a person can receive up to $610 per month in gross 
income and still receive a grant. Under the Income 
Disregard Program, DSS disregards up to $270 of the 
person's monthly gross income in determining the amount of 
the recipient's GA grant, in accordance with Section 20.57 
(h). The balance of the recipient's monthly income is offset 
against the GA grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For 
example, the GA grant of a single individual recipient 
earning $610 per month would be equivalent to the difference 
between the $345 monthly GA grant and the amount to be 
offset against the grant, or $340 ($610 less $270). Therefore, 
$345 less $340 equals a monthly GA grant of $5, as reflected 
in the table below. 

(1) (2) 



Gross 




Monthly 


Income 


Salary 


Disregard 


$100 


$100 


200 


167 


300 


217 


400 


250 


500 


270 


610 


270 



(3) 


(4) 


Amount 




Offsetting 


Maximum 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


(Col. 1 - Col. 2) 


($345 - Col. 3) 


$0 


$345 


33 


312 


83 


262 


150 


195 


230 


115 


340 


5 



The proposed ordinance would amend Section 20.57 (h) of the 
Administrative Code to increase the income disregard limit 
from a maximum of $270 to a maximum of $454. Thus, DSS 
would disregard up to $454 of a single individual recipient's 
monthly gross income in determining the amount of the 
person's GA grant, in accordance with Section 20.57 (h). The 
balance of the recipient's monthly income would then be 
offset against the GA grant on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For 
example, the GA grant of a person earning $794 per month 
would be $5, which is equivalent to the difference between 
the $345 monthly GA grant and the amount to be offset 
against the grant, or $340 ($794 less $454). Therefore, under 
existing legislation, a single individual recipient can earn up 
to $610 per month and still receive a GA grant, but under the 
proposed legislation, a person could earn up to $794 per 
month and still receive a GA grant, as shown in the following 
table: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



13 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



(1) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 






Amount 




Gross 




Offsetting 


Maximum 


Monthly 


Income 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Salary 


Disregard 


(Col. 1 -Col. 2) 


($345 - Col. 3) 


$200 


$200 


$0 


$345 


350 


300 


50 


295 


500 


375 


125 


220 


650 


425 


225 


120 


794 


454 


340 


5 


800 


455 


345 






According to Mr. Moore, the proposed legislation that would 
increase the income disregard limit from $270 to $454 could 
potentially generate savings for the City, but only if the 
proposed legislation leads to an increase in the average 
monthly earnings of an employed GA recipient and to an 
increase in the number of GA recipients participating in the 
Income Disregard Program for the following reasons: (1) as 
the average monthly income increases, the average GA grant 
should decline since the GA grant would be offset by the GA 
recipient's higher monthly earnings, and (2) if the number of 
GA recipients participating in the Income Disregard Program 
increases, a larger percentage of the total GA caseload would 
likely receive less than the maximum GA grant of $345 per 
month. 

Mr. Moore advises that the average monthly income of 
Income Disregard Program participants is $244 per month. 
Mr. Moore estimates that (1) given that the number of 
participants in the Income Disregard remains constant, the 
average monthly income would have to increase by at least 
$118 from the current average monthly income of $244; or (2) 
given that the average monthly income remains constant, the 
number of GA recipients participating in the Income 
Disregard Program would have to increase by at least 846 
from the current participation rate of 564, for the City to 
realize savings in the GA Program. However, Mr. Moore 
advises that there is presently no way of knowing whether 
the proposed increase in the income disregard limit would 
have these two effects. 

If these two effects are not achieved, Mr. Moore advises that 
the increased income disregard limit would most likely 
increase the cost of General Assistance because, at each level 
of earnings, a greater amount of the person's income could be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



disregarded and less of the person's income would be used to 
offset the GA grant, thereby resulting in an increase in the 
average grant amount. The table below illustrates, for a 
single individual recipient, the potential costs to the City of 
increasing the income disregard limit. 









Increase in 








Cost to City 




Maximum 


Maximum 


Per Single 


Gross 


GA Grant 


GA Grant 


Individual 


Monthly 


Under Current 


Under Proposed 


Recipient 


Salarv 


Legislation 


Legislation 


Per Month 


$100 


$345 


$345 


$0 


200 


312 


345 


33 


300 


262 


312 


50 


350 


229 


295 


66 


400 


195 


270 


75 


500 


115 


220 


105 


610 


5 


147 


142 


650 





120 


120 


794 





5 


5 


800 












Mr. Moore advises that of the approximately 564 current GA 
recipients participating in the Income Disregard Program per 
month, approximately 376 persons do not receive a full GA 
grant. The average gross income for these 376 GA recipients 
is approximately $300 per month. As such, the potential cost 
to the City of amending Section 20.57 (h) of the 
Administrative Code to increase the income disregard limit is 
approximately $18,800 per month (376 participants x a 
potential cost per month, per participant of $50, as reflected 
in the table above), or $225,600 annually. 

In addition, DSS advises that the pool of eligible Income 
Disregard Program participants would most likely increase 
as a result of the increased income disregard limit. This 
increase would occur because, under existing legislation, a 
person would be ineligible to receive a grant if his or her 
gross earnings exceeded $610 per month, whereas under the 
proposed legislation, a person earning up to $794 per month 
would still be eligible to receive a GA grant. 

In addition, under the existing legislation, up to $1,500 in 
savings derived from the gross earnings of an employed GA 
recipient may be disregarded during the GA recipient's 
participation in the Income Disregard Program and for up to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1 > 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



three months after the GA recipient's participation in the 
Program, if the GA recipient becomes unemployed. The 
proposed legislation would amend this provision by 
increasing the amount of savings which can be disregarded 
when determining the GA recipient's continuing eligibility 
and grant amount from $1,500 to $2,000. 

According to Mr. Moore, this proposed amendment would 
likely increase the City's costs of the GA Program by 
increasing the average length of time that a person would 
receive GA payments. However, as of the writing of this 
report, Mr. Moore was unable to estimate the amount of the 
potential additional costs to the City as a result of this 
provision. 

In summary, according to DSS estimates at this time, the 
potential additional costs of the proposed ordinance to the 
City are $294,600 per year ($69,000 in potential additional 
costs by increasing the personal property limit plus $225,600 
in potential additional costs by increasing the income 
disregard limit). 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Sally Kipper of DSS, DSS supports the 

proposed amendment to clarify the definition of a verifiable 
job search application. In addition, regarding the proposed 
amendment to increase the personal property limit, Ms. 
Kipper advises that DSS supports an increase to $100 as the 
amount of liquid assets that would be exempted from being 
used to offset the monthly GA grant, but does not support the 
proposed increase to $345, which would likely increase the 
costs of the GA Program. 

Furthermore, regarding the proposed increase in the income 
disregard limit, Ms. Kipper advises that DSS does support 
the concept of creating incentives to obtain permanent 
employment and to exit public aid, but that the existing 
Income Disregard Program already costs the City $400,000 
annually. 

2. According to Mr. Ed DeBerri of the St. Anthony 
Foundation, the St. Anthony Foundation concurs with DSS's 
cost estimate of $69,000 resulting from the proposed increase 
in the personal property limit. However, the St. Anthony 
Foundation believes that the proposed amendment 
pertaining to the personal property limit would also generate 
savings to the City of approximately $207,000 per year, as 
the result of a reduction in the GA caseload and in 
administrative costs. Thus, the St. Anthony Foundation 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November . 'JO, 1994 



estimates a net savings to the City of $138,000 per year 
($207,000 less $69,000) by increasing the personal property 
limit. 

The Budget Analyst concurs with DSS and the St. Anthony 
Foundation in estimating that the increased personal 
property limit would likely cost the City an additional 
$69,000 per year. However, the Budget Analyst agrees with 
DSS in that, in our judgment, it is unlikely that the proposed 
increase in the personal property limit would also generate 
savings to the City that would offset this cost. 

3. In addition, according to Mr. DeBerri, the St. Anthon}' 
Foundation also concurs with DSS's cost estimate of $225,600 
resulting from the proposed increase in the income disregard 
limit. However, the report by the St. Anthony Foundation 
estimates that the proposed increase in the income disregard 
limit would also generate first-year savings to the City of 
$430,047 by (a) increasing Income Disregard participation; 
(b) increasing the number of GA recipients who report income 
to DSS; and (c) reducing the GA caseload. Thus, the St. 
Anthony Foundation estimates a net savings to the City of 
$204,447 per year ($430,047 less $225,600) by increasing the 
income disregard limit. 

The Budget Analyst concurs with DSS and the St. Anthony 
Foundation in estimating that the increased income 
disregard limit would likely result in additional costs to the 
City of $225,600 per year. The Budget Analyst also concurs 
with DSS and the St. Anthony Foundation in that the 
proposed increase in the income disregard limit could result 
in a savings to the City if it leads to an increase in (a) the 
average monthly earnings of an employed GA recipient; and 
(b) the number of GA recipients participating in the Income 
Disregard Program. However, the Budget Analyst concurs 
with the DSS statement that it is uncertain at this time 
whether or not the proposed increase in the income disregard 
limit would have these two effects. 

4. In summary, the St. Anthony Foundation estimates that 
the City would realize an overall net savings of $342,447 in 
the first year ($138,000 by increasing the personal property 
limit plus $204,447 by increasing the income disregard limit) 
as a result of the proposed ordinance. However, as noted 
above, DSS believes that the proposed ordinance could result 
in potential additional costs to the City of $294,600 annually 
from these two measures. DSS further reports that if the 
proposed ordinance leads to an increase in the average 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



monthly earnings of an employed GA recipient and to an 
increase in the number of GA recipients participating in the 
Income Disregard Program, then the proposed increase in the 
income disregard limit could generate savings for the City. 
However, both the DSS and the Budget Analyst cannot 
conclude with any certainty that GA recipient earnings and 
the number of GA recipients participating in the Income 
Disregard Program would in fact increase. 

5. Attachment 1 is a letter from Mr. Brian Cahill, the 
General Manager of DSS, which compares DSS's cost/benefit 
calculations to the St. Anthony Foundation's cost/benefit 
calculations. 

6. Attachment 2 is a letter from Mr. Stephen Bingham of the 
San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation 
which contains comments regarding DSS's cost/benefit 
calculations. 

7. Attachment 3 is a letter from Mr. DeBerri which explains 
the St. Anthony Foundation's methodology in arriving at its 
cost and savings estimates. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



j and County of San Francisco 



.•'•■ttaclTnentf 1 
r-. , Pap£ ,l_pf h. 

Department of Social Services 



ASSET LIMIT 
11/8/94 



DSS POSITION. 



Brian f Cahll 
Genera! fSinagir 

Aiststan'. General Managers 

Sally Kippar 

Pal Reynolds 

John =! Vera 



* Raising the General Assistance asset liit-.it from $25 to 

$345 would increase costs to the County approximately $70,000. 

* We are willing to raise the asset limit to $100, which would 
raise costs by only approximately $10,000. 

We believe that raising the exemption: 

* increases the number of eligible applicants 

* prolongs the average length of time a client stays on aid. 

* is not likely to result in significant savings. 



CALCULATION OF SAVINGS ; 

* St. Anthony estimates that raising the asset limit would 
save the County $286,000. We disagree. 



St. Anthony's position: 

St. Anthony's savings estimates derive from: 

1) Decrease in staff time on reapplications and hearings 
($22,000) . 

2) Clients exiting GA earlier ($264,000) 

St. Anthony estimates 800 clients would exit GA one 
month earlier. 



[ 800 clients * $330 avg grant /mo. - $264,000 ) 



DSS's position: 



1) Staff time. While staff may spend less time on 
reapplications, the County does not save actual dollars. 
Staff will put their time into other activities needed to 
manage the highest caseloads in the Bay Area. 

2) Early exits. We agree with the assumption that 
approximately 800 clients have assets of more than $25 but 
less than $345. However, we believe that liberalizing the; 
program will result in clients remain ing on ai d, rather 
than being discontinued. 

There is no evidence to suggest that raising the asset 
limit will allow anyone to leave public assistance one 



I" 



iOV- 8-34 TUF. 15: 13 A FAX NO. 4i5431S270 



Attachment; I 
Pa^e 2 of A 



month early. Current income disregard clients, who have 
jobs and a somewhat higher standard of living, stay on aid 
the same length of time as other GA clients who do not 
work. And they are allowed to save up to $1,500. The 
Department does not believe that all clients with assets 
between $25 and $345 would be able to leave one month 
early. St. Anthony's estimates assume that every client 
would exit, on average, one month earlier. 



CALCULATION OF COSTS : 

DSS's position: 

* Raising the asset limit allows clients to apply sooner 
and remain on aid longer. 

Approximately 800 clients were denied or discontinued last 
year for assets between $26 and $345. Clients with assets 
greater than $25 are not eligible to apply until the assets 
can be spent down. Under St. Anthony's proposal these clients 
would remain eligible. 

* GA payments are approximately $11.50 a day. 

St. Anthony's position: 

St. Anthony's agrees with the Department's cost estimates. 
Formula - 

1) Determine the number of potential extra days on aid. 

2) Find the average cost / day for early eligibility 

3) Multiply average cost by the estimated number of 
additional people. 

EX: $345 - 25 - $320 $320 / $11.50 = 28 extra days 

Each additional day is $11.50. Assuming an equal 
distribution of clients across days, the averag e cost is 
the average cost for all days between the 1st and the 28th 
day. 

Sum of the cost of all extra days / total number of extra 
days = average additional cost. Average cost is 
$86.25 

Multiply average cost by the number of additional people. 

$86.25 * 800 = $69,000 



20 



ity and County of San Francisco 



Attachment 1 
Page 3 of A 

Department of Social Services 

Bnan F. Cah.ll 
General /r'.inayer 



INCOME DISREGARD 
11/8/94 



Assistant Gertaml ML/.'dyw/S 

Sally Kipper 

Pal Reynolds 

John R. Vora 



DSS POSITION : 

* The increased cap may produce a cost or savings, depending on 
the number of people in the program and the amount clients 
earn, on average. 

* ftuch uncertainty surrounds the income disregard program, and 
the Department would prefer to put off raising the disregard 
for a year to see whether the economy continues to grow 
stronger . 

Increasing the income disregard cap 

* would allow clients to retain more of their earnings than the^ 
can currently at each level of earnings beyond $100. 

* could prolong the length of time some clients stay on aid 
(i.e. those who currently make between $6l0-$800 are presently 
discontinued for excess income, but would not be if the cap 
goes up) . 

COMPARISON OF COST/ SAVINGS : 

DSS and St. Anthony differ in their approach to calculating 
cost and savings estimates. St, Anthony estimates the County 
will save more than $236,000 by raising the income disregard 
limit. Their estimates are based on projections of 

1) increase in the number of clients participating in 
IDP and 

2) an increase in idp clients who will leave public 
aid 

They estimate that iDP's participation rate will increase 27% 
and the total GA caseload will decrease 15%. Both estimates 
appear to be somewhat arbitrary and do not appear to be 
grounded in any substantive data or analytical framework. One 
cannot know whether additional clients will be motivated to 
find jobs or to what extent. 

Because of such uncertainty, DSS's estimates are based on what 
would have to happen to make the disregard program 
cost-neutral. The Department then determined how reasonable 
such scenarios are based on current circumstances. 

The Department conducted an analysis of the current disregatd 
program. The results were as follows: 



2] 



N .- 3-94 FUu 16:21 xi ■ riO. 4ic4313270 



Attachment 1 
Page 4 of A 



About 56 4 people participate in ID? each month 

The average grant for these clients is $290. 

The average wage of ID? clients is $244. 

The average IDP client remained on GA an average of 5 1/2 to 

8 months in a year. 

Of that time, approximately 3-4 1/2 months was spend in 

the income disregard program. 

Approximately 10 clients were discontinued each month for 

excess earnings above $610. 

Approximately 60% of those clients earned more than $800 

a month. Average earnings were $1,050/ mo. 

Those who were discontinued for excess earnings spent 

roughly the same amount of time on aid as other IDP 

clients. 



PSS'S FINDING S: 

* To produce savings, the proposal must produce both an increase 
in average earnings, and an increase in the number of 
clients who participate. If one happens without the other, 
it would take an extremely high level of increase to produce 
cost-neutrality. 

* If participation and earnings remain the same, the increase in 
the disregard could increase costs by $225,600. Under the 
proposed change, those who make more than $100 will retain 
more of their earnings and receive a higher grant. 

* There is an additional unknown cost for those clients who 
currently earn between $610 and $800. Based on current 
estimates, for each additional month on aid, these clients 
will cost the County an additional $3,072. 

* There is an additional unknown cost for raising the savings 
limit from $1,500 to $2,000. For each client who is currently 
discontinued because of having savings in excess of $1,500 
(but less than $2,000) the county will pay $345 for each month 
they remain on aid. 



CALCULATIONS : 

* 564 people participated in IDP 

* 67% of those (or 376) do not receive the full grant 

- their average grant is $262. 

- their average earnings are $299. 

* 33% receive a full grant (of $345) 

* Based on current average earnings, clients who do not receive 
a full grant would receive an increase of $50, on average, in 
their grants. 

Formula - 

376 * $50 * 12 mo's = $225,600 



22 



Attachment 2 
Pape 1 of 4 

San Francisco 
Neighborhood Legal assistance Foundation 

GOVERNMENT BENEFITS (JMT 
43 POWELL STREET 
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 941Q2 
TELEPHONE (415} 627-Q200 



November 8, 1994 



Harvey M. Rose 
Budget Analyst's Office 
S.F. Board of Supervisors 
1390 Market St., Ste. 1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Re: Item 9 of 10/25/94 Health, Public Safety and 

Environment Committee Meeting, File 97-94-41.1 
(G.A. Allowable Personal Property and Income 
Disregard Program) 

Item 10, File 97-94-41.2 (GA Employer Wage Subsidy 
Program) 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

At your invitation, I am forwarding comments about the 
cost/benefit calculations furnished by the Department of Social 
Services to you with respect to the above-captioned matter. 

Your Report of October 2 5 analyzes the fiscal impact of 
the cited GA reform proposals. In doing so, it cites cost 
estimates provided by DSS although it also notes that these 
estimates are based on assumptions which are not particularly 
reliable or fact-based. The following are comments on 
assumptions made by Antoine Moore of SFDSS which resulted in the 
cost/ savings estimates referred to but not endorsed by you. I do 
not attempt to offer alternative costs/savings figures as I do 
not believe this is possible to do so without better tracking of 
GA recipients' work behavior. I only discuss invalid assumptions 
or valid assumptions which were ignored. 

Income Disregard Program 

In estimating costs, SFDSS makes a number of unwarranted 
assumptions: 

1. SFDSS assumes that those on IDP will stay on GA the 
same amount of time, regardless of whether the IDP formula is 
liberalized. However, the typical GA recipient may go on and off 



'•I -:-f-;fr- 39=46 --J-] 5.F.N.L.P.F. TO 

Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 4 

aid several times as s/he gets hired/f ired/ rehired. Extremely 
low-paying jobs are like that. The types of jobs currently 
unavailable to IDP participants because they pay too much are 
jobs which are more likely to lead to permanent employment, which 
in turn will result in one having no further need for GA and a 
consequent cost savings for CCSF. 

Furthermore, data might also show a greater effort made 
by relatively marginal employable people to find work, since the 
reward would be greater. It is unfortunate that DSS does not 
keep the kind of data which would help us evaluate how the 
disregard program works, even though the ordinance explicitly 
requires it to do so. 

While I am unaware of national data in the GA area, 
there have been interesting studies showing how AFDC recipient 
work behavior is influenced by how much "work pays." Mark 
Greenberg, one of the Nation's leading welfare reform advocates 
reports the following: 

* A New York experiment liberalizing earned income . 
disregard rules resulted in average monthly earnings which were 
27% higher than a control group. 1 

* Michigan's liberalization of the earned income 
disregard rules in 1992 resulted in the percentage of earned 
income cases in the total caseload rising from 15.7% to 23.3%. 

* Utah and Illinois have experienced similar results. 

2. DSS thinks only in terms of total GA grant 
expenditure. Ignored is the fact that because of higher monthly 
income, those on IDP can pay more for rent, thus freeing up ' 
scarce $260-$280/mo. SRO housing. 

3 . The report also ignores that those with more income 
spend more. Poor people spend 100% of their income. That helps 
the overall economy more than might be expected through the ! 
operation of the "multiplier effect" which measures how one ; 
dollar is respect several times, resulting in economic activity 
substantially more valuable than the one dollar itself. 

4. Finally, IDP changes should be viewed in the context 
of the new employer incentive ordinance. This improvement in IDP 
will presumably open up more opportunities for those in IDP to 
move into full-time employment. It might even be possible to set 
up the Employer Wage Subsidy program so that it gives preference 
to those in the IDP. 



Hamilton, Curstein, Hargreaves, Moss and Walker, The New 
York State Child Assistance Program: Program Impacts, Costs, and 
Benefits (Abt Associates, July 1993) . 



24 



Attachment 2 
Paee 3 of 4 

Allowabla Personal Property 

Mr. Moore of DSS argues that increasing the asset limit 
will simply nean that somone will be able to apply for GA sooner 
since available resources will not have to be spent down to $25. 
Consequently, he argues, that person will receive aid longer, the 
period being measured by the number of days earlier s/he can 
apply. 

Such an assumption is absurd. It is at least as 
reasonable to assume that not requiring someone to go into utter 
destitution before applying for GA will result in that person 
being able to stablilize his/her situation sooner and 
consequently leave the GA program, thus saving CCSF money. At 
SFNLAF we have seen clients who are evicted because they have 
used up all of their resources before being able to apply for GA 
and are unable to pay their rent. While SFDSS regulations permit 
the issuance to the landlord of an emergency rent check if such a 
situation is imminent, many GA applicants are unaware of such a 
possibility and consequently do not alert their intake workers. 

Wage Subsidy Program 

I have only one comment to make since there seems little 
disagreement that this program is worthwhile. Your report note^ 
the calculations of SFDSS with respect to a reduction by four 
months in the amount of time someone receives GA. There is in 
fact absolutely no way at the present time to estimate how many 
people will receive GA for what lessened amount of time. As I 
said at the hearing, this will depend entirely on the response 
from the employer community. We can easily figure what the 
savings would be if someone receives X months less of GA. But 
that doesn't teach us anything useful. 

What is important to emphasize is that national studies 
consistently indicate that the longer an unemployed person 
remains without work, the less job ready s/he is and consequently 
the less likely to find work. This is the case of many GA 
clients. A number of them have exhausted their 2 6 weeks of 
Unemployment Insurance Benefits and are at a critical stage: if 
unable to find work relatively quickly, their employability 
decreases rapidly. The wage subsidy program is valuable 
precisely because it targets this population. 

Conclusion 

I hope these comments help illustrate why the additional 
costs to CCSF projected by SFDSS are wildly speculative and that 
alternative assumptions which should be made about client 
behavior strongly suggest important savings to the General Fund. 
I am not of course able to guarantee that such savings will 
results, only that analogous studies suggest such savings. Until 
SFDSS is better able to track how behavior varies depending on 
the IDP and asset limit formulae, it is unwise to rely on 



25 






FROM S . F . N . L . 



Attachment 2 
PcH'C 4 of 4 



untested assumptions. The figures which were calculated by St. 
Anthony's for the IDP suggest that instead there may be 
substantial savings to CCSF from these reforms. Only employer 
interest in the wage subsidy program will limit the amount of 
savings which that program could create. 

Thank you for including these comments in your report to 
the Committee. 




cc. Brian Cahill, SFDSS 



[migdletl.sbw] 



26 



so- 



.-.r^aclrr.c-r.- j 
Page 1 of 3 



November 11. 1994 

Mr. Harvey Rose 
Budge! Analyst 
S.F. Board of Supervisors 
1 390 Market St. Suite 1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 




A NTHON Y 

15 A T J O N 



Re: 

Attn: 



File 97-94-41.1 
Karen Kegg 



Dear Mr. Rose: 



of Truslrcc 

Chlnnla. OFM 
» rrslitmt 
* McGinn, OFM 

— mviticUt Vicnr 



Thank you for inviting me to write to you about the General Assistance reform package 
thai Supervisor Migden has proposed. J want to concentrate on the parts pertaining to 
the asset limit and income disregard program (File 97-94-41.1) because the Budget 
flnBam^ky.or^omrnittee has not yet acted on these parts. Both you and your associate, Karen Kegg, 
4'tDoherty,opM have asked St. Anthony Foundation to explain our methodology and the savings 
Wuh«t«,ofm figures. I trust we can do so to your satisfaction. 



51 Obre^on. OF!.'. 
«r 1 Rmi.vj. OFM 
iK i Sliort, OFM 

nof Directors 

— rr.sifirnt 
>n? j. Grunf.ten 

— 'ice President 
ae <3on»!« 

— 'Crctnrj 
if y Bribes, OFM 
-rt "ledwc-od 
in itierrr?. OFM 
in irdin. OFT/ 
fltHayex 

?li Kflvanafth 
te-ockman. OFM 
ft J. Marly 



Our Methodology 

St. Anthony Foundation developed Combining Compassion With Efficiency, die 
proposal on which Sup. Migden's legislation is based, for two reasons: to assist GA 
recipients locate and maintain employment and to save San Francisco General Fund 
money. It is our experience that hundreds, if not thousands, of GA recipients want to 
work and are able to work, but "the system" fails to provide adequate incentives and 
support. Because we believe work is an essential component of human dignity, we 
crafted our proposal to emphasize employment incentives. 

We also recognize that the City is in a serious financial crisis. We realize, for 
example, that it would be politically impossible to raise the GA grant amount — which 
currently does not come close to providing a liveable income - at this time. Neither 
our proposal nor Sup. Migden's legislation suggest any new services or entitlements. 
Every part of St. Anthony Foundation's proposal and Sup. Migden's legislation is 
designed to save the City money. Based on our 44 years of offering services to 

if »Nguyen.oFM people who are poor or homeless, we believe that raising the asset limit and increasing 
the Income Disregard levels will prevent people from becoming homeless and assist 

M7j,te nrooks people find and maintain employment. This legislation, therefore, will reduce the time 
people need to be on GA and thus will save die City money. 

Mr. Rose, you are aware dial as a matter of policy St. Anthony Foundation does not 
accept any government funds. We choose to offer services that are supported by the 
good will of people. Stewardship is the concept tiiat best describes the way St. 
Anthony Foundation attempts to utilize its funds for the maximum benefit of the people 
who use our services. This concept also has guided the design of our proposal. We 



'-- 



27 



121 Golden Oase Av-nue San Francisco CA 94102-3J9? 
IIS U-2rt00 FAX m 



Attachment 3 
Page 2 of 3 ' 

believe thai while you may not choose to use die word "stewardship. " it does describe 
your office's approach to analyzing the City's budget. 

Another aspect of our methodology is that it reflects a friendly collaboration with the 
Department of SociaJ Services. During die past 12 mondis. we have had more dian 10 
meetings involving DSS staff and Supervisor iMigden or her staff. One outcome of 
these meetings is that it has caused bodi of us to revise our cost estimates to die point 
where diere is now substantial agreement. For example, DSS's revision of its fncome 
Disregard statistics caused us to change our estimate of die IDP costs from Si 93,070 to 
$223,344* Likewise, our discussion of the asset level influenced DSS to revise its 
estimate of the cost of diis change from $414,000 in a 6/21/94 memo to $69,000 as 
indicated in the 10/25/94 Budget Analyst memo. 

While this friendly collaboration has resulted in agreement in cost estimates, DSS and 
St. Anthony Foundation are still far apart on savings estimates. This is the one area of 
our collaboration that has disappointed me. Perhaps our disagreement stems from a 
couple of areas in which the statistics are not available to support fully either of our 
positions. The DSS Income Disregard report states, "The amount of savings depends 
on the average amount of time, beyond two years, other clients remain on GA. This 
information, Swwever, is beyond the scope of this analysis" (p. 6, italics added). This 
information, however, is essential to an accurate savings estimate. Lacking this 
information, we have had to make estimates based on our experience of assisting GA 
recipients find and maintain employment. Our experience is the basis for our estimate. 

Another area in which we find the DSS Income Disregard report lacking is in analysis 
of reasons Income Disregard participants are discontinued from the program. 
Statistics on page 4 indicate that 13 percent of ID participants are discontinued for 
"023 - Earned income too great." Tin's seems to be a small percentage. There is 
another reason for discontinuance, however, that comes into play here: "060 - Failure 
to submit GA-1" under which 30 percent of ID participants are discontinued. It is our 
experience that many, if not most, of the participants who are discontinued for this 
reason are people whose earnings have exceeded program limits and simply drop out of 
the program without completing the paperwork. This experience contributes to our 
estimate. 

A final part of our methodology is significantly influenced by your office's 
mediodology. specifically by die analysis of the Matrix program contained in your Feb. 
1994 report on homelessness expenditures. We applied the mediodology your office 
used in determining police expenditures to calculate savings in reappJication and 
hearing expenses if the asset limit were to be raised to S345. 

Our Savings Estimate 

St. Anthony Foundation believes that raising die asset limit from S25 to $345 will save 
the City a net $138,000 in the first 12 months. $22,000 in savings come from reduced 
administrative costs for reapplication and appeal hearings. We estimate diat of die 



28 



1--1S9-: 12-"C2 ST. QNTHQJ ■ .. _; r 

Attachment 3 
Pane 3 of 3 

1,2000 denials each year dues to excessive assets, two-thirds of the 1,200 people have 
$26 to $345 are currently eligible to reapply in three to 30 days. Application intake, 
review and filing requires approximately ] 1/2 hours for a cost of $30 per 
reapplication. (The average DSS GA employee hourly wage is S19.91.) Hearings 
average a total of S50. Even if only 75 percent of the 800 people who would be 
affected by our proposal currently reapply and 10 percent request a hearing, our 
proposal would save $22,000 in administrative costs. 

We also believe diat the current $25 limit forces people to become destitute before 
receiving GA. These people arc forced to lose housing and suffer the complications of 
homelessness such as health risks, violence, lost belongings and despair before 
becoming eligible for assistance. Raising the limit to $345 will provide greatly 
increased stability. If this proposal enable only 556 (46 people a month) of the J 5,000 
GA recipients to leave GA only one month earlier, the City will save $185,000 in GA 
expenses, not to mention odier health and social service savings. (The City breaks 
even if only 17 recipients a month leave one mondi earlier.) Jt is our experience that 
die increased stability and dignity will have this effect. 

We believe that raising the Income Disregard limit will increase the amount of ID 
participation due to increase work incentives, increase the number of people who 
report income, and increase the number of people who exit GA by bridging die gap 
between the grant level and a liveable income. We estimate an increase in ID 
participation from 3.68 to 4.67 percent during die first 12 months of implementation. 
This estimate is consistent with ID growdi levels. This increase in participation will 
save the City $42,652 on grants that otherwise would not have been reduced. We also 
estimate that ID reform, because it will happen within the context of increased 
commitment to work opportunities and incentives for GA recipients, will greatly 
increase the ability of ID participants to exit GA. We believe these incentives and 
opportunities will reduce the ID rolls by an average of 15 percent. This would save die 
City an additional $387,395. Total gross savings would be $430,047 and total cost 
would be $223,344* Total net saving for die first 12 mondis due to the ID changes 
would be $206,703: 



I hope diis information clarifies St. Andiony Foundation's methodology for calculating 
savings estimates. 1 would be delighted to discuss this matter in more detail with you 
or your staff if you would find it helpful. Thank you for all you do to assist our City 
operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. 



Sincerely, 




I 




Bdward P. DeBerri 
Advocacy Coordinator 



Budget Analyst Note: According to Mr. DeBerri, the St. Anthony Foundation concurs with DSS's 
cost estimate of $22!), 600. Thus, savings for the first 12 months due to the i ici 1 ncocn • 

Disregard Limit would be $204,4 Y. ($430,047 less $225,600] 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30. 1994 

Item 4 - File 79-94-2 

The proposed resolution would approve the 1995 Community Development 
Program, authorizing the Mayor to apply for, receive, and expend the City's 1995 
Community Development Block Grant from the U. S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development. 

Refer to the separate November 23, 1994 Budget Analyst's report to the 
Board of Supervisors on the Review of the 1995 Community Development Budget as 
proposed by the Mayor's Office of Community Development. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Item 5- File 68-94-14 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 



Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution authorizing the Mayor to apply lor, accept and 
administer a Federal grant for the Home Investment 
Partnership (HOME) Program and approving the HOME 
Program Description. Indirect costs associated with the 
acceptance of these grant funds will be paid by Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. 

Not to exceed $5,684,000 

Five years from the date that HUD approves the grant 
allocation 



Source of Funds: U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

Project: Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program 

Description: The HOME Program is authorized under Title II of the 

National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Public Law Number 
101-625). The Act provides funds for the acquisition, 
rehabilitation and development of affordable housing. The 
Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) reports that on August 5, 
1994, HUD issued regulations requiring that for Federal 
Program Year 1995, beginning February 1, 1995 and ending 
January 31, 1996, a consolidated plan be developed for the 
HOME Program, the Housing Opportunities for People with 
AIDS Program (HOPWA), the Emergency Shelter Grant 
Program (ESG) and the Community Development Block Grant 
Program (CDBG). In response to such HUD regulations, the 
MOH has developed the 1995 Consolidated Housing 
Development Action Plan. The MOH advises that this plan 
functions as a grant application and that, based on a formula, 
the City has received a HUD funding allocation of $5,684,000. 
In order to be eligible to receive these funds, the City must 
submit a program description of how it intends to spend the 
proposed allocation of HOME Program funds bv December 15, 
1994. 

According to the City's HOME Program Description, the City 
proposes to use its HOME funding allocation of $5,684,000 as 
part of the 1995 Consolidated Housing Development Action 
Plan. The 1995 San Francisco Consolidated Housing Action 
Plan totals $55,519,000 including the proposed $5,684,000 
HOME grant and several other sources of development monies, 
as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



31 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



HOME Funds: 

Proposed New Funds for 1995 $5,684,000 

Less: Previously reserved in 1994 1 P 060.000 

Subtotal: HOME Funds 4,624,000 

Other Sources - Federal: 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2,620,000 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 1,000,000 

Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS 5,962,000 

Special Homeless Grant 4.000.000 

Subtotal: Other Sources - Federal 13,582,000 

Other Sources - Local : 

Hotel Tax Funds 12,315,000 

SFRA Tax Increment Funds 9,777,000 

Seismic Safety Bonds 15,000,000 

Office- Affordable Housing Production Program 121,000 

Code Enforcement Rehabilitation Fund (CERF) 100.000 

Subtotal: Other Sources - Local 37,313,000 

Total Projected Uncommitted Funds for 
Privately-Owned Housing Development 
in 1995 $55,519,000 

The proposed net uncommitted 1995 HOME Program funds of 
$4,624,000 represent approximately 8% of the total 
$55,519,000 in projected uncommitted funds for privately- 
owned housing development available as presented in the 1995 
Consolidated Housing Development Action Plan. 

The purpose of the Consolidated Housing Action Development 
Plan is to allocate funds to the City's local funding program 
and to establish criteria within the funding programs 
consistent with the following: 

1. the priorities set out in the City's Comprehensive Housing 
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and the CHAS Annual Plan, 
as approved by HUD on December 14, 1993 

2. the San Francisco Five Year HIV/ AIDS Housing Plan (May, 
1994) 

3. the Five Year Mental Health Supportive Housing Plan 
(October, 1994) 

4. the Strategic Plan of the San Francisco Senior Services Plan 
Task Force (August, 1994) 

5. the Continuum of Care Five Year Strategic Homeless Plan 
for San Francisco (October, 1994). 

6. the procedures for allocating HOME Program funds 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in August, 1992 (File 
68-92-4.1) and revised in February, 1994 (File 68-94-7). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30. 1994 

Budget: The $4,624,000 in Home Program funds available for new 

activities in 1995 and the $1,060,000 of 1995 funds that had 
been reserved in 1994 will be allocated as follows: 

Supportive Housing $ 750,000 

Development of housing with supportive 
services for persons with mental or physical 
disabilities, particularly homeless persons 

Family Rental Housing 2,000,000 

New construction of multiple bedroom 
rental housing for families 

Single Person Housing 1,704,000 

Development of small unit rental housing 

Rehabilitation Matching Fund 850,000 

Rehabilitation of for-profit multiple unit 
rental housing 

Tenant Assistance 50,000 

Tenant-based assistance to provide 
emergency assistance 

Administration 

Community Housing Development 
Organizations (CHDO) $150,000 - allocated 
to cover administrative expenses of 
community housing development 
organizations to provide supportive services 
for extremely low-income tenants as 
follows: 



Chinese Community Housing 




Corporation 


$50,000 


Mission Housing Development 




Corporation 


50,000 


Tenderloin Neighborhood 




Development Corporation 


50.000 


Subtotal CHDO's 


150,000 



Mayor's Office of Housing ($180,000) 
allocated to cover a portion of personnel 
costs of the HOME Program as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



B 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



FTE 



Director .15 

Deputy Director .10 

Housing Finance Officer .25 

Housing Rehab Manager .80 

Senior Project Manager .25 

Senior Project Manager .15 

Construction Manager .20 

Office Manager .18 

Project Manager .30 

Portfolio Manager .10 

Project Manager .30 

Project Manager J25 
Subtotal Salaries 3.03 



Salary 

$13,213 

6,974 

16,260 

52,033 

12,959 

7,775 

9,673 

7,352 

12,857 

4,286 

11,126 

9.128 

$163,636 



Fringe Benefits (10%) 16,364 

Total Salaries and Benefits $180,000 

Total Administration ($180,000 plus $150,000) $330.000 

Total Home Budget $5,684,000 

$1,438,500 

$20,000 in indirect costs for General City purposes will be paid 
from CDBG funds. 

1. The matching fund requirement of $1,438,500 will be 
provided from existing City funds previously appropriated by 
the Board of Supervisors for affordable housing which total 
$22,092,000. Because the MOH will not send out Notice's of 
Funding Availability to prospective developers until February 
1995, the MOH is unable to identify the specific projects that 
will receive HOME funding and the specific fund(s) that will be 
used to provide the matching requirement for the subject 
grant. However, the MOH advises that the specific fund(s) 
used for the matching requirement will be provided when the 
MOH requests approval to expend the proposed grant funds. 

2. Mr. Bernhard Gunther of the Mayor's Office of Community 
Development (MOCD) reports that the indirect costs of $20,000 
to administer the proposed HOME Program grant will be 
provided by 1995 CDBG funds. 

3. The fifth "Whereas" clause in the proposed resolution states 
"the administrative and direct costs of administering the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



34 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30. 1994 



HOME program are an eligible Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) expense, and will be paid from CDBG funds 
through the 1994 Community Development Program". This 
should be amended to read "through the 1995 Community 
Development Program". 



Recommendations: 

1. Amend the proposed resolution to reflect the 1995 
Community Development Program as the funding source for 
the administrative and direct costs of the HOME Program. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Item 6 - File GS-94-15 

Department: Mayor's Office of Community Development 

Item: Resolution approving the 1995 Emergency Shelter Grants 

Program and expenditure schedule and authorizing the 
Mayor to apply for, accept and expend a $621,250 
entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program 
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. 

Grant Amount: $621,250 

Grant Period: Two years from the date of approval by the Federal grantor 

Source of Funds: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) 

Project Description: The HUD Emergency Shelter Grants Program was first 
established under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless 
Assistance Act in July, 1987. The program is designed to 
help improve the quality of existing emergency shelters foi 
the homeless, to help make available additional emergency 
shelters, to help meet the costs of operating emergency 
shelters and of providing certain essential social services to 
homeless individuals so that those persons have access to 
the supportive services they need to improve their 
situations. The program is also intended to restrict the 
increase of homelessness through the funding of preventive 
programs and activities. 

The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) is 
responsible for administering and monitoring the 
Emergency Shelter Grants Program (ESGP). Funds from 
the ESGP are to be distributed to non-profit agencies for 
one or more of the following activities relating to emergency 
shelters for the homeless. The eligible activities include: 

(1) the rehabilitation of buildings used as emergency 

shelters; 

(2) the provision of essential and social services to the 
homeless; 

(3) the payment of maintenance and operation expenses 
such as repairs, rent, utilities, insurance, and furnishings; 
and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



(4) the development and implementation of homeless 
prevention activities. 

The proposed grant funds would be allocated by MOCD to 
20 non-profit homeless service providers and shelter 
operations as divided among 22 projects (two of the project 
grants are to be awarded to the Asian Women's Shelter and 
two are to be awarded to La Casa de las Madres). 

The MOCD reports that it issued a Request for Proposal 
(RFP) on August 25, 1994, to homeless service providers 
and shelter operators. A public workshop on the RFP was 
held by MOCD on September 7, 1994, to explain the 
requirements and application procedures for the ESGP. On 
September 23, 1994, the MOCD received 27 applications 
requesting a total of over $2 million in ESGP funds in 
response to the RFP process. Of these, 22 project 
applications were selected. Descriptions of the 22 projects 
selected for funding are as follows: 



Essential and Soci al Services 

These grants would fund staff at homeless shelters for 
shelter management and for the provision of social services 
to shelter residents. 

Asian Women's Shelter $14,000 

location confidential 

The grant would provide for a house manger and follow-up 
coordinator. Asian Women's Shelter serves battered 
monolingual Asian women and their children. 

Catholic Charities/Rich. Hills Fam. Ctr. $32,000 
6324 Geary Blvd. 

The grant would pay salaries of staff to provide case 
management services to shelter residents. Richmond Hills 
Family Center provides transitional housing services for 15 
homeless families. 

Catholic Charities Family Services $20,000 

1049 Market Street 
The grant will be used to pay for a case manager in its 
eviction prevention and rent assistance program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



37 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Essential and So cial Services. Continued 

Dolores Street Community Services $26,000 

208 Dolores Street 

The grant will be used to pay for a case manager. Dolores 
Street Community Services provides emergency shelter and 
support services at three adult shelters. 

Golden Gate Community Services $12,500 

1387 Oak Street 

The grant would be used to hire a part-time intake 
manager. Golden Gate seeks to convert its shelter to 
transitional family housing. 

La Casa de las Madres $30,000 

location confidential 

The grant would pay for a women's advocate at the shelter. 
La Casa de las Madres is a shelter for battered women and 
their children. 

Swords to Plowshares $19,000 

995 Market Street 
The grant would be used towards a part-time advocate to 
prepare cases for VA and SSI benefits. 

Westside Community Mental Health Ctr. $32,000 
525 5th Street 

The grant would pay for a part-time case manager and an 
assessment manager. 

Subtotal $185,500 



Maintenance and Operation Expenses 

These grants would pay basic operation expenses at 

homeless shelters and other homeless support 

organizations. 

Asian Women's Shelter $16,000 

location confidential 

The grant would pay for operating costs such as utilities 
and insurance for the shelter. 

Central City Hospitality House $12,000 

146 Leavenworth Street 

The grant would be used towards repairs and maintenance, 
janitorial equipment, hygiene, cleaning supplies, and 
insurance. Central City Hospitality House is a community 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



38 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Essential and Social Services. Continued 

Golden Gate Community Services $12,500 

1387 Oak Street 

The grant would be used to hire a part-time intake 
manager. Golden Gate seeks to convert its shelter to 
transitional family housing. 

La Casa de las Madres $30,000 

location confidential 

The grant would pay for a women's advocate at the shelter. 
La Casa de las Madres is a shelter for battered women and 
their children. 

Sword's to Plowshares $19,000 

995 Market Street 

The grant would be used towards a part-time advocate to 
prepare cases for VA and SSI benefits. 

Westside Community Mental Health Ctr. $32,000 
525 5th Street 

The grant would pay for a part-time case manager and an 
assessment manager. 

Subtotal $185,500 



Maintenance and Operation Expenses 

These grants would pay basic operation expenses at 
homeless shelters and other homeless support 
organizations. 

Asian Women's Shelter $16,000 

location confidential 

The grant would pay for operating costs such as utilities 
and insurance for the shelter. 

Central City Hospitality House $12,000 

146 Leavenworth Street 

The grant would be used towards repairs and maintenance, 
janitorial equipment, hygiene, cleaning supplies, and 
insurance. Central City Hospitality House is a community 
center in the Tenderloin which provides support services to 
the homeless. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



39 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Maintenance and Operation Expenses. Continued 

Chemical Awareness and Treatment Svcs. $26,750 
930 Gough Street 

The grant would be used for six-months' rent at St. Paulus 
Women's Center. Chemical Awareness and Treatment 
Services provides emergency shelter and support services to 
single women. 

Community Housing Partnership $15,000 

126 Hyde Street 

The grant would be used for food to provide meals to 
homeless adults. 

Episcopal Community Services $40,000 

201 8th Street 

The grant would be used to pay for maintenance and 
operation expenses. Episcopal Community Services 
provides temporary shelter and food at its adult shelter. 

Friendship House Assoc, of Amer. Indians $23,000 
80 Julian Avenue 

The grant would be used to pay for rent, utilities, 
telephone, office supplies, food, and client expenses. 
Friendship House provides emergency care for homeless 
American Indians suffering from alcohol and drug 
addictions. 

Hamilton Family Center $50,000 

1525 Waller Street 

The grant would be used to pay rent and utilities. 
Hamilton Family Center is an emergency center for 
homeless families, operating 24 hours a day, throughout 
the year. The population served are parents with children, 
expecting couples, and single pregnant women. 

La Casa de las Madres $30,000 

location confidential 

The grant would pay for rent, utilities, telephone and 
maintenance costs for the Casa de las Madres Shelter. 

Larkin Street / Diamond Youth Center $ 16,000 

536 Central Avenue 

The grant would pay for utilities, telephone, insurance and 
laundry. Diamond Youth Center is a shelter for homeless 
youth ages 12 to 17. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANAI AST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Maintenance and Operation Expenses, Continued 

Larkin Street Services $26,000 

1044 Larkin Street 

The grant would pay for rent, utilities, telephone, and 
custodial services. Larkin Street Services provides 
counseling and day-time drop-in services to homeless youth 
age 12 to 18. 

Salvation Army $58,000 

240 Turk Street 

The grant would pay for food, utilities, insurance, 
equipment and furnishings, janitorial services, laundry, 
and maintenance expenses at its homeless shelter for men. 

Traveler's Aid of San Francisco $20,000 

44 McAllister Street 

The grant would pay for rental of the 16 hotel rooms at the 
Civic Center Residence, which is owned by the Tenderloin 
Neighborhood Development Corporation. 

Subtotal $332,750 



Homeless Prevention Services 

These grants would fund programs dedicated to preventing 
homelessness and to assisting the homeless in obtaining 
government benefits. 

American Red Cross $63,000 

1550 Sutter Street 

$55,000 of the grant would pay for one-time rental 
assistance for individuals and families facing eviction 
because of inability to pay rent. $8,000 of the grant would 
be used for a portion of the account specialist's salary. 

Bar Association of San Francisco $20,000 

995 Market Street 

The grant would pay for salaries of staff to recruit, train, 
and supervise volunteer attorneys and paralegals who 
would provide legal services to clients in matters such as 
eviction defense and obtaining public and housing benefits. 

Subtotal $83,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



41 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Project Budget: 



MOCD Administration $20,000 

This amount would fund the salaries of a program 
administrator and an accountant at the MOCD, for a 
combined .5 FTE of staff time, to administer the proposed 
grants. 

TOTAL $021.250 



Essential and Social Services (30% of total grant) 



Description 


Amount 


Asian Women's Shelter 


$14,000 


Catholic Charities/Richmond Hills Family Center 


32,000 


Catholic Charities Family Services 


20,000 


Dolores Street Community Center 


26,000 


Golden Gate Community 


12,500 


La Casa de las Madres 


30,000 


Swords to Plowshares 


19,000 


Westside Community Mental Health Center 


32.000 


Subtotal 


$185,500 


Maintenance and Operation Expenses (54% of total grant) 


DescriDtion 


Amount 


Asian Women's Shelter 


$16,000 


Central City Hospitality House 


12,000 


Chemical Awareness and Treatment Services 


26,750 


Community Housing Partnership 


15,000 


Episcopal Community Services 


40,000 


Friendship House Association of American Indians 


23,000 


Hamilton Family Center 


50,000 


La Casa de las Madres 


30,000 


Larkin Street Youth Center 


16,000 


Larkin Street Diamond Youth Center 


26,000 


Salvation Army 


58,000 


Traveler's Aid of San Francisco 


20.000 


Subtotal 


$332,750 


Homeless Prevention (13% of total grant) 




Descriotion 


Amount 


American Red Cross 


$63,000 


Bar Association/Homeless Advocacy Project 


20.000 


Subtotal 


$83,000 


MOCD Administration (3% of total grant) 


$20,000 


TOTAL 


$621,250 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



hi 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Required Match: $621,250 ($1,006,219 is to be provided in the 1995 
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), 
see Comment 1). 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



$120,000 (to be provided from the 1995 Program for the 
MOCD administration of HUD funds allocated for the 
CDBG and other miscellaneous programs including ESGP). 

1. Mr. Jon Pon of the MOCD reports that HUD requires a 
minimum of $621,250 in matching funds from the City to be 
used for projects targeted at the homeless population. Mr. 
Pon states that a total of $1,006,219 allocated for 12 
homeless-related projects in the 1995 CDBG Program has 
been identified as matching funds for the ESGP. (see the 
Attachment) 

2. The proposed grant allocation of $621,250 represents a 
reduction of $22,750 from the 1994 allocation of $644,000. 

3. The MOCD has prepared a disability access checklist, 
which is in the file. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



43 



ATTACHMENT 

The source of matching funds is the 1995 Community Development Block 
Grant Program. The following project activities and funding amounts are 
identified as matching funds. 

Episcopal Community Services S3 9,000 

renovtion of shelter sanitation facilities 
Glide Foundation S94.000 

renovation of kitchen serving meals to homeless 
Central City Hospitality House $48,416 

employment services for homeless youth 
Larkin Street Services S25,000 

crisis intervention for homeless youths 
Asian Women's Shelter S 2 1,500 

shelter services for battered women 
La Casa de las Madres _ $52 ,000 

shelter services for battered women 
Catholic Charities of S.F. $30,000 

homeless prevention assistance to families 
St. Vincent de Paul $45,000 

drop-in services for homeless adults 
Traveler's Aid of S.F. $36,600 

case management for homeless persons 
Swords to Plowshare $35,000 

advocacy services for homeless vets 
Community Housing Partnership $29,703 

planning projects to employ homeless persons 
Homeless Program Pool 550,000 

projects in Continuum of Care plan 



Total $1,006,219 



Uk 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Item 7 - File 97-94-72 

Department: Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures 

Item: Ordinance amending Administrative Code by amending 

Section 1.13-5 thereof, to increase the fees charged for the 
registration and inspection of weighing and measuring devices, 
effective January 1, 1995. 

Description: Section 1.13-5 of the Administrative Code lists the fees that the 

Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures is 
authorized to charge to offset the actual costs of inspecting and 
testing weighing and measuring devices. The proposed 
ordinance would modify the Department's existing fees in 
order to fully recover the Department's costs to provide testing 
and inspection services, as follows: 





Current 


Proposed 






Number 


Fee Per 


Fee Per 




Percentage 


of Devices 


Location 


Location 


Increase 


Increase 


1-3 


$20 


$40 


$20 


50% 


4-9 


40 


80 


40 


50 


10- 19 


60 


120 


60 


50 


20-25 


60 


160 


100 


167 


Over 25 


60 


200 


140 


233 



Comments: 



In addition, the proposed ordinance would establish one new 
fee for inspecting electric and gas vapor meters at mobilehome 
parks, recreational vehicle parks and apartment complexes 
where the owner of the mobile home or recreational vehicle 
park or apartment complex owns and is responsible for such 
utility meters. The proposed fee to inspect and test utility 
meters at the foregoing locations would be $60 pui mo 
home or recreational vehicle park or apartment complex, plus 
$2.00 per space or apartment unit. 

