tv [untitled] November 15, 2010 5:30am-6:00am PST
supposed to have facilities for the breda cars and we don't have the facilities. some day in the future it would bode the city well to make sure we have the pfacility because what we are doing is permanently outsourcing our bredda cars and that is not what we do with the other trolleys. i don't think that is what was meant to be done. the other problem is i have body men that have not been permanently replaced or their positions restored. so in the body shop when you hear that, hear the mechanics or body men can't do the work it is because of the 12 days or 24 or the furloughs that they don't replace anyone. so when a person because of
wellness, we have high retirement the guy from the floor goes up and replaces him but we lose a guy on the floor. just stole two guys from the body shop and diesel and put them pickup metro. chairman avalos: thank you. the m.t.a. can probably answer this but do you know what is the plan for [inaudible] where that will get done or is that in the plans? >> i don't believe so. what they did. it was in the original plan and when they started running out of money on the third street corridor they took the money out and put it over there is what i was told. chairman avalos: thank you. for the m.t.a. >> all i would like to see is they hire the guys. chairman avalos: thank you. from folks on the m.t.a., you have a plan to increase work on
bredas there. you may not be the ones that know that. >> we are not aware of that. chairman avalos: thank you. if there are no other members of comment we will close public comment. the matter is before us. commissioner mirkarimi: motion. >> motion and approval. we will take that without objection. mr. young if you could call items three and four. >> number three resolution approving authorizing an agreement for the purchase of a permanent abscess road easement totaling 751 square feet over a portion of assessor's parse number 016-002-011 and
016-002-012 located in stanislaus county, required for the san joaquin pipeline system project number cuw 37301 for $500. item number four resolution approving and authorizing agreement for purchase of a permanent access rhode island easement over 398 square feet over 016-002-048 in stanislaus county for the san joaquin pipeline project system number cuw 37001 for $2,500. chairman avalos: thank you, mr. young. presentatio presentations? >> good afternoon. i'm with the real estate division. chairman avalos: good morning. >> good afternomorning.
>> the item before you is the acquisition of two permanent access easements locateded in stanislaus county. p.u.c. requires the easements for the san joaquin pipeline system project which is part of a water infrastructure project as part of the whole water system improvement. the total cost for these two easements is $3,000 and it is approximately 1,000 square feet. chairman avalos: it is well below the threshold for a report. public comment is open on items three and four. >> almost heaven, stanislaus coun county,, we get this road and a
such a good price. country roads take me home to city hall where we are going to buy this. this item, won't you get it, won't you today? country city hall roads. >> thank very much. if there are no other member of the public to comment, we will close public comment, and we will take that without objection. those two items with recommendation to the full board. mr. young, if you could call our next item, please? >> item number 5, hearing to consider release of reserved funds, department of environment, fiscal year 2009-2010 in the amount of $308,709 to fund the environmental justice program
grants, staffing and administrative costs. >> good afternoon. is the sixth time we have come before you. this is a $13 million program that started in the year 2000. we have been able over the years to leverage an additional $2 million for environmental justice projects in bayview and the hills. if you look at the whole program, we have given out almost $12 million in grants to organizations in the community. so it has been a very successful program. unfortunately, it is going to draw to a close because we coming to the end of the fund. the request today is for $308,000 remaining. we have expended $12 million in the past. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, as the department of environment has indicated, they received a $13 million original
grant from the california public utilities commission. over the years they have come to the board of supervisors requesting five prior releases which have totaled $12,140,000, leaving a balance. the request before you is to $ 308,709. this is for the environmental justice program. on january 15th they issued the r.f.p., and they received 10 proposals. the names of the nonprofits that responded are listed on table three, page five-4 of our report. based on the evaluation criteria that the department of environment entered into and oral interviews, they are
recommending the award of grant for four of these nonprofits for a total of $164,503, which includes urban sprouts for $46,000, literacy for environmental justice native plant nursey for $25,000, 740. southeast access food grooble, and the brett hart elementary school parent teachers association for $50,000. the attachment on page 5-8 of our report explains the purpose of each grant, and in addition the department is asking for the administrative and staffing support to continue this practice -- program. we are recommending approval of the requested $308,709 on reserve. supervisor avalos: thank you. if you can't repeat for me if we were to approve the release, what would be remaining? >> if you approve this
requested release, the remaining balance would be $ 550,688. my understanding is that the department plans to come in next year and do a similar process to request release of reserve for the environmental justice program to continue. >> supervisor avalos: so that is next fiscal year? >> correct. supervisor avalos: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i was going to ask that question. when you come back next year, that completely completes what is left in the program, is that right? >> it may not completely deplete. there may be a residual amount left after that, and maybe we will be coming back the follow year for the residual. we are in the process of trying to come up with additional funds to keep the program going beyond the $13 million. >> and those funds are grant funded positions still? >> correct. supervisor mirkarimi: from which grants? >> from which grands?
the positions that we are funding with the environmental justice money? supervisor mirkarimi: not now, but once this seg ways into whatever pot of money. >> they will continue to be grant positions. supervisor mirkarimi: will they be c.p.u.c. grants? >> no. we anticipate another settlement. it will be other grant funds we will have to obtain. supervisor mirkarimi: where else in the city is there attention on environmental justice other than the southeast sector? >> this particular pool of funding is for the southeast sector and specifically for that. we realize there are environmental justice issues throughout the city and in various neighborhoods. as part of the program, we look at disadvantaged communities throughout the city.
this funding is restricted to bayview and the hill, but other projects do incorporate other neighborhood. for example, our environment now program, which is a continuation of the jobs now program, we operate throughout the city. we don't just focus on those two neighborhoods. supervisor mirkarimi: but were site specific programs on environmental justice -- this is the only one i know of that really has a very lasered kind of program detail that is defined by geography, is that correct? >> that is correct. supervisor mirkarimi: i really would like to make a bid for a suggestion, and that is that there be sort of an expanded consideration that environmental justice is not simply of what is well known, the degradation of the southeast sector and how it impacted the community, but there are other disadvantaged
communities. it may be less con sick puss in some ways, but clearly just as knelt. just as felt. >> i am wondering if the department of environment would be able to figure out in the future, as this grant seems to terminate and segues into the next generation of grant funding, of focusing into other communities? >> we absolutely agree. we will be looking for funding that is not geographically specific. supervisor mirkarimi: how do we follow up with you to make sure that is going to have some real legs to it? >> well, when we go through the next budget process, we will be reporting on new grants that we are working on. so we could specifically follow up as part of that process. or if you want, we could certainly do a report to you to outline our progress and future
steps. supervisor mirkarimi: i guess just to city staff or whom of -- whom ever, by the time they come back before us for the release of the $500,000 or so, can we ask that we have this question answered by the time they come back to us? how would you suggest we execute this so-called condition? either to the city attorney or the budget analyst. i could put it in a resolution, but i didn't really want to have to go to that step. >> supervisor, it is a release of reserves, so there is actually no ridge slation before you to amend. that is why we are sitting here sort of trying to figure out how we can note this. maybe the controller -- supervisor mirkarimi: this is all cordial. i just want to make sure we
don't forget and that the department of environment is reminded that that is the next step when they come back before us. >> through the chair to supervisor mirkarimi, i am from the controller's office. we have the ability and the financial system on the note pad to put a note around any appropriation or reserve, and we could do that so that when it does come before you, we do take a look at it in the financial system and we could mind the budget analyst and the department. supervisor mirkarimi: just flag that, please. duly noted. >> i want to make one other comment. we have funding through the american recovery and reinvestment act there is being used for virnltal justice in other parts of the city. supervisor mirkarimi: i just want to tie up the city in other ways so we feel we are more united on this front, thank you. supervisor avalos: supervisor
elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: generally speaking, grant funded positions, included in the grant amount is not just the salary but the fringe benefit value. one thing i have been thinking about in a lot of these grant funded positions, some of these folks have been here for how long in a grant funded position? >> 10 years. >> perfect example. five years, they are fully vested. when they leave, and because they were hired well before problem b from 2008, we will be paying their rememberee health, and there is no grant paying for that portion. i am wondering if it is worth the discussion that in the value 6 a grant funded position -- of a grand funded position, we begin tacking on an amount for retiree health. >> through the chair. monique from the controller's office.