The proposed fee increases and the proposed new fee would 
become effective on January 1, 1995. 

1. The proposed fee increases and the proposed new fee are the 
result of the adoption of State legislation in 1994 which 
authorized counties to increase fees for the testing and 
inspection of weighing and measuring devices to the State- 
imposed maximum levels. These proposed fee increases are 
contained in the Table above. 

2. The Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures 
reports that the current revenue generated annually for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



45 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



above-noted existing fees is approximately $71,000. The 
Department estimates that, based on the proposed increase in 
the existing fees and the establishment of the new fee, an 
additional $60,000 in revenues would be generated annually, 
bringing the total amount of annual revenues generated to 
$131,000. The estimated increase in revenues has been 
previously included in the FY 1994-95 budget for the 
Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures, as 
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The budgeted revenues 
assumed an effective starting date of January 1, 1995 (as the 
proposed legislation stipulates) for the proposed fee increases 
and the proposed new fee. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 8- File 28-94-15 

Department: 

Item: 



Port Commission 

Resolution approving a declaration of emergency 
repair of the Ferry Building roof deck for 535,000. 



for the 



Amount: 



$35,000 



Source of Funds: Emergency Project Funds of the Port Operating Fund 



Description: 



Comments: 



On September 18, 1994, rain water began leaking into the 
offices of the firm of Limbach & Limbach, a tenant of the Port 
of San Francisco. The third floor deck of the Ferry Building 
directly over this office was found to be cracked and in need 
of a new surface to seal the cracks. The condition of the roof 
was declared an emergency on September 27, 1994, by the 
San Francisco Port Commission. It was also determined that 
Port maintenance staff could not perform the repair work 
because the roof deck requires a coating of a special sealant 
in order to protect the Ferry Building from water damage. 

After declaring the damaged roof an emergency, the Port 
developed a set of specifications that detailed the type Oi 
sealant to be used on the roof, and then made several 
attempts to locate a contracting firm that could meet those 
specifications. On November 21, 1994, the Port received a 
bid in the amount of $41,790 from Vintage Contractors, 
which submitted a proposal that meets the Port 
specifications. Vintage Contractors is not a MBE/WBE urm 

The Port is requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve 
the declaration of emergency made by the San ^ranciso ' 
Commission, in accordance with Administrative Code Section 
6.30. 

1. Mr. Cliff Jarrard, Chief Engineer for the Port, advises 
that no other Port tenants were affected by the leaking roof 

2. Mr. Jarrard states that a highly durable and effective roof 
sealant product, known as Dex-O-Tex, was specified in the 
requests for contract bids, and that the delay between the 
declaration of the emergency and the final acceptance of the 
bid from Vintage Contractors was due to the difficulty in 
finding a contractor which was familiar with and able to use 
the sealant. 

3. According to Mr. Jarrard, Vintage Contractors will hire a 
subcontractor, Global Coating, to remove the existing plaster 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



47 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

and sheet metal work along the walls adjacent to the roof 
deck and replace the sheet metal and plaster. The sheet 
metal work is part of the water proofing system that diverts 
rainwater behind the plaster wall to the roof deck. Global 
Coating is not a MBE/WBE firm. Vintage Contractors will 
then apply a fabric coating to the roof deck surface and seal 
the fabric with the Dex-O-Tex sealant. 

4. The amount of the bid, $41,790, is higher than the 
$35,000 stipulated in the proposed resolution. Therefore, the 
resolution to approve a declaration of emergency for the 
repair of the Ferry Building roof deck should be amended to 
include $41,790, instead of $35,000. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to approve a declaration of 
emergency for the repair of the Ferry Building roof deck in 
the amount of $41,790, instead of $35,000. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF S UP ERVIS ORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Nowember 30, 1994 

Item 9- File 101-91-40.4 

Department: Airport Commission 



Item: 



Amount: 



Requesting release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$457,368 for contractual services for infrastructure repair and 
maintenance work. 

$457,368 



Source of Funds: 1990 Airport Series E Revenue Bond Interest Earnings 



Description: 



Project 
Budget: 



In February of 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
ordinance appropriating $17,501,272 in Airport Revenue Bond 
interest earnings for capital improvement projects. Of this 
amount, $9,692,875 was placed on reserve for construction 
contracts, pending the selection of contractors, the submission 
of budget details and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. 
The Board subsequently released $9,235,507 of these reserved 
funds for contractual services for infrastructure repair and 
maintenance work at the Airport, thereby, leaving a balance ot 
$457,368 on reserve. 

Through a Request for Proposal, the Airport Commission 
selected a contractor and awarded a contract for a terminal 
improvement capital project on October 18, 1994. The AirpoT-ts 
Commission is now requesting the release of the remaining 
$457,368 in reserved funds for this contract. 



South Terminal Drawings 
(CAD) Conversion 



Compute r Assisted Design 

$498,000 



This project will verify and revise as-built drawing 

South Terminal into Autocad format. The data will be entered 

into the Airport's Geographical Information System. 

Prime Contractor: 

EPC Consultants, Inc. (43.8%) 

Subcontractors: 

SH Engineers (9.8%) 
Towhill, Inc. (16.1%) 
Draftics, WBE (21.1%) 
Cabellon, MBE (6.2%) 
Kodama Associates, MBE (3.0%) 

Total MBE/WBE Participation - 30.3% 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Novvember 30, 1994 



CAD Conversion $ 406,530 

Architecture. Engineering & Inspection 

These services will be performed in-house by 

Airport employees and are budgeted at 15% 

of CAD conversion costs of $406,530 60,980 

Contingency 

7.5% of CAD conversion contract costs 30.490 

Total Project Costs $ 498,000 



Comments: 1. According to Mr. Kevin Kone, Financial Planner for the 

Airport Commission, the difference of $40,632 between the 
total project cost of $498,000 and the remaining reserve of 
$457,368 which is being requested for release, will be funded 
by the Airport Capital Improvement Fund. Mr. Cesar 
Sanchez, Chief Accountant for the Airport Commission, reports 
that there are previously appropriated unused funds available 
in the Airport Capital Improvement Fund sufficient to absorb 
the $40,632 required to fully fund this contract. 

2. Mr. Kone states that although the contract has been 
awarded, work on the project has not begun and, therefore, no 
retroactivity clause is required. 



Recommendation: Approve the release of reserves in the amount of $457,368. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Items 10 and 11 - Files 101-94-26 and 101-94-33 

Department: District Attorney 

Item: Item 10, File 101-94-26 - Supplemental appropriation 

ordinance for permanent salaries and mandatory fringe 
benefits to address underfunding in the District Attorney's 
Office; subject of previous budget denial. 

Item 11, File 101-94-33 - Supplemental appropriation 
ordinance for salaries, fringe benefits, and training to address 
underfunding in the District Attorney's Office; subject of 
previous budget denial. 



Amount: 



Item 10, File 101-94-26 
Item 11, File 101-94-33 
Total 



$1,000,000 

650.000 

$1,650,000 



Source of Funds: General Fund-General Reserve 



Description: The District Attorney's Fiscal Year 1994-95 General Tund 

budget request for Criminal and Civil Prosecution and 
Administration salaries, net of salary savings, was reduced bj' 
the Mayor's Office by $856,619, or from $10,966,463 to 
$10,109,844. In addition, the position count in the FY 1994-95 
budget for Criminal and Civil Prosecution and Administration 
was reduced by 10, or from 168 to 158. The District Attorney's 
budget for Criminal and Civil Prosecution and Administration 
salaries, net of salary savings, was further reduced by th N 
Board of Supervisors during the FY 1994-95 budget process by 
$101,131, or from $10,109,844 to $10,008,713. Thus, the Fiscal 
Year 1994-95 General Fund budget request for Criminal and 
Civil Prosecution and Administration salaries in the District 
Attorney's Office, net of salary savings, was reduced by a total 
of $957,750, or from $10,966,463 to $10,008,713. 

The subject supplemental appropriation requests, for the 
period retroactive from November 5, 1994 through June 30, 
1995, which total $1,650,000, would be allocated as follows: 



Permanent Salaries 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits (18.52 percent) 
Training 
Total 



$1,377,000 

255,000 

18.000 

$1,650,000 



It should be noted that although the District Attornej Pi 
Year 1994-95 General Fund budget request for Criminal and 
Civil Prosecution and Administration salaries, net of salary 
savings, was reduced by the Mayor's Office and by the Board of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



5] 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Supervisors by a total of $957,750, the subject supplemental 
appropriation requests, totaling $1,377,000 for salaries, would 
exceed the amount by which the budget was reduced by 
$419,250 ($1,377,000 less $957,750). 

According to Ms. Bridget Bane of the District Attorney's Office, 
with the approval of the Mayor's Office, the District Attorney's 
Office has continued to provide services which the District 
Attorney believes are needed, instead of reducing its staff 
commensurate with the reduction in budgeted net salaries. 
Accordingly, the District Attorney's Office has incurred actual 
salary costs of $4,021,873 through November 4, 1994, and 
projects such salary costs from November 5, 1994, through 
June 30, 1995, for Criminal and Civil Prosecution and 
Administration at its current rate of expenditures, as detailed 
below: 

Actual expenditures - 7/1/94- 11/4//94 $4,021,873 

Projected expenditures -11/5/94-6/30/95 7.539.279 

Total Projected Expenditures $11,561,152 

Budget $ 10.008.713 

Projected Shortfall - Salaries S 1 ,552,439 

Fringe Benefits (19.5%) 302.726 

Projected Salary and Fringe Benefits Shortfall $1,855,165 

The District Attorney Office's projected salary and fringe 
benefits shortfall is based on salary and fringe benefit 
expenditures for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 assuming that the 
existing level of services performed by the Office continues 
throughout the year. 

The District Attorney's Office reports that although its FY 
1994-95 budget has been reduced, its workload will be 
significantly increased during FY 1994-95 by the increased 
volume of work which will result from the addition of 
approximately 200 additional police officers and by the "three 
strikes" legislation, recently put into effect. However, the 
Budget Analyst notes that the Police Department's 1994-95 
hiring plan for uniformed officers, based on the final approved 
1994-95 budget, would add 190 new officers gradually over the 
fiscal year. These Police Officers would be trained in four 
separate Police Academy classes. Since the hiring will be 
phased in over the year, the increase in full time Police Officers 
will be approximately 44 FTEs for the year and not 200 as the 
District Attorney's Office has advised. Also, all except 30 of the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



190 new Police Officers will still be in training at the end of the 
1994-95 Fiscal Year. 

According to the District Attorney's Office, of all the needed 
services to be performed when a shortage in resources occurs, 
such as the projected budgetary shortfall that is the subject of 
this proposed supplemental appropriation request, the District 
Attorney's Office will first reduce the prosecution of non- violent 
misdemeanors in order to stay within budgeted funding for 
prosecution. The District Attorney's Misdemeanor Unit had 18 
attorney positions when it was fully staffed, but the unit is 
currently operating with only 12 attorneys due to higher 
priority felony cases and positions being defunded. 

In addition to the reductions that would be made in the 
Misdemeanor Unit, the District Attorney's Office reports that 
the following list of services which the Office has been able to 
provide might also be adversely impacted should this 
requested supplemental appropriation not be approved: 

1. The Child Abduction Unit, which was established in 
1994 to find and recover abducted children. The Child 
Abduction Unit consists of four prosecution positions. 

2. The Bad Check Unit, which was established in 1994 to 
enable individuals and merchants to receive restitution 
for bad checks. Prior to the establishment of the Bad 
Check Unit, the Police Department would only process 
cases involving checks over the amount of $2,500. The 
Bad Check Unit consists of one investigator position. 

3. The Hate Crimes unit, which was established in 1989 to 
enhance the prosecution of hate crimes. The Hate Crimes 
Unit consists of one attorney position and approximately 
0.3 investigative support staff positions. 

4. The Felony Domestic Violence Unit, which was 
established in 1989 to provide vertical prosecution of 
felony domestic violence cases. The Felony Domestic 
Violence Unit consists of two attorney positions. 

5. The Night Rebookings Unit, which was established in 
1992 to help alleviate the jail overcrowding problem. The 
Night Rebookings Unit consists of one attorney. 

6. The Elder Abuse Unit, which was established in 1993 to 
address the increasing problem of elder abuse. The Elder 
Abuse Unit consists of 1.5 attorney positions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



7. The Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Advocacy Unit, 
which was established in 1994 to provide domestic 
violence victims with counseling, escort, and court liaison 
services. The Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Advocacy 
Unit consists of 2 attorney positions. 

8. The Special Emphasis Unit, which was established in 
1994 to provide services and counseling to families of 
murder victims in the Bayview/Hunters Point Area. The 
Special Emphasis Unit consists of 1.5 Victim/Witness staff 
positions. 

Regarding Item 10, File 101-94-26, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance would provide an additional $846,000 
for prosecution salaries and $154,000 for fringe benefits for a 
total of $1,000,000 for the period retroactive from November 5, 
1994 through June 30, 1995. 



Item 11, File Number 101-94-33, requests a total of $650,000, 
including $531,000 for prosecution salaries and $101,000 for 
fringe benefits for the period retroactive from November 5, 
1994, through June 30, 1995, and $18,000 for training funds. 
The additional $18,000 in training funds is in accordance with 
a Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Mike Martin of the 
Mayor's Office states that the Mayor's Office anticipated that 
$500,000 of the required salary and fringe benefit shortfall of 
$632,000 would be transferred to the District Attorney's Office 
from the Police Department in recognition of savings created 
by the Court Overtime Project. However, such overtime 
savings were used in the fiscal plan of the Mayor and the 
Board of Supervisors to balance the City's budget. Also, 
according to Mr. Martin, the use of $500,000 in such Police 
overtime funds needed by the Police Department for security 
during the newspaper strike makes such a transfer impossible, 
in any event. Therefore, additional funds have been requested 
under this legislation. Regarding this supplemental 
appropriation request for $531,000 in additional salaries, there 
were no additional cuts made by the Mayor or the Board of 
Supervisors in the District Attorney's budget for Criminal and 
Civil Prosecution and Administration salaries. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



SA 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Comments: 1. As previously stated, nearly all of the reductions in budgeted 

salaries for the District Attorney's Office were made by the 
Mayor's Office, in the amount of $856,619, during the FY 1994- 
95 budget process. The $18,000 reduction in training was made 
by the Board of Supervisors during the FY 1994-95 budget 
process, based on actual usage of training funds by the District 
Attorney's Office during FY 1993-94. Therefore, these requests 
are the subject of previous budgetary denial and require a two- 
thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors for approval. 

2. The District Attorney's Office reports that the number of 
reported felony cases processed by the Department has steadily 
increased as follows (based on Municipal Court filings 
statistics compiled by the State Justice Department- actual for 
calendar years 1990 through 1993 and projected for 1994): 

1990 9,189 

1991 10,153 

1992 11,400 

1993 12,359 

3. The Attachment to this report shows the budgeted funds and 
related number of permanent authorized positions in the 
District Attorney's budget for the last five fiscal years — FY 
1990-91 through FY 1994-95. The Attachment excludes the 
Family Support Bureau, which is funded 100 percent by 
Federal funds. Also, grant funded positions were not included 
in the budget prior to FY 1993-94. The Attachment shows that 
for Criminal and Civil Prosecutions and Administration, the 
number of authorized positions has decreased by 14, from 183 
in FY 1990-91 to 169 in FY 1994-95. The funding data show 
that based on the current budget for FY 1994-95, funding for 
salaries would decrease by $188,122 ($10,196,835 for Fiscal 
Year 1990-91 minus $10,008,713). However, when this 
supplemental funding request for salaries of $846,000 under 
File 101-94-26 and $531,000 under File 101-94-33 or a total of 
$1,377,000 is added to the existing FY 1994-95 budget of 
$10,008,713, the increase in funding from FY 1990-91 to FY 
1994-95 is $1,188,878 ($11,385,713 for 1994-95 less 
$10,196,835 for 1990-91). Yet, as currently proposed by the two 
supplemental appropriation requests, an additional $1,377,000 
would be required in FY 1994-95 to fund a total of 14 fewer 
positions. 

4. The Department originally budgeted $26,000 for training, 
$18,000 of which was cut during the budget process based on 
actual spending experience. The District Attorney's Office has 
now provided the Budget Analyst with a copy of the 
Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Municipal Attorney's Association of San Francisco, which 
provides that $250 in traimng funds is to be made available for 
each attorney within the District Attorney's Office. According 
to Ms. Mary King of the District Attorney's Office, the funding 
of $26,000 including the restoration of the $18,000 previously 
cut, would provide training for 104 funded positions within the 
District Attorney's Office. 

5. As previously stated, Ms. Bane of the District Attorney's 
Office has stated that, with the approval of the Mayor's Office, 
the District Attorney's Office has continued to provide services 
which the District Attorney believes are needed, instead of 
reducing its staff commensurate with the reduction in 
budgeted net salaries. Contrary to Ms. Bane's statement, Mr. 
Martin states that the District Attorney is expected to manage 
with the resources provided the Department in the budget, 
plus the sum of $500,000 which was expected to be the savings 
amount from the Police Overtime Project, as previously 
discussed. Further, Mr. Martin also estimates a need for 1.3 
additional FTEs for jail overcrowding staff to comply with the 
Federal Appeals Court. 

6. As noted above, although the District Attorney's Fiscal Year 
1994-95 General Fund budget request for Criminal and Civil 
Prosecution and Administration salaries, net of salary savings, 
was reduced by the Mayor's Office and by the Board of 
Supervisors by a total of $957,750, the subject supplemental 
appropriation requests, totaling $1,377,000 for such salaries, 
would exceed the amount by which the budget was reduced by 
$419,250 ($1,377,000 less $957,750). Also, as noted above, 
these requests are the subject of previous budgetary denial and 
thus require a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors for 
approval. 

7. Therefore, based on the original FY 1994-95 budget request 
by the District Attorney's Office of $10,966,463 for Criminal 
and Civil Prosecution and Administration salaries, net of 
salary savings, the amount required to restore the Department 
to its original budget request is $957,750, and not the 
$1,377,000 as is being requested in these supplemental 
appropriation ordinances. Therefore, the amount requested of 
$1,377,000, for both Files 101-94-26 and 101-94-33, should be 
reduced by $419,250 to $957,750, and related mandatory fringe 
benefits should be reduced by $77,639 from the requested 
$255,000 to $177,361 (18.52 percent). 

8. Implementation of the Budget Analyst's recommendations 
would restore the District Attorney's salary budget for 
Criminal and Civil Prosecution and Administration to the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30. 1994 

original FY 1994-95 budget request submitted by the District 
Attorney, based on the Mayor's budget instructions. If the 
Budget Analyst's recommendations are accepted, this would 
provide the District Attorney with full Funding restoration to 
his original FY 1994-95 budget level, which no other major 
General Fund Department has received with the exception of 
mandated funding levels for the Police Department and the 
Public Library. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed legislation to provide for retroactive 
actions previously taken. 

2. In accordance with Comment No. 7 above, amend the 
proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (Item 11, 
File 101-94-33) to reflect the retroactive nature of the need 
for additional funds from November 5, 1994, and by reducing 
the amount of the appropriation request as follows: 

Permanent Salaries: Reduce by $419,250 from 
$531,000 to $111,750. 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits: Reduce by $77,639 from 
$101,000 to $23,361. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance (Item 11, File 101-94-33), 
as amended. 

4. As indicated above, if the Budget Analyst's 
recommendations are accepted, then the total requests of the 
District Attorney in the amount of $1,650,000 would be 
reduced by $496,889 ($419,250 in salaries plus $77,639 in 
fringe benefits) to $1,153,111. The Budget Analyst's 
recommendations would add $1,153,111 to the District 
Attorney's Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget and would f u 1 1 v 
restore the District Attorney's funding level to the original 
Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget request for salaries. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

S7 



Attachment 
District Attorney Positions per the Annual Salary Ordinance (Excludes Family Support Bureau) 





_ I I . II ._ 


| 








FY 1990/91 


I 


FY 1991/92 






DA 




I 


DA 










Attorney 


investigator 


Support 


Total i Funding 


Attorneys Investigato 


Support 


Total 
174 


Funding 
$9,876,708 


Criminal and Civil Prosecution 


93 


31 


55 


179* 


$9,839,464 


93 


28 


53 


Administration 


2 





2 


4" 


5357,371 


2 




2 


4 
~14 


$363,535 


Work Orders 


2 


10 


2 


14 




2 


10 


2 


Projects 


5 


2 


8 


15 




5 


2 


13 


20 




Grants 






















Total 


102 


43 


67 


212 


$10,196,835 


102 


40 


70 


212 


$10,240,243 






































































FY 1992/93 


FY 1993/94 






DA 










DA 










Attorney; 


Investigato 


Support 


Total 


Funding 


Attorneys 


Investigator 


Support 


Total 


Funding 


Criminal and Civil Prosecution 


91 


29 


49 


169" 


$10,754,500 


91 


29 


50 


170 


$10,981,525 


Administration 


2 





2 


4" 


$386,801 


2 





2 


4 


$348,117 


Work Orders 


2 


10 


2 


14 




3 


14 


3 


20 




Projects 


5 


2 


11 


18 




5 


2 


11 


18 




Grants 












4 


1 


11 


16 




Total 


100 


41 


64 


205 


$11,141,301 


105 


46 


77 


228 


$11,329,642 






































































FY 1994/95 
















DA 




















Attorney; 


Investigator 


Support 


Total 


Funding 












Criminal and Civil Prosecution 


91 


30 


44 


165 


$9,648,544 












Administration 


2 





2 


4 


$360,169 












Work Orders 


3 


16 


3 


22 














Projects 


5 


2 


11 


18 














Grants 


7 


2 


13 


22 














Total 108 


50 


73 


231 


$10,008,713 
































Funds requested in this supplemental appropriation request. 


$1,377,000 


































Total 










$11,385,713 
























I 








•Totals 183 
















"Totals 169 

















58 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Item 12 - File 101-94-29 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Sheriff 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 3690,572 
from the General Fund Reserve for salaries, fringe benefits, 
other non-personal services, materials and supplies, and 
equipment to open additional beds at the new jail facility and 
to continue the Work Furlough Program for FY 1994-95. 

$690,572 



Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Description: The new jail facility, located at Bryant and Seventh Streets, is 

scheduled to open on December 1, 1994. However, because of 
the City's budget constraints, funding was provided in the 
Sheriffs Department FY 1994-95 budget for the opening of 
only three of the new jail's six pods in FY 1994-95. A pod is an 
open jail module, as opposed to the traditional linear-style cell 
blocks, where inmates are collectively supervised by Deputy 
Sheriffs. The three pods to be opened (Pods A, B and C) will 
each provide between 55 and 110 inmate beds, for a total of 
220 inmate beds for all three pods. 

However, a total of 288 inmate beds are needed, or 68 beds 
more than what the three pods will provide, in order to 
accommodate (a) the 168 inmates currently housed in Alameda 
County's jails who are scheduled to be transferred to the new 
jail facility on December 1, 1994; (b) the 66 inmates currently 
participating in the Residential Beds Program who will be 
transferred to the new jail facility on January 1, 1995; 1 and (c) 
the 54 inmates currently enrolled in the Work Furlough 
Program, 2 which is scheduled to terminate on December 1, 
1994 because, due to a shortage of experienced staff, the ten 
8304 Deputy Sheriff positions currently operating the Work 
Furlough Program are being transferred to work in the new 
jail facility. A breakdown of the activities affecting the City's 
jail space is as follows: 



The Residential Beds Program provides beds and substance abuse treatment services to inmates 
as an alternative to incarceration. Due to budget constraints, funding for the Residential Beds 
Program was provided only for the first six months of FY 1994-95 (July 1, 1994 through December 
31, 1994). 

The Work Furlough Program permits low-risk inmates to work outside of the jail during the 
daytime and to return to custody in the evenings. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



59 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

No. of 

Activity Beds 

Opening of Pods A, B and C in New Jail 220 

Transfer of Inmates in Alameda County's Jail ( 168) 

Closing of Work Furlough Program (54) 

Closing of Residential Beds Program (66) 

Additional Need for Inmate Beds (68) 

According to Sergeant Richard Ridgeway of the Sheriffs 
Department, based on past experience, the Sheriffs 
Department anticipates an increase in the inmate population 
during the winter months. As such, Sergeant Ridgeway 
estimates that more than 68 additional inmate beds will be 
needed. In order to compensate for the additional need of 68 
inmate beds and to provide additional beds for the anticipated 
rise in the prison population, the Sheriffs Department is 
proposing that a fourth pod (Pod F) in the new jail facility be 
opened in May of 1995, which would accommodate 104 
inmates. Furthermore, the Sheriffs Department hopes to 
restore the Work Furlough Program in February of 1995, 
thereby providing an additional 54 inmate beds, for a total net 
increase of 90 inmate beds, as follows: 

No. of 
Activity Beds 

Opening of Pod F in New Jail 104 

Restoration of Work Furlough Program 54 

Number of Additional Inmate Beds Needed (68) 

Net Increase in Inmate Beds 90 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
provide funding to hire 14 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs to staff a 
fourth pod (Pod F) in the new jail facility and ten (8302) 
Deputy Sheriffs to operate the Work Furlough Program after 
the Program is restored in February of 1995. In addition, 
funding would be provided for the Alternatives Program's new 
lease at 555 Seventh Street (See Relocation of Alternatives 
Program in the budget below). 3 

Budget: 8302 Deputy Sheriff I Salaries (New Jail) $249,900 

This amount would provide funding to hire 14 (8302) Deputy 
Sheriff positions to staff Pod F in the new jail facility. These 
14 Deputy Sheriffs would attend the December 12, 1994 class 
at the San Francisco Police Academy in order to receive Peace 
Officer Standard of Training (POST) certification in time for 



The Alternatives Program oversees programs, such as the Work Furlough Program and the 
Residential Beds Program, which offer prisoners an alternative to incarceration. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



the May, 1995 opening of Pod F in the new jail facility. At a 
biweekly salary of $1,190 for 15 pay periods (December 6, 1994 
through June 30, 1995), the total cost for 14 (8302) Deputy 
Sheriff positions would be $249,900. 

Fringe Benefits (New Jail) $61,110 

This amount is equivalent to approximately 24.5 percent of 
8302 Deputy Sheriff salaries. 

8302 Deputy Sheriff I Salaries (Work Furlough 

Program) $178,500 

This amount would provide funding to hire ten Deputy Sheriff 
positions to replace the ten 8304 Deputy Sheriffs who are 
currently running the Work Furlough Program but who are 
scheduled to work in the new jail facility starting on December 
1, 1994. These ten (8302) Deputy Sheriffs would be hired on 
December 6, 1994 and would attend a six-week training course 
conducted by the Sheriffs Department prior to re-starting the 
Work Furlough Program, which the Sheriff hopes to restore in 
February of 1995. These ten Deputy Sheriffs will likely start 
training for their POST certification in May of 1995. At a 
biweekly salary of $1,190 for 15 pay periods (December 6, 1994 
through June 30, 1995), the total cost for ten (8302) Deputy 
Sheriff positions would be $178,500. The total request for 
salaries for the 24 (8302) Deputy Sheriff positions is $428,400 
($249,900 plus $178,500) for the period December 6, 1994 
through June 30, 1995. These 24 positions are included in the 
budget but are not filled due to required salary savings. The 
$428,400 would provide the funding to fill these vacant 
positions (See Comment No. 1). 

Fringe Benefits (Work Furlough Program) $43,650 

This amount is equivalent to approximately 24.5 percent of 
8302 Deputy Sheriff salaries of $178,500. The total request for 
fringe benefits for the 24 (8302) Deputy Sheriff positions is 
$104,760 ($61,110 plus $43,650). 

8302 Deputy Sheriff I Training $75,000 

All 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions are required to receive POST 
certification within their first 18 months of service. Although 
Deputy Sheriffs normally receive POST certification at the San 
Francisco Police Academy, Lieutenant Tony Balzer of the 
Police Department anticipates that there will most likely not 
be sufficient space at the San Francisco Police Academy in FY 
1994-95 to accommodate both Police and Sheriff Department 
recruits. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, although there is 
sufficient space at the Police Academy to accommodate the 14 
Deputy Sheriffs to be hired to work in Pod F at the new jail 
facility, the remaining ten Deputy Sheriffs to be hired for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



61 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Work Furlough Program would have to receive training at an 
academy other than the San Francisco Police Academy. The 
estimated cost is $7,500 per Deputy Sheriff, or a total 
estimated cost of $75,000 for ten Deputy Sheriffs. Such 
training would take place at the Santa Rosa Police Academy. 

Holiday Pav $12,382 

Because it was anticipated that the new jail facility would open 
after January 1, 1995, no funding was included in the budget 
for holiday pay for Christmas and New Year's Day at the new 
jail facility. Because the new jail facility is now scheduled to 
open on December 1, 1994, $12,382 is needed for holiday pay 
for three Lieutenants and 28 Deputy Sheriffs to work on 
Christmas and New Year's Day. This amount is equivalent to 
1.5 x the average wage of $16.64 per hour x 16 hours (2 days) x 
31 positions (See Comment No. 6). 

Materials and Supplies $125,200 

The following is a breakdown of the Materials and Supplies 
supplemental request: 

For New Jail Facility: 

Two (2) Metal Detectors @ $2,695 ea. $5,390 
Four (4) Bulletproof Vests for Deputies who 

must transport prisoners @ $340 ea. 1,360 
38 Uniform Sets for 8302 Deputy Sheriffs 

@ $1,800 ea. 68,400 

38 Weapons @ $325 ea. 12,350 
For Pod F Only: 

150 Mattresses (with 46 in reserve) @ $50 ea. 7,500 

720 Sheets @ $8.33 ea. 6,000 

1,080 Blankets @ $12.08 ea. 13,050 

720 Towels @ $1.39 ea. 1,000 
312 Sets of Inmate Clothing (shirt, pants, 

socks, thong) @ $10.58 ea. 3,300 
500 Sets of Inmate Toiletries (toothbrush, 

toothpaste, comb, soap) @ $0.50 ea. 250 

Six (6) Storage Cabinets @ $100 ea. 600 

Total - Materials and Supplies $1 19,200* 

* See Comment No. 7. 

Computer Equipment $21,454 

This amount would provide funds for an automated prisoner 
classification system, which would allow the Sheriffs 
Department to gain access to prisoner information from a 
central, linked database. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, the 
purchase of this computer equipment has been approved by 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



EIPSC. A breakdown of the request for Computer Equipment 
is as follows: 

Four (4) Compaq DeskPro Computers 

@ $2,920 ea. $11,680 
Four (4) Monitors @ $475 ea. 1,900 

Four (4) Video Cards® $155 ea. 620 

1 HP Laserjet Printer 925 

Four (4) Advanced 3270 Adapters @ $399 ea. 1,596 
Four (4) Sets of Software (Windows) 

@$298ea. 1,192 

Four (4) Sets of Software (Lotus) @ 465 ea. 1.860 

Total - Computer Equipment $19,773** 

** See Comment No. 8. 

Relocation of Alternatives Program (Other Non- 
Personal Services) $38,576 
The Sheriffs Department Alternatives Program was formerly 
located in a leased facility at 245 Harriett Street. That lease 
provided 2,578 square feet at approximately $0.85 per square 
foot per month, for an annual cost of $26,136 ($2,178 per 
month). Because the building at 245 Harriett Street was sold 
in October of 1994, the Alternatives Program was forced to 
relocate to temporary space at 1390 Market Street. The 
Alternatives Program plans to occupy this space at 1390 
Market Street, which costs $4,167 per month for 3,175 square 
feet ($1.31 per square foot per month), until it is able to 
relocate to permanent space at 555 Seventh Street. 

The space at 555 Seventh Street is currently being leased by 
the Police Department's Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC), 
which is relocating to 760 Harrison Street in mid-January, 
1995. 4 The Alternatives Program plans to assume OCC's 
lease, which currently provides 2,890 square feet at $2.13 per 
square foot per month, for an annual cost of $73,890 
(approximately $6,157 per month, including approximately 
$940 per month for utilities, janitorial service and other 
operating expenses). Based on an anticipated rent increase of 
13.7 percent, the Sheriffs Department estimated that the rent 
at 555 Seventh Street would increase to $84,000 per year 
($7,000 per month or $2.42 per square foot per month). 

According to Sergeant Ridgeway, the Alternatives Program 
had originally planned to move to 555 Seventh Street directly 
from 245 Harriett Street by November 1, 1994. Sergeant 



The OCC's new lease at 760 Harrison Street was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors 
in July of 1994 (File 64-94- 1 1). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



63 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Ridgeway reports that there is $26,136 included in the Sheriff's 
Department FY 1994-95 budget for the rent at 245 Harriett 
Street. The rent for the first four months (July 1, 1994 
through October 31, 1994) was $8,712 ($2,178 per month at 
245 Harriett Street x four months), thereby leaving a balance 
of $17,424 for rent for the eight months remaining in FY 1994- 
95 (November 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995) at 555 Seventh 
Street. This $17,424 amount in the budget is $38,576 less than 
the anticipated $56,000 cost of the assumed lease at 555 
Seventh Street, which was expected to start on November 1, 
1994 and to last eight months ($7,000 per month x eight 
months). (See Comment No. 9) 

Administration $700 

These funds would create a revolving petty cash fund in the 
amount of $200 for the Sheriffs Research and Development 
Office, located at 1155 Market Street, and a revolving petty 
cash fund in the amount of $500 for the new jail facility. 
Currently the Sheriff has six Petty Cash Funds (one for each of 
the five County jails and one for the Administration Division) 
with a total of $2,700 in such Funds. As these funds are 
included under Other Non-Personal Services in the Sheriffs 
budget, the total supplemental request for Other Non-Personal 
Services should be $39,276 ($38,576 plus $700). 



Total Estimated Cost $806,472 

Less Estimated Salary Savings ($115,900) 

The Mayor's Office advises that 30 uniform 8304 Deputy 
Sheriff positions will be transferred to the Police Department 
in FY 1994-95 because they have passed the Police 
Department's Civil Service exam. Funding for salaries and 
fringe benefits for these 30 (8304) Deputy Sheriff positions has 
been included in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget for the entire 
fiscal year. The Sheriff plans to replace these 30 (8304) Deputy 
Sheriff positions with 10 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs in February of 
1995 and with 20 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs in April of 1995. 

Based in part on a recommendation of the Budget Analyst in 
the prior Zero-Base Budget Analysis, the miscellaneous 8302 
Deputy Sheriff classification was recently created by the 
Sheriffs Department to serve as a trainee position prior to 
being promoted to the uniform 8304 Deputy Sheriff position 
after 18 months of service. The 8302 miscellaneous Deputy 
Sheriff position is paid $38,242 annually or $12,448 per year 
less in wages and fringe benefits than the 8304 Deputy Sheriff 
position, which costs $50,690 in wages and fringe benefits 
annually. The $115,900 amount above is the Mayor's 
estimated salary savings from replacing the 30 uniform 8304 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Deputy Sheriff positions (at Step 3) with (1) ten miscellaneous 
8302 Deputy Sheriff positions on February 20, 1995, (2) ten 
miscellaneous 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions on April 10, 1995, 
and (3) ten miscellaneous 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions on 
April 17, 1995. 

Net Amount of Supplemental Appropriation 

Request $690,572 

Comments: 1. There were 78 new 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions included 

in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget to staff the new jail facility. 
However, according to Sergeant Ridgeway, because of required 
salary savings, only 40 of the 78 (8302) Deputy Sheriff 
positions included in the FY 1994-95 budget were filled, 
thereby leaving 38 (8302) Deputy Sheriff positions unfunded. 
Of the 38 vacant positions, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation would provide funding to fill 24 of them (14 to 
staff Pod F in the new jail facility and ten to restore the Work 
Furlough Program), leaving 14 vacant 8302 Deputy Sheriff 
positions. As such, no new positions would be added to the 
Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget, but rather, vacant positions would 
be filled. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, funding to hire an 
additional 14 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs will be requested in a 
future supplemental appropriation request. 

2. Because of the lack of space in the City's existing jails, the 
City must pay Alameda County approximately $500,000 per 
month to house inmates in Alameda County's jails. In 
addition, the City is fined $300 per inmate per day for 
overcrowding in Jail No. 1. 

3. As previously noted, based in part on the Budget Analyst's 
Zero-Base Budget Analysis, the 8302 miscellaneous Deputy 
Sheriff classification was created by the Sheriffs Department 
to serve as a trainee position prior to being promoted to the 
uniform 8304 Deputy Sheriff position after 18 months of 
service. Based on lower salary and fringe benefits of $38,242 
for the miscellaneous 8302 Deputy Sheriff position (versus 
$50,690 for the uniform 8304 Deputy Sheriff position), the 
estimated annual savings from the 78 miscellaneous 8302 
Deputy Sheriff positions included in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 
budget are approximately $970,944 per year. 

4. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, the 24 miscellaneous 8302 
Deputy Sheriffs would be hired on December 6, 1994, or after 
the first reading and approval of this supplemental 
appropriation request by the Board of Supervisors, which s 
anticipated to be on December 5, 1994. Sergeant Ridgeway 
advises that the Sheriffs Department needs to hire these 24 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Deputy Sheriffs prior to the final approval of this supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (expected to be on December 12, 1994) 
because 14 of these Deputy Sheriffs are scheduled to attend the 
December 12, 1994 training class at the Police Academy. 
According to Sergeant Ridgeway, if these 14 Deputy Sheriffs 
were to miss the December 12, 1994 class, they would likely 
have to attend training at an outside academy, at an estimated 
additional cost to the City of approximately $105,000. As such, 
since expenditures will be incurred prior to the final approval 
of this supplemental appropriation request by the Board of 
Supervisors, the proposed ordinance should be amended to 
provide for ratification of action previously taken. 

5. Based on information provided by the Controller's Office, 
fringe benefits for the 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions are $7,183 
per position per year, or $172,392 for 24 (8302) Deputy 
Sheriffs. For 15 pay periods, the total would be $99,076. As 
such, fringe benefits should be reduced by $5,684, from 
$104,760 to $99,076. 

6. Holiday Pay is over-budgeted by $6,807 since it includes 
$11,149 for the base wages of three Lieutenants ($1,454, or 
$30.30 per hour x 16 hours x three positions) and 28 Deputy 
Sheriffs ($9,695, or $21.64 per hour x 16 hours x 28 positions), 
which are already included under Permanent Salaries in the 
Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget. Holiday Pay should be reduced 
by $6,807, from $12,382 to $5,575, to reflect only the extra pay 
beyond the base hourly wages for these 31 positions, as follows: 

28 Deputy Sheriffs x $21.64 base hourly wage x 1.5 
x 16 hours $14,542 

3 Lieutenants x $30.30 base hourly wage x 1.5 x 16 
hours 2.182 

Total @ Time and One-half for 2 Holidays $16,724 

Less Portion for Base Hourly Wages: 

28 Deputy Sheriffs x $21.64 base hourly wage x 16 
hours * (9,695) 

3 Lieutenants x $30.30 base hourly wage x 16 hours (1.454) 

Total Needed for Holiday Pay $5,575 

7. The correct total for Materials and Supplies should be 
$119,200. Thus, the supplemental request for Materials and 
Supplies should be reduced by $6,000, from $125,200 to 
$119,200. 

According to Sergeant Ridgeway, $80,750 ($68,400 plus 
$12,350) allocated under Materials and Supplies will provide 
38 sets of uniforms and weapons for (a) the 24 (8302) Deputy 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

TUmr-lTT AW4TYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Sheriff positions which are the subject of this supplemental 
appropriation request; and (b) the 14 (8302) Deputy Sheriff 
positions, which, as noted in Comment No. 1 above, will be 
requested in a future supplemental appropriation request. 
However, at this time, only 24 of the 38 Deputy Sheriffs are 
being hired. As such, the requested amount for uniforms 
should be reduced by $25,200, from $68,400 to $43,200 ($1,800 
per uniform x 24 uniforms), and the requested amount for 
weapons should be reduced by $4,550, or from $12,350 to 
$7,800 ($325 per weapon x 24 weapons), thereby representing 
a reduction of $29,750 ($25,200 plus $4,550). Thus, the total 
recommended reduction for Materials and Supplies is $35,750 
($6,000, as noted above, plus $29,750 for uniforms and 
weapons), from $125,200 to $89,450. 

8. As previously noted, the total for computer equipment is 
$19,773. As such, the amount of the supplemental request for 
computers should be reduced by $1,681, from $21,454 to 
$19,773. 

9. According to Mr. Steve Alms of the Real Estate Department, 
OCC will not be able to move from its current 555 Seventh 
Street location until approximately mid-January, 1995 because 
of delays in the completion of tenant improvements at its new 
760 Harrison Street location. Therefore, the Sheriffs 
Department would not be able to relocate to 555 Seventh 
Street until February 1, 1995. Mr. Alms estimates that there 
would be no increase in the rent at 555 Seventh Street for FY 
1994-95 once the Sheriff assumes OCC's lease. Thus, as 
previously noted, the rent would be approximately $2.13 per 
square foot per month or $6,157 per month ($73,890 per year) 
for 2,890 square feet of space, or $47,754 (183 percent) more 
per year than the former rent of $26,136 per year ($0.85 per 
square foot per month or $2,178 per month) for 2,578 square 
feet at 245 Harriett Street. 

As such, this supplemental request for rent at 555 Seventh 
Street should be adjusted to reflect (a) three months rent (July 
1, 1994 through September 30, 1994) at the Alternatives 
Program's former location of 245 Harriett Street, or $6,534 
($2,178 per month x three months), plus (b) four months rent 
(October 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995) at the Program's 
current, temporary location of 1390 Market Street, or $16,668 
($4,167 per month x four months), plus (c) five months rent 
(February 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995) at the new 555 
Seventh Street location, or $30,785 ($6,157 per month x five 
months), or a total of $53,987 in FY 1994-95. Thus, given that 
there is already $26,136 for rent in the Sheriffs Department 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



budget, the supplemental request of $38,576 should be reduced 
by $10,725 to $27,851 ($53,987 less $26,136). 

10. The supplemental request for permanent salaries includes 
$428,400 for salaries plus $75,000 for training less $115,900 
for salary savings, or a total of $387,500. The total 
supplemental request for fringe benefits is $104,760. Thus, the 
total request for these two personnel categories is $492,260. 
Although the amounts that actually appear in the proposed 
ordinance are $393,808 for permanent salaries and $98,452 for 
fringe benefits (as reflected in the table below), the total is still 
$492,260 for these two personnel categories. 

11. In summary, the Budget Analyst recommends the 
following reductions from the $690,572 supplemental 
appropriation request: 



Line Item Category 



Supplemental Recommended Recommended 
Request Amount Reduction 



Permanent Salaries 
Fringe Benefits (Comment No. 5) 
Holiday Pay (Comment No. 6) 
Other Non-Personal Services 

(Comment No. 9) 
Materials and Supplies (Comment 

No. 7) 
Equipment (Comment No. 8) 

Total 



$393,808 
98,452 
12,382 


$393,808 

92,768 

5,575 




$5,684 

6,807 


39,276 


28,551 


10,725 


125,200 
21.454 


89,450 
19.773 


35,750 
1,681 



$690,572 $629,925 



$60,647 



Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance by providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 

2. Reduce the supplemental appropriation request by 
$60,647, from $690,572 to $629,925, as reflected in Comment 
No. 11 above. 

3. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 Budget Committee 

Item 13 -File 101-93-113.1 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $1,604,303, for the 
Department of Public Works for the Brooks Hall New Exit 
Stairs and Disabled Access Modifications Project. 

$1,604,303 



Source of Funds: 1990 Earthquake Safety Program Bond Funds (Phase ID 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously reappropriated $5,422,479 

in 1990 Earthquake Safety Program Bond funds to pay for a 
budget shortfall in connection with the Civic Auditorium 
Seismic Upgrade and Earthquake Repair Project. Of this 
$5,422,479, a total amount of $1,604,303 was designated for 
costs associated with the Brooks Hall New Exit Stairs and 
Disabled Access Modifications which are a component of this 
Project. The Board placed the entire $1,604,303 on reserve 
pending the selection of a contractor, submission of contract 
budget details and the MBEAVBE status of the contractor. The 
DPW is now requesting that the $1,604,303 be released from 
reserve. 

The DPW advises that it has selected, through its 
departmental bid process, A. Ruiz Construction, an MBE firm, 
as the lowest responsible bidder for the required modifications 
based on a base bid amount of $1,300,000 plus $210,800 in 
alternate construction services costs for a total bid amount of 
$1,510,800. These bid alternates, which were prepared at the 
request of the Convention Facilities Department, include (1) 
the provision and installation of stainless steel doors, frames, 
hinges, and thresholds at new stairwell exit doors, (2) the 
replacement of existing doors, frames, and hardware at 
existing stairwells with new stainless steel doors, frames and 
hardware and (3) the sealing of leaks in existing exposed 
mechanical supply duct. 

In addition to A. Ruiz, six other firms submitted base bid 
amounts plus alternate costs, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



69 



Base Bid 


Alternate 




Amount 


Costs 


Total 


$1,380,000 


$186,000 


$1,566,000 


$1,459,000 


264,798 


1,723,798 


$1,495,000 


233,800 


1,728,800 


$1,510,000 


209,714 


1,719,714 


$1,727,000 


191,196 


1,918,196 


$1,831,000 


169,000 


2,000,000 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 Budget Committee 



West Bay Builders, Inc/D. Steuart 

Thompson, a Joint Venture (WBE) 
Gomez-Chapot Construction Co., a 

Joint Venture (M BE) 
Lem Construction, Inc. (MBE) 
CICO 

Nibbi-Tom, a Joint Venture (MBE) 
Cuevas & Mannion Construction 

According to Mr. Mark Dorian of the DPW's Bureau of 
Architecture, A. Ruiz, in addition to itself being an MBE firm, 
is committed to a total subcontract goal of $362,592 of the 
$1,510,800 construction contract or 24 percent including 19% 
MBE and 5% WBE subcontract participation. 

The total project budget for the Books Exhibition Hall New 
Exit Stairs and Disabled Access Modifications is $1,912,353. Of 
this amount, $1,604,303 would be paid for by the requested 
release of reserved funds and the remaining balance of 
$308,050 would be paid for by funds budgeted for this purpose 
in the Convention Facilities Department. The total project 
budget of $1,912,353 would be expended as follows: 

Construction Contract $1,510,800 

Contract Contingency (10%) 151,080 

Construction Management (DPW) 250.473 

Total $1,912,353 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds in the amount 

of$l,604,303. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 14 - File 101-94-30 

Department: Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Bureau of Building Inspection 

Item: Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating 

$222,960 and reappropriating $46,811 for a total of $269,771 
for Permanent Salaries, Mandatory Fringe Benefits, and 
related costs for the Department of Public Works for FY 1994- 
95. 

Amount: $269,771 

Source of Funds: Code Enforcement and Rehabilitation Fund 

Description: The Code Enforcement and Rehabilitation Fund was 

established in 1979, pursuant to the State Revenue and 
Taxation Code, which provides that a property owner who 
derives rental income from substandard housing shall not be 
allowed any income tax deductions for interest, t^xes, 
depreciation or amortization paid or incurred in the taxable 
year in which such substandard housing is rented by the 
property owner. The DPWs Bureau of Inspection, through Its 
Code Enforcement and Rehabilitation Fund (CERF) Program, 
notifies the State Franchise Tax Board of the names of those 
property owners of apartment and hotel buildings who fail to 
bring their buildings into code compliance, and are thereby not 
entitled to the tax deductions previously noted. The State then 
allocates to the City the additional tax revenues which are 
generated as a result of the disallowance of the State income 
tax deductions under the CERF Program. Such funds are 
deposited to the Code Enforcement and Rehabilitation Kund. 
Proceeds from this special fund are appropriated for code 
enforcement and for loans up to $7,500 to correct safety 
hazards and other code deficiencies in the homes of low and 
moderate income residents. 

Mr. Vitaly Troyan of the DPW advises that the Department's 
Bureau of Building Inspection, beginning July 1, 1994, has 
reassigned two Housing Inspectors from normal inspection 
duties to duties associated with increased inspections under 
the Mayor's Homeless Hotel Program. 

According to Mr. Troyan, under the Mayor's Homeless 
Program the Bureau of Building Inspection is required to 
inspect, on a quarterly basis, approximately 50 hotels. Mr. 
Troyan advises that the reassignment of the two Housing 
Inspectors to the duties under on the Mayor's Homeless Hotel 
Program has significantly reduced the Bureau of Building 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



71 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Inspection's ability to process its normal inspections on a 
timely basis. As such, according to Mr. Troyan, the DPW has 
submitted this supplemental appropriation request to hire two 
additional Housing Inspectors to backfill the two positions 
made vacant by the transfer of the two Building Inspectors 
from the Bureau of Building Inspection's normal inspection 
duties to the Mayor's Homeless Hotel Program. 

Additionally, the DPW is proposing to fund a 1426 Senior 
Clerk Typist for loan processing in connection with the CERF 
Program and for record keeping for the Bureau of Building 
Inspection. 

Therefore, the DPW is requesting an appropriation of $222,960 
and a reappropriation of $46,811 for a total of $269,771 from 
the Department's Code Enforcement and Rehabilitation Fund 
to pay for salaries and fringe benefits (for the period 
retroactive from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995), overhead 
costs and other costs as follows: 

Housing Inspectors (2 FTE) at an 

annual salary of $65,146 each $130,292 

Senior Clerk Typist ( 1 FTE) 33.878 

Subtotal - Personnel $164,170 

Fringe Benefits at 41 percent (includes 
17 % fringe benefits plus 24 % for indirect 
cost for paid time off) 67,670 

Department Overhead 21,506 

Division Overhead 3,300 

Other Non-Personal Services (CERF loan 
processing costs) 13,125 

Total $269,771 

As noted above, the DPW originally requested that funds be 
appropriated to pay for the two Housing Inspector positions 
and the Senior Clerk Typist position retroactively to July 1, 
1994. However, Mr. Troyan now advises that the Senior Clerk 
Typist position, which is an existing position, should be deleted 
from this request. Additionally, Mr. Troyan advises that the 
two Housing Inspector positions will not be hired until 
January 2, 1995. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Based on the two Housing Inspector positions being hired 
effective January 2, 1995 and the deletion of the deletion of the 
Senior Clerk Typist position the actual supplemental 
appropriation amount required by the DPW is $114,824 or 
$154,947 less than the requested amount of $269,771, as 
follows: 



Housing Inspectors (1 FTE) 


$65,146 


Fringe Benefits 


26,710 


Department Overhead 


8,534 


Division Overhead 


1,309 


Other Non-Personal Services ( CERF loan 




processing costs) 


13.125 



Total $114,824 



The Code Enforcement and Rehabilitation Fund had a balance 
of $357,443 as of August 31, 1994. 

Comment: The proposed ordinance should be amended to reduce the 

amount of the supplemental appropriation request by $154,947 
from $269,771 to $114,824, as follows: 

(1) reduce Permanent Salaries from $164,170 to $65,146; 

(2) reduce Fringe Benefits from $67,670 to $26,710; 

(3) reduce Department Overhead from $21,506 to $8,534 and 

(4) reduce Division Overhead from $3,300 to $1,309. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the amount of the 
request by $154,947 from $269,771 to $114,824 as outlined in 
the above-noted Comment, and approve the ordinance as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Budget 

Items 15 and 16 - Files 101-94-31 and 45-94-66 



Departments: 



Items: 



Amount: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Item 15, File 101-94-31 - Supplemental Appropriation 
Ordinance appropriating $21,000,000 of Parking Meter 
Revenue Bond Proceeds for various Capital Improvement 
Projects and reimbursing advances made from the Parking 
Revenue Fund for the Department of Parking and Traffic for 
FY 1994-95, and placing $113,594 on reserve. 

Item 16, File 45-94-66 - Ordinance authorizing settlement of 
litigation of Gannett Outdoor Co. of Northern California 
against the City and County of San Francisco for a payment of 
$220,000 plus interest by the City to Gannett. 

$21,000,000 



Source of Funds: 1994 Parking Meter Revenue Bonds 

Description: The proposed supplemental appropriation request of 

$21,000,000 would be funded from the $25 million 1^94 
Parking Meter Revenue Bond funds. The DPT anticipates that 
these bonds will be sold on December 8, 1994. Of the 
$21,000,000, a total of $1,718,286 would be used to reimrur~e 
advances made from the Parking Revenue Fund. The 
remaining $19,281,714 would be expended for thrw capital 
projects at the San Francisco General Hospital Garage, the St. 
Mary's Square Garage and the Vallejo Street Garage, as 
follows: 



SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL 
GA R AGE ($17,63 1 ,714) 
Located at 24th and Utah Streets 

Construction 

Construction Contract 
Construction Contingency (11.5%) 
Building Permits 

Subtotal 

Design 

Contractual Services 



HOSPITAL (S F GH) 



$11,376,792 

1,308,194 

80.000 



$1? 764,986 



206,00(1 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Ik 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Budget 



Project Manageme nt (DPW) 

(Funds to be work ordered to DPW by the DPT) 

Project Management: $77 per hr. x 100 

hrs. per/mo. x 20 mos. $154,000 

Construction Management: 
Resident Engineer ($83 per hr. x 172 
hrs. per/mo. x 20 mos.) 285,520 

Office Engineer ($72 per hr. x 86 hrs. 
per/mo. x 20 mos.) 123,840 

Construction Inspector ($72 per hr. x 
258 hrs. per/mo. x 20 mos.) 371,520 

Construction Manager ($96 per hr. x 
40 hrs. per/mo. x 20 mos.) 76,800 

Lab Services: 
Concrete and Mortar Testing 80,080 

Soil Testing 7,176 

Miscellaneous Testing (i.e., electrical, 
pipes) 5,174 

Test Reports, Scheduling Etc. 6,544 

As-needed Specialized Lab Services 20,000 

Environmental Mitigation Activities 
Division Manager (10 hrs. @ $88/hr.) 880 

Industrial Hygienist (464 hrs. @ $63/hr.) 29,232 
Construction Inspector (384 hrs. @ 
$70/hr.) 26,880 

Environmental Inspector (240 hrs. @ 
$54/hr.) 12,960 

Industrial Hygienist Technician 
(600 hrs. @ $38/hr.) 22,800 

As-needed consultants 128,000 

Bureau of Architecture 
Plans 38,900 

Design 43,000 

Construction Documents 78,200 

Review of Bid Documents and 
Advertisement of Bids 34,900 

Contingency 113.594 

Subtotal $1,660,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

75 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Budget 

Site Cleanup 



Contract services for the Design and 
Installation of systems of equipment 
which (1) pump and treat contaminated 
ground water and (2) extract and burn 
contaminated vapors from soil $975,690 

Contract services for the Operation and 
Maintenance of the above-noted systems 
of equipment 1,487,810 

Administrative Oversight (DPW) 50.000 

Subtotal $2,5 i ^500 

Other. 

MUNI Relocation (see Comment 5 

below) $350,000 

Art Enrichment 110,400 

Planning Department Fees 26.82S 

Subtotal 487.228 

Subtotal SFGH Garage $17,631,714 

ST. MARY'S SQUARE GARAGE ($1.200.000) 
Located at 433 Kearny Street 

Construction Contract $1,2«>?,00C 

VAT J.K.TO S TREET GARAGE ($450.000) 

Located at 735 Vallejo Street 

Garage Demolition (contract services) $223,590 
Relocation Costs- Garage Operator 

(see Comment 7 below) 20,000 

Management Oversight of 

of Cleanup (DPW) 11,000 

Construction of Temporary 

Parking Lot - Contract Services 175,410 

Design of Temporary Parking Lot (DPW) 20.000 

(see Comment 8 below) 

Subtotal Vallejo St. Garage 450,000 

Reimbursement of Bond Funds 

to the Parking Revenue Fund i. 7. 1 8.280 

Total $21,000,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

76 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Budget 

Mr. Kevin Hagerty, Off-Street Parking Director of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic advises that of the 
$1,718,286 which is to be reimbursed from bond funds to the 
Parking Revenue Fund (previously known as the Off-Street 
Parking Fund) $220,000 plus interest would pay for the 
settlement of the Gannett Outdoor lawsuit. The balance of 
$1,498,286 would reimburse the Parking Revenue Fund for 
advances previously made to the SFGH Garage project. 

Comments: 1. The DPT reports that Nibbi Brothers has been selected as 

the lowest responsible bidder for the construction work 
required for the SFGH Garage, based on a base bid amount of 
$11,436,092 plus alternate costs for painting of $14,700 minus 
alternate costs of $74,000 for a reduced time period for the 
completion of the construction for a total bid amount of 
$11,376,792. Nibbi Brothers is neither an MBE or a WBE firm. 
Five other firms, none of which are MBE or WBE firms, 
submitted base bid amounts plus alternate costs as follows: 





Total Base Bid 


Alternate I 
Painting 


Alternate II 

Shorter 
Construction Total 


S. J. Amorosa 


$11,772,154 


$52,000 


$25,000 $11,849,154 


Conco 


$11,832,613 


$23,224 


$52,783 $11,908,620 


C. Overra 


$11,864,000 


$52,000 


$30,000 $11,946,000 


Largo 


$12,227,062 


- 


-- $12,227,062 


Bomel 


$12,841,550 


$50,000 


($61,000) $12,830,550 



2. Ms. Mary Gin-Starkweather of the Human Rights 
Commission advises that Nibbi Brothers, based on HRC's 
requirements, has committed a total of $1,990,939 of the 
$11,376,792 construction contract or 17.5 percent for MBE 
subcontractors (14%) and for WBE subcontractors (3.5%). 

3. As previously noted, $206,000 is included in the SFGH 
Garage's budget for design services. The DPT is proposing to 
modify an existing contract with the architectural firm of 
Fong and Chan, a registered MBE/WBE firm, to provide an 
additional $206,000 for these services. According to Mr. 
Hagerty, Fong and Chan's original contract in the amount of 
$864,000 included $198,720 for design services for the SFGH 
Garage. However, according to Mr. Hagerty this $198,720 
was expended on other unanticipated tasks that were 
required in connection with the SFGH Garage. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



77 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Budget 



4. As previously noted $1,487,810 for contract services for the 
operation and maintenance of the systems of equipment for 
the site cleanup is included in the budget for the SFGH 
Garage. The DPT advises that a contractor has not, as yet, 
been selected for those contract services. As such $1,487,810 
for the SFGH Garage should be placed on reserve pending 
the DPT's selection of a contractor and the submission of the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractor and contract cost details. 

5. The site where the SFGH Garage is to be constructed, was 
occupied by a MUNI maintenance facility. MUNI, effective 
September of 1994, relocated the major functions of this 
maintenance facility to a leased facility on Pier 80 and to a 
MUNI owned building at 1301 Army Street. As previously 
noted $350,000 is included in the SFGH Garage's budget for 
MUNI's relocation costs. 

6. As noted above, $1.2 million is budgeted for contract 
services for the St. Mary's Square Garage. The DPT advises 
that a contractor has not, as yet, been selected to provide 
those services. Therefore, the entire $1.2 million budgeted for 
the St. Mary's Square Garage should be placed on reserve 
pending the DPT's selection of a contractor, the submission of 
the MBE/WBE status of the contractor and contract cost 
details. 

7. The garage, located at the site where the new Vallejo 
Street Garage will be constructed, has been condemned and 
will be demolished, According to the DPT, because the 
property was condemned, pursuant to State law, the garage 
operator is entitled to relocation costs. Such relocation costs, 
as noted above, total $20,000. 

8. Mr. Hagerty advises that due to public concern regarding 
the design of the garage, the Vallejo Street Garage will not be 
built immediately. Instead, according to Mr. Hagerty, a 
temporary parking lot, at a cost of $175,410 will be 
constructed on the Vallejo Street Garage site. Mr. Hagerty 
advises that the start-up date for construction on the Vallejo 
Street Garage site itself will be determined at a later date. 
Mr. Hagerty adds that the DPT has not, as yet selected 
contractors for the necessary design and construction work 
for the temporary parking lot. Therefore, the $175,410 
designated for this purpose should be placed on ro <;r : 
pending the DPT's selection of contractors, UK 
submission of the MBE/WBE status of the contractors and 
the contract cost details. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Budget 

9. An amount of $113,594 of this request, which is designated 
for contingency purposes in connection with the Project 
Management work to be performed by the DPW, was placed 
on reserve by the Mayor's Office pending the DPW 
demonstrating a need for the expenditure of these funds. 

10. The $220,000, plus interest, to be paid by the City to 
Gannett Outdoor Co. of Northern California for the 
settlement of a lawsuit was negotiated by the City Attorney's 
Office. The Budget Analyst makes no recommendations 
regarding settlements of litigation (File 45-94-66). 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance (File 101-94-31) to reserve, 
in addition to the $113,594 placed on reserve by the Mayor's 
Office, a total of $2,863,220,. pending the DPT's submission of 
the MBE/WBE status of contractors and the contractor cost 
details, as follows: (1) $1,487,810 of the $17,631,714 
designated for the SFGH Garage (Comment No. 4), (2) $1.2 
million designated for the St. Mary's Square Garage 
(Comment No. 6) and (3) $175,410 of the $450,000 designated 
for the Vallejo Street Garage (Comment No. 8). 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 101-94-31) as 
amended, except that the Budget Analyst considers the 
proposed temporary parking lot, at a cost of $175,410, in lieu 
of proceeding at this time with construction of the Vallejo 
Street Garage because of reported public concerns, is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

3. The Budget Analyst makes no recommendations regarding 
settlements of litigation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 17 - File 97-94-74 

Department: Parking and Traffic 

Item: Proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 10, Section 10.88 of the 

Administrative Code relating to the operation of "Cash 
Difference Funds" and "Cash Overage Funds", to apply this 
section to the Department of Parking and Traffic 

Description: Chapter 10, Section 10.88 of the Administrative Code (Code) 

established a "Cash Difference Fund" and "Overage Fund" to 
reconcile cash deficits and cash overages reported by 
employees or officers of departments who receive and disburse 
money. Section 10.88 of the Code requires that the employee 
or officer provide a written report on such cash deficits and 
overages to the City Treasurer, through his or her department 
head, at the close of each business day. The report must 
contain the exact sum of the deficit or overage in the account 
for that day. 

If a cash deficit is reported, the City Treasurer is required to 
eliminate the deficit providing the amount does not exceed the 
amount available in the Cash Difference Fund. If the amount 
of the reported deficit were to exceed the amount available in 
the Cash Difference Fund, a request to have additional funds 
appropriated to the Cash Difference Fund would be submitted. 
This request for the appropriation of additional funds would 
have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The funds 
would be appropriated to the Cash Difference Fund from the 
General Fund General Reserves. 

The amount of any overage must also be reported to the City 
Treasurer. Excess revenues resulting from cash overages must 
be deposited in the Cash Overage Fund. At the end of each 
fiscal year, the balance of the Cash Overage Fund reverts to 
the General Fund. 

The City Treasurer is required to file a report with the Board 
of Supervisors and the Controller by the tenth day of each 
month for the preceding month. The report must contain 
itemized details regarding the amount of each cash deficit, or 
cash overage, as well as the date of the deficit, and the name 
and civil service classification of each person whose account 
was reimbursed. 

As proposed, the ordinance would be amended to api ] to 
employees of the Department of Parking and Traffic. The 
proposed amendment is in response to a change in the 
responsibility for the collection of parking citation fines. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



80 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

function of collecting parking citation fines was transferred 
from the Municipal Court to the Department of Parking and 
Traffic on November 1, 1993. 

Currently, the ordinance applies to employees of the 
Treasurer's, Assessor's, and Tax Collector's Offices, including 
the Redemption Officer assigned to the Tax Collector's Office. 
The existing ordinance also applies to the Clerks of the 
Municipal and Superior Courts, and employees of the Police 
Department and Department of Public Health, Bureau of 
Accounts who are specifically assigned to receive funds or act 
as cashiers. 

Comments: 1. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, stated that the 

amounts required to reconcile accounts using the Cash 
Difference Fund and the Cash Overage Fund are generally 
small. Mr. Madden does not recall any instances where a 
supplemental appropriation was required to increase the Cash 
Difference Fund in order to reimburse a cash deficit in an 
individual employee's or officer's account. 

2. According to Mr. Madden, cash deficits and cash overages 
which occur in the Department of Parking and Traffic are 
currently corrected and reported on by using the previously- 
noted procedures. Approval of the proposed ordinance would 
codify the current practices of the Department of Parking and 
Traffic with regard to reconciling cash deficits and cash 
overages. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 10, 
Section 10.88 of the Administrative Code. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

81 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 18 -File 82-94-9 

Department: Department of Public Works 

Real Estate Department 

Item: Resolution authorizing the City to acquire on behalf of the 

Department of Public Works the permanent sewer easement 
known as 1CT 10B through a portion of the real property 
identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 4347B/4 and adopting 
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Amount: $18,040 

Source of Funds: 1991 Sewer Revenue Bond Funds 

Description: The Real Estate Department reports that the Department of 

Public Works (DPW) is proposing to acquire a permanent 
sewer easement in connection with the Islais Creek 
Transport/Storage Project. The Islais Creek Project provides 
for the construction of underground sewer box facilities to 
capture, store, and transport wet weather overflows from the 
City's sewer system. The Project site is located near Islais 
Creek between Army and Napoleon Streets. 

The easement would provide the DPW with access to 3,280 
square feet owned by the State Department of Transportation. 
This easement would be used for the placement, construction 
and maintenance of that portion of the sewer box structure 
which is at the end of Napoleon Street. According to the Real 
Estate Department, the State would be paid $18,040 for this 
permanent sewer easement. 

Comments: 1. The Real Estate Department reports that the $18,040 to be 

paid to the State Department of Transportation represents the 
fair market value for this permanent sewer easement. 

2. The Department of City Planning has determined that the 
acquisition of this permanent sewer easement is in conformity 
with the Master Plan and is consistent with the Eight Priority 
Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Item 19- File 270-93-3.1 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Mayor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) 

Resolution retroactively approving an expenditure of $35,000 
placed in reserve from the Mayor's Earthquake Relief Fund 
for the services of a technical writer consultant to modernize 
and revise the City's Emergency Operations Plan, and a 
reallocation of an additional $4,815 for payment to the 
consultant. 

$35,000 

Mayor's Earthquake Relief Fund 

The OES is requesting that funds in the amount of $35,000 
be approved for consulting services from Laurie R. Friedman 
Consulting, which has already been retained under a contract 
with the OES. This consultant has modernized and revised 
the City's Emergency Operations Plan thr^t the City would 
follow in the event of a serious earthquake. 

On January 5, 1994, the $35,000 was appropriated but was 
placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors pending the 
selection of a consultant and the determination of the 
MBE/WBE status of the consultant. On April 1, 1994, the 
OES contracted with Laurie R. Friedman Consulting, a 
certified WBE firm. Due to an administrative oversight, I ' 
OES has incurred this $35,000 expenditure for consultant 
services and is therefore requesting that approval for such 
expenditures be authorized on a retroactive basis. 

In addition to this request of $35,000, the OES is also 
requesting that $4,815 in monies previously allocated from 
the Mayor's Earthquake Relief Fund be paid to Laurie R. 
Friedman Consulting to fund additional services rendered. 

1. According to Admiral John W. Bitoff, Director of the OES, 
work on the Emergency Operating Plan needed to be 
extended by one month in order to incorporate revisions by 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



the Emergency Operations Plan Task Force, 1 and that 
additional fees to the consultant for this extension amounted 
to $4,815. 

2. The Mayor's Earthquake Relief Fund contains monies 
from private donations that were not spent following the 
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The balance of this Fund as 
of November 17, 1994, is $82,145, which is net of the $35,000 
and $4,815 now being requested. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



1 The Task Force was appointed by the Mayor in June of 1993, and is comprised of 

representatives from the following City departments: Public Health, Police, Fire, Parking & Traffic, 
Public Works, Recreation and Park, Social Services, Medical Examiner, Office of Emergency 
Services, Airport, Municipal Railway, City Attorney, Controller, Electricity and Telecommunications, 
Planning, Superior Court, Purchasing, and Water. In addition, representatives were appointed from 
the National Park Service, Pacific Gas & Electric, Public Utilities Commission, and the American 
Red Cross. The Task Force was formed in order to revise and modernize the City Emergency 
Operations Plan. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 20 - File 172-94-44 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer 

Item: Resolution approving the form of, and authorizing the 

execution and delivery of, a Forward Purchase and Sale 
Agreement; and authorizing other actions related thereto. 

Description: The proposed resolution would authorize the Chief 

Administrative Officer (CAO) to execute a contract known as a 
Forward Purchase and Sale Agreement, under which the City 
would; a) receive a one-time payment from a securities dealer 
and, b) agree in exchange to purchase short-term U.S. 
Treasury Bills from that dealer over a period of 7 to 10 years as 
an investment of certain City monies. 

The City monies, which would be used to purchase the 
Treasury Bills, are payments of principal and interest made by 
the City on $522,940,000 in outstanding Sewer Revenue 
Bonds, Series 1991, 1992, and 1994. Under the original terms 
of these bonds, such principal and interest payments are made 
in installments throughout the year as much as 11 months 
prior to the time that semi-annual payments are actually due 
to the bondholders (See Comment No. 1). During that time, 
the monies are held by the Bank of America, acting as the 
City's Fiscal Agent, and are invested by the Bank of America in 
instruments that are approved by the City. 

The Bank of America's current practice, as approved by the 
City, has been to invest these monies in a money market fund. 
The yield on money market funds is now approximately 4.25 
percent, and has averaged well under 4 percent for the past 
few years. The proposed contract would take these monies and 
invest them instead in short-term U.S. Treasury Bills, which 
are expected to yield approximately 8 percent overall, an 
increase of 3.75 percent over current money market yields, 
according to research by the CAO. 

The contract authorized by the proposed resolution would work 
as follows: 

a) Following a competitive bid process, the City would select a 
securities dealer who offers the highest upfront payment to the 
City in exchange for the right to sell short-term U.S. Treasury 
Bills to the City over the 7 to 10 year period of the contract. 
According to Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood, Director of Public 
Finance at the CAO's Office, the upfront payment to the City is 
estimated to range between $8 and $10 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



85 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



b) Over the next 7 to 10 years, the City would use the 
payments of principal and interest that it makes on these 
Sewer Revenue Bonds, during the period when payments are 
not yet due to bondholders, to purchase the short-term U.S. 
Treasury Bills from the securities dealer. 

c) The Bank of America, as Fiscal Agent for the Sewer Bonds, 
would hold the U.S. Treasury Bills to maturity on behalf of the 
City, and make the semi-annual payments to bondholders from 
the proceeds. 

d) The upfront payment paid by the securities dealer to the 
City will be deposited in the Clean Water Program's Rate 
Stabilization Fund, and used to offset a portion of projected 
sewer service charge rate increases over the next four to five 
years (See Comment No. 2) 

The proposed contract provides for the following expenses to 
pay for administrative and professional services associated 
with this transaction. The proposed budget is: 

Office of the CAO 225 hours @ $40-$65/hr. $10,000 

City Attorney 100 hours @ $80-$100/hr. 10,000 

Bond Counsel (Orrick Herrington, Sutcliffe) flat fee 35.000 

Total $55,000 



Comments: 1. According to Ms. Wagner-Lockwood, the Sewer Revenue 

Bonds Series 1991, 1992, and 1994 were structured with 
monthly debt service payments on the advice of bond counsel 
in order to maintain a high bond rating. Such arrangements 
are commonly required for sewer and water revenue bond 
issues where the cash flow of the bond issuer can be 
unpredictable because it is partly dependent on revenues 
received from Sewer Service Charge rate payers, which vary 
with monthly water usage. While the City cannot alter the 
terms of the bond issues, which require such monthly 
payments, the CAO's Office believes that this proposed 
contract will allow the City to use the monthly debt service 
payments to the advantage of both the rate payers and the 
bondholders by securing a substantial upfront payment, 
earning a higher investment yield, and preserving the ability 
to make timely payments to bondholders. 

2. The upfront payment to the City from the selected securities 
dealer of an estimated $8 to $10 million under this contract 
would be deposited in the Clean Water Program's Rate 
Stabilization Fund and would slightly offset future sewer 
service rate increases, according to Mr. Bob Hesse of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Department of Public Works (DPW) Finance Division. The 
amount and schedule of that offset is being calculated by the 
DPW and will be available for the December 7, 1994 meeting of 
the Budget Committee. 

3. The Office of the CAO has requested that this item be 
continued to the December 7, 1994 meeting of the Budget 
Committee in order to allow more time for the Department to 
respond to inquiries by the Budget Analyst regarding details of 
the proposed contract. 

Recommendation: Continue this item to the December 7, 1994 meeting of the 
Budget Committee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Meeting of November 30, 1994 

Item 21 - File 207-94-16 

Item: Resolution urging the Mayor to urge the Police Commission 

to approve the purchase and standard issuance of semi- 
automatic weapons to all Police Officers of the San Francisco 
Police Department (SFPD). 

Description: 1. According to Deputy Chief Frank Reed of the SFPD, the 

Chief of Police, in response to a directive of the Police 
Commission, has stated that the Department would prepare 
a plan for a transition to the standard issuance of semi- 
automatic handguns. The matter will be heard by the Police 
Commission at its meeting of November 30, 1994. 

2. The SFPD now issues 357 magnum revolvers as its 
standard handgun. Revolvers can fire six rounds of 
ammunition before reloading is required. A typical semi- 
automatic handgun is capable of firing much more rapidly 
than a revolver, can hold 15 rounds of ammunition, and can 
be reloaded in a fraction of the time required to reload a 
revolver. 

3. Presently, if a San Francisco Police Officer wishes to use a 
semi-automatic handgun as their service weapon, he or she 
must acquire such a weapon at his or her expense. The usual 
cost of acquiring a semi-automatic and related equipment 
(i.e., holster, magazines, magazine holders, ammunition) can 
range from $500 to $800. Approximately 700 of the SFPD's 
1,840 sworn personnel currently possess such a weapon. 
However, the choice of which weapon to use is an individual 
matter. Therefore, there is no standardization among the 
personnel who now use semi-automatic handguns. 

4. The SFPD's preliminary estimated cost to purchase semi- 
automatic handguns for all members of the Police 
Department is $1.35 million for the procurement of 
approximately 2,100 semi-automatic handguns. As of the 
writing of this report, the Chief of Police anticipates that the 
Department will, upon the direction of the Police 
Commission, formulate a plan to implement this policy. 



B O ARD OF S UPE RVI SORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



88 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Meeting of November 30, 1994 

4. An informal survey of Bay Area and California law 
enforcement agencies by the SFPD found that the following 
jurisdictions issue, at the expense of the law enforcement 
agency, semi-automatic handguns to all sworn personnel: 

California Highway Patrol 

City of Berkeley Police Department 

Contra Costa County Sheriffs Department 

Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department 

City of Los Angeles Police Department 

Napa County Sheriffs Department 

Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department 

San Diego Police Department 

San Jose Police Department 

San Mateo County Sheriffs Department 

City of San Mateo Police Department 

In addition to the above, the San Francisco Sheriffs 
Department issues semiautomatic weapons to new Deputies 
and has done so for approximately the last year. 

Comments: A separate Board of Supervisors resolution, also urging the 

SFPD to transition to the issuance of semi-automatic 
handguns, has been referred to the Health and Public Safety 
Committee. 

Recommendation: The proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. Implementation of this resolution would require 
a supplemental appropriation from the General Fund 
Reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

89 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Items 22 and 23 - Files 97-94-56.3 and 101-94-34 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer 

Items: File 97-94-56.3 is a resolution that would approve the following 

actions regarding the Courthouse Construction Project: 

• delivery of a site lease between the City and County of San 
Francisco, as lessor, and the City and County of San Francisco 
Courthouse Corporation, as lessee, 

• a lease agreement between the City and County of San 
Francisco Courthouse Corporation, as lessor, and the City and 
County of San Francisco, as lessee, 

• an assignment agreement by and between the City and County 
of San Francisco Courthouse Corporation and the trustee named 
therein and a trust agreement by and between the City and 
County of San Francisco, the City and County of San Francisco 
Courthouse Corporation and said trustee (including certain 
indemnification provisions therein); 

• approving the form of a certificate purchase agreement by and 
among the City and County of San Francisco, the City and 
County of San Francisco Courthouse Corporation, the Trustee 
named in said trust agreement and the underwriters named in 
said certificate purchase agreement; 

• approving the offer and sale of the Certificates of Participation 
and the form of the official statement relating to the certificates; 

• approving the form of letter of credit agreement by and among 
the City and County of San Francisco, the City and County of 
San Francisco Courthouse Corporation and Morgan Guaranty 
Trust Company of New York (including certain indemnification 
provisions therein); 

• authorizing the officers of the City and County of San Francisco 
to obtain credit enhancement for the Certificates of Participation 
and to take other actions necessary or advisable to consummate 
the execution and delivery of not to exceed $63,000,000 in 
aggregate principal amount of certificates of participation to 
finance said project and the application of the proceeds thereof; 
and 

• ratifying actions previously taken with respect to the certificates 
of participation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

90 



Memo to Budget Committee 

November 30, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

File 101-94-34 is a proposed ordinance appropriating $2,000,000 of 
Courthouse Construction Funds for a Capital Improvement Project 
(i.e. the construction of the new Courthouse) for Fiscal Year 1994- 
95. This appropriation would be reserved pending the selection of 
contractors and the sale of the Certificates of Participation. 

Amount: The total amount of debt (in the form of Certificates of 

Participation) that would be authorized for this project would not 
exceed $63.0 million. The anticipated actual debt issuance, 
according to the CAO's current financing plan, is $59,580,000. 

The amount of the supplemental appropriation is $2,000,000. 

Source of Courthouse Construction Fund, funded by surcharges to fines and 

Funds: fees charged by Municipal and Superior Court. 

Comments: Due to the late submission of this legislation to the Board of 
Supervisors, the Chief Administrative Office has requested that 
these items be continued to the Budget Committee Meeting of 
December 7, 1994. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed legislation to December 7, 1994. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Maher 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Shelley 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

91 



/// 

Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 J 

Item 12 - File 101-94-29 
I 



V 



Public Library, 'Documents Dept. 

Ain^l: Jane Hudson 
REVISED 



> 



Department: 
Item: 



Sheriff 



Amount: 



Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating $690,572 
from the General Fund Reserve for salaries, fringe benefits, 
other non-personal services, materials and supplies, and 
equipment to open additional beds at the new jail facility and 
to continue the Work Furlough Program for FY 1994-95. 

$690,572 



Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Description: The new jail facility, located at Bryant and Seventh Streets, is 

scheduled to open on December 1, 1994. However, because of 
the City's budget constraints, funding was provided in the 
Sheriffs Department FY 1994-95 budget for the opening of 
only three of the new jail's six pods in FY 1994-95. A pod is an 
open jail module, as opposed to the traditional linear-style cell 
blocks, where inmates are collectively supervised by Deputy 
Sheriffs. The three pods to be opened (Pods A, B and C) will 
each provide between 55 and 110 inmate beds, for a total of 
220 inmate beds for all three pods. 

However, a total of 288 inmate beds are needed, or 68 beds 
more than what the three pods will provide, in order to 
accommodate (a) the 168 inmates currently housed in Alameda 
County's jails who are scheduled to be transferred to the new 
jail facility on December 1, 1994; (b) the 66 inmates currently 
participating in the Residential Beds Program who will be 
transferred to the new jail facility on January 1, 1995; 1 and (c) 
the 54 inmates currently enrolled in the Work Furlough 
Program, 2 which is scheduled to terminate on December 1, 
1994 because, due to a shortage of experienced staff, the ten 
8304 Deputy Sheriff positions currently operating the Work 
Furlough Program are being transferred to work in the new 
jail facility. A breakdown of the activities affecting the City's 
jail space is as follows: 



1 The Residential Beds Program provides beds and substance abuse treatment services to inmates 
as an alternative to incarceration. Due to budget constraints, funding for the Residential Beds 
Program was provided only for the first six months of FY 1994-95 (July 1, 1994 through December 
31, 1994). 

The Work Furlough Program permits low-risk inmates to work outside of the jail during the 
daytime and to return to custody in the evenings. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



59 



NOV 2 9 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

No. of 

Activity Beds 

Opening of Pods A, B and C in New Jail 220 

Transfer of Inmates in Alameda County's Jail (168) 

Closing of Work Furlough Program (54) 

Closing of Residential Beds Program (66) 

Additional Need for Inmate Beds (68) 

According to Sergeant Richard Ridgeway of the Sheriffs 
Department, based on past experience, the Sheriffs 
Department anticipates an increase in the inmate population 
during the winter months. As such, Sergeant Ridgeway 
estimates that more than 68 additional inmate beds will be 
needed. In order to compensate for the additional need of 68 
inmate beds and to provide additional beds for the anticipated 
rise in the prison population, the Sheriffs Department is 
proposing that a fourth pod (Pod F) in the new jail facility be 
opened in May of 1995, which would accommodate 104 
inmates. Furthermore, the Sheriffs Department hopes to 
restore the Work Furlough Program in February of 1995, 
thereby providing an additional 54 inmate beds, for a total net 
increase of 90 inmate beds, as follows: 

No. of 
Activity Beds 

Opening of Pod F in New Jail 104 

Restoration of Work Furlough Program 54 

Number of Additional Inmate Beds Needed (68) 

Net Increase in Inmate Beds 90 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
provide funding to hire 14 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs to staff a 
fourth pod (Pod F) in the new jail facility and ten (8302) 
Deputy Sheriffs to operate the Work Furlough Program after 
the Program is restored in February of 1995. In addition, 
funding would be provided for the Alternatives Program's new 
lease at 555 Seventh Street (See Relocation of Alternatives 
Program in the budget below). 3 

Budget: 8302 Deputy Sheriff I Salaries (New Jail) $249,900 

This amount would provide funding to hire 14 (8302) Deputy 
Sheriff positions to staff Pod F in the new jail facility. These 
14 Deputy Sheriffs would attend the December 12, 1994 class 
at the San Francisco Police Academy in order to receive Peace 
Officer Standard of Training (POST) certification in time for 



The Alternatives Program oversees programs, such as the Work Furlough Program and the 
Residential Beds Program, which offer prisoners an alternative to incarceration. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



the May, 1995 opening of Pod F in the new jail facility. At a 
biweekly salary of $1,190 for 15 pay periods (December 6, 1994 
through June 30, 1995), the total cost for 14 (8302) Deputy 
Sheriff positions would be $249,900. 

Fringe Benefits (New Jail) $61,110 

This amount is equivalent to approximately 24.5 percent of 
8302 Deputy Sheriff salaries. 

8302 Deputy Sheriff I Salaries (Work Furlough 

Pro gram) $178,500 

This amount would provide funding to hire ten Deputy Sheriff 
positions to replace the ten 8304 Deputy Sheriffs who are 
currently running the Work Furlough Program but who are 
scheduled to work in the new jail facility starting on December 
1, 1994. These ten (8302) Deputy Sheriffs would be hired on 
December 6, 1994 and would attend a six-week training course 
conducted by the Sheriffs Department prior to re-starting the 
Work Furlough Program, which the Sheriff hopes to restore in 
February of 1995. These ten Deputy Sheriffs will likely start 
training for their POST certification in May of 1995. At a 
biweekly salary of $1,190 for 15 pay periods (December 6, 1994 
through June 30, 1995), the total cost for ten (8302) Deputy 
Sheriff positions would be $178,500. The total request for 
salaries for the 24 (8302) Deputy Sheriff positions is $428,400 
($249,900 plus $178,500) for the period December 6, 1994 
through June 30, 1995. These 24 positions are included in the 
budget but are not filled due to required salary savings. The 
$428,400 would provide the funding to fill these vacant 
positions (See Comment No. 1). 

Fringe Benefits (Work Furlough Program) $43,650 

This amount is equivalent to approximately 24.5 percent oi 
8302 Deputy Sheriff salaries of $178,500. The total request for 
fringe benefits for the 24 (8302) Deputy Sheriff positions is 
$104,760 ($61,110 plus $43,650). 

8302 Deputy Sheriff I Training $75,000 

All 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions are required to receive POST 
certification within their first 18 months of service. Although 
Deputy Sheriffs normally receive POST certification at the San 
Francisco Police Academy, Lieutenant Tony Balzer of the 
Police Department anticipates that there will most likely not 
be sufficient space at the San Francisco Police Academy in FY 
1994-95 to accommodate both Police and Sheriff Department 
recruits. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, although there is 
sufficient space at the Police Academy to accommodate the 14 
Deputy Sheriffs to be hired to work in Pod F at the new jail 
facility, the remaining ten Deputy Sheriffs to be hired for the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Work Furlough Program would have to receive training at an 
academy other than the San Francisco Police Academy. The 
estimated cost is $7,500 per Deputy Sheriff, or a total 
estimated cost of $75,000 for ten Deputy Sheriffs. Such 
training would take place at the Santa Rosa Police Academy. 

Holiday Pav $12,382 

Because it was anticipated that the new jail facility would open 
after January 1, 1995, no funding was included in the budget 
for holiday pay for Christmas and New Year's Day at the new 
jail facility. Because the new jail facility is now scheduled to 
open on December 1, 1994, $12,382 is needed for holiday pay 
for three Lieutenants and 28 Deputy Sheriffs to work on 
Christmas and New Year's Day. This amount is equivalent to 
1.5 x the average wage of $16.64 per hour x 16 hours (2 days) x 
31 positions (See Comment No. 6). 

Materials and Supplies $125,200 

The following is a breakdown of the Materials and Supplies 
supplemental request: 

For New Jail Facility: 

Two (2) Metal Detectors @ $2,695 ea. $5,390 
Four (4) Bullet-Proof Vests for Deputies who 

must transport prisoners @ $340 ea. 1,360 
38 Uniform Sets for 8302 Deputy Sheriffs 

@ $1,800 ea. 68,400* 

38 Weapons @ $325 ea. 12,350* 
For Pod F Only: 

150 Mattresses (with 46 in reserve) @ $50 ea. 7,500 

720 Sheets @ $8.33 ea. 6,000 

1,080 Blankets @ $12.08 ea. 13,050 

720 Towels @ $1.39 ea. 1,000 
312 Sets of Inmate Clothing (shirt, pants, 

socks, thong) @ $10.58 ea. 3,300 
500 Sets of Inmate Toiletries (toothbrush, 

toothpaste, comb, soap) @ $0.50 ea. 250 

Six (6) Storage Cabinets @ $100 ea. 600 

Total - Materials and Supplies $119,200** 

* The requested funds will provide uniforms and weapons 
for (a) the 24 Deputy Sheriffs to be hired on December 6, 
1994, subject to approval of this supplemental 
appropriation request, plus (b) an additional 14 Deputy 
Sheriffs to be hired on January 2, 1995, subject to approval 
of a supplemental appropriation request which is now 
pending approval by the Mayor's Office (See Comment No. 
1). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



** See Comment No. 7. 

Computer Equipment $21,454 

This amount would provide funds for an automated prisoner 
classification system, which would allow the Sheriffs 
Department to gain access to prisoner information from a 
central, linked database. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, the 
purchase of this computer equipment has been approved by 
EIPSC. A breakdown of the request for Computer Equipment 
is as follows: 

Four (4) Compaq DeskPro Computers 

@ $2,920 ea. $11,680 

Four (4) Monitors @ $475 ea. 1,900 

Four (4) Video Cards @ $155 ea. 620 

1 HP Laserjet Printer 925 
Four (4) Advanced 3270 Adapters @ $399 ea. 1,596 
Four (4) Sets of Software (Windows) 

@ $298 ea. 1,192 

Four (4) Sets of Software (Lotus) @ 465 ea. 1.860 

Subtotal $19,773 

Sales Tax (8.5%) 1.681 

Total - Computer Equipment $21,454 

Relocation of Alternatives Program (Other Non- 
Personal Services) $38,576 
The Sheriffs Department Alternatives Program was formerly 
located in a leased facility at 245 Harriett Street. That lease 
provided 2,578 square feet at approximately $0.85 per square 
foot per month, for an annual cost of $26,136 ($2,178 per 
month). Because the building at 245 Harriett Street was sold 
in October of 1994, the Alternatives Program was forced to 
relocate to temporary space at 1390 Market Street. The 
Alternatives Program plans to occupy this space at 1390 
Market Street, which costs $4,167 per month for 3,175 square 
feet ($1.31 per square foot per month), until it is able to 
relocate to permanent space at 555 Seventh Street. 

The space at 555 Seventh Street is currently being leased by 
the Police Department's Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC), 
which is relocating to 760 Harrison Street in mid-January, 
1995. 4 The Alternatives Program plans to assume OCC's 
lease, which currently provides 2,890 square feet at $2.13 per 
square foot per month, for an annual cost of $73,890 
(approximately $6,157 per month, including approximately 
$940 per month for utilities, janitorial service and other 



The OCC's new lease at 760 Harrison Street was previously approved by the Board of Supervisors 
in July of 1994 (File 64-94-11). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



63 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



operating expenses). Based on an anticipated rent increase of 
13.7 percent, the Sheriffs Department estimated that the rent 
at 555 Seventh Street would increase to $84,000 per year 
($7,000 per month or $2.42 per square foot per month). 

According to Sergeant Ridgeway, the Alternatives Program 
had originally planned to move to 555 Seventh Street directly 
from 245 Harriett Street by November 1, 1994. Sergeant 
Ridgeway reports that there is $26,136 included in the Sheriffs 
Department FY 1994-95 budget for the rent at 245 Harriett 
Street. The rent for the first four months (July 1, 1994 
through October 31, 1994) was $8,712 ($2,178 per month at 
245 Harriett Street x four months), thereby leaving a balance 
of $17,424 for rent for the eight months remaining in FY 1994- 
95 (November 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995) at 555 Seventh 
Street. This $17,424 amount in the budget is $38,576 less than 
the anticipated $56,000 cost of the assumed lease at 555 
Seventh Street, which was expected to start on November 1, 
1994 and to last eight months ($7,000 per month x eight 
months). (See Comment No. 8) 

Administration $700 

These funds would create a revolving petty cash fund in the 
amount of $200 for the Sheriffs Research and Development 
Office, located at 1155 Market Street, and a revolving petty 
cash fund in the amount of $500 for the new jail facility. 
Currently the Sheriff has six Petty Cash Funds (one for each of 
the five County jails and one for the Administration Division) 
with a total of $2,700 in such Funds. As these funds are 
included under Other Non-Personal Services in the Sheriffs 
budget, the total supplemental request for Other Non-Personal 
Services should be $39,276 ($38,576 plus $700). 



Total Estimated Cost $806,472 

Less Estimated Salary Savings ($115,900) 

The Mayor's Office advises that 30 uniform 8304 Deputy 
Sheriff positions will be transferred to the Police Department 
in FY 1994-95 because they have passed the Police 
Department's Civil Service exam. Funding for salaries and 
fringe benefits for these 30 (8304) Deputy Sheriff positions has 
been included in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget for the entire 
fiscal year. The Sheriff plans to replace these 30 (8304) Deputy 
Sheriff positions with 10 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs in February of 
1995 and with 20 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs in April of 1995. 

Based in part on a recommendation of the Budget Analyst in 
the prior Zero-Base Budget Analysis, the miscellaneous 8302 
Deputy Sheriff classification was recently created by the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 

Sheriffs Department to serve as a trainee position prior to 
being promoted to the uniform 8304 Deputy Sheriff position 
after 18 months of service. The 8302 miscellaneous Deputy 
Sheriff position is paid $38,242 annually or $12,448 per year 
less in wages and fringe benefits than the 8304 Deputy Sheriff 
position, which costs $50,690 in wages and fringe benefits 
annually. The $115,900 amount above is the Mayor's 
estimated salary savings from replacing the 30 uniform 8304 
Deputy Sheriff positions (at Step 3) with (1) ten miscellaneous 
8302 Deputy Sheriff positions on February 20, 1995, (2) ten 
miscellaneous 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions on April 10, 1995, 
and (3) ten miscellaneous 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions on 
April 17, 1995. 

Net Amount of Supplemental Appropriation 

Request $690,572 

Comments: 1. There were 78 new 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions included 

in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget to staff the new jail facility. 
However, according to Sergeant Ridgeway, because of required 
salary savings, only 40 of the 78 (8302) Deputy Sheriff 
positions included in the FY 1994-95 budget were filled, 
thereby leaving 38 (8302) Deputy Sheriff positions unfunded. 
Of the 38 vacant positions, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation would provide funding to fill 24 of them (14 to 
staff Pod F in the new jail facility and ten to restore the Work 
Furlough Program), leaving 14 vacant 8302 Deputy Sheriff 
positions. As such, no new positions would be added to the 
Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget, but rather, vacant positions would 
be filled. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, funding to hire an 
additional 14 (8302) Deputy Sheriffs will be requested in a 
future supplemental appropriation request. 

2. Because of the lack of space in the City's existing jails, the 
City must pay Alameda County approximately $500,000 per 
month to house inmates in Alameda County's jails. In 
addition, the City is fined $2,500 per inmate per day for 
overcrowding in Jail No. 1. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, 
this fine will increase to $5,000 per inmate per day in April of 
1995. 

3. As previously noted, based in part on the Budget Analyst's 
Zero-Base Budget Analysis, the 8302 miscellaneous Deputy 
Sheriff classification was created by the Sheriffs Department 
to serve as a trainee position prior to being promoted to the 
uniform 8304 Deputy Sheriff position after 18 months of 
service. Based on lower salary and fringe benefits of $38,242 
for the miscellaneous 8302 Deputy Sheriff position (versus 
$50,690 for the uniform 8304 Deputy Sheriff position), the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



estimated annual savings from the 78 miscellaneous 8302 
Deputy Sheriff positions included in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 
budget are approximately $970,944 per year. 

4. According to Sergeant Ridgeway, the 24 miscellaneous 8302 
Deputy Sheriffs would be hired on December 6, 1994, or after 
the first reading and approval of this supplemental 
appropriation request by the Board of Supervisors, which is 
anticipated to be on December 5, 1994. Sergeant Ridgeway 
advises that the Sheriffs Department needs to hire these 24 
Deputy Sheriffs prior to the final approval of this supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (expected to be on December 12, 1994) 
because 14 of these Deputy Sheriffs are scheduled to attend the 
December 12, 1994 training class at the Police Academy. 
According to Sergeant Ridgeway, if these 14 Deputy Sheriffs 
were to miss the December 12, 1994 class, they would likely 
have to attend training at an outside academy, at an estimated 
additional cost to the City of approximately $105,000. As such, 
since expenditures will be incurred prior to the final approval 
of this supplemental appropriation request by the Board of 
Supervisors, the proposed ordinance should be amended to 
provide for ratification of action previously taken. 

5. Based on information provided by the Controller's Office, 
fringe benefits for the 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions are $7,183 
per position per year, or $172,392 for 24 (8302) Deputy 
Sheriffs. For 15 pay periods, the total would be $99,076. As 
such, fringe benefits should be reduced by $5,684, from 
$104,760 to $99,076. 

6. Holiday Pay is over-budgeted by $6,626 since it includes 
$11,513 for the base wages of three Lieutenants ($1,515, or 
$31.56 per hour x 16 hours x three positions) and 28 Deputy 
Sheriffs ($9,998, or $22.32 per hour x 16 hours x 28 positions), 
which are already included under Permanent Salaries in the 
Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget. Holiday Pay should be reduced 
by $6,626, from $12,382 to $5,756, to reflect only the extra pay 
beyond the base hourly wages for these 31 positions, as follows: 

28 Deputy Sheriffs x $22.32 average base hourly wage 
x 1.5 x 16 hours $14,997 

3 Lieutenants x $31.56 average base hourly wage 
x 1.5 x 16 hours 2.272 

Total @ Time and One-half for 2 Holidays $17,269 

Less Portion for Base Hourly Wages: 

28 Deputy Sheriffs x $22.32 average base hourly 
wage x 16 hours (9,998) 

3 Lieutenants x $31.56 average base hourly wage 
x 16 hours (1.515) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS cc 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



Total Needed for Holiday Pay $5,756 

The Sheriffs Department disagrees with this recommendtion 
to reduce Holiday Pay by $6,626 because, according to 
Sergeant Ridgeway, Holiday Pay should be budgeted to include 
both the base hourly wage and the premium rate. According to 
Ms. Susan Andrus of the Controller's Office, Holiday Pay 
should be budgeted to include only the premium rate and not 
the base hourly wage, since the base hourly wage is already 
included under Permanent Salaries. 

7. The correct total for Materials and Supplies should be 
$119,200. Thus, the supplemental request for Materials and 
Supplies should be reduced by $6,000, from $125,200 to 
$119,200. 

8. According to Mr. Steve Alms of the Real Estate Department, 
OCC will not be able to move from its current 555 Seventh 
Street location until approximately mid-January, 1995 because 
of delays in the completion of tenant improvements at its new 
760 Harrison Street location. Therefore, the Sheriffs 
Department would not be able to relocate to 555 Seventh 
Street until February 1, 1995. Mr. Alms estimates that there 
would be no increase in the rent at 555 Seventh Street for FY 
1994-95 once the Sheriff assumes OCC's lease. Thus, as 
previously noted, the rent would be approximately $2.13 per 
square foot per month or $6,157 per month ($73,890 per year) 
for 2,890 square feet of space, or $47,754 (183 percent) more 
per year than the former rent of $26,136 per year ($0.85 per 
square foot per month or $2,178 per month) for 2,578 square 
feet at 245 Harriett Street. 

As such, this supplemental request for rent at 555 Seventh 
Street should be adjusted to reflect (a) three months rent (July 
1, 1994 through September 30, 1994) at the Alternatives 
Program's former location of 245 Harriett Street, or $6,534 
($2,178 per month x three months), plus (b) four months rent 
(October 1, 1994 through January 31, 1995) at the Program's 
current, temporary location of 1390 Market Street, or $16,668 
($4,167 per month x four months), plus (c) five months rent 
(February 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995) at the new 555 
Seventh Street location, or $30,785 ($6,157 per month x five 
months), or a total of $53,987 in FY 1994-95. Thus, given that 
there is already $26,136 for rent in the Sheriffs Department 
budget, the supplemental request of $38,576 should be reduced 
by $10,725 to $27,851 ($53,987 less $26,136). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Budget Committee 
November 30, 1994 



9. The supplemental request for permanent salaries includes 
$428,400 for salaries plus $75,000 for training less $115,900 
for salary savings, or a total of $387,500. The total 
supplemental request for fringe benefits is $104,760. Thus, the 
total request for these two personnel categories is $492,260. 
Although the amounts that actually appear in the proposed 
ordinance are $393,808 for permanent salaries and $98,452 for 
fringe benefits (as reflected in the table below), the total is still 
$492,260 for these two personnel categories. 

10. In summary, the Budget Analyst recommends the 
following reductions from the $690,572 supplemental 
appropriation request: 



Line Item Category 



Supplemental Recommended Recommended 
Request Amount Reduction 



Permanent Salaries 


$393,808 


$393,808 





Fringe Benefits (Comment No. 5) 


98,452 


92,768 


$5,684 


Holiday Pay (Comment No. 6) 


12,382 


5,756 


6,626 


Other Non-Personal Services 








(Comment No. 8) 


39,276 


28,551 


10,725 


Materials and Supplies (Comment 








No. 7) 


125,200 


119,200 


6,000 


Equipment 


21.454 


21.454 






Total 
Recommendations: 



$690,572 



$661,537 



$29,035 



1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance by providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. 



2. Reduce the supplemental appropriation request by 
$29,035, from $690,572 to $661,537, as reflected in Comment 
No. 10 above. 

3. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



68 



DOCUMFMT.q DEPT. 

? 3*°' - AUG 2 7 199R 

BUDGET COMMITTEE 



hhi 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAN FRANCISCO 

CTTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 7. 1994 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

MEMBERS: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, ALIOTO, BIERMAN 
ABSENT: SUPERVISOR ALIOTO ON ITEM #5. 
CLERK: MARY L. RED 

1. File 100-94-14 . [Impact of Congressional Change on City's Budget] Hearing to 
consider the impact of the change in the Congress and the impact it may have on 
the City's budget. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Consideration continued to call of the chair. 

2. File 100-94-15 . [Impact of State Legislature Change on City Budget] Hearing to 
consider the impact of the change in the State Legislature and the impact it may 
have on the City's budget. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Consideration continued to call of the chair. 

3. File 97-94-33 . [Mission and Goals Statement] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 3.18 to require each City board, commission and 
department annually to submit to the Mayor a written mission and goals statement 
which also reports the body's success in meeting those standards during the prior 
year, to require the Mayor annually to develop a written City mission and goals 
statement which also reports the City's success in meeting those standards during 
the prior year and to transmit that and the individual mission and goals statements 
to the Board of Supervisors; to require each City board, commission and department 
annually to rank its programs and services in writing in order of priority, on a 
three-year time horizon, to require the Mayor annually to rank in writing all 
government programs and services in order of priority, on a three-year time 
horizon and to present that ranking and the individual rankings to the Board of 
Supervisors; to require each City board, commission and department annually to 
present a written three-year budget plan to the Controller, to require the 
Controller to transmit those three-year budget plans to the Mayor, to require the 
Mayor to create a written three-year budget plan for the City and to transmit that 
and the individual three-year budget plans to the Board of Supervisors, and all City 
boards, commissions and departments to consider their mission and goals 
statements, three-year program priority assessments and three-year budget plans 
when composing their budgets for the next fiscal year (Supervisors Kaufman, 
Shelley, Migden, Leal, Kennedy, Conroy, Alioto) 

(Continued from 11/2/94) 

ACTION: Amended on page 8, line 13 by adding "The Budget Committee of the 

Board of Supervisor may waive for one year, any particular requirement 
of this section upon the request of the Mayor or a Department Head." 
Same 'title. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 



4. File 97-94-76 . [Medical Services Contract] Ordinance amending the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by adding Section 19A.33 authorizing the Director of Public 
Health to execute an agreement with Pacificare of California for provision of 
medical services to medi-cal beneficiaries for capitated payments, including an 
agreement to indemnify, and providing that, notwithstanding the Sunshine 
Ordinance, records relating to rates of payment shall not be disclosed for three 
years from execution of the agreement. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole (as presented by City Attorney) adopted. 
Amended to keep the contract rates confidential. Same title. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 

5. File 172-94-45 . [Contract, DPH, Coopers & Lybrand LLP) Resolution authorizing 
the contract between the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public 
Health and Coopers & Lybrand LLP to provide project management and 
implementation assistance of a Healthcare Management Information System. 
(Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Consideration continued to December 14, 1994. Supervisor Alioto 
absent. 

6. File 133-94-3 . [Beverage Container Recycling Receipt] Resolution authorizing the 
Chief Administrative Officer of the City and County of San Francisco to accept 
and expend a $41,814.57 beverage container recycling payment from the California 
Department of Conservation. (Chief Administrative Officer) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. 