when we know a grant is going say three years, through the overhead account of that department, we do set aside some funds to pay for time off with way vacation and so forth. i don't know that we have in the past considered length jeft beyond the five-year period where by the city accrues a future liability. it is something we need to take a look at. supervisor elsbernd: and i bet there are a lot of folks who are grant funded their first few years and then get into some sort of civil service classification and end up building the vested rights? >> right. also, there are a number of federal grants especially that don't allow indirect costs or that only allow selected administrative overhead costs to be charged. it is not something that can be done across the board, but there is something we could
look at in bond funds and others where we have a little more control on those administrative overhead charges. supervisor avalos: supervisor, mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i absolutely agree with what supervisor elsbernd was inquiring about. the police department or any department that has come before us, department of emergency management, although that may have been federal, grants that we have accepteded in that people have been within the system due to grant-funded positions, but then those grants segue into general fund positions, that has never been calculated with regard to what the future liability may be? >> i believe the question that supervisor elsbernd was bringing up was if a grant continued say for a 10-year
period. even if the employee leaves the city and county, the city would be continuing to pay a portion of the health insurance to the extent that the employee continues it. if an employee stays in the city, then absolutely that would be part of the calculation that is done in terms of our overall city work force. but i do believe that there are probably some instances -- supervisor mirkarimi: whether they are grant funded or not? >> right. but i do believe there are some instances where grants cover a period of time, and then once the grants expire, because we have been employing these individuals, we have been including them in the overall costs of ongoing fringe benefits beyond the five years. supervisor mirkarimi: would it be possible to also figure out what the actual population is?
>> we would have to look and see, and we would have to include a certain portion of people that have been funded outside the city's budget. some of the grants are also a part of the budget, in which case they would be included. many of our long-term grants are included in the budget because they are known, they are anticipated, and we know what those amounts are. for this $13 million grant, that had been budgeted as a project, so that is part of the overall budget of the city. there are different circumstances with each grant depending on the longevity and so on. supervisor elsbernd: if i could add something in this particular -- >> if i could add something in this situation. we have almost never had to terminate somebody because we have been able to come up with addition grants.
supervisor avalos: thank you. a good addition to the conversation on this item. we can go to public comment on the reserve. >> ♪ reserve fund time. i want you to fix the environment. make it shine. on and on. the grants still come and make a beauty define. we won't forget what you did for item five this time. and i think you should fix the environment. make it shine. one more time, make it define, and i won't forget what you did for item five this time. and now what would you do now?
make the environment shine. supervisor avalos: if there are no other members of the public who would like to comment on this item, we will close public comment. motion for the reserve. we will take that without objection. it is now released. thank you very much. mr. clerk, if we could hear item number 6? >> item number 6, the resolution under chapter 716 the san francisco administrative code approving a historical propt contract between nakamura, the owner of 1818 california street, and the city and county of san francisco authorizing the director of planning and the assessor to execute the historical property contracts. supervisor avalos: thank you.