7. File 148-94-7 . [Funds, Medi-Cal Managed Mental Health Care] Resolution 
authorizing the Director of Public Health to accept the transfer of funds from the 
State for the implementation of inpatient component of a Medi-Cal mental health 
care system in San Francisco. (SupervisorAlioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 

8. File 97-94-68 . [Property Tax Base Transfer, Proposition 171] Ordinance amending 
Administrative Code by adding Section 10.2-7 allowing homeowners to transfer 
base value of substantially damaged or destroyed property from another county in 
the state to newly acquired or constructed replacement property in the City and 
County. (Supervisors Bierman, Alioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Hsieh dissenting) 

9. File 101-94-32 . [Appropriation, Retirement System] Ordinance appropriating 
$47,557, Retirement System, from the Employee's Retirement Trust Fund for 
salaries and fringe benefits for the creation of one position for fiscal year 1994-95; 
subject of previous budgetary denial. RO #94114 (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: Amended to reduce appropriation from $47,557 to $41,425. New title, 
"Ordinance appropriating $41,425, Retirement System, from the 
Employee's Retirement Trust Fund for salaries and fringe benefits for 
the creation of one position for fiscal year 1994-95; subject of previous 
budgetary denial. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto 
added as sponsor) 



10. File 102-94-5. [Employees Retirement System, ASO, add 1 Position] Ordinance 
amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 1994-95, Employees Retirement System, 
reflecting the addition of one position (4331N Security Analyst) in the Investment 
Division; companion measure to File 101-94-32. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 

11. File 82-94-9 . [Sewer Easements, Islais Creek Transport Project] Resolution 
authorizing the City and County of San Francisco to acquire on behalf of the 
Department of Public Works the permanent sewer easement known as 1CT 10B 
through a portion of the real property identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 4347B/4 
and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Supervisor 
Alioto) 

(Continued from 11/30) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 

12. File 172-94-44 . [Purchase and Sale Agreement, Clean Water Program] Resolution 
approving the form and authorizing the execution and delivery of a forward 
purchase and sale agreement; and authorizing other actions related thereto. 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

(Continued from 11/30) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor) 

13. File 97-93-56.3 . [Courthouse Financing] Ordinance approving delivery of a site 
lease between the City and the Courthouse Corporation, a lease agreement between 
Corp. and City, an assignment agreement between Corp. and Trustee and a trust 
agreement between City, Corp, and Trustee; approving form of certificate purchase 
agreement by City, Corp, Trustee and Underwriters; approving offer/sale of 
certificates, form of official statement; approving form of letter of credit 
agreement; authorizing officers of City to.obtain credit, take other actions to 
consumate execution/delivery of not to exceed $63,000,000 certificates of 
participation to finance project; ratifying actions previously taken. (Supervisors 
Hsieh, Alioto, Bierman) (Continued from 11/30) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole (as presented by CAO) adopted. Amended in 
Section 3 to change cost of issuance amount from $615,000 to $600,000; 
and in Section 8, language was added regarding obtaining credit 
enhancement for the Certificates if, based on the recommendation of 
financial advisors, it would result in a net cost savings. New title : 
"Ordinance approving execution and delivery of a site lease between the 
City and the Courthouse Corporation, a lease agreement between Corp. 
and City, an assignment agreement between Corp. and Trustee and a 
trust agreement between City, Corp, and Trustee; approving form of 
certificate purchase agreement by City, Corp, Trustee and 
Underwriters; approving offer/sale of certificates, form of official 
statement; approving form of letter of credit agreement; authorizing 
officers of City to obtain credit, take other actions to consumate 
execution/delivery of not to exceed $63,000,000 certificates of 
participation to finance project; ratifying actions previously taken." 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. (Supervisor Bierman added as 
cosponsor) 



14. File 101-94-34 . [Appropriation, Courthouse Construction] Ordinance appropriating 
$2,000,000 of Courthouse Construction Funds for capital improvement project of 
the Superior and Municipal Courts for fiscal year 1994-95, placing $2,000,000 on 
reserve. (Supervisors Hsieh, Alioto, Bierman) ( Continued from 11/30) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. (Supervisor Bierman added as sponsor) 

02 




CITY AND COUNTY 



K 




&<¥&{: Janejudson 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



December 5, 1994 



TCh / Budget Committee 

FROM: / Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 100-94-14 

Item: Hearing to consider the impact of the change in the Congress 

and the impact it may have on the City's budget. 

Description: Currently, San Francisco receives more than 25 percent of its 

overall funding for public services and facilities from the 
State and Federal governments. In some areas, such as 
some health programs, sewer facilities, welfare programs, 
and transportation capital projects, Federal funding 
accounts for 75 percent to 100 percent of the funds expended 
in San Francisco. 

Specific information is limited as to what Federal programs 
might be proposed for cuts or reform by the incoming 
Congress. According to the National League of Cities, the 
incoming Chairs of the House and Senate Budget 
Committees will be instructed to draft a Federal budget 
which is balanced within seven years and which is 
conditioned upon; a) no new taxes, b) no cuts in Social 
Security, and, c) restoring defense spending. According to 
the National League of Cities, current estimates are that 
such a budget would require across-the-board cuts in all 
other areas of Federal spending of 5 percent in Fiscal Year 
1995-96, 10 percent in FY 96-97, 15 percent in FY 97-98, and 20 
percent in FY 98-99. Even if such cuts were enacted, a 

DO<"' IMFMTq nFPT. 

DEC 7 1994 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



balanced budget would still not be achieved under the above 
conditions, according to the National League of Cities. 

The Republican Party's "Contract With America," published 
just before the November election, gave broad estimates of tax 
credits and spending cuts in major areas of the Federal 
budget, as well as a list of specific line item cuts that had 
been included in Republican budget proposals of previous 
years. The broad estimates in this document include tax 
changes such as a $500 per child tax credit, credits for 
dependent care for seniors, a capital gains tax decrease, and 
a social security tax decrease. Spending cuts include $40 
billion over five years from welfare programs, and $5 billion 
from "social programs" that had been included in the recent 
Crime Bill. 

Specific line item budget changes proposed as part of the 
"Contract," and in other recent statements in the media 
which could directly affect San Francisco include a Federal 
takeover of the Hetch Hetchy system, restrictions to reduce 
both benefit amounts and eligibility in a variety of welfare 
programs, cuts in AIDS funding, and eligibility restrictions 
and funding cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. 

Mr. Larry Klein, General Manager of Hetch Hetchy, reports 
that possible impacts of a Hetch Hetchy takeover include; a) 
the loss of pure water and power supplies to the City, b) the 
loss of over $400 million in City funds invested over time in 
Hetch Hetchy infrastructure, and c) an estimated $25 million 
annually in water and power sale proceeds which are 
transferred to the City's General Fund. 

In the area of welfare reform, various proposals could shrink 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) by, among 
other things, imposing a two year limit on benefits, 
prohibiting benefits to unmarried women under 18 and legal 
aliens, and setting an overall spending limit on the program. 
According to Ms. Judy Bley of the Department of Social 
Services, in San Francisco there is a direct correlation 
between limits on AFDC and increases in applications for 
General Assistance (GA), which is funded 100 percent by the 
City's General Fund. Ms. Bley reports that most, if not all, of 
the individuals who would be made ineligible for AFDC 
under welfare reform proposals would be eligible for GA 
under San Francisco's current regulations. Ms. Bley states 
that, currently, San Francisco's AFDC payments to 
beneficiaries total approximately $88 million annually, 75 
percent of which is funded from the Federal government. In 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



addition, individuals who lose their AFDC eligibility also lose 
Medi-Cal eligibility. 

In the area of health services, the new Congress is 
anticipated to propose allocation changes and/or cuts in 
AIDS funding, significant reductions in Medicaid funding, 
and elimination of some Medicare reimbursements to 
hospitals. According to the Department of Public Health, 
past experience has indicated that these actions would likely 
result in an increase in the number of uninsured and 
indigent patients using county hospitals and emergency 
rooms as their health care source. Such an increase would 
result in significant increased costs to the City's General 
Fund. 

The Chair of the National Conference of Mayors noted in a 
recent press statement that both houses of Congress had, in 
the past, supported proposals to relieve cities of the burden of 
"unfunded mandates," imposed by the Federal government, 
and that the new Republican leadership would likely support 
this proposal as well. In addition, the Chair noted that 
Republicans had also proposed crime program block grants 
to the cities, which is supported by many mayors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 100-94-15 

Item: Hearing to consider the impact of the change in the State 

Legislature and the impact it may have on the City's budget. 

Description: Currently, San Francisco receives more than 25 percent of its 

overall funding for public services and facilities from the State 
and Federal governments. Many public service programs and 
facilities in the City, such as child care programs, health 
programs, and environmental protection programs, for 
example, are up to 100 percent State-funded. Little specific 
information is available as yet on what proposals affecting 
State-funded programs might emerge from the newly-elected 
State Legislature. 

The 1994 State budget package included a two-year plan for 
balancing the State budget. As part of that package, 
legislation was adopted (known as the "trigger" bill) that 
requires automatic spending cuts across the board if the 
State's cash position deteriorates and is not corrected by 
legislative action. The current estimate of the deficit that will 
be faced by the State in drawing up the FY 1995-96 budget is 
$5 billion. As a result of this projected deficit, it is likely that 
significant cuts will be made to State-funded programs in the 
FY 1995-96 budget, in order to meet the goal of a balanced 
State budget. 

According to the League of California Cities, budget cutting 
measures previously proposed by the Governor will likely be 
included in the State budget proposal next year. Some of these 
measures which could directly affect San Francisco include 
welfare grant amount reductions, further reductions in both 
Medi-Cal eligibility and benefit amounts, substance abuse 
program funding reductions, and proposals to shift a greater 
share of foster care and home supportive service costs and 
Trial Court costs to the counties. 

As reported by San Francisco's Director of Intergovernmental 
Affairs, Ms. Margaret Kisliuk, the dollar impact of the FY 
1994-95 State budget reductions on San Francisco was a 
decrease of between $20.4 and $21.4 million in funding for a 
variety of public services. Ms. Kisliuk reports that it is likely 
that San Francisco will face a cut in State funding in FY 1995- 
96 of at least this amount or greater. 

According to the Departments of Social Services and Public 
Health, experience indicates that welfare and health program 
funding and eligibility reductions of the type anticipated in the 
State budget for FY 95-96 each result in increases in the 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



number of persons applying for General Assistance, and in the 
number of uninsured and indigent patients using county 
hospitals and emergency rooms as their health care source. 
Such increases would result in significant increased costs to 
the City's General Fund. 



BOARD OF S TJPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

Item 3 - File 97-94-33 

Note: This item was formally a part of two pieces of legislation under Files 97-94- 
32 and 97-94-33. These two items have now been combined into one file as 
an Amendment of the Whole under File 97-94-33. The Amendment of the 
Whole was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of November 
2, 1994 with the request that the Controller send a letter to all City 
departments inquiring as to what additional costs, if any, will be incurred 
by these departments, as a result of this proposed legislation. 

Department: Mayor's Office 

Board of Supervisors 

Item: Ordinance (File 97-94-33) amending Chapter 3 of the San 

Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 3.18. 

Description: In June, 1994, the San Francisco voters approved Proposition 

G which requires that the City's "line-item" budget be 
replaced with a "mission-driven" budget. Under Proposition 
G, each department must spell out its goals and organize its 
budget according to those goals. For each goal, the 
department is required to spell out what it will do to meet 
that goal, whom it expects to serve and how much it will cost. 
The budget will also include an evaluation of the 
department's performance in the year before. 

According to Proposition G, each Department shall provide 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors with the following 
details regarding its budget: 

a) the overall mission and goals of the department. 

b) the specific programs and activities conducted by the 
department to accomplish its mission and goals. 

c) the customers) or client(s) served by the department. 

d) the service outcome desired by the customer(s) or client(s) 
of the department's programs and activities. 

e) strategic plans that guide each program or activity. 

f) productivity goals that measure progress toward strategic 
plans. 

g) the total cost of carrying out each program or activity. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



h) the extent to which the department achieved, exceeded, or 
failed to meet its missions, goals, productivity objectives, 
service objectives, strategic plans and spending 
constraints identified in subsections a through f during 
the prior year. 

The proposed ordinance would also require departments to 
specifically respond to how the department's proposed budget 
is consistent with the department's "Three-Year Program 
Priority Assessment and Mission and Goals Statement." This 
requirement was not part of Proposition G. 

In accordance with Proposition G, the proposed ordinance 
would be implemented in the following three phases, over 
three years, with the Mayor to be responsible for identifying 
one-third of the City's departments which would be required 
to have a "mission-driven" budget beginning in FY 1995-96. 

Ms. Teresa Serata of the Mayor's Office has provided the 
attached copy of a memo (Attachment I) from the Mayor 
which has been transmitted to all departments requesting 
that the following (Phase 1) departments submit a "mission- 
driven" budget by February 1, 1995 for FY 1995-96. 

District Attorney Port 

Sheriff Public Library 

Treasurer/Tax Collector Recreation and Park 

Trial Courts* Water Department 

Ethics Telecommunications 

Mayor Community Health 

Commission on Aging Laguna Honda 
San Francisco General Hospital Municipal Railway 

Police Department Mental Health 

Purchaser Airport 

*The proposed ordinance would not require the Trial Courts 
to submit a "mission-driven" budget until FY 1996-97, even 
though the Trial Courts have been specified by the Mayor as 
Phase 1 departments. 

The proposed ordinance would also require the 
Redevelopment Agency to submit a "mission-driven" budget 
beginning in FY 1995-96, although this department has not 
been specified by the Mayor as a Phase 1 department. 

In addition to implementing Proposition G, the proposed 
ordinance would require departments to submit three-year 
long-range budgetary planning information to the Mayor and 
the Board of Supervisors, which was not required under 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



proposition G. Specifically, the proposed ordinance would add 
Section 3.18 of the Administrative Code, requiring the 
following activities: 

1) Each City Department must develop long-term 
departmental and agency budget planning-setting goals 
and strategies, including developing an annual mission 
and goals statement for developing its budget estimate for 
the next fiscal year, to be submitted to the Mayor no later 
than February 1, 1995. The Mayor would be required to 
review each department's mission and goals statement, 
and the Board of Supervisors would consider these 
mission and goals statements as part of the annual 
budgetary process. These mission and goals statements 
also would require departments to submit additional 
information that has not been required under Proposition 
G, such as specifying how the department plans to foster 
its successes and remedy its deficiencies. In addition, the 
proposed ordinance would require the Mayor to prepare a 
written statement of the City's missions and goals, which 
also reports the City's success in meeting those standards. 
The Board of Supervisors would consider these mission 
and goals statements, as well as the City's overall mission 
and goals statement as part of the annual budgetary 
process. 

2) Each City Department would be required to develop a 
"Three-Year Priority Assessment" of governmental 
programs and services, by annually evaluating the 
importance of all programs and services within its 
jurisdictions, and ranking them in writing from "most 
essential to least essential". This ranking of all programs 
must be submitted to the Mayor by February 1, 1995. The 
Mayor would be required to review each department's 
priority assessment and report in writing how it conforms 
or contrasts with the City's budget, and the Board of 
Supervisors would consider these assessments as part of 
the annual budgetary process. 

3) Each City Department would be required to develop a 
"Three-Year Budget Plan" that projects revenues and 
expenditures for the next three years. This three-year 
plan must be submitted to the Controller no later than 
February 1, 1995. The Controller would consolidate these 
budget plans and transmit them to the Mayor no later 
than March 1, 1995. The Mayor then would review the 
budget plans, and report in writing how it conforms or 
contrasts with the City's budget. The Board of Supervisors 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



would consider these budget plans as part of the annual 
budgetary process. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Serata indicates that the Mayor's Office would also 

assist departments with developing clearly defined mission 
and goal statements, and is currently developing a method to 
incorporate these missions and goals into the financial 
reporting system of the Controller's Office. 

2. The annual budget instructions of the Mayor to 
Commission Presidents and Department Heads requests that 
departments submit Mission Driven Program Budgets, and 
Program Description Reports. There are two different levels 
of program description requested in the Mayor's budget 
instructions. Level 1 items are positions, contracts and 
equipment, and expenditures for these categories must be 
explained in detail (such as specifying all positions and 
contracts). All other budget items are classified as Level 2 
expenditures, and only increases or decreases in these items 
will be required to be justified. In accordance with 
Proposition G, these program budget descriptions will replace 
line-item descriptions that are currently submitted by 
departments. The Budget Analyst may require additional 
explanations of line-item objects if the program descriptions 
are not sufficient. Any additional information can be obtained 
by the Budget Analyst from the departments during the 
annual budgetary process. 

3. The Controller has determined that the Charter 
Amendment (Proposition G) in and of itself should not affect 
the cost of government. According to Ms. Serata, because the 
proposed ordinance would also require departments to 
respond to how their proposed budget is consistent with a 
"Three- Year Program Priority Assessment" and require 
developing a "Three- Year Budget Plan" which were not 
required under Proposition G, there may be some additional 
time expended or costs incurred for activities at the 
department level. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office 
also reports that more departmental staff time would have to 
be spent developing the "Three-Year Program Priority 
Assessment" and "Three- Year Budget Plan." 

4. The Controller has submitted a letter to the Budget 
Committee (Attachment II) summarizing the results of his 
departmental cost survey. 

5. The aforementioned memo (Attachment I) and budget 
instructions from the Mayor regarding "mission-driven" 
budgeting does not request that departments comply with the 

BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



"Three-Year Program Priority Assessment" or the "Three- 
Year Budget Plan" As noted, requiring departments to 
complete a Three- Year Program Priority Assessment and 
Budget Plan is part of the proposed ordinance, but not part of 
the provisions of Proposition G. 

6. Proposition G further states "Within thirty days of the 
Controller's issuance of the combined annual financial report 
of the City and County of San Francisco, the Controller shall 
report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors regarding 
the extent to which each department has succeeded in the 
prior fiscal year in achieving savings measured by the 
difference between projected and experienced expenditures 
and the extent to which each department in the prior fiscal 
year has recovered additional revenues measured by the 
difference between projected and experienced revenues. The 
people of the City and County of San Francisco declare that it 
shall be City policy to encourage the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors, upon receipt of this report, through the 
supplemental appropriation process to give serious 
consideration to rewarding those departments that the 
Controller has certified pursuant to this section exceeded 
their revenue goals or met or exceeded departmental 
operational goals expending less than had been projected in 
the budget." 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



in 




Attachment I 
Page 1 of 2 



Offioc of Che Mayoc [l[ ^~Jf Rj ^^^ M JORDAN 

San Francboo 



September 21. 1994 

Department Heads 

City and County of San Francisco 

Dear Department Heads: 

This past June, voters approved Proposition G. the Mission Driven Budgeting 
Amendment (full text attached). The City charter now requires the Mayor to 
identify the City departments to begin Mission Driven Budgeting next year. 
Therefore, this letter is to inform you that I have selected the following 
departments to begin Mission Driven Budgeting with the FY 1995-96 budget 

(04) District Attorney (39) Port 

(06) Sheriff (41) Library 

(08) Treasurer/Tax Collector (42) Recreation and Park 

(12) Trial Courts (47) Water 

(18) Ethics . . (75) Telecommunications 

(25) Mayor (83) Community Health 

(26) Commission on Aging (85) Laguna Honda 

(27) Airport (86) San Francisco General 
(35) Muni (87) Mental Health 

(38) Police (91) Purchaser 

Although at rrdhimum one-third of City departments are mandated to 
implement Mission Driven Budgeting this year, all other departments are 
invited to participate during the FY 1995-96 budget cycle. 

The Mission Driven Budget process represents a singular opportunity to 
improve San Francisco's budget process- We will shift our focus from the 
annual incremental change in expenditure line items to the overall mission 
of the department, the specific programs that enable a department to 
accomplish its goals, the inputs used to accomplish a program's work 
program, the -outcomes or end results accomplished and the sources of funds 
used to complete this work. 

I believe the requirements of Mission Driven Budgeting will easily fit into the 
Program Budget format that was prepared by each department for the FY 1994- 
95 budget,- To fully comply with the intent of the new law. the information in 
the Program Budget will need to be reviewed, refined and improved. 



a» crrr uail. san fiancboq. caiuooca nva 

C<tU 3X-6IO 



o 

11 



Attachment ] 
Page 2 of 2 

Mission Driven Budgeting 
Page Two 

In my view, four elements of the program budget are critical to the City's 
successful transition to Mission Driven Budgeting: 

• Clear program definition; All departments should review, and as 
necessary rethink, the appropriate program breakdown of overall 
functions- Proper program definition in the next few months is critical 
in order to develop a consistent format with the Controller's new on- 
line FAM1S accounting system. 

• Meaningful perfor mance measures: Numerous and quantifiable 
performance measures should accurately identify all program 
outcomes. 

* Strategic Plans; A dear strategic plan describing the methods for 
achieving program goals must be developed- 

* Accurate hndget numbers Expenditure, revenue and position figures 
must accurately reflect each program's components. 

I have instructed my budget staff in cooperation with, the Controller to work closely 
with, all City Departments to help. refine and improve these program budgets. 

Every department is invited to send a representative to a planning meeting 
on Thursday Octoiw 1 3 from 1-3 p.m. in room 300. 101 Crave Street. All 
participating departments are requested to send their Budget Officer to this 
meeting where we will further detail the process to complete the mission 
driven budget as well as get each department's ideas and suggestions on its 
implementation. Individual and group follow-up training sessions will be 
conducted as required. Please contact your budget analyst directly if you have 
any questions and to cortfirm attendance at the planning meeting. 

The Mission Driven Budgeting amendment provides a unique opportunity 
for San Francisco to rethink and reinvent its budget process. I want to thank 
all of you for your efforts to make it a success. 

Sincerely, 





frank M. Jor. 

Mayor - 

oc Department Budget Officers 
FMT:Jm 



12 



Attachment II 
City and County of San Francisco Office of Controller 




MEMORANDUM 

December 5, 1994 



TO: Budget Committee 

Board of Supervisors 




FROM: Ed Harringtor 

SUBJECT: Mission Based Budgets - Cost and Effort 



In preparation for your December 7,1994 review of legislation regarding Mission Based budgeting, you 
had asked that I request information from Departments relating to any additional cost or effort this 
legislation might require. 

I received responses from 10 departments. In general, most believe this to be a worthwhile effort, but 
most indicated it would be difficult to implement I have summarized the general comments below. In 
addition, where departments actually made an estimate of time or cost, I have included those estimates. 

• Insure that the Mayor's and Board' s budget requirements match. To the extent they do not match 
for 1994-95, defer other changes until next year. 

• . Decide which budget process the City is going to follow and require only that process. Currently 

departments are completing documentation for program and/or mission based budgets. In addition, 
all departments are required to still produce line item explanations that do not necessarily match to 
the program budgets. Finally, some departments are going through a zero-based budget process. It 
is difficult to staff for these different ways of "slicing the pie". 

• Priority rankings should be made within funding sources. If a certain program is funded from a 
restricted source, it is not in competition with other programs and should not be shown as such. It 
could give the misleading implication that funds could be diverted to a higher priority program when 
that option does not exist. 

• Various proposals were made to defer some or all of these requirements to later years. Most of these 
commented on the lack of administrative staff resources from earlier budget cuts. 

• Cost or "Effort" Estimates were: 

Assessor - additional 45 days work (noted they did not think this was onerous) 

Law Library - 40 hours extra. 

Planning - double the time and resources currently devoted. 

Port - would cost $5,500 to implement. 

Sheriff- about $6,000 of overtime for budget officer. 

Weights & Measures - additional 5% of budget. 

cc: Supervisor Kaufman 
Teresa Serata 
Harvey Rose 

Room 109, City Hall San Francisco 94102 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

Item 4 - File 97-94-76 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code 

by adding Section 19A.33, authorizing the Director of Public 
Health to execute an agreement with PacifiCare of California 
for the provision of medical services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries 
for capitated payments, including an agreement to indemnify 
PacifiCare of California, and providing that, notwithstanding 
the City's Sunshine Ordinance, records relating to rates of 
payment shall not be disclosed for three years from execution 
of this agreement. 

Description: Currently, health care providers, including hospitals, non- 

profit health care providers and private health care 
providers, provide health care on a fee-for-service basis, 
whereby the State Department of Health Services (SDHS) 
uses Medi-Cal funds to reimburse health care providers after 
the medical service has already been rendered. 

However, as an alternative to this system, SDHS has 
undertaken development of a "managed care" system, in 
which each of two managed care plans in each county would 
receive from SDHS a periodic payment of a "capitated" 
amount, which is the sum of negotiated payment rates for all 
Medi-Cal beneficiaries enrolled by that particular managed 
care plan, prior to the rendering of medical services. The 
managed care plan is currently scheduled to go into effect on 
December 1, 1995. 

As noted above, under the managed care delivery system, 
each county would be required to have two managed care 
plans: 1) a local initiative, which is a new entity consisting of 
local providers, both public and private, and a governing 
body. There is currently legislation, pending approval by the 
Board of Supervisors, that would establish the local initiative 
entity for San Francisco, to be known as the San Francisco 
Health Authority; and 2) a "mainstream," private, non- 
governmentally-operated Health Maintenance Organization 
(HMO) plan. This "mainstream" HMO would be selected by 
the State. 

Each of these two managed care plans could contract with 
hospitals, non-profit health providers and private health 
providers to provide health services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries 
in return for "capitated" payments. Medi-Cal beneficiaries in 
San Francisco would have a choice between the San 
Francisco Health Authority and the State-appointed, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



"mainstream" HMO. Upon enrollment with one of these two 
managed care plans, Medi-Cal beneficiaries would choose a 
primary care provider, who would provide basic care and 
would decide when a referral to a specialist is necessary. The 
goals of the managed care delivery system are to eliminate 
inappropriate emergency room and specialty services use and 
to provide incentives for preventive care. 

While San Francisco is already in the process of establishing 
the local initiative managed care plan, the State has not yet 
selected the private, "mainstream" HMO. However, until the 
State does select the "mainstream" HMO, the State is 
allowing several private HMOs to participate in managed 
care by contracting with local health providers to provide 
medical services in return for "capitated" payments. 

PacifiCare of California is a private HMO operating in 
California and is one of the HMOs authorized by the State to 
participate in the managed care plan until a "mainstream" 
HMO is selected by the State. As such, PacifiCare is 
authorized to contract with local health care providers for the 
provision of medical services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries who 
enroll in the PacifiCare Medi-Cal Plan. In return, such local 
health care providers would receive "capitated" payments 
from PacifiCare. The proposed ordinance would authorize 
the Department of Public Health (DPH) to enter into an 
agreement to provide medical services to Medi-Cal 
beneficiaries enrolled by PacifiCare. In return, DPH would 
receive "capitated" payments from PacifiCare on a prepaid, 
monthly basis, based on rates that are stipulated in the 
proposed agreement. 

Under the proposed agreement, both DPH and PacifiCare 
would agree not to disclose any records relating to the 
payment rates for three years from the date on which the 
proposed agreement is executed, or until approximately mid- 
December of 1997. According to Ms. Kathy Murphy of San 
Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), prepaid health plans 
such as PacifiCare consider their contract rates to be 
proprietary information, and the reason for not disclosing 
such payment data is that public disclosure of the rates of 
payment could adversely affect the City's ability to engage in 
effective negotiations for other managed health care 
contracts. 

In addition, under the proposed agreement, DPH would agree 
to indemnify and hold PacifiCare harmless against any and 
all fines, claims, demands, suits, actions or costs arising by 
reason of any negligent acts performed by DPH. Likewise, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

PacifiCare would agree to indemnify DPH against any 
negligent acts performed by PacifiCare. 

Comments: 1. As previously noted, under the proposed agreement, DPH 

would receive monthly payments of a "capitated" amount 
from PacifiCare. Capitated payments put Medi-Cal health 
care providers, such as DPH, at an increased risk because 
such providers have to agree to accept responsibility for 
providing services in exchange for a set payment, regardless 
of the amount of services that may be provided to its clients. 

The proposed agreement includes a provision that would 
provide reinsurance coverage to DPH through the SDHS- 
administered Risk Limitation Program. Through the 
Reinsurance Program, the City would be fully responsible for 
the cost of services provided to Medi-Cal clients up to a 
certain, agreed-upon amount per Medi-Cal client per year. 
PacifiCare would reimburse DPH any amount in excess of 
this threshold amount. According to a recent analysis 
performed by SFGH, the net cost to the City of purchasing 
this reinsurance coverage for services provided beyond the 
threshold amount is estimated to be approximately $175,000 
per year. This cost would be deducted from the monthly 
capitation payments that the City receives from PacifiCare. 

2. The proposed agreement is scheduled to commence upon 
approval of this proposed ordinance by the Board of 
Supervisors, which is anticipated in December, 1994. The 
term of this agreement would be automatically extended for 
one year on each successive January 1 unless either party 
provides the other with written notice of such party's 
intention not to extend the term within 180 days of the 
January 1 renewal date. According to Ms. Murphy, the 
proposed agreement would be terminated by DPH if the State 
chooses a "mainstream" HMO other than PacifiCare or if the 
City loses a significant amount of money due to the provision 
of medical services by DPH beyond the threshold limit. 

3. According to Ms. Murphy, Foundation HMO, which is 
another private HMO that has been authorized by the State 
to participate in Medi-Cal managed care, has entered into a 
contract with St. Luke's Hospital for the provision of medical 
services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries and has already begun 
enrolling Medi-Cal beneficiaries. 

4. A copy of the proposed agreement between DPH and 
PacifiCare is included in the Board of Supervisors file. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



-File 172-94-45 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the contract between the Department 
of Public Health and Coopers & Lybrand LLP to provide 
project management and implementation assistance of a 
Health-care Management Information System. 

Maximum of $6,668,025 

Medi-Cal revenues and SB 1255 funds 



Term of Contract: 2 and 1/2 years from the date that the Controller's Office 
certifies that funds are available 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 

supplemental appropriation in the amount of $21,319,026 to 
begin implementation of a management information system 
(MIS) development plan to augment the current San 
Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) patient billing system 
and support implementation of managed care as required by 
the State of California Department of Health Services and 
anticipated Federal health care reform (File 101-93-109.1). 
Managed care will require replacement of current fee-for- 
service patient billing practices with capitated revenue for 
provision of public health and hospital services to Medi-Cal 
eligible health care recipients receiving services from 
Community Health Services, SFGH, Laguna Honda Hospital 
and the DPH Division of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, 
and Forensics. The $21,319,026 was designated to pay for a 
contract between DPH and Shared Medical Systems (SMS) 
for the SMS to provide (1) the Remote Computing Option 
system which would provide DPH with the use of SMS's 
proprietary software for patient billing and registration, 
patient accounts, clinical records, lab orders and results, and 
other data and information exchange capabilities and (2) the 
installation of a network system to connect DPH sites with 
each other and with SMS's MIS Systems Center in Malvern, 
Pennsylvania. 

The DPH advises that the proposed contract with Coopers & 
Lybrand is to provide for needed project management and 
implementation of the SMS's management information 
system. Under the proposed contract, Coopers & Lybrand 
would be paid an amount not to exceed $6,668,025 (see 
Attachment I). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



18 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Coopers & Lybrand's project management and 
implementation of the SMS's management information 
system would involve adapting the SMS software to meet the 
specific needs of DPH's business operations and training 
DPH staff on how to use the new system. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. David Counter of DPH, the DPH is 

proposing to contract with Coopers & Lybrand on a sole 
source basis, because (1) Coopers & Lybrand previously 
assisted SFGH and DPH in developing an Information 
Systems Strategic Plan and is therefore intimately familiar 
with DPH's operations, (2) Coopers & Lybrand has unique 
qualifications in that they have conducted several similar 
SMS software installation projects within the United States 
and (3) the firm has specialized SMS systems knowledge, 
with a SMS Training Center of Excellence established at 
their Health Care Information Systems headquarters in 
Chicago. According to Mr. Counter, SMS itself cannot handle 
the proposed project management functions because the firm 
does not have the necessary expertise. 

2. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) granted DPH a sole 
source waiver in connection with this contract based on 
DPH's assertions regarding Coopers & Lybrand and a 
commitment by Coopers & Lybrand to a MBE/WBE 
participation goal of 35 percent of the total number of 
contract hours, based on the firm's good faith efforts. 

3. Coopers & Lybrand has selected Systems Support 
Technology, a local MBE firm, as a subcontractor. The total 
number of contract hours is 38,989, of which 9,660 or 24.7 
percent are allocated to Systems Support Technology. Based 
on 9,660 hours, the total amount of Systems Support 
Technology's subcontract is $870,156 or 17.3 percent of the 
total contract amount (excluding expenses) of $5,019,029. Mr. 
Edwin Lee of HRC advises that Coopers & Lybrand appears 
to have made a strong good faith effort to meet the above- 
noted 35 percent goal. However, Mr. Edwin believes that 
Coopers & and Lybrand should continue their efforts towards 
achieving such goal should any future modification to the 
scope of the contract present an opportunity to do so. 

4. The proposed contract includes a hold harmless clause, 
which provides that Coopers & Lybrand shall have no 
liability with respect to its obligations under this agreement 
for consequential, exemplary (bad faith), special, indirect, 
incidental or punitive damages, even if it has been advised of 
the possibility of such damages. Notwithstanding this 
provision, the liability of Coopers & Lybrand for any reason, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

cause or claim shall be limited to $6,668,025. Such 
limitations shall not apply to Coopers & Lybrand's liability to 
the City for third party claims brought against the City for 
bodily injury or damage to physical property to the extent 
that such damage was caused by the negligent or willful 
misconduct of Coopers & Lybrand. 

5. Ms. Paula Jesson of the City Attorney's Office, advises that 
the City normally does not limit a contractor's liability for 
failure to comply with all terms of the contract, including any 
violation of the agreement which would potentially cost the 
City monies. According to Ms. Jesson, the City's potential 
financial exposure in light of this hold harmless clause 
cannot be determined. Ms. Jesson states that the hold 
harmless clause, as drafted, was considered to be non- 
negotiable by Coopers & Lybrand and, as such, the inclusion 
of this clause was required in order for the contract to 
proceed. 

6. As noted in Attachment I Coopers & Lybrand would be 
paid hourly rates ranging from $66 to $250. Additionally, 
Coopers & Lybrand will be paid $1,114,239 for travel, lodging 
and subsistence expenses as itemized in Attachment II. 

Recommendation: In light of (a) Ms. Jesson's comments above regarding the 
hold harmless clause contained in the proposed contract and 
(b) the fact that the MBE/WBE goal of 35 percent has not 
been met, approval of the proposed resolution is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Attachment I 



Staffing Requirements and professional Fees for SMS Implementation 

Phase 1 



PROJECT DETAIL 



TITLE 


ENTITY 


MONTHS 


GENERAL 






Engagement Partner 


C&L 


20 


Engagement Director 


C&L 


20 


QA Partner 


C&L 


20 


Project Manager 


C&L 


20 


Invision Appl Mgr. 


C&L 


20 


PMW Coord /Admin 


C&L 


20 


ICO to RCO (Open LINK) 






Team Leader 


SFG/DPH 


8.5 


Analysts/ Builders 


SFG/OPH 


85 


Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


8.5 


HDX Analyst 


SFG/OPH 


3 


Order Processing/COR 






Team Leader 


C&L 


18.0 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


18.0 


Analysts/Builders 


CSL 


18 


Analysts/Builders 


M/WBE 


16.0 


SIGN A TURE 






Team Leader 


C&L 


13.5 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/OPH 


13.5 


Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


13.5 


Analysts/Builders 


M/WBE 


11.5 


LCR, Results and Flowsheets 






Team Leader 


CSL 


17.5 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


17.5 


Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


17.5 


Analysts/Builders 


M/WBE 


15.5 


Enterprise Access Directory 






Team Leader 


C&L 


12.5 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


12.5 


Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


12.5 


Analysts/Builders 


M/WBE 


10.5 


Managed Care (Diamond) 






Team Leader 


C&L 


8.S 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


8.5 


Anarysts/Builders 


C&L 


8.5 


Psychiatric** 






Team Leader 


C&L 


80 


Anarysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


8.0 


Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


8.0 


DMS Operations Review" 






Team Leader 


C&L 




Anafyst 


C&L 





0.7 
09 

0.5 



1.3 

3.0 



440 
1.384 

440 
2.448 
2.856 
1.843 

1.428 
3.570 
1.685 

504 

2.856 
3.524 
2.772 

2.688 

2.184 
6.170 

1.932 

2.016 
3.440 
2.772 

2.940 

1.932 
2.100 



2.016 
2.856 



1.685 
4.032 



$250 


$110000 


$170 


$23S418 


$250 


$110,000 


$170 


$416,405 


$158 


$449,820 


$90 


$165,870 



sns 


$193,691 


S130 


$370,852 


$115 


$318,641 


$66 


$177,408 


$130 


$283,592 


$115 




$89 


$171,948 


S200 


$402,192 


$130 


$360,568 


$120 


$352,800 


$130 


$250,870 


$115 




$80 


$168,000 


$130 


$261,778 


$115 




$130 


$219,176 


$115 





27,624 
29.329 
9.660 



SFGH/DPH SUB-TOTAL 16 
C&L SUB-TOTAL 12 
M/WBE SUB- TOTAL C Includes Project Expenses) 4 

PHASE 1 PROFESSIONAL FEE TOTALS 32 66,613 

Coopers & Lybrand Travel, Lodging and Subsistence Expenses 
Coopers & Lybrand Administrative Support Expenses"* 
C&L Rate Increase (effective July 1, 1995) 
PHASE 1 GRAND TOTAL (C&L * M/WBE) 

oerj Pmjeot Professional Fe*s~ (Division of Mental Health Services) 
dms Project Expenses - (Division of Mental Health Services) 

GRAND TOTAL (C&L ♦ M/WBE) 

Grand Total Fiscal Year 94-95 

Grand Total Fiscal Year 95-96 

PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 

168 Productive Hours per Month pef FTE 

NOTES 

"" Optional project task Service to be provided onty it Crty elects to exercise this option. 

Administrative support expenses include adminstrative assistance, word processing, telephone/network I 
reproduction, postage, computer usage fees, network access, and appfication documentation 



$4,148,873 
$870.156 

$5,019,029 

$1,114,923 
$255,000 
$1S6.S72 

$6,545,525 

$87,500 
$35,000 

$6,668,025 

$3,168,358 

$3,499,666 



21 



ALLacn-neriL n 
Pase 1 of 2 



3 £ 



B 

a. 



a 



§11111 

m ^' n n cl £- 

§13i§£ 

ci «^ «l K « J: 

imp 

«vf _r cS r«- c* K 

8 ct S S | 

cJ ~ e« k c\T K 
§11111 

oj «-" <«j n «t £ 

Uglglllll 



a 



a: 

2 

tu 



UJ 



X 

a 
a! 
c/5 



£p a 3 5 £ 



HE 

5 B o 
* fi § 



22 



Attachment; II 
Page 2 of 2 



3 

Q_ 

2 



Si 

1 



2 

UJ 



CO 

HI 



a! 
d 

u." 

to 



r 



igilfi 
§ip§3 

111181 

oi *- cm r-« o< i~. 

§18111 

<«" ** C* t^ « t"» 



H 



5 I §81111 

w ^ «>4 t- «m ♦*. 

"I iiliil 

oJ »- «v» t~> of Is 






gillie 

§a c\i a o <p 
r l|«ll 

ol w? c* K <\f r-^ 

<\f »- <w »- <\j »». 

§§8§§§ 
cS ,-" *t t-i «5 *^ 



i s i niui 



of ~ c« r- ca c-« 






III 3 



23 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

Item 6 - File 133-94-3 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) 



Item: 



Description: 



Budget: 



Comments: 



Resolution authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer 
(CAO) to accept and expend a $41,814.57 beverage container 
recycling payment from the California Department of 
Conservation. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Solid Waste 
Management Program of the Office of the Chief 
Administrative Officer to accept and expend a $41,814.57 
beverage container recycling payment from the California 
Department of Conservation. These funds are from deposits 
made on beverage containers that have not been redeemed 
for a refund, and that were allocated to California cities in FY 
1993-94 based on the percentage of total recycling tonnage of 
bottles and cans in California that each city's curbside 
program has contributed. 

According to the State Public Resources Code, the funds must 
be used to support activities related to beverage container 
recycling. The Solid Waste Management Program intends to 
use the funds to cover the costs of development and mailing 
of a brochure that promotes and educates City residents 
about recycling. 

The Solid Waste Management Program's budget for the 
proposed expenditure of the Department of Conservation 
payment is as follows: 



Design and Artwork 
Printing 

Mailing Costs (for 321,000 pieces): 
List development 
Presorting 

Label printing/affixing 
Postage 



$9,000 
1,392 



TOTAL 



4,815 

1,605 

145 

24.858 

$41,815 



1) Mr. Robert Haley, the CAO's Residential and Special 
Projects Coordinator at the Recycling Program, advises that 
the City was not required to apply to the State Department of 
Conservation (DOC) for the deposit funds in order to receive 
them. Mr. Haley stated that the City received the $41,814.57 
in September of 1994, but that the funds have not yet been 
expended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



24 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



2) Mr. Haley states that there is $1 million in the DOC's pool 
of funds collected from deposits on bottles and cans that have 
not been redeemed for deposit refunds. According to Mr. 
Haley, the City recycles approximately four percent of the 
volume of bottles and cans recycled in the State, and as a 
result was eligible for $41,814.57 out of the $1 million State 
pool of funds. 

3) According to Mr. Haley, FY 1993-94 was the first year 
that these beverage container refund funds were made 
available from the State DOC, and that it is anticipated, but 
not certain, that funds will also be available for FY 1994-95. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

Item 7 - File 148-94-7 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Director of the Department of 

Public Health to 1) accept the transfer of funds from the 
State for the implementation of the inpatient component of 
the Medi-Cal mental health care system in San Francisco, 
and 2) assume the responsibility for authorization of fee-for- 
service Medical inpatient services. 

Description: The proposed resolution will begin the City's implementation 

of a State plan to consolidate the administration and funding 
allocation of the Medi-Cal mental health care system. The 
State plan is proposed to be implemented in phases, 
beginning on January 1, 1995 and finishing on July 1, 1997. 
The State plan to consolidate the administration and funding 
for Medi-Cal mental health is part of a broader plan to 
implement managed health care systems for all Medi-Cal 
patient populations, following the lead of approximately 30 
States that have implemented managed care for Federal 
Medicaid-funded health services. 

The proposed resolution specifies that $1,835,119 will be paid 
to the City from the State General Fund for inpatient 
services to be provided by private hospitals for the period 
from January 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995. This allocation 
will be used to match an additional $1,835,119 in Medi-Cal 
funds from the Federal Medicaid program, for a total of 
$3,670,238. The purpose of this State funding allocation to 
the City is to assign the City the responsibility for 
authorizing payment for acute inpatient psychiatric care. 
These funds will continue to be allocated from the State until 
July 1, 1997, when a capitation system based on a set rate 
per patient is planned to take effect. Currently, the City 
receives Medi-Cal funding for San Francisco General 
Hospital, City-run mental health clinics, and other mental 
health care providers that contract with the City, but does 
not receive or control Medi-Cal funding for mental health 
services provided by private hospitals and doctors that 
contract directly with the State. The receipt by the City of a 
total of $3,670,238 from the State General Fund and from 
Medi-Cal will have the effect of combining the two existing 
Medi-Cal funding streams into one City-managed system, 
and will give the City control over the allocation of all Medi- 
Cal funding for inpatient mental health care provided in the 
City. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



On July 7, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution 
(File number 551-94) that generally endorsed the devel- 
opment of a managed mental health care system in the City. 
The resolution authorized the submission of a letter of intent 
from the Director of the Department Public Health that 
indicated the City's willingness to assume responsibility for 
the authorization of mental health services currently 
overseen by Medi-Cal and accept the transfer of funding from 
the State for Medi-Cal acute inpatient psychiatric care. That 
resolution stated that the funding would become effective for 
the six-months beginning on October 1, 1994. Since the 
passage of that resolution, the timetable set by the State 
Department of Health Services for the payment to the City 
was moved forward to the six-month period beginning 
January 1, 1995. 

The managed mental health care plan that is referenced in 
the proposed resolution consists of the three steps. First, as 
set out in the proposed resolution, the plan will consolidate 
the two current mental health systems into one system that 
is administered by the City by transferring authority and 
funding to the City for Medi-Cal-funded services that are 
currently authorized by the State. Currently, one mental 
health care system, the public system, pays for mental health 
services at San Francisco General Hospital and City-run 
clinics and is administered by the City. This system receives 
its funding from sales tax and vehicle licensing fees (i.e.: 
"realignment revenue") collected by the State. These funds 
are in turn matched by Medi-Cal funding provided under the 
Federal government's Medicaid allocation. The other mental 
health care system, the private fee-for-service system, pays 
for mental health services at private hospitals and doctors' 
offices. This system is presently administered by the State 
Department of Health Services and receives funds from the 
State General Fund, which are matched by funds from Medi- 
Cal. Under the proposed plan, the transfer of adininistrative 
authority from the State to the City for the private fee-for- 
service for inpatient hospital services will take place January 
1, 1995, concurrent with the City's new authority over 
$3,670,238 from the State General Fund and Medi-Cal. 

The second step in the proposed plan is the assumption of 
responsibility by the City for the oversight of fee-for-service 
Medi-Cal inpatient physician services and all other fee-for- 
service outpatient mental health services. This phase of the 
plan is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 1996 and will 
be funded by an additional allocation from the State. The 
proposed resolution gives the Director of DPH the authority 
to accept this additional allocation for outpatient services. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



The third and final step under the proposed plan involves the 
capitation of all mental health services in the City, to take 
place on July 1, 1997. Until this phase of the plan is 
implemented, the amounts under Medi-Cal paid to the City 
will continue to be paid on a fee-for-service basis. After this 
phase of the plan is implemented, the City will receive from 
the State a set payment for each patient in the mental health 
care system, regardless of the level of service actually 
provided. The purpose of this method of payment is to give 
the City and other California counties an incentive to control 
costs and provide outpatient community-based and 
residential care to mentally ill residents whenever possible. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Louise Rogers, Managed Care Planner for the 

Department of Mental Health under DPH, advises that State 
requirements provide that continued funding to the City for 
its existing mental health Medi-Cal program is contingent 
upon the City's acceptance of authority over the remainder of 
the Medi-Cal program and the City's development of a 
managed mental health care plan. Ms. Rogers states that 
approximately $12.5 million per year for mental health 
services from the sales tax and vehicle licensing fees would 
be at risk if the City did not agree to implement the State's 
plan. 

2. Ms. Rogers states that the actual payment of Medi-Cal 
funds for outpatient and inpatient services will continue to be 
made by a private firm, Electronic Data Systems, that is 
under contract with the State to receive authorization for 
payment under Medi-Cal and issue checks to the service 
providers. However, under the proposed plan, the City will 
assume the authority from the State to approve the payment 
of services from Medi-Cal. Currently, the State has the 
authority to refuse Medi-Cal funding for treatment it 
considers unnecessary or excessively costly, forcing private 
hospitals to seek other funding or take a loss. 

3. Ms. Rogers advises that a portion of the $1,835,119 that 
will be received from the State Medi-Cal program may be 
spent on non-acute community-based or residential care 
should the cost of acute psychiatric care be less than the 
$1,835,119 allocated to the City for this purpose. Ms. Rogers 
states that the State's intent in giving the City control over 
these Medi-Cal funds is to encourage cost-saving community- 
based and residential care whenever possible. 

4. Ms. Rogers states that there is currently no estimate by 
DPH available on the amount of the additional allocation 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



28 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



that will be made by the State to the City for oversight of fee- 
for-service Medi-Cal inpatient physician services and all 
other fee-for-service outpatient mental health services under 
the second step of the mental health care plan. However, Ms. 
Rogers states the amount to be allocated will be significantly 
less than the $3,670,238 amount which the proposed 
resolution authorizes for inpatient mental health care. 

5. The proposed resolution contains language to authorize 
the State to offset the City's mental health portion 1 of 
realignment revenue funds to pay the State for Medi-Cal 
inpatient mental health services. Ms. Rogers advises that 
the Medi-Cal payments using the $1,835,119 in funding from 
the State must be sent back to the State each month to cover 
actual patient services billed. The language that the State 
may offset other City mental health funds to pay for Medi- 
Cal services is to ensure that the State is reimbursed for 
Medi-Cal payments should the City fail to reimburse the 
State for these services. 

6. Ms. Rogers states that the City intends to promote 
outpatient and community care for mentally ill residents, 
which is significantly less expensive than inpatient care. 
Under the proposed capitation plan, scheduled to take effect 
in 1997, the City will receive from Medi-Cal a fixed payment 
for each patient in the mental health system, and any funds 
not needed for actual patient care can be spent elsewhere in 
DPrFs mental health care system. Ms. Rogers states that the 
set payment amount is to be negotiated between all the 
California county public health departments and the State, 
and the City's funding agreement is subject to approval by 
the Board of Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



A portion of these funds also is paid to the Department of Social Services each year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 97-94-68 

Item: Ordinance amending the Administrative Code by adding 

Section 10.2-7 allowing homeowners to transfer the base value 
of substantially damaged or destroyed residential property 
from another county in the State to a newly acquired or 
constructed replacement residential property in San Francisco. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would enact provisions of State 

Proposition 171, which was approved by the voters in 1993. 
Proposition 171, and its accompanying State legislation, 
authorizes counties to allow homeowners to transfer the base 
value of substantially destroyed or damaged residential 
property from one county in California to newly purchased or 
built replacement residential property in another county. 

In other words, under the proposed ordinance, homeowners can 
carry their most recent property tax assessment, or "base year 
value" from a damaged or destroyed home in another county to 
a home that they purchase or build in San Francisco. "Base 
year value" is defined by the State law as the assessed value on 
the date immediately prior to the home being destroyed or 
damaged, plus any inflation factor adjustments as allowed by 
State law. 

State law, and the proposed ordinance, further provide that the 
new property must be of "equal or lesser value" than the old. 
"Equal or lesser value," as defined in the State law means that 
this provision does not apply unless the full cash value of the 
new home, as determined by the county assessor, does not 
exceed 105 percent of the old home if purchased in the first 
year after the old home is damaged or destroyed, 110 percent if 
purchased in the second year, or 115 percent if purchased in 
the third year after the old home is damaged or destroyed. 

If approved, the proposed ordinance would become effective 
January 1, 1995. 

Comments: 1. State law allows, but does not require , counties to enact 

provisions like those in the proposed subject ordinance. As 
such, the text of the ordinance specifies that the Board of 
Supevisors elects to approve this legislation. 

2. Previous Statewide Propositions have authorized counties 
to extend privileges similar to those allowed under this 
ordinance to homeowners 55 and older. Approximately 15 
counties out of 58 in California approved legislation allowing 
homeowners 55 or older to transfer their property tax base 
value from a home sold in one county to a home purchased in 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

another county. Approximately 5 counties have since repealed 
this privilege in part because of the fiscal impact of decreased 
property tax collections that resulted. San Francisco did not 
enact such an ordinance. In practice, both the law for persons 
55 and older, and the proposed ordinance, allow some 1975 
property tax valuations to be carried forward, with the effect 
that pre-Proposition 13 homeowners pay proportionally lower 
property taxes, and more recent home purchasers pay 
proportionally higher property taxes. 

3. Mr. Dave Busse of the Assessor's Office states that the 
Assessor's Office has no specific estimate of the amount of 
property taxes that would be lost to the City as a result of this 
proposed ordinance. Mr. Busse notes that the Assessor's Office 
has received fewer than five inquiries regarding this issue 
since the passage of Proposition 171. 

4. According to the State Board of Equalization, only one 
county, Contra Costa, has approved an ordinance allowing 
homeowners to transfer the base value of a damaged or 
destroyed home in one county to a newly purchased or built 
home in another county. Four other counties; Los Angeles, 
Modoc, Santa Clara and Solano, have such ordinances under 
consideration at this time. 

5. Ms. Claudine Cheng of the City Attorney's Office advises 
that State law requires that the Board of Supervisors conduct 
a consultation on this proposed ordinance with affected local 
agencies. Those local agencies are the San Francisco Unified 
School District, San Francisco Community College District, 
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District, and the San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency. Such consultation is defined by the State law as a 
noticed hearing giving an opportunity for these agencies to 
testify before the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, these 
agencies should be notified with respect to this proposed 
ordinance. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



31 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

Items 9 and 10 - Files 101-94-32 and 102-94-5 

Department: Employees Retirement System (ERS) 



Items: 



Amount: 



Item 9, File 101-94-32 - Supplemental appropriation 
ordinance appropriating $47,557 from the Employees 
Retirement Trust Fund for salaries and fringe benefits for the 
creation of one new position; subject of previous budgetary 
denial. 

Item 10, File 102-94-5 - Ordinance amending Annual Salary 
Ordinance, reflecting the addition of one new position (4331 
Security Analyst) in the Investment Division of the Retirement 
System. 

$47,557 



Source of Funds: Employees Retirement Trust Fund 



Description: 



In the ERS's FY 1994-95 budget proposal, the Department 
requested the creation of one new 1652 Senior Accountant to 
monitor the City's retirement contributions and the deferred 
compensation program. Based on the recommendation of the 
Budget Analyst, the Board of Supervisors approved this new 
position Accounting services were being provided at that time 
by an Accountant occupying the budgeted position of a Security 
Analyst for the prior 3.5 years. However, based on the 
recommendation of the Budget Analyst, the Board of 
Supervisors eliminated the existing, vacant 4331 Security 
Analyst position since the duties being fulfilled were 
accounting duties and not investment duties. 

The Investments Division of ERS currently contains nine 
positions, including six positions with investment duties, two 
positions with accounting duties and one secretarial position, 
as follows: 

Biweekly FY 1994-95 







No. of 


Salary® 


Budgeted 


Class 


Title 


Positions 


Step 5 


Amount 


1115 


Chief Investment Officer 


1 


$4,229 


$110,377 


1452 


Executive Secretary II 


1 


1,603 


41,838 


1654 


Principal Accountant 


1 


2,074 


54,131 


1658 


Chief Accountant 


1 


2,711 


70,757 


4331 


Security Analyst 


2 


2,607 


136,086 


4332 


Portfolio Manager 


3 


3,108 


243.357 




Total 


9 




$656,546 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



32 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



In addition to the six positions which are directly involved in 
investment responsibilities, ERS also contracts with 23 firms 
for the provision of investment management services, at a total 
cost of $13,570,750 in FY 1994-95, as reflected in Attachment 
I. 

The ERS Investments Division is divided into three areas: (1) 
Fixed Income, (2) Equities and (3) Real Estate/Alternative 
Investments. The three Portfolio Managers reflected in the 
table above are each assigned to one of these areas and are 
each assisted by one Security Analyst, except in the Real 
Estate/Alternative Investments area. Alternative Investments 
are denned as research-intensive investments, such as venture 
capital, leveraged buy-outs and oil and gas, with higher 
expected rates of return than traditional investments, such as 
common stocks and bonds. The Portfolio Manager position is 
responsible for investment decision- making and for supervising 
the work of the Security Analyst. The Security Analyst 
position is a support position among whose responsibilities 
include research, due diligence analysis on selected 
investments, the monitoring of investment progress, the 
measurement of contract investment managers performance 
and the preparation of investment recommendations and 
performance reports. 

According to Ms. Clare Murphy, General Manager of the ERS, 
the Portfolio Manager assigned to Real Estate/Alternative 
Investments has been able to manage that portfolio without 
the assistance of a Security Analyst because of the smaller 
volume of investments in Real Estate/Alternative Investments 
by the City relative to the other two areas. As previously 
noted, prior to the deletion of one Security Analyst position in 
the FY 1994-95 budget, that Security Analyst position was 
filled by a person performing accounting duties, as opposed to 
investment duties, for 3.5 years. 

Ms. Carolyn Hamilton of ERS advises that there is currently a 
balance of over $6 billion in the Employees Retirement Fund. 
Of this amount, approximately $3.1 billion is currently 
invested in Fixed Income, approximately $2.3 billion in 
Equities, approximately $485 million in Real 
Estate/Alternative Investments and approximately $211 
million is in cash. According to Ms. Hamilton, although there 
are significantly less funds invested in Real Estate/Alternative 
Investments than in the other two areas, the Real 
Estate/Alternative Investments portfolio is much more complex 
and requires more specialized skills and different expertise 
than the other two portfolios. For this reason, according to Ms. 
Hamilton, it would not be feasible for the Portfolio Manager 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



who is currently assigned to Real Estate/Alternative 
Investments to handle a portfolio as large as the Fixed Income 
or Equities portfolio. 

The ERS is now requesting that one new Security Analyst 
position be approved to replace the position that was 
previously deleted by the Board of Supervisors. This position 
would be a support position for the Portfolio Manager in the 
Real Estate/Alternative Investments area of the Investments 
Division. According to Ms. Murphy, because of the plans for 
increased investment of approximately $337 million by the 
City in this area, for a total investment of approximately $822 
million in Real Estate/Alternative Investments, this position is 
needed to assist the Portfolio Manager in managing these two 
rapidly growing and increasingly complex portfolios. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 10 1- 
94-32) would fund the salary of one 4331 Security Analyst 
position at the maximum biweekly salary of $2,607 for 
approximately 15.5 pay periods from December 5, 1994 
through June 30, 1995 ($40,395), plus fringe benefits of $7,162 
(17.7 percent of salary), for a total request of $47,557. The 
proposed ordinance (File 102-94-5) would amend the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to reflect the addition of one new 4331 
Security Analyst position in the Investments Division of the 
Retirement System. 

According to Ms. Murphy, the City is currently involved in 26 
separate Alternative Investment limited partnerships, 
including oil and gas reserves, domestic and international 
venture capital, leveraged buyouts and distressed securities, 
representing a commitment of approximately $161 million. In 
accordance with current Retirement Board investment policies, 
the Retirement Board plans to commit an additional $137 
million in Alternative Investments over the next three years. 
According to Ms. Murphy, Alternative Investments are 
expected to demonstrate a significantly higher rate of return 
than traditional investments, such as common stocks and 
bonds, over the next five years. Ms. Murphy advises that, in 
the past five years, Alternative Investments have experienced 
an average annual rate of return of approximately 12.1 
percent. 

In addition, Ms. Murphy advises that Real Estate Investments 
are also anticipated to generate a significantly higher rate of 
return than traditional investments over the next five years. 
The City currently has $324 million invested in real property 
assets. In accordance with current Retirement Board 
investment policies, the Retirement Board plans to commit an 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 34 

T-» T TTA /"I T7"T< * 1ST A T ■\TC?'T< 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 

additional $200 million over the next two to three years in Real 
Estate investments. In the past five years, Real Estate 
investments have experienced an average annual rate of 
return of approximately 2.2 percent. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Murphy, the proposed new Security 

Analyst position "will significantly improve the Retirement 
System's ability to enhance the total return of the [Employees 
Retirement] Fund in a prudent fashion." In addition, 
according to Ms. Murphy, the alternative to hiring a Security 
Analyst, at an annual salary at the top step of $68,043, would 
be to contract with more expensive external investment 
consultants (see Attachment II). 

2. ERS plans to increase its investments in Real Estate and 
Alternative Investments by approximately $337 million, for a 
total of approximately $822 million, over the next three years. 
Given the growth and complexity of Alternative Investments 
and Real Estate portfolios, the Budget Analyst believes that 
ERS has adequately justified the need to supplement the 
existing Portfolio Manager position with one new 4331 
Security Analyst position. 

3. The proposed supplemental appropriation should be 
reduced to reflect an anticipated hiring date of January 2, 1995 
rather than December 5, 1994. As such, the supplemental 
appropriation request should be reduced by $5,200, from 
$40,395 to $35,195, for permanent salaries, and by $932, from 
$7,162 to $6,230 (17.7 percent of salary), for fringe benefits in 
order to reflect 13.5 pay periods (from January 1, 1995 through 
June 30, 1995) instead of 15.5 pay periods (from December 5, 
1994 through June 30, 1995). Thus, the total recommended 
reduction is $6,132, or from $47,557 to $41,425. 

4. Because the proposed new position was the subject of 
previous budgetary denial, the approval of this new position 
would require a two-thirds approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-94-32) by reducing the requested amount 
by $6,132, from $47,557 to $41,425, to reflect 13.5 pay periods 
instead of 15.5 pay periods, in accordance with Comment No. 
4 above. 

2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-94-32), as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST « 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 7, 1994 



3. Approve the proposed amendment to the Annual Salary 
Ordinance (File 102-94-5) to reflect the addition of one new 
4331 Security Analyst position. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



ii:Qr> FP.G;-: !£•: £- : = '"-_■.■ - P.-71P. SVS Tu 



Attachment £ 



Investment Managers and Investment Services providers. 





1994-95 


INVESTMENT MANAGERS 


BUDGET 


Axe-Houghton Associates 


125.000 


Capital Guardian Trust 


1,100,000 


Brinson Partners 


1,250,000 


Hanson Investment 


575,000 


MacKay shield 


425,000 


McCuIlough Andrews 


440,000 


Nicholas Applegate 


1,900,000 


Oechsle International 


800,000 


Scudder. Stevens 


260,000 


Warburg Investment 


440.000 


TCW Asset Mgt. Co. 


1.000.000 


RCM Capital 


840.000 


Dietche & Held 


500,000 


Ark Asset Management 


900,000 


Provident fnv. Counsel 


450,000 


Reservc-add'l allocation and 


400,000 


New Managers) 




Investment Services 




PEP & Equity Software 





Barra 


35,000 


Callan & Associates 


150,000 


Bankers' Trust - Custodial Serv. 


1,600,000 


The Townsend Group 


120,000 


Lewis Bailey 


175,000 


Computer Software 


5,000 


Other Investment & Legai Serv. 


80,000 


EEI 


750 


Total Professional & Spec Svc 


SI 3.570.750 



ty and County of San Francisco 




]\i«e 1 of 5 

San Francisco City and County 
Employees' Retirement System 
Office of The Genera! Manager 



MEMORANDUM 



December 2, 1994 



To: 



From: 



Karen Kegg 

Budget Analyst Office 

Clare M Murphy si / ~/tsS' 
General Manager [*/'*"' 



Manage 
Subject: Investment Performance of Alternative Investment and Real Estate Portfolios 



As requested, the Retirement System staff has researched the iates of return for the five-year 
period ended June 30, 1994 for the Alternative Investment portfolio and the Real Estate 
portfolio. 

The Alternative Investment portfolio has produced an internal rate of return of 12. 1 % over the 
five years ending June 30, 1994. Please find attached excerpts of the report of our alternative 
investment consultant Cambridge Associates. 

The Real Estate portfolio has produced 2.2% annualized rate of return for the five years ending 
June 30, 1994. Please find attached excerpts of the report from our alternative investment 
consultant, the Townsend Group. 

A comparative chart of expected rates of return for the various capital market for the next five 
years is also attached. This chart is prepared by Brinson Partners, an investment management 
firm which provides projections and investment management services to the Retirement System. 

The proposed 4331 Security Analyst position performs duties at the direction of and under the 
supervision of the Portfolio Manager for Real Estate and Alternative Investments. Specific 
duties include: 

1. Performs difficult and complex research work involving knowledge of the capital 
markets, various alternative investments and real estate, 

2. Reviews offering documents from prospective investment managers; develops a list of 
best opportunities upon which to focus research efforts. 



554-1520 



115SMarViatStrvK3t 
38 



San Francisco 04103 



SF EMPLOYEE RETIR SYS TO ' • — r '- ;jr: 

Attachment II 
Tape 2 of 5 



3. Performs due diligence analysis on selected investments; prepares investment 
recommendations and performance reports. 

4. Monitors investment progress of alternative investment limited partnerships and real 
estate managers. 

5. Monitors all cash flows with partnerships and managers, including capital calls and 
distributions. 

6. Measures performance of contract investment manager based on acceptable formula and 
recommendations to the Chief Investments or Portfolio Manager as assigned. 

7. Communicates verbally and in writing to superiors and the Retirement Board concerning 
investment action recommendations on real estate and alternative investment; indicates 
the portfolio implications of these recommendation s in regard to determination of asset 
allocation. 

8. Establishes contact with company representatives and outside consultants to secure 
financial data and evaluations on alternative investment and real estate review. 

9. Evaluates alternative investment and real estate values and recommends purchase and sale 
transactions to Portfolio Manager; upon approval executes transactions on most 
advantageous terms. 

10. Utilizes specialized investment software to access departmental data sources arid analyses 
the information. 

This position will significantly improve the Retirement System's ability to enhance the total 
return of the fund in a prudent fashion. An alternative to this requested position at salary rates 
of $26.81 to $32.45 per hour is the employment of several external consultants expert in such 
diverse fields as oil and gas, real estate and venture capital. Such consultants routinely charge 
$125 to $450 per hour. Pilling this position provides the System with a professional investment 
team de dic a t ed to San Francisco's real estate and alternative investment portfolios and increases 
the Fund's capacity to efficiently invest the projected $400 million targeted for investment over 
the next two years. 



Attachment; II 

Pace 3 of 5 



QYERiOEiV 



The purpose of this report is to review the status of the City and County of San Francisco Retirement System's alternative 
: program through June 30. 1994. The report provides a framework for a description and evaluation of the System's 
mtrments to venture capital, special investments and hard assets (oil and gas), in terms of exposure, performance, and funding 



In summary, we observe that 

The System has invested SI45.9 million in various alternative assets: $56.9 million in venture capital. S62J million in 
special investments, and $26.7 million in oil and gas funds. 

Total commroncnts, including funds committed but not *taken down" (Lc, invested), as of June 30, 1994 are $347.05 
million: S 1043 million in venture capita l, $190.0 million in special investments and S52J million in oil and gas funds. 
(A $10.0 million commitment to Grottcb IV since June, 1994 is not included in this aggregate number.) 

The rjerfbrmance of these funds has been good with an overall return of 12.1%. up from 1 1.78% at December. 1993. 
As previously noted, this portfolio is young and has only begun to produce returns. 

Further discussion on each of the San Francisco Retirement System's alternative asset investments follows. 



it O 1994 Cambridge Associates. Inc 

40 



Attach ment II 
Pape 4~~oT~5 



Co/D«pt- 


Co 


Prtorw * 


PtMm+t 


F "' vS">^,9c^,( 


Fax* 



City and County- of San Francisco Employees' Retirement System 

Performance Measurement Report Summary 

Second Quarter 1994 



This is the Performance Measurement Report Summary for the City and County of San 
Francisco Employees' Retirement System ("SFERS") real estate investment portfolio (the 
"Portfolio") for the Second Quarter 1994 (the "Quarter"). It highlights the performance of 
SFERS investments at both the portfolio level and the investment level, providing comparisons 
with data from the Russell-NCREIF Index and the Townsend Universe Database (TUD"). 

There is a new reporting format for the Performance Measurement Report. Exhibit 1 provides 
a brief overview of the new report format. 

Complete performance data for all SFERS real estate investments is set forth in the more detailed 
format attached to this report summary. 



L 



PERFORMANCE AT THE PORTFOLIO LEVEL 



Performance data is provided for the Quarter, the rolling twelve months ending with the Quarter 
(the "Year") and the rolling five years ending with the Quarter ("5 Year"). 

Portfolio Returns. Set forth below are the income, appreciation, gross and net returns for the 
Portfolio. The gross return, comprised of income and appreciation returns, is the total return 
to SFERS before investment manager/advisor fees. The net return is the return to the SFERS 
net of investment manager/advisor fees. 



■!':- ■■■■■'.■ 


Quarter' $2 


j&r^Rar." -r~ 


vrb5 Ycac'";V4 


Income Return 


2.1% 


6.0% 


63% 


Appreciation Return 


-03% 


-0.6% 


-4.0% 


Gross Return 


1.6% 


7.4% 


2.2% 


Net Return 


1.4% 


6.6% 


1.4% 



The Townsend Group 
Institutional Real Estate Consultants 



41 






Attachment II 
1'ape b off 5 



Expected Returns For a U.S. DoUar Based Investor 
Five- Year Horizon Annualized 

Expected 
Asset Class Indices: Return 

Global Equities M3CJ World Equity Index 

Unhedged 1.47% 

Dollar Hedged 4.26 

U.S. Equity 

WHshire 5000/Russefl 3000 6.70 

S&P 500 633 

Intermediate Capitafization 6.98 

Small Capitalization 9.95 

Non-U.S. Equities MSC1 Non-U.S. Equity Index 

Unhedged -1-31 

Japan Unhedoed EqufSes -1£9 

AS C»>er Unhedged Gqurtes . -1.00 

Dollar Hedged 3.07 

Japan Hedged EquiSes A&2 

AJIOiher Hedged EquSes 1.84 

Global Bonds Salomon World Govt. Bond Index 

. Unhedged 4.92 

Dollar Hedged 7.42 

U.S. Bonds 

Salomon Broad Investment Grade Bond Index 7.81 

Salomon Treasury Index 7.43 

Long-Term US. Govt Bonds 7.95 

International DoHar Bonds 7.79 

Nor>-U.S. Bonds Salomon Non-U.S. Govt Bond Index 

Unhedged 3.43 

Japan Unhedged Bonds -0 .76 

AD Ofher Unhedged Bonds S 30 

Dollar Hedged 7.41 

Japan Hedged Bonds 5X9 

AH OTier Hedged 8onds 857 

U.S. High Yield Bonds 

First Boston High Yield Index 9.09 
Venture Capital 

Brinson Partners' Performance Indicator 13.44 
U.S. Real Estate 

Russell-NCREIF Property Index 8.50 
U.S. Cash Equivalents 

30-0ay Treasury B3I (Bond Equivalent) 5.32 



inson Partners, (nc OOotobw 19S-4 

42 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



11 



File 82-94-9 



Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 30, 1994. 

Department: Department of Public Works 

Real Estate Department 

Item: Resolution authorizing the City to acquire on behalf of the 

Department of Public Works the permanent sewer easement 
known as 1CT 10B through a portion of the real property 
identified as Assessor's Parcel No. 4347B/4 and adopting 
findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Amount: $18,040 

Source of Funds: 1991 Sewer Revenue Bond Funds 

Description: The Real Estate Department reports that the Department of 

Public Works (DPW) is proposing to acquire a permanent 
sewer easement in connection with the Islais Creek 
Transport/Storage Project. The Islais Creek Project provides 
for the construction of underground sewer box facilities to 
capture, store, and transport wet weather overflows from the 
City's sewer system. The Project site is located near Islais 
Creek between Army and Napoleon Streets. 

The easement would provide the DPW with access to 3,280 
square feet owned by the State Department of Transportation. 
This easement would be used for the placement, construction 
and maintenance of that portion of the sewer box structure 
which is at the end of Napoleon Street. According to the Real 
Estate Department, the State would be paid $18,040 for this 
permanent sewer easement. 

Comments: 1. The Real Estate Department reports that the $18,040 to be 

paid to the State Department of Transportation represents the 
fair market value for this permanent sewer easement. 

2. The Department of City Planning has determined that the 
acquisition of this permanent sewer easement is in conformity 
with the Master Plan and is consistent with the Eight Priority 
Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



A3 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 172-94-44 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 30, 1994. 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer 

Item: Resolution approving the form of, and authorizing the 

execution and delivery of, a Forward Purchase and Sale 
Agreement; and authorizing other actions related thereto. 

Description: The proposed resolution would authorize the Chief 

Achninistrative Officer (CAO) to execute a contract known as a 
Forward Purchase and Sale Agreement, under which the City 
would; a) receive a one-time payment from a securities dealer, 
b) agree in exchange to purchase U.S. Treasury Bills from that 
securities dealer over a period of 7 to 10 years as an 
investment of the monies that the City deposits for the purpose 
of making debt service payments on certain Sewer Revenue 
Bonds, and, c) use this investment in Treasury Bills to make 
the payments due to the Sewer Revenue bondholders. The 
upfront payment from the securities dealer would be deposited 
in the Clean Water Program's Rate Stabilization Fund, and 
used to offset a portion of sewer service charge rate increases 
over the next three years. 

The City currently has $511,995,000 in outstanding Sewer 
Revenue Bonds, Series 1991, 1992, and 1994 for the Clean 
Water Program. Under the original terms of these bonds, 
principal and interest payments are made in installments 
throughout the year as much as 11 months prior to the time 
that semi-annual payments are actually due to the 
bondholders. 

During the time that the monies are on deposit, but payments 
are not yet due to bondholders, the monies are held by the 
Bank of America, acting as the City's Fiscal Agent, and are 
invested by the Bank of America in instruments that are 
approved by the City. The Bank of America's current practice, 
as approved by the City, has been to invest these monies in a 
money market fund. The yield on money market funds is now 
approximately 5 percent, and has averaged well under 4 
percent for the past few years. 

According to research by the CAO, the total fund balance that 
will be deposited by the City for payments on these Sewer 
Revenue Bonds over the next ten years, if held in short-term 
investments such as money market funds, would be expected to 
earn an average of 5 percent interest, yielding total earnings of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



44 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



approximately $8.75 million over ten years. Discounted for 
inflation and other factors, that $8.75 million is worth 
approximately $5.5 million in 1994 dollars. 

If the total fund balance that will be deposited by the City over 
the next ten years were held in longer-term investments, it 
could be expected to earn an average of 8 percent interest, 
yielding total earnings of approximately $14 million over ten 
years. Discounted for inflation and other factors, that $14 
million is worth approximately $8.8 million in 1994 dollars. 
Therefore, with this investment the City will earn an 
estimated $3.3 million more ($8.8 million less $5.5 million) 
than if the funds were left in the current investment 
instruments. 

In effect, the Forward Purchase and Sale Agreement will allow 
the City to use the certainty of its planned, regular debt service 
payments to take advantage of the higher interest rates which 
are available on long term investments, even though the funds 
are in fact held for the short-term, or until semi-annual 
payments are made to bondholders. 

Specifically, the contract authorized by the proposed resolution 
would work as follows: 

a) Following a competitive bid process, the City would select a 
securities dealer who offers the highest upfront payment to the 
City in exchange for the right to sell short-term U.S. Treasury 
Bills to the City over the 7 to 10 year period of the contract. 
According to Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood, Director of Public 
Finance at the CAO's Office, the upfront payment to the City is 
estimated to range between $8 and $10 million. This payment 
represents an amount in 1994 dollars approximating what the 
City could earn by investing its debt service funds at 8 percent 
over the next ten years. 

b) Over the next 7 to 10 years, the City would use its monthly 
debt service payments, during the period when payments are 
not yet due to bondholders, to purchase the short-term U.S. 
Treasury Bills from the securities dealer. The T-Bills will be 
purchased at face value for the amount of the City's debt 
service payments, with maturity dates just prior to the date 
that payments are due to bondholders. 

c) The Bank of America, as Fiscal Agent for the Sewer Bonds, 
would hold the U.S. Treasury Bills to maturity on behalf of the 
City, and make the semi-annual payments to bondholders. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



45 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



Comments: 



d) The upfront payment paid by the securities dealer to the 
City will be deposited in the Clean Water Program's Rate 
Stabilization Fund, and used to offset a portion of projected 
sewer service charge rate increases over the next four to five 
years (See Comment No. 2). 

The proposed contract provides for the following expenses to 
pay for administrative and professional services associated 
with this transaction. The proposed budget is: 

Office of the C AO 225 hours @ $40-$65/hr. $ 10,000 

City Attorney 100 hours @ $80-$100/hr. 10,000 

Bond Counsel (Orrick Herrington, Sutcliffe) flat fee 35 f 000 

Total $55,000 

1. Under a Forward Purchase and Sale Agreement, the City 
will be protected both by having a fixed purchase price for the 
T-Biils, eliminating fluctuations due to changing interest rates, 
and by the inherent security of its debt service funds being 
invested in T-Bills. The proposed Forward Purchase and Sale 
Agreement also provides that if the securities dealer is unable 
to deliver the T-Bills planned for purchase by the City, the 
contract may be terminated, and the City keeps the full 
amount of the upfront payment specified in the contract. 
Under this proposed contract, there is no risk to the City's debt 
service funds, or to its bond rating. 

2. The upfront payment to the City from the selected securities 
dealer of an estimated $8 to $10 million under this contract 
would be deposited in the Clean Water Program's Rate 
Stabilization Fund. The Rate Stabilization Fund is an 
Enterprise Fund that is invested by the City Treasurer. The 
deposit of $8 to $10 million would slightly offset future sewer 
service rate increases, according to Mr. Bob Hesse of the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) Finance Division. The 
DPW's current estimate of the proposed increased in 
residential sewer rates is 7.65 percent for next three years. 
With the deposit of this $8 to $10 million, Mr. Hesse reports 
that the proposed increase in residential sewer rates would 
drop to approximately 7.3 percent for the next three years, a 
decrease of .35 percent. As a result, an average monthly bill 
for a single family household would drop by $0.06 from 
approximately $21.61 to approximately $21.55. 

3. As noted above, under this proposed contract, the City will 
increase its income by an estimated $3.3 million as a result of 
investing the Sewer Service Revenue Bond debt service 
payments in U.S. Treasury Bonds instead of investing such 
monies in money market funds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



46 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Items 13 and 14 - Files 97-94-56.3 and 101-94-34 



Note: 



This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 
November 30, 1994. 



Department: Chief Administrative Officer 



Items: 



File 97-94-56.3 is an ordinance that would approve the following 
actions regarding the Courthouse Construction Project: 

• delivery of a site lease between the City and County of San 
Francisco, as lessor, and the City and County of San Francisco 
Courthouse Corporation, as lessee; 

• approval of a lease agreement between the City and County of 
San Francisco Courthouse Corporation, as lessor, and the City 
and County of San Francisco, as lessee; 

• approval of an assignment agreement by and between the City 
and County of San Francisco Courthouse Corporation and the 
trustee named therein and a trust agreement by and between 
the City and County of San Francisco, the City and County of 
San Francisco Courthouse Corporation and said trustee 
(including certain indemnification provisions therein); 

• approval of the form of a Certificate Purchase Agreement by and 
among the City and County of San Francisco, the City and 
County of San Francisco Courthouse Corporation, the Trustee 
named in said trust agreement and the underwriters named in 
said certificate purchase agreement; 

• approval of the offer and sale of the Certificates of Participation 
and the form of the official statement relating to the certificates; 

• approval of the form of a Letter of Credit agreement by and 
among the City and County of San Francisco, the City and 
County of San Francisco Courthouse Corporation and Morgan 
Guaranty Trust Company of New York (including certain 
indemnification provisions therein); 

• authorization of the officers of the City and County of San 
Francisco to obtain credit enhancement, if financially advisable, 
for the Certificates of Participation and to take other actions 
necessary or advisable to consummate the execution and 
delivery of such certificates not to exceed $63,000,000 in 
aggregate principal amount, to finance said project and the 
application of the proceeds thereof; and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



48 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

• ratification of actions previously taken with respect to the 
certificates of participation. 

File 101-94-34 is a proposed ordinance appropriating $2,000,000 of 
Courthouse Construction Funds for a Capital Improvement Project 
(i.e. the construction of the new Courthouse) for Fiscal Year 1994- 
95. This appropriation would be reserved pending the selection of 
contractors and the sale of the Certificates of Participation. 

Amount: The total amount of debt (in the form of Certificates of 

Participation) that would be authorized for this project would not 
exceed $63 million. The anticipated actual debt issuance, according 
to the CAO's current financing plan, is $59,580,000. 

The amount of the supplemental appropriation is $2,000,000. 

Source of The Certificates of Participation would be issued and repaid using 

Funds: the Courthouse Construction Fund, which is funded by surcharges 

to fines and fees charged by Municipal and Superior Court. As of 
December 1, 1994 the Courthouse Construction Fund has an 
unappropriated fund balance of $2,551,048. The source of the 
$2,000,000 is the Courthouse Construction Fund. 

Description: The information contained in this report is based on the 
Amendment of the Whole which will be presented to the Budget 
Committee at this meeting. 

On November 1, 1993 the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution No. 
93-877, adopted: 1) an Ordinance amending Chapter 10, Section 
10.117-35 of the San Francisco Administrative Code authorizing 
that payments made in connection with the construction of the new 
courthouse be paid from the Courthouse Construction Fund (File 
97-93-56); 2) a Resolution approving the form of a site lease, lease 
agreement, assignment agreement and trust agreement between 
the City and County of San Francisco as the lessor, the City and 
County of San Francisco Courthouse Corporation as the lessee, and 
the trustee, to be named in the agreements (File 97-93-56.1); and 3) 
a Resolution authorizing the incorporation of the City and County of 
San Francisco Courthouse Corporation (File 97-93-56.2). At that 
time the Board of Supervisors also authorized the Chief 
Administrative Officer to develop a finance plan, and ratified 
certain actions in connection with the proposed acquisition, 
construction and installation of courthouse facilities and 
improvements, and authorized the proposed delivery of up to $63 
million of certificates of participation to finance such projects. 

As approved on November 1, 1993, the site lease and lease 
agreement do not reference the location of the site for the new 
courthouse, nor do the agreements reference the lease start date or 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



AQ 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

lease term. This information was omitted pending the completion of 
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and finalization of the 
completion date of the new courthouse. 

According to Mr. Clyde Cohen, of the Office of the Chief 
Administrative Officer, the EER on the preferred site, located at the 
corner of Polk and McAllister Streets, was completed in June of 
1994. The existing structures at the site (at the corner of Polk and 
McAllister Streets) have been demolished and the area is currently 
under excavation. The projected completion date for the excavation 
phase of the courthouse construction project is March of 1995. Mr. 
Cohen also indicated that the current schedule anticipates that the 
construction will be completed by March of 1997 with the move-in 
scheduled three months later in June of 1997. The scheduled 
construction completion and move-in may change based upon the 
actual timing of the bidding for the construction phase of the 
project. 

Since the site selection and construction schedule have been 
finalized, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is 
now requesting the approval and delivery of a Site Lease, Lease 
Agreement, Assignment Agreement and Trust Agreement. These 
agreements would be approved in substantially the same form in 
which said agreements are currently on file with the Clerk of the 
Board of Supervisors. The site lease and lease agreement which 
would be authorized by this proposed ordinance would contain a 
description of the site and the term of the lease, respectively. 

The Office of the CAO is also requesting that the Board of 
Supervisors authorize and direct the Mayor to execute the 
previously cited agreements and that the Clerk of the Board of 
Supervisors be authorized and directed to attest to this execution. 
Changes, additions and modifications to the agreements could be 
made upon approval of the Mayor after consultation with the City 
Attorney. 

As previously stated, actions taken by the Board of Supervisors in 
November of 1993 authorized the Office of the CAO to develop a 
finance plan for the acquisition, construction and installation of a 
new courthouse and related improvements. The San Francisco 
Courthouse Corporation was incorporated as a non-profit entity and 
established with the purpose of issuing up to $63 million in 
Certificates of Participation (COP) to finance the construction of the 
new courthouse. The COPs, similar to lease revenue bonds, are to 
be paid off by the City, as lessee, through the City's lease payments 
to the San Francisco Courthouse Corporation, the lessor. However, 
the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors in November of 1993 
did not authorize the San Francisco Courthouse Corporation to 
actually issue $63 million in COPs. Authority to issue the $63 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

million in COPs requires and is contingent upon the approval of 
this legislation by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. 

The total estimated project cost for the Courthouse Construction 
Project is $77,664,869. The estimated cost includes: $64,807,492 
for acquisition, demolition, excavation, construction, and furnishing; 
$11,202,566 for financing interest and a debt service reserve fund; 
$1,652,459 for delivery date expenses; and $2,352 in additional 
proceeds. The funding for the total estimated project cost of 
$77,664,869 would be comprised of $18,084,869 in equity 
contributions by the City in the form of Pay-As-You-Go (P-A-Y-G) 
capital funds from the Courthouse Construction Fund and 
$59,580,000 in proceeds from the sale of COPs. Of the $18,084,869 
in equity contributions provided by the City, $16,084,869 has 
already been appropriated from the Courthouse Construction Fund. 
The remaining $2,000,000 would be appropriated through actions 
taken with respect to this legislation. 

The financing plan developed by the CAO, which was approved by 
validation action by the Superior Court of the State of California on 
December 20, 1993, includes two sources of funding. Proceeds from 
the sale of the COPs have been estimated at $59,580,000. As such, 
the proposed ordinance requests approval of the form of a 
Certificate Purchase Agreement between and among the City, the 
City and County of San Francisco Courthouse Corporation, the 
Trustee (named in said trust agreement), and the underwriters 
(named in said Certificate Purchase Agreement) and the issuance of 
COPs in an amount not to exceed $63 million. The issuance of the 
COPs would provide the portion of the funds ($59,580,000) 
necessary to finance the construction, furnishing and equipping for 
a municipal courthouse building, including certain financing costs. 
The remaining funds required to complete the construction project 
would be provided through appropriations ($18,084,869 in P-A-Y-G) 
from the Courthouse Construction Fund. 

The preliminary structuring of the COPs includes four components. 
These components are: 

COPs Component Avg. Counon Rate Average Life 

3 Year Put Bonds 5.750% 3.167 yrs. 

Serial Bonds (1999-10) 6.522% 10.391 yrs. 

Term Bond (2011-15) 7.050% 18.235 yrs. 

Term Bond (2016-21) 7.100% 23.165 yrs. 

The components of the financing plan, detailed above have an 
average life of approximately 13 years and an average coupon rate 
of approximately 6.85 percent. The average coupon rate is based on 
current conditions and estimations. Since the sale of the COPs may 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

not take place until June of 1995, the average coupon rate is subject 
to change. However, the sale would be structured so that annual 
debt service payments would not exceed $4.1 million. 

The COPs will be secured by a pledge of the General Fund to make 
annual appropriations of base rental payments to cover debt 
service. However, the actual source of the repayments would be the 
Courthouse Construction Fund. The Courthouse Construction 
Fund is a special revenue fund which receives approximately $4.3 
million annually through a $50 surcharge on filing fees for Superior 
Court cases, a $20 surcharge on filing fees for Municipal Court 
cases, a $0.01 penalty assessment on parking and traffic fines and 
a $1.50 surcharge on all parking tickets issued by the City. The 
special parking ticket surcharge generates $2.2 million and has 
been structured to extend for 20 years past the issuance of the debt 
for the Courthouse Construction Project to provide adequate 
revenue to make debt service payments. After adjusting for interest 
earnings on the debt service reserve fund, net debt service 
payments, following the construction period, are estimated at $4. 1 
million for the first 20 years and $1.95 million for the remaining 
five years. The courthouse financing and debt service payments 
have been structured to reflect the cash flow forecasts for the 
Courthouse Construction Fund and the impact of debt service 
reserve interest earnings. 

As structured, the COPs include capitalized interest through the 
construction period, and for an additional nine months following the 
scheduled occupation of the facility. Based on current scheduling 
the anticipated completion date for the new courthouse is March 1, 
1997, with occupation of the building by June 1, 1997. The practice 
of structuring the COPs to cover capitalized interest payments for a 
specified length of time past the completion of construction and 
scheduled occupation of the facility is very common. Structuring 
the financing in this manner is done to guard against delays in 
construction or occupancy which may delay the onset of the revenue 
stream (lease payments) which will be used to make debt service 
payments. During this time period, revenue would continue to 
accrue to the Courthouse Construction Fund at the projected rate of 
$4.3 million annually. All revenue accruing to the Courthouse 
Construction Fund during the construction period, would be applied 
to the Courthouse Construction Project. 

Approximately $18.6 million has already accumulated in the 
Courthouse Construction Fund to be used for site acquisition and 
preparation, design, and construction of the courthouse. Prior to 
the issuance of the COPs, approximately $14 million of the $18.6 
million which has accumulated in the Courthouse Construction 
Fund will have been expended for pre-construction costs such as 
project management fees, architectural and engineering services, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

property acquisition, hazardous materials and toxic soils 
abatement, and demolition. 

Section 6.302 of the City Charter requires that the Controller 
certify that the entire $48 million for the construction phase of the 
project, which is estimated to cost $48,722,632, be on hand and 
unencumbered to officially certify the construction contract. In 
order to provide maximum flexibility with regard to the use of the 
$48 million, which would be part of the Courthouse Construction 
Fund, the financing has been structured to include approximately 
$13 million in "put bonds" which are secured by a Letter of Credit. 
As structured, these bonds would be "put", or sold back to the City 
on April 1, 1998. At that time, the City has the option of retiring 
the "put bonds" or remarketing them. As previously stated, these 
"put bonds" are secured by a Letter of Credit (LOC) provided by 
Morgan Guaranty Trust. Morgan Guaranty Trust would agree to 
pay all or any portion of the "put bonds" should the City elect not to 
retire or remarket such bonds on April 1, 1998 (See Comment No. 
2). 

As proposed, this ordinance would authorize the Officers of the City 
and County of San Francisco to obtain credit enhancement, if 
financially advisable, for the certificates and to take any other 
actions which are required to execute and deliver the COPs. 
Insurance and other credit enhancements would be obtained only if 
obtaining such insurance and credit enhancements would result in 
a net savings to the City. The proposed ordinance would also ratify 
actions previously taken with respect to the COPs. These actions 
include approval of the form of a site lease, lease agreement, 
assignment agreement and trust agreement, as well as actions 
taken authorizing the development of the finance plan, filing of a 
validation action, and ratifying actions in connection with the 
acquisition, construction and installation of the new courthouse 
(File 97-93-56.1). 

File 101-94-34 is a proposed ordinance requesting the appropriation 
of $2,000,000 from the Courthouse Construction Fund. If approved, 
the monies appropriated would be placed in reserve, pending the 
award of the construction contract for the courthouse and the sale of 
the Certificates of Participation. Approval of the proposed 
ordinance would increase the appropriations previously made from 
the Courthouse Construction Fund to $18,084,869 ($16,084,869 
previously appropriated plus $2,000,000). 

Comments: 1. Costs for the Courthouse Construction Project have been 
estimated at $64,807,492, including acquisition, demolition, 
excavation and construction. According to Mr. Neal Taniguchi, of 
the Office of the CAO, $16,084,869 of the total Courthouse 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Construction Project costs of $64,807,492, has been appropriated in 
Pay-As-You-Go capital funds from the Courthouse Construction 
Fund with the remaining $48,722,623 to be financed through the 
saleofCOPs. 

Mr. Cohen has indicated that nine contractors have been 
prequalified for this project and that current scheduling would 
result in delivering final drawings to the qualified bidders by the 
first week in April of 1995, receiving bids on the project by mid-May 
of 1995, and the official certification of the contract and "Notice to 
Proceed" by the end of May 1995. Mr. Cohen has also indicated that 
based on estimates taken during design development at 30, 50 and 
95 percent completion on the drawings by two independent sources 
(the Architects estimators and the Construction Manager's 
estimators) the projected construction budget of $48,722,623 is 
sound. 

Expenditures for Pay-As- You-Go (P-A-Y-G) capital funds from the 
Courthouse Construction Fund, which have been previously 
appropriated, are as follows: 



Expenditure 


Amount 


Pre-construction 




Project Management Fee 


$280,489 


Construction Manager 




Basic Fees 


494,000 


Construction Manager 




Option "A" 


1,320,000 


Architectural and Engineering 




Basic Services 


4,792,605 


Environmental Impact Report 


151,234 


City Planning Environmental 




Impact Report Permits 


132,147 


Real Estate 


55,000 


Art Commission Enrichment 




Administration and Construction 


250,000 


Pioneer Museum Acquisition 




and Relocation 


4,900,000 


Asbestos and Hazardous 




Materials Abatement and 




Toxics Consultant Fees 


1,144,936 


Miscellaneous Consultant 




and Administration Fees 


380,608 


Demolition 


384,878 


Tele-computer Installation 


14.400 


Pre-construction Subtotal 


$14,300,297 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 





BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Expenditure Amount 

Construction 

Construction Contingency $269,358 

Excavation and Shoring 1.515.214 

Construction Subtotal $1,784,572 

Total P-A-Y-G Expenditures $16,084,869 

The remaining $48,722,623 for the Courthouse Construction 
Project, which would be funded by the COPs, would be expended as 
follows: 

Expenditure Amount 

Pre-construction 

Project Management Fee $210,386 

Testing and Special Inspections 650,000 
Miscellaneous Consultant and 

Administrative Fees 100,000 
Furnishings, Fixtures 

and Equipment 3,400,000 

Tele-computer Installation 1.200.000 

Pre-construction Subtotal $5,560,386 

Construction 

Construction Contingency $2,686,579 

Building 40.475.658 

Construction Subtotal $43,162,237 

Total Amount to be Funded by COPs $48,722,623 

Total Construction Budget $64,807,492 

2. According to Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood, of the Office of the 
Chief Administrative Officer, the financing has been structured so 
that approximately $13 million in bonds can be "put" or sold back to 
the City on April 1, 1998. The amount of the "put bonds" represents 
approximately 85 percent of the funds expected to be available in 
the Courthouse Construction fund at that time. When the bonds 
are "put", or sold back to the City, the City may choose to use funds 
in the Courthouse Construction Fund to pay off the bonds, thus 
reducing the amount of debt outstanding. The City may also choose 
to remarket all or a portion of the "put bonds" on April 1, 1998. Ms. 
Wagner-Lockwood has also indicated that based on current 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

estimates, approximately $14 million would be available from the 
Courthouse Construction Fund to repay the "put bonds" on April 1, 
1998. 

3. As stated above, the City may elect not to repay the "put bonds", 
or may be unable to remarket them on April 1, 1998. Ms. Lockwood 
indicates that Morgan Guaranty Trust will provide a letter of credit 
in the amount of the "put bonds" as part of the financing package. 
Ms. Lockwood states that despite the options available to the City, 
the City has every intention of retiring the "put bonds" when they 
are "put", or sold, back to the City. However, changes in the cost of 
the project or the completion may necessitate using all or a portion 
of the resources available in the Courthouse Construction Fund. 

4. The financing plan includes Delivery Date Expenses totaling 
$1,652,459. These expenses include: issuance costs ($600,000), 
underwriter's discount ($387,270), insurance premium ($583,869), 
and letter of credit fees ($81,320). 

5. The financing plan for the Courthouse Construction Project is 
based on obtaining funds from the sale of COPs and an additional 
"Equity Contribution" (additional P-A-Y-G funding) from the City. 
If the proposed ordinance to appropriate an additional $2,000,000 
from the Courthouse Construction Fund is approved, the City's 
equity contribution would total $18,084,869. The request for the 
supplemental appropriation of $2,000,000 has been included in the 
financing plan to reduce the amount of financing required and lower 
the amount of the "put bonds". 

The following chart details the sources and uses of funds for the 
portion of the Courthouse Construction Project which would be 
financed through the COPs. Included are costs for the actual 
construction of the facility, capitalized interest and debt service 
reserve fund and delivery date expenses. ($16,084,869 in previously 
appropriated P-A-Y-G funding has not been included in this chart 
as it does not directly impact the financing plan) 

Source of Funds Amount 

COPs Proceeds (Par Amount) $59,580,000 

Additional City Equity Contribution 
from the Courthouse Construction Fund 
(subject to this report) 2.000.000 

Total $61,580,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



56 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Uses of Funds Amount 

Project Fund Deposits 

Construction Fund (gross funded) $48,722,623 

Other Fund Deposits 

Capitalized Interest 6,048,911 

Maximum Annual Debt 

Service Reserve Fund 5.153,655 

Subtotal $11,202,566 

D elivery Date Expenses 

Cost of Issuance $600,000 

Underwriter's Discount 387,270 

Insurance Premium 583,869 
Letter of Credit Fees 81.320 

Subtotal $1,652,459 



Other Uses of Funds 
Additional Proceeds 

Total 



2.352 



$61,580,000 



Summary: 



6. Contractors who have already been pre-qualified for this project 
are scheduled to receive the final drawings by the first week in 
April of 1995. Based on this timing, the CAO anticipates awarding 
the bid to the lowest bidder for the construction of the courthouse by 
mid-May. After the award of the bid, and the 10 day bid protest 
period has elapsed, the Official Statement (OS) will be distributed. 
These events have been scheduled in a manner that will ensure 
that the COP issue is sized properly. Due to the requirement that 
all funds be available to award the construction contract, official 
certification of the contract will take place after the sale of the 
COPs. 

7. Ms. Diana Fitzpatrick, of the City Attorney's Office, states that 
actions previously taken with respect to the COPs are the approval 
of the form of a site lease, lease agreement, assignment agreement 
and trust agreement, as well as actions taken authorizing the 
development of the finance plan, filing of a validation action and 
ratifying action in connection with the acquisition, construction and 
installation of the new courthouse (File 97-93-56.1). Approval of 
this proposed ordinance would ratify such actions previously taken. 

These proposed ordinances (File 97-94-56.3) and (File 101-94-34) 
request approval of the delivery of a site lease, lease agreement, 
assignment agreement and trust agreement related to the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Courthouse Construction Project, and the appropriation of 
$2,000,000 from tne Courthouse Construction Fund. The previously 
cited agreements were approved in form by the Board of 
Supervisors at its meeting of November 1, 1993 (Files 97-93-56, 
56.1, and 56.2). As authorized by the Board of Supervisors in that 
same meeting, the Office of the CAO has developed a financing plan 
and obtained validation for that plan from the Superior Court of the 
State of California. 

This legislation also requests approval of: the form of a Certificate 
Purchase Agreement to sell Certificates of Participation; the offer 
and sale of Certificates of Participation, in the amount of up to $63 
million; the form of the Official Statement relating to the sale of 
such certificates; the form of a letter of credit agreement; the 
authorization to seek credit enhancements as required to execute 
the COPs; and the ratification of all actions previously taken with 
regard to the COPs. The proposed ordinance further requests a $2 
million appropriation from the Courthouse Construction Fund 
which would increase the City's equity contribution thereby 
lowering the amount of financing required for this project (File 101- 
94-34). 

If approved, the financing plan would provide $59,580,000 through 
the sale of Certificates of Participation. Proceeds from the sale 
would finance construction costs estimated at $48,722,623, 
capitalized interest and debt service reserve fund costs of 
$11,202,566, delivery date expenses of $1,652,459, and additional 
proceeds of $2,352. As proposed the financing plan contains a three 
year "put bond" which would be sold back to the City on April 1, 
1998. At that time the City could exercise the option to retire 
approximately $13,000,000 of the outstanding debt, or remarket the 
bonds. The "put bonds" would be secured by a letter of credit from 
Morgan Guaranty Trust should the City elect not to exercise either 
of these options. 

The total of the items to be financed equals $61,580,000. If the 
proposed ordinance to appropriate an additional $2,000,000 from 
the Courthouse Construction Fund is not approved, the amount of 
the COPs would have to increase from $59,580,000 to $61,580,000 
to cover the full $61,580,000. However, if interest rates are too high 
to allow the City to increase the COPs by $2,000,000 and maintain 
annual debt service payments at or below the maximum $4.1 
million, the project would be scaled back accordingly. 

Debt service on this project, which would be financed over a 25 year 
period, is estimated not to exceed $4.1 million for the first 20 years, 
and $1.95 million for the last five years. The average coupon rate 
on the COPs has been estimated at 6.85 percent, based on current 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



58 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 7, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

conditions, and the average life has been calculated at 
approximately 13 years. 

As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has been 
informed that construction bids for this project are expected by mid- 
May of 1995 with certification and award of the contract, with a 
notice to proceed with construction by the end of May 1995. 

The information contained in this report is based on the 
Amendment of the Whole which is being presented at this meeting. 

Recommendation: 1. Based on the prior policy decisions of the Board of Supervisors to 
proceed with the Courthouse Construction Project, approve the 
proposed ordinance (File 97-94-56.3). 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance which appropriates and 
reserves $2,000,000 of Courthouse Construction Funds, pending the 
selection of contractors for the construction of the courthouse, 
submission of the MBE/WBE status of the contractors and contract 
cost details by the department, and the sale of Certificates of 
Participation to finance the project (File 101-94-34). 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Hsieh 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Maher 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Shelley 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



S^e.oy DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

* a ^ <&<-£<*j>»a AUG 2 7 1996 

>^-/ti I f V BUDGET COMMITTEE - •.- Wc -*> "/**« g AN FRA NCiSCO 

// BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC LIBRARY 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 14. 1994 - 1:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS HSIEH, ALIOTO, BIERMAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR ALIOTO FOR ITEMS 7-15 
SUPERVISOR BIERMAN 5. 

CLERK: MARY L. RED 

1. File 100-94-16 . [Status of Overtime Budgets] Hearing to consider the status of 
departmental overtime budgets and any projected deficit. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Consideration continued to call of the chair. 

2. File 100-94-17. [Status of San Francisco Municipal Railway Budget] Hearing to 
consider the status of the budget for the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI). 
(Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Consideration continued to call of the chair. 

3. File 100-94-18 . [Status of Department of Public Health Budget] Hearing to 
consider the status of the budget for the Department of Public Health. (Supervisor 
Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Consideration continued to call of the chair. 

4. File 100-94-19 . [Anticipated Supplemental Requests] Hearing to consider 
anticipated Supplemental Requests from various departments and the Mayor's 
recommendation concerning these requests. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Consideration continued to call of the chair. 

5. File 172-94-45 . [Contract, DPH, Coopers & Lybrand LLP) Resolution authorizing 
the contract between the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public 
Health and Coopers & Lybrand LLP to provide project management and 
implementation assistance of a Healthcare Management Information System. 
(Department of Public Health) 

(Continued from 12/7) 

ACTION: Tabled at request of Department. (Supervisor Bierman absent) 

6. File 101-94-33.1 . [Appropriation, District Attorney] Ordinance appropriating 
$496,889 from the General Fund Reserve for salaries and fringe benefits to address 
underfunding in the District Attorney's Office for fiscal year 1994-95; providing for 
ratification of action previously taken; subject of previous budgetary denial. 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

(Continued from 11/30) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Recommended to Board "WITHOUT 
RECOMMENDATION". Supervisor Hsieh dissenting. 



7. File 101-94-36 . [Appropriations, Sheriff, DA & Adult Probation] Ordinance 
appropriating and rescinding $419,709 from the Sheriff and appropriating $262,000 
of jail overcrowding fine and $151,189 from the General Fund Reserve to the 
District Attorney, Sheriff and Adult Probation Departments for salaries, fringe 
benefits, other non-personal services and lease purchase of equipment and creating 
eleven position for implementation of programs to minimize jail overcrowding for 
fiscal year 1994-95; placing $262,000 on reserve; companion measure to File 
102-94-6. RO #94121 (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole (reflecting Budget Analyst recommendations) 
adopted. New title : "Ordinance appropriating and rescinding $419,709 
from the Sheriff and appropriating $252,764 of jail overcrowding fine 
and $142,481 from the General Fund Reserve to the District Attorney, 
Sheriff and Adult Probation Departments for salaries, fringe benefits, 
other non-personal services and lease purchase of equipment and 
creating eleven positions for implementation of programs to minimize 
jail overcrowding for fiscal year 1994-95; placing $252,764 on reserve." 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor. 
(Supervisor Alioto absent) 

8. File 102-94-6 . [Sheriff, District Attorney, Adult Probation, ASO] Ordinance 
amending Annual Salary Ordinance, 1994-95, Sheriff, District Attorney and Adult 
Probation Departments, reflecting the addition of eleven positions (Classifications 
8302 Deputy Sheriff I (3), 8274 Police Cadet (4), 8182 Head Attorney (1), 8178 
Senior Attorney, 8442 Senior Probation Officer (1), and 1432 Senior Transcriber 
Typist (1) designed to reduce jail overcrowding; companion measure to File 
101-94-36. (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor. (Supervisor 
Alioto absent) 

9. File 101-94-37 . [Appropriation, SFUSD, $32,161,000] Ordinance appropriating 
$32,161,000, San Francisco Unified School District, of school bond proceeds and 
interest earnings for capital improvements to various school facilities for fiscal 
year 1994-95. RO #94113 (Supervisor Alioto) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. Supervisor Alioto added as sponsor. (Supervisor 
Alioto absent) 

10. File 84-94-4. [Property Acquisition, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue] Resolution 
authorizing the acquisition of Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4167 (700 Pennsylvania 
Avenue) for a Municipal Railway Maintenance facility and adopting findings 
pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: RECOMMENDED. Supervisor Alioto absent. 