presentation on this? thank you. >> thank you for having me here today, colleagues. this resolution would authorize the assessor and planning dip to enter into the contact to preserve the his teark landmark at 1818 california street. it is a state law that provides property tax relief for homeowners who agree to preserve they're historic homes. for many people, the cost of maintaining a landmark home is beyond their means. hester and sam nakamura first down themselves in this situation, and so they applied more than a year ago for this program. what makes this important is that this home requires structural work. the contract in front of us requires more than $250,000 in foundational repairs to make it
earthquake-safe. i wanted to ask the planning department to present on their recommendations, followed by the assessor's office to share their work with you. >> tara sullivan from the planning department. the item in front of you is a historical property contract. it is individual landmark 916-447-call 55. it was constructed in 19 -- 1876. the application was filed on december 1, 2008, and the historic preservation commission heard this item on june 3, 2009. the h.p.c. recommended approval with a vote of 5-0. they found specifically that 1818 california quasi face for the program because it is an individual landmark under article 10 of the code. it is valued at over $3 million. however the h.p.c. determined
the building is significant due to the style and the people that live there. they found that the maintenance and rehabilitation plan is more than adequate, and the found that the money to be gained from the contract will be put directly into the historic building. in the norton term there would be over $200,000 of structural work, and over the long-term they will be maintaining the interior features, the roof and everything else. the h.p.c. noted this is the type of property that the program is designed for. it is an historic building, no exterior alterations, and the money goes directly into the house. the historic preservation commission recommend approval. i am here to answer any questions you have. and i believe the owner of the property is here is 0 speak as well. >> thank you.
is there someone here from the assessor's office? how about our structural engineer to describe the work that is going to be done to the property? >> good afternoon. i'm sorry, i don't want to know your name. i don't to call you the structural engineer. >> my name is tom. we have been dealing with sam and hester for probably two years now just trying to get this place seismically safe. >> thank you. >> essentially what it is -- is there a way to project any of this stuff? >> you can just put it right there. >> what it is, this ground floor here is full height unreinforced masonry wallace. you can see that it is
subterranean, below grade. so they have had moisture coming through, and the mortar has deteriorateded quite a bit. so the upgrade would be essentially be structural steel frame to provide lateral and vertical load so that after the earthquake, the fire department is not digging them out. then we can do back and do a full retrofit. it is really a safety retrofit at this time. >> thank you. colleagues, i urge your support on this contract. supervisor avalos: thank you. can we hear from the budget analyst on this item? >> mr. chairperson and members of the committee, the proposed resolution before you would approve the contract and the current owner of the property at 1818 california straight. as shown in our report on table
two, page 6-4, approval of this contract would result in a reduction of the first year annual property taxes, which would be $42,309, reduced by $31,617 or approximately a 75% reduction so that the property owner would be libel for $ 10,000 -- $10,692. that is the first year. the contract that is before you is for 10 years with automatic annual renewal there after based on the $31,617 reduction in the first year tips 10 years, it is $316,170 over that 10-year period. as noted, it would continue in perpetuity until either party goes forward to terminate. we would also note that the
planning department does have guidelines for re-- review of historical properties, one of which is that the limit be $3 million of assessed value. we also know -- note that the property before you is currently assessed at over $3.6 million. so it is not within the strict guidelines that planning has established for itself. ills also note -- supervisor avalos: does planning -- planning is going to offer a wafer for that, is that correct? >> that is correct. they are waiving their own guidelines in this case. supervisor avalos: is that a formal decision that the planning commission makes to do that? >> through the chair, the historic preservation commission reviews this only if the planning commission doesn't reviews these anymore. the guidelines that the
department has established, which are on our website and have been using for a year after, do have the maxwell mums of $3 million for residential. there are built-in exceptions that a property owner may apply for if they are over that max. in this case they did apply for the h.p.c. to approve this. the h.p.c. found that since it is landmark number 55, being designated for 20 years or more, and they found that the history of the building warranted this using the contract. so yes, they did apply for the exception, and the h.p.c. found it was worthy. supervisor avalos: thank you. mrs. newman? >> on that note, i would indicate that the board of indicate that the board of supervisors, even though we
IN COLLECTIONSSFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on