11. File 79-93-2.4 . [Release Reserve Funds, Community Development] Hearing 
requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's Office of Community Development, 
in the amount of $71,250, for environmental review services. (Mayor's Office of 
Community Development) 

ACTION: Release of reserved funds in the amount of $71,250 was approved. 
FILED. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 



12. File 176-94-10.1 . [Newspaper Strike, Police Presence] Hearing to consider the 
allocation of San Francisco Police Department resources and the level of uniformed 
officer presence at facilities being picketed during the San Francisco newspaper 
strike, including the costs to the City and County of San Francisco of the allocation 
of said resources. (Supervisors Hallinan, Shelley) 

ACTION: Continued to call of the chair at request of Supervisor Hallinan. 
(Supervisor Alioto absent) 

13. File 101-94—38. [Appropriation, Water Department] Ordinance appropriating and 
rescinding $673,000 of Water Department operating funds to programmatic project 
(Pleasanton Property Development Plan) for the Water Department for fiscal year 
1994-95; placing $283,500 on reserve. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Amended to reduce appropriation by $10,000. New title : "Ordinance 
appropriating and rescinding $663,000 of Water Department operating 
funds to programmatic project (Pleasanton Property Development Plan) 
for the Water Department for fiscal year 1994-95; placing $283,500 on 
reserve." RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 

14. File 101-94-39. [Appropriation, MOCD] Ordinance appropriating $148,445 from 
the Dispute Resolution Program Fund to allow the Mayor's Office of Community 
Development to continue contracts for dispute resolution services in 1994-95. 
(Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Amended to provide for ratification of actions previously taken. New 
title : "Ordinance appropriating $148,445 from the Dispute Resolution 
Program Fund to allow the Mayor's Office of Community Development 
to continue contracts for dispute resolution services in 1994-95; 
providing for ratification of actions previously taken." 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 

15. File 101-94-40. [Appropriation, Fire Department] Ordinance appropriating 
$10,000,000 of Fire Protection Bond proceeds for capital improvements to various 
Fire Stations and the 911 Emergency Dispatch Center for the Fire Department for 
fiscal year 1994-1995. (Supervisors Hsieh, Alioto) 

ACTION: Amended to delete 911 capital improvements; place $4,630,882 on 
reserve, and require any outside contracts to be reviewed by Budget 
Committee. Amendment of the Whole (reflecting amendments) 
adopted. New title : "Ordinance appropriating $9,400,000 of Fire 
Protection Bond proceeds for capital improvements to various Fire 
Stations for the Fire Department for fiscal year 1994-1995; placing 
$4,630,882 on reserve. RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. Supervisor 
Alioto added as cosponsor. (Supervisor Alioto absent) 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO LAttj J\CpOTt 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 



December 12, 1994 

TO: Budget Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 100-94-16 

Item: This item is a hearing to consider the status of City 

departmental overtime budgets and any projected deficit. 

Description: As of the writing of this report, the Controller's Office had not 

completed its analysis of the City departmental overtime 
budgets. Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office advises 
that such analysis is expected to be completed by December 14, 
1994. 

Comments: 1. On September 15, 1994, the Budget Analyst submitted a 

report entitled Overtime Expenditures for Calendar Year 1993 
and January through June, 1994. 

A summary of the findings in that report were as follows: 

a. The city of San Francisco pays approximately 

$62.6 MILLION IN OVERTIME AND HOLIDAY OVERTIME 
WAGES PER YEAR TO EMPLOYEES IN MORE THAN 40 CITY 
DEPARTMENTS. 

• Nearly $50 million was spent on overtime wages and 
almost $13 million on holiday overtime wages in 
calendar year 1993, for a total of $62.6 million, which 
represented 5.3% of gross wages (total pre-tax wages, 
including overtime pay). In the first six months of 1994, 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



approximately $27.8 million was spent on overtime 
wages plus an additional $5 million on holiday overtime 
wages, for a total of over $32.8 million, representing 5% 
of gross wages. This six month figure represents a 
projected annual overtime expenditure of approximately 
$55.5 million for overtime and $10 million for holiday 
overtime, for a total of over $65.5 million for calendar 
year 1994. Of this amount, overtime wages of 
approximately $5.1 million in calendar year 1993 and $3 
million in the first six months of 1994 was for Police 
Special Law Enforcement Services (SLES) and work 
order funded services. Expenditures for these overtime 
costs are paid for by third parties (in the case of SLES) 
and other City departments (such as Muni and the 
Treasurer's Office). 

• In calendar year 1993, 44 of the 59 City departments 
had overtime expenditures, 6 of which had overtime 
expenditures in excess of 5% of gross wages. In the first 
six months of 1994, 41 departments had overtime 
expenditures, 7 of which had overtime expenditures in 
excess of 5% of gross wages. 

• In calendar year 1993, 4,169 employees in 32 City 
departments had overtime wages of at least 10% of their 
gross wages. In the first six months of 1994, 3,993 
employees in 27 City departments had overtime wages 
of at least 10% of their gross wages. 2,950 of these 
employees (or 74%) are in the Fire Department, Muni or 
Police Departments. 

• In calendar year 1993, 2,820 employees in 26 City 
departments worked overtime hours in excess of 10% of 
their regular hours, and in the first six months of 1994, 
2,998 employees in 26 City departments worked 
overtime hours in excess of 10% of their regular hours. 

many city employees still work overtime hours in 
excess of 16% of non-overtime hours, but most of 
these employees are exempt from administratf/e 
Code Section 18.13 limiting permissible overtime. 

• The number of employees City-wide who worked 
overtime hours that represented 16 percent or more of 
their regularly scheduled hours increased from 1,460 in 
1993 to 1,639 in the first six months of 1994. Of these 
1,639 employees in 1994, 835 or 51% are Muni Transit 
Operators, and 491 or 30% are Police Department 
uniformed Officers. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



• In calendar year 1993, 774 employees earned overtime 
wages that represented 25 percent or more of their gross 
wages, and for the first six months of 1994, this figure 
jumped to 896 employees. In calendar year 1993, 405 or 
52% of these employees were in Muni, while 213 or 28% 
were in the Police Department. During the first six 
months of 1994, 466 or 52% of these 896 employees were 
in Muni and 258 or 29% were in the Police Department. 
These employees earned at least one dollar of overtime 
for every three dollars earned in non-overtime wages. 

• The number of employees City-wide who worked 
overtime hours that represented 25 percent or more of 
their regularly scheduled hours increased from 509 in 
1993 to 676 in the first six months of 1994. Of these 676 
employees in 1994, 366 or 54% of these employees are in 
Muni, while 198 or 29% are in the Police Department. 
For every four hours these employees work in their 
regular schedule, they work at least one additional hour 
of overtime. For employees who work a regularly 
scheduled eight hour day, this is equivalent to working 
an average of two hours of overtime each day. 

c. The Muni, Police Department and Fire 
Department spends the vast majority of city 
overtime dollars. 

• The three City departments with the highest overtime 
expenditures in calendar 1993 and the first six months 
of 1994 are Muni Railway, the Police Department, and 
the Fire Department. The majority of employees 
earning overtime wages in these three departments are 
exempt from Administrative Code Section 18.13. The 
table below shows non-holiday overtime expenditures in 
each of these three departments for calendar year 1993 
and the first six months of 1994, both in dollars and as a 
percent of total City- wide overtime expenditures. 



Department 


Calendar 1993 


1994 Through 6/30 


Non-Holiday 
OT Dollars 


%of 
Citv OT 


Non-Holiday 
OT Dollars 


%of 
Citv OT 




Fire 


$3,846,057 


7.8% 


$1,480,157 


5.3% 


Muni 


$18,555,055 


37.4% 


$10,701,510 


38.6% 


Police 


$13,190,304 


26.6% 


$7,790,540 


28.1% 


Total 


$35,591,416 


71.8% 


$19,972,207 


71.9% 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



• The highest amount of overtime wages paid to a City 
employee for the first six months of 1994 was $28,330 to 
a 9163 Transit Operator in the Muni Railway. This 
employee's non-overtime wages equaled $21,992 for this 
period, for gross wages totaling $50,322 for the first six 
months of 1994. If this employee were to work the same 
amount of overtime and non-overtime wages in the 
second six months of 1994, this would correspond to 
$56,660 in overtime wages and $100,644 in total gross 
wages for calendar year 1994. This employee worked 
approximately 1,015 overtime hours during the first six 
months of 1994, or an average of nearly 40 overtime 
hours per week. 

• The second highest amount paid in overtime wages 
during the first six months of 1994 was $28,030 to an 
0380 Inspector in the Investigations Division of the 
Police Department. This employee's non-overtime wages 
during this period totaled $31,520 for a total gross wage 
of $59,550 for the first six months of 1994. If this 
employee were to continue to work the same amount of 
overtime and non-overtime hours through the end of 
1994, this would correspond to approximately $56,060 in 
overtime wages and a total of $119,100 in gross wages 
for calendar year 1994. This employee worked a total of 
1,088 non-overtime hours and an additional 677.5 
overtime hours during the first six months of 1994, 
which represents an average of 26 hours of overtime 
worked per week and a total of 66 hours (overtime plus 
non-overtime) worked per week for a six-month period. 

The small number of employees that earn very 
large amounts of overtime wages pose significant 
costs to the city in the form of increased 
retirement benefits. 

• For Miscellaneous and Muni Transit Operator Tier 1 
employees (hired on or before 11/1/76), retirement 
benefits are based on non-overtime plus overtime wages. 
For the eight employees (seven Muni Transit Operators 
and one Water Department Utility Plumber) who earned 
$20,000 or more in overtime during the first six months 
of 1994 who are currently eligible for retirement, 
overtime wages may increase each of these employees' 
potential retirement benefits by between approximately 
$10,000 to nearly $25,000 per year, or a total estimated 
cost of $100,000 to $275,000, on a present value basis, 
over the expected retirement of each employee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



• If each of these eight employees continued to work the 
same amount of overtime for the remainder of the year 
and retired at the end of 1994, the aggregate cost, on a 
present value basis, to the City in lifetime retirement 
benefits due to overtime wages alone would be nearly 
$1.5 million, or an additional approximately $134,000 
per year above the retirement benefits based on non- 
overtime wages. 

2. Based on the findings contained in the report, the Budget 
Analyst recommended that: 

1). Department managers and the Employee Relations Division 
evaluate MOUs and more aggressively negotiate terms that 
affect overtime wages, such as minimum hours for Police 
Officers for court appearances and nurses called in on 
standby, limits on the number of part-time or full time 
positions, or seniority sign-up for voluntary overtime. 

2). The Board of Supervisors amend Administrative Code 
Section 18.13 such that all departments with significant 
overtime expenditures must provide the Board with a 
biannual analysis justifying the overtime expenditure and 
analyzing whether the hiring of additional part-time or full- 
time employees would be more cost effective than current 
staffing levels and overtime hours. 

3). The Board of Supervisors amend the Administrative Code 
by adding a section that limits permissible voluntary 
overtime for Muni Transit Operators to 16% of non- 
overtime hours. This limit should not pertain to overtime 
included in regularly scheduled shifts. According to Muni, 
this amendment to the Administrative Code would change 
the allocation of overtime hours worked by redistributing 
overtime work more evenly. Although more senior Transit 
Operators would still have priority in signing up for 
additional shifts, once each Transit Operator had worked 
the permitted 16% in additional hours, less senior Transit 
Operators would have the opportunity to sign up for 
overtime shifts. 

In the case of the top seven overtime earners currently 
eligible for retirement, limiting voluntary overtime to 16% 
of non-overtime hours would save the City nearly $950,000 
in lifetime retirement benefits for these seven Transit 
Operators alone. In addition, a limit on permissible 
voluntary overtime may lead to a reduction in total 
overtime expenditures by Muni. This amendment should 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



include similar language as Section 18.13 regarding 
exceptions to this overtime limit. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



File 100-94-17 



Department: Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Item: This item is a hearing to consider the status of the budget for 

the Municipal Railway. 

Description: Attached is a status report on the MUNI's FY 1994-95 budget, 

as prepared by the MUNI. This report, in summary, states the 
following: 

1. At a meeting of the Public Transportation Commission on 
November 22, 1994, the MUNI reported a projected budget 
deficit of approximately $8 million, based on revenue 
shortfalls of approximately $3.5 million and expenditure 
overages in excess of budgeted amounts totaling 
approximately $4.4 million in MUNI's salaries and overtime 
($1 million), workers compensation ($1.1 million), claims ($1 
million), materials and supplies ($1.1 million) and Substance 
Abuse Program ($0.2 million) accounts. 

2. Since the above-noted November, 1994 Commission 
meeting, the MUNI continues to project a revenue shortfall of 
approximately $3.5 million. However, MUNI reports that 
while a fare increase and service changes do not appear to be 
necessary to resolve the MUNI's projected FY 1994-95 deficit, 
MUNI plans to request a supplemental appropriation, in an 
as yet undetermined amount, for consideration by the Mayor 
and the Board of Supervisors in early 1995. In that 
connection the more recent projections of MUNI indicate that 
the total estimated deficit is less than the previously reported 
estimated deficit of $8 million. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL RAILWAY 949 PRESTO AVENL's SAN FRANCISCO. CAliF 9*1 15 4iS-«73-6364 Ntf^-if^ 




DATE: 



TO: 



MEMORANDUM 



December 9, 1994 

Members, Public Transportation Commission 

Kay Yu, President 

James Jefferson, Vice President 

Jon Ballesteros, Commissioner 

Joan Rummelsburg, Commissioner 

Aarlene Chew Wong, Commissioner 



THROUGH: 



Philip H. Adams 
Director of T: 



ransportati 



sportacion 



Fred Howell, Acting Deputy 
Finance, Administration & Personnel 



FROM: 

SUBJECT: STATUS 07 CURRENT YEAR EXPENDITURES AMD 




S 



At the Commission meeting of November 22, 1994, we reported on a 
projected deficit for the current fiscal year of approximately $8 
million. That deficit comprised revenue shortfalls as well as 
expenditures in excess of budgeted amounts for items including 
salaries, overtime, workers compensation, claims and the 
Substance Abuse Program. We noted that the projections were 
based upon (a) preliminary analysis of year-to-date financial 
data, (b) historical under- funding in some of these areas, and 
(c) the fact that last year's total expenditures were $7 million 
more than the current year's budget. While we pointed out that 
supplemental appropriations and fund transfers were provided in 
previous years, we also noted that prior position reductions and 
other efficiencies had been implemented to the point that almost 
any other internal measures may have an adverse impact on service 
delivery. We cited the need for long-term structural solutions 
and the difficulties associated with fare increases and service 
changes . 

Since the last meeting we have taken the steps shown below. 

1. Continued to analyze additional financial data in greater 
detail to more clearly pinpoint causes of the identified problem 
areas, understand their full extent and refine our projections. 

2. Conducted meetings with staff members in the Mayor's and 
Controller's offices to ensure a clear understanding of the 
problems, measures being taken by Muni to address them, and 
collaborative ways to achieve acceptable short- and long-term 
solutions . 



2'd 



iflJ H1Z 3DUHKIT -t TW LIHfrP-QO t,c 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Current Year Expndtr. & Rev. 
December 9, 1994 
Page 2 



Memo 



3. Met with the Chair of the Board's Budget Committee to discuss 
the nature and dimensions of as well as possible solutions to the 
problem. 

As a result of these activities, we have determined at this time 
the following: 

1. The revenue problem appears to be solid, rather than an 
aberration, and the projected shortfall will be in excess of $3.5 

million. 

2 . Pare increases and service changes do not seem to be 
necessary as a part of the solution to the current-year problem. 
However, these options should be considered in our long-range 

planning. 

3 . A supplemental appropriation of an amount to be determined 
will be processed in early 1995. 

4 . Muni is implementing several measures to control expenditures 
and the total deficit now appears to be somewhat less than 
previously projected. 

Further analyses and work with the Mayor's and Controller's staff 
are expected to yield more definitive numbers in January 1995. 
We will keep the Commission apprised accordingly. 



CC: Supv. Hsieh 
B . Harrington 
T. Serata 

S. Brown- Richardson 
K. Gilbert 
W. Gerstenberger 
F. Nelson 
R . Auyang 

1994-95 Budget File 
Chron 



zisrf 



6*5* Qzf 






im 



& ZjjZjm 



•vita 



I'd 



>l~l -I UW T-M.lt-I1.IT J -v-ij 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 100-94-18 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: This item is a hearing to consider the status of the Fiscal Year 

1994-95 budget for the Department of Public Health. 

Description: Attached is a status report on the DPH's FY 1994-95 budget, 

as prepared by DPH. This report, in summary, states the 
following: 

1. Based on the DPH's first quarter performance, the 
Department is facing a potential budgetary shortfall, which 
will require an additional $7.1 million in General Fund 
monies for FY 1994-95. This potential shortfall is inclusive of 
the following: 

• Department revenues are projected to be $4 million 
below the amount budgeted by the end of the year. 

• DPH's expenditure budget for FY 1994-95 was under- 
funded by the Mayor by an estimated $1.5 million. 

• The Controller's Office has estimated an additional 
$500,000 cost to the DPH to fund the Nurses MOU in FY 
1994-95, which has yet to be presented to the Board of 
Supervisors for ratification. 

• Additional General Fund support in the amount of $1.1 
million is needed for (1) the Center for Special Problems 
($400,000 to fully fund all programs), (2) DPH Forensic 
Services ($350,000), and (3) Public Health Nursing 
($350,000). 

Note : As discussed in our report in Item 4, File 100-94-19, 
concerning pending supplemental appropriations, the Mayor 
is recommending $220,000 for the Center for Special 
Problems in order to fund the current level of services for the 
remainder of the 1994-95 Fiscal Year. 

2. The DPH will be submitting supplemental appropriation 
requests totaling approximately $4.86 million which will be 
supported through increased revenues or the Public Health 
Reserve established by the Controller (see Item 4, File 100-94- 
19). These supplemental appropriations will be used for start- 
up costs for (1) the Mental Health Rehabilitation Facility 
($2,260,310), (2) the Psychiatric Emergency Safety Plan and 
the Medical Emergency High User Project ($2,482,853) and (3) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

the San Francisco Medi-Cal Managed Care Local Initiative 
($125,000). 

3. Additionally, the DPH has not yet identified sufficient 
funding to pay for a estimated budgetary shortfall of $1.66 
million for the DPH's Community Substance Abuse Services, 
for the period January 15, 1995 through June 30, 1995. These 
services were previously funded by the Asset Seizure 
Forfeiture grant. The Asset Seizure Forfeiture grant monies 
expired June 30, 1994. Of the $1.66 million needed to support 
these services for the six month period ending June 30, 1995, 
the DPH has thus far identified a total of approximately 
$901,058, leaving a funding gap of $758,942. The $901,058 
includes (1) $151,058 from the General Fund, (2) $500,000 
from a one time State grant and (3) $250,000 from a Federal 
grant. 

Comment: Of the financial issues detailed in the Director of Health's 

report to the Budget Committee, the following have also been 
included in the Mayor's list of pending supplemental 
appropriations (see Item 4, File 100-94-19): 



Mental Health - "R" Facility $ 2,260,000 

Substance Abuse 152,000 

Forensics Nurses 350,000 

Medi-Cal Managed Care 125,000 

Nursing MOU To be Determined* 

Center for Special Problems 220,000 

* The Mayor's Office has indicated that the amount for the 
Nurses MOU is "to be determined". The Director of Health 
estimates that the cost will be $500,000 for 1994-95. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



City and County of San Francisco 




Department of Public Health 

Sandra R. Hernandez, M.D. 
Director of Health 



TO 



FROM 



Chairman Tom Hsieh, President Angela AJioto and Budget Committee Members 
Board of Supervisors 



Sandra R Hernandez, M 
Director of Health 



D /<^ 



SUBJECT: DPH 1 994-95 Interim Budget Status Report 
DATE: December 14, 1994 



Pursuant to our agreement, the Department of Public Health would like to present you with a 
status report on the Department's budget. The following report reflects a fiscal analysis 
conducted by the Department summarizing the 1994-95 budget as of first quarter data. Although 
we have projected year-end estimates based on performance to date, it is prudent to note that this 
report represents preliminary conclusions at this point in the year. It is difficult to predict how 
changes in the State and Federal legislature will affect the Department. There is talk of the 104th 
Congress rescinding some bills that were passed in the previous congressional session. At this 
time we are unable to forecast what impact this might have on budget appropriations allocated for 
1 994-95 funding for the Department. 

Based on first quarter performance, the Department of Public Health is facing a potential shortfall, 
to which it will need additional general fund dollars in the amount of $7.1 million for FY 1994- 
95. This short fall is inclusive of the following: 

• Revenues are projected to be $4 million below budgeted by the end of the year. 

• DPH's expenditure budget as approved for FY 1994-95 by the City and County was under- 
funded $1.5 million. 

• The Controllers Office has estimated an additional $500,000 cost to the Department to fund 
the Nurses MOU in 1994-95 which has yet to be presented to the Board for ratification. 

• Additional general fund support in the amount of $ 1 . 1 million to continue services at the 
Center for Special Problems, ($400,000,) Forensic Services, ($350,000) and Public Health 
Nursing, ($350,000 ) 

In addition, the Department will be forwarding to the Budget Committee supplemental 
appropriation requests totaling $4 86 million. The supplemental will not require additional 
general fund dollars and will be completely supported through increased revenue to cover 
corresponding expenditures. The supplemental will be used for start-up costs for the Mental 
Health Rehabilitation Facility, the Psychiatric Emergency Safety Plan and Medical Emergency 
High User Project, and the San Francisco Medi-Cal Managed Care Local Initiative 



115) 554-2600 



101 Grove Street 
12 



San Francisco, CA 94102 



Closing the State Revenue Shortfall — $1.5 Million Gap 

In an effort to address the State revenue shortfall, the Department's budget was adjusted by $1 .5 
million to help close the gap. Community Mental Health Services budget was modified to include 
$500,000 in undetailed expenditure reductions which were not identified. One million dollars in 
unidentified revenues were also placed in San Francisco General Hospital's budget. This 
represents a total of $1 .5 million unidentified revenue gains and expenditure reductions for the 
Department. In the event that we are unable to identify additional revenues, and if additional 
general fund dollars are not allocated to the Department, we will be faced with the difficult task of 
reducing services within SFGH and DMSF to stay within budget. 

Revenue Shortfalls: - $4 Million 

In light of dwindling resources, the DPH has diligently pursued new revenue enhancements to 
help fund Department programs. In total, approximately $32 million in new revenues were 
projected. However, due to the following circumstances the Department will face a total short- 
fall of $4 million from its revenue targets for FY 1994-95: 

• MAC/SB 910- $2 million 

The Federal government has notified the State Department of Health Services that payment of 
California's Medical Administration Claims (MAC/SB 910) have been suspended pending an audit 
of these funds. This delay in payment may jeopardize nearly $15 million in MAC/SB 910 
revenues budgeted. In analyzing our actual claims we believe that SFGH will not be eligible for 
$2 million in MAC/SB 910 revenues in FY 1994-95. 

• Laguna Honda Hospital - $2 million 

The Department is optimistic that the consulting firm of Deloitte and Touche will be successful in 
identifying and obtaining new revenues for DPH. However, due to prolonged negotiations that 
this contract required, timelines for realizing new revenues in this fiscal year may not be 
materialized. As a result, the Department estimates that up to $2 million of revenues projected 
for FY 94-95 for Laguna Honda Hospital may not be realized. 

General Fund Supplemental Needs - $2. 1 Million 

• Nursing MOU - $500,000 

The 1994-95 SEIU Nurses Agreement requires that the City, effective January 1, 1995, pick up a 
1% increase in nurses retirement. The Controller's Office and the Mayor's budget staff are in the 
process of determining the exact cost of this obligation. It is estimated that it may cost DPH as 
much as $500,000 department-wide to fund this requirement. 

During the budget process, in anticipation of salary and benefit increases for FY 1994-95 the 
Department was asked, and did set-aside, $9.4 million. However, at this point, it is our 
understanding that this set-aside is not available to the Department to fund the Nurses MOU. 
Therefore, the Department will be required to request additional general fund dollars to meet this 
expenditure requirement. 

Page 2 



13 



The Committee should be aware that any labor agreement which have not been ratified by the 
Board which obliges the Department expenditures in current fiscal year fiscal year, are not 
appropriated in our budget currently. We do not believe these will be of major financial 
consequence at this time. 

• Center for Special Problems - $400,000 (Department is finalizing supplemental request) 
Funding for offender services at the Center for Special Problems were initially eliminated in the 
proposed 1994-95 budget. The Board of Supervisors restored six-months funding for this 
program through a re-appropriation of general funds from the Police Department to DMSF. 
Additional funds are required to continue offender services from January 1995 to June 1995. At 
the request of this committee, the Department is in the process of preparing a supplemental 
request, as directed by the Budget Committee. No lay-off notices have been released pending the 
approval of this general fund supplemental request. The Mayor's Office has requested the 
Department amend the supplemental to $220,000 which would allow us to continue the program 
through fiscal year with existing staff intact but would not allow us to fill existing vacancies in the 
program. Given the magnitude of the funding deficits, the Department believes this is a 
reasonable request. 

• Public Health Nurses - $350,000 (supplemental request not yet developed by the Department) 
To meet our budget target, the Department proposed eliminating 6.5 Public Health Nursing 
positions in the 1994-95 budget. However, according to an agreement between the Mayor's 
Office and SEIU (separate from the Nursing MOU agreement), these positions were to be 
restored. These positions are not funded and the Mayor's Office has indicated their disinclination 
to support a supplemental for the program. 

• Forensic Salaries - $350,000 (supplemental request is currently with the Mayor's Office) 
In order to comply with federal consent decree mandates and State Title 1 5 regulations the 
Department must meet minimum staffing requirements at the jail. All jail health services must be 
funded by the City and County's general fund since federal law prohibits Medi-Cal reimbursement 
for health care to incarcerated patients. 

The Committee may recall that the Mayor's Office reduced the Department's original $500,000 
supplemental request to correct this deficit. The Mayor's Office agreed to fund only $150,000 of 
the request, leaving a $350,000 deficit to support existing Forensic Services expenditures. 

Outstanding Supplemental Needs Not Requiring Additional General Funds 

• Mental Health Rehabilitation Facility - $2,260,3 10 (supplemental request to be forward to the 
full board for consideration) 

The Department has requested, and the Mayor, Controller and Budget Committee of the Board 
have approved the use of one-time carry forward funds from FY 1993-94 to fund start up costs 
for the Mental Health Rehabilitation Facility The Mental Health Rehabilitation Facility is a 185 
bed mental health skilled nursing facility on the grounds of the SFGH campus. No general fund 
dollars are being requested to fund this facility. The Department's unexpended 1993-94 funds 
will be used to fund equipment, materials and supplies and MIS costs associated with the 
operation of the facility 

Page 3 
U 



• Psychiatric Emergency Safety Plan and the Medical Emergency High User Project - 
$2,482,853 (supplemental request was forwarded to the Board for calendaring) 

Three supplemental appropriation requests will be forwarded to the Board in response to the 
existing mental health crisis in the City. The three requests should be considered together as a 
coordinated plan to address the problems in the mental health continuum of care. The requests 
would increase community based services by providing crisis intervention to prevent clients use of 
emergency and inpatient care, increase staffing at PES, increase inpatient capacity at psychiatric 
services at SFGH, and provide enhancements within the community mental health system by 
linking aftercare services to clients upon discharge from institutional programs. These requests 
would be totally funded through increases in Medi-Cal and Medicare revenues. No new general 
fund dollars are requested. 

• San Francisco Medi-Cal Managed Care Local Initiative - $125,000 (supplemental request will 
be considered by the Health Commission on December 20, 1994) 

Over the past 18 months the Board of Supervisors has actively participated in the development 
and planning of the Local Initiative to provide health care services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries under 
a capitation system. Over a five year period the City and County, with other members of the 
Local Initiative will contribute funds to capitalize and fund a development/planning project for this 
health plan. The Department will submit a supplemental appropriation request in the amount of 
$125,000 to fund a portion of a capitalization project in FY 1994-95. The funds will be used for 
recruitment of the Chief Executive Officer, necessary Medi-Cal data analysis, legal analysis related 
to the formation of the Health Authority, and marketing analysis. The Mayor's Office has agreed 
to allow the Department to use carry forward funds from FY 1993-94 to fund this request. No 
additional general fund dollars will be necessary to fund this supplemental appropriation request. 

Loss of Grant Funds 

• CSAS Asset Seizure Funding Gap 

While a number of funding opportunities exist, the Department has not yet identified sufficient 
funding to meet the $1'66 million required to maintain current drug treatment services supported 
by the former Asset Seizure Forfeiture grant funds for the period from January through June 1995 

The following revenues are available to address the shortfall: 

$151,058 - Originally deleted from the $1 million supplemental this fall. A supplemental 
to restore this cut has been submitted by the Department. This supplemental will enable programs 
to continue at current service levels until January 15, 1995. (the supplemental is awaiting 
signature from the Mayor) 

$500,000 - A one time grant by DADP to CSAS for homeless services provided by 
Walden House and the CATS McMillian Center. 

$500,000 - This treatment allocation form the Target Cities Project is available via RFP to 
fund residential and outpatient drug-free treatment programs. Programs formerly funded by Asset 
Seizure revenues are eligible but results of the competitive RFP process will not be known until 
late December. A January 15, 1995 start-up date is scheduled for programs awarded contracts. 
Since the $500,000 is an annual allocation, only $250,000 is available for the FY 1994-95. 

Page 4 



15 



In summary, approximately $900,000 is currently available (assuming all Asset Seizure funded 
programs are successful in bidding the Target Cities RFP) to meet a $1.66 million shortfall, thus 
leaving an immediate funding gap of approximately $760,000. 

On the funding horizon two revenue sources have potential: The Mayor has written to Lee 
Brown, Director for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of the President, 
requesting funding consideration to offset the loss of Asset Seizure Funds; and the Federal Crime 
Bill which, if it survives intact, could provide funding support for substance abuse treatment in FY 
1995-96. However, barring any immediate response from the Federal Government these services 
are immediately (January 15, 1995) at risk for closure. 

The Department is prepared to issue an additional general fund supplemental to continue these 
programs if the Mayor and Board agree that these programs should be continued beyond the 
January 15th funding cycle. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Public Health continues to pursue new revenue enhancements while 
aggressively containing personnel, equipment, and other administrative and operating costs to 
assist in curtailing its budget shortfall. In addition, DPH salary savings requirement for FY 1994- 
95 are $24.3 million, which in effect negatively impacts service capacity somewhat randomly 
within our system. The Department has made it a priority to avoid service cuts as a means of 
balancing its budget. However, as outlined above the 1994-95 budget as adopted poses a 
phenomenal challenge to the department's ability to continue providing current services without 
addressing the critical need for additional general fund appropriations. 

The Department would like to thank you for your on-going support of our fiscal and 
programmatic activities. We understand the difficulty the Board faces in allocating between 
important competing requirements and requests for the limited local general fund dollars. We 
remain committed to fiscal responsibility and sound public health policy and leadership during 
these difficult times in the City and in the healthcare industry. 



President Jackson, Health Commission 
Sandi Mori, Health Commission 
Ed Harrington, Controllers 



Page 5 



16 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Meeting of December 14, 1994 



Item 4 - File 100-94-19 



Item: 
Amount: 



Hearing to consider anticipated supplemental appropriation 
requests and Mayor's recommendations. 

Pending supplemental appropriations totaling $8,127,000 
have been identified to date, with other expected requests 
being developed by Muni and Public Health (see Item 2, File 
100-94-17 and Item 3, File 100-94-18 of this report to the 
Budget Committee). 

Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Description: 1. The Mayor's Office has provided the following calculation 

of the current status of General Fund Reserves: 

General Fund Reserve $ 5,605,938 

Additional Revenue 11716/94 4,400,000 

Public Health Reserve * 2.850.000 

Total $12,855,938 

* The Public Health Reserve is the result of Mental Health expenditure 
savings during the 1993-94 budget year which have been set aside for the 
opening of the new Mental Health Facility at San Francisco General 
Hospital (i.e. the "R" Facility) during the 1994-95 Fiscal Year. 

2. The Mayor's Office has also provided the following list of 
existing and expected supplemental appropriations and their 
current status: 



Uses 

District Attorney 

Sheriff-Operations 

Sheriff-Jail Overcrowding 

Muni-Shortfall To Be 

Department of Public Health 
Mental Health - "R" Facility 
Substance Abuse 
Forensics Nurses 
Medi-Cal Managed Care 
Nursing MOU 
Center for Special Problems 





Recommended 


1 


Requests 


by Mayor 


Status 


$1,650,000 


$1,650,000 


Board 


690,000 


660,000 


Board 


150,000 


150,000 


Board 


Determined (TBD) TBD 


Department 


2,260,000 


2,260,000 


Mayor 


152,000 


152,000 


Mayor 


350,000 


350,000 


Mayor 


125,000 


125,000 


Department 


TBD 


TBD 


Department 


220,000 


220,000 


Department 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Meeting of December 14, 1994 



Uses 


Requests 


Recommended 

by Mayor Status 


CAO Retirement 


$55,000 


$55,000 


Mayor 


Police - Automatic Weapons 


200,000 


200,000 


Department 


Police - Overtime 


600,000 


600,000 


Department 


Court Security 


200,000 


200,000 


Department 


Payment in Lieu of Taxes (SFHA 


) 1,000,000 


1,000,000 


Controller 


Zero Base Budget 


150,000 


TBD 


Mayor 


Human Resources: 
Workers Compensation 
Employee Relations Division 


275,000 
TBD 


275,000 
TBD 


Department 
Department 


Joint Powers Board (JPB) 


130,000 


130,000 


Department 


Charter Reform 


100,000 


100,000 


Department 


Total 


$8,307,000 


$8,127,000 




General Fund Remaining 
Reserves 


$4,548,938 


$4,798,938 





Comments: 



The difference between the requested amount of $8,307,000 
and the Mayor's recommended amount of $8,127,000, or 
$180,000, consists of a $30,000 reduction for Sheriffs 
operations (which has already been funded - see Sheriff 
below) and no recommendation to date on the $150,000 for 
the Zero Base Budget Analysis. 

District Attorney - $650,000: Of the requested $1,650,000, 
$1,153,111 has been approved and $496,889 is pending before 
the Budget Committee (see Item 6, File 101-94-33.1 of this 
report to the Budget Committee). 

Sheriff - $690,000 and $150,000: $668,163 for operations 
(new jail and work furlough) has been previously approved by 
the Budget Committee. The $150,000 in General Fund 
Reserve monies for jail overcrowding is pending before the 
Budget Committee (see Items 7 and 8, Files 101-94-36 and 
102-94-6 of this report to the Budget Committee). 

Mental Health "R" Facility - $2,260,000: This represents 
the amount of expenditures that the Department and 
Mayor's Office have determined will be necessary to fund 
fixtures, furnishings and equipment for the new Mental 
Health facility on the SFGH campus to achieve accreditation 
approval and open the facility during the current fiscal year. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



18 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Meeting of December 14, 1994 



Substance Abuse - $152,000: Funding added for treatment 
beds during the 1994-95 budget hearings was insufficient to 
carry the program through mid January, 1995 as intended by 
the Budget Committee. 

Forensics Nurses - $350,000: Overspending associated with 
the ten hour shifts worked by forensics nurses. 

Medi-Cal Managed Care - $125,000: expected current 
fiscal year City contribution to the Health Authority 
established for the Managed Care Local Initiative. As 
previously reported, the total City commitment over three 
years will be $1.0 million. 

Nursing MOU - To be Determined: As of the writing of 
this report, the Mayor's Office reports that they have not 
been provided with a MOU that has been approved by the 
Nurses. However, the Department of Public Health is now 
projecting that a provision of the MOU regarding the "1% 
pick up" of employee retirement contributions by the City 
will cost approximately $500,000 in 1994-95. 

Center for Special Problems - $220,000: During the 1994- 
95 budget hearings, $400,000 was added to the budget for six 
months operation of the Center for Special Problems. 
According to the Mayor's Office, the Center for Special 
Problems has been operating at a lower cost, with no 
decrease in offender program services, and this additional 
$220,000 is to fund the program as it is currently operating 
for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

CAO Retirement - $55,000: the Mayor's Office anticipates a 
supplemental appropriation in this amount for costs related 
to the retirement of the Chief Administrative Officer. 

Police - Automatic Weapons - $200,000: 1994-95 
expenditures to begin arming Police Officers with automatic 
weapons. 

Police - Overtime - $600,000: The Police Department's 
unanticipated overtime expenditures related to the 
newspaper strike amounted to approximately $600,000. If 
savings are not achieved over the remainder of the fiscal year 
to offset this expense, a supplemental appropriation may be 
required. 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes (SFHA) - $1,000,000: The 1994- 
95 budget was balanced with the inclusion of total Payment 
in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) revenue in the amount of $1.6 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



19 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Meeting of December 14, 1994 



Million. Of this amount, $600,000 was designated as the 
PILOT for the current fiscal year, and $1.0 million was for 
prior years. The Controller reports that the SFHA has 
budgeted the $600,000 PILOT for 1994-95, but not the $1.0 
million balance for prior years. Also related are current 
negotiations for payment to the City for additional Police 
services. The Controller reports that these matters will be 
brought before the Board of Supervisors in the near future. 

Zero Base Budget - $150,000 (Mayor's Recommendation is 
"To be determined"): Pending supplemental appropriation for 
cost of the Budget Analyst to perform a second Zero Base 
Budget Analysis for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. 

Human Resources: Workers Compensation - $275,000: 

Estimated costs for restructuring the Workers Compensation 
Division when it is transferred from the Employees 
Retirement System to the Department of Human Resources. 
The Department has not yet submitted a supplemental 
appropriation to the Mayor. 

Employee Relations Division - To Be Determined": 
The Employee Relations Division (ERD) of the Human 
Resources Department reports that a total of 29 Memoranda 
of Understanding must be negotiated between now and the 
end of the Fiscal Year. Each of these separate MOU may 
become the subject of arbitration. Consequently, the ERD 
anticipates staffing needs and legal assistance for arbitration 
cases in an amount that has not yet been determined. The 
Department is now preparing a supplemental appropriation 
request for submittal to the Mayor's Office. 

Joint Powers Board (JPB) - $130,000: This represents San 
Francisco's share of administrative costs for the Peninsula 
Corridor Project JPB. A recent resolution amending the Joint 
Powers Agreement to modify the formula for allocation of 
administrative costs was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors (File 172-94-2.3). This resolution also urged the 
Mayor to submit a supplemental appropriation in the amount 
of $129,300 for this purpose. 

Charter Reform - $100,000: A motion has been referred to 
the Budget Committee to submit a supplemental 
appropriation request for $100,000 to fund support services 
for the Select Committee on Charter Reform. This level of 
funding for the second half of the 1994-95 Fiscal Year is 
requested to provide a full time Deputy City Attorney, and 
clerical support, to serve the Select Committee, respond to 
public requests for legal opinions, provide draft Charter 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Budget Committee 
Meeting of December 14, 1994 



revisions and analyses, meet with community groups and 
labor unions and attend all Select Committee meetings. 
Additional costs for production of reports and other 
documents and mailing are anticipated. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 172-94-45 

Note: This item was continued by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 

December 7, 1994 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the contract between the Department 
of Public Health and Coopers & Lybrand LLP to provide 
project management and implementation assistance of a 
Health-care Management Information System. 

Maximum of $6,668,025 

Medi-Cal revenues and SB 1255 funds (included in DPH's 
1994-95 budget) 



Term of Contract: 2 and 1/2 years from the date that the Controller's Office 
certifies that funds are available 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 

supplemental appropriation in the amount of $21,319,026 to 
begin implementation of a management information system 
(MIS) development plan to augment the current San 
Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) patient billing system 
and support implementation of managed care as required by 
the State of California Department of Health Services and 
anticipated Federal health care reform (File 101-93-109.1). 
Managed care will require replacement of current fee-for- 
service patient billing practices with capitated revenue for 
provision of public health and hospital services to Medi-Cal 
eligible health care recipients receiving services from 
Community Health Services, SFGH, Laguna Honda Hospital 
and the DPH Division of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, 
and Forensics. The $21,319,026 was designated to pay for a 
contract between DPH and Shared Medical Systems (SMS) 
for the SMS to provide (1) the Remote Computing Option 
system which would provide DPH with the use of SMS's 
proprietary software for patient billing and registration, 
patient accounts, clinical records, lab orders and results, and 
other data and information exchange capabilities and (2) the 
installation of a network system to connect DPH sites with 
each other and with SMS's MIS Systems Center in Malvern, 
Pennsylvania. 

The DPH advises that the proposed contract with Coopers & 
Lybrand, which the DPH had previously determined was 
necessary at the time the DPH submitted its original $21.3 
million request for the SMS contract, is to provide for needed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

project management and implementation of the SMS's 
management information system. Under the proposed 
contract, Coopers & Lybrand would be paid an amount not to 
exceed $6,668,025 (see Attachment I). 

Coopers & Lybrand's project management and 
implementation of the SMS's management information 
system would involve adapting the SMS software to meet the 
specific needs of DPH's business operations and training 
DPH staff on how to use the new system. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. David Counter of DPH, the DPH is 

proposing to contract with Coopers & Lybrand on a sole 
source basis, because (1) Coopers & Lybrand previously 
assisted SFGH and DPH in developing an Information 
Systems Strategic Plan and is therefore intimately familiar 
with DPH's operations, (2) Coopers & Lybrand has unique 
qualifications in that they have conducted several similar 
SMS software installation projects within the United States 
and (3) the firm has specialized SMS systems knowledge, 
with a SMS Training Center of Excellence established at 
their Health Care Information Systems headquarters in 
Chicago. According to Mr. Counter, SMS itself cannot handle 
the proposed project management functions because the firm 
does not have the necessary expertise. 

2. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) granted DPH a sole 
source waiver in connection with this contract based on 
DPH's assertions regarding Coopers & Lybrand and a 
commitment by Coopers & Lybrand to a MBE/WBE 
participation goal of 35 percent of the total number of 
contract hours, based on the firm's good faith efforts. 

3. Coopers & Lybrand has selected Systems Support 
Technology, a local MBE firm, as a subcontractor. The total 
number of contract hours is 38,989, of which 9,660 or 24.7 
percent are allocated to Systems Support Technology. Based 
on 9,660 hours, the total amount of Systems Support 
Technology's subcontract is $870,156 or 17.3 percent of the 
total contract amount (excluding expenses) of $5,019,029. Mr. 
Edwin Lee of HRC advises that Coopers & Lybrand appears 
to have made a strong good faith effort to meet the above- 
noted 35 percent goal. However, Mr. Edwin believes that 
Coopers & and Lybrand should continue their efforts towards 
achieving such goal should any future modification to the 
scope of the contract present an opportunity to do so. 

4. The proposed contract includes a hold harmless clause, 
which provides that Coopers & Lybrand shall have no 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

liability with respect to its obligations under this agreement 
for consequential, exemplary (bad faith), special, indirect, 
incidental or punitive damages, even if it has been advised of 
the possibility of such damages. Notwithstanding this 
provision, the liability of Coopers & Lybrand for any reason, 
cause or claim shall be limited to $6,668,025. Such 
limitations shall not apply to Coopers & Lybrand's liability to 
the City for third party claims brought against the City for 
bodily injury or damage to physical property to the extent 
that such damage was caused by the negligent or willful 
misconduct of Coopers & Lybrand. 

5. Ms. Paula Jesson of the City Attorney's Office, advises that 
the City normally does not limit a contractor's liability for 
failure to comply with all terms of the contract, including any 
violation of the agreement which would potentially cost the 
City monies. According to Ms. Jesson, the City's potential 
financial exposure in light of this hold harmless clause 
cannot be determined. Ms. Jesson states that the hold 
harmless clause, as drafted, was considered to be non- 
negotiable by Coopers & Lybrand and, as such, the inclusion 
of this clause was required in order for the contract to 
proceed. 

6. As noted in Attachment I Coopers & Lybrand would be 
paid hourly rates ranging from $66 to $250. Additionally, 
Coopers & Lybrand will be paid $1,114,923 for travel, lodging 
and subsistence expenses plus $255,000 for administrative 
support expenses, as detailed in Attachment II. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2A 



Attachment I 



Staffing Requirements and Professional Fees for SMS Implementation 

Phase 1 



PROJECT DETAIL 














TITLE 


ENTITY 


MONTHS 


FTEs 


HOURS 


RATE 


COS 7 


GENERAL 














Engagement Partner 


C&L 


20 


0.1 


440 


$250 


$110,000 


Engagement Director 


C&L 


20 


04 


1.384 


$170 


$235,418 


QA Partner 


C&L 


20 


1 


440 


$250 


$110,000 


Project Manager 


C&L 


20 


07 


2.448 


$170 


$416,405 


Invision Appf. Mgr. 


C&L 


20 


09 


2.856 


$158 


$449,820 


PMW Coord /Admin 


C&L 


20 


05 


1.843 


$90 


$165,870 


ICO to RCO (Open LINK) 














Team Leader 


SFG/OPH 


85 


1.0 


1.428 






Analysts/Builders 


SFG/OPH 


85 


2.5 


3.570 






Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


85 


1.2 


1.685 


S11S 


$193,691 


HOX Analyst 


SFG/DPH 


3 


1.0 


504 






Order Processing/COR 














Team Leader 


C&L 


18.0 


0.9 


2.856 


$130 


$370,852 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH' 


18.0 


1.2 


3.524 






Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


18.0 


0.9 


2.772 


$115 


$318,641 


Analysts/Builders 


M/WBE 


16.0 


1.0 


2.688 


$66 


$177,408 


SIGN A TURE 














Team Leader 


C&L 


13.5 


1.0 


2.184 


$130 


$283,592 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


13.5 


2.7 


6.170 






Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


13.5 






$115 




Anatysts/Builders 


M/WBE 


11.5 


1.0 


1.932 


$89 


$171,948 


LCR, Results and Flowsheets 














Team Leader 


C&L 


17.5 


0.7 


2.016 


S200 


$402,192 


Anatysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


17.5 


1.2 


3.440 






Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


17.5 


0.9 


2.772 


$130 


$360,568 


" Anatysts/Builders 


M/WBE 


15.5 


1.1 


2.940 


$120 


$352,800 


Enterprise Access Directory 














Team Leader 


C&L 


12.5 


0.9 


1.932 


$130 


$250,870 


Analysts/ Builders 


SFG/OPH 


12.5 


1.0 


2.100 






Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


12.5 






$115 




Analysts/ Builders 


M/WBE 


10.5 


1.2 


2.100 


$80 


$168,000 


Managed Care (Diamond) 














Team Leader 


C&L 


8.S 


1.4 


2.016 


$130 


$261,778 


Analysts/Builders 


SFG/DPH 


8.5 


2.0 


2.856 






Anatysts/Builders 


C&L 


8.5 






$115 




Psychiatric" 














Team Leader 


C&L 


80 


1.3 


1.685 


$130 


$219,176 


Analysts/ Builders 


SFG/DPH 


8.0 


3.0 


4.032 






Analysts/Builders 


C&L 


8.0 






$115 




DMS Operations Review" 














Team Leader 


C&L 










$87,500 


Analyst 


C&L 













27,624 

29.329 

9.660 



66.613 



SFGH/DPH SUB-TOTAL 16 

C&L SUB-TOTAL 12 

MAYBE SUB- TOTAL C Includes Project Expenses) 4 

PHASE 1 PROFESSIONAL FEE TOTALS 32 

Coopers A Lybrand Travel, Lodging and Subsistence Expenses 
Coopers & Lybrand Administrative Support Expenses"* 
C&L Rate Increase (effective July 1. 1995) 
PHASE 1 GRAND TOTAL (C&L * M/WBE) 

o«$ Project professional Fees" (Division of Mental Health Services) 
dms Project Expenses - (Division of Mental Health Services) 

GRAND TOTAL (C&L * M/WBE) 
Grand Total Fiscal Year 94-95 
Grand Total Fiscal Year 95-96 



$4,148,873 
$870,156 

$5,019,029 

$1,114,923 
$255,000 
$156,572 

$6,545,525 

$87,500 
$35,000 

$6,668,025 

$3,168,358 

$3,499,666 



PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 

1 68 Productive Hours per Month per FTE 

NOTES 

"" Optional project task Service to be provided only if City elects to exercise this option. 

Administrative support expenses include adminstrative assistance, word processing. telephone/network fees, 
reproduction, postage, computer usage fees, network access, and application documentation 



?S 



4152553606 



jb I ic Heal th M. I . S. 



F-649 T-427 P-005/006 DEC fefc T ^4 IV: 1Z 

Attachment II 
Page 1 ot 5 



i§§§lf§§Sji f!*!35*9 § s i 



CM «- CM ^ CM K. 



CM Nl CM f- 

5 unSSa 
o rt CM *> «o ▼ 

(M* T-" <M ts." CM" f» 

§§»§§! 

cm" « cm" j» K K 

s s a g a s 

S «t N «°. « t 

K «- «N rv CM f» 

gas s i 



I li.i^^i&i • s 



1 g£lSijM 

g « - <M «- <r! r-- 



jj «' -- cm" _- _-" ^ jf g 

I s~fl£;£gg ? s * 
ifU§i§§!§ I BHg^ga %%% 

T-WKIM"s'fJOlDlrf <tf »cf «- CM «■? t^ »- * »- ~ 

- •■ a 



J; cm" r»* cm" o ib «rf 




* 



26 



4152553500 



Pub I ic He a I th M. I. S. 



F _ 64 g T-42? P-006/006 DEC 06 '94 17:13 

Attachment II 
Page Z ol b 



% l§iii2i§§lj£ lililifl § 



3 * s 2 * S 



§§3§§3 

pi *-" pJ ^ W k- 

fi r pi N nV 



*- g j( jj j ; J / 3 

>« BSNt-'-'-oa 

rf Or-'fir-'t-T- 



_ S 

1 i 
i 

s 

1 



3 

I 

I 
S2 

£ 



s 

I 

I 

IS 

s 



8 



I" 






s 

s ? 

1 

r 



§fl fi a Q a 

tj w <* tm oi r." 

S 3 ft 3 S S 
onNon « 
in" .-' «" j." W c*." 

§A6l ao (ft 
sail? 

ei r- «m f-." « f-* 

8 sa a 8 s 
on is a in * 

«I"'«iN IN]" f~" 
«M T- Pf >»' W f> 

of *- pi »»." r» tC 
M *- r>< is." Pi r-. 

§ 8H8BS 

ca r> N a m ■» 
rj «- W f»' r>T £f 

P4 w- oj fs." pi N 



5=1 | 



a 9 i § ? 

w »- mV pJ f-" 



3 § - p. - ~ j: P5 



1 SrSSHES 

3 tf «-' P< «-" »-* .- 






—*<•*-" «-" «* 



■* «i •«- pt •■. »s "ir w « 

«T m i- cs «- t- »- 



<■> r- — p( r- «- «- K 

3 «-•!--- 



| BS9II-M 11 I 

f» «0 -r- P« W »■ t^ J* 



n «D »-' pf «^ »- «^ « »•• 



« <0 «-" pi r 1 t- »-" V »- 






5 
Q 

u; 

CO 



a 

If 



II i I 






111 

III 

o ffi U 

*J 

a u a 



II! 



a ■ 



I? 



S r- ■»: a o z a 



1 I 

ill 1 1 
j 



;i52553S0S .. Public Health M.I.S. ^-652 T-428 P-001 DEC 06 '94 17:18 

Attachment II 
Page 3 ot I) 



Administrative Support Expenses 

Administrative Support ($120,000) 

3-Secretarial/Clerical support for the project office 
of 16 staff members 

Word Processing ($20,000) 

Expensed for document preparation, training materials, 
presentation, etc. 

Telephone/Network Fees ($40,000) 

Expenses for business calls related to the engagement. 
All calls must be documented and receipts submitted. 
Conference calls, teleconferencing etc will be utilized 
in order to reduce travel expenses. 

Reproduction ($20,000) 

Cost associated with copying of reports, training 
materials, presentations etc. 

Postage ($20,000) 

Expenses incurred far mailing/ shipping materials. 

Computer Usage Fees ($20,000) 

Cost 8 incurred for computer time t usage fees. 

Network Access - hardware & software {$5,000) 

Costs incurred for the acquisition of any adaptive 
equipment/connectors in order to communicate with 
various communication protocols. 

Documentation ($10,000) 

Purchase of application/ technical manuals required for 
the project. 

The categotries above total $255,000 

Note: There will be 16 staff members during this project. 
Schedule 2, Staffing Requirements and Professional Fees for SMS 
Implementation indicates 12 FTE's. This is due to the calculation 
of 16 staff equating to 12 FTE's. schedule 2 also indicates the 
exact FTE amount for each of the 16 staff members. 



28 



4152553606 Public Heal+h M. I . S. F-649 T-427 P-002/006 DEC 06 '94 17:11 

Attachment II 
Page A of 5 



Exponas Schedule - Travel, Lodging and Sub»i« tones 

The expenses for temporary relocation will be paid on actual 
receipts. All arrangements And payments will be coordinated by 
the Firm's Relocation Dept. The project is estimated to be 18 
months in duration with a project team of 16 staff members. The 
following items is what is included and general assumptions made 
for the estimated budget: 

Lodging/Housing Allowance - furnished ($322,000) 

9 participants avg. @ $1988 per 18 months = $322,000 

Travel Allowance ($216,000) 

For trips home, using a 14 day advance airline booking 
Not to exceed $4500 per 12 month period per individual 

8 @ $4500 - $36,000 (1st yr.) 

3 @ $4500 = $13,500 (2nd yr.) 

Commuter allowance estimated at $1500 per trip 

( airfare, hotel, airport trans . , etc . ) 

3 8 112 trips - $167,000 

Travel Engagement Related (25,000) 

The Firm will reimburse personnel $.29 per mile plus 
tolls for business related travel, less normal daily 
out of pocket commutation expenses which otherwise 
would have been incurred. 

Heals ($40,000) 

For commuters and any business related travel outside 
the SF area in accordance with Firm policy. 

Rental/House Search/Household Goods Wove ($80,000) 
Expenses to search for an apartment in SF 
One trip not to exceed ten days 
Payment for household goods inbound and outbound 

Brokers Commissions and Security Deposits ($45,000) 
Typical for the SF area 

Cost to Break Lease ($12,000) 

Expenses incurred by employees to either maintain 
residence in their absence for a temporary period or 
breaking of leases will be reimbursed. 

Relocation Allowance/ Incidentals ($15,000) 

Payments for incidental expenses like telephone 
installations, utilities, etc. 

Auto Rental/Carfare ($45,000) 

Reimbursements far project related expenditure per Firm 
policy 

Tax Gross up - Business Reimbursement ($314,923) 

All payments made which will be considered income to 



29 



4152553606 Pub, ic Health M. I.S. ^-649 T-427 P-003/006 DEC 06 '94 17:11 

Attachment II 
Page 5 of 5 



the project participants will be tax protected and 
grossed up. 

The internal Revenue Code (IRS) requires that any 
employee receiving expense reimbursement for business 
related items for a period greater than 12 months is 
considered taxable income. In addition, several states 
will consider it subject to state tax. C & L will 
withhold the amounts on a pay period basis and invoice 
SFDPH on a monthly basis. 



The categories above total $1,114,923 



30 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

Item 6 - File 101-94-33.1 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



District Attorney 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance for salaries and fringe 
benefits; subject of previous budget denial. 

$496,889 

General Fund-General Reserve 

As previously reported to the Budget Committee on 
November 30, 1994, the District Attorney's Fiscal Year 1994- 
95 General Fund budget request for Criminal and Civil 
Prosecution and Administration salaries, was reduced by a 
total of $957,750, from $10,966,463 to $10,008,713. 

At the Budget Committee meeting of November 30, 1994, the 
District Attorney requested an additional $1,650,000 
including salaries of $1,377,000, fringe benefits of $255,000 
and training of $18,000. 

Based on the recommendations of the Budget Analyst, the 
Budget Committee recommended that the District Attorney 
be granted $1,153,111 of the $1,650,000 request, including 
salaries of $957,750, fringes of $177,361 and training funds of 
$18,000. Based on the Mayor's budget instructions, this 
amount fully restored the District Attorney's budget to his 
1994-95 budget request. 

The Budget Analyst recommended that the remaining 
balance of the $1,650,000 request, or $496,889 be denied. The 
Budget Committee, instead, continued the balance of the 
District Attorney's request of $496,889, including $419,250 in 
Salaries and $77,639 in fringe benefits. Further, the Budget 
Committee requested that the Budget Analyst verify the 
savings that the District Attorney would achieve from his 
Weekend Rebooking Program, since the District Attorney 
advised the Budget Committee that he would have to 
eliminate the Weekend Rebooking Program if the Budget 
Committee accepted the recommendations of the Budget 
Analyst. 

The Budget Analyst has determined the following facts 
regarding the Weekend Rebooking Program: 

1. The Weekend Rebooking Program is one component 
of a three component Expedited Rebooking Program 
used by the District Attorney's Office to reduce the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



rebooking time period from the statutorily mandated 
two court days to one court day. The other two 
components of the Expedited Rebooking Program are (1) 
Narcotic Cases Rebooking, whereby the head of the 
Narcotics Unit performs rebookings of felony narcotics 
cases, and (2) Expedited Weekday Rebooking, whereby 
on each weekday, a Principal Attorney in the District 
Attorney's Office is detailed to assist in rebooking, in 
order to achieve the rebooking within 24 hours. The 
purpose of the Expedited Rebooking Program is to 
reduce the number of incarcerations. 

2. According to Ms. Bridget Bane of the District 
Attorney's Office, between 1987 and 1992 there was a 
dedicated Expedited Rebooking Program Unit within the 
District Attorney's Office. However, since 1992, 
prosecution staff within the District Attorney's Office 
have been detailed for service in the Expedited 
Rebooking Program. Ms. Bane has provided the Budget 
Analyst with staffing data showing that approximately 
1.2 FTE positions are dedicated to weekend rebooking 
and approximately 1.2 FTE positions are dedicated to 
expedited weekday rebooking, for a total of 2.4 FTE 
positions, including nonproductive time (training, 
vacations, sick leave, etc.). Approximately 0.6 FTE 
positions are dedicated to felony narcotics cases in 
connection with rebooking. In addition, 2 FTE positions 
provide support to the Expedited Rebooking Program. 
Personnel costs for the attorney and support positions 
provided to the Expedited Rebooking Program in the 
District Attorney's Office are as follows: 



Title 



Classification FTE 



Principal Attorney 8 1 80 
Legal Secretary I 1458 
Sr. Clerk Typist 1426 



3.0 
1.0 
LQ. 
5.0 



Salary at 
Top Step 

$98,136 
$43,900 
$33,878 



Total Annual 
Salary Costs 

$294,408 
43,900 
33.878 

$372,186 



3. The total estimated annual cost of the Expedited 
Rebooking Program, including $372,186 in salaries and 
$67,738 in fringe benefits, is $439,924. 

4. Ms. Bane has also provided the Budget Analyst with 
Weekend Rebooking Program data showing that on the 
average, the Weekend Rebooking Program results in 
approximately 1,450 incarceration days avoided, on an 
annual basis. Effective December 1, 1994, the rate for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



32 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



Comments: 



jail overcrowding was increased to $2,500 per inmate, 
per day, and is scheduled to increase to $5,000 per 
inmate per day in April of 1995. Therefore, currently, 
the Weekend Rebooking Program can potentially enable 
the City and County to avoid $3,625,000 in jail 
overcrowding costs (1,450 incarceration days multiplied 
by $2,500 per incarceration day). 

5. The potential cost avoidance amount of $3,625,000 
assumes that each of the 1,450 incarceration days cited 
above would add to actual jail overcrowding, for which 
the City and County would be fined. However, such jail 
overcrowding is not always the case. For example, 
according to a report provided to the Budget Analyst by 
the Sheriffs Department (See Attachment), there was 
one day of jail overcrowding in County Jail #1, the 
County Jail subject to fines for overcrowding, in 
November of 1994 that resulted in a $300 fine. Further, 
the average daily population of County Jail #1 at the 
Hall of Justice on the Sixth Floor during November of 
1994 was 341.63, which is 84.37 below the permissible 
incarcerated population of 426. However, reportedly 
November is typically a light month for incarcerations. 

1. Because this request was the subject of previous 
budgetary denial, approval of this request would require a 
two-thirds affirmative vote by the Board of Supervisors. 

2. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has 
not been provided with sufficient data confirming actual, as 
opposed to potential, savings from the Expedited Rebooking 
Program. Nor is the Budget Analyst fully convinced that the 
District Attorney's Office cannot preserve the Expedited 
Rebooking Program within its existing budget. 

3. The previous action of the Budget Committee on 
November 30, 1994 to recommend supplemental funding in 
the amount of $1,153,111 of the District Attorney's 
$1,650,000 request, in accordance with the recommendation 
of the Budget Analyst, including salaries of $957,750, fringe 
benefits of $177,361, and training funds of $18,000, fully 
restored the District Attorney's budget to his FY 1994-95 
budget request which was submitted consistent with the 
Mayor's budget instructions. 

3. For the reasons cited in Comment Numbers 2 and 3 above, 
as of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst cannot 
recommend approval of this $496,889 supplemental 
appropriation request. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



33 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



Recommendation: Approval of this request for an additional amount of $496,889 
is a policy decision for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Attachment 



SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S OFFICE 
OAfLY PRISONER COUNT SUMMARY/JAIL BED OEFiCTT 
DEP. ARAGON#637, Rm. 333. City Halt 554*7222 
SlSd/bOC 360/360 66-66 426-426 


DATE 


CJ#1 


CJ-1 


CJ#1 


CJ*M 






male 


gym 


temple 


total 


11/1/94 


368 





36 


404 


11/2/54 


332 


6 


43 


375 


11/3/94 


326 





46 


373 


11/4/94 


301 





44 


345 


11/5/94 


276 





41 


317 


11/6/94 


275 





39 


314 


11/7/94 


288 





42 


330 


11/8/94 


308 





44 


362 


11/9/W 


304 





50 


354 


11/10/94 


297 





53 


350 


11/11/94 


262 





61 


333 


11/12/94 


296 





57 


353 


11/13/94 


316 





86 


402 


11/14/94 


318 





54 


370 


11/15/94 


318 





70 


366 


11/16/94 


316 





46 


352 


11/17/94 


269 





55 


344 


11/18/94 


258 


4 


50 


310 


11/19/94 


250 





44 


294 


11/20/94 


258 





40 


304 


11/21/94 


277 





60 


327 


11/22/94 


284 





42 


326 


11/23/94 


267 





43 


810 


11/24/94 


266 





38 


294 


11/25/94 


266 





39 


304 


11/26/94 


262 


5 


42 


304 


11/27/94 


287 





61 


346 


11/28/94 
11/29/84 


305 





56 


361 


302 





47 


349 


11/30/94 


266 





67 


355 


TOTATr 8,761 
ADP 292.03 


mmmMmrn 

4 1,484 10,249 
0.13 49 A7 341.63 





Provided by the Sheriff Department 



T5 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

Items 7 and 8 - Files 101-94-38 and 102-94-6 



Departments: 



Items: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Sheriff 

District Attorney 

Adult Probation 

Item 7, File 101-94-36 - Supplemental appropriation 
ordinance appropriating and rescinding $419,709 from the 
Sheriffs Department and appropriating $262,000 in Jail 
Overcrowding Fines and $151,189 from the General Fund 
Reserve to the District Attorney, Sheriffs and Adult Probation 
Departments for salaries, fringe benefits, other non-personal 
services and the lease purchase of equipment, and creating 1 1 
positions for the implementation of programs to minimize jail 
overcrowding; placing $262,000 on reserve. 

Item 8, File 102-94-6 - Ordinance amending Annual Salary 
Ordinance to reflect the addition of eleven new positions, 
including seven positions for the Sheriff, two positions for the 
District Attorney and two positions for Adult Probation, for the 
purpose of reducing jail overcrowding. 

Sheriff $722,000 

District Attorney 48, 188 

Adult Probation 62.710 

Total Supplemental Appropriation Request $832,898 

Reappropriation of funds for Non-Personal Services 

in the Sheriffs Department FY 1994-95 budget $419,709 

Jail Overcrowding Fine Revenues 262,000 

General Fund General Reserve 151.189 

Total Supplemental Appropriation Request $832,898 

The Early Release Program is scheduled to terminate on 
January 1, 1995. The Early Release Program authorizes the 
release of all County jail prisoners after serving only 70 
percent of their sentences (80 percent of their sentences for 
prisoners who have committed certain violent felonies) without 
any community supervision. Thus, as of January 1, 1995, the 
City will be required to house prisoners for the full duration of 
their sentences rather than releasing prisoners upon 
completion of 70 percent of their sentences. 

Since 1990, the City has been held in contempt by the U.S. 
District Court for overcrowding in the sixth floor jail of the 
Hall of Justice. Since September of 1992, the City has been 
ordered by the Court to pay fines of $300 per day for every 
inmate over a Court-imposed population limit of 426 inmates 
for the sixth floor at the Hall of Justice facility, resulting in the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



36 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



payment of $2,547,900 in contempt fines, as of November 30, 
1994. In November of 1994, the U.S. District Court ruled that 
the fee imposed for jail overcrowding would be increased from 
$300 per inmate per day to $2,500 per inmate per day as of 
December 1, 1994 and to $5,000 per inmate per day in April of 
1995. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance would 
provide funding to implement four proposals designed to avoid 
housing prisoners for the full duration of their sentences, 
thereby avoiding additional jail overcrowding and the resulting 
fines. These four plans were developed by a special committee 
that included representatives from the Municipal and Superior 
Courts, the Sheriffs Department, the District Attorney's 
Office, the Public Defender's Office, the Adult Probation 
Department, the City Attorney's Office and the Police 
Department. These four proposals and the corresponding 
funding requests are described below. 

In addition, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance would provide funds for an anticipated funding 
shortfall in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget (See description 
below under New Jail Facility - Projected Funding 
Shortfall ). 

Proposal #1: Increased Use of County Parole 

Under current law, eligibility for parole is limited to the second 
half of a prisoner's sentence. The County Parole Board, which 
consists of the Sheriff, the Chief Adult Probation Officer and a 
member of the public appointed by the Presiding Judge of the 
Superior Court, has the authority to parole from the Sheriffs 
custody any prisoners, except prisoners who are precluded 
from parole eligibility by a Superior Court Judge. Currently, 
more than 80 percent of all County jail prisoners are precluded 
at the time of sentencing from consideration for parole. 

Under this proposal, the District Attorney (DA) and the 
Superior Court would adopt a policy to refrain from imposing 
restrictions on the use of parole, except for certain violent 
offenses. Thus, under this proposal, after completing 50 
percent of their sentences, an increased number of prisoners 
would become eligible for parole. If granted parole, such 
prisoners would either be (1) transferred to the Sheriffs 
Residential Beds Program (for prisoners who need substance 
abuse treatment services) or (2) released to the community 
with supervision, thereby potentially avoiding additional jail 
overcrowding and the resulting fines. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



Funding for Proposal #1 $48,188 

In order to implement this proposal, the DA is requesting the 
addition of one new 8178 Senior Attorney position, which 
would be responsible for coordinating and reviewing the files 
for all prisoners to be considered for parole, for preparing the 
argument for or against parole, and for presenting that 
argument to the County Parole Board. 

In addition, the District Attorney's Office is proposing to 
upgrade an existing 8180 Principal Attorney position, at an 
annual salary at the top step of $98,136, to an 8182 Head 
Attorney position, at an annual salary at the top step of 
$105,548, for an increase in annual salary of $7,412 ($105,548 
less $98,136). This Head Attorney position would be 
responsible for all decisions regarding parole requests and for 
setting policy regarding the County Parole Program. 

These two positions are being requested for the period from 
January 16, 1995 through June 30, 1995 (approximately 11.94 
pay periods), as reflected in the table below: 

No. of Biweekly No. of Pay 

Position Positions EXE Salary Periods Amount 

8182 Head Attorney* 1 0.07 4,044 11.94 $3,391 

8178 Senior Attorney 1 UK) 3,093 11.94 36.934 

Subtotal 2 1.07 $40,325 

Fringe Benefits 7.863 

Total $48,188 

Proposal #2: Expansion of SWAP 

Under Proposal #1 above, prisoners who are denied parole 
after completing 50 percent of their sentences will continue to 
be incarcerated. Under Proposal #2, prisoners would become 
eligible to participate in the Sheriffs Work Alternative 
Program (SWAP) after completing 70 percent of their 
sentences. Through SWAP, prisoners who are unable to obtain 
outside employment are permitted to participate in work crews 
or vocational training sponsored by the Sheriffs Department 
during the daytime and to reside at their homes at night. 
SWAP participants are required to appear at the Sheriffs 
Office five days per week. 



The cost of this position is $48,285 for 11.94 pay periods ($4,044 biweekly x 11.94 pay periods). 
The DA is requesting 7.0 percent or $3,391 in this supplemental appropriation request for a position 
upgrade. The remaining 93 percent ($44,894) of the cost is being paid for from funds allocated in the 
DA's budget for the salary of the existing 8180 Principal Attorney position ($3,760 biweekly x 11.94 
pay periods). The existing 8180 Principal Attorney position would thus remain in the District 
Attorney's budget but would be vacant and unfunded. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



Position 


Positions 


PTE 


Salary 


8274 Police Cadet 


4 


4.0 


$822 


8302 Deputy Sheriff I 


2 


2J 


1,190 


Subtotal 


7 


7.0 




Fringe Benefits 








Total 









By allowing additional prisoners to participate in SWAP, 
rather than incarcerating them for the full duration of their 
sentences, the City could potentially avoid additional jail 
overcrowding and the resulting fines. 

Funding for Proposal #2 $128,451 

In order to implement Proposal #2, the Sheriff is requesting 
the addition of three 8302 Deputy Sheriff positions, which 
would be responsible for enforcing warrants for the arrest of 
SWAP participants who fail to appear for work or training on 
any given day. In addition, the Sheriff is requesting the 
addition of three 8274 Police Cadet positions to perform 
clerical work associated with the expanded SWAP Program 
and one 8274 Police Cadet position to perform clerical work 
associated with the increased number of parolees. Funding for 
these seven positions is being requested for the period from 
December 22, 1994 through June 30, 1995 (approximately 
14.15 pay periods), as reflected in the table below: 

No. of Biweekly No. of Pay 

Periods Amount 

14.15 $46,518 

14.15 50.507 

$97,025 

16.432 

$113,457 

In addition, the Sheriff is requesting funds in the amount of 
$14,994 in order to lease-purchase three vans to be used to 
enforce the previously-cited arrest warrants. The estimated 
monthly payments for each van are $833 per month for six 
months (January 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995), for a total of 
$14,994 ($833 per van per month x six months x three vans) in 
FY 1994-95. The term of each lease is three years, at which 
time the Sheriff would purchase the vans. The cost of leasing 
three vans for three years is $89,964 ($833 per month x 36 
months x three vans). The estimated cost to purchase three 
vans is $66,000 ($22,000 per van). The cost to lease-purchase 
three vans is $23,964 more or over 36 percent more than the 
cost of purchasing the vans. 

Proposal #3: Expansion of Home Detention Program 

The Home Detention Program is one of the Sheriffs 
Alternative Programs in which a prisoner is confined to his or 
her residence, except for periods when the prisoner is at work, 
traveling to and from work or participating in some other 
allowed activity. The prisoner's compliance with the program 
is verified by random telephone calls to the prisoner's home 
and by an electronic bracelet, which sends out a signal that 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



alerts the Sheriffs Department when the bracelet is removed 
or worn outside a certain range of the home. 

The Sheriff has proposed the expansion of the Home Detention 
Program as an alternative to participation in the SWAP 
Program. Prisoners who are either ill or who are able to obtain 
full-time employment would be eligible to participate in the 
Home Detention Program after completing 70 percent of their 
sentences. 

Funding for Proposal #3 $133,549 

The Sheriff is requesting funds for the purchase of 75 
additional Electronic Home Monitoring units, which consist of 
an ankle bracelet, a transmitter, a visual monitor and a 
Breath-alizer test. The estimated cost of each unit is 
approximately $10 per day for the period from January 4, 1995 
through June 30, 1995 (178 days), or a total of $133,549 ($10 
per day x 75 units x 178 days). 

Proposal #4: Accelerated Supplemental Reports 

Motions to revoke probation are made to the Superior Court by 
the Adult Probation Department for all clients who violate 
probation. While awaiting a court appearance, a probation 
violator currently spends an average of 28 days in jail while a 
supplemental report is being prepared by a probation officer. 
The Superior Court has proposed that the process of preparing 
the supplemental report be shortened by 50 percent, from 28 
days to 14 days, thereby reducing the probation violator's jail 
time by one-half. 

Funding for Proposal #4 $62,710 

In order to implement this proposal, the Adult Probation 
Department is requesting the addition of two positions, 
including one 8442 Senior Probation Officer position and one 
1432 Senior Transcriber Typist position for the period from 
December 12, 1994 through June 30, 1995 (approximately 15.1 
pay periods). The Senior Probation Officer would be 
responsible for writing supplemental reports in a reduced time 
period. The additional Senior Transcriber Typist would be 
responsible for performing clerical work in support of 
completing supplemental reports on a timely basis. 

A breakdown of this request is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Budget Committee 




December 14, 1994 




No. of Biweekly 


No. of Pay 


Position Positions FTE Salarv 


Periods Amount 


8442 Senior Probation Officer 1 1.0 $1,955 


15.1 $29,515 


1432 Senior Transcriber Typist 1 LQ 1,436 


15.1 21,680 


Subtotal 2 2.0 


$51,195 


Fringe Benefits 


11.515 


Total 


$62,710 


New Jail Facilitv - Proiected Funding Shortfall $460,000 



The new jail facility was originally scheduled to open on 
January 1, 1995 but instead opened one month earlier on 
December 1, 1994. According to Sergeant Ridge way, because 
of the need to hire and train staff in time for the jail's earlier 
opening date of December 1, 1994, the Sheriff is anticipating a 
shortfall of $342,088 in Permanent Salaries and $117,912 in 
Fringe Benefits, or a total of $460,000, for FY 1994-95 (See 
Comment No. 7). 

Total Supplemental Appropriation Request $832,898 

Comments: 1. There is $2,804,018 included under Non-Personal Services 

in the Sheriffs FY 1994-95 budget to fund beds at the Alameda 
County jail. Given the original anticipated opening date of the 
new jail facility of January 1, 1995, this amount would have 
provided 225 beds at $68.10 per day for 183 days 
(approximately six months), through December 31, 1994. 
However, because the new jail facility opened on December 1, 
1994, or one month earlier than anticipated, the Sheriff has a 
surplus in this account of $419,709. The Sheriff is requesting 
that this amount be reappropriated in order to partially fund 
the additional staffing costs for the new jail facility. 

2. As previously noted, the City is required to pay $2,500 per 
inmate per day for overcrowding at the sixth floor Hall of 
Justice jail facility. This Jail Overcrowding Fine Revenue 
accrues to a Federally-assigned escrow account. According to a 
Federal Court order, these revenues are to be expended 
exclusively on alleviating jail overcrowding. The Controller's 
Office advises that there is currently a balance of $317,250 in 
this account. The Sheriff is requesting that $262,000 of this 
amount be appropriated to partially fund the four foregoing 
proposals, thereby leaving a balance of $55,250 in this account 
($317,250 less $262,000). 

The Federal Court must approve expenditures made from 
these Jail Overcrowding Fine monies. The Court has 
appointed a Special Master to the Courts, Mr. Alan Breed, to 
make these expenditure authorizations. Under the proposed 
legislation, $262,000 of the supplemental appropriation 
request of $832,898 has been placed on reserve, pending the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

RTTnOTOT AM AT. VST 61 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



Special Master's authorization of the expenditure of Jail 
Overcrowding Fines for the four foregoing proposals. Mr. 
Matthew Hymel of the Controller's Office advises that the 
Special Master will not authorize the expenditure of Jail 
Overcrowding Fines until the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance is approved by both the Board of 
Supervisors and the Mayor, at which time the Controller would 
release the funds. 

3. Mr. Breed has estimated that the elimination of the Early 
Release Program will result in an additional need of 441 
inmate beds per day for the City. The Sheriffs Department 
estimates that, rather than being housed in one of the City's 
jails, (a) between 210 and 310 prisoners per day would 
participate in the Sheriff's SWAP Program; (b) an additional 75 
prisoners per day would participate in the Home Detention 
Program; and (c) an additional 50 prisoners per day would be 
on parole. In addition, the Adult Probation Department 
estimates that 57 prisoners per month would be released an 
average of 14 days earlier by reducing the time needed to 
prepare supplemental reports by 50 percent. If these estimates 
prove correct, this would free up an estimated 392 to 492 beds 
per day. 

4. Sergeant Ridgeway advises that the four proposals to 
reduce jail overcrowding would result in savings to the City by 
avoiding the $2,500 per inmate per day fine levied against the 
City for jail overcrowding on the sixth floor jail at the Hall of 
Justice. The actual reduction in the City's overcrowding fines 
depends on whether the prisoner participating in one of the 
foregoing programs is normally housed in the City' 
overcrowded Hall of Justice facility or in one of the City's other 
jails. 

5. The City would also realize savings through these four 
proposals by avoiding an increase in the number of inmates in 
the City's jails, thereby avoiding the costs to the City of 
housing such inmates. The Sheriffs Department estimates 
that it costs the City $61 per inmate per day to house inmates 
in the City's jails, excluding staff and facility costs. However, 
this amount includes both variable costs (e.g. food, clothing, 
laundry), which would be reduced if an inmate were housed in 
a non-City facility, and fixed costs (e.g. facility and staffing 
costs), which the City could not reduce if an inmate were 
housed in a non-City facility. 

According to Sergeant Ridgeway, the estimated cost of 
operating (a) the SWAP Program is $10 per inmate per day; (b) 
the Home Detention Program is $15 per inmate per day; (c) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



County Parole is less than $5 per inmate per day, for an 
average cost of approximately $10 per inmate per day. 
However, although this cost is $51 per inmate per day lower 
than the estimated $61 per inmate per day cost of housing a 
prisoner in one of the City's jails, the City would save less than 
$51 per inmate per day because, as previously noted, the cost 
to house inmates in a City facility includes both fixed and 
variable costs. 

6. Sergeant Ridgeway reports that the four new Police Cadet 
positions and three new Deputy Sheriff positions for the 
expanded SWAP/County Parole Programs would be filled 
following the final approval of this proposed legislation, which 
is anticipated on January 3, 1995. Ms. Arlene Sauser of the 
Adult Probation Department also reports that the Senior 
Probation Officer and Senior Transcriber Typist would be hired 
following the final approval of this proposed legislation. Thus, 
permanent salaries and fringe benefits for these nine new 
positions for the Sheriff and Adult Probation should be reduced 
to reflect 13 pay periods (approximately January 4, 1995 
through June 30, 1995), as shown in the table below: 

No. of Biweekly No. of Pay Recommended 
Positions Salary Periods Amount 



$42,744 

46.410 

$89,154 

15.067 

Total $104,221 

Adult Probation: 

Senior Probation Officer 1 $1,955 13 $25,415 

Senior Transcriber Typist 1 1,436 13 18.668 

Subtotal 2 $44,083 

Fringe Benefits 9.919 

Total $54,002 

7. The following analysis summarizes the projected funds 
needed by the Sheriffs Department for Permanent Salaries 
and Fringe Benefits for the New Jail Facility for FY 1994-95: 



Sheriff; 








SWAP/County Parole: 








Police Cadet 


4 


$822 


13 


Deputy Sheriff I 


2 


1,190 


13 


Subtotal 


7 






Fringe Benefits 









BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



A-3 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



Line Item 

Permanent 
Salaries 

Fringe 
Benefits 



Amount 

Budgeted 

FY 1994-95 



Actual 

Expenditures 

7/1/94 - 

11/18/94 



Projected 
Expenditures 
11/19/94 - Projected 

6/30/95 Shortfall 



$27,899,042 $10,313,553 $18,200,297 $614,808 



6.851.638 2.591.062 4.554.773 294.197 

Total $34,750,680 $12,904,615 $22,755,070 $909,005* 

* Based on this table, the Sheriff would continue to have a shortfall of 
$449,005 at the New Jail Facility ($909,005 less $460,000) following the 
approval of this supplemental appropriation request of $460,000. According 
to Sergeant Ridgeway, this $449,005 shortfall will be addressed in a future 
supplemental appropriation request. 

8. In summary, the Budget Analyst recommends the following 
reductions from the $832,898 supplemental appropriation 
request: 

Budget Analyst's Budget Analyst's 
Supplemental Recommended Recommended 
Amount Reductions 



Line Item Category 


Reauest 


Sheriff: 




SWAP/County Parole 




Permanent Salaries 


$97,025 


Fringe Benefits 


16,432 


Electronic Monitoring Units 


133,549 


Equipment Lease 


14.994 


Subtotal 


$262,000 


New Jail Facility: 




Permanent Salaries 


$342,088 


Fringe Benefits 


117.912 


Subtotal 


$460,000 


Total - Sheriff 


$722,000 


District Attorney: 




Permanent Salaries 


$40,325 


Fringe Benefits 


7.863 


Total - District Attorney 


$43,188 


Adult Probation: 





Permanent Salaries 
Fringe Benefits 
Total - Adult Probation 

TOTAL 



$51,195 

11.515 

$62,710 

$832,898 



$89,154 

15,067 

133,549 

14.994 
$252,764 

$342,088 

117.912 

$460,000 

$712,764 



$40,325 

7.863 

$48,188 



$44,083 

9 . 919 

$54,002 

$814,954 



$7,871 

1,365 





$9,236 

$0 

Q 

$0 

$9,236 



$0 
$0 



$7,112 

1.596 

$8,708 

$17,944 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



44 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-94-36) by reducing the request by 
$17,944, from $832,898 to $814,954, as reflected in Comment 
No. 8 above. 

2. Approval of the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance (File 101-94-36), as amended, and of the proposed 
amendments to the Annual Salary Ordinance (File 102-94-6), 
are policy matters for the Board of Supervisors. 

3. Request the Sheriff to submit another supplemental 
appropriation request in the amount of $51,006 ($66,000 cost 
to purchase less the $14,994 cost to lease for six months 
included in this request) in order to purchase the three vans 
in lieu of leasing these vans. This would result in an 
estimated cost savings of over 36 percent. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Item 



-File 101-94-37 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



San Francisco Unified School District 

Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance appropriating 
$32,161,000, of school bond proceeds and interest earnings for 
capital improvements to various school facilities for Fiscal Year 
1994-95. 

$32,161,000 

Proceeds from interest revenue earned from 

Public School Facilities System Improvement 

Bonds of 1988 $2,161,000 

1994 School Bond Fund monies 30.000.000 

Total $32,161,000 

A total of $90.0 million of Public School Facilities System 
Improvement Bonds were approved by the electorate in June 
1988 and issuance of these bonds was previously authorized by 
the Board of Supervisors (File 318-87-6). In July, 1988, $35 
million of these bonds were sold and proceeds were 
appropriated by a supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 
101-88-45). In December, 1990, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized the sale of the remaining $55 million (File 170-90- 
14) and in January, 1991, the proceeds of this second sale of 
bonds were appropriated by a second supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (File 101-90-39). 

The purpose of the Public School Facilities System 
Improvement bonds of 1988 was to provide various 
improvements of the existing public school facilities in the 
City. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation request would use 
proceeds from interest revenue totaling $2,161,000 from the 
investment of the 1988 Public School Facilities System Bond 
proceeds between the time that the original bonds were sold 
(July, 1988) to the time that the original bond funds were 
actually expended (June, 1992). The $2,161,000, which 
represents the balance of funds remaining in the 1988 School 
Facilities Improvement Fund, would be expended for capital 
improvements at various, elementary schools (ES), middle 
schools (MS), high schools (HS) and children centers (CC) as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



46 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Project Description 
and Location 


Target 

Start-up 

Date 


Estimated 
Proiect Cost 


Asbestos Abatement 

Raphael Well (ES) 


Fall 1994 


$65,000 


Electric lighting/Electrical 
Upgrade 

Luther Burbank (MS) 


Fall 1994 


15,000 


Heating/Ventilation Upgrade 

Raphael Well (ES) 
McAteer (HS) 
Abraham Lincoln (HS) 


Fall 1994 

Fall 1994 

Spring 1995 


35,000 

220,000 

66,000 


Roof Replacement 

Presidio (MS) 
Everett 


Fall 1994 
Fall 1994 


410,000 
62,000 


Toilet Rehab/Plumbing 
Upgrade 

San Miguel (CC) 

Filipino Education Center (ES) 

Roosevelt (MS) 


Fall 1994 

Fall 1994 

Spring 1995 


14,000 

17,000 

350,000 


Window Sash Replacement 

Burnett (CC) 


Fall 1994 


67,000 


New Construction 

Sheridan (ES) 


Fall 1994 


128,000 


Handicap Access 

Raoul Wallenberg HS) S 


ummer 1995 


30,000 


Renovation 

Woodrow Wilson (HS) 


Fall 1994 


600,000 


Site Improvements 

Claire Lilienthal (ES) 
William DeAvila (HS) 
Total 


Fall 1994 
Fall 1994 


15,000 

67.000 

$2,161,000 



The San Francisco electorate approved the 1994 School Facilities 
Improvement Bond measure (Proposition A) in June of 1994, 
totaling $95,000,000. These bond funds are designated to be 
used to fund capital improvements, such as asbestos abatement, 
roof replacement, heating/ventilation upgrades and new 
construction at various schools and children centers in the City. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

LI 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



The proposed supplemental appropriation request would 
appropriate $30,000, 000 of the $95,000,000 to be used to fund 
capital improvement projects at various elementary schools, 
middle schools, high schools and children centers, as follows: 

Schools/Children Centers Estimated Project Cost 



Tenderloin (ES) 


$1,665,849 


George Moscone/Las Americas 


875,000 


Downtown (HS) 


684,592 


Argonne (ES) 


1,575,000 


School of the Arts (HS) 


1,575,000 


Phillip & Sala Burton (HS) 


2,136,499 


Rooftop (ES) 


350,000 


Woodrow Wilson (HS) 


514,392 


Balboa (HS) 


2,393,103 


Mission (HS) 


3,505,814 


Mark Twain (HS) 


229,055 


Gailleo (HS) 


4,164,187 


Horace Mann Academic (HS) 


1,143,203 


Roosevelt (MS) 


1,397,483 


Leonar R. Flynn (ES) 


1,217,072 


Aptos (MS) 


1,378,794 


West Portal (ES) 


868,199 


Cesar Chaves (ES) 


565,371 


Jean Parker (Winfield Scott) 


540,608 


Junipero Serra Annex (CC) 


475,461 


Frank McCoppin (ES) 


482,765 


Sherdian (ES) 


493,860 


Daniel Webster (ES) 


412,664 


George Peabody (ES) 


372,098 


Sarah B. Cooper (CC) 


264,043 


Chinese Education Center 


152,963 


Sunshine (HS) 


113,289 


Starr King (ES) 


112,851 


Lafayette (ES) 


109,511 


Laguna Golden Gate (CC) 


89,906 


S. F. Community/Excelsior (ES) 


77,781 


Claire Lilienthal (ES) 


63.587 


Total 


$30,000,000 



Attached is a detailed listing of the $30 million for capital 
improvements for each of the above-noted school and children 
center projects. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



10/5/94 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHv. L DISTRICT 
1994 PROPOSITION A BOND ISSUANCE 



1) Tenderloin (new school) ES 
Admin7A&E Only 



Projects 

* new school building 

Total Estimated Cost 



Tola! Projed 
Cost Estimate 



SI. 665.849 



SI, 665.849 



2) George Moscone/Las Americas ES 
AdminVA&E Only 



" new school building 



Total Estimated Cost 



S875.000 



$875,000 



3) Downtown HS 



' abatement-asbestos/lead 
' handicap access (ADA) 
' kitchen upgrade 
' library expansion 
' science lab upgrade 
' toilet rehabilitation 

Total Estimated Cost 



S57.049 

S57.049 

S131.042 

S1 19.843 

S94.866 

S224.743 

S684.592 



4) Argonne ES 
Admin/A&E Only 



" new school building 



Total Estimated Cost 



SI. 575.000 



5) School Of The Arts HS 
Admin. & A&E Only 



' major renovation 



Total Estimated Cost 



S1 .575.000 



51,575,000 



6) Thurgood Marshall HS 



• abatement-asbestos/lead 

* computer lab install 

" door rehab (exterior) 
" electrical lighting/power 
' handicap access (ADA) 
' renovation 
" roof replacement 
' toilet rehabilitation 
' plumbing upgrade 

Total Estimated Cost 



S1 78.042 
S1 98.495 
S43.056 
S462.892 
S1 78.042 
S378.661 
$296,456 
$164,925 
S235.929 

$2,136,499 



Attachment 
Pap;e 1 of 7 



AQ 



0/5/94 



■) Rooftop ES 
Admin./A&E Only 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHv ^ DISTRICT 
1994 PROPOSITION A BOND ISSUANCE 

Projects 

" new school building 



Total Projecl 
Cosl Estimate 



Total Estimated Cost 



$350,000 



) Philip & Sala Burton HS 



* abatement-asbestos/lead 

* computer lab install 

* door rehab (exterior) 

* electrical fighting/power 

* handicap access (ADA) 

* site improve-general 

* site improve-sidewalk 

* toilet rehabilitation 

Total Estimated Cost 



$42,866 
$105,000 
$88,756 
$145,455 
$42,866 
$13,182 
$25,636 
$50,632 

$514,392 



* abatement-asbest OS/lead 
' electrical lighting/power 

* flooring upgrade 

' handicap access (ADA) 

' library expansion 

" science lab upgrade 

" site improve-fence 

' site improve-sidewalk 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 

' toilet rehabilitation 

Total Estimated Cost 



$199,425 
$109,421 
$211,386 
$199,425 
S158.6S3 
$459,893 
$100,824 
$5,316 
$469,317 
$479,413 

$2,393,103 



) Mission HS 



■ abatement-asbestos/lead 

' computer lab install 

' flooring upgrade 

' handicap access (ADA) 

' painting-exterior 

' roof replacement 

' toilet rehabilitation 

' plumbing upgrade 

' window sash replacement 

Total Estimated Cost 



$292,151 
$54,193 
$337,810 
$292,151 
$225,994 
$249,195 
$467,928 
$326,393 
$1260.000 

$3,505,814 



Mark Twain HS 



' abatement-asbestos/lead 
' handicap access (ADA) 



$19,088 
$19,088 



Attachment 
Pape 2 of 7 



50 



10/5/94 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCH. ^ DISTRICT 
1994 PROPOSITION A BOND ISSUANCE 



Projects 



' painting-exterior 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 



Total Estimated Cost: 



Total Project 
Cost Estimate 



$41,935 
S1 48.944 



S229.055 



12) Galileo HS 



* abatement-asbestos/lead 

* flooring upgrade 

* handicap access (ADA) 

* renovation 

* plumbing upgrade 

* window sash replacement 

Total Estimated Cost: 



S347.016 
S902.600 
S347.016 
S396.701 
$630,181 
$1,540,674 

S4.164.187 



13) Horace Mann Academic MS 



* abatement-asbestos/lead 

* computer lab install 

* door rehab (exterior) 

* door rehab (interior) 

" electrical lighting/power 
' handicap access (ADA) 

* painting-exterior 

" site improve-general 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 

' plumbing upgrade 

' window sash replacement 

Total Estimated Cost: 



$95,267 
$93,622 
$48,404 
S78.138 

S150.282 
S95.267 

S210.049 

S1.200 

$18,392 

S54.013 

S298.570 

SI. 143.203 



14) Roosevelt MS 



' abatement-asbestos/lead 
" handicap access (ADA) 
' kitchen upgrade 
' shop upgrade/conversion 
' site improve-yard resurfacing 
' window sash replacement 

Total Estimated Cost 



S1 16.457 
S1 16.457 
S101.626 
S263.S16 
S1 87.899 
$611,529 

$1,397,483 



15) Leonard R. Flynn ES/CC 



' abatement-asbestos/lead 
' computer lab install 
' door rehab (exterior) 
"electrical lighting/power 
' flooring upgrade 
' handicap access (ADA) 



$101,423 
$45,011 
$24,006 
S379.S4S 
$205,578 
$101,423 



Attachment 
Page 3 ot 7 



Pape A of 7 



0/5/94 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHl _ DISTRICT 
1994 PROPOSITION A BOND ISSUANCE 



Projects 



* kitchen upgrade 

* painting-exterior 

* roof replacement 

* plumbing upgrade 



Total Estimated Cost 



Total Project 
Cost Estimate 

S57.613 

S78.022 

S1 74.041 

S50.412 

SI. 21 7.072 



6) Aptos MS 



* abatement-asbestos/lead 

* door rehab (exterior) 

* electrical lighting/power 

* handicap access (ADA) 

* renovation 

* roof replacement 

* stage improvements 

Total Estimated Cost 



S1 14.900 
S61.&S3 
S107.545 
S1 14.900 
S492.639 
S363.767 
S1 23.1 82 

S1 .378,794 



West Portal ES 



* abatement-asbestos/lead 

* computer lab install 

* handicap access (ADA) 
' kitchen upgrade 

" site improve-general 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 

" toilet rehabilitation 

Total Estimated Cost: 



S72.350 
S46.211 
S72.350 

S165.939 
S90.771 

S389.371 
S31.207 

S868.199 



) Cesar Chavez ES/CC 



" abatement-asbestos/lead 

" door rehab (exterior) 

" handicap access (ADA) 

" kitchen upgrade 

' library expansion 

' painting-exterior 

' roof replacement 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 

' plumbing upgrade 

Total Estimated Cost 



$47,114 
S1 3.836 
$47,114 
S32.408 
S66.015 
S99.623 
S164.438 
S82.819 
S1 2.003 

S565.371 



I Jean Parker (W. Scott) ES 



' abatement-asbestos/tead 
' computer lab install 
' electrical lighting/power 
' handicap access (ADA) 



S45.051 
S25.779 
J1 38.352 
S45.051 



S? 



10/5/94 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHL .. DISTRICT 
1994 PROPOSITION A BOND ISSUANCE 



Projects 



" library expansion 
' pairrting-exlerior 
' plumbing upgrade 



Total Estimated Cost 



Total Proiecl 
Cost Estimate 

S38.725 

S68.059 

S1 79.592 

S540.608 



20) Junipero Serra Annex CC 



* abatement-asbestos/lead 

* electrical fighting/power 

* flooring upgrade 

* handicap access (ADA) 

* kitchen upgrade 

' roof replacement 

' site improve-fence 

' site improve-sidewalk 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 

' toilet rehabilitation 

' plumbing upgrade 

Total Estimated Cost: 



S39.622 
S19.565 
S7.922 
S39.622 
$44,891 
$32,168 
$19,685 
S25.686 
S70.096 
$99,028 
S77.178 



S475.461 



21) Frank McCoppin ES/CC 



' abatemerrt-asbestos/lead 
' handicap access (ADA) 
heating/ventilation upgrade 

Total Estimated Cost 



$40,230 

$40,230 

$402,304 

S482.765 



22) Sheridan ES 



" abatemerrt-asbestos/lead 

' admin/counseling offices 

' flooring upgrade 

' handicap access (ADA) 

' painting-interior 

' roof replacement 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 

Total Estimated Cost 



$41,155 
SS5.909 
$82,727 
$41,155 
$56,909 
$147,884 
$48,120 

$493,860 



23) Daniel Webster ES/CC 



" abatement-asbestos/lead 

' door rehab (exterior) 

' handicap access (ADA) 

' renovation 

' roof replacement 

' site improve-general 

' stage improvements 



$34,389 

$7,202 

$34,389 

$123,179 

$154,836 

$6,001 

$40,666 



Attachment 
Page 5 of 7 



Pape b ot 7 



0/5/94 



school 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCH( . DISTRICT 
1994 PROPOSITION A BOND ISSUANCE 

Projects 

" plumbing upgrade 

Total Estimated Cost 



Total Project 
Cost Estimate 



S1 2.003 



$412,664 



4) George Peabody ES 



* abatement-asbestos/lead 

* computer lab install 

* handicap access (ADA) 
" roof replacement 

" site improve-fence 

" site improve-general 

1 site improve-yard resurfacing 

' toilet rehabilitation 

Total Estimated Cost 



$31,008 
$44,710 
$31,008 
$174,041 
$36,771 
$2,401 
$18,004 
$34,155 

$372,098 



>) Sarah B. Cooper CC 



' abaiemem-asbest os/lead 
" admin/counseling offices 
' handicap access (ADA) 
' roof replacement 
' window sash replacement 

Total Estimated Cost 



$22,004 
$79,399 
$22,004 
$18,332 
S1 22.306 

S264.043 



I Chinese Education Center ES 



" abatement-asbestos/lead 
' handicap access (ADA) 
' roof replacement 

Total Estimated Cost: 



$12,747 

S1 2.747 

SI 27.470 

S1 52.963 



) Family Development Center CC 



' abatement-asbestos/lead 

1 handicap access (ADA) 

' site improve-yard resurfacing 

Total Estimated Cost 



$9,441 

$9,441 

S94.408 



$113,289 



Starr King ES 



' abatement-asbestos/lead 
' handicap access (ADA) 
' painting-exterior 

Total Estimated Cost 



$9,404 

S9.404 

$94,043 



$112,851 



54 



Attachment 
Page 7 of 7 



10/5/94 



School 

29) Lafayette ES 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCH( . DISTRICT 
1994 PROPOSITION A BOND ISSUANCE 

Projects 

" abatement-asbestos/lead 

* door rehab (exterior) 

* handicap access (ADA) 

* kitchen upgrade 

Total Estimated Cost 



Total Project 
Cost Estimate 

$9,126 
556,752 

S9.126 
534,508 

5109,511 



30) Laguna Golden Gate CC 



" abatement-asbestos/lead 
* electrical lighting/power 
' handicap access (ADA) 
' site improve-yard resurfacing 

Total Estimated Cost 



S7.492 
522,350 

$7,492 
$52,572 



$89,906 



31) S.F. Community/Excelsior ES/CC 



• abatement-asbestos/lead 
' handicap access (ADA) 
1 toilet rehabilitation 

Total Estimated Cost 



$6,482 

$6,482 

$64,818 



$77,781 



32) Claire Lilienthal ES 



' abatement-asbestos/lead 
' handicap access (ADA) 
' painting-interior 

Total Estimated Cost 



$5,299 

S5.299 

S52.990 



S63.587 



GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: 



$30,000,000 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 84-94-4 

Department: Real Estate Department 

Item: Resolution authorizing the acquisition of Lot 10 in Assessor's 

Block 4167 (700 Pennsylvania Avenue) for a Municipal 
Railway Maintenance Facility and adopting findings 
pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1 

Description: The property proposed for purchase consists of approximately 

88,473 square feet of land improved with approximately 
79,000 square feet of warehouse and office space. The site is 
to be used for the Municipal Railway's (MUNI) Ways and 
Structures Maintenance Facility, which is relocating from its 
current site at 24th and Utah Streets. The Ways and 
Structures Maintenance Facility is used for vehicle storage, a 
machine shop, carpenter shop, custodian department, track 
department and office personnel. According to Mr. Wayne 
Gerstenberger, Acting Director for Maintenance at MUNI, 
the existing structures on the site will be retained and 
modified for MUNI's use. 

The 24th and Utah property will be transferred to the San 
Francisco Parking Authority for construction of an 832-space 
parking garage serving San Francisco General Hospital. 
Bonds to fund the construction of this garage are being issued 
by the Parking Authority. 

The property proposed for purchase is bordered by industrial 
sites, vacant land, and Caltrain property. It was the site of a 
garage door manufacturing and maintenance facility until 
1991, and the City has held a lease with an option to 
purchase the property since November 1994. The current 
owners are Mr. Robert A. Cookson, Ms. Elizabeth M. 
Cookson, Mr. David E. Cookson, Ms. Margo Cookson, and Ms. 
Susan C. Fesus together with Ms. Katherine Skinner, as 
successor cotrustees for Mr. Harold W. Cookson Jr. 



Amount: 



Purchase price $3,250,000 

Title insurance and escrow fees 15.000 

Total $3,265,000 



Source of Funds: 



Comments: 



Proposition B Sales Tax Funds, San Francisco County 
Transportation Authority, application pending. 

1. Funds for the purchase of this property are being 
requested from the San Francisco Transportation Authority. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



56 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



2. The total assessed value of the property, according to Mr. 
Larry Ritter of the Real Estate Department, is $832,798. 
Based on the 1994-95 Fiscal Year tax rate of $1,163 per $100 
of assessed valuation, the property taxes paid to the City on 
the property in 1994 were $9,685.44. 

3. Mr. Ritter reports that the Real Estate Department has 
appraised 700 Pennsylvania Avenue and that the purchase 
price of $3,250,000 represents the fair market value for this 
property. 

4. The City Planning Department has determined that the 
proposed acquisition of the 700 Pennsylvania St. site by the 
City is consistent with the Eight Priority Policies of City 
Planning Code Section 101.1. 

5. The City Planning Commission has specified that in order 
for the relocation of MUNI's Ways and Structures facility to 
700 Pennsylvania Avenue to conform to the Master Plan, 
MUNI must designate a staff ombudsman to respond to any 
neighborhood concerns regarding visual or operational 
impacts of the facility on the Potrero Hill neighborhood. Mr. 
Gerstenberger of MUNI states that functions such as this 
ombudsman are typically carried out by existing staff, and 
would not require MUNI to hire additional personnel. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 

Item 11 - File 79-93-2.4 

Department: Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Item: Hearing requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's Office of 

Community Development, in the amount of $71,250, for 
environmental review services. 

Amount: $71,250 

Description: In approving the 1994 Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) Program, the Board of Supervisors placed funds on 
reserve in the amount of $71,250 for environmental review 
services pertaining to various CDBG projects. These funds 
were placed on reserve pending; a) an assessment of the need 
for environmental review services, b) a determination as to 
which tasks would be performed by the Department of City 
Planning (DCP) and which by a consultant, c) completion of a 
Proposition J certification process, and, d) a Request For 
Proposal process to select a consultant for these services. 

MOCD advises that they have met with the Federal 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and 
determined that the environmental review services that would 
be funded with this release of reserve are required under 
Federal regulations for the CDBG Program. MOCD has 
further detennined that the Department of City Planning will 
prepare the Environmental Review Records (ERRs) for small 
business loans, rehabilitation of neighborhood centers, and 
public space improvements, and will perform review functions 
required under the Federal Historic Preservation Act for the 
CDBG Program. A consultant will prepare the ERRs for 
housing rehabilitation and new construction projects, as well 
as the air quality, noise, and hazardous materials reviews for 
the CDBG Program. 

In November 1994, the Civil Service Commission approved a 
two year contract in the amount of $55,000 for environmental 
review services for the CDBG Program with a consultant, Alice 
Estill Miller. That approval was based in part on a 
recommendation by the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development that Ms. Miller was one of only two 
contractors in the Bay Area with both HUD and National 
Environmental Policy Act experience who could adequately 
fulfill the Federal requirements associated with the 
environmental review of the City's CDBG Program. 

Of this proposed release of $71,250 from the 1994 CDBG 
Program, $50,400 would partially fund the $55,000 contract 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Budget Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



Comments: 



with Ms. Miller. The balance of $4,600 ($55,000 less $50,400) 
required to fund MOCD's contract with Alice Estill Miller has 
been included in the proposed CDBG Program for 1995. The 
remaining^ $20,850 ($71,250 less $50,400) in the proposed 
release of reserve would fund the environmental review 
services conducted by DCP. 

The budget for the proposed work is as follows: 

Department of City Planning (estimated 300 hours) 

Planners I - III at $56-$70/hr. $20,850 

Alice Estill Miller (720 hrs @ $70/hr.) 50.400 

Total $71,250 

1. Ms. Alice Estill Miller is not a City-registered or certified 
MBE/WBE. 



2. According to Ms. Christine Haw of MOCD, these proposed 
funds in the amount of $71,250, plus funding approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in the 1995 CDBG Program in the 
amount of $16,713 for DCP and $4,600 for Ms. Miller, for a 
total of $92,563, will provide for environmental review for all 
remaining 1994 CDBG projects, all 1995 CDBG projects, and 
possibly some 1996 CDBG projects, depending on the degree of 
environmental review required. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

Item 12 - File 176-94-10.1 

This item is a hearing to consider the allocation of San Francisco Police 
Department resources and the level of uniformed officer presence at facilities being 
picketed during the San Francisco newspaper strike, including the costs to the City 
and County of San Francisco of the allocation of said resources. 

The attached report, transmitted separately to the Board of Supervisors, 
shows that the City incurred total incremental costs, which may result in a 
supplemental appropriation, of $606,252 including Police Overtime expenditures of 
$591,393. In addition, expenditures of existing resources include $213,033 for Police 
Department salary expenditures and $10,940, for the City Attorney's Office, all 
related to the recent newspaper strike. With respect to the expenditures of existing 
resources, such costs would have been incurred without the newspaper strike, 
although the personal resources would have been devoted to other activities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 




Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 

OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORwS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street. Suite 1025, San Francisco. CA 94102 (415)554-7642 

December 12, 1994 



TO: Supervisor Shelley 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: Financial Analysis of the Increased Costs to the City Resulting From 
the Newspaper Strike 

Pursuant to your request, the Budget Analyst has reviewed information provided 
by City Departments concerning costs incurred as a result of the recent labor 
strike against the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner. The 
vast majority of such costs were for Police Overtime wages. 

This report divides newspaper strike related costs into two types: incremental 
costs for expenditures that would not have been incurred had there not been a 
newspaper strike and may therefore result in a need for a supplemental 
appropriation; and, expenditures of existing resources for costs related to the use 
of resources, primarily personnel costs, that are included in the City's annual 
budget. Such costs would have been incurred without the newspaper strike, 
although the personnel resources would have been devoted to other activities. 

Incremental Costs 

During the strike (from approximately November 2, 1994 through November 11) 
the Police Department established two fixed posts, at the Fifth and Mission 
newspaper offices and the Army Street printing plant, that required 24-hour, 
around the clock staffing by sworn personnel. Most of the sworn personnel 
assigned to these fixed posts were on overtime assignment. Besides the costs of 
personnel, the Police Department was required to provide food to officers assigned 
to the fixed posts by the SFPD's Memorandum of Understanding with the Police 
Officers Association. 



61 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 

Memo to Supervisor Shelley 

December 12, 1994 

In addition, some incremental costs were incurred by the Mayor's Office for food 
during the labor negotiations held in City Hall. 

Summary of Incremental Costs 

Police Overtime Expenditures $ 591,393 

Police Food Expenses 14,100 

Mayor's Office - Food Expenses 759 

Total $606,252 

The expenditures for Police Overtime shown above were not anticipated in the 
1994-95 budget. Consequently, depending on the level of total Police Overtime 
spending for the remainder of the fiscal year, a supplemental appropriation, may 
be required. - *" . • 

Expenditures of Existing Resources 

The Police Department also assigned on-duty personnel to strike related duties. 
These Police Officers were diverted from other law enforcement duties to the 
strike. The SFPD's Office of Police Services estimates that salary expenditures for 
such on-duty personnel diverted to the newspaper strike amounted to $213,033. 

In addition, the City Attorney's Office allotted two Deputy City Attorneys to assist 
the Mayor's Office in the negotiations. The two Deputy City Attorneys devoted 
approximately 90 hours total to the negotiations, at a cost of $10,940 (including 
salaries, fringe benefits and an overhead percentage for fixed costs and clerical 
support). The Deputy City Attorneys would have been assigned to other duties 
during this time if they had not been assigned to the strike negotiations. 

The Mayor's Office also incurred costs for the Mayor's time and staff time during 
the negotiations. However, as of the writing of this report, Ms. Teresa Serata, the 
Mayor's Director of Finance, could not provide us with an estimate of the value of 
the time spent on negotiations by the Mayor and his staff. 



Harvey M. Rose 

cc: President Alioto Supervisor Migden 

Supervisor Bierman Clerk of the Board 

Supervisor Conroy Chief Administrative Officer 

Supervisor Hallinan Controller 

Supervisor Hsieh Teresa Serata 

Supervisor Kaufman Robert Oakes 

Supervisor Kennedy Ted Lakey 
Supervisor Leal 



Supervisor Maher 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



62 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Item 13 - File 101-94-38 
Department: 

Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Water Department (SFWD) 

Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

File 101-94-38: Supplemental appropriation ordinance for 
$673,000 for a Water Department (SFWD) programmatic 
project (the Pleasanton Land Project), rescinding 
$673,000 from SFWD Fixed Charges for FY 1994-95, and 
approving a fifth contract amendment with the 
Planning Collaborative in the amount of $660,000. 

$673,000 

SFWD Operating Fund Fixed Charges 

The SFWD is requesting a supplemental appropriation 
to fund Pleasanton Land Project activities from January 
through June, 1995. The funds would be allocated as 
follows: 

Staff Assistant 13, Class 1374 (Project Manager) 
@ six months: $48,500 

Work Order to Port for Director of Special Projects 
@.38 FTE for 6 months 17,500 

City Attorney: 

2 Land Use Attorneys @ .5 FTE each for 6 months 

($82,000); 

1 Real Estate Finance Attorney @ .4 FTE for 6 months 

($38,700); 

1 Water Attorney @ .1 FTE for 6 months ($9,300). 

Total - City Attorney 130,000 

The Planning Collaborative & Subconsultants 477.000 
Total $673,000 

A summary of the Planning Collaborative's scope of 
work (shown in detail in the Attachment to this report) 
is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

Supplemental Environmental Studies $32,500 

Supplemental Engineering Studies 30,000 

Supplemental Fiscal Studies 24,300 

Supplemental Plan Revisions 30,000 

Public Information Program 85,000 

Extended Public Review Process 72,000 
Extended Development Agreement Negotiations 62,500 

Project Coordination and Management 85,700 

Dispositio n Program Assistance 55,000 

Total January through June 1995 $477,000 

The proposed ordinance would also approve a fifth 
amendment to the contract with The Planning 
Collaborative, increasing the contract amount by 
$660,000, from $2,095,058 to $2,755,058. Funding for the 
$660,000 contract increase would be provided through a 
combination of release of a $183,000 reserve (See 
Comment No. 6) and allocation of the $477,000 from the 
proposed supplemental appropriation. A total of $91,465, 
or approximately 14 percent of the $660,000 contract 
amendment, would be allotted to MBEAVBE firms. The 
proposed Fifth Amendment to the contract with The 
Planning Collaborative would provide a $5 per hour 
increase in hourly rates for Principals, from $135 per 
hour to $140 per hour. Other professional hourly rates, 
ranging from $45 to $80 per hour, would remain the 
same as in the fourth amendment, subject to "normal 
salary and cost of living increases" after twelve months. 
As with the original contract and the previous 
amendments, the proposed Fifth Amendment would 
provide that compensation is "not to exceed" the $660,000 
amount. 

History and Status 

ofProject: The Pleasanton Land Project is approximately 520.7 

acres of land (the Bernal property) owned by the SFWD 
that has been declared as surplus to the SFWD's needs. 
This land is located immediately adjacent to the City of 
Pleasanton near Interstate 680 and Bernal Avenue, in 
an unincorporated area of Alameda County. 

In 1988 a joint committee of the PUC and the City of 
Pleasanton selected a contractor, The Planning 
Collaborative, Inc., to complete a Specific Plan for the 
Pleasanton property. The Specific Plan would identify 
the specific uses of the land and establish the zoning 
(allowable uses) for each subject parcel. A Concept Plan 
was completed in November, 1990, which conceptually 
identified the uses for the Pleasanton property. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



After numerous delays, extensive review by a Citizen's 
Review Committee, composed of citizens from the City of 
Pleasanton, occurred from February, 1992 through 
March, 1993. In March, 1993, the City of San Francisco, 
through the PUC, together with the Pleasanton 
Planning Department and The Planning Collaborative, 
Inc. presented the Pleasanton City Council with a 
Preferred Plan. The Preferred Plan, which is a 
precursor to the Specific Plan, establishes the criteria for 
the Specific Plan (i.e., noise, traffic, flood control, etc.). 
At the March, 1993 meeting, the Pleasanton City Council 
did not approve the Preferred Plan, and instead referred 
the Preferred Plan to a new Citizens Steering 
Committee, charged with updating the Pleasanton 
General Plan, for further review. This Citizens Steering 
Committee has not taken further official action on the 
project. 

Mr. Robert Vasconcellos, Project Manager, states that, 
because of the many years of delays and lack of 
commitment by the City of Pleasanton to proceed with 
the planning process, the PUC decided to apply to 
Alameda County for the property entitlements (zoning, 
Specific Plan and Development Agreement) that had 
originally been sought from the City of Pleasanton. As 
noted above, the Bernal property is an unincorporated 
area of Alameda County. 

On May 5, 1994 the Alameda County Board of 
Supervisors approved the East County Area Plan, which 
includes a necessary zoning change for the site from an 
agricultural designation to a mixed use (commercial 
and residential) designation. Following approval of the 
East County Area Plan, the project manager made a 
formal application to Alameda County to request that the 
Alameda County Planning Department review a Draft 
Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report 
(EIR) prepared by The Planning Collaborative and 
subconsultants. 

Mr. Vasconcellos reports that the Alameda County 
Planning Department expects to publish its draft 
Specific Plan by the end of this month (December), and a 
draft EIR in January. After a 45 day public EIR review 
period, the Alameda County Planning Commission and 
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is expected to 
hold hearings on the draft Specific Plan and the draft 
EIR. According to a schedule developed by The Planning 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Collaborative, the Alameda County Planning 
Department could publish a final EIR in May 1995, 
which could be followed by preparation of a development 
agreement and submission of the final Specific Plan, 
EIR and Development Agreement to the Alameda 
County Board of Supervisors for adoption in June, 1995. 

The timetable for obtaining these approvals is subject to 
possible delays. Mr. Vasconcellos advises that the SFWD 
expects the City of Pleasanton to challenge the adequacy 
of the EIR, as well as to mount legal challenges to the 
authority of Alameda County to approve the project. Ms. 
Noreen Ambrose, Deputy City Attorney, states that the 
City of Pleasanton has recently proposed annexation of 
the Bernal property. However, Ms. Ambrose reports that 
prior to bringing such a request for annexation to the 
Local Area Formation Committee (LAFCO), which has 
authority to approve annexations, the City of Pleasanton 
would have to complete its own EIR on a re-zoning of the 
property. Therefore, Ms. Ambrose is optimistic that the 
SFWD may be able to negotiate a development agreement 
with Alameda County before such an annexation to the 
City of Pleasanton could occur. 

Once the City has signed a Development Agreement, 
Mr. Vasconcellos anticipates that the City will explore 
three broad options relative to disposition of the property: 
(1) to sell the property outright; (2) to become a silent 
equity partner with a private developer, providing a 
guaranteed income stream; or (3) to stay on as an active 
partner with a private developer, taking more risk and a 
higher percentage of the profits. 

A financial subconsultant to the Pleasanton Land 
Project has estimated that the project could generate net 
revenues of $319 million over a 15-year build-out period. 
Mr. Vasconcellos reports that the first five years of the 
project should generate approximately $22 million to $27 
million of revenue. This five-year projection assumes 
total revenues of approximately $72 million, of which $45 
million to $50 million would be used to complete 
construction on the remaining phases of the 
development. The proportion of these net revenues that 
would accrue to the PUC would depend upon the nature 
of the City's participation with a private developer, as 
described in the paragraph above. 

The SFWD and the PUC have not yet negotiated an 
agreement with the Mayor's Office regarding how 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

future revenues from sale or development of the project 
would be allocated between the PUC and the General 
Fund. 

Costs to Date: The major project expense to date has been the contract 

with The Planning Collaborative, which has been 
amended four times. In general the consultant has 
responsibility for preparing or coordinating planning, 
engineering and financial analyses and reports needed 
to obtain project entitlements from the local 
jurisdictions. The consultant has also taken a major role 
in negotiating with the local jurisdictions. A fifth 
amendment is proposed as part of this ordinance. The 
contract history is as follows: 

Original Contract (June 1, 1988): $323,000 

First Amendment (April 23, 1991): 240,000 

Second Amendment (April 28, 1992): 625,058 

Third Amendment (November 24, 1992): 240,000 

Fourth Amendment (October 26, 1993): 667.000 

Total Planning Collaborative Contract: $2,095,058 

Proposed Fifth Amendment: 660.000 

Total Contract with 

Proposed Fifth Amendment: $2,755,058 

Other prior project costs reported by Mr. Vasconcellos 
include $125,000 for City Attorney services and $100,000 
paid to Alameda County for development fees. 

Comments: 1. As part of the June, 1994 management audit of the 

SFWD conducted by the Budget Analyst, the Budget 
Analyst found that the Pleasanton Land Project has 
never been staffed beyond a part-time project manager 
who has always had other major responsibilities besides 
this project. The management audit concluded that, as a 
result of the lack of consistent and sufficient project 
management, the consultant has appeared to have 
undue control over the project. Mr. Mullane states that 
the SFWD now plans to assign a full time project 
manager with real estate development experience to the 
project. Mr. Mullane states that the SFWD has made an 
informal offer to a candidate for this position, pending 
approval of funding in this proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



2. Examination of the original scope of work of the prime 
consultant, The Planning Collaborative, as provided to 
the Budget Analyst, showed that inadequate detail was 
provided to permit the Project Manager to adequately 
monitor contract performance on this contract or to 
determine whether the budget estimates for this project 
were realistic. Based on inquiries of the Budget Analyst, 
The Planning Collaborative provided the Project 
Manager with the assumptions that were used to 
formulate the budget estimates, including estimated 
hours, number of meetings, etc. This information 
should be thoroughly analyzed by the in-coming full- 
time project manager, with possible assistance from the 
Planning Department. 

While the Budget Analyst believes that it would be 
preferable to place the entire amount of $477,000 of the 
proposed Fifth Amendment to the contract with the 
Planning Collaborative (the portion of this $673,000 
request pertaining to the outside consultant) on reserve, 
pending an analysis of this scope of work by the 
incoming project manager, Mr. Vasconcellos and Ms. 
Ambrose advise that the imminent publication by 
Alameda County of the draft EIR for public comment 
will necessitate immediate response by The Planning 
Collaborative. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that only the amounts necessary to avoid 
interruption of the project be released at this time. 

Based on inquiries of the Budget Analyst, The Planning 
Collaborative has separated the scope of work for the 
proposed Fifth Amendment into an Initial Budget 
(totaling $237,990) and a Reserve Budget (totaling 
$239,190). The Budget Analyst recommends that $239,190 
of the proposed supplemental appropriation be placed on 
reserve, in order to give the in-coming project manager 
an opportunity to conduct a critical reappraisal of the 
consultant's and the consultant's subcontractors' 
activities. 

The Fifth Amendment to The Planning Collaborative's 
contract that would be approved as part of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance contains a 
statement that , "Consultant shall not commence work 
under this or subsequent contract modifications until 
the Controller of the City certifies that sufficient 
unencumbered balances are available in the proper fund 
to meet payments within the authorized contract 
compensation limits." Therefore, approval of the Fifth 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



Amendment to the contract should not limit the ability of 
the Board of Supervisors to reduce authorized spending 
at such time as the SFWD requests a release of the 
reserve. 

3. The Budget Analyst's management audit also 
recommended that the General Manager of the PUC 
establish a Pleasanton Lands Project Advisory 
Committee, with members including the Chief 
Administrative Officer, the General Manager of the 
PUC, senior staff of the Controller's Office and the 
Planning Department, an experienced representative 
from one of the City agencies that does real estate 
development, such as the Port, and a representative 
from the Mayor's Office. The purpose of the advisory 
committee was to draw on development expertise in 
other areas of City government, and to make senior 
officials more involved in direction of the project. Mr. 
John Mullane, General Manager of the SFWD, reports 
that such a Committee has been established, but has had 
only one meeting, which was for introductory, 
informational purposes. 

The management audit by the Budget Analyst 
recommended that this Advisory Committee provide 
quarterly reports to the PUC and the Board of 
Supervisors, and bring all major policy choices to the 
PUC and the Board of Supervisors. To date, the Project 
Manager (rather than the Steering Committee) has 
submitted one report to the Board of Supervisors (dated 
June 1, 1994), and only requests for appropriations, as 
opposed to project policy matters of a non-budgetary 
nature, have been brought to the Board of Supervisors. 

The scope of work prepared by The Planning 
Collaborative contains funding for up to eight meetings 
of the Steering Committee over the next six months, at a 
cost of up to $16,000. The project is at an important 
stage, and in the professional judgment of the Budget 
Analyst, this level of Steering Committee involvement 
would be desirable. However, given the fact that only one 
meeting has been held in the more than five months 
subsequent to the SFWD having accepted the 
recommendation of the Budget Analyst to form a 
Steering Committee, the Budget Analyst questions the 
commitment of the SFWD to using its Steering 
Committee to guide the project. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 

4. The proposed supplemental appropriation would also 
provide $17,500 in a work order to the Port for 
approximately .38 FTE services of the Port's Director of 
Special Projects, for the remainder of this fiscal year. 
Mr. James Lazarus, the Port's Director of Special 
Projects states that his work involves coordinating the 
various intergovernmental relations among the various 
agencies involved in this project. These agencies include 
San Francisco's Mayor's Office and the Board of 
Supervisors as well as representatives from Alameda 
County and the City of Pleasanton. 

5. The scope of work for the Fifth Amendment to The 
Planning Collaborative's contract includes $10,000 for 
"San Francisco Board Presentations." Mr. Vasconcellos 
states that presentations to the San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors are anticipated in connection with the 
project development agreement that will have to be 
signed with the local jurisdiction. In the judgment of the 
Budget Analyst, this requested $10,000 payment to the 
consultant is questionable. Specifically, the contract 
should clarify that the cost of presentations to individual 
members of the Board of Supervisors will not be 
reimbursed by the City. 

6. When the SFWD FY 1994-95 budget was approved, 
$200,000 of the appropriation for the Pleasanton Land 
Project was placed on reserve by the Budget Committee. 
In September, 1994 the Board of Supervisors released 
$17,000 of that $200,000 reserve, but continued to reserve 
the remaining $183,000 (File 100-94-1.4) pending 
submission of budget details, the selection cf additional 
consultants, the MBE/WBE status of the consultants, 
and the provision of the details of any future amendment 
to the Planning Collaborative Inc. contract to the Board 
of Supervisors. The Controller advises that, due to a 
miscommunication, this $183,000 was released rather 
than continued on reserve. However, the SFWD has now 
submitted the information that would have been 
required to release the reserve. The $183,000 would be 
applied to the $660,000 Fifth Amendment to the Planning 
Collaborative contract. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to reserve $239,190 of 

the requested $673,000 for The Planning Collaborative 
consulting contract, pending a thorough analysis of the 
proposed scope of work of this consultant by the in- 
coming project manager. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Budget Committee 

December 14, 1994 Meeting of Budget Committee 



2. Amend the proposed ordinance to state that the cost of 
presentations to individual members of the Board of 
Supervisors will not be reimbursed by the City. 

3. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance, as amended 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



i^-S?-:93^ 



te^! FROM Pl»n.ijn 3 Col labor at : 



.A i : tachm-ent 



Work Scope and Budget Allocation 

Requested Supplementai Funds. 

January 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995 




Soopc of Wort: 



loul Budgci 



rDTa-nd mU^'apI^'oval BOlXSKT ALXAWANCeS: 



TnSil"Bo4ge: 



SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS & PUBLIC PROCESS SERVICES, JANUARY THROUGH JUNE 



M*n«£«meijt Reports et Mottmji 



545.063" 



"Rr 



serve budjjet 



"533wisr 



Traffic (Fair Share Calculations) 
Biology (Arroyo donnace Update) 
Water Supply Studies 
Other Supplemental Studies 



TSUwOTT 



r 



15.000 
7,500 
6X00 
SJXX) 



iuppMmeatai fcngna coring ttuates 

Wastewater Studies Allowance 
&o«dway A Utilities Aflowanoe 
Cestiewood Water Supply Aflowatrec 



3.750.00 
Z500.00 
1.500.00 
L.250.00 



11.250.00 
5.000.00 
4.500.00 
3.750.00 



supplemental E53 SSvES 
■*-• ' Sexvioec Pl«a 

Impleraerrutloa Sections 
Capital Improvement Plan 
Additional Meeting* 
De^lcpnwat Scenario Analyst* 



10000 
1CW00 
1O000 



5.000-00 
5X00.00 

s.ooaoo 



s.coaco 

5.000.09 
5X0O00 



3JO0 
4,000 

5^00 
6.300 
5X00 



^JppJenwaUi ton Kcviskmu 

Specific Plan Doenmeat Revisions 
Tentative Map Revisions 



3.500X0 
4X00X0 
5,600X0 

ojoaoo 
5x00x0 



$0100 
$0.00 
$000 

moo 

$0.00 



rubue intonsauoo i^ojtaai 

SFJ3oardPrc«cfltttsons 
Project Brodnac 
Putjiio Agency Outreach 
lotcnta Group Outre*ch 



15,000 
15.000 



7,500.00 
7.500.00 



7.500.00 
7^oao9 




10X00 
35X00 

20,000 
20X00 



S5X00X0 

17.50000 
loxoooo 
laooaoo 



5x0000 

17.500X0 

laooaoo 
laooaoo 



ruouc Kevicw Wooes*" 
BrtWided Public Hearings 
PnbGe Process Management 
Traffic Consultant Preaentatlon 
Developer Consultant Presentations 
Financial Consufcant Presentaaoas 
Otbe* Oonwltam Presentations 



ERwaEpmeat Agreement Negotiations 
Negotiation Team Maaagemeat Meetings 
OP Program Update 
Financial Analysis Capital Program 
Financial Analysis Select P rogr am 
Planning Analysis Development Program 
Negotiation Meeting* wf County 



20X00 
40X00 
3.000 
3,000 
5X00 



5X00X0 
40X00X0 

ooo 

0X0 

aoo 

0X0 



lsxoaoo 

aoo 
s.ooaoo 

3X00.00 

5,00000 



Project Coordmaucra tcoa MonagemenT 
Sabcoaoltant Oooidiaatioa 
6F Steering Committee Meetings 

SF PUC Meeting 

ilopment Program rxnmulation Assistance 
Financial Analysis of Partner Arrangements 
Planning Analysi* of Partner Amagements 
Negotiation Meeting* 



uooo 

5X00 
7^00 
7.500 
7.500 
2O000 



7.500X0 
Z500.00 
3,75000 
3,75000 
3.75O00 
10.00000 



7,500X0 

$2^0000 

$3,75000. . 

^$3,75000.. 

;,* $3.75000 i 

^$1000000 




14^80 
16X00 
1OO00 



$27,000 
$18,000 
$10000 



7.44OO0 

16,00000, 

10.00000 



• 0X0 
0X0 

raw 



:<V. ^-. ;'.'. . AMENDtPKS «* 

^^^P§1;a; .. ■ . .. 



7,440.00 



27X0O0O 
18,00000 
1O000.00 




$23&4ttMH> 
5013ft "1 



December 7. W94 
S.APROJMGMT\PROJeCTSW«lj0S\ 



;3 n9ri 



PL P. 09 



72 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

Item 14 -File 101-94-39 

Department: Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $148,445 from the Dispute 

Resolution Program Fund to allow the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development to continue contracts for services in 
1994-1995. 

Amount: $148,445 

Source: Court fees deposited into the Dispute Resolution Program 

Fund 

Description: The Dispute Resolution Program Fund was established by 

the Board of Supervisors (Ordinance No. 494-86) on 
December 15, 1986, for the purpose of providing alternative 
means for the resolution of disputes. It is part of a Statewide 
effort to provide a less costly alternative to litigation through 
arbitration and mediation. The program has been funded by 
a set-aside of $3.00 in court filing fees paid to the San 
Francisco Superior Court. 

On August 24, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved an 
Ordinance (Number 324-94) appropriating $84,023 from the 
Dispute Resolution Program Fund to pay two of the 
program's three contractors, the Community Boards and 
California Dispute Services. That appropriation was for the 
five-month period from May 1, 1994 through September 30, 
1994, and was needed because the previous amount of court 
filing fees had only been sufficient to fund six months of the 
two contracts, from October 1, 1993 through March 31, 1994. 1 

According to an accounting of the Dispute Resolution 
Program Fund prepared by the MOCD on April 25, 1994, the 
Dispute Resolution Program has been spending on average 
$20,000 per year more than the amounts the Fund has 
received annually from filing fees. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would continue the 
two contracts, in addition to a third, the California Lawyers 
for the Arts, for the eight-month period from November 1, 
1994 through June 30, 1995 (the full fiscal year funding is 
from October 1 though September 30). The California 
Lawyers for the Arts program did not receive funding from 



The two contractors did not receive funding for April, 1994, due to insufficient funds in the 
Dispute Resolution Filing Fees Fund. Similarly, the three contractors will not receive funding for 
the month of October, 1994. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



73 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

the last supplemental request because it had previously 
received a full year's allocation of $10,000 from the Dispute 
Resolution Fund. 

The three contractors providing the dispute resolution 
services have submitted the following budgets: 

1) California Community Dispute Services 
Salaries/Fringe $57,961 
Supplies 464 
Total $58,425 
580 cases at approximately $100 per case. 

2) Community Boards 

Salaries/Fringe $68,515 

699 cases at approximately $98 per case. 

3) California Lawyers of the Arts 
Salaries/Fringe $6,660 
67 cases at approximately $100 per case. 

4) MOCD Administration 

Ten percent of total program costs* $14.845 

* Based on: 5% of a 2706 Manager, 

20% of a 1740 Coordinator, and 

12% of a 1506 Accountant 

TOTAL $148,445 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Marta Villazon, Senior Grants 

Coordinator for the MOCD, the three dispute resolution 
programs have been unable to locate sufficient outside 
funding for the remainder of the FY 1994-95 (November 1, 
1994 through June 30, 1995), and have thus requested 
additional funding from the Dispute Resolution Program 
Fund. Ms. Villazdn states that no additional funds to 
continue the three contracts have been identified for the 
period following June 30, 1995, and that although a small 
amount of funds will have accumulated from filing fees by 
that time, it will be insufficient to continue the three 
contracts at their current level. 

2. Ms. Villazon states that the three contractors have 
incurred expenditures against the proposed supplemental 
appropriation request for the period November 1, 1994 to the 
present. As such, the proposed ordinance should be amended 
to provide for retroactivity for actions previously taken. 



i 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
* BUDGET ANALYST 

74 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

3. Ms. Villazon states that each of the three contractors in 
the Dispute Resolution Program receives funding from other 
sources outside the Dispute Resolution Program Fund. 
However, Ms. Villazdn advises that if the Dispute Resolution 
Program Fund is not replenished and if the three contractors 
do not succeed in locating additional financial support, the 
dispute resolution services provided by the contractors will 
have to be reduced. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to provide for retroactive 
actions previously taken. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7s 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



Item 15 - File 101-94-40 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Fire Department 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$10,000,000 from 1992 Fire Protection Bond proceeds for 
capital improvements to various fire stations and for the 911 
Emergency Command Dispatch Center. 

$10,000,000 

1992 Fire Protection Bond Proceeds 

In November of 1992, the voters of the City and County of 
San Francisco approved the Proposition "C" Fire Protection 
Bond Issue. A total of $40,800,000 in General Obligation 
bonds were approved to finance: improvement costs related to 
various Fire Department facilities, design costs for the new 
911 Emergency Command Dispatch Center, and construction 
costs for the San Francisco Fire Department's combined new 
Headquarters/Pump Station 1 projects. 

On October 4, 1994, $10,105,000 in Proposition "C Fire 
Protection General Obligation Bonds were sold by the City. 
These bonds were sold for the purpose of providing financing 
costs for seismic strengthening, disabled access, separate 
restroom and changing facilities for male and female 
firefighters, asbestos mitigation and abatement and other 
improvements including upgrading electrical and heating, 
ventilation and air conditioning systems, and roof repairs and 
replacements in 32 Fire Department facilities and the 
architectural and engineering services for the new 911 
Emergency Command Dispatch Center. The amount of 
bonds sold included an estimated $10,050,000 in project costs 
and $53,000 in issuance costs related to the sale of these 
bonds. This proposed supplemental appropriation request for 
$10,000,000 from the bond proceeds would fund costs 
associated with programming, planning, architectural and 
engineering services, asbestos surveys and construction. The 
amount of the proposed supplemental appropriation is based 
on project cost details for funding 17 of the 32 Fire 
Department Improvement Bond projects, and the 
architectural and engineering services for the new 911 
Dispatch Center. The cost estimates were provided by the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) Bureau of Architecture. 



B O ARD OF S UPERVISO R 
BUDGET ANALYST 

76 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

According to Assistant Fire Chief James Lynch, the project 
budget, as submitted by the DPW Bureau of Architecture, 
should be reduced by $600,000 because the Fire Commission 
has not taken final approval actions pertaining to this 
$600,000 request related to the planning and design work for 
the new 911 Dispatch Center. The estimated funding of 
$600,000, which will be needed for the new 911 Dispatch 
Center, includes planning, programming, and architectural 
and engineering services. Chief Lynch advises that the Fire 
Commission is scheduled to take final actions to approve the 
$600,000 request, related to new 911 Dispatch Center, in late 
December. The funds for such planning, programming, and 
architectural and engineering services for the 911 Dispatch 
Center will be requested under a separate, forthcoming 
supplemental appropriation ordinance, according to Chief 
Lynch. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Peter Wong of the DPW Bureau of 

Architecture, estimates for the Fire Department facilities 
improvements are as follows: 

Location Amount. 



Station # 14 


$ 675,000 


Station # 18 


1,012,000 


New Headquarters/Pump Station 1 


2,270,000 


Station # 19 


434,000 


Station # 23 


811,882 


Station # 34 


452,500 


Station # 41 


1,465,400 


Central Fire Alarm Station (CFAS) 


100,000 


New 911 Dispatch Center (1) 


600,000 


Bureau of Equipment 


947,500 


Bureau of Training 


200,000 


Station # 3 


294,500 


Station #12 


150,000 


Station # 13 


152,200 


Station # 20 


140,700 


Station # 28 


130,918 


Station # 32 


118,500 


Station # 42 


94.900 


Total 


$10,050,000 



The costs above include programming and planning, 
architectural and engineering, and permit fees ($4,388,918), 
asbestos survey ($188,200) and construction ($5,472,882) 
costs for these 18 projects. The Attachment provided by the 
Fire Department allocates these costs by category for each 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 : 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 

project. ■ According to Mr. Wong and Chief Lynch, all 
programming/planning and architectural/engineering, and 
asbestos survey work will be performed on an inhouse basis 
by DPW. Chief Lynch has also indicated that the DPW 
Bureau of Building Repair will be responsible for 
construction work required for the Bureau of Equipment 
project. The in-house work would be performed by existing 
positions with funding to be workordered from the Fire 
Department Improvement Bonds to pay for these positions. 

2. Mr. Wong advises that it is anticipated that construction 
bids for these projects will be received beginning in late 
January of 1995. With the exception of the construction 
funds associated with the Bureau of Equipment project, 
which would be done by DPW on an inhouse basis, the 
construction funds requested in this proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance should be placed on reserve, pending 
the selection of contractors for specific projects, and the 
submission to the Budget Committee of the MBE/WBE status 
of the contractors and the contract cost details. 

3. Construction costs of $5,472,882, as noted above, and as 
shown in the Attachment provided by the Fire Department, 
include $842,000 for construction at the Bureau of 
Equipment. Since the construction activities associated with 
the Bureau of Equipment will be performed inhouse by the 
DPW Bureau of Building Repair, $4,630,882 ($5,472,882 less 
$842,000) should be placed on reserve pending the actions 
noted in Comment Number 2 above. 

4. As previously noted, the project budget reflects $600,000 
in costs associated with the planning and design of the new 
911 Emergency Command Dispatch Center. When final 
actions are taken by the Fire Commission regarding the 
approval of such Center, the Fire Department plans to 
request funding in a separate supplemental appropriation, 
Therefore, that $600,000 amount should be reduced from the 
current request. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment Number 4 above, reduce the 
proposed supplemental appropriation request by $600,000 
from $10,000,000 to $9,400,000 to delete the $600,000 related 
to the new 911 Dispatch Center. 

2. Reserve $4,630,882 in construction costs pending the 
selection of the contractors, award of the construction 
contracts for each project, and submission to the Budget 
Committee of the MBE/WBE status of the contractors and 
the contract cost details. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78 



Memo to Budget Committee 
December 14, 1994 



3. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 

larvey M. Rose 




Supervisor Hsieh 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Kauiinan 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Maher 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Shelley 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



(ire bonds 



Attachment 
Pag;e 1 of 3 





Fire Improvement Bonds 










Group A Facilities 


A&E, Prog ./Plan.. Asbestos Construction Costs 


Totals 




and Permit Fees 


Only 




Station # 14 








DPW Programming/Planning 


51.00C 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


528.00C 






Permits and Fees 


46.00C 






Asbestos Survey Service 


50.00C 






Subtotal 






$675,000 










Station # 18 








DPW Programming/Planning 


75.000 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


792.000 






Permits and Fees 


70.000 






Asbestos Survey Service 


75.000 






Subtotal 






$1,012,000 










New Headquarters/Pump Station 1 








DPW Programming/Planning 









Architectural/Engineering Services 









Construction 




2,270,000 




Subtotal 






$2,270,000 










Station § 19 








DPW Programming/Planning 


40.000 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


355,800 






Permits and Fees 









Asbestos Survey Service 


38,200 






Subtotal 






$434,000 










Station # 23 








DPW Programming/Planning 









Architectural/Engineering Services 









Construction 




811,882 




Subtotal 






$811,882 










Station # 34 








DPW Programming/Planning 


48.000 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


404,500 






Construction 









Subtotal 






$452,500 










Station U 41 








DPW Programming/Planning 


32,400 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


382,000 






Construction 




1,051,000 




Subtotal 






$1,465,400 










Central Fire Alarm Station (CFAS) 








CFAS Architectural/Engineering Services 


100,000 






Construction 









Subtotal 






$100,000 










Jew 911 Dispatch Center 








Planning, Programming, and 









Page 1 



80 



Attachment 
Pape 2 of 3 



Architectural/Engineering Services 


600, 00( 


) " ' I 


Construction 


c 




Subtotal 






$600,000 










Bureau of Equipment 








DPW Programming/Planning 


15.00C 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


90.50C 






Construction 




842,000 




Subtotal 






$947,500 










Bureau of Training 








DPW Programming/Planning 


26,000 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


34,000 






Construction 




140,000 




Subtotal 






$200,000 


















Group B Facilities 
















Station # 3 








DPW Programming/Planning 









Architectural/Engineering Services 


38.500 






Construction 




256,000 




Subtotal 






$294,500 










Station # 12 








DPW Programming/Planning 


16,000 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


32,000 






Construction 




102,000 




Subtotal 






$150,000 










Station # 13 








DPW Programming/Planning 


13,200 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


139,000 






Construction 









Subtotal 






$152,200 










Station # 20 








DPW Programming/Planning 


15.000 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


110,700 






Asbestos Survey Service 


15.000 






Construction 









Subtotal 






$140,700 










Station # 28 








DPW Programming/Planninq 


10,000 






Architectural/Engineering Services 


110,918 






Asbestos Survey Service 


10,000 






Construction 









Subtotal 






$130,918 










Station # 32 








DPW Programming/Planninq 


8,800 






Architectural/Engineerinq Services 


109,700 






Asbestos Survey Service 









Construction 










Page 2 
81 



Attachment 
Page J ot 3 



Subtotal 






$118, 500 










Station #42 








DPW Programming/Planning 









Architectural/Engineering Services 


94,900 






Asbestos Survey Service 









Construction 









Subtotal 






$94,900 










Total Improvement Costs 






$10,050,000 


















Construction Budget including $842,000 for Bureau of Equipment 


$5,472,882 





Page 3 
82 



CitiReport 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



TO: 



FROM: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)554-7642 

December 15, 1994 



Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy Committee and Budget 
Committee 



Budget Analyst 



SUBJECT: December 20, 1994 Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget 
Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 13-94-29.1 

Note: This item was rereferred from the Board of Supervisors meeting of 

December 5, 1994. 

Department: Mayor's Office of Housing 

Item: Resolution urging the Mayor to enter into a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) for the replacement of Geneva 
Towers and urging HUD to abide by the City's just cause 
eviction law and respect the rights of Geneva Towers tenants. 

Description: The draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 

the Mayor's Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) contains broad policy statements 
intended to encourage HUD and the City to coordinate its 
efforts to improve the housing and economic conditions of the 
Visitacion Valley neighborhood, located in the south-eastern 
section of San Francisco. According to Mr. Ted Dienstfrey, 
Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing, the MOU is not a 
legally-binding document; rather, its purpose is to set the 
general policy direction for both the City and HUD. 

The MOU was drafted by the HUD San Francisco Regional 
Office as HUD was deciding on the disposition of Geneva 



Memo to Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
December 20, 1994 Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
Meeting 

Towers. HUD then made a recommendation 1 to demolish 
Geneva Towers, a set of two 20-story high rise apartments 
containing a total of 576 units, 282 of which are currently 
occupied by low-income tenants and their families. HUD has 
owned the building since 1991, when it foreclosed on the 
property due to reported mismanagement by the previous 
owner. HUD drafted the MOU in order to make an offer to 
sell the land now occupied by Geneva Towers to the City for 
$1.00 and provide $46.6 million in Section 8 rental subsidies 
for newly-constructed housing in Visitacion Valley. In 
exchange for the land and the Section 8 subsidies, HUD has 
asked the City to agree to build new affordable housing in 
Visitacion Valley, assuming the demolition of Geneva Towers 
goes forward. Further, the MOU states that the City agrees 
to use its "best efforts" to see that a variety of job training 
and other social services needed in Visitacion Valley are 
provided in order to revitalize the neighborhood. 

According to HUD's Property Disposition Report, Geneva 
Towers has "major structural inadequacies" and the cost to 
remedy these inadequacies and continue to operate the 
buildings would greatly exceed the threshold cost limits set in 
HUD regulations. 2 The HUD report also states that high- 
rise structures have been proved to be unworkable as housing 
for low-income families, and that in cases where the San 
Francisco Housing Authority has replaced high-rise housing 
with low-rise housing, the quality of life of the residents and 
the surrounding neighborhood has improved dramatically. 

The MOU states as a primary objective the development of 
new low-rise affordable housing "consistent with the 
character of the neighborhood," and that the Mayor's Office of 
Housing will take the lead in the development of the new 
housing. In addition, the MOU states that the City and HUD 
will develop programs in education, social services, economic 
development, and the establishment of long-term physical 
improvements to stabilize the Visitacion Valley 
neighborhood. 3 The MOU states that the City agrees to 



1 The recommendation was made by HUD's Regional Office of Housing on July 13, 1994, and 
the public comment period extended from September 8 to October 11, 1994. 

2 HUD regulations state that if the cost of rehabilitation of a property, including debt service 
and operating expenses, exceed 144% of rents that would accrue to the property (under Section 8 fair- 
market rents), the rehabilitation work should not proceed and the rental units should not be 
preserved. 

The MOU also states that HUD will continue its financial support of the rehabilitation of the 
Sunnydale public housing project, located in Visitacion Valley, in cooperation with the San Francisco 
Housing Authority. The project will have 767 units once the rehabilitation is complete. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
December 20, 1994 Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
Meeting 

provide $6 million in Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG) program funds "and/or other City funds" over a five- 
year period to fund these neighborhood services and 
improvements, but does not specify the source of other City 
funds. As of the writing of this report, no budget details for 
the proposed $6 million to be provided by the City are 
available. 

The Supplement to the MOU outlines in greater detail the 
agreements made by both HUD and the City. According to 
the Supplement, HUD agrees to (1) Demolish the two Geneva 
Towers buildings and sell the land the buildings now occupy 
to the City for $1.00; (2) Provide relocation assistance to 
Geneva Towers residents in their search for other housing 
(for an estimated cost of $535,255); (3) Provide up to $19.4 
million in Section 8 rent vouchers to Geneva Towers 
residents for their use in renting other housing for a five-year 
period (at an average cost to HUD of $13,425 per tenancy 4 
per year); and (4) Consider requests from the City for project- 
based Section 8 subsidies for 20% to 50% of the residents of 
newly-constructed family housing (at an estimated cost to 
HUD of $32.4 million) and 100% of the residents of newly- 
constructed elderly housing (at an estimated cost to HUD of 
$14.2 million), for a total estimated cost to HUD of $46.6 
million. These Section 8 project subsidies have been 
calculated to fund rent payments for 150 family units and 
100 senior units over a 15-year period. 

According to Mr. Keith Axtell, Regional Director of Housing 
for HUD, it is HUD's intention to encourage a greater mix of 
tenant incomes (ranging from 80% of median income to 15% 
of median income) in the replacement housing than currently 
exists at Geneva Towers, which currently contains only very- 
low income tenants (earning about 17% of median area 
income). 

The MOU Supplement states that the City agrees to (1) 
Follow through on its commitment to make a $1.5 million 
conditional grant 5 from the City's housing funds, received 
from HUD under the HOME and CDBG programs, to a non- 
profit housing developer to purchase a site at 150 Britton 



4 In addition to the 282 units currently occupied at Geneva Towers, 7 units have been recently 
vacated by tenants or families who have received Section 8 vouchers, for a total of 289 tenants or 
families who have received or are qualified to receive the vouchers for five years. 

5 The conditional grant is extended to the non-profit developer as a 50-year loan, to be forgiven 
at the end of the 50 years. The grant is conditional on the continued provision of below-market rate 
housing by the developer. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
December 20, 1994 Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
Meeting 

Street 6 (located across the street from the current Geneva 
Towers site); (2) Assist non-profit housing corporations to 
obtain properties in Visitacion Valley for 50 to 100 units of 
elderly housing and to construct 300 units of family housing 
in Visitacion Valley; 7 (3) Guarantee preferences for Geneva 
Towers residents for newly-constructed housing referenced in 
the MOU; (4) Improve police services in Visitacion Valley, 
including the initiation of "community policing," and (5) 
provide medical services, day care facilities, employment 
training and career counseling, and other social services in 
Visitacion Valley. In addition, the MOU states that the City 
agrees to waive future Housing Authority Payments in Lieu 
of Taxes (PILOT). The MOU states that agreeing to not 
collect these payments in the future will ensure the financial 
integrity of the SFHA and enable the SFHA to fulfill its 
obligations to provide services for the Sunnydale public 
housing complex. According to John Shanley, Special 
Assistant to the Executive Director of the SFHA, 
approximately $600,000 is assessed by the City under PILOT 
per year. 

The MOU Supplement also references HUD and City plans to 
initiate economic revitalization of Visitacion Valley, including 
a proposal to train and provide employment to current 
neighborhood residents, and to provide contracting 
opportunities to local businesses, in connection with the 
HUD-assisted developments in Visitacion Valley. HUD 
specifically agrees to ensure that bid documents for HUD- 
assisted construction contain plans to hire 30% of the 
construction work-force from a pool of applicants who are 
residents of Visitacion Valley. As previously noted, the City 
agrees to provide $6 million in CDBG and other City funds, 
from sources as yet to be determined, to finance the economic 
development and social services activities referenced in the 
MOU. 

The proposed resolution also provides that the Board of 
Supervisors urges HUD to abide by the City's just cause 
eviction law and respect the rights of Geneva Towers tenants. 
According to Ms. Sandy Gartzman, Senior Hearing Officer of 



° The Mayor's Office of Housing made a predevelopment loan in February of 1994 of $75,000 to 

the Housing Conservation Development Corporation, a non-profit housing developer which has 
proposed to build affordable family housing on the site, and has set aside $1.5 million in CDBG funds 
for the purchase of the land, which covers approximately two acres. 

The Mayor's Office of Housing plans to develop the affordable family housing on the Britton 
Street site and on the site currently occupied by Geneva Towers. The sites for elderly housing have 
not yet been identified. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
December 20, 1994 Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
Meeting 

the San Francisco Rent Board, this law provides for a 30-day 
notice to vacate for tenants who live in a building set to be 
demolished. 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Dienstfrey advises that the issues which should be 
considered regarding disposition of Geneva Towers are: 

(1). The impact of the demolition of Geneva Towers on the 
current residents . Some residents may encounter serious 
relocation problems because the removal of 282 currently- 
occupied units from the market will result in a large 
number of low-income tenants who will be in the market for 
affordable housing. In addition, according to Mr. 
Dienstfrey, current Geneva Towers residents may 
encounter resistance from private landlords unwilling to 
rent to tenants with Section 8 certificates. 



(2). The cost to the City of building the replacement 
housing . Although the City's role in funding the new 
housing is not addressed in the MOU, Mr. Dienstfrey states 
that the total cost to the City to build up to 100 units of 
senior housing would be $4 million and the cost to build 300 
units of family housing is estimated to be $11.5 million, for 
a total of $15.5 million in City funds to be expended over a 
five to six-year period. According to Mr. Dienstfrey, the 
City would fund the proposed new housing using 
CDBG/HOME and Hotel Tax revenues (which are dedicated 
to senior housing). The City currently receives 
approximately $10 million annually in CDBG and HOME 
funds for housing, and approximately $3.5 million annually 
for senior housing from Hotel Tax revenues. Once the 
projects are completed and occupied, they would be eligible 
for the $46.6 million in rent subsidies agreed to by HUD 
under the MOU. Mr. Dienstfrey states that some of the 
elderly and family units could be ready for occupancy 
within two years. 

(3). The ability of non-profit developers in San 
Francisco to complete up to 400 housing units within the 
estimated five to six-vear time period . The MOU 
Supplement states that the City will contract with non- 
profit developers to build the new housing, and concerns 
have been raised regarding the capacity of these non-profit 
developers to produce a relatively large volume of new 
affordable housing units in five to six years. An average of 
approximately 73 new units per year would have to be 
completed by the participating non-profit developers to 
complete up to 400 units of new housing within the five to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
December 20, 1994 Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
Meeting 

six-year period. Mr. Dienstfrey advises that non-profit 
housing developers completed 468 new units of housing in 
San Francisco in one recent year (between October 1, 1992, 
and September 30, 1993). 

(4). Whether the Citv should expend part of its annual 
HUD allocation for housing of approximately $10 million 
per year for the purpose of replacing housing that will be 
demolished due to a HUD decision. Mr. Dienstfrey states 
that HUD has not indicated it will increase its annual 
(CDBG/HOME housing allocation to the City as a result of 
the demolition of Geneva Towers; however, HUD states in 
the MOU it will provide Section 8 rental subsidies (totaling 
$46.4 million for senior and family housing) for new 
housing projects that intend to replace Geneva Towers. 
These subsidies represent additional funding for affordable 
housing beyond the annual $10 million funding level 
received by the City from HUD. 

2. Mr. Dienstfrey advises that HUD has formally notified the 
tenants of Geneva Towers that it is HUD's intention to 
demolish the Geneva Towers building and that the tenants 
will be required to move from Geneva Towers in the near 
future. Mr. Dienstfrey adds that HUD is in the process of 
hiring a relocation consultant to assist the tenants in 
relocating. 

Summary 

In summary, the MOU states that the City agrees to (1) 
construct new housing in Visitacion Valley to replace housing 
lost due to the proposed demolition of Geneva Towers, (2) 
uphold its commitment to make a $1.5 million grant to a non- 
profit developer to develop 150 Britton Street, (3) guarantee 
preferences to Geneva Towers residents for the proposed new 
housing, (4) provide a variety of Police and social services to 
residents of the neighborhood, (5) promote the employment of 
Visitacion Valley residents, and (6) waive future PILOT 
payments due to the City from the SFHA. The total proposed 
cost to the City represented in these agreements is currently 
estimated to be $7.5 million, including $1.5 million for the 
grant for new housing on 150 Britton Street from 
CDBG/HOME funds, and $6 million for police and social 
services from CDBG and other City sources. In addition, the 
waiver of future PILOT funds would represent an 
approximate $600,000 annual loss to the City. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
December 20, 1994 Joint Economic Vitality & Social Policy and Budget Committee 
Meeting 

The MOU also states that HUD agrees to (1) sell the land 
currently occupied by Geneva Towers to the City for $1.00, 
(2) provide $19.4 million in vouchers over a five year period 
for the tenants who currently live in Geneva Towers, (3) 
provide $535,255 in relocation assistance, and (4) consider 
requests from the City for $46.6 million in project-based 
Section 8 rent subsidies over a 15-year period for new 
housing in Visitacion Valley. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kaufman 
President Alioto 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Bierman 
Supervisor Hallinan 
Supervisor Leal 
Supervisor Maher 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Shelley 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller «*-■ 

Teresa Serata 
Robert Oakes 
Ted Lakey 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



A 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 




City Hall 

San Francisco 94102 

554-5184 



December 15, 1994 



DEC 1 9 1994 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled meetings of the Budget 
Committee for December 21 and 28, 1994 at 1:00 p.m., have been cancelled. 

The next regular meeting of the Budget Committee will be held on Wednesday, 
January 4, 1995, at 1:00 p.m., in the Room 228, City Hall. 



^/^ John L. Taylo/ yy 
" Clerk of the Boa*€T 



BUDGET COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